Neoconservatism pervades our politics. Why else does Obama appoint the discredited Iraq war planner Stephen Hadley, who as a Bush aide put the lie about Niger yellowcake into the State of the Union speech in '02, on his Middle East braintrust? Well there is some pushback. Three items. First, Seymour Hersh tries to get out from under the cloud of the neocons, in a speech in Qatar. You have to travel that far to get out from under their cloud, I mean it's not like you write about this in the New Yorker:
[Hersh] said that he was keeping a "checklist" of aggressive U.S. policies that remained in place, including torture and "rendition" of terrorist suspects to allied countries, which he alleged was ongoing.
He also charged that U.S. foreign policy had been hijacked by a cabal of neoconservative "crusaders" in the former vice president's office and now in the special operations community.
"What I'm really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, radicals if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over," he said of his forthcoming book. "It's not only that the neocons took it over but how easily they did it -- how Congress disappeared, how the press became part of it, how the public acquiesced."
A few years ago Bill Kristol spoke fearfully of the "insanity" of blaming neoconservatives. David Frum said the same thing lately even more nuttily (h/t Peter Voskamp):
The problem is not military metaphors. It's not Glenn Beck joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi's wine or Paul Krugman hanging Joe Lieberman in effigy at a party. The problem is, rather, the construction of paranoid narratives that might justify violence to a violent-minded person. When scruffy protesters drew swastikas on photographs of President George W. Bush, that was obnoxious. It was not likely to incite anyone. But when eminent persons argued on the public airwaves that the United States had been lied into a frustrating war in Iraq by a cabal of Jewish conspirators? That’s a very different matter.
Here's Slavoj Zizek in the London Review of Books. I think this will be my thumbnail Leo Strauss understanding for some time to come. Thus do members of a cabal rationalize the efficacy of a cabal.
Consider too the renewed popularity of Leo Strauss: the aspect of his political thought that is so relevant today is his elitist notion of democracy, the idea of the ‘necessary lie’. Elites should rule, aware of the actual state of things (the materialist logic of power), and feed the people fables to keep them happy in their blessed ignorance. For Strauss, Socrates was guilty as charged: philosophy is a threat to society. Questioning the gods and the ethos of the city undermines the citizens’ loyalty, and thus the basis of normal social life. Yet philosophy is also the highest, the worthiest, of human endeavours. The solution proposed was that philosophers keep their teachings secret, as in fact they did, passing them on by writing ‘between the lines’. The true, hidden message contained in the ‘great tradition’ of philosophy from Plato to Hobbes and Locke is that there are no gods, that morality is merely prejudice, and that society is not grounded in nature.
Glad you picked up on that. David “axis of evil” Frum’s website is an interesting one. Just can not figure out why Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews has this warmonger on?
A few nights ago Keith Olbermann had David “axis of evil” Frum on to discuss inflammatory and hate filled rhetoric. Talk about absurd. We all know Frum was one of the Iraq war pushers. And has repeated inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about Iran.
Keith really thinks his listeners have short and muddied memories. Olbermann supporting David “axis of evil” Frum’s effort to reconstruct his stance on the run up to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. This man has blood all over this hands and is well practiced in creating dangerous “axis of evil” sound bites.
What is up with Olbermann? Is he really unable to find more appropriate guest to discuss such an important topic?
“Public weighs in on Tucson shootings”
David “axis of evil” Frum
link to msnbc.msn.com
ron suskind nyt mag
In Susskind’s book “The Price of Loyalty” about former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’neil’s experience in the Bush administration he writes in detail about early Bush cabinet meetings and how Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolowitz were all about going to get Iraq from early on.
Also about when O’Neil started digging into Saudi $$$ connections with 9/11 how O’Neil was basically ousted. Good book
“Why else does Obama appoint the discredited Iraq war planner Stephen Hadley, who as a Bush aide put the lie about Niger yellowcake into the State of the Union speech in ’02, on his Middle East braintrust?”
This is frightening. Did I miss it? Has someone been held accountable for the Niger Documents? Any of the false pre war intelligence? I was so hopeful when Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was completed. You know after Republican Senator Pat Roberts and team did everything that they could to stall that investigation into pre war intelligence being completed. Can anyone tell me what the purpose of those investigations into pre war intelligence were all about? Total waste of time if they are not going to hold anyone accountable for creating, cherry picking and disseminating false pre war intelligence. Douglas Feith, Rhode, Luti, Bolton, Kenneth Pollack, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bolton all walking free. working at right wing think tanks that our MSM draws their guest from and they continue to pollute our air waves. Most of these folks should be in prison not on our air waves.
