Before you vote...

[EWolfe]

...for ' really consider as an option.

[JayB]

Liberal jewish hawks in the late 60s/early 70s who broke away from the Dems. Intellectual forefathers in Irving Kristol and Norm Poedhertz (sp?), Kristol is father to the well known pundit and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who is also a regular commentator on Faux News (and a very smart guy btw). They owe alot of their ideology to Strauss. People called them "socialists for Nixon" back in the early 70s.

 

Currently embodied in the thought and publishing of the Proj for a New American Century, Heritage Foundation, American enterprise Institute, and people such as Francis Fukuyama, and Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot. Notably, there was a coalescence of alot of the originators of this thought movement around Sen Scoop Jackson of WY back in the day.

 

The only thing conventionally "conservative" about these shitheads is the propensity to cut taxes. They are essentially centrist imperialist hawks who want to pursue an agressive foreign policy and expansion of state powers. They are fundamentally opposed to the paleocon ideals of small goverment and isolationist foreign policy. These fuckers are all about embracing the prospects of America as an imperialist nation who should use it's economic and miliary force to pursue unilateral action in line with it's greater goals.

 

Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle are the most notable of the neocons actually holding office, although you might also place Scooter Libby and Rumsfeld post 1993 in that bunch as well. They are essentially Straussian former hawkish leftists who slid right and managed to co-opt the GOP by capturing the nationalism of the stupid redneck crowd and the moral righteousness of the evangelical nutcases (often one in the same, these rednecks and evangelicals..at least where I grew up). They are not all jewish nor a manifestation of judaism, but they do have a heavy jewish background and influence and put forth a "Israel can do no wrong" mindset.

 

I'd like to see the entire lot of them sent to run patrols in Sadr City, without body armor.

 

Hey Will:

 

Check out this article:

 

New York Review of Books

 

One of the few sober, coherent left-of center musings on America's place in the world I've read in ages. Best quote:

 

"Both books are dreadful. Anyone old enough to remember the revolutionary rhetoric of the Seventies will recognize the style, notwithstanding the postmodern updating. Negri, who spent many years in prison for his part in the homicidal radicalism of Italy's Lead Years, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing (Hardt is presumably too young to have known anything in the first place). There are no subjects in these books: just structures, processes, and "de-centered" forces and "encounters." The proposition—to flatter more than nine hundred pages of flaccid, inept prose—is that the "multitude" will be brought together by the workings of "empire" and (with the familiar help of some cleansing violence) will rise up and break its shackles:

 

Empire...by colonizing and interconnecting more areas of human life ever more deeply, has actually created the possibility for democracy of a sort never before seen. Brought together in a multinoded commons [sic] of resistance, different groups combine and recombine in fluid new matrices of resistance.

 

This is globalization for the politically challenged. In place of the boring old class struggle we have the voracious imperial nexus now facing a challenger of its own creation, the de-centered multitudinous commonality: Alien versus Predator. Through his American dummy, Negri is ventriloquizing a twenty-first-century paraphrase of Marxist theories of imperialism popularized by Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin at the end of the nineteenth. The originals were much better written and distinctly more poli-tically threatening, since they had some purchase upon reality.. With the American left reading Multitude, Dick Cheney can sleep easy "

 

The author fades a bit while repeating his vows of solidarity with the tribe in the last paragraph or two, but the contrast between the depth of this analysis and the usual dreary incantation of Mooreisms is pretty striking.

[cj001f]

I'd like to see the entire lot of them sent to run patrols in Sadr City, without body armor.

 

Will Strickland. Once a calm voice of reason and balance in an sea of cc.com angst. His dark journey to the angry left is almost complete.

 

The Angry Left? Or someone who desires a return to "conservatism" and government with a small g?

[scott_harpell]

after reading this, I think I will side with the Stranger.

