“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?

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

17 thoughts on ““Neocon” is now a synonym for “Delusional”

  1. C Bowen

    Team B, wrong on all assessments of the Soviet “threat”, suggested that the Soviets had developed a particle beam weapon (a laser weapon.)

    I guess we should appreciate that they were a little less hysterical when the same actors went to work making Iraq out to be a threat.

  2. Sempronius

    “Think the old rivalries between those groups will continue?”

    Let’s hope so. What you should be worried about is a collective Iraqi thirst for vengeance.

    Illo die hostem Romanorum esse periturum.

    “Apparently one of the key aspects of being a Republican is never remembering what happened last time.”

    On the contrary, they remember quite well.They remember that nothing bad happened to them (personally) and they correctly expect that to continue, regardless of what happens to the rest of us.

    P.S. What a sad sad spectacle Chronicles Magazine has become lately.

  3. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Sempronius said, “On the contrary, they remember quite well.They remember that nothing bad happened to them (personally) and they correctly expect that to continue, regardless of what happens to the rest of us.”

    Ouch. Point taken. No impeachment, no war criminal trials.

    I haven’t visited Chronicles in some time. Can you point out a particular article as an example?

  4. RedPhillips

    “P.S. What a sad sad spectacle Chronicles Magazine has become lately.”

    Semp, I have noticed that the frequency of articles has decreased recently, but other than that please elaborate.

  5. IanH

    I love Chronicles Magazine, but it’s rapidly becoming a wasteland. Professor Fleming hardly writes anything anymore, and besides Dr. Trifkovic everyone else is MIA.

  6. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Ha! At his pro-war, any-war site, Americaneocon says of this post: “Plus, more lies right here, at the faux Conservative Heritage Times.”

    We must’ve hit a nerve.

  7. Sempronius

    HB, Red,

    Sergio’s latest uninformed rant against the EU marks a new low both for him and the site.

    Prior to it’s appearance, commenting on a different article, a reader called the EU “satanic”.

    This is fanaticism pure and simple.

    Couple that with Terrible Thomas’ ludicrous assertion that the “Wild West” was the recrudescence of Western man’s noblest anarchic instincts and the fanaticism -not to mention the foolishness- begins to run riot.

    I used to think better of TT. I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that he’s a mediocrity; and I’m even beginning to question his and some of his collaborators’ probity.

  8. Sempronius

    Correction. That should read “celebration”(of) in place of “assertion” (that) up above.

  9. Matt Weber

    Chronicles is by far the best conservative site. I was sad that they dropped the radio show though. The website doesn’t get much love because it makes no money.

    In other news, we finally discovered what is wrong with TAC: Scott McConnell, who contrary to popular “Buchanan’s Magazine” myth has actually been pulling the strings the whole time. Buchanan was never very involved with the project.

  10. Cargosquid


    That’s the source?


    20/20 hindsight is alive and well.
    Because ONE source says one thing and another source says another…its easy to decide who is right? Let’s see, would the Iraqi intel chief, facing invasion due to WMD claims, say anything else?

    Yet another typical anti-war screed from anti-war.com is supposed to be the “smoking gun” that Bush lied?

    Fact: WMD existed in Iraq
    Fact: Nuclear weapons program ready to go as soon as sanctions were lifted
    Fact: We expected to be hit with WMD.
    Fact: The CIA is not all knowing. See 20/20 hindsight.
    Fact: The anti-war side is still trying to beat a dead horse.

  11. RedPhillips

    Cargosquid, while I believe the Administration deliberately lied, ultimately it doesn’t matter as far as justification for the war. Even if we knew with 100% certainty that Iraq had WMDs, it still would not have been a justification for war. Attacking a country because they have weapons they might use is clearly an example of preventive war and preventive war is not legit under Christian Just War Doctrine. We knew the USSR had WMDs, and yet we did not attack them. We know Pakistan does, and we don’t attack them. There are no screeds here. We simply advocate for the authentically conservative position of non-intervention.

  12. HarrisonBergeron2 Post author

    Fact: Cargosquid just validated the title of this post.

    As C Bowen pointed out: You were afraid of Iraq?

    Man up, girly-boy, and stop being afraid of everything your government tells you to fear. You don’t want your friends to call you Donald Douglas, do you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>