Trending Topics:

Rand Paul warns neocons will ‘scurry in’ with Abrams, and Kristol says that’s anti-Semitic

on 37 Comments

The battle against picking Elliott Abrams for the number two position in the State Department is on. Republican Senator Rand Paul played a crucial role in blocking the naming of John Bolton to that position in December– along with Bolton’s mustache, that is–and Paul issued a statement last night titled, “Do not let Elliott Abrams anywhere near the State Department.” It savaged Abrams as a neoconservative who along with his buddies is dedicated to perpetual war.

I hope against hope that the rumors are wrong and that President Donald Trump will not open the State Department door to the neocons. Crack the door to admit Elliott Abrams and the neocons will scurry in by the hundreds.

Neoconservative interventionists have had us at perpetual war for 25 years. While President Trump has repeatedly stated his belief that the Iraq War was a mistake, the neocons (all of them Never-Trumpers) continue to maintain that the Iraq and Libyan Wars were brilliant ideas. These are the same people who think we must blow up half the Middle East, then rebuild it and police it for decades. 

They’re wrong and they should not be given a voice in this administration…

He also said that Trump should hire a realist, not a neocon:

Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda.

But just as importantly, Congress has good reason not to trust him — he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job.

The Kentucky senator appeared on CNN this afternoon and repeatedly used the phrase “nation-building” but never neoconservative. Wolf Blitzer defended Abrams. He said Abrams had been pardoned for his conviction for lying to Congress. Paul said that didn’t mean he was innocent, it just means he has friends in high places.

The senator went on to say that Abrams poses the danger of creating a “government within a government,” as he and the Iran-Contra co-conspirators did, and fomenting war. Paul also referenced Abrams’s militarism in Guatemala (as we did yesterday and Allan Nairn did brilliantly on Charlie Rose in 1995).

Abrams also supervised, covered up and defended a policy of arming a Guatemalan government undeniably waging war against an indigenous native population. Thousands of the indigenous people of the Ixil region of Guatemala were exterminated. The Guatemalan President was eventually convicted of war crimes. Abrams was an unabashed supporter and organizer of sending arms into this tragic situation.

I bet that Rand Paul did not mention neoconservatism on CNN today– after mentioning it six times as an epithet in throwing down the gauntlet yesterday– because he’d been put on the defensive. This is how it works. Blitzer is a longtime ardent defender of Israel in his own right, and neoconservative Bill Kristol had the night before accused Rand Paul of anti-Semitism for daring to use the verb “scurry in.”

The neocons have always wielded the anti-semitism charge to deflect criticism. Paul Wolfowitz once famously said when he was asked about being a neoconservative: “Don’t you mean Jewish?” These guys really ought to publish a dictionary of words you can’t use in criticizing Zionists. It would not be a slim volume.

As for Kristol’s smear of Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University professor and scholar of the Palestinian question gave a long interview on January 17 to Chicago public radio station WBEZ. Among other comments on the occupation and Trump, Khalidi said:

“There are a group of people, a lot of them in Israel, and some of them in the United States, who live in a world of their own, that is to say they think that whatever they want and whatever cockamamie schemes they can cook up can be substituted for reality. So they have a vision whereby the occupied territories are not occupied, they have a vision whereby there is no such thing as the Palestinians, they have a vision whereby international law doesn’t exist. They have a vision whereby the United States can unilaterally cancel a decision of the United Nation. And unfortunately, these people in fact infest the Trump transition team, these people are going to infest our government as of January 20, and they are hand in glove with a similar group of people in the Israeli government and in Israeli political life who think that whatever they think can be imposed on reality. Well they will live in that little bubble for as long as the Trump administration is here. But there’s going to be a rude shock awaiting them. Because most Americans don’t feel that way.”

Is there even a hint of anti-Semitism in that analysis? No. He doesn’t like the rightwing Israel lobby, and he is telling us as much in no uncertain terms.

Tragically, what has befallen Khalidi since he offered his expert judgment on the peace process is much like what befell Rep. Hank Johnson who at the Democratic convention last summer likened the settlement project to termites. He has been roundly accused of anti-semitism by Israel supporters, and few have stood up for him. As Yakov Hirsch has explained, this is hasbara culture: a social construction of reality that serves a feverish political agenda, and so echoed by a chorus of well-placed Israel supporters (just google Khalidi and infest) that no one dares to challenge.

