Blogs and Stories
Death of the Neocons
AP Photo; Getty Images
Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan and the same old crew of discredited neoconservatives who pushed America into Iraq have returned again to chastise President Obama for not force-feeding Iran their democracy. That not even other Republicans are biting might spell the end of an era.
One characteristics that ideologues of both the left and right share is a commitment to what might be termed the “Great Leap Forward.” In the Marxist case, the GLF always implied a transformation in the fundamental character of humankind. Just as soon as we get rid of capitalist exploitation by virtue of a communist revolution and a “new man” would emerge who would cease the selfish, self-destructive behavior that had characterized every state’s behavior since the end of feudalism.
Revolutions notwithstanding, the right wing’s version of the GLF is not so different, except that it is much easier to put in place. What is needed to transform tyranny into freedom, according to the arguments of its most esteemed ideologues, is the American-inspired overthrow of this or that Islamic regime, usually, it turns out, whose country’s name begins with letters “Ira…”.
Perhaps I’m an inveterate optimist, but I think we are finally seeing the neocons pass into history just as the Marxists did.
Remember when Paul Wolfowitz suggested that, following a short, sweet U.S. invasion, Iraq would become “the first Arab democracy” and would “cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world?” If you need your memory jarred a bit, it came around the same time that Richard Perle assured us that a U.S. invasion of Iraq enjoyed “the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential.” This too, occurred around the same moment that William Kristol suggested that a U.S. invasion would inspire “the principles of liberty and justice in the Islamic world” generally.
OK, so that didn’t work out so well. Never mind that. The point is, it’s apparently time again. What would be the likely consequences of a victory for Iran’s reformers? Charles Krauthammer apparently dusted off one of those old neocon columns from 2003 and changed the “q” into an “n” and decided to run with it: “Imagine the repercussions,” he fantasized. “It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism— leave it forever spent and discredited. In the region, it would launch a second Arab Spring.”
And what would it take to do away with this “the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy?” Well, if I read the neocons correctly, just a few nasty words from President Obama. “The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.,” Krauthammer assures us. “It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom,” insists Paul Wolfowitz.
Obama’s “strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis,” pipes up Robert Kagan.
“In President Obama's snail-mail response to Iran's Twitter revolution, he has tended toward the chicken Kiev model,” observes Michael Gerson, adding, “Perhaps the most realistic alternative in Iran is also the most idealistic: Freedom now.”
“Even if we cannot know or control the outcome, we have a responsibility, through our actions as a nation, to answer clearly the question: Whose side are we on?” demand Dan Senor and Christian Whiton.
Back in 2003, the neocons had the wind at their back. They had 9/11; they had Bush and Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld; they had WMDs—or so almost everybody thought—and they had the Democrats, the media, and much of America scared shitless. So they had next to no evidence for most of their claims. So they couldn’t support any number of their assertions. So their theories didn’t make a whole of sense, even then. So what? Even thinking in terms of evidence, logic, and the like, that was so old-fashioned. “Pre-9/11 thinking.” It was a new world, they told us. Get with the program or the next attack would be a “mushroom cloud.”
Perhaps I’m an inveterate optimist, but I think we are finally seeing the neocons pass into history just as the Marxists did. After all, do you know anyone who does not have a regular column in The Washington Post or Wall Street Journal editorial page—not including crazy cable hosts—who is clamoring for American intervention in Iran? Can they really expect us to believe that a) the Iranian protesters don’t know that America supports them and b) that our president’s saying so would not provide the Iranian regime with exactly the excuse they need to stamp the opposition as disloyal pawns of enemies and infidels? Do these people really not know the difference between words and deeds?
Again, on this score, the answer is not so clear. George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq as if saying so made it so. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives later, Americans have learned the hard way that this is not the case. It’s hard to believe that the neocons actually believe that the right words from Barack Obama would somehow tip the balance toward “Freedom Now,” much less “a second Arab Spring.” Do they think presidential rhetoric is made of fairy dust?
More likely is the belief that the more the U.S. involves itself in the Iranian standoff, the greater the momentum will be for an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, something these same neocons have been advocating for nearly a decade. Whatever the argument, almost nobody’s buying. They have not even sold Peggy Noonan, George Will, or Henry Kissinger on their argument this time around. (It is an iron law of American politics that you cannot go to war if Henry Kissinger does not want to.)
Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. He does not have a daddy complex or a religious obsession to rid the world of “evildoers.” He has genuine missions to accomplish, and none of them require the kind of bar-room boasting that is the basis of neocon ideology. Americans have been to that movie, thank you very much, and have no interest whatever in being dragged to its sequel.
