Category Archives: NeoCons

Op-ed Specifically Denouncing Neoconservatism Published at Townhall.com

Townhall.com is as generic a movement con organ as you can find, yet they published this op-ed from Jack Kerwick specifically condemning neoconservatism. This is progress. I don’t think this would have passed muster five years ago, certainly not ten years ago.

If the Democratic Party’s control of the presidency and the Senate can succeed in provoking the base of the GOP to reevaluate its collective political identity, then it all may just have been worth it.

Maybe—maybe—the internecine conflict currently on display in the GOP indicates a breakdown of that political philosophy that has dominated Republican Party politics, as well as the so-called “conservative movement,” for decades.

The name of this philosophy is neoconservatism, and it isn’t a version of conservatism at all.

Read more …

The truth that neoconservatism is not a form of conservatism is one that can’t be repeated often enough, even though it’s a point that is well understood by most readers of a site like this. Sometimes repetition is necessary if people have repeatedly been told the opposite.

A Little Strauss Bashing and Paleo Inside Baseball all in One

Here is a slightly dated essay from Paul Gottfried that appeared at VDARE. I don’t know how I missed it when it came out. I post it now because any opportunity to take a swipe at Strauss and the neocons is a good one. And also because it recounts a little paleo intrique that not everyone may be familiar with.

Here’s the inside baseball stuff. I like Cleas Ryn. I think his insight into the neocons as modern day Jacobins is spot on. But this episode was pretty wimpy:

Full disclosure: Professor Ryn and I have known each other for more than thirty years and spent considerable time together, socially and professionally. In 2007, we cofounded the Academy of Philosophy and Letters , aiming to fill the Philadelphia Society’s former role as a forum for conservative discussion, before it fell under neoconservative control.

But we came to a parting of the ways when Professor Ryn and an assistant,  NHI President Joe Baldacchino, demanded the removal from our organization of anyone who had addressed the IQ question or even been present at conferences in which this delicate subject was broached. My admission that I did indeed believe that individuals and ethnic groups have differing cognitive abilities resulted in Ryn’s unexpected insistence that I myself should leave.

 I took along those who opposed the censorship and set up the H.L. Mencken Club.  From what I can determine, our side has many more members than APL—and more open discussion. (HLMC has its sixth annual conference in Baltimore November 1-3—register here!).

And here is some Strauss/neocon bashing:

Conservatism Inc. has been so totally infiltrated from the Left that those ideas that used to define the Left—abstract universalism, the rejection of ethnic differences, the moral imperative to extend equality to all human relations—has spread to the official Right. The political debate in America now centers on Leftist propositions. Accordingly, someone like Bloom, who could barely conceal his animus against what remains of a traditional Western world based on what Ryn rightly calls a “classical and Christian” heritage, could be featured in the late 1980s as an American patriot and cultural traditionalist.

My Letter to My Two Republican Senators on Syria Intervention

Dear Sen.,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the resolution to attack Syria.

First, it is not at all clear that Assad was responsible for any chemical weapons attack that may have taken place. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. It makes no sense that Assad would order such an attack and invite reprisal. Even mainstream sources are suggesting the possibility that this was a false flag attack perpetrated by the Rebels. Pardon me if I don’t accept the “evidence” presented by my government at face value, but it doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to evidence used to justify wars of choice.

Second, even if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible, there still would be no reason for the US to attack. Syria is not threat to the US and we should stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. Neither side here is the “good guys,” but if we had to chose a side we are better off with Assad than with the Islamist Rebels. As Sen. Rand Paul has pointed out, at least Assad has protected Syria’s Christian community. Our interventions in the Middle East have systematically been bad for Middle Eastern Christians.

Third, the Republican Party is supposed to be the conservative party. Contrary to the mistaken belief of many modern conservatives, foreign policy interventionism is not the authentic conservative position. The assumptions that underlie interventionism are profoundly not conservative. Interventionism is inherently globalistic, hubristic and downright Jacobin. This is not conservative. Non-interventionism and avoiding “entangling alliances” is the position that arises from a conservative mindset properly understood. Voting no on Syrian interventionism can be step one in righting the course of the GOP and the conservative movement so-called and putting them back on track toward the authentically conservative position of foreign policy non-interventionism.