When anyone who knows Khalidi knows that he is a thoughtful and sophisticated New Yorker who doesn’t give a hoot whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Confucian, whatever. Apparently you’re not allowed to use colorful words when talking about the Israel lobby. The Israel Project did a whole video on Khalidi’s comments, linking them with classic anti-Semitic images. That’s truly vile. The Forward has also smeared Khalidi, headlining its report: “Columbia Professor Accuses Right-Wing Jews of ‘Infesting’ American Politics.” Khalidi never mentioned Jews; he was referring to Zionists. These people should be ashamed.

P.S. Paul should be thanked for injecting the term “perpetual war.” For more, read Abe Foxman saying that American Jews will “divorce” Israel if it is ever at peace, and Israeli politician Yair Lapid justifying the era of permanent, brutal war:

In this new world, in which we live, there is no longer any separation between days of peace and days of war. Faced with this reality, Israel will always need to be powerful and it would have to have a lot of power. And this power can not only be brutal power, it has to be smart power.


Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

37 Responses

  1. on February 8, 2017, 7:45 pm

    From the recent publication of Abrams in Mosaic –
    “Perhaps the Israeli and American Jewish communities will drift farther apart, and perhaps the level of criticism will rise. Work should be done, by all means, to prevent or minimize such trends. But the problems with which we are dealing won’t be solved by casting blame on Israelis or their politics. The problems begin at home, and so do the solutions.”

    Many Zionists help to further the myth that it will not help to criticize Israel. This is the last resort of these irrational thinkers in the goal of protecting Israel from criticism and perpetuating the colonization of all Palestine. Abrams is exactly the same. My theory is simple. If we cast enough blame then people will accept our condemnation and turn their backs on Israel forcing them to accept a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

    • traintosiberia on February 8, 2017, 10:15 pm

      Perhaps in 10 , 20 or – 30 years from now we will hear something of this nature to protect Israel and blame America – Israeli media have ,so have politicians and rabbi always openly debated , criticized the ongoing occupation, opposed war with neighboring countries , questioned the merit of unnecessary fight against Iranian nuclear program but it was US that never had any open dialogue ,never had any discussion on settlement on falsehood either in the media or in the Congress or Senate .It would claim that it was US that perpetuated the war like atmosphere between Israel and Palestinian and between Israel and its Muslim neighbors by various means .

      There is some truth in that on the surface but a deeper dig will reveal the power that makes impossible for US to behave any different .This last observation will be lost to people who follow Arbarms and Kristol or keep the subscription to Weekly Standard or WSJ . or take the wisdom of Blitzer as gospel driven reality We have already seen and watched how US has been blamed by the Israeli centric think-tanks and the media over the years over Iraq war ,over Syrian situation and over the Iranian agreements .

      • oldgeezer on February 8, 2017, 11:12 pm


        One could say the US have been useful idiots. Not reaaly true though. Their system has just been corrupted enough that venal politicians are bought off at the price of other peoples children.

      • echinococcus on February 9, 2017, 5:16 am


        The reason for the differential policy is obvious. The Zionist entity is a Sparta trying to pass itself off as Athens: the policy is in fact the same so-called “citizen democracy” that of course excludes slaves; slavery (to say nothing of periodic massacres of the downtrodden) remains unquestioned by all. We in the US need some more decorum, so we need a pretext to pretend that a press blackout makes us unable to use our ears and eyes.

        That difference between the Zionist entity and the US in the limits of allowed speech is just one more piece of evidence that Zionism is not directed from occupied Palestine but from New York and its dependencies. This blanket policy of different speech limits is enforced with almost no exceptions, so there is no ground for any explanations but that of a centralized, hugely powerful administration by the common owners of both the US and the Zionist entity.

        Probably we won’t have to wait any longer for the US being blamed for all the ills of Zionism: that has already been around for a while.

    • Atlantaiconoclast on February 9, 2017, 6:37 pm

      What is needed is giving back to the neocons what they viciously dish out. When will we start calling THEM bigots and anti Arabs and Jewish supremacists? Make it stick! Stop being on the defense I say.

  2. JLewisDickerson on February 8, 2017, 7:58 pm

    RE: “Khalidi never mentioned Jews; he was referring to Zionists. These people [i.e., the neocons] should be ashamed.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: It appears to me that they have NO shame. Absolutely none. Nada! Zilch!
    Recall how Elliott Abrams called President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary, former senator Chuck Hagel, an “anti-Semite” * (and then gloated about having diminished Hagel’s effectiveness as Sec. of Defense).