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Why Democrats Are Smiling
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
The Speech of His Life—Again
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
How E.L. Doctorow Does It
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
I hope you are right. As a Conservative, I have lost my party to the Neocons and find I have more in common with Obama's conservative approach to foreign policy then I do with the bombastic Republican approach. The irony of it all is that neocons have their roots with liberal intellectuals that became disenchanted with Stalin and the Soviet Union.
AiriqS,
If you really think that the Soviet (Friggin) Union fell because Ronal Reagan got on an airplane and said a few "tough words" then, well, sadly...
I'm always amazed at the Neo Cons or any of the other chicken hawks that I encounter either through television, print or in daily interactions. I think Jay Z put it best...."You know the type, loud as a Motor Bike but wouldn't bust a grape in a fruit fight."
It's easy to talk tough and poke one's chest out from 10,000 miles away when it isn't YOURS or anyone you know's ass that's going to be on the line.
For the most part, these guys have never done a single solitary day in the uniform of any of this country's Armed Forces and many of them went above and beyond in their efforts to avoid Service but they always seem to want to fight someone. There's something wrong there.
Whether you like it or not, Reagan did break the Soviet Union through his policy, his spending, and his words. It should also be noted, that much of his policy was the same as Eisenhower, Kennedy and Goldwater, a morphed position that suited the world well, and also created a 18 year economic boom for the US.
President Obama simply needs to show that we are not going to sit still while people are cut down. If you recall, this is a position, both Democrats and Republicans take the same side on depending on who is in power. Whether it be Eastern Europe, Africa, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, or others, Presidents have always taken a position, many times unpopular with Americans at large, that show we are here to prevent another Hitler type slaughter, and in some cases used the American Military.
I personally believe the American Military, whom I greatly respect, should spend their time defending our borders and Americans. However, since Truman left Korea unsolved, Kennedy and Johnson initiated and escalated Vietnam, and Clinton got us into Eastern Europe ("for less than a year"), and Reagan got us in and out of conflicts, Bush 1 got us and and out of conflicts, and Bush 2 created a mess in Iraq but did get Libya out of the Nuclear participation, every President has been forced to create a US position on things, and by not doing so, President Obama has taken sides.
President Carter tried to be a nice guy and stay on the sidelines and his inaction and poor actions created multiple messes in the Middle East. He may have won awards, but his inaction cost lives and instability for decades.
At the end of the day, he needs to speak openly, to encourage the leaders to be receptive to the people, for as long as their is dictatorships in the world, their will be slavery and injustice which leads to manipulated suicide bombs and poverty.
President Obama needs to take a position, show the world what we stand for, and not be afraid or ashamed of that position. That is what the world is waiting for.
Good points...Read through the words though. Popular misconcetpion is that The Good Actor made a speech and the next day, the wall came crumbling down. Not the case.
Having said that, the world is a much different place now. No longer are two super powers staring one another down through the policies of M.A.D. (Mutually assured Destruction.) My major point of emphasis here is that perhaps, much like the boy who once called wolf, the same way that perhaps Reagan, Goldwater, Kennedy or anyone else dealt with matters of foreign policy, whether it be through words or deeds, it's time to do things a little bit different.
We don't have the necessary capital anymore (moral or otherwise) to be running around the world with the same old tired ass "Shining Beacon on a Hilll" sermon. Due to past indiscretions, people aren't listening.
People around the world have to be able to be trusted to choose the best form of Government for themselves.Even if it means they have to shed their own blood to do so. It happened here. It happened in Central America. It happened in Europe and it will probably happen in the Middle East.
@ ConstitutionalRights:
"Reagan did break the Soviet Union through his policy, his spending, and his words."
Perhaps this helped, but his deficit spending doubled our national debt (as did the second Bush's), which may eventually result in our breakage. I've never figured out why we must spend more on war than all other nations combined.
"...created a 18 year economic boom for the US."
It's easy to live well when you using your credit card. The hard times come when you have to pay your bills. (By the way, I will agree in advance that Obama is doing this too, but he has little choice if we are to avoid the Great Depression II.)
"...Kennedy and Johnson initiated and escalated Vietnam..."
Let's not forget that Eisenhower sent the first "military advisers" to Vietnam. It seems to me that Nixon managed to escalate Vietnam a bit too. Revisionist history at work here?
As for your suggestion that Obama interfere in Iran, most Republican officials disagree with you (aside from Fox talking heads, of course).
