tagged w/ Neocons
-
"'Mitt Romney will restore our military, repair relations with our closest allies and ensure that no adversary--including Iran--ever questions American resolve,' [John] Bolton said when endorsing Romney. 'John's wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy,' Romney responded.""'Mitt Romney will restore our military, repair relations with our closest... more
-
-
Cabal
-
added this
-
20 days ago
- |
-
There has been a propaganda video titled “AGENDA, Grinding America Down” that the Tea Party has been using all over the nation to spread falsehoods and fear about President Barack Obama, and the liberal voice of progress and change. This video is telling people that the progress made since the 1960′s is a bad thing, and that we are falling further and further away from what it means to be a decent American and live by the “morals” that we are supposedly meant to follow. It seems that all the progress made regarding equality for women, people of color, LGBT individuals, people of varying faiths, etc. goes against the best intention for the United States.There has been a propaganda video titled “AGENDA, Grinding America Down”... more
-
-
Chicken Hawks are at it again. Syria, unlike Libya, has no organized opposition. Further, although the Arab League has condemned Bashir Assad's regime and called for him to step down, they have not asked for help like they did in Libya. Further, Libya was an isolated country, with no outside assistance or influences. This is not the case with Syria.
The Chicken Hawks should understand that they are also the ones that got us into Iraq unnecessarily, and they were the ones that wanted to go into Libya until Obama decided to provide assistance at the behest of the Arab League.
Unfortunately, this situation needs to play out further before we get involved, just like Libya. The Arabs must do more for themselves, before we unilaterally start sending weapons without an plan of how to disengage. They just want to keep the military/industrial complex funded.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/19/mccain-graham-arm-syria-rebels_n_1288032.html#comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world/middleeast/mccain-and-graham-suggest-helping-syrian-rebels.html?_r=1Chicken Hawks are at it again. Syria, unlike Libya, has no organized opposition.... more
-
-
kvb1
-
added this
-
3 months ago
- |
-
Lots of mainstream media outlets are using an unsubstanciated claim from a former Ron Paul staffer who hates Muslims and believes in Sharia Law conspiracy theories.
***
Shout it from the mountaintops!
Eric Dondero, the former Ron Paul aid who has been calling the Texas Congressman and Presidential candidate everything from a racist (at least he’s implied that he is) to a lunatic is—in fact—a racist and a lunatic!
In a January 3 posting on Loonwatch, a blogger who goes by the name of Danios writes, “Indeed, Dondero is a rabid Islamophobe and Sharia conspiracy theory nut. He runs a blog LibertarianRepublican, which is replete with anti-Muslim postings.”
Here are a few of Dondero’s posts: (expletives modified by me)
•NO YOU STUPID F***ING A**HOLE. MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS ARE THE PROBLEM.
•Are you an American or some f***ing Communist/Fascist piece of s**t sent to destroy us from within?
•Why do you defend the very people who KILLED 3,000 AMERICANS AND CHEERED ALL ACROSS THE MUSLIM WORLD AS IT HAPPENED?
Danios writes, “In the same thread, he argues to deport Muslims as “his solution” to “the problem.””
Here’s a couple more jems:
•Call me a dickhead if you wish. But I’m a DICKHEAD FOR LIBERTY.
•This is about an alien culture, coming into our AMERICA AND WESTERN EUROPE and invading us from within.Dondero is also quoted in a December 21, 2011 article for Philadelphia Weekly. He’s upset that some Jewish leaders have sided with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to decry a Pennsylvania bill prohibiting “the application of foreign law which would impair constitutional rights.”Lots of mainstream media outlets are using an unsubstanciated claim from a former Ron... more
-
-
The same neocon hawks who lied us into Iraq are using the ultimate argument-stopper to push war with Iran
We’ve been through this before. As one of the most disastrous wars in our history is coming to an inglorious end, the same neoconservative hawks who dreamed it up are agitating for a new war that would make Iraq look like the invasion of Grenada — and using the ultimate trump card in American politics to silence debate over it.
o listen to the neocons and hawks, you’d think Hitler was about to send the tanks over the Polish border. Former U.S. ambassador and Dr. Strangelove impersonator John Bolton said, “The only alternative now is the potential for a pre-emptive military strike against their military program, either by the United States or Israel. Diplomacy has failed. Sanctions have failed.” For Bolton, Iran is the second coming of Nazi Germany: “If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you’re at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point … We’re still in 1936, but not for long.”