    * SEE: “An Actual American War Criminal May Become Our Second-Ranking Diplomat” | By Eric Alterman | | Feb. 2, 2017
    Elliott Abrams spent the Reagan years abetting genocide—now, he has been floated as Trump’s deputy secretary of state.
    • LINK – h

    by Eric Garris, Posted on February 6, 2017
    LINK –

    • JLewisDickerson on February 8, 2017, 9:03 pm

      RE: “It appears to me that they [i.e., the neocons] have NO shame. Absolutely none. Zero! Nada! Zilch!” ~ me (mostly from above)

      SEE: “Authoritarian Populism: Viewing Trump, Reviewing Thatcher” | by Kenneth Surin | | February 7, 2017

      EXCERPTS] . . . For those who prefer psychoanalytic terminology, Trump’s is a politics of the id, as opposed to one premised on the primacy of the ego.

      Such explanations of an emergence of a politics based on desire and fantasy, as opposed to interest, are of course not new. Decades ago, the Frankfurt School pioneered an analysis of the “authoritarian personality” that has been in the news after Trump’s election; Slavoj Žižek has furnished accounts of ideology based on this suppression or overriding of interest (see his film The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology); and Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari provide an exuberantly recondite treatment of this thematics in their two-volume Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

      If the theorizations are somewhat recent, the phenomena associated with a politics of desire and fantasy, overriding considerations derived from interest, are not. Hitler’s massive and dramatic night-time rallies are the initial exemplary instance, but Reagan with his syrupy voice and “aw shucks” cowboy-movie manner, and Thatcher with her hats, pearls and handbag-swinging snarl, involve in differing ways an infusion of the libidinal into the political…

      . . . As is to be expected, Trump’s libidinal appeal has a quite different form and aetiology. Christian Lorentzen, of the London Review of Books, spent months accompanying the primary candidates in the 2016 presidential campaign.

      Lorentzen, an American, attended several Trump and Sanders rallies, doing interviews at them, and noted that the typical attendees at a Trump rally were the bullies at his school, whereas those at a Sanders rally approximated to those who were the victims of these bullies.

      The videos of Trump’s campaign rallies show them to be attended by a fairly wide cross-section of the country’s white population.

      Not just Joe and Jill Six-Pack, but also frat-boy types in their uniforms of white baseball caps and shirts with collars, a great many heavily jowled like Trump’s puppet master Steve Bannon.

      All however, Joe and Jill Six-Pack and the frat-boys alike, seemed to confirm Lorentzen’s hypothesis about bullying– the rallies had an air of menace and intimidation (and did become violent in several cases), while racial, ethnic, homophobic, and misogynistic slurs (the latter directed primarily at Hillary Clinton) can be heard repeatedly on many of the videos.

      Trump clearly found a way to tickle the ids of his supporters to the point of near-delirium. They were not there to reckon with their interests employing any kind of informed objectivity, but to give vent to something deeply primal and preconscious.

      Wilhelm Reich, rather than Harvey C Mansfield or Sheldon Wolin, gives us the better insight into what was transpiring at Trump’s rallies. . .


    • JLewisDickerson on February 8, 2017, 9:07 pm

      ■ ALSO SEE: Abrams calls Hagel anti-Semitic for questioning legitimacy of the Israel lobby
      Philip Weiss on February 16, 2013
      I frequently criticize Brian Lehrer because he is an intelligent/progressive/influential public-radio host in New York City and also a reflexive defender of Israel. He’s what I’m up against in liberal Jewish establishment opinion. Well, the other day Lehrer interviewed neoconservative Elliott Abrams (who is due to speak at Brooklyn College’s Political Science Department soon) and– […]

      – See more at:

      ■ AND SEE: More on SNL’s fellate-a-donkey for Israel skit
      by Philip Weiss on February 11, 2013
      A “cultural breakthrough” is Sullivan’s description of the Saturday Night Live skit in which Senator John McCain challenges Chuck Hagel to agree to fellate a donkey on the orders of Benjamin Netanyahu for the security of Israel: After being banished from earnest Washington discussion for decades by various press gate-keepers, the absurdly overblown power of the Greater Israel lobby is now seeping into the popular culture. Good point. Even friends of mine who don’t know the issue are fulminating about the Hagel hearing. And remember that those gatekeepers and lobby pooh-poohers included the Atlantic Magazine, David Remnick, Leon Wieseltier, Leslie Gelb, Walter Russell Mead, Jeffrey Goldberg, among other eminent journalists.