A significant element in the fall of the Soviet Union was Afghanistan, the country that did in Great Britan. Since no one really believes that Afghanistan is a winable war, since we are looking a decades of depletion of American resources, since we haven't made a dent in our on war of drugs, exactly what are we doing there? But you are absolutely correct, Ronald Reagan's tough words had nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
President Obama is playing the Iran crisis EXACTLY right...The world's number one super power doesn't need to beat it's nationalist chest right now...If the anti Amahdinejad side is effectively painted as American stooges by the ruling clerics, all is lost...The neocon complaints are shameless, disgraceful and plain stupid.
President Obama is playing the Iran crisis EXACTLY right...The world's number one super power doesn't need to beat it's nationalist chest right now...If the anti Amahdinejad side is effectively painted as American stooges by the ruling clerics, all is lost...The neocon complaints are shameless, disgraceful and plain stupid.
ConstitutionalRights.......the failure in Afghanistan ended the USSR.....i hope we don't follow that trend. BUT the point you made about defending our borders I have to agree with......There is soooo much going on in and around them that neglect may be a kin to cancer, eating us from the inside out.
SlimSoldier......I think to trust that the democratic process can evolve and or work itself out amongst people that desire freedom but reside under a regime that thwarts that desire at ever cost is a false sense of trust, if any sense at all. Europe, Central America, and even here in the US did require some sort of foreign aide, even if it was moral support. We live in a different age. For example, the images of that young woman dying in the street with blood and bile streaming from her nose and mouth are so powerful. This revolt or revolution WILL be televised, and with that global eye watching. It is impossible to conduct a revolution with out outside interference, even if it is just some YouTube footage and a couple million tweets a day. On the other hand the neocons motive is transparent and disingenuous in the wake of Iraq and their support for that war.
BY THE WAY....any one other than me feel its high time CHINA steps up......? IF they claim to be the next world super power, well its show time baby.
The soviet union fell for a number of reasons. RR speech wasn't one of them. His diplomacy/friendship with Gorbachev had much more effect than anything else. Gorbachev could have kept the SU together with force but he chose a different course and allowed it to break up. Defense spending as a reason for the SU downfall, for useless items like the outdated B1 bomber and missile defense are a right wing myth intended to continue the military industrial complex. Reagan's personality happened to come at the right place right time and was a contributing reason.
You're right neverlate. Paul Wolfowitz was an aide to Sen. Henry ("Scoop") Jackson (D) Washington. Learned at his knee, well, except the social justice thing. That went over their heads.
Constitutional Rights has obviously bought into this. The world has passed you by CR.
Wolfowitz, in the early/mid 90's was also Dean of the School for Advanced International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, no less. He also had never once visited Iraq before pushing for invasion, and had little idea of what makes the culture work there.
So that's Harvard B-School giving us Bush, and Johns Hopkins giving us Wolfie. Both schools really owe us one.
Great article! These neocons (Pompous Ass Society) should be hiding under a rock, they have no shame.
what is a neocon? One definition on Wikipedia is : Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. I am conservative and I don't want the U.S. to meddle in Iran's election. It is very painful watching the students die for a good cause and I cringe at their turmoil to come. But we should speak out about fair elections, especially when it comes to ACORN fraud. Republicans are not dead, their party is not dead and there will be a revival someday.
I hate to contradict Wikipedia, but neo-cons do NOT support anything 'liberal', much less liberalism paired with democracy. What neo-cons support is a top-down, nationalist authoritarian type of democracy where 'the common good' is mandated and 'freedom' is circumscribed by THEIR definition of what is 'right'.. But regardless of 'what' a neo-con is, their actual 'philosophy' vis-a-vis Iran is aptly described by Andrew Exum as "bat-sh*t crazy" -
-- "What is your endstate? Where are we trying to ultimately go? Are we trying to force a bloody crackdown on the protesters so the world can see how horrific the regime is and will then approve tough sanctions? Are we trying to start an armed confrontation with Iran? Just tell me what you are trying to acheive through a more openly confrontational stance and I'll listen. But for now, I suspect that one of the reasons Krauthammer, Kagan & Co. are criticizing Obama's tactics vis a vis Iran is because the majority of Americans would find their strategic goals they hint at but never reveal to be bat-guano crazy. Prove me wrong."
Democracyforall,thanks for explaining neocons.It gets used daily,and alot of people are not sure what it stands for.There is a necessity in our country for the Republican party,as much as I hope and like that Obama and the administration will be all we need,We must always have diff parties. No one should be in total control.We should never be so inlove with one party,we need the diff,opinions,and philosophies.Many of us are not all democrats nor all Republicans.But the last administration acted more like imperialist,if they want to establish,freedom liberty,eonomy in other societies they should have started here.they are extremely wealthy men who profitted from all these decisions.selfsuring,is what I call them Almost superior in belief.Bush was just the puppet they put up front.he is not taken for real in anyway.
if you want to know about what neoconservativism is.. don't ask wikipedia.. watch the power of nightmares:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/powerofnightmares
democracyforall:
Mark Anthony Jacoby, owner of a for-profit group called Young Political Majors, was recently convicted of voter registration fraud in Los Angeles. Jacoby and Young Political Majors were hired by the California Republican Party to head up their voter registration efforts in the state.