Sincerely,

“Red” Phillips
Managing Editor,
www.conservativetimes.org

Quote of the day

“These are children of the civil rights era, remember, taught from childhood that good people must go out and confront evil. They believe that’s what they should do, even when evil is minding its own business in some obscure foreign nation.” John Derbyshire, on Obama and other supporters of attacking Syria.

The Civil Rights Revolution and the Global Democratic Revolution are indeed one and the same.

Ratman and Bombin’ want another war

Yes, the Dubious Duo is at it again! Realizing he had a war to sell, Obama summoned John McCain, the Ratman, and Lindsey Graham, aka Bombin’, to the White House to rev up war fever. Once again, these Neocon heroes have answered the call.

Both are now busy spreading rumors of dire consequences if Americans fail to “stand behind the president.” McCain is painting Assad as — wait for it! — the new Hitler who must be stopped now before he goose-steps his way into Nebraska. And Graham is singing a similar tune, warning that those eeevil Iranians will pounce on obvious American “weakness” if we fail our moral responsibility of bombing another country that has not threatened us.

And when they’re finished with Syria, the Dubious Duo can go back to working on amnesty for illegal immigrants. So much to do…

Pat Buchanan: Syria Gas Attack “Reeks of a False Flag Operation”

Pat Buchanan says the Syria gas attack “reeks of a false flag operation.”

“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

See more…

When I first saw the stories about a chemical weapons attack in Syria, my very first thought was “false flag.” It just didn’t make any sense to me. Why would Assad do that so openly and risk retaliation? How would it benefit him or his cause? He is reportedly winning the war. But I’m skeptical and not inclined to believe the official story when it comes to dragging us into another war in the Middle East. What has surprised me is how many people are throwing around the “false flag” allegation. Normally mainstreamish types avoid that charge directly so as not to get themselves labled as conspiracy theorists, but with regard to Syria I am seeing people saying it with impunity. Has there been a sea change when it comes to peoples’ willingness to believe the official story.

Ron Paul has also called the attack a false flag.

Neocon Max Boot Accused of Plagiarism

Neocon guru Max Boot has been accused of plagiarism. Daniel Flynn’s case seems pretty tight to me without looking at the two stories side by side. Boot is an ideological fool, but this is really sloppy. Another explanation is that someone else wrote the piece and Boot signed it. Boot admits to using a research assistant, but says the words are his. He may come to regret saying that.

The Wall Street Journal has responded here. The response is pretty weak. I’m supposed to accept that Boot’s article was not cribbed simply because the WSJ assures me it was not? Plus all the denials insinuate that Flynn is simply “disgruntled” because his submission was not accepted. This is despicable. I’m sure the WSJ rejects the vast majority of submissions it receives. I’m sure Flynn understood that there was no guarantee that his article would be accepted. Rejection is a routine part of being a freelancer.

“Neocon” means never saying you’re sorry

Or that you were wrong. In response to the latest Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq, Americaneocon blames Obama’s foreign policy. Huh? It was the Bush administration that agreed to this non-negotiable provision with the puppet Iraq government:

“All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

Now that U.S. occupation forces have left, old battles have resumed. In fact, no other outcome was possible since the Allies of WWI deliberately cobbled together random regions of the old Ottoman Empire to ensure oil-rich Iraq would be unstable and easily exploitable.

Iraq is fracturing into its component cultural regions, which Americaneocon notes, but wrongly attributes to Bush’s “global democratic revolution”:

There’s been a few bright spots, like the northern Kurdish region, where democratization is taking hold. But that’s despite the best efforts of this administration to sabotage the movement toward freedom in the country. What a shame.