The Holocaust mind-set
But the most nakedly coercive use of the Holocaust was made by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (whose trustworthiness in foreign policy matters can be judged by the fact that he criticized the Bush State Department for not cooking its intelligence to support the Iraq war). “I don’t think the United States has the moral right to say to a country whose people who have already gone through one Holocaust – two nuclear weapons is another Holocaust,” said in 2006. “And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.” In language virtually identical to Goldberg’s, Netanyahu said that while the Iranian president “denies the Holocaust, he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.”
“We will always remember what the Nazi Amalek did to us,” Netanyahu said at a 2010 Holocaust remembrance service at Auschwitz, “and we won’t forget to be prepared for the new Amalek, who is making an appearance on the stage of history and once again threatening to destroy the Jews.”The same neocon hawks who lied us into Iraq are using the ultimate argument-stopper to... more
-
-
Herman Cain has stumbled into a number of foreign policy gaffes. But in a Meet The Press interview with David Gregory, Cain found himself revealing that his foreign policy vision is largely formed by neoconservatives while claiming that he was “not familiar” with the neoconservative movement. The exchange read:
DAVID GREGORY: What about foreign policy advisers? Who has shaped your view on the U.S. in the world and foreign policy?
HERMAN CAIN: I’ve looked at the writings of people like Ambassador John Bolton. I’ve looked at the writings of Dr. Henry Kissinger, “KT” McFarland, someone who I respect.
GREGORY: Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?
CAIN: I’m not sure what you mean by neoconservative. I’m a conservative, yes. Neoconservative, labels sometimes put you in a box. I’m very conservative.
GREGORY: But you’re familiar with the neoconservative movement?
CAIN: I’m not familiar with the neoconservative movement. I’m familiar with the conservative movement and let me define what I mean by the conservative movement.
While Cain may choose not to identify with neoconservativism, two out of the three individuals listed by Cain as shaping his foreign policy views are closely tied to the neoconservative movement.
One was John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who briefly served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration. Bolton promotes many neoconservative policy positions, and served on the board of directors for Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative pressure group which openly pushed for war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq since 1998.
Another foreign affairs inspiration was Kathleen Troia ‘KT’ McFarland, who worked in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations and now serves on the advisory board of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. She writes a weekly column for Family Security Matters, a project launched by Islamophobe Frank Gaffney’s think tank....
continued at;
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/10/16/345119/herman-cain-im-not-familiar-with-the-neoconservative-movement/Herman Cain has stumbled into a number of foreign policy gaffes. But in a Meet The... more
-
-
Dagum
-
added this
-
7 months ago
- |
-
OK, EmoProgs! You know who you are! FLAME ON! We of the "grownup" world will work WITH our President and try to give him a congress that DOESN'T want to destroy America. You do what you do, however harmful it may be.
http://www.billschmalfeldt.com/?p=25699OK, EmoProgs! You know who you are! FLAME ON! We of the "grownup" world... more
-
-
Today's 2 common fucking cents May 31
1 Mutilating unborn children with massive birth defects and heavy metal poisoning indiscriminately with depleted uranium is horrible, immoral and fucking psychotic. So stop using it, US, Israel, NATO.
2 There is no chosen race of god. Thus there is no chosen land for a race. Thus people saying otherwise are a "race" of bigots, liars, and idiots.
3 Senator Harry Reid should be impeached for Treason. (can I get an amen)
4 Dear congress, Netanyahu is not an American. And AIPAC is a FOREIGN agent with foreign interest and should be registered as such. Watching our government stand and clap for a terrorist is sickening.
5 Stuxnet was made in the USI with the purpose of causing a nuclear accident in Iran. As a result all plants with German made equipment for PLCs are in trouble including in Japan. Sure Japan's plants were not A-grade anyway but if the IAEA had been doing its actual job instead of re-inspecting Iran's non-nuclear plant they might have noticed this.