Please let me know about all the ACORN convictions you know of.
Since the Young Republicans are the only ones to be convicted of voter fraud maybe it's time to let go of the ACORN chant.
Seriously the Acorn talkingpoint has been debunked since 2008 use a simple factcheck.org search
from factcheck.org: Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn't do. (A fair way to get voters, huh?) ACORN to receive some $5.2 billion of the stimulus bill: The bill does include funds for which ACORN would be eligible to compete - against hundreds of other groups. But most is for a housing rehabilitation program ACORN says it never applied for in the past and won't in the future.........makes sense?
No it doesn't you just admitted that there was no "voter fraud" just voted registration fraud.
Then you said Acorn receive 5.2 billion dollars in stimulus bill yes just like every other group and so what?
Next.
We have dead people and felons voting in our city. Guess your district is perfect.
wtf?
was that a rhetorical? whatever it was, it wasn't very progressive
Discriminating against dead people? So much for democracy for all. You probably endorse taxing their estates as well. :)
ACORN was the victim of fraud. The canvassers were paid by ACORN to register all voters, not to register Democratic voters. The people they were paying submitted fraudulent voter registration forms to ACORN to get more money. ACORN is required by law to submit every voter registration form they receive. ACORN bundled questionable voter registration forms and notified the authorities that those forms may be fraudulent and needed closer inspection. ACORN was the victim here!
such a dumb ass, so tell me moron why do you think progressives can't say wtf? fool. freaking moron.
ACORN is renaming itself to COI. So we won't be calling it ACORN anymore.
"And what would it take to do away with this "the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy?"" I'm puzzled, are they asking about the Bush administration??
I struggle to see the equivalency between a ramp-up to invade Iraq and taking a more decided stand with the protesters/reformers in Iran. Nobody is suggesting an Iran invasion.
The nearest equivalent is the fall of the Berlin Wall. This came about, in part, because of the "tough words" spoken by Reagan, "Evil Empire", "Tear Down This Wall", etc.
Our President needs to speak up very soon.
The only reason
No one is suggesting an Iran invasion
Is because the neo-cons have been banished
To the shame corner.
They never met a war they wouldn't love
To have somebody else fight.
Lovely Rita! Always love your wordsmithing.
You speak just like the chicken hawk neo-cons that Eric is discussing in the article. And you obviously dont understand the difference between Eastern Europe and the Persian Gulf in culture, politics, and history. Tough words mean nothing if you cant back them up with deeds or actions.
the berlin wall and communism came down because we bankrupted them. in the arms race, they couldn't keep up any longer. g.w. bush tried the "tough words" with the axis of evil; iraq ended up getting invaded, north korea still threatens us, and iran screwed themselves. so much for "tough words".
skorpeo - "the berlin wall and communism came down because we bankrupted them. in the arms race, they couldn't keep up any longer."
Excellent point. That's the very major part of it. The rest of it is that communism tends to be not so good in terms of manufacturing efficiency, for both weapons and consumer goods, so manufacturing the same product costs even more, so for each 1% we ramped up the Soviets had to ramp up more.
They aren' dead they are in power in Iran.
These neocons all have jobs as professors in major universities.
The neocons have jobs at major universities: Are you referred to the drop outs Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. Are perhaps you had the stunningly ignorant Ms Palin in mind. It only took her six years to get a four year degree. The best I can assertain, Neo-cons are poorly educated, obese, bigoted White males. You know, Rush's followers.
so you're saying that obese, white males don't vote for Democrats? just saying I know many who do. And you're saying people who take longer to get a degree are ignorant? I admire anyone who follows thru to get their degree, no matter how long it takes. Some people do have to decide their major and that's a tough choice. Some people have to work to support themselves. Not all conservatives agree with Rush. Learn to think outside the "one size fits all" box.
The neocons are on life support at the Washington Post.
Yes, the ombudsman's blog has nearly 750 reader's comments protesting the firing of Dan Froomkin.
Please visit and register your objections.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/
I gave up on the post a long time ago and sent them my sentiments then. I believe the best thing people who care about it can do is just not visit their site. I've also given up slate and foreign policy magazine, both of which are wapo publications.
Second that AmiBlue and GM2009. Disgusting ! Katherine Graham's son let her down bigtime. See also Glenn Grenwald's column following this firing.
