TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Neocons: Going Back Where They Came From
Neocons: Going Back Where They Came From
FFS, just let these guys form their own little party.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2371
| quote: |
Going Back Where They Came From by Patrick J. Buchanan "If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William Kristol has told the New York Times. The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neo-liberalism. Alluding to his father Irving's definition of a neoconservative as a liberal who has been mugged by reality, Kristol describes a neoliberal as a "neoconservative who has been mugged by reality in Iraq." Ranking his political preferences, Kristol added, "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan....If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives." Yes, it does. But as John Kerry backs partial birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy, how can Kristol prefer him to other conservatives? Answer: War and Israel. Like Kristol, Kerry wants more U.S. troops sent to Iraq where they can advance the neocons' project for empire. And at a fund-raiser in Juno Beach, Fla., Kerry declared eternal fealty to Israel: "I have a 100 percent record � not a 99, a 100 percent record � of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel." Kristol's warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second, and third, conservative principles be damned. The day after Kristol said he preferred Kerry to conservatives skeptical of committing more troops to Iraq, this item appeared in The Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Kristol thinks Mr. Bush should use the revelations [from the Woodward book] to shake up his war cabinet by firing Mr. Powell...along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has pushed for smaller deployments of U.S. forces than some critics, including Mr. Kristol, think wise." Set aside the suicidal folly of Bush dynamiting his war cabinet in an election year by firing its most famous members, and consider the ingratitude, the ruthlessness, and the cynicism on display here. When it was launched in 1995, The Weekly Standard called on Colin Powell to run for president and offered its endorsement. Purpose: Hook up with the most popular man in the GOP who could restore the neocons and Kristols to preeminence and power. Powell rebuffed the offer. Ever since, he has been a target of abuse for having repelled the boarding party. As for Rumsfeld, he has been a hero of neoconservatives for two decades. He co-signed the neocons' 1998 open letter to Clinton urging war on Iraq. He brought Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith into his Pentagon in the No. 2 and 3 slots. He put Perle in charge of the Defense Review Board. After 9/11, according to Richard Clarke, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were making the case for attacking Iraq immediately, even before Bush had ousted the Taliban enablers of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Agree or disagree with the defense secretary, Rumsfeld has been a lion in the neocon cause. To see the Weekly Standard snake on him like this brings to mind that wretched crowd in Yankee Stadium that took to booing Joe Dimaggio at the end of his career. With Iraq turning into the Mesopotamian morass some of us warned it would become, the neo-Jacobins have decided they are not going to be the ones to ride the tumbrels. In times like this character comes through. By turning on the men they persuaded to go to war, by fabricating alibis and inventing excuses to absolve themselves of culpability for what they labored to create, they have revealed themselves for what they are: hustlers and opportunists devoid of principle, driven by an ideology of power and a passionate attachment to a nation not their own. The Old Right curmudgeons who warned us against giving these vagabonds food, shelter and a warm place by the fire were right. We should have put them back out on the street. President Bush should have listened to his father who kept the neocons at some remove, and he had best beware, because they have a major card yet to play. That card is escalation. With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, the neocon agenda is to widen the war into Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, and convert it into "World War IV," the war of their dreams, a war of civilizations, an Armageddon, with America and Israel on one side and Islam on the other. Exiting Iraq with honor and avoiding the wider war for which the neocons are even now scheming is the first duty of patriots. COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. |
They won't form their own party because if they did they'd never win anything.
Re: Neocons: Going Back Where They Came From
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ FFS, just let these guys form their own little party. Kerry, it seems, is more of a hawk than he is portrayed by the Bushistas. I will support him to save the Supreme Court from the Fundies and for the environment, but I hope he doesn't take us down the same road that Bush has started. Lieberman, Edwards, Bayh, and other Democrats are also hawkish. |
In all seriousness, if you were looking for a non-Hawkish democrat, then why didn't you jump on the Kucinich or Dean bandwagon from day one? He's (Kucinich) the only true liberal in the Democratic race - which, come to think of it, probably makes him unelectable in the current US political climate. 
honestly as a self proclaimed neoconservative I think this is dribble. Its simply old-conservative slander to disenfranchise people from the neo viewpoint.
Neoconservative have not abandoned Iraq (I think everyone else has, or is trying to though ). They are and have stood firm on the issue for the past 15 or more years.
Yes, neo-conservatives are liberal at heart, this might be the reason that Kristol favors Kerry over Buchanan, not because he believes Israel is before all else
Pat Buchanan just got too emotional in this peice and seems to be talking out of his ass and only slander, I'm suprised that any newspaper actually published this worthless piece - oh wait they didn't.
Not gonna happen.
The political Chinese checkers board is way to F**ked up right now.
Buchanan is steadfast, but will succomb to the evolution of the species.
...and Kerry ain't it. The man is a political Frankenstein.