In Phase II they report about Ledeen being at the Rome meetings and much much more. But what is the point if they are not going to hold anyone accountable for that “pack of lies”
link to intelligence.senate.gov
Lies under oath about blowjobs = impeachment
WMD intelligence snowjob = hundreds of thousands dead, injured, millions displaced….NO ACCOUNTABILITY
And they wonder why the peasants have little to no faith in our justice system. And the whole world is watching this absurdity.
What do we hear “move on, next chapter, turn the page, don’t be about retribution, vengeance, witch hunts” And now on MSNBC they repeat “lean forward” Because they are just too damn chicken shit or more concerned about their paychecks to dig into the numbers dead in Iraq, the injured soldiers some of them for life back in the states. Iraq is just so yesterday.
And many of us are thoroughly disgusted with our country
Can anyone explain to me at what point did holding people accountable for very serious crimes start being defined as “retribution?” Instead of JUSTICE?
Zizek should really be one to talk about how “the ultimate show of power on the part of the ruling ideology is to allow what appears to be powerful criticism,” and then go on to write “the institutional set-up of the (bourgeois) democratic state is never questioned. This remains sacrosanct even to the most radical forms of ‘ethical anti-capitalism’ (the Porto Allegre [sic] forum, the Seattle movement etc),” which are real movements with which he has no organic relationship, and in which he is generally ignored because his writings are generally useless. He is a circus clown. However, perhaps it’s worth it to at least read what you’ve cited from him: “Elites should rule, aware of the actual state of things (the materialist logic of power), and feed the people fables to keep them happy in their blessed ignorance.” The materialist logic of power. Now, you can pretend that Hanieh, Nitzan, Bichler, and Ash don’t exist, and that there’s no serious work exploring the materialist logic of the Special Relationship outside of Chomsky, easy to beat up on because he doesn’t seem to read or cite the above scholars either. But we’re left without analytical categories for thinking about the world, and end up in a right-wing mindset of racialized thinking–ideology which precisely the excerpt you’ve quoted suggests is produced to befuddle us. That being the case, it’s no shock that one can find the same thing not only in Strauss but in Kennedy’s intellectual flock, including Schlesinger, and going back to Lippmann. This is a mainstay not merely of neo-conservative ideology but of liberal ideology, reflecting the fact that these are the ideological components of two wings of the business party, with different strategies for managing the empire and maximizing their profits. What’s the J Street solution, again, Fayyad-lite? That’s the Democrats’ way of managing the I-P conflict. The rot goes all the way through Phil.
Looks like we agree, Max, although I had not read your comment when I wrote my own here.
>you can pretend that Hanieh, Nitzan, Bichler, and Ash don’t exist
For those of us who don’t want to pretend, can you elaborate, Max? First names at a minimum, titles or links better, summaries of their arguments best. Thanks.
Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler:
link to bnarchives.yorku.ca
Gabriel Ash:
link to dissidentvoice.org
link to dissidentvoice.org
Adam Hanieh:
link to mrzine.monthlyreview.org
Awesome. Thanks a lot, Max.
OK Max, but they are going to feel strange reading this (links above), and somehow they might feel a queer echo of what has been posted before on this site – they did not like it. So they championed on with the silver bullet mentality, all the while ignoring the entire nature of the system that exists. I guess they think it is simpler this way, when in reality they just shoot the toe off of the foot of a man, thinking they killed him.
While Phil talks about his thumbnail Leo Strauss model to understand the psychology of the neocons, Glen Beck has been on a bender all week telling his audience to use the Bernays model to understand the psychology of the “socialists” and “progressives.” They amount to the same thing. The American public is Homer Simpson, is the way Beck puts the POV of our ruling elite who think they are repairing the world and Homer should thank them. PNAC anyone? Interestingly, Beck is now seen by some jewish public voices as inflaming anti-semitism, just as Phil is seen by other jewish public voices as a self-hating jew inflaming anti-semites. And we’re also being treated by both left and right spokesmen to history lessons in “blood libel” hurled back and forth. Why does the word “cabal” have such an association with jews? I’d ask Socrates, but I can’t find him. Yet we’re stuck in this cave, and there’s something scribbled on the walls–anybody make it out? Is that suppose to be a cattleman? And those are the herd?
