Monday, January 31, 2011

The Hosni Mubarak Fan Club

If we were living in a rational America, instead of Bizarro America, the US government would have cut off all aid to Egypt days ago – heck, years ago. Unfortunately, we live in a country where the national interests of the American people are routinely ignored in favor of a nation that has spied on us, sold our secrets to our worst enemies, and ruthlessly pursued a policy of expansion – using our tax dollars to do it.

Hosni Mubarak’s American fan club is a coalition of neocons like John Bolton, nutballs, like Pamela Geller, and the Israel-appeasers who inhabit the US national security and diplomatic establishment and don’t dare sneeze without Tel Aviv’s permission. These people are a tiny minority of the US population – the average American, seeing what is going on in Egypt, reflexively supports the Egyptian people. But ordinary Americans don’t control US foreign policy: the Interests do. And one of the biggest, if not the biggest, Interest in the foreign policy realm is Israel’s amen corner in Washington. We’ll have nothing remotely resembling a rational foreign policy until the all-pervasive influence of Israel’s lobby is effectively neutralized. Until then, you can chalk up Uncle Sam as a charter member of the Hosni Mubarak Fan Club – to our everlasting shame.

The Neocon Take on Egypt

FOX News recently rolled out its expert on “diplomacy,” neocon John Bolton (the guy with the white Hitler mustache) to explain to us Rubes why the U.S. military may have to intervene in Egypt. It would not be in “our” national interest to have a “hostile” government in Egypt, he said.

Thanks, John, for defining for us all what “our” national interest is. We could never have figured it out ourselves. One problem, though: the only explanation that he gave of why it is in MY interest that the U.S. government either keeps its current CIA puppet in power in that country, or replace him with a clone, is that the politicians in Israel would not like it otherwise. He said nothing at all about how an alternative outcome would affect a single American citizen one way or the other, while ludicrously denying that Mubarak, who has been in power for 30 years, is not a dictator. He’s an “authoritarian” but not a “totalitarian,” Bolton soothingly assured us.

While I’m on the topic, why are we all supposed to assume that the Egyptians (and other Arab states) would want to shoot themselves in the foot economically by closing off the Suez Canal and preventing themselves from selling us their oil?

Sunday, January 30, 2011

WikiLeaks Egypt: paranoids see neocon conspiracy

The WikiLeaks revelations on Egypt's Hosni Mubarak regime provide an interesting political Rorschach test—viewed either as evidence that the US backs unsavory dictators or as vindicating paranoia about neocon conspiracies behind the current wave of unrest in the Arab world. In the words of The Telegraph's incredibly distorted lead Jan. 28: "Even as they were officially supporting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, American officials were secretly helping dissidents interested in using social media to overthrow his regime, a secret dispatch from the US embassy in Cairo has revealed." In fact, the Dec. 30, 2008 cable (on the Wikileaks website) only "reveals" that the US embassy helped a young activist attend an "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit" in New York, while keeping his identity secret from the Egyptian security services.

The more accurate account in the Globe & Mail quotes the cable from US Ambassador Margaret Scobey saying the dissident "offered no roadmap of concrete steps toward [the] highly unrealistic goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections."

Kind of like the blind men and the elephant, eh? The Guardian cites another US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks as documenting that the embassy knew police brutality and torture in Egypt are "routine and pervasive"—yet this never prompted the US to cut off aid (an annual $1.5 billion, exceeded only by Israel and Pakistan), much less unleash the kind of demonization campaign reserved for official enemy states (e.g. Iran).

Neocon ideology meets political reality

Now that it’s all but certain Mubarak is about to lose power, some Neocons claim it’s a good thing. Why, they’ve always supported democracy, and free elections. Right. So why, one wonders, did these champions of empire freedom remain silent while the US propped up the Mubarak dictatorship with billions of financial support over the years? Why did the US provide arms to this tyrant? The Egyptians know that even the tear gas used against them is American made.

Apparently Neocons haven’t noticed the anti-American rage behind the protests. Or maybe they’re just so ideologically blind and deaf, it doesn’t register.

Let’s see how happy they are about what replaces their puppet in Cairo. Until then, Egyptians are partying like’s it’s 1979.

