Ding-Dong, The Neocons Are Dead

on 17 Comments

Tony Karon has a fine post on the fact that Dick Cheney’s saber-rattling over Iran is meaningless. Bush won’t attack Iran. David Wurmser also said as much in his speech to Middle East Forum 10 days ago, poorly attended. Let us celebrate the fact that the neocon moment is over. The deluded militarist idealism that walked the halls of the West Wing has been cashiered. Karon points out that Arab countries are now doing their own diplomacy in the region and ignoring the U.S. On our horizon: realism.

17 Responses

  1. Craig
    March 17, 2008, 4:07 pm

    I'd like to believe that the neoconism is dead, but I think it may be a premature assessment. I do agree, though, that it's highly unlikely that the US will attack Iran.

  2. americangoy
    March 17, 2008, 5:27 pm



    So I guess with a new Democratic president, the USA will no longer attack Iran, stay in Iraq, and pillage 3rd world countries' natural resources in exchange for worthless loans from the World Bank, which go to American corporations anyway?

    I won't hold my breath.

    This isn't about the people – this is systemic. Names on the top will change, the system will remain the same.

    Now, the "kindler, gentler" America under Obama will rear its ugly head, hoodwinking us Americans again.

  3. Jim Haygood
    March 17, 2008, 6:26 pm


    In a nutshell, Tony Karon argues that an Iran attack won't occur, because it's risky and doesn't make sense. Well, the same could have been said about the Iraq attack five years ago.

    I'd agree that an Iran attack is not the most likely scenario. But I'd still assign a 10 to 20% probability to it, which is not negligible. There is more to Admiral Fallon's resignation than has been made public, I suspect.

    Given his medical history of four heart attacks, the 10-20% probability of an attack on Iran is about equal to the probability that Cheney plotzes this year. It's like watching a cockroach race. Go, DicKKK, Go!

  4. MM
    March 17, 2008, 7:23 pm

    The Neocons may be dead, maybe, but the idea that a certain ethnic group, light-skinned and among the most affluent of the western world, while claiming to represent a religion and an ethnicity interchangeably, has the right to exclude others from a hugely important little chunk of the Middle East, lives on!

    And ev'rywhere is war!

  5. Joshua
    March 17, 2008, 7:56 pm

    The likelihood of an Iranian bomb campaign is slim to nil as the US has no manpower and no Pentagon yellow belly to do their bidding any more. But no one ever accused the neocon movement of dealing with reality.

  6. samuel burke
    March 17, 2008, 11:43 pm

    the neocons are all over the nonsense spectrum.
    they have the market cornered on nonsense.
    they make the most out of nonsense and then they tell it all over the known world.

  7. syvanen
    March 18, 2008, 1:30 am

    Hope it is true that we will not attack Iran. It would be a fiasco. However, that was true 5 years ago with Iraq. I might have been the last person in this country to accept that we would actually invade Iraq– it did not make sense, the Iraqis would resist. No way we could win.
    But Bush did.

    That idiot still runs the show. What stops him from attacking Iran today? We certainly have no influence on his actions. Does anyone? These remain dangerous times.

  8. neocognitism
    March 18, 2008, 4:12 am

    I agree the Neoconservative movement is waning (morphing?) but a whole lot of message board commenters need to get the memo.

    Also Phil, you seem quite pained about how your commenters feel, but my personal opinion is you are much better when you just totally ignore them. Yep, that includes me. You're not going to change the minds of people like Witty, he just comes to try and poke holes in your arguments from what I have read. If you need that, then fine, but in my opinion you don't; your arguments are always completely iron-clad, and you end up getting into pointless and somewhat deceitful "discussions" that hinge on definitions of things. That's where so much of this ideological battle is fought, in definitions, is it not? You take an honest and fair approach to your definitions, every time, so why debate them? Would you allow yourself to use a dishonest or slightly euphemized definition after any of these "discussions?" I assume your answer is no, so why allow yourself the self-doubt? I continually take great heart at the courage, honesty, and accuracy of your words, and I hate to think you would succumb to a level of self-doubt by trying to appease the insatiable zealots.

  9. liberal white boy
    March 18, 2008, 6:53 am

    If it was only true.

  10. Charles Keating
    March 18, 2008, 8:11 am

    I share the fear that Iran will yet be attacked, though it is less
    likely then, say, a half year ago.

    About Witty's posts, first, he posts in his real name, which means
    at personal risk. Second, if memory serves, he does not stoop to
    personal attacks, but rather, tries to address the ideas and facts
    presented in support of same. When and how he fails to convince anyone is amply revealed by posts engaging his comments.

    Charles Keating, and I did write this post.

  11. neoemotionalism
    March 18, 2008, 9:21 am

    Good point Charles. Witty actually uses his real name, unlike MM neocognitism, sword of gideon, liberalwhiteboy, etc.

    I take what these blokes have to say more seriously than anonymous posters such as myself.

  12. Andrew Sommers
    March 18, 2008, 9:42 am

    MM's slanderous statements about a whole group of people could at least come from an actual person instead of a brand of candy.

    I'm Andy Sommers and I endorsed this statement.

  13. MM
    March 18, 2008, 10:00 am

    "About Witty's posts, first, he posts in his real name, which means
    at personal risk."

    What risk? The U.S. establishment is solidly Zionist. No one loses their job for towing the Zionist line. Besides isn't Richard an octogenarian retiree? What risk is there for him to post here wittling away at Phil's courageous work? And why would it matter if his name were Richard Witty or Shlomo Danceowitz? It doesn't.

    "I take what these blokes have to say more seriously"

    Some of us are still at the beginning of our careers, you know, trying to put food on our families? It's a little bit early for a blacklist for this wage-slave. Thanks for your concern though, neoseriousism.

  14. MM
    March 18, 2008, 10:02 am

    Well it's like my pops always said, Andy, If you can't take the heat, remove all anonymous posters from the kitchen.

  15. PaulO
    March 18, 2008, 11:33 am

    Just wanted to add something to Neocognitism's praise of Phil – he doesn't mind letting you know he doesn't always KNOW. It makes a change from the Christopher Hitchens "I'm going to tell you and I'm going to be right" mentality that pervades every blog I've ever read.

  16. Lea Blum
    March 18, 2008, 7:46 pm

    "I'm Andy Sommers and I endorsed this statement."

    Nice to meet you Andrew:
    link to google.de

    Now admittedly that is really authentic.

  17. neocognitism
    March 18, 2008, 10:47 pm

    For all the commenters trying to goad people into using real names, I'll do that as soon as you provide us with phone numbers and social security #'s so we can verify you first. Until then, my real name is Ariel Sharon.

Leave a Reply