2001: Kerry Says Need To Increase Pressure On Saddam. KERRY: " think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I?ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News? "The O?Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

 

2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror. KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn?t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It?s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN?s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

 

2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration?s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

 

2002: Kerry Calls Saddam A "Renegade And Outlaw." "... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

 

2002: Kerry Wrote Saddam Inviting Enforcement If He Does Not Comply With International Community. "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

 

2002: Kerry Said Iraq?s WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups. "I would disagree with John McCain that it?s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it?s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It?s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS? "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

 

2002: Kerry Said President Has Right To Act Unilaterally. "But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country." (MSNBC?s "Hardball," 9/17/02)

 

2002: Kerry Said US Has Right To Protect Our Security. "If the UN fails to cooperate, ?we always reserve the right to do what we need to do to protect our security,? Kerry said." (Susan Milligan, "Confronting Iraq," The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)

 

2002: Kerry Voted For Iraq War Resolution. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

2003: Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein "Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable." (Jill Lawrence, "War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates," USA Today, 2/12/03)

 

2003: Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

 

2003: Kerry Said "It Would Be Irresponsible" To Suggest President Misled On WMD. ABC?S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "I know you said you?re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table." (ABC?s "This Week," 6/15/03)

[willstrickland]

Thanks Jay, that's good stuff.

[willstrickland]

Will Strickland. Once a calm voice of reason and balance in an sea of cc.com angst. His dark journey to the angry left is almost complete.

 

Does that mean I can date the hippie chicks now? This administration is enough to give anyone a powerful case of angst. No, I am just pissed off that this little faction has so twisted and shifted the GOP that I no longer have a viable alternative when voting. The GOP used to embrace the ideals that I favor, now they have tossed them aside. You might call me a moderate libertarian, or a more isolationist and environmentally consious version of a Goldwater republican.

 

If they were the fiscal conservatives they like to claim, and truly believed in staying out of people's personal lives, I would vote GOP everytime. But the price of power for the GOP since Nixon's "southern strategy" has been to embrace the religious right. And with that comes attempts to legislate morality to appease the base. The only "minimizing of goverment" under the current GOP is in environmental regulation and taxes. I'm all for low taxes...as long as you can balance the budget while doing it. I can accept some realpolitik use of military force to better our country. But these jokers in power now are just bunglers, and lying bunglers at that.

 

I think the GOP is seriously on the verge of internal collapse. Look, I'm not an isolated case by any stretch. As the possibility of a Kerry victory becomes more and more probable, you are finally seeing republicans sacking up and speaking out against this administration. I encourage you to take a look at this:

 

http://inprogress.typepad.com/republicanswitchers/

 

I've said it before, Kerry in my view will be a competent placeholder until we can install a moderate republican in 2008. With a republican controlled legislature, he will be kept in check.

[EWolfe]

Ahhhh, the voice of reason is like the ocean waves splashing against the shores of my sensibilities.

 

[scott_harpell]

well said will. One also wonders about the reported instability of the Democratic Party. I can't stand the pervesions either party has gone through and wouldn't mind seeing both of them collapse.

[EWolfe]

It does resemble somewhat the death throes of a collapsing system...

[scott_harpell]

after reading this, I think I will side with the Stranger.

2001: Kerry Says Need To Increase Pressure On Saddam. KERRY: " think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I?ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News? "The O?Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

 

2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror. KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn?t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It?s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN?s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

 

2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration?s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

 

2002: Kerry Calls Saddam A "Renegade And Outlaw." "... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

 

2002: Kerry Wrote Saddam Inviting Enforcement If He Does Not Comply With International Community. "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

 

2002: Kerry Said Iraq?s WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups. "I would disagree with John McCain that it?s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it?s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It?s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS? "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

 

2002: Kerry Said President Has Right To Act Unilaterally. "But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country." (MSNBC?s "Hardball," 9/17/02)

 

2002: Kerry Said US Has Right To Protect Our Security. "If the UN fails to cooperate, ?we always reserve the right to do what we need to do to protect our security,? Kerry said." (Susan Milligan, "Confronting Iraq," The Boston Globe, 10/4/02)

 

2002: Kerry Voted For Iraq War Resolution. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

 

2003: Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein "Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable." (Jill Lawrence, "War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates," USA Today, 2/12/03)

 

2003: Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

 

2003: Kerry Said "It Would Be Irresponsible" To Suggest President Misled On WMD. ABC?S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "I know you said you?re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table." (ABC?s "This Week," 6/15/03)

 

mebe not.