      – See more at:

    • JLewisDickerson on February 8, 2017, 9:52 pm

      P.S. RE: “Wilhelm Reich . . . gives us the better insight into what was transpiring at Trump’s rallies. . . “ ~ Kenneth Surin (from above)

      FROM WIKIPEDIA (The Mass Psychology of Fascism):

      • Background

      [Wilhelm] Reich—originally from Galicia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and practicing psychoanalysis and psychiatry in Vienna—joined the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) in 1928. He joined the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) upon moving his psychoanalytic practice to Berlin in 1930. However, The Mass Psychology of Fascism was seen as being so critical of the Nazi regime (as well as the Communist regime in the Soviet Union) that Reich was considered to be a liability to the KPD and was kicked out of the party upon the book’s publication in 1933.

      • Summary

      The question at the heart of Reich’s book was this: why did the masses turn to authoritarianism even though it is clearly against their interests?[5] Reich set out to analyze “the economic and ideological structure of German society between 1928 and 1933” in this book.[6] In it, he calls Bolshevism “red fascism”, and groups it in the same category as Nazism.

      Reich argued that the reason Nazism was chosen over communism was sexual repression. As children, members of the proletariat had learned from their parents to suppress sexual desire. Hence, in adults, rebellious and sexual impulses caused anxiety. Fear of revolt, as well as fear of sexuality, were thus “anchored” in the character of the masses. This influenced the irrationality of the people, Reich would argue:[5]

      Suppression of the natural sexuality in the child, particularly of its genital sexuality, makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, good and adjusted in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief, the goal of sexual suppression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all misery and degradation. At first the child has to submit to the structure of the authoritarian miniature state, the family; this makes it capable of later subordination to the general authoritarian system. The formation of the authoritarian structure takes place through the anchoring of sexual inhibition and anxiety.[5]

      Reich noted that the symbolism of the swastika, evoking the fantasy of the primal scene, showed in spectacular fashion how Nazism systematically manipulated the unconscious. A repressive family, a baneful religion, a sadistic educational system, the terrorism of the party, and economic violence all operated in and through individuals’ unconscious psychology of emotions, traumatic experiences, fantasies, libidinal economies, and so on, and Nazi political ideology and practice exacerbated and exploited these tendencies.[6]

      For Reich, fighting fascism meant first of all studying it scientifically, which was to say, using the methods of psychoanalysis. He believed that reason—alone able to check the forces of irrationality and loosen the grip of mysticism—is also capable of playing its own part in developing original modes of political action, building on a deep respect for life, and promoting a harmonious channeling of libido and orgastic potency. Reich proposed “work democracy”, a self-managing form of social organization that would preserve the individual’s freedom, independence, and responsibility and base itself on them.[6]

      • Banning

      As a result of writing the book, Reich was kicked out of the Communist Party of Germany. The book was banned by the Nazis when they came to power. He realized he was in danger and hurriedly left Germany disguised as a tourist on a ski trip to Austria.[citation needed] Reich was expelled from the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1934 for political militancy.[7] The book was ordered to be burned on request of the FDA by a judge in Maine, United States in 1956, amongst other works by Reich.[8]

      • The authoritarian family as the first cell of the fascist society

      Chapter V contains the famous statement that the family is the first cell of the fascist society:[9]

      From the standpoint of social development, the family cannot be considered the basis of the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which support it. It is, however, its central reactionary germ cell, the most important place of reproduction of the reactionary and conservative individual. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family becomes the most important institution for its conservation.

      In this connection, the findings of Morgan and of Engels are still entirely correct.

      Deleuze and Guattari reprised Reich arguments in their joint works Anti-Oedipus,[10] and A Thousand Plateaus, in which they talk about the formation of fascism at the molecular level of society.[11] . . .
      SOURCE –

      ■ [PDF] The Mass Psychology of Fascism (Third, revised and enlarged edition), By Wilhelm Reich

      • RoHa on February 8, 2017, 10:48 pm

        Oooh, yes. We must avoid all ideas that Trump supporters are rational beings who made a rational choice, even if we have to invoke psychoanalytic jargon, Reich, the Frankfurt School, and French postmodernists to do so.