In fact, the Kurds have long agitated for their independence. One of the sad ironies of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was the charge that Saddam “attacked his own people,” referring to his use of poison gas against the rebellious Kurds. Of course, the U.S. government not only failed to condemn Iraq at the time — after all, Saddam was D.C.’s paid-for client then — but even tried to shift blame to Iran.

Chronicles Magazine Chimes in on the Jack Hunter Affair

Patroon stated below that Chronicles Magazine had failed to come to the defense of Jack Hunter. As far as I know, up to that point he was correct, but now they have in this concise but excellent post by Eugene Girin.

The mainstream howled in outrage over Hunter’s 2004 column “John Wilkes Booth Was Right”. Now, raising a toast to the assassin of an American president, is of course going too far. However, most of the things Jack Hunter wrote in that column are right on and all paleoconservatives would agree with them.

He then goes on to give a few examples of supposedly outrageous things that Jack said that are actually quite defensible and taken for granted on the paleo right. I had in fact bemoaned in a comment at TAC that so few if any were defending what Jack had said other than me. People were either feigning PC outrage (the left, the neocons and the mainstream “right”), defending him  on the grounds that he had grown (Daniel McCarthy) or throwing him under the bus for backtracking (Hunter Wallace, Palmetto Patriot, Michael Hill). But given that much of what he said was routine in our circles, I felt someone besides me needed to defended them. Mr. Girin’s post is short, but it does just that very effectively.

Knowing and recognizing the dark role of Abraham Lincoln in American history is one of the main aspects of the paleoconservative persuasion. Most paleos have at one point or another been subject to the vituperative attacks by the Left and the mainstream “Right” for expressing their views on “Honest Abe”. I, for example, was called an “un-American” proto-Nazi by the despicable Larry Auster for daring to criticize his beloved Lincoln.

Ha ha! I had a similar run in with the late Mr. Auster.

He closes with this:

The correct response for paleos in the face of such criticism is to stand our ground and respond to the liberals’ and neocons’ hysteric howls with cold, hard historical facts. Surrendering to the commissars of political correctness will only empower them in their drive for our destruction.

Amen! This is the point I have been pounding since the start of this mess.

Author’s note: I heard the criticism from Weaver below that we need to avoid the appearance of piling on Jack at this point. I had actually planned another post that I held off on for this reason. But I thought this Chronicles post was too good to pass up and does what we should be doing anyway, defending the positions of the old Jack. I plan one more clean up post on the Hunter affair with some links to some important articles but with only limited commentary on my part.

Why the U.S. Executive Branch Is a Clear and Present Danger to Our Democracy

Strange, isn’t it, that as Southern heritage is increasingly demonized (the largest front in the regime’s war against traditional America) and small-government libertarianism is also vilified, the dangers of centralized big government that both camps have warned about are being proven true. This article by Fred Branfman explains why the breezy assurances that potential abuses of federal power will be prevented by elections are empty:

Edward Snowden’s revelations have illuminated the most critical political issue facing America today: how an authoritarian U.S. Executive Branch which has focused on war abroad for the last 50 years now devotes increasing resources to surveillance, information management, and population control at home, posing a far greater threat to Americans’ liberties than any conceivable foreign foe.

Snowden’s view of the basic issue is [5] that “I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship,is recorded. That’s not something I’m willing to live under.”

From Lincoln to Wilson to Nixon, and on to the special example of Obama, the Chief Executive has amassed a frightening amount of unaccountable, arbitrary power. The Neocon-Leftist alliance that now defines what’s permissible to say and think is firmly behind protecting and expanding that power. How much tyranny can we endure? I don’t know how much people can tolerate. One thing’s for sure, though: Sooner or later, something’s gotta give. The current hysteria from the ruling elite and its defenders in reaction to dissent rises from their realization that their rotten system is crumbling.

Know hope.