The Neocons Have Lost It

Since I triumphantly declared that at last, the neocon Hitler-Stalin pact moment had arrived, the neocons have rushed headlong into insisting that the global democratic revolution lives. Each example is just such a spectacle to behold in itself that they must be listed one by one:

•Max Boot: “We’re all neocons now.” One is left speechless. Is the idea that a Straussian divination of the speeches of Hassan al-Banna shows his secret purpose to have been to promulgate the wit and wisdom of Partisan Review?

•Michael Ledeen makes a convoluted argument for a completely nonsensical premise – that we must re-engineer the Green Revolution in Iran, and then all will be right and the People’s Democracy will prevail in Egypt and beyond.

•Josh Muravchik is suddenly a believer in Obama’s magical power to sway the crowds to turn them toward his pet Egyptian Chalabi. One would conclude this is just a transparent attempt to urge Obama to do the worst possible thing he could do if the stakes weren’t so deadly serious. And check out this whopper lest there be any doubt of how completely divorced from reality Muravchik’s pet cause of Arab “democracy” is.

•But the unabashed chutzpah award has to go to Leon Wieseltier

Saturday, January 29, 2011

This Would Have Worked Why?

I've got to respectfully disagree with Glenn Reynolds, whose says this about the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen:

On what is Professor Reynolds basing the idea that things would've been better if only we'd also toppled Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Did any of the neo-con plans in the countries we actually invaded work out as they predicted? If you click through to that "Egypt as the prize" link, you'll be brought to a Power Point presentation on the overthrow of Saudi Arabia and Egypt that isn't even much of a prediction. It's just a bunch of bullet points. Here's what the last one says: "Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize." This is the source cited in an argument for the overthrow of governments in two more countries? It isn't even clear to me if direct military intervention is being called for.

I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't be worried about the possibility of a populist Islamist explosion in Egypt. How the most extreme US meddling in Saudi Arabia and Egypt would've forestalled that I cannot imagine. The worldview articulated by Professor Reynolds in that post is like a caricature of what I worry that a Republican presidential candidate might think deep down. "If only we'd have shaken things up more it might've worked out fine!" He and I have drawn very different lessons from the debacle in Iraq.

The NeoCons’ Long Animosity towards Mohamed el Baradei

As Siun noted yesterday, Mohamed el Baradei issued a statement critical of US support for Hosni Mubarak in advance of returning to Egypt (and, as of now, being put under house arrest).

Of course, you in the West have been sold the idea that the only options in the Arab world are between authoritarian regimes and Islamic jihadists. That’s obviously bogus. If we are talking about Egypt, there is a whole rainbow variety of people who are secular, liberal, market-oriented, and if you give them a chance they will organize themselves to elect a government that is modern and moderate. They want desperately to catch up with the rest of the world.

It’s not at all clear that Baradei will serve as the kind of leader in Egypt that he seems to want to. But given that Baradei is one of the few opposition leaders the US press seems to understand, I think it worthwhile to review the Neocons long-standing attacks on him.

Though the US first supported Baradei’s election to head the IAEA, US support for him soured when, in 2003, he called bullshit on the US propaganda meant to justify our invasion of Iraq, most notably when he declared the Niger case to have been based on amateurishly forged documents.

Neocons Love Mubarak

In the heyday of the War Party’s triumphalism, when George W. Bush launched his war to “liberate” Iraq, the neocons were predicting a regional revolution in the Arab states that would overthrow anti-American governments from Iraq to Syria to Iran? Well, the revolution’s arrived, but it wasn’t sparked by US imperialism and it isn’t directed against the necons’ unfavorite regimes — it’s directed at pro-US governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen. And the neocons don’t like it one bit. Here’s the Weekly Standard on the events in Egypt:

“It is not always a good thing when people go to the streets; indeed the history of revolutionary action shows that people go to the streets to shed blood more often than they do to demand democratic reforms. Perhaps it is an appetite for activist politics that explains why so many Western observers are now captured by the moment. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why it seems as if no one had learned from the failures of the Bush administration’s freedom agenda—namely the Palestinian Authority elections that empowered Hamas—or could remember its successes.”