How dare the Obama administration not threaten to invade Iran and topple the regime? Did his administration learn nothing from our successes in Iraq? I'm sure that, just like in Iraq, we we be greeted as liberators, and the enemies will simply lay down their weapons and praise our soldiers for freeing them from the oppressive grasp of the clerics. Hell, it would likely only cost anywhere from $100-150 billion to get the job done. Hmmm...why does that number seem so familiar? We can probably get it done with a lot fewer soldiers than the professionals like Colin Powell or David Petraeus tell us we can. And let's face it, when it comes to people who will rape your children and kill your mothers, we have no choice but to spend whatever it takes to keep America safe! And if you disagree and say we can't afford it then you're either weak or un-American. After all, Iran is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, and I'm pretty sure they've been trying to buy yellow cake from Africa lately.
With our involvement in Iraq seemingly drawing to an end, Cheney needs another war so his Halliburton stock won't go down. All those Americans without health insurance or jobs can go screw themselves. First things first. We have to start another war or all these poor defense contractors and private war contractors like Blackwater, I mean, Xe, will start to feel this recession like the millions of people who have lost their jobs. Let's feed the beast people. Support the war in Iran!
Thank you-
We've been waiting for a sign
Mr.Rumsfeld.
Irony at it's best.....but fortunately this time around we know what to expect from this small but deadly group of extremists. Most times it's best to ignore these clans of toxic small thinking idiots, but with this one I think a large boot is needed to shut them the hell up.
Uh, I'm as sarcastic and ironic as the next guy, but you should know it doesn't always work here. Zips right over the head of the wingers. Just FYI.
well said.. one question though.. does that African yellow cake come with chocolate icing?
And it's crow shaped...
Ya betcha it does, ya gotta toe tap like a maniac to get the attention of the stall a attendant at the airport to notice ya rhough, he'll be happy to have Craig serve you a heavy load.
Mr. Rumsfeld, sir. What if we address the health care issue by drafting everyone without it and send them in human mass waves against the Iranian military at the beginning of our invasion? Would that take care of two problems at the same time?
These neocon Loonies like Bill Kristol must suffer from some socio- or pysco- pathology. For example, JFK regretted the Bay of Pigs fiasco, LBJ ended up drinking himself to death as a result of 'Nam, Powell expressed his regrets over his WMD role in the IRAQ fiasco. But regret or redemption in not in these Neocons' playbook. Like those fringe pyschopaths one deals with ocasionally, they appear knowledgable, sincere, and moral. But this facade hides a cunning manipulative amoral dark side. The Professor's fine article reminds me of a saying from Tennesee that goes like this: "You can fool some of the people some of time....."
With some half or Iran siding with the theocrats, it only serves to anger them more if Obama, President of the Great Satan, takes the side of the reformers. It's much more appropriate fro the Euro powers to play that role, as has already occurred.
Still, there are always plenty of ham-fisted American cowboy bloviators who think America should just start shooting off it's mouth at the first opportunity and throwing it's weight around, magically transforming the middle east into a model of democracy. (Arab democracy=oxymoron)
Foreign policy 'expert' and attention-seeking serial presidential wannabe, John McCain comes to mind.
what is a neocon? One definition on Wikipedia is : Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. I am conservative and I don't want the U.S. to meddle in Iran's election. It is very painful watching the students die for a good cause and I cringe at their turmoil to come. But we should speak out about fair elections, especially when it comes to ACORN fraud. Republicans are not dead, their party is not dead and there will be a revival someday.
democracyforall,
You had me until you brought up ACORN. Listen, this is why you guys (Republicans) currently have such a tarnished product. You guys are constantly making mountains out of mole hills and instead of debating an issue on it's merits, you guys would rather cry wolf or try and scare the hell out of people every time you disagree on an issue politically.
It makes people (well, me) just basically tune you out. ACORN isn't a REAL issue. It never was. These same damn groups exist on the other side as well. McCain gave a speech at one of their conventions for crying out loud.
I've been voting for the past 10 years now (since I became eligible) and I think it would be highly unlikely (albeit not impossible) for me to show up at my polling place and claim to be....Tony Romo. I'm about six inches shorter and a whole lot more uhh...tan.
Seriously the Acorn talkingpoint has been debunked since 2008 use a simple factcheck.org search
Don't make no diff, folks. ACORN figures at the center of the firing of the right wing ideologue schmuck in Sacramento, even as we speak. ACORN involves black people, and that sets the wingnuts obsessing on it.
ACORN had a bunch of kids that were sposta get people registered to vote.. some of them didn't really feel like it so they filled in some cards with silliness.. Mickey freakin Mouse didn't actually show up to vote!!!
end of story..
