One of the most interesting things about the neocons is that no matter what happens re Iran, the book of history has closed on them. They’ve been deemed overweening and foolish. The verdict’s in. The owl of Minerva has flown. They’re sort of like the “best and the brightest” of Vietnam that way.
There will always be bitter-enders who say we should have stuck it out in Vietnam. But at least 3/4 percent of the people disagree. And a similar number will forever say the neocons made a giant mistake by pushing the invasion of Iraq.
This is one reason I derive such amusement from Doug Feith. He hasn’t gotten the news! He writes a big book justifying the Iraq war and essentially lying about his own ideological fervor, which even his son doesn’t lie about, and no one pays him any mind (except me). They’re tired of this self-serving hokum. The only book duped Americans want from Feith is something like Rob’t McNamara’s mea culpa: “we sought to do the right thing…but in my judgment hindsight proved us wrong.” It took McNamara 30 years. Hint to Feith; the book got a lot of attention!
My favorite subject. Sorry. Here’s Feith misrepresenting the deeds of the neocons again, today, eulogizing the late Peter W. Rodman:
Peter appreciated skillful diplomacy. Because of silly accusations that
the George W. Bush administration was “unilateralist” and
“anti-diplomacy,” journalists would often ask administration officials
if we “believed in” diplomacy. Peter and I lamented and laughed
together about this foolishness.
But we invaded Iraq without real international backing. And Rodman wrote a famous 1999 essay in favor of unilateralism, in which he derided “multilateralism [as] a potential source of paralysis.” As for diplomacy, remember that for years Bush refused to talk to Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah. In this new book, Steven Van Evera calls it “the silent treatment.
Neoconservatives believe that talks with other states
are often a form of appeasement—a demonstration of weakness that invites
predation. Hence they often favor a policy of limiting or refusing talks with
states with whom the United States has had friction (such as North Korea, Iran,
and Syria at various times in recent years).”
'By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue." ' — Zionist U.S. Government biological weapons researcher and anthrax bioterrorist Bruce E. Ivins
JTA Headline:
Ivins believed Jews were God's chosen
link to jta.org
/>
—-
Is there a name for a psychological disorder whereby one is utterly convinced by the culture, media, politicians, charlatans and by weight of their own ignorance that some other race/religion/ethnicity/tribe is supreme and should rule over them and humanity, and is willing to sacrifice everything to accomplish this? My own diagnosis of such a disorder would be "f-ing idiot." But given that it seems to have broken out en masse, and at the highest levels of Washington, there's got to be more to it than that. Mass hysteria? Mass delusion? Mass stupidity? Idiocracy? Or is it all just the predictable result of religious/government/cultural brainwashing? Whatever it's called, it's got to be history's greatest fraud.
Ed,
I second the diagnosis of "f-ing idiot".
That said, I'm don't accept the MSM line that Ivins is responsible for the anthrax attacks. He makes a perfect patsy, and the lack of an in-depth investigation of other players, especially Dr. Philip Zack, who not only harrassed his Muslim colleague and lost his position for it, but was also videotaped sneaking into the facility where the pathogens were stored, smells mondofishy to me.
It's also interesting that the MSM (see the Slimes article: link to nytimes.com
ignores the false-flag nature of the notes, which place blame squarely on Muslim extremists, and focuses instead on Ivins's penchant for porn photos of blindfolded women and his supposed fixation on a sorority!!!
Predictable slime!!!
PM
Fundy idiots contriving sand monkey evil doer evidence–same old story–like termites inside constitutional oak. Ivins the patsy, coherced into taking the fall before the Democrats get in and start a real investigation?
The neo-conservative argument is not dead in the slightest.
McCain (and Lieberman) is campaigning on the thesis that the Iraq War was a good thing, that Bush handled it incompetently, and that he would have handled it competently.
Leiberman can plausibly state that the political relationships in Iraq are now stable.
So, that puts dissenters in the current position of urging failure on the part of the US military there. (I'd like to see Charles Keating's response.)
If the mission succeeds (in removing Saddam, in removing radical ideological based governance in the oil centered region), the neo-conservative argument becomes not dead.
And, in distracting the left from actual domestic active social/economic development efforts and commentary, the CONSERVATIVE movement (shared between neo and paleo) succeeded.
Anyone know if Pat Buchanon is supporting McCain or Obama? How about David Duke?
Duped.
The debate about the original decision is old news.
Richard,
Have you ever read "The Moon is Down" by John Steinbeck? Every American soldier in Iraq, as well as every Israeli soldier in the OPT should receive a copy. There is no "success" to be gleaned from these kinds of occupations, and therefore, no matter how the pols and press spin it, the US Army in Iraq, and the IOF in the OPT, will ultimately fail.