It’s only a good thing when people go into the streets if they’re sock puppets being manipulated by Washington. That’s the neocon version of a “democratic revolution.”

Friday, January 28, 2011

The Neocon Hitler-Stalin Pact Moment, continued

No sooner do I call it out than both the Weekly Standard and National Review abruptly abandon their democratic revolutionism and go far beyond the old dictatorships-and-double-standards standby, sounding an awful lot like Edmund Burke, if not Joseph de Maistre, in warning ominously about the dangers of the mob. But the news comes today that Mohammed el Baradei is taking charge, signifying that he will be there to lead the national unity government that the protesters are demanding. This, in short, is the very Burkean outcome which has been ideal all along.

While we’re on the subject of what Burke would say about the events in the Middle East, we can also take heart in the fact that there is an even greater prospect for a constiutional process in bringing to power the opposition in Yemen. And nowhere is deference for the existing institutions and mores more visible than Lebanon. So therefore let me take this opportunity to reiterate some important blunt truths about Lebanon:

1.Lebanon is a democracy, albeit with peculiar features. Like most Latin American countries historically, it is a democracy rigged against the popular will. What would please Edmund Burke more than to see this corrected for by peaceful constitutional means, insofar as the inclusion of Hezbollah in the new government serves this purpose?

2.Like Hamas, Hezbollah is not at war with the United States, and it is pernicious in the extreme to suggest that because they are at war with Israel they are ipso facto at war with the United States.

3.Like Hamas, Hezbollah is a rational actor, and as is so often the case with Israel the insistence that its enemies are not rational actors is a bald case of projection. In both cases, but particularly in the case of Hezbollah, this is vitally important in recognizing that they can be worked with in a peaceful and democratic process.

4.Neither Syria nor Iran is a threat to Lebanese sovereignty. The real threat to Lebanese sovereignty is the hubristic “international” tribunal that presumes to have the authority of law over the sovereign nation of Lebanon.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Gamal Mubarak flees Egypt?

The president implied in his speech last night that we Americans will back revolution everywhere. We have done this kind of thing before; Hungary - 1956, Cuba - at the Bay of Pigs, Czechoslovakia - 1968, The Iraqi Shia at the end of the Gulf War I could go on.... We seem to believe that "American Exceptionalism" makes us the "uber nanny" of the world. The March 14 Coalition in Lebanon fell apart under the pressure of what was and is largely US insistence on the STL process. Now the US government is calling the formation of a new parliamentaty coalition a "coup." What kind of childish pique and nonsense is that?

The neocon creed calls for revolution everywhere. This is a reflection of the Troskyist origins of the movement. The US ended by backing Khomeini's revolution in Iran against the Pahlevis. Are we happy with the results of the "master stroke? The US is seeking what amounts to revolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we happy with what we are creating? People comment here that the neocon influence in Washington is ended. What a joke!

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Chas Freeman's Defeat, a Neocon Win

As the neocons flexed their still potent muscles in media circles and think tanks, Freeman saw his approach to foreign policy decried as “realist” and his political support evaporate, a development he now addresses in a book, as David Swanson reports:

Whistleblowing takes many forms but almost always involves the disillusionment of an insider with the nature of what he or she is inside.

Leaking secret documents exposing dramatic crimes and abuses is one way to blow a whistle. Another, equally valuable approach, is to publish a lengthy analysis of your experiences in government service. This is what Chas Freeman has done with his new book, America's Misadventures in the Middle East, which he will discuss in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

In 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Chas Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council. However, a vilification campaign orchestrated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) blocked Freeman's appointment. As Freeman recounts:

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Treason by Members of the United States Congress


“More and more, Americans from all walks of life are talking about Israel’s influence in Washington, looking for someone to blame. Americans are angry, feeling powerless, victimized by their own government.

Some of that blame takes the form of Antisemitism, again rearing its ugly head, but most of it is expressed in healthy skepticism, skepticism of a government showing signs of having been bought. ”Bought” is a harsh word but no other word applies, not anymore. There is no other explanation, not for the policies we are seeing, policies steeped in bias, policies based on support of apartheid, of continual violations of human rights, of International Law, and, now obvious to all, policies that have endangered American security.”