I turned on the radio in my work truck today and the radio was tuned in (by a coworker) to beck or oreily or who cares.. and the first word i hear is ACORN.. why? why are they still talking about ACORN?
Phil-
Because it's a word
That managed to get sticky.
It doesn't have any meaning as an issue
But it's useful as a bright shiny object
When you have an audience that loves
Bright and shiny.
democracyforall: You posted this comment twice. Surely you can come up with something more original?
democracyforall: You posted this comment twice. Surely you can come up with something more original?
ACORN is changing it's name to COI, so we won't be calling it ACORN anymore.
You can also add my Senator, Senator Chambliss from Georgia. He was on TV railing against "Amajan" (his pronunciation over and over throughout the interview) and saying the young people fighting in the streets are too young to remember the US involvement in the overthrowing of their democratically elected government back in the 50s. This in a region that carries grudges for centuries. So much for any understanding of world history from our elected leaders!
Only the Americans have forgotten the Shah and 1979. The Iranians remember it very well. It's what put their current government in power.
Yes, and they still recall Iran-Contra as well as our support of Saddam against them.
Lets get real: The neocons foremost allegiance lies with Israel and will not support anything for the US unless it supports Israel's domination pursuit of the middle east. Haven forbid another attack happens!
Absolutely not Israel was the allied and is the one allie of the US.why you think the Saudis are the true friends of the US> The neocons are in alliance with their pockets,power and their total control.Nothing to do with Israel.
Take out Israel and the Jews alltogether.They still hate the West ,Christians all who stand for freedom ,and the envy they have for the US>Its sad just like no one wanted the jews in Hitlers time no one wants the palestinians.they dont care they all hate each other,they use it as a cause,fake cause.a reason to fight.Leave iranians and arabs ,and see how much they like each other. fortunately the younger generations,in all religions,all countries are changing.
"Death Of The Neocons" is, of course, a metaphor, entirely appropriate considering the number servicemen killed in Iraq - - not even to mention the untold and uncounted number of slain Iraqis.
Appalling to see these discredited people trying to creep back into the public debate. They have been hopelessly wrong from the start and were responsible, together with Rummy and Cheyney for misleading the simian moron Bush, not to mention poor, innocent, misguided, holy Tony Blair. Bring out the garlic and crucifixes.
They won't get far with President Obama, who understands that talking to someone is not the same as agreeing with him or her, still less doing what they want.
In their pseudo-moral posturing the neo-cons have lost sight of certain truths: among them, that you don't antagonize people without cause when you want to do a deal with them, and that the West's options when dealing with Iran are limited in the short term, but may well increase over time.
It is quite wrong to believe that a reproving word from your President will do anything at all to overthrow the regime (just as a big a misapprehension as believing that Reagan's part in overthrowing the Soviet Union was at all significant). But the mullahs are terrified of bona-fide information about the reality of life in the West (warts and all) permeating the young in Iran, because their primitive theology and social policies cannot compete and will be overthrown. Iran may then implode, just as the Soviet Union did, and there is a chance of something better emerging. Time is on our side, not theirs, bomb or no bomb.
The big risk now is that the Israel lobby will force the USA into a confrontation with Iran. As a supporter of Israel I cannot think of a worse policy option.
The appearance of the
Iranian monolith has been reduced
To the size of a pup tent and the people of Iran
Have been humanized in the eyes of the world.
Confrontation will be a much harder sell.
There have been a large number of articles heralding the death of the Neo-Cos lately, and while I deeply hope they are right, I fear they are more wishful thinking than reality.
If history is any indicator, it will take more than one election cycle to end such a fanatical political movement. The Republican Party has embraced the simpleminded sheepishness of the religiously fervent Evangelicals, marginalizing the moderate center. After an extensive education of a generation at the hands of Fox News and the Fundamentalist Propaganda Machine, they seem to be of the mind to continue down the path of elevating ignoramus after ignoramus to political stewardship of their party.
Neocons are destroying the Republican party. They need to go away, or else we "must" have a NEW third party...
I think you mean that the neocons destroyed the Republican party, along with their handmaidens, the right-wing militant brand of pseudo-Christianity. The GOP is a train wreck.
I agree that the past has changed everything. The past is simply that, no matter what party you lean towards, and it's time to move on. Saddam Hussein, the many years of constant flyover zones and sanctions that never worked, then the UN corruption with oil for food programs, the palaces Saddam built with that money, those issues are gone. Obama will not have to deal with those issues. Our military is totally stepping down in Iraq the end of this month. The world is in a different place now. Iran is evolving. Russia is not helping. Afghanistan, a very poor country, is still struggling with it's past and evolving slowly. Parties will always rise and fall with the issues.
democracyforall,
I won't touch that UN Sanction violation situation.....God knows Iraq is the only country in the world that's guilty of that sin....