      • JLewisDickerson on February 9, 2017, 5:13 pm

        RE: “Oooh, yes. We must avoid all ideas that Trump supporters are rational beings who made a rational choice” ~ RoHa

        MY REPLY: Actually, The Mass Psychology of Fascism really only applies (if it does at all) to one, or at the very most two, of the three main groups of Trump supporters.

      • echinococcus on February 10, 2017, 2:58 am


        Wonder what Reich and Co. would have done of the hysterical color revolution Liberal crowd in their millions, in wool caps or not, baying for the blood of the outsider and the reinstatement of the anointed Dynasty. Also, do the millions of bucks spent for putsch propaganda count as a (psycho)pathogenetic mechanism?

      • RoHa on February 10, 2017, 9:44 am

        “Wonder what Reich and Co. would have done of the hysterical color revolution Liberal crowd …”

        For the sake of my own mental health, I refuse to speculate, save that (since I am currently recalling the delights of Private Eye) I expect it would qualify for top spot in Pseud’s Corner.

      • gamal on February 10, 2017, 11:07 am

        “Pseud’s Corner.”

        It would make a fine Cloggies strip, a saga of stereotypical Clog Dancing folk,

        under the lamentable Hislop my boss once attained Pseuds Corner

        when i told him “I prefer Punch” he said defensively, we all shook our heads sadly

        “No one likes Punch” we reminded him, as we all in unison performed a “single leg Arkwright”

        sorry for the Anti-Blagdonite racism, it all went down hill after they turned pro.

      • JLewisDickerson on February 12, 2017, 1:19 am

        ALASTAIR CROOKE: (EXCERPT) . . . [O]n Sept. 17, 1656, Oliver Cromwell, a Protestant puritan who had fought a civil war in England against its Establishment and its élite and who had deposed and then executed the reigning king, addressed his revolutionary parliamentarians in Westminster by posing the question: Who are our enemies? There was, he answered to the gathered parliamentarians, an alignment of “wicked men” in the world led by a powerful state – Catholic Spain with the Pope at its head. The “enmity” that Cromwell’s countrymen faced was, at its root, the evil of a religion – Catholicism – that “refused the Englishman’s desire for simple liberties … that put men under restraint … [and] under which there was no freedom.”

        Since Cromwell’s day, the mainly English-speaking (Protestant) world has demonized its “enemies” as opponents of “God’s will” through their clinging to the failings of a static and backward religious ethic (as the Puritans characterized Catholicism). And, as for the complaint of “restraint” and “lack of liberty”? At its crux lay English frustration at the impediments faced by its traders and merchants. The Puritans of that time saw in Catholicism an ethos that was not welcoming to individual enterprise, to profit or to trade.

        English “hawks” – usually Puritans and merchants – wanted an aggressive anti-Spanish policy that would open new markets to burgeoning English trade. Catholicism was not an ethos, the Cromwellians fervently and dogmatically asserted, in which the nascent capitalism of the time could thrive.

        Cromwell’s address to Parliament in 1656 was an early articulation of the Protestant ethic: one that has contributed hugely to shaping American entrepreneurial capitalism, and in taking America to its position of power (Steve Bannon does in fact acknowledge the parallel: “I am Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors,” he once said to a reporter).

        A Religious War

        Today, for one significant Trump constituency (the Tea Party base), Iran is today’s Spain, and it is Islam (vice Catholicism) that is frustrating “God’s will,” by embracing an ethos that hates the Christian “ethic.” And, it is secular globalization that has sapped America’s mercantile animal spirits, imposed restrictions on trade (i.e. NAFTA), and whose cultural and “value” norms are sapping America’s moral and spiritual muscularity.

        Why should this Cromwell analogy matter today? In one sense, Trump had little choice. In opposing the (“restrictive”) globalist, foreign policy – with its spinal cord of a U.S.-led global defense sphere – the President needed to stand up some alternative foreign policy to the embedded totem of “America as the gyroscope of the global order.”

        Pure mercantilism – in the style of businessman negotiator-ism – is not really, of itself, a foreign policy. The power of the “benign U.S. hegemon” meme would require something more powerful to be set up, over, and against it, to balance it out. Trump has opted for the “Christianity in peril” narrative. It is one that touches on deeply buried cultural veins of Protestant imagery within the President’s Tea Party constituency . . .