Buchanan is right about that.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo Not gonna happen. The political Chinese checkers board is way to F**ked up right now. Buchanan is steadfast, but will succomb to the evolution of the species. ...and Kerry ain't it. The man is a political Frankenstein. Buchanan is right about that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Here's my prediction why Kerry won't win: His wife. You can't have a man who choses the lead the USA and his wife is the stronger one in the pair. The partner always has to be the weaker party of the pair or else people are going to sense it and not vote him in. Presidents need to portray conflict, and getting bitch-slapped by Ms. Heinz is no way to do that |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hillary Clinton anyone? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Here's my prediction why Kerry won't win: His wife. You can't have a man who choses the lead the USA and his wife is the stronger one in the pair. The partner always has to be the weaker party of the pair or else people are going to sense it and not vote him in. Presidents need to portray conflict, and getting bitch-slapped by Ms. Heinz is no way to do that |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by arctic Are you serious? Come on, I've heard a lot of bizarre 'why Kerry wont win!' theories floating around - but this takes the cake. Maybe American politics is so far removed from Australian politics so as to make me utterly out of touch - but do people actually give a shit about a candidates wife? I mean, are people seriously less likely to vote for someone because their wife has strong opinions? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by arctic Are you serious? Come on, I've heard a lot of bizarre 'why Kerry wont win!' theories floating around - but this takes the cake. Maybe American politics is so far removed from Australian politics so as to make me utterly out of touch - but do people actually give a shit about a candidates wife? I mean, are people seriously less likely to vote for someone because their wife has strong opinions? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter They won't form their own party because if they did they'd never win anything. |
| quote: |
It's beyond me why so many American Rightists stubbornly stand behind Neoconservatives when there are so many genuinely American and genuinely Conservative alternatives in the GOP. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by arctic Methinks we have a closet Kucinich supporter on our hands. In all seriousness, if you were looking for a non-Hawkish democrat, then why didn't you jump on the Kucinich or Dean bandwagon from day one? He's (Kucinich) the only true liberal in the Democratic race - which, come to think of it, probably makes him unelectable in the current US political climate. That being said, I still hold out some hope for Kerry, as he himself has been to war, and knows what it's actually like to be involved in one. An experience like that would certainly make me think twice before getting involved in another conflict. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus No, its not a serious theory. But a nice observation I think. |
I was worried that we'd lost you to the conspiracy theorist camp for awhile there.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Here's my prediction why Kerry won't win: His wife. |
| quote: |
49% Prefer Bush Leadership for War on Terror Lowest level of preference for Bush in 2004. |
| quote: |
Bush must start appealing to the estrogen vote http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | The presidential race seems to have settled into a stalemate as George W. Bush's negative ads were blunted by the daily reports of American combat deaths in Iraq. While Iraq exploded, voters stopped focusing on whether Sen. John Kerry was too liberal and their attention was riveted on Bush's quagmire in Iraq. It's likely that Kerry (D-Mass.) has now acquired a measure of immunity to the Bush attacks, and the president has lost the early opportunity to define Kerry before the Democrat can acquire a hold on half of the nation's voters. He has to break the tie that most daily tracking polls indicate. Undecided voters always vote against the incumbent, and downscale Democrats come home to their party as Election Day approaches. The 45-45 tie that Rasmussen reports in his polling will probably translate into a seven- or eight-point Kerry win if Bush can't change the numbers before Election Day. A comparison of the final tracking polls with the actual results in the presidential elections of 1964, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992 and 1996 � races in which an incumbent president was seeking re-election � shows that more than 85 percent of the undecided voters eventually went to the challenger � even when it was hopeless types like Sens. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) and George McGovern (D-S.D.). Key to the president's problems is his inability to explain his strategy in the war on terror to women voters. Terrorism is Bush's key issue. It is over this question that he must win re-election. But he has only made his case to men and has left women alienated and unenthusiastic about his policies. His rhetoric, on display in last week's press conference, is entirely too male-oriented, with its macho toughness and militaristic pledge to honor the "cause of the fallen." That's no way to get women voters. The two key themes that characterize female views of the war on terror are domestic safety and the need for international cooperation. Rasmussen reports that while men say they feel safer after Sept. 11 by 15 points (51-36), women do not feel safer (41-42). Asked whether they would give priority to "letting terrorists know we will fight back aggressively" or to "working with other nations," men want to fight by 53-41 while women seek cooperation as their priority by 54-36 � a gender gap of 30 points! But much of Bush's problem is linguistic. He needs to develop a war-on-terror equivalent of his highly successful 2000 rhetoric about being a compassionate conservative committed to leaving no child behind. Women are a lot less interested in forcing democracy on Iraq than they are in preventing suffering there and promoting safety here. While National Security Council apparatchiks want him to speak of American credibility, and the military will press for stand-firm posturing, women want to know how this war will make their families at home safer. They want to hear about values and human stories. Bush needs to go back to the evils of Saddam Hussein and explain what this war is all about and needs to summon the memories of Sept. 11 to prove its importance. Bush's Texan delivery won't cut it. He's got to go deeper into the human logic of the war on terror and make people feel the ultimate stakes in preventing human misery and suffering. Unlike Clinton, Bush is not a president who lets polls determine his policy. But he should, at the very least, let them influence his presentation, style and language. His handlers need to bring in good speech coaches who can teach him the words and inflections he needs to sell the war on terror to women. Unless he can do so, he will find his efforts to break the stalemate into which this election has settled obstructed by the barriers of ethnicity and gender. There are not enough white men to re-elect Bush and keep him from suffering the fate of his father. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa On the other hand, the Neoconservative group started decades ago as Trotskyists and other such radical Left-wingers. Then they became Democrats. Then they became half-hearted Conservatives. Then they became unpartisan Bureaucrats, who are now pursuing affeminate internationalism and anti-racism (i.e. pro-do-good-interventionism and pro-immigration) and simultaneously playing lame thought police with some racistic overtones (against European nationalists and Muslims). It's beyond me why so many American Rightists stubbornly stand behind Neoconservatives when there are so many genuinely American and genuinely Conservative alternatives in the GOP. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.