6 We did NOT go in to Libya for "Humanitarian" concerns.Today's 2 common fucking cents May 31
1 Mutilating unborn children with... more
-
-
Statism is the common thread that links all totalitarian regimes. Most living souls do not believe that the Soviet, Lenin and Stalin gulag, is possible today. A diluted revulsion level of atrocities is characteristic of the media script of current events. Disconnect between what really happens and what is reported is so dramatic that reality is unknown to most people.
The term NeoCon, commonly used as a synonym for neoconservative begs the real issue. There is nothing conservative about a top down authoritarian central government. Originally, refugees from the liberal Marxist strain, the former Bush NeoCon cronies applied their perverted viewpoint to discredit the meaning of real conservatism. Now you have the Obama LibCons outdoing their statist cousins to advance the War Party outreach intervention, well beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
Playing the political party label game never alters the fundamental foreign policy designed to use American youth as cannon fodder for the actual masters of the global hegemony. Under Obama and slated with designed regime change, were the countries of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Pakistan and Syria are next. Even the stern warning from China not to intervene or violate the sovereignty of Pakistan goes unheard. The march toward a Middle East conflagration rests upon a predictable attack on Iran. This is the obvious war plan. However, the evil empire has limits that superior targeting technology cannot predict a final outcome.
Where are the anti-war progressives, when their own anointed rock star violates the law to advance the Novo Ordo Seclorum’s extermination of threats to their global imperium?
more at link. videos.
Had to post for the illustration alone. Amazing!Statism is the common thread that links all totalitarian regimes. Most living souls do... more
-
-
After reading my recent column "Obama's Libyan War," a liberal friend took me to task. "Jack, you just don't understand," he began as he explained the important humanitarian reasons for the president's recent intervention.
I stared at him and asked, "If Bush had gone to war in Libya, would you have supported it?" He winced and replied, "Well, I would like to think I would."
"You're lying," I said, a charge which he eventually admitted. I then added that any liberal who says they would have supported Bush doing in Libya what they now support Obama doing is lying. And they know it.
If there's one thing worse than hypocrites, it's partisan hypocrites. And with this new Libyan war, Obama Democrats have again proven themselves to be virtually identical to the Bush Republicans they once despised. I distinctly remember syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity arguing with antiwar Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul that it was a moral imperative for America to invade Iraq to liberate its citizens from Saddam Hussein's "genocide" and "rape rooms." At the time, virtually no one on the Left accepted these purportedly humanitarian reasons as justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
Today, many conservatives, including Hannity, either oppose or are highly skeptical of Obama's "humanitarian" Libyan intervention, while those in favor of it are either the same neoconservatives who were the most enthusiastic about Iraq or the liberals who are most loyal to Obama. As neoconservative godfather and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol told Fox News, "His sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while. I'm happy to support them. He's a born-again neo-con."
Kristol is right. Virtually every argument Obama Democrats now make in support of Obama's intervention — it's a humanitarian mission, it will only take a few days or weeks, it's in America's interest — are identical to parts of the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.
But there are some significant differences, all of which are negative for Obama. Bush at least claimed that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States. Obama has said up front that Moammar Gadhafi does not. Bush officials claimed that Iraqis would become natural allies who would greet our soldiers as liberators. Obama officials admit that we don't really know who these Libyan rebels are, and it has been reported that some have connections to Al Qaeda. The Bush administration promised Iraq would be a short war or a "cakewalk." The Obama administration promises a short war with no boots on the ground, even though CIA shoe leather has hit the Libyan road and Gadhafi remains firmly in power. If we are to measure our foreign policy by a proper defense as opposed to an irrational offense, this makes our current president's Libyan war potentially worse than Bush's Iraq debacle. Welcome to "quagmire" Obama-style.
One of the few liberals willing to point out the Democrats' hypocrisy on Libya is The Daily Show's Jon Stewart. Said Stewart of Obama's argument for a no-fly zone: "Stop the violence against the civilians, I kind of like that. But see, there are other civilians in other countries protesting, and they're being killed too, and for them, we're enforcing a 'not-even-gonna-try zone."
As for our "new allies," Stewart noted, "So it seems like we've just taken sides in a civil war. And if that's the case, I'd love to hear more about our new allies. What are their likes, dislikes? Is one of their dislikes, I don't know, us? Do they believe America [is] the Great Satan or just your average run-of-the-mill Satan?"