      • MHughes976 on February 12, 2017, 9:28 am

        Cromwell wasn’t that fanatical, in that he was prepared to fight the Protestant Dutch and to make an alliance with Catholic France against Catholic Spain, admittedly at a time when France was less harsh towards Protestants. The Mercantile System, whereby colonies were treated as part of a restricted trading nexus whose purpose was to accumulate silver and gold in government coffers, was close to accepted wisdom at the time. The Spanish version of this system was one of the reasons why there was so much hostility from other Euro powers.

  3. amigo on February 8, 2017, 8:11 pm

    The British PM , Theresa May is claiming that she managed to get Trump to support NATO 100%. Be that as it may , (no pun intended) and not withstanding Trumps promise to force all NATO members to pay their share , The PM,S bragging rights might be short lived if the Neocons get into power in the WH and they convince Trump to turn NATO into a global force to carry out their eternal war games.

    “What,s the point of having military force if you don,t use it.” That from the Woman who quipped , when asked if the death of 500,000 was worth the outcome , “We think it was”. Madeline Albright.

    These people are like worms — you cut them in half and they wiggle around for a while and then go right back to their normal activities.They need to be stamped out so they can never re constitute themselves.

    • RoHa on February 8, 2017, 9:41 pm

      “The British PM , Theresa May is claiming that she managed to get Trump to support NATO 100%”

      And now German troops have entered Lithuania, heading for the Russian border.

      No, “now” means now, not 1941.

  4. JLewisDickerson on February 8, 2017, 8:25 pm

    RE: Paul should be thanked for injecting the term “perpetual war.” For more, read Abe Foxman saying that American Jews will “divorce” Israel if it is ever at peace, and Israeli politician Yair Lapid justifying the era of permanent, brutal war . . . “ ~ Weiss

    Netanyahu: “We Will Forever Live By The Sword”, Indefinitely Control All Palestinian Territory | By IMEMC News | October 27, 2015

    [EXCERPT] Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his plan to control “all of the territory” and “live forever by the sword.”

    The remarks were reported in Haa’retz newspaper, according to PNN, in an article by journalist Barak Ravid.

    Mr Ravid wrote: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that although he doesn’t want a binational state, “at this time we need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future.”

    MKs who took part in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting – today (Monday) – reportedly told Mr Ravid that Netanyahu had turned to the politicians present and said: “You think there is a magic wand here, but I disagree. I’m asked if we will forever live by the sword – yes.” . . .

    SOURCE –

  5. RoHa on February 8, 2017, 9:38 pm

    “Kristol says that’s anti-Semitic”

    And so it is. Everything is.

  6. Mooser on February 8, 2017, 10:06 pm

    And if Rand Paul had said: ‘the neo-cons come on little cat feet.” Kristol would say Paul called them a bunch of drug-crazed SF hippies.

  7. jd65 on February 8, 2017, 11:35 pm

    Excellent piece Phil. It’s so depressing (however predictable it may be) to have to read about these powerful assholes accusing thoughtful, informed, well-meaning people like Paul and Khalidi of hating jews, or being anti-semites, or hating “Israel”, or whatever. So, so, so depressing.

    • Keith on February 9, 2017, 5:57 pm

      ECHINOCOCCUS- (from your link)- “…Elliott Abrams’ hawkish pro-democracy views….”

      Pro-democracy? Capitalist democracy as in one dollar one vote? Imperial oligarchic rule? Imperialists for democracy? And yet the meme remains the same. The Council on Foreign Relations a human rights organization fighting for citizen empowerment abroad. Abrams a hawkish advocate of the white man’s burden and the responsibility to bomb.

      How much difference is there among these neocons? I was so relieved that we escaped Victoria Nuland. Oh please, PLEASE don’t make it Elliott Abrams. Brings to mind that famous line, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”

      • echinococcus on February 10, 2017, 2:10 am


        The news I linked to were not offered as the Gospel truth. It is a reactionary site, as described. Of course to them “democracy” means invasion and mass murder and enslavement. It was quoted as an item to substantiate the rumor that Democrats are supporting Abrams (and it stands to reason.)

      • Keith on February 10, 2017, 10:19 am

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “The news I linked to were not offered as the Gospel truth.”