So, the vast majority of people in the UK and the US are not pro-war, pro Israel, or pro-Zionist, neocon or pro-neocon, but the neo-cons and pro-neocons outnumber the active anti-neocons, and anti-Israeli war party in numbers and voice… and they carry the day, rubberstamping apartheid in Palestine.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Anti-Iran Neocons generating fake controversy to promote "Iranium" propaganda

A mini-controversy was generated in Canada over the screening of an anti-Iran propaganda movie called "Iranium" at a Canadian library. Apparently the Library 1) "received threats of violence" 2) was pressured from the Iranian regime and they had to cancel the event. The Canadian government then stepped in to force the screening of said film.

Now we know that all the reports about the "threat of violence" was a false alarm. And I personally suspect it was started by the same people who are pushing to get this propaganda movie reach as many audience as possible.

The focus of this blog however, is not on this fake controversy but on the propaganda that is Iranium.

Richard Silverstein of the Tikun Ulam blog and the neocon-watchers over at Lobelog have documented the people and money behind this effort better than anyone. From right wing ultra orthodox Israelis and highly motivated Islamophobes and pro-war-on-Iran neoconservatives to Koch-style conservatives. Previously they were responsible for anti-Muslim conspiracy films, Third Jihad, Obsession.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Neocons Gloat About Islamist Iraq, Denounce Islamism

Something of a little blog firestorm was sparked when the Washington Post’s neoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin claimed that George W. Bush deserved credit for setting in motion the Tunisian uprising against its U.S.-backed dictator because the seed that sprouted popular revolt was Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Today in the New York Times, WINEP fellow Martin Kramer is quoted warning against the dangers of the reemergence of Tunisia’s Islamist party, Al-Nahda, widely regarded as one of the most progressive versions of Islamism on the planet:

Hunting the neocons

Neoconservatism pervades our politics. Why else does Obama appoint the discredited Iraq war planner Stephen Hadley, who as a Bush aide put the lie about Niger yellowcake into the State of the Union speech in '02, on his Middle East braintrust? Well there is some pushback. Three items. First, Seymour Hersh tries to get out from under the cloud of the neocons, in a speech in Qatar. You have to travel that far to get out from under their cloud, I mean it's not like you write about this in the New Yorker:

A few years ago Bill Kristol spoke fearfully of the "insanity" of blaming neoconservatives. David Frum said the same thing lately even more nuttily (h/t Peter Voskamp):

Here's Slavoj Zizek in the London Review of Books. I think this will be my thumbnail Leo Strauss understanding for some time to come. Thus do members of a cabal rationalize the efficacy of a cabal.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Soros, WikiLeaks and Tunisia's "color revolution"

The neocon conspiracies can't be far behind now. Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (proudly billing itself "A Global Think-Tank") notes the suddenness with which the moniker "Jasmine Revolution" has been adopted (and mostly by intellectuals abroad, not protesters in Tunis). But he notes the differences between Tunisia and Georgia ("Rose"), Ukraine ("Orange") and Kyrgyzstan ("Tulip"). Requisite Sorosphobobia is already in evidence. Dr. K R Bolton asks in Foreign Policy Journal: "Tunisian Revolt: Another Soros/NED Jack-Up?" But his screed makes no mention of George Soros or National Endowment for Democracy programs in Tunisia—only in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

If Soros isn't behind the Tunisian revolution, it must be Julian Assange. WikiLeaks apparently released a mess of typically unflattering US diplomatic cables on the Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali regime. The New Yorker provides a sample, from a July 17, 2009, cable:

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

I Agree With a Neocon Historian

David Greenberg of Rutgers is upset at those who would make D.D. Eisenhower pro-peace. Indeed, the militaristic prez was a patron of the military-industrial complex, no matter what he said in his goodbye speech, as I pointed out in American Conservative. Dr. Greenberg is also concerned that bad people have criticized the Merchants of Death, and even used that redolent phrase. Get this straight: Boeing, Lockheed, Martin-Marietta, General Dynamics, and all the others are innocent of war promotion. No marketing for them.