 

He asked Kerry whether "there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry said: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see."

[JayB]

More good reading for the people whose political thinking revolves around something more substantial than jingoistic retardisms here:

 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

 

 

Another worthwhile read:

 

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.htm

[scott_harpell]

Your second link isn't working for me.

[Bug]

Anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified

[willstrickland]

Your second link isn't working for me.

 

make it .html instead of .htm and it'll work

[Fairweather]

Anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified

 

I've always said that about cops.

[AlpineK]

I finally got the stranger link to work for me.

 

George Bush is pure scum. His far-right pandering to his rural Christian rube supporters on gay marriage, his use of the tax code to reward the "I call you my base" rich at the expense of the middle class, his utter bullshit justifications for a needless war that now appears to be sliding, inexorably, into a foreign-policy catastrophe not seen since America's humiliating Saigon '75 exit, all make Bush unworthy to serve as president.

 

 

Makes sense to me.

 

I'm still holding out for GW to be gang raped by 20 mules in Death Valley.

 

[Fairweather]

Liberal jewish hawks in the late 60s/early 70s who broke away from the Dems.......

 

.....They are not all jewish nor a manifestation of judaism, but they do have a heavy jewish background and influence.....

 

 

Hmmm...I see a pattern here. And it aint' pretty! I recall another historical figure who liked to blame those of a certain race/religion for a nation's ills. Can you guess, Will? I'm sincerely not trying to compare you to that person!!! But consider how your rants would sound if you blamed other whole groups such as "those asians", or "Latinos", or "Blacks"...it is no different. Why is it OK to bash Jews as a group or blame them as a whole for perceived governmental wrongs? And why do modern liberals seem so intolerant of this group? Shameful, IMO.

 

BTW: Scoop Jackson was from Washington State, not Wyoming as you stated.

[Sammich]

Liberal jewish hawks in the late 60s/early 70s who broke away from the Dems. Intellectual forefathers in Irving Kristol and Norm Poedhertz (sp?), Kristol is father to the well known pundit and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who is also a regular commentator on Faux News (and a very smart guy btw). They owe alot of their ideology to Strauss. People called them "socialists for Nixon" back in the early 70s.

 

YOU DON'T KNOW FROM JEWISH! Find another scapegoat.

 

[graupel]

The History of Neoconservatism

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/History_of_Neoconservativism

[willstrickland]

Yes, I was wrong on Sen Jackson's state...had Cheney on the brain hence the WY ref.

 

But more importantly: What we have here is an ad hominem argument. You attempt to paint me as some kind of antisemite. This is not the first time you've tried to portray me that way. If you can dispute the fact that the orginators of the Neoconservative movement are Jewish, or that they take a hawkish pro-Israel stance to the point that they will not oppose anything Israeli, feel free.

 

I have posted many times that I support Israel's tactics of assasinations of leaders of Hamas. Your comical attempt to equate me with Hitler shares a disturbing commonality with your Kool Aid drinking wingnut pals. Distort the facts, mount a smear campaign to attack the messenger, and avoid the issue. Those Rovian tactics work to some extent I suppose.

 

Now, bottom line: When several of the most prominent members of the Neocon movement, who happen to be jewish, pen a security strategy paper for the Likud party of Israeli govt, in 1996 that advocates the ouster of Saddam as the first step, and further when the primary outlet for Neocon writings is the periodical "Commentary" founded by the American Jewish Committee, to not affirm the obvious connection for fear of some label as "paranoid antisemite" would be both cowardly and ridiculous.

 

You act like the PC-mad liberals...can't mention anyone's religion, race, etc because mentioning it or drawing obvious connections related to it automatically makes you a bigot. Wow, Fairweather is a PC liberal...who could have predicted this turn of events?

[Fairweather]

And yet your new-found buddies on the left scream bloody murder when Americans of arab descent are searched at airport terminals....just because 19 hyjackers on 9/11 were of middle eastern origin....so now we're searching 80 year old Chinese grandmothers to asuage their hysteria. This, even while those same pals blame "the jews" for the path our current government has taken.