        Yes, I know. I was commenting on the article, not on the fact that you linked to it to support a point.

    • Bandolero on February 10, 2017, 6:02 pm


      Yes, lot’s of Dems in the pocket of the lobby would have voted for Elliott Abrams. But despite the running fake news sites from NYT over CNN to the WaPo declaring Elliott Abrams a front runner he wasn’t – one just needed to read a bit of Breitbart to know it. After several days of pushing the Abrams-No-2-at-state-nonsense, now the fake news sites of the lobby confess that he won’t get the job.

      Surprise, surprise, Trump doesn’t like Abrams. Of course. Had Trump and his people want to see the neocons further rule the US, there would have been no need for Trump to run for president.

  8. AddictionMyth on February 9, 2017, 8:37 am

    God I love Rand Paul. Of course, he is far from perfect – he is still hyperventilating about terrorist attacks in Bowling Green. But he’s right on this issue. The funny thing is, Trump wanted Bolton who was far worse, so Abrams is actually a defeat. Fortunately the neocons have been thoroughly discredited so at this point they can’t do much more damage. Haha famous last words, I know.

  9. eljay on February 9, 2017, 10:07 am

    … I bet that Rand Paul did not mention neoconservatism on CNN today … because he’d been put on the defensive. By … neoconservative Bill Kristol, who accused Rand Paul of anti-Semitism for daring to use the verb “scurry in.” …

    It would seem that Mr. Kristol anti-Semitically counted Jews and concluded that all neocons are, in fact, Jews. And then he made public his anti-Semitic findings.

    Or perhaps Mr. Kristol anti-Semitically counted Jews, realized that not all neocons are Jews but decided to libel Mr. Paul just the same by anti-Semitically conflating all neocons with Jews.

  10. James Canning on February 9, 2017, 1:47 pm

    Bill Kristol is fully aware Abrams would give neocon warmongers crucial access to Trump.

  11. Boomer on February 9, 2017, 3:40 pm

    It’s not surprising that a neo-con wouldn’t be a fan. After all, as Mr. Colbert observed, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

  12. pabelmont on February 9, 2017, 6:48 pm

    Of course “infest” and “scurry” are anti-semitic (that is, of course, “anti-Zionist”). What else can these words be? Who else does it (scurries, infests)?

    (oops). What I really meant to ask, “of what other group is such language ever used by anybody?”. Of course the Zionists have protect themselves by calling all their enemies by a single name, “antisemites”, so they never need to resort to “scurry and infest” although **some Israeli higherups** once used to refer to Palestinians as “drugged cockroaches in a bottle” and so forth, pretty close to scurry and infest I think.

    Maybe “scurry” and ‘infest” sometimes refer to Palestinians, so not automatically antisemitic! (So there!)

  13. Boo on February 10, 2017, 12:38 pm

    Neoconservative Bill Kristol had the night before accused Rand Paul of anti-Semitism for daring to use the verb “scurry in.”

    Nah. Now if he had mentioned, say, fur, tails, pointy li’l noses, beady li’l black eyes — perhaps Kristol might have a case. But “scurry”? Hell, even trolls do that.

  14. Bandolero on February 10, 2017, 6:49 pm

    Oh wonder, NYT mentions that Aipca was trying to pull strings with Dems to Abrams confirmed:

    “Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas who is closely aligned with friends of Mr. Abrams’, and some members of the pro-Israel lobbying group Aipac, had been reaching out to Democratic senators to impress upon them the importance of Mr. Abrams receiving Senate confirmation.”

    So, Trump just gave the “800 pound gorilla” Aipac the boot – once more.

    While she didn’t say anything of that in the NYT piece, on her Twitter, Maggie Haberman, is also at least honest enough to admit, that it’s “worth noting No. 2 implements policy, and Abrams’ views are largely what Trump ran against.”

    But, according to CNN, all what happened was:

    Another Republican source with knowledge of what happened said Abrams would not get the job because of “Donald Trump’s thin skin and nothing else.”

  15. JLewisDickerson on February 12, 2017, 5:48 am

    RE: “[N]eoconservative Bill Kristol had the night before accused Rand Paul of anti-Semitism for daring to use the verb ‘scurry in’.” ~ Weiss


    [EXCERPT] . . . The neocon threat to Trump’s stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees “turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.”

    In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow. Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies. . .

    SOURCE –

Leave a Reply