The Tea Party Movement Hijacked by Neo Cons!

Seymour Hersh unleashed

He also charged that U.S. foreign policy had been hijacked by a cabal of neoconservative "crusaders" in the former vice president's office and now in the special operations community.

"What I'm really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, radicals if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over," he said of his forthcoming book. "It's not only that the neocons took it over but how easily they did it -- how Congress disappeared, how the press became part of it, how the public acquiesced."

Hersh then brought up the widespread looting that took place in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. "In the Cheney shop, the attitude was, ‘What's this? What are they all worried about, the politicians and the press, they're all worried about some looting? ... Don't they get it? We're gonna change mosques into cathedrals. And when we get all the oil, nobody's gonna give a damn.'"

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

The Neocon Morning Line

The Daily Caller presents its ranking of the potential Republican candidates for president. Its five faves–Christie, Romney, Palin, Daniels, and Huckabee—are all neocons. The site is also, predictably, nasty, ignorant, and dismissive when it comes to the “Aging Revolutionary,” Ron Paul: “If the Texas congressman ran, won the GOP primary and then won the presidential election—two of those are absolutely inconceivable—he would be the oldest first-term president in American history. Unfortunately for Paul, his age is the least of his problems. It is hard to see how the GOP electorate would elect a leader with his isolationist tendencies. Much of his base of support is also drawn from the loony bin.” That is, Ron is not for endless wars in the Middle East, endless violent rhetoric against Muslims, and endless violence against Muslim civilians, many of them shot in the head or blown limb from limb by predators.

As to age, maybe Americans are tired of neocon punks and their many axes of evil. Maybe we yearn for wisdom and experience, and a man who is not a chicken hawk nor a vampire of power. I do not know whether Ron Paul will run again. I do not know if it is in his own interest, or the interest of his vast, worldwide movement—the “loony bin” to neocons. But I do know that he is going to be around for a very long time in a leadership role. Recently, for the first time in many years, I saw the athletic congressman in a bathing suit, and I should have taken an iPhone photo. He looks like a seniors champion swimmer in his 50s. Is there a time machine in Lake Jackson?

Monday, January 17, 2011

Avi Shlaim on the Neoconservative Middle East War Agenda

“The influence of the Likud and of its friends in Washington could be detected across the entire spectrum of American policy towards the Middle East,” writes Shlaim.

In illustrating the neocons’ identification with Israeli interests, Shlaim underscores the significance of the neocons’ “A Clean Break” paper, writing: “In 1996, a group of six Jewish Americans, led by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, wrote a paper for incoming Israeli prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu. Entitled ‘A Clean Break’, the paper proposed, in essence, an abrupt reversal of the foreign policies of the Clinton Administration towards the Middle East.” (p. 298) After mentioning the major goals of the plan, including the removal of Saddam’s regime, Shlaim declares: “Thus, five years before the attack on the twin towers, the idea of regime change in Baghdad was already on the agenda of some of Israel’s most fervent Republican supporters in Washington.” (p. 299) Regarding the connection of that policy to actual American interests, Shlaim opines that “While the authors’ devotion to Israel’s interests was crystal-clear, their implicit identification of those interests with American interests was much more open to question.” (p. 299) Shlaim accepts the obvious fact that the neocons were influential in shaping Bush policy: “The Bush Administration’s entire policy towards the Middle East was similarly supportive of Israel’s short-term strategic interests.” (p. 299)

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Jihad Watch on Neocons

It amuses me when I hear some people talk about Neocons, either as though they don't actually exist, or as though neoconservatism is the only sort of conservatism there is. I enjoyed this l'il comment:

...neoconservatism, for all its pretense of being tough-minded and militaristic, is at heart an ideology based on the following premises:

a) People tend to act in their own rational self-interest.

b) Not everyone is smart enough to understand where his self-interest lies.

c) We are. (Just look at our SAT scores!) In fact, we're so clever, we even know our enemies' self-interest better than they do.

d) So we can explain it to them, and eventually they'll come around to agree with us.

e) Then everyone will be Americans.