PM
"The debate about the original decision is old news."–Witty
We all know the old saw "Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it."
Perhaps Witty should move to Japan, where the generations growing up after 1945 don't even know about Hiroshima?
Certainly, he wouldn't want to live in Germany, where old (Hitler) news is the very basis for its current foreign and domestic policies.
Nor would he want to move to Israel since if any state is based
on really old news–going back to Ancient Egypt & forward to Auschwitz.
Not to mention, the American people writ large haven't been given the information required to really digest what has been done in their name and at their expense, a perfect receipe for the old recipe.
"Never Again!" Ah, but that's a direct reference to old news. Original decisions are not important? Then why do US courts, when interpreting the constitutional validity and meaning of a statute on its face, or any specific enforcement of it raised as an issue, look to the legislative history of the statute, and/or to it past enforcement contexts?
Further, the Holocaust is old news preached constantly. The Nakba continues, paid for significantly by US blood, treasure, and world reputation. Most Americans have never heard the term Nakba used by any public governmental spokesman. So, in that context, which is old news about decisions made (unworthy), and which is new news about decisions made (worthy)?
Vietnam, Iraq, next Iran. No lessons here regarding original decisions made?
The old news point is to Phil.
Phil in the last post declared neo-conservatism dead, which McCain's even 44% in the polls with the Leiberman thesis as central, indicates that that is not the case.
Its a case for it still to be important TO argue the issues.
The point is to argue the ISSUES, not the people as much (except to the extent that they put weight on the decisions).
The neo-conservative thesis is that the Islamic world contains ideological and religio-ideological movements that seek to dominate the world (not just the middle east oil, which is a lot).
They argued that the number and degree of influence of fanatics (vs moderates) in the Islamic world was reaching a critical mass, and that that needed to be contained, and that the only viable means was military.
Its an unknowable question.
EVERYONE intelligent acknowledges that to undertake that objective involves a great deal of moral compromise (as all war does, even good wars). And, that war too often doesn't distinguish between innocent moderate humane victims with the fanatic.
They argue that the ideological Islamic world had ALREADY renounced its ethical screens, that they had already gotten to "by any means necessary".
I regard the neo-conservative assertions as partially true. There are Islamic fanatics, and they do seek to reach a critical mass and affirm their role to power.
The historical relation was of containment. That is DIFFERENT from acquiescence, different from mutual respect, different from unilateral war.
I don't know which is appropriate and/or effective.
Phil doesn't either. He also sees that there is some truths in the neo-conservative argument, though won't talk to that, either to identify the theses themselves, or the extent that they are true or not, or the possible responses.
He knows pieces of the puzzle. But, MORE are unknown.
That's the world we live in. Promises of regimes, promises of candidates, promises of information, are not reliable.
And, we can't force them to be. The most that we can do is inform and respectfully discuss.
Witty: "Leiberman can plausibly state that the political relationships in Iraq are now stable. So, that puts dissenters in the current position of urging failure on the part of the US military there."
Nice argument for McCain, Witty. Problem is, withdrawal inside bases and bunkers until the US elections, which is what the Bushcons have temporarily done to keep the US body counts down, isn't victory.
"If the mission succeeds (in removing Saddam, in removing radical ideological based governance in the oil centered region), the neo-conservative argument becomes not dead."
I'm more interested in removing radical Zionist ideological based governance from the (former) center of world liberty–America–as all Americans should be. That will kill off the Neocon arguments for good.
"And, in distracting the left from actual domestic active social/economic development efforts and commentary, the CONSERVATIVE movement (shared between neo and paleo) succeeded."
Don't try to hang the Iraq war disaster around the necks of the paleos, who unlike the left-liberal mainstream, opposed it from the beginning. Talk about "distracting." Witty and all the other Jewish Zionist "progressives" share more in common with the Neocons than the paleos ever will: their common, trenchant dedication to the Judeofascist state. And all Zionists always put that issue above all others. They always have, they always will.
In this context, the Left vs. Right paradigm is the real distraction, engineered to take America’s eyes off of the Kosher Nostra. Witty and his ilk are all Zionist operatives, first and foremost. Most of all of their other political positions flow from that.
In America, Jewish Zionists have always been predominantly left-liberal. What does that say about left-liberalism? Four words: Thirty pieces of silver. And today, they're being divvied up by both left-liberal parties in Zionist-occupied Washington.
Even if Iraq stabilizes it was/is a mistake and everyone knows it.