It's easy to say the man (Hussein) stole to build his palaces but the truth, like many other things, is probably much more complicated.
The question should then become....Why do "we" accept as the Gospel the things "we" hear and see on radio and t.v.?
As far as us "totally stepping down in Iraq at the end of this month." Nah, you need to do a fact check on that. I still have Friends that I've worked and played with as well as Soldiers that I've trained that will indeed, still be there once this month ends. It's not that simple. Saying so does not make it so.
Interesting analysis. There is a God. We are on the brink of a whole new politics. The times require it. The political unrest in Iran is only the tip of the iceberg.
Noecons will never die. They get others to die for them.
In the population as a whole there is always a small percentage who believe in ridiculous nonsense (e.g., about 10% of Americans believe Elvis is still alive or that Hitler had the right idea).
Just as every schoolyard has a bully, we will always have to contend with ultra-nationalistic morons who espose the "Shoot First" philosophy.
Logic and Reason helps to marginalize them, but the far-right 10% is generally not susceptible to logic or reason. They just turn off their brains and tune into Rush Limbaugh.
I'm not posting a judgment -- but a real question based on observation: Is there any link between Shiites in Iraq gaining political power through democracy (fragile as it may be) in Iraq -- and this people-power happening in Iran? I mean Iran's population pays very close attention to what goes on in Iraq, right? Removing the US from the equation of how Iraqi elections have come about -- could it be possibly be that a valid Shiite voice (or voices) in Iraq politically have given Iranian reformists some semblance of "oats" to take on their own entrenched power structures? I've only seen the predictable monotony of US "disaster" in Iraq by the pundits -- but nothing about what's really going on there politically, from the Iraqis' own perspective, with their elections, attempts to deliver services to its citizens, and how Iranian citizens may be watching, and wanting such voice and power and diversity of opinion among their own people and leaders?
What we have done in the past in Iran and are now doing in Iraq will never equate with "people power" The last thing the reformer's want is the tyrannical return of American Empirialism.
Eight years of Neocon stupidity is enough.
There's a new team in town and Americans love it.
Back to the drawing board, Neocon nincompoops. This time come up with something truly original. Or the wading into the Neocon putrid miasma of your making is going to get really gooey and really cold this time around.
Funny, about a week ago in an interview in the Weekly Standard, I believe, several leading neo-cons admitted that having Ahmadinejad remain in power would be in their agenda's best interest.
The election of a more reform minded, less ideological president, they worried, might actually lead to progress in Iran's relations with the West, including some kind of diplomatic agreement on Irans nuclear technology program.
That's the last thing the neo-cons want.
Wolfowitz and Kagan's chastising of President Obama' s early restrained and tempered response to the evolving situation is, to me, just further proof of the neo-cons' hypocrisy
The neo-cons need bogey men to justify both their existence and policies. Should Ahmadinejad remain in power, it's a boon to the neo-cons' agenda.
Thank GOD!
Any Conservatives can't call themselves conservatives after they supported President Dick Cheney Policy's for 8 years.
Now only thing we need is for a REAL conservative to tell Rush Limbaugh to go away, who knows Dems might have a real opposition after a while.
how bout colin powell
Not sure I like Jesse Ventura
I've never listened to Rush, I'm not a fan. He has a syndicated radio program and gets way too much publicity and attention for it. I preferred William Safire's columns, when he used to write for NYT.
A conservative with courage. I am fairly certain there are still some conservatives out, meaning real ones instead of neocons or crazies, but I doubt any of them has the fortitude to wrestle the microphone away from the mighty wind bag.
I vote Democratic when the right candidate comes along.
democracyforall - I hear you.
I vote Republican when the right one comes along. Bob Dole. I met him once. Great guy. A little stiff, but I could imagine him as President.
And I don't vote Republican when the wrong one comes along. George W Bush. It seemed obvious he wasn't going to be able to run to country.
And I vote Democrat when the one running is simply better than his Republican opponent. Barack Obama. No offense to John McCain. He's OK for someone in the Senate.
Not to sound unpartriotic, but weren' t the people who got us into the mess we're now in, 'evildoers' by definition. Let's see:
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
Cheney, Rumsfeld anyone?