A stab into the heart of darkness

Liz Cheney’s announcement she’s challenging Sen. Mike Enzi for his Wyoming U.S. Senate seat in the GOP may well be, as Dan Larison “the most pointless intra-party primary campaign ever” on one level. But reading her announcement statement, one sees the clues as to why should try to unseat a popular politician in a state she hasn’t lived in a long time. The words “youth” and “foreign policy” crop up and then you realize what this is about. The neocons/interventionists aren’t getting any younger. New blood is needed, especially in elected positions. Remember, the GOP has only held the Executive Branch for eight out of the past 20 years and most of the people who served in the Bush II Administration were largely long-time foreign policy vets whose young days were the 1970s on Scoop Jackson’s staff. Liz Cheney is one of the few youngsters of this group and she feels her time to exercise here right to power is now, especially when long-term Republicans hopes of capturing the White House again aren’t very strong.

Oh, and who will be funding this little venture? Take a good guess:

Another Republican with extensive ties to the fundraising world predicted that Cheney would collect strong support from national security conservatives, including the influential world of pro-Israel donors.

“She will create a lot of excitement and raise a lot of money among those folks in the pro-Israel community that she and her father have gotten to know over the years,” the Republican said. “We have not seen somebody run as a strong foreign policy platform-based candidate in quite some time. So much of the discussion in the last several cycles has been about domestic issues.”

Indeed, another politician in Sheldon Adelson’s and Foster Freiss’s back pocket. That’s exactly what we need.

To these folks, Enzi is just a speed bump to get what they want. Luckily however it doesn’t take a lot of money to run for Senate in Wyoming and Enzi already has the advantage of incumbency. People in Wyoming already know him. Liz Cheney is going to need all that neocon money just to introduce herself even if she is Dick Cheney’s daughter. Hopefully Wyoming natives won’t cotton to some Jackson Hole millionare carpetbagger and her rich friends theiving their greed. Even if you don’t agree with Enzi on the every question, beating her will an important stab into the heart of darkness that is Cheney family and hopefully end their dark reign over the party and conservatism itself. Indeed, if I was Rand Paul, I’d be Mike Enzi biggest supporter right now. Anything to defeat the daughter of a war criminal, well he has my support.

Now, how do I set up a Pay Pal for Mike Enzi.

More Jack Hunter Thoughts and Reactions

Here is an article at VDARE on the Jack Hunter smear campaign. It’s good because it links to a lot of the sites that picked up the story, but the author, Alexander Hart, pretty much throws Hunter under the bus on account of Rand’s backtracking on the immigration issue.

Here is Hunter’s own statement. It’s pretty much a disaster. Hunter goes into full backpedal and placate mode. This is highly unfortunate. First, the PC Beast can not be placated. Just ask Jason Richwine. Just ask Paula Deen. The PC Beast must be resisted head on. Second, whenever you say some version of “I’m not a racist” you have already lost because you have conceded the other sides terms. Third, as I wrote yesterday, nothing in these revelations is really that damaging. Some of it is rather mundane. Just explain yourself forcefully without backpedalling or dodging.

That said, I do not think that now is the time to attack Jack for backpedalling. Here is what I posted on Facebook:

I am disappointed that Jack Hunter has chosen to backtrack and concede to the PC Rightthink Police rather than fight back, but that said, now is not the time for anti-PC forces to attack Jack. Now is the time for us to attack the PC Beast that is attacking him. We can attempt to drag Jack back to paleodom after we have countered the PC Cultural Marxists Gestapo.
I felt the need to say that because some folks have gone after Jack pretty hard for his backpedalling.
 
 
and Michael Hill (via Hunter Wallace)
 
I’ll explain why I think overly attacking Jack Hunter (as opposed to expressing disappointment), is unhelpful at this point in a separate post.

The PC Thought Police Go After Jack Hunter (a.k.a. the Southern Avenger)

The Cultural Marxist PC Thought Police are frothing at the mouth again. They’ve identified a new thoughtcriminal for their Two Minutes Hate, Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger.