 

For you to single out Jews as they relate to "neocons"- which can't even be properly defined- is a joke. I am not Jewish. I don't consider myself a neocon. I am Christian, but my conservatism is secular at its roots. What you have done is taken a few prominent Jews, thrown them into the manufactured neocon mix to support your thesis, and proclaimed it to be true.

 

Weak.

[Fairweather]

If you can dispute the fact that the orginators of the Neoconservative movement are Jewish, or that they take a hawkish pro-Israel stance to the point that they will not oppose anything Israeli, feel free.

 

 

President Bush's refusal to pardon Jonathan Pollard comes to mind.

 

But, frankly, why wouldn't any thinking individual support Israel? They are fighting for their survival against an enemy who still lists their complete destruction as a goal. Why would we continue to support a Palestinial organism that refuses to renounce this evil doctrine and kills busloads full of innocents on a regular basis?

 

You claim to support some of Israel's more controversial policies. Fine. But why claim that a jewish conspiracy of sorts exists within our own government when you, yourself are on the same page?

 

 

BTW: I don't think you are anti-semitic, and I specifically stated in my post that I was not comparing you to Hitler. I simply think that you toying with a somewhat paranoid - and even dangerous - idea that seems to have found roots in the culture on the left.

Edited October 25, 2004 by Fairweather

[willstrickland]

Let's see...once again, no facts to support your claims. Who is presenting the weak case?

 

Here are some facts for you. Are you familiar with the Jewish institute for National Security Affairs? You might be suprised to know that several of your Neocon heroes, in fact several of THE top neocon figures are board members. Shall I list a few for you? Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey.

 

Now perphaps a piece of their mission statement?

 

"U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation is a vital component in the global security equation for the United States, and has been at the heart of JINSA’s mission since its inception in 1976.

 

The Middle East remains the focal point of American security policy because of the confluence of energy, money, weapons and ideology. The inherent instability in the region caused primarily by inter-Arab rivalries and the secular/religious split in many Muslim societies leaves the future of the region in doubt. Israel, with its technological capabilities and shared system of values, has a key role to play as a U.S. ally in the region. "

 

You can ignore the Israel/neocon connection if you want, but it will be you playing the ostrich much like your mentor GWB who seems to enjoy having his head in the sand and ignoring the reality on the ground."

 

I don't give a shit if they search every arab looking non-citizen in every airport in the country. I honestly don't care if a non-citizen has a little extra hassle at our airports if it serves a legitimate security purpose. Profiling of our citizenry is one thing, profiling of foreign nationals is quite another.

[willstrickland]

But, frankly, why wouldn't any thinking individual support Israel? They are fighting for their survival against an enemy who still lists their complete destruction as a goal.

 

Who are you talking about? Iran? The palestinian authority parliament, to the best of my knowledge, ratified a statement recognizing Israel's legitimacy of existence while Clinton was president. I believe he was acutally present in the Palestenian legislature when the thing was passed.

 

 

Why would we continue to support a Palestinial organism that refuses to renounce this evil doctrine and kills busloads full of innocents on a regular basis?

 

I don't have any reason to suport Arafat. But to ignore the problem while supporting the severely hawkish Likud govt is detrimental to our own standing in the Arab world. Furthermore, you are ignoring the very real fact of illegal Israeli "settlements". This is not a black and white "the palestinians are just religious nuts bent on hatred of israel" scenario.

 

You claim to support some of Israel's more controversial policies. Fine. But why claim that a jewish conspiracy of sorts exists within our own government when you, yourself are on the same page?

 

I am not claiming any sort of consipiracy. I am pointing out the obvious dual interests of the neocons. To deny their obvious alignment with Israel, based almost certainly to some degree on their shared religion, is absurd. Religion is the driving force behind most major conflicts. To presume that the heavily jewish neocon group is somehow immune to this is pure naivete.

[Fairweather]

That's you argument? The three individuals you mention don't work for the administration. (Pearle left last year, I believe) And I can't say I disagree with anything in the mission statement you posted! Many government/ex-government officials have affiliations with other groups. Even Arab-American groups! And let's not even talk about the affiliations some university profs hold! Again; what is it about US Israel policy you find so offensive? The fact that a few Jewish-Americans who hold government jobs are complicit?