This was the logic underlying our disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

The Neocon-Islamophobe Nexus: Clarion brings together Perle and Gaffney

The Clarion Fund has been careful to claim that their documentary films, which have included “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” and “The Third Jihad,” are neither partisan nor designed to fan the flames of Islamophobia. But recent associations the group has made in Washington would indicate that Clarion, which appears to be an offshoot of the Jewish ultra-orthodox Israel-based Aish HaTorah, is connected to both the core of the neoconservative movement in Washington, D.C., and one of the the country’s best-known Islamophobes.

Today, the right-wing Heritage Foundation announced that it would be hosting a special screening of Clarion’s latest film, “Iranium,” on February 1. The event will include an appearance and comments by none other than arch-neoconservative Richard Perle. Perle, whose nickname is “The Prince of Darkness,” is widely seen as playing an important role in shaping post-9/11 Bush administration foreign policy from his perch at the Defense Policy Board.

Perle’s institutional affiliations are a useful guide for anyone seeking to understand the intellectual underpinnings of the Bush administration’s (first term) foreign policy or diagram the web of neoconservative institutions in Washington, D.C. Perle is currently a fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute; a letter signatory for the Project for the New American Century; a member of the National Security Advisory Council at Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy; a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and Committee on the Present Danger; and a board member of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the Hudson Institute.

Perle’s role in the Clarion Fund’s film screening would indicate that the organization is deeply embedded in the neoconservative movement. Given Perle’s track record for pushing the U.S. into aggressive wars of choice, this affiliation should be looked at closely as the Fund rolls out its latest documentary, which claims to document the “threat to international stability” presented by Iran’s nuclear program.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon?

Hillary Clinton demonstrated her toughness in the Middle East once again. Speaking in Qatar, she lashed into the Arab states for failing to promote democracy as well as women's and religious rights. Has she become George W. Bush reincarnated? Is she, in fact, a neocon?

Not exactly. Clinton upbraided her Arab audience for promoting extremism by failing to offer new opportunities to the teeming masses for economic and political development, which, by the way, usually go hand-in-hand (though China is trying to skirt the issue). Clinton also pointed out that for all their huffing and puffing about the Palestinians, the Arab states are behind America when it comes to actually providing them with financial support.

But this doesn't mean that Clinton is promoting democracy at the point of a gun. Quite the contrary. Instead, she's announcing, if I read her correctly, that America can't go it alone, that it shoulders too much of a burden in trying to prod the region toward peace. As the New York Times reports,

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Peter King…Another Knee-Jerk Neocon

It seems that we have to be thought the Scott Brown story many times before we learn. Peter King is the latest to so ably teach it to us. The new anti- terrorism golden boy pushed front and center by the new Speaker of the House John Bohner introduced a new bill that will keep everyone safe, especially politicians. The new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee’s bill bars anyone from carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.

Wow? Really? I’m wondering how exactly is a law abiding citizen to know who is or who isn’t a federal official? Will all such “federal officials” carry prominently displayed badges or ID tags? That’s a great idea ain’t it? The bad guys will then know exactly whom to attack! That ought to keep “federal officials” safe and secure.

On a level closer to reality we have to ask Peter King what exactly makes him think that psychopathic left wing nut jobs like Jarred Laughner would obey this law? “Oh I was going to shoot federal officials today but I can’t because of Peter King’s law” says Jarred to himself and walks away without popping a shot.

Times of crisis is when the electorate is most vulnerable. Is Peter King’s law something that promotes freedom? The why introduce it now? The answer is simple, Peter King is attempting to hijack the emotional vulnerability of the country to push his anti gun agenda- yes the NRA gives him a “D”. I’ve had it with the neocons!

Monday, January 10, 2011

The GOP Should Dump The Neocons

The Neocons are one head of the totalitarian group that is destroying our freedoms. The Liberals represent the other group.

While the Liberals concentrate on undermining the Second Amendment, and anything associated with religion or traditional values, the Neocons concentrate on destroying the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Both ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

And even though they speak as if there were some difference between them, they work together to destroy the Bill of Rights.

Republicans have assisted the Democrats in passing civilian disarmament (gun control) schemes. And Democrats helped with the Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Terrorism. Both parties are in bed with the totalitarians.