Stewart also demolishes the popular liberal defense that Obama has successfully handed over this Libyan mission to NATO. He said, "We turned over the mission to NATO! Man, I feel bad for whoever the sucker is that's the main driving force financially and weapon-wise in that organization, because those guys are ... wait a minute. We're NATO! That's like Beyonce saying she's ceding control to Sasha Fierce."
Perhaps the most amusing example of liberals trying to avoid their foreign-policy hypocrisy came courtesy of Sen. Rand Paul. The president intervened in Libya without consulting Congress, which he is constitutionally required to do. Paul recently proposed the Senate take an up-or-down vote on the following now-famous 2007 Obama statement: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." The National Review wrote, "Paul's proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama's dusty quote about congressional authority ... If he allows a vote, Democrats are forced to either disagree with then-Sen. Obama or with President Obama. [Reid] may do anything to avoid a vote on Paul's amendment."
Reid is obviously and desperately attempting to obfuscate his party's blatant hypocrisy. But his fluster is not unlike that of most of his fellow liberals, who continue to rationalize what they once denounced in order to avoid admitting they've become what they once despised.
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/democrats-make-the-same-arguments-for-war-republicans-once-did/Content?oid=3263387After reading my recent column "Obama's Libyan War," a liberal friend... more
-
-
Long before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and even before the media cleverly tagged the engineered destabilization of the Middle East the "Arab Spring," Libya was already marked for destabilization and regime change. For nearly thirty years the US and UK have funded groups both inside Libya and beyond its borders in various attempts to remove Qaddafi from power. The current administration's feigned ignorance over the nature of the rebels in Libya is nothing short of absolute deception. The CIA and MI6 are on record for decades following, and in many cases supporting, these very groups.
Below is a partial time line covering Western efforts to implement regime change in Libya.
Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/04/globalists-coming-full-circle-obama.htmlLong before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and... more
-
-
As I've noted, the 2012 Republican presidential primary will be vastly different from the 2008 race.
Back then Ron paul was roundly derided for endorsing the traditional conservative approach toward foreign policy.
This time around, a lot of the others are going to have to make a choice between conservatism and the liberal internationalism of the so-called "neo" conservatives. This piece on Haley Barbour from The Hill shows that the debate has begun:
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) may have set the tone for the foreign policy debate in the Republican presidential nominating contest when he questioned the war in Afghanistan and its costs.
Barbour’s comments were quickly met with derision from the neocon wing of the GOP, but some Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers said the governor was taking a strong conservative stand on spending.
The differing reactions illustrate a tough political reality for Republicans in 2012: Even as public opinion increasingly turns against the war in Afghanistan and concern over the deficit intensifies, embracing talk of defense cuts and troop pullouts may still be a bridge too far.
And note the squeals from Bill "My Mommy Was a Commie" Kristol:
Neocons pounced on his statements. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol called Barbour's comments "irresponsible" and accused him of "pandering" to public opinion, suggesting there may be an opening in 2012 for a candidate who questions the direction in Afghanistan and puts defense cuts on the table.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg&feature=player_embedded
Full Story: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/03/the_trent_toward.htmlAs I've noted, the 2012 Republican presidential primary will be vastly different... more
-
-
Thanks to Scott Parrish for reminding me of this classic five-part YouTube. Neocon senator Norm Coleman had attacked Galloway for his anti-war stance; Coleman was a chickenhawk, of course. Galloway demanded a hearing to respond. Coleman is boring, but listen to him to prepare you for the fireworks. He is soon sorry he gave this eloquent British MP a hearing. Far easier to smear him from a distance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnflzhtDkJM&feature=player_embeddedThanks to Scott Parrish for reminding me of this classic five-part YouTube. Neocon... more
-
-
What balls! What hubris! What hypocrisy! What happened to America?
Once again, America has preemptively attacked a sovereign nation that posed no threat to her without a declaration of war from the people’s representatives. Apparently the U.S. president now gets permission from the U.N. to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on unprovoked wars and outright murder. Isn’t it still called murder when killing is not done in self-defense? Okay, just checking to make sure I haven’t lost my mind.
Nobel Peace prince Obama launched his liberation of the good people of Libya with his own shock-and-awe bombing campaign appropriately on the eighth anniversary of Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq. This