This reminds me of comments Paul Krugman made on the Bill Maher show on HBO. Krugman sounded far more progressive and pessimistic than he ever does on the New York Times op-ed pages. Then, with Eliot Spitzer, Krugman said that he thought the American Dream (whatever that is) “is dying pretty fast”. And he added that if the US were a third world country, the IMF would be telling us to get rid of our oligarchs. The Times wanted to stop him from voicing even the modestly progressive comments that he does nowadays. But by the time Bill Keller & Co. sought to shut him down, he had already become too popular.
The Times, the New Yorker, CNN, NPR, etc., simply will not allow certain views to appear on their pages. Tariq Ali or Rashid Khalidi or Edward Said may be allowed an essay once every two years or so, but they will be edited for prime time.
This is an ancient phenomenon. The Elite will tolerate intense criticism if it is safely insulated in the form of humor — the court jester — or they will tolerate polite, respectful dissent from a respected adviser. But they will not tolerate incisive, intense criticism from any competing authority figure.
Obama is no different. He has surrounded himself with the likes of Summers and Geithner, not out of any externally imposed necessity, but because they agree with him.
George Carlin and the American Dream. Carlin rips to the core
link to youtube.com
ah he was a great man. not stuck up or anything
Hughsansom, interesting point about tolerating the few appointed “court jesters”. The one who comes to my mind is Glenn Greenwald. None better at holding the feet of Versailles courtiers to the fire. Yet, strangely they seem to love him – in their own way they do – ‘tell it to us like it is”, Glenn, they seem to say. We’ll squirm a little and put up a debate. Not that we have to – but we will, because we have to pretend CARE. Glenn is more than tolerated – he is obviously read by the washington/new york crowd because many respond. People take the time to argue, to clarify, especially the MSM media figures he chooses to critique so very very excellently. It’s probably become something like a badge of honor – to be the subject of a Greenwald take-down. Your turn? they say to each other….ah, good old Glenn, isn’t he the greatest? so incisive, so passionate!
I believe that Phil and this blog are tolerated kind of like the same way – look at what an enlightened country we have! we “let” blogs like Mondoweiss go unhindered – making the big taboo connections between jews and money, jews and neconuttism, jews and double loyalty. The sacred cows of our time….the new Ghandis, MLKs, Jesus and Camus. And look over there! why, it’s the the Dalai Lama still walking among us, invited everywhere, the picture of health and upright spiritualism, a charming stamp of approval on policy, human rights and all.
And so it’ll be – a few are allowed to come through the cracks, like the prophets of old who were given space on the podium to rant and rave about the corrupt rich and powerful, bringing their message of doom and gloom to a public that probably enjoyed the spectacles, nodding their heads in agreement all the way back to their humble abodes, ready for another day of toil. Even as the kings and courtiers turn to each other in, chuckling with secret delight – wasn’t it a great sermon today? that Jeremiah – he sure comes up with good new ones every day, doesn’t he? hope he’s OK – seemed a bit tired towards the end – shall we send him the doctor?
Court jesters were allowed by ‘smart’ power from times immemorial – they help let off steam, they function as a safety valve. One that can be shut tight at a moment’s notice. On one side, Glenn Greenwald. On the other side Glenn beck. They may be on opposite poles – hymns to reason versus unreason, but alas, both serving the same function, protected by their own complete vulnerability.
Did anyone ever wonder just why did the old Isrelite/Judean powers tolerate them prophets rather than off their heads? I recall I asked that question back in school – several times, in fact, I did. The only answer I ever got was something obscure to do with the superior sense of morality, and the respect elites have for the “man of god” (paraphrasing here – it was long ago). I believe we get the same answers now – the elite tolerate a few of these “jesters” by way of proving the superiority of the structures erected to benefit themselves. Thusly, by their tolerance they shall be known, secretly paying the salary of the scribes appointed to take down the great words and record them for posterity. The new prophets of doom are there to deliver the jeremiads that give the angry multitudes an opportunity to shake their fists at the halls of power, then go home and watch a good football game and plan the next cruise/las vegas outing.
George Carlin’s American Dream.