That doesn't mean that there aren't good Democrats and good Republicans. It just that their party leadership hates them and does not support their efforts.

Sunday, January 09, 2011

Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world

If you believe in this hegemony concept, it would be in our benefit to have factories established all over the World. After all, the World is our domain, right?

Doesn’t matter that it impoverishes your own country, because after all, you are wanting to drive wages down to meet the wages of other countries as that fits the need of your neocon hegemony beliefs and makes your corporation more profitable so that you can say you “earned” your bonus even though you destroyed your country.

But what if you’re a sorry sob like ole Virgil down in Central Texas that could give a rats ass about your neocon hegemony beliefs?

After all, all he wants for himself and his friends and family is for them to have the opportunity to live the American Dream with liberty, freedom and justice for all and without fear of persecution, terrorism or any of this other patriot act crap that these so called neocon hegemony clowns have dreamed up.

Saturday, January 08, 2011

What's weird is the fact that anyone still reads the National Review

The weirdest possible article to appear in the Neocon Review was the paean to Trotsky by the man who claims to have invented the idiotic and oxymoronic term "Islamofascist."

It was titled "Trotsky-cons?" and it was written by one of the more desperate characters to try to pass himself off as a conservative in those dreadful days of George W. Bush.

His name was Stephen Schwartz and he claimed to have coined the word "Islamofascism," a nonsense term that conflates two totally opposite forces: Islamic fundamentalists and their biggest enemies, old-time fascists like Saddam Hussein who killed them by the tens of thousands.

Schwartz was a former Red Diaper baby with the finest Marxist credentials who had converted to Islam and then ... well you get the idea. How the hell could someone like this pass himself off as a right-winger?

Yet pass himself off he did and in June of 2003 he got the online edition of National Review to publish his ode to that murderous Marxist madman whose theory of international liberation inspired such founders of neoconservatism as Irving Kristol - who passed the philosophy on to his idiot son Bill, who somehow convinced the New York Times to let him be its "conservative" columnist.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

'Israel to have role in US secret war'

A former US Senate candidate has refused to rule out involvement by Israel in the Washington-waged "secret war on terror groups."

The US administration is reportedly ratcheting up offensives around the globe by establishing a new military targeting center.

Former Senate hopeful Mark Dankof told Press TV on Thursday that it is yet to be known “to what extent the Israelis are going to be involved in these operations.”

The United States and Israel each hail the other as its strongest ally. The American support for Israel is shown, among other things, by Washington's sending Tel Aviv's way nearly USD 3 billion in military aid each year.

Dankof said escalation in the US so-called anti-terror operations is going to “get a lot of innocent people killed.”

“I think there is going to be an even bigger backlash against what the United States is doing in both of these countries,” he noted, referring to Washington's current military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Over one million Iraqis have been killed ever since the 2003 US-led invasion of the violence-scarred country, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.

The US military has also increased the number of special operations and commando assaults in Afghanistan.

Faulty conduction of foreign military assaults has reportedly claimed the lives of thousands of Afghan civilians since the 2001 invasion.

Neocon Approaches to Containing Iran

Now, to end the article, the authors note that there is that nasty risk that war with Iran might actually have consequences; that containment might in fact work and allow the United States to use those military assets to "defend vital interests elsewhere." But "containment could require a far larger military presence than the United States has traditionally maintained in the Middle East," even as the authors voice their support for significantly increasing conventional forces in the Middle East under their plan.

I'm just astonished, overcome by the strawman that they've developed. There are just so many things wrong with this construct, it is hard to put words against it. Nonproliferation activities, to include sanctions, have been shown to work in retarding and in some cases, reversing offensive WMD programs. Yes, military options are another facet, if a conflict is seen as on the horizon. But the failure here to understand the basic need for a regional approach to enhance stability and advance American interests is just staggering.

This is the real danger of allowing idealists, of which neocons are a party, into positions of actual responsibility. They create worst-case scenarios that justify taking extreme measures that they believe will lead to the reality that they want, rather than dealing with the reality that actually exists. This fradulent attempt at dismissing the option of containing Iran should not stand unopposed, and I do hope that other serious defense analysts will rise up against the strawman that these authors have developed.