Here is the Washington Free Beacon fatwa … err … article that got the jihad started. When I first heard rumblings that the PC Gestapo was going after Jack, I suspected the author might be the loathsome PC enforcer Jamie Kirchick, but it wasn’t. It’s some writer I’ve never heard of named Alana Goodman. Here is Goodman’s bio per the Free Beacon:

Alana Goodman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary (neocon alert!). She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Goodman graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2010, and lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is goodman@freebeacon.com.

Jonathan Chait picked up on the story here. Chait isn’t someone I normally associate with this type of PC Thought Enforcement campaign (I could be wrong), but this drive by smear job is inexcusable. He says this:

But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman.

A “huge racist?” Actually Chait, Goodman isn’t even shameless enough to say that in so many words even though her “article” is a transparent PC/neocon rightthink enforcement hitpiece. (I say neocon in addition to PC because she heavily focuses on foreign policy and highlights among other things his belief that the nuking of Japanese civilians was unjustified.)

Salon piles on here.

What’s noteworthy about the Goodman piece is just how lame the allegations are. Anyone who has followed Jack’s career at all knows that he is pro-South and supports the right of secession. As Dave Weigle points out in a semi-snarky pile on of his own, this is not news, but the PC Rightthink Enforcers thinks this is a scandalous revelation. Beyond that she presents a laundry list of statements and policy positions that are supposed to scandalize all decent rightthinkers. I could defend each of Hunter’s statements individually, but I don’t have time for that now. In general, taken together the quotes and positions place Hunter in an identifiable paleocon/paleolibertarian sphere, but there is nothing here that is not routine opinion in those circles and each individual opinion can be found in mainstream conservatism as well.

Looked at as objectively as I can as an interested co-combatant, the thing that might be most shocking to the ears that the Rightthink Enforcers are aiming to prick is his use of the word terrorism to describe the nuking of Japanese civilians and his comparison of that act to 9/11. (FTR, I don’t think terrorism is the right word to describe our use of nukes against the Japanese civilian population. It is needlessly inflamatory and isn’t really an accurate word choice. It is more accurate to describe it as a war crime, but that is for a separate thread.) Beyond that Hunter is accused of saying that there is a double standard against whites. Other races can celebrate their race but whites can’t celebrate theirs. Well no duh! This is a thoroughly mundane and unarguable observation. He’s also acused of saying our foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by Israel. Is there anyone who seriously denies this? In fact, the interventionist at the Free Beacon celebrate this as right and good. He is excoriated for suggesting that immigration alters the culture. Again, no duh! Does anyone seriously deny this? In fact, immigration boosters celebrate the fact that immigration brings about change in the culture. You know, that whole “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unfortunately, Jack concedes too much in what was I’m sure a damage control interview with the Free Beacon. Those of us who have followed Hunter’s career for a while have recognized that he has become more politically pragmatic over the years, thus his defense of some of Rand Paul’s misguided concessions. But I have always hoped that that old self-described “right-wing radical” still lurked beneath the surface. But this is not the time to criticize Hunter. Now is the time to defend him against the baying PC Rightthink mob. They’ll be time for dragging him fully back into the fold once the PC Enforcers have been called out for their rightthink policing shenanigans.

You love Lincoln, don’t you?

You’d better – or Rich Lowry will tell everyone how “foul” and “rancid” you are. Those are the adjectives Lowry tosses at Thomas DiLorenzo for unmasking the crimes and treason of the 16th president. And Lowry makes it clear he considers anyone who has read DiLorenzo and questions the Lincoln Myth is part of a “small but foul pro-Confederacy strain on the right.”

Reading Lowry’s article, one can just smell the fear emanating from Lowry, a pundit who’s notorious for his tendency to run away from a fight while goading others to fight for him. Cowards often compensate by talking tough, and Lowry not only supported the invasion of Iraq, but the nuclear bombing of Mecca since the 9/11 conspirators were all Muslim. I can just see Richie Rich giggling in anticipation of thousands of innocent lives being snuffed out in the name of American Power.