We spent to much money and lives and killed our military, and we will continue to bleed money there for a long time.
And we are told that Iran was the real threat, and that now we need to deal with it.
It comes down to judgement. The neocons have provent they have very poor judgement (and are dishonest to boot).
Their basic philosphy is flawed and will lead to continued poor decision making, such as confrontation with Iran, China, Russia and N. Korea (but mostly Iran).
That is the real legacy of the Iraq war.
"The point is to argue the ISSUES, not the people as much (except to the extent that they put weight on the decisions)."–Witty
The first issue for Americans is, is our foreign policy as it has been implemented in the middle east good for Americans? That means is it good for all the citizens within the territorial boundaries of the USA? What have they gained, what have they lost?
Everything else is secondary.
If one views themselves as a citizen of the world first, then the question is, is the sole super power's foreign policy as it has been implemented, especial during Shrub's regime and with mostly bipartisan agreement, good for the world?
All humans have a sense of fundamental fairness.
And a sense of personal integrity.
Most of the world doesn't agree with the symbiotic USA-Israel results. In the home of free speech, the citizens are less informed than anywhere, considering the First World status of the USA–I'd like to see a national poll with one question to, say, all Americans who pay taxes to the IRS:
What is the Nakba?
Obama and McCain both state the condition that most determines "success", is the political status of the major factions in Iraq.
If they agree to peace, then the neo-conservative argument has at least elements of plausibility.
Its a dilemma for Obama, and for all dissidents, as it puts us in the position of "wishing" for the failure of the US mission.
The invasion was 6 1/2 years ago. I looked for references from Phil on his public comments in the period of the decision, and I couldn't find any. Anybody else have any references?
I thought that containment was the way to go, rather than invasion.
Witty: "Its a dilemma for Obama, and for all dissidents, as it puts us in the position of "wishing" for the failure of the US mission."
Is Obama really a "dissident" against Zionist-occupied Washington, or is he just another collaborator dressed up by the Establishment in black-face to create the illusion of dissidence? After all, he's rubbed shoulders with these treacherous, warmongering Capital Hill liars on a collegial, Senatorial basis for 4 years. He’s a strong supporter of Zionism. He takes plenty of Zionist money. His solution to the Mideast quagmire is to simply two-step US forces out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, although he‘s even started to back-track on that. No, he’s no dissident. And neither are you, Witty.
As for wishing for the failure of the US mission, the Iraq war is not a US mission; it’s a Zionist-occupied-Washington mission, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting the current Zionist regime to “fail,” because it’s “failure” is actually a victory for real Americans and their progeny. A “success” would spell nothing less than their long term doom.
Leiberman can plausibly state
Plausibly to whom, to a f-ing idiot you, Witty?
Do you share Joe Klein and Jeffrey Goldberg's disappointment that the "benign domino theory" didn't work?
Do you think the million dead in Iraq constitute war crimes and genocide?
I agree with Ed. The Iraq War is not a mission attempted in behalf the anticipated good of all the citizens of the USA. What do you think the talk of impeachment is all about, Witty? Please answer MM's question: Do you think the million dead in Iraq constitute war crimes and genocide?
Rense.com linked to this story/picture in The Observer, and titled its link "Profile of Obama's Jewish Campaign Manager":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/barackobama.uselections20081
Just look at the picture of David Axelrod, hovering over Obama as he talks to the media, practically willing words into his mouth. He looks like a mustachioed Jewish mother standing behind her son fretting and fussing, moving her lips along with his words as he recites Bar Mitzvah rites. Maniacal control freaks. Absolutely revolting.
Kinda like when Lieberman hovers over McCain. Nice we have our candidates supervised by our special nannys. It's like a bad ventriloquist show.
Axelrod reminds me of Dick Morris, another manipulative Jewish Democrat string-puller, who always seemed like a woman in male drag. Physically repulsive. Politically repulsive. Socially repulsive. Morally repulsive.
Not surprisingly, switch-hitter Morris eventually went over to the other side, not that that's much of a distance in two-party Washington. Axelrod will probably some day go over, too. After he's used up Obama.
"All humans have a sense of fundamental fairness."
But remember some dinosaurs are still around. They have no sense of fairness, then again they make great barbecue.
Well, was the final solution a barbecue? How about the one currently going on by intentional default in the "contested" lands?
Poor Israel and AIPAC, they always have to figure in how it will play on the public marketplace of ideas; too bad it's a bit harder for Israel than it was for NAZI Germany (for a significant time) to get full credit for its Madison Avenue image.
Mad Men.
Jewish style.