An unsung heroine of the Bush ‘Dark Era’

There were a number of women who, during the eight years of the Bush regime, exemplified the spirit of this nation’s founding mothers and sisters. Women like the FBI’s Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds; Enron’s Sharon Watkins; the Army Corps of Engineer’s Bunnatine Greenhouse; J.P. Morgan risk analyst Indira Singh; long-serving White House correspondent Helen Thomas; Karl Rove’s former research specialist Dana Jill Simpson; the CIA’s Valerie Plame Wilson; former U.S. Park Police chief Teresa Chambers; retired Army Colonel Ann Wright; retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski; Susan Lindauer, the CIA’s back-channel to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein; and, especially, this editor’s extraordinary girlfriend, a former National Security Agency (NSA) analyst, all of whom put the interests of the nation, its Constitution, and ethics above personal ambitions, fearlessly spoke about what was wrong, and did what was right. Add former British GCHQ analyst Katharine Gun, who proved what an ally should be.

But perhaps no one paid more of a price for telling the truth than the Bush administration’s designated scapegoat in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was busted back to the rank of colonel on May 5, 2005, before she retired. Karpinski was the commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade in Iraq and was demoted by President Bush in order that he and his senior officials and military commanders could save face after horrid details of the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other U.S. detention centers in Iraq came to light.

Informed sources have told WMR that the scapegoating for the detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and other prisons and carried out by CIA and Pentagon contractors, as well as by Israeli interrogators brought into Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority of Paul “Jerry’ Bremer, did not end with Karpinski. Two officers who publicly defended Karpinski were also retaliated against on the orders of the Pentagon hierarchy and the Bush White House. Karpinski was the highest-ranking female military commander in Iraq. She also became the number one target for the neocon mensch in the Pentagon and White House.

One military commander who defended Karpinski was retired Major General Charles H. Swannack, Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq. WMR has learned that the personal contents of Swannack’s emails from Iraq back to the United States were intercepted by the Pentagon brass after he defended Karpinski over the Abu Ghraib scandal. The emails were then used to force Swannack to retire. Swannack publicly stated that the Abu Ghraib scandal was the fault of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and he later called for Rumsfeld to resign.

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Wikileaks Helping the Neocons Build a Fabricated Case for War

Despite Glenn Greenwald’s recent conclusion to the contrary, the Wikileaks psyop doubled down on the regime change plan in Iran just about a week ago and it looks like the fake “leaks” are helping the Neocons pound the drums of war.

It’s being widely reported that Wikileaks has released a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Israel which claims that Iran can hit Israel with up to 300 missiles within a time frame of 10-12 minutes. This goes beyond the existential threat Wikileaks themselves presented to Israel last week when Julian Assange stated he would release cables that would make Israel look bad in about 6 months. That threat is clearly intended to help build a pretext for having to “limit” internet freedoms.

In this newest cable, reminiscent of the days when Tony Blair was claiming Saddam Hussain could hit the UK with missiles in roughly the same time frame, they go on to claim that Israel must ready itself for a large-scale war with Hezbollah and Hamas as well since they have some 40,000 rockets that can hit any target in Israel.

Monday, January 03, 2011

Why do Neo-con / Zionists attack the only US President to bring peace to the Middle East?

Clinton negotiators during the 2000 talks between Israel & Palestine have stated on record that the United States did not act as impartial negotiators but rather as Israel’s lawyer.

The Project for a New American Century and their accomplices in the media and AIPAC bribed congressional members are now calling for another 100,000 women and children dead and thousands of American “goyum” troops dead through another pre-emptive war of Israeli agression – this one in Iran.

The United States funded Saddam Huessein for decades.
The United States backed Bin Laden for over a decade.
Iraq was never a threat to the security of the United States.
There were no WMDs in Iraq
9/11 was conducted by Saudis

Jimmy Carter, The President of Peace
Jesus Christ, The Prince of Peace
George Bush, The President of Pre-emptive, Unjust, Illegal War
There will never be peace when people call others animals or islamofacists which is parroted by the idiotic Neo-Cons every second on talk radio and on television.