Why else does Obama appoint the discredited Iraq war planner Stephen Hadley? Phil answers this question further in considerable depth on Antiwar radio to ring in the new year: link to dissentradio.com
He starts out by saying Nettie has revealed a better sense of international politics and domestic power politics regarding Israel than Obama–Obama worries about a cut off $$ to the Democratic party if he does not veto the UN resolution regarding the illegal Israeli settlements. (Maybe that’s a legitimate worry considering the 40% Jewish funding of that party?) So Obama ignores Mitchell and gives Ross, Hadley, Berger, Indk (sic) the lead to carry his butt forward towards the next election cycle. Phil says, imagine if POTUS said, “We need somebody closer to England for these Irish Troubles, so move Mitchell way out, out of the way. ” It’s the Israel Lobby
Chomsky ignores when discussing the full weight of US Imperialism. It’s always the Palestinians that don’t come up to snuff, that need to do something before any peace progress can be had–the status quo premise that insanely ignores who’s occupied, and who’s the occupier? How can
anyone claiming to be a realist ignore the glaring difference in power? What to do?
Phil refers to the desegregaton battles of the early 1960′s, to a black editor then who said if blacks negotiate without power their grandchildren will still be negotiating. 44 years of negotiations; hence BDS, international protests–Israel otherwise won’t listen. What will be the result if eventually Israel stands alone with only the US at its side against the world community of nations? Once it was taboo in the US to propose the 2ss; now that’s the fashion & the 1ss is taboo, but this too is now changing. If the future of a 1ss is grim, the past and present are also grim. Israel itself wants a “no solution” solution. This means Israel wants the USA to be involved in a clash of civilizations wherein the USA fights with Israel against all its enemies past, present, and future–between that ethos and the fascist turn Israel has taken domestically, there’s a stream of educated Israelis leaving Israel… Does Eric Cantor have the solution? He thinks so–put Israel aid under the US Defense budget and cut the rest of foreign aid (except, I would imagine Egypt’s while the current regime remains in power). Just how more special will the special relationship become? And, er–is that really good for the Jews? And how about the remaining 98% of the US population, not to mention the world?
Hell you do not have to hunt the neo cons. Keith, Chris Matthew etc have them on their programs spewing more twist and turns
“I mean it’s not like you write about this in the New Yorker:”
The New Yorker is in Obama’s pocket. They were really bad during the Bush era when they published Goldberg and pushed for the Iraq War–they got better as the war dragged on and they published Seymour Hersh’s revelations, but now that nice responsible Democrats are in charge they’re back to straightforward power worship. They are pretty much the sort of liberal that Glenn Greenwald criticizes.
There is a little problem that elite will always rule because people who rule are joining the elite.
An elite is not homogenous, so hoi polloi are not without choices.
The major problem is that the choices are like breakfast cereal boxes in an American supermarket. Hundreds of different boxes in gazillion of colors, and inside pretty much the same ingredients: first and foremost, air, then, some incredibly sweetened and processed substance molded into a variety of shapes. Overpriced by a huge margin too. For “degenerate elitists” there is separate alley with something more palatable if more pricey.
Sometimes you cross an ocean and you are amazed that for a fraction of the cost you can get something much better. (I am partial to store brand muesli in German discount supermarkets, about euro/kilogram).
So with enough marketing, people who do not accept common wisdom on cereals, hamburgers, free market in medicine and ME policy are weirdos and extremists.
Reasons are very similar, actually, realities of mass marketing in the age of mass media.
On the topic of Socrates I recommend Stone’s “The Trial of Socrates.” I.F. Stone, The Trial of Socrates (New York: Anchor Books, 1989).
honestly i think the newyorker editor is paid by the lobby. sounds preposterous but really, how is it done? why else was he hired? he had not done that much in his career. how did the media get totally locked up? i read it the newyorker for years and then it changed.
MJ Rosenberg: The US should either lay out a peace plan and demand it, or support Palestininan statehood and insure it: link to english.aljazeera.net
Phil,
I have just been reading about Edwin Black and watching him earlier on C-span speaking. It is individuals such as him that you are up against, he has been at the spreading of propaganda which is no less than a hate crime in itself. How can truth win in this situation? Especially when media powerhouses have him on & religous establishments. very very bad forcast
in the future if he keeps it up with support from media. Have you considered a talk show where you could go over each of the lies he spreads and deprogram the people?