I suspect what’s got Lowry so worked up is the steady progress folks like DiLorenzo have made in exposing Lincoln and the regime he founded. The ever-prescient Ed Sebesta hits the bull’s eye in his blog post when he says

What is interesting is that Lowry decided that this article needed writing. The anti-Lincoln campaign of the neo-Confederates has been going on for some time. I think this might be a sign that the anti-Lincoln campaign is going somewhere and the leadership of conservatism in America is beginning to get concerned.

Amen, Brother Sebesta! The concern is real because Lowry knows that exposing Lincoln exposes the Empire. The Lincoln Myth of the Great Liberator is the founding myth of the rogue global empire headquartered in DC today. That myth justifies the ruling elite’s power and privilege in the name of spreading freedom and democracy, terms we heard ad nauseum in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Lincoln’s role as the founder and model of today’s authoritarian American Empire isn’t just my idea. Here’s what Lowry himself wrote recently in an article entitled, “Lincoln Can Teach Us Today“:

The National Security Agency telephone and Internet surveillance program is similar to Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War act of suspending habeas corpus, National Review editor Rich Lowry tells Newsmax.

“When he did it initially, any reasonable person would think it was an appropriate measure because troops were coming down from the North at the beginning of the war when Washington was isolated and not protected, and they were stopped in Baltimore by mobs.”

However, many in Lincoln’s day believed the suspension went too far when it became almost a matter of routine, Lowry said.

The Empire’s War on Freedom

As outrage grows at the news that the Obama regime has expanded citizen surveillance beyond even George W. Bush’s wildest dreams, the Empire’s toadies are doing their best to quell the rebellion.

Naturally, Max Boot, the toadiest of them all, is trying to assure the peasants that yes, it’s true your government is spying on you, but hey, it’s a good thing. Is it legal? You betcha – the USA Patriot Act, he writes, gives the government sweeping authority to snoop on anyone it deems suspicious. That settles that!

Is there anything we should be angry about here? There sure is, says Boot: “The only outrage here is that the Guardian has disclosed such a highly classified program.”

That’s because REAL AMERICANS – you know, the ones that spit bile whenever the government decrees an official Two Minute Hate – should demand the firing squad for anyone who reveals embarrassing truths about their government. If that’s not patriotism, then what is? And who better to instruct Americans about the true meaning of patriotism than a Russian immigrant who openly endorses American Empire?

The Evil of Humanitarian Interventionism (at home AND abroad!)

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has a new article that nicely rips up the pro-war talking point that says the US must invade other countries to stop dictators from killing innocent people. That argument overlooks the obvious fact that the “liberating” forces will necessarily take out even more innocent folks to get to the dictator.

So far, so good. But then Hornberger tosses in a jarring speed bump:

“Under what authority did FDR refuse German Jews’ entry into the United States? By this time, the United States had abandoned the concept of open immigration on which our country was founded…”

Mr. Hornberger and I have corresponded before about the desirability of open borders, and I do not intend to re-open that debate. But the passage he wrote above is simply wrong.

The Founders did not intend to create a multicultural proposition nation. Instead, they sought to protect and preserve their traditional English rights.

The Founders viewed themselves as the inheritors of traditional British institutions, which they intended to keep. That’s why, rather than allowing any and all into their communities, the Founders restricted immigration. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalized citizenship to “free white persons” of “good moral character.”

That act, by the way, was the first order of business of the new Congress. So to assert the US was founded on open immigration is a factual error.

I admire Hornberger’s anti-imperial articles, and agree with most of what he writes. But it’s a puzzle how such an obviously intelligent man does not wonder why the evil regime in DC should be supported in its efforts to impose demographic revolution at home. DC’s “liberation” projects abroad dovetail with its “liberation” projects at home – both are intended to boost the power of the central government and its cronies. Just think – after all these wars of liberation and all the civil rights mandates, are we any more secure, or more free? No – but DC is clearly in control of more of our property and lives.

That’s why we should judge government by its deeds, rather than by its press releases.