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful:
The invasion of two countries that resulted in thousands of casualties - physical and psychological; neocon articles that supported same and shame
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous:
Scare tactics and seeing muslims as the collective boogeyman bent on democracies destruction
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous:
Lot of blame to go around in the last eight years
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper:
Pretty much everyone in charge in the last administration
Yet so many Americans still cheer GW and agree with everything necon writers write....
the neocons are falling into what i call "paranoid superiority". they think everyone wants what they have, thus the constant fear-mongering, not unlike that of the cold war. it is the furthest thing from their minds that the iranians have no intention of setting up a democracy like the united states. based on what i've read and heard, they want to keep iran a theocracy. hell, look how much grief the neocons give european nations for the "socialist" governments, and they are our allies!
http://www.wanttoknow.info/powerofnightmares
The neocons are simply Likud lackies. They are the slithery coward in the bar who wants to inspire Bruno to take out a rival of a friend. They are armchair cheerleaders, their tune is "Let's you and them fight!" And it worked when a dimwit cowboy who had already created for him a Black Bart he could vicariously ride out and rout without even leaving his ranch. And so we leave off the pursuit of al Qaida, which had attacked us, to go after Iran and Iran, which threaten Israel.
Back in the fifties, those who held a brief for another nation inimical to our own went by another name. Traitor. And the label was applied by the same range of cheerleaders we have infesting public discourse today.
Needless to say, we are not used to a person taking time to reflect and make a decision about something when the word 'freedom' is bandied around. Besides, this fight is not our fight. It is soooo easy for these neocons to send in other peoples kids to fight battles in this or that country.
And, our president and Congress need to concentrate on domestic problems like the finance crisis. If Obama wants to go to war with Wall Street, I could get behind that!
Genni2002,you said it all. We have to reconstruct us and if we would hae pushed our way into Iran it would hae united them against the west,as we are intruders,and agressors. We can no longer step in to wars that are not ours.here we own Iraq, ask 80% of Americans if they want 106 billion dollars going to Pakistan Afghanistan,Iraq.We just buy their warlords,mulahs,leaders politicians,and we are in shambles.I ALWAYS ASK OF ALL THESE MEN WHO GOT US INTO WARSI DID NOT SEE THE BUSH GIRLS OR LIZ CHANEY
Flag It
|
Permalink
|
Reply
11:45 am, Jun 22, 2009
I believe like in Iran there is internal uprising,it is happening in the Republican parties. There are youth,and persons who do not agree with the old timers,neocons,nasty,agressive,there is a new restructuring.,i have great Republican friends,and they cannot stand the old redderick,and many hae been burned and hurt by the loyalty the past 8 years. we need different parties,philosophies and new ideas.They are in search of reinventing themselves,they know they have to.
Change is underway. The old rhetoric has died with the times, especially with the enhanced security the past 8 years.
democracyforall,
Where the hell are they at? Just when I begin to believe that rational thought was possible on that side of the aisle by some of the young pundits (earned or not) on the right like Meghan McCain, they come back with Mickey Mouse issues like that bullshit from last week with the Palins and Letterman.
If it's not that then one of them is rattling off talking points about Iran or ACORN. Or they get on television or write a column that COMPLETELY DISREGARDS any attention to real History (whether it was 30 years ago or 200 years ago) and the effects that said events may have on certain participants. There's just nothing there. I'm weekly amazed anew at all of this and mind boggled by the masses that keep eating this stuff up.
where are they? under viscious attack by liberal media. Just let one stick their head up and you'll see. I think if ALL politicians became "labeled" Democrats that these blogs would be much nicer, although we know that all Democrats do not agree. Are there any nice Americans with decorum out there who can handle different viewpoints?
Do we still have freedom of speech? Or do we speak of death to their ideas?
I disagree. I hear you (metaphorically) but I disagree. This whole "liberal media" idea is in my opinion a schtick(sp). I travel A LOT. Anywhere I've ever been, all I have to do is turn a radio station to AM at any point throughout the day and I can tune into a myriad of radio personalities that tilt well, a bit far right of center.
Look, I'll admit that from time to time, Democrats get in front of microphones and say things that leave me absolutely dumbfounded. However, you have to admit that some of these "attacks" to which you speak of are warranted. I mean seriously...Sarah Palin lets things roll off of her tongue that just well, shouldn't. Same thing with Michelle Bachman, Michael Steele and others. This is to say nothing of that "thing" that Bobby Jindhal put together a couple of months ago.
Couple that with Fox News (which is in my opinion neither fair or balanced nor do they really try and hide it) that goes full blast all day across the country in restaurants, schools, doctor's offices, etc....
Add in the fact that for the past eight years, the "Conservatives" controlled the white house (which means they pretty much controlled the message on a daily basis by way of talking points) and I just struggle to see the bias.
You guys absolutely LOSE people before you start talking when the first thing that comes out of your mouths are things like "Media Bias, ACORN" or "Trickle Down Economics."
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.