Quote of the day

“I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America, that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni, or the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of fundamentalist regime.” Bill Kristol, arguing that Jeffersonian democracy would prevail in Iraq after the US overthrew its former flunky, Saddam Hussein.

Neanwhile,here in the real world, sectarian bloodshed is escalating in Iraq now that US forces have withdrawn. The majority Shia, now in power, have ruled with a heavy hand, precipitating a Sunni backlash that has many fearing that civil war in inevitable.

Neocons Heart Chechnya

American Committee for Peace in Chechnya was founded in 2004–it’s gone now– by the usual suspects, Right and Left–Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen–we have done this drill so often it gets boring, that same old cast of those who contrived a case for Republicans to support invading Iraq, as Saddam done 9/11 dontchaknow?

At the time, the Guardian’s John Laughland noted that the war on terror stopped in Chechnya for this crowd of the usual suspects.  The purpose, as always, was to use a force to destabilize Russia, just as they had used radical Islamists in Afghanistan against the then Soviet Russia many years prior.

It goes hand in hand with CIA or Pentagon intervention abroad, that the United States receives a boat load of refugees from said country, be it Hmong, Somalian, Iraqi, or…Chechnya.

There are certainly more angles to pursue, especially, on-going, bipartisan support (e.g. Obama/Clinton/Kerry, McCain, Graham, Rubio) from the usual suspects, to work with jihadists in Syria (including those from Chechnya as reported March 6).

Lone-wolf street theater, or some actor in the Black Arts will be the subject of speculation for the while, but  in the coming days of analysis, let it sink in that the members of the ACPC will sleep uninterrupted tonight.

For additional reading: Sibel Edmonds on the Neocons & Chechnya.

 

“Neocon” is now a synonym for “Delusional”

Check out this bizarre post from American Power entitled “Just and Noble War in Iraq”:

It’s the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq war and the left is using this as a chance to (hypocritically) delegitimize the use of force in national security policy. … Iraq was popular at the beginning, but Americans rejected the prolonged deployment. … The Democrats: the party of defeat and treason.


As astounding that anyone could defend the Bush regime’s rush to war in Iraq, it’s just stupefying that the war could be praised as a project “conservatives” must defend against “leftists.” So I had to drop a comment:

Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, including the Clintons, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman.

The reason the majority of Americans turned against the war was because they eventually realized the Bush regime had LIED about WMD and Iraq’s ties to 9/11.

The blog author responded with this incredible assertion: “Bush didn’t lie. It’s a lie to say he lied.”

Now let me get this straight: I’m lying when I say Bush lied? In fact, we now know that both British and American intelligence knew before the war “that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.”

The head of Britain’s spy service at the time, Richard Dearlove, has admitted, “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

The reason Americans initially supported the Iraq War was because they had been led to believe Saddam had assisted the 9/11 terrorists. A congressional investigation identified “237 misleading statements” about Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell.

Were Bush regime officials lying, or were they merely mistaken? In 2002, Dick Cheney made this assertion: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

A claim to certain knowledge can be verified or disproven by subsequent events. I’d say that what’s transpired between the run-up to the war and now has thoroughly disproven the Bush regime’s statements.

Maybe you don’t think this affects you. “So what if a million Iraqis died, and three million lost their homes? Why do I care?” For one thing, we’re going to suffer for this colossal blunder for decades. Some of the direct results of the Neocon Wars include the Department of Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act, surveillance drones, and indefinite detention.

Then there’s the expanded Muslim influence here at home directly attributable to the Iraq War. Some 62,000 Iraqis have settled in the US since the war. The town of El Cajon, California, is now called “Little Baghdad” because of the 20,000 Iraqis who now live there. Have these Iraqis assimilated? Check it out:

Stores sell pickled turnips and cucumbers. Restaurants sell kebobs and Halal meat. … There are Kurds from the country’s northern region, Sunnis from central areas, and Shiite from the south. There are Chaldean Christians as well.

Is this good for Americans? Think the old rivalries between those groups will continue? Who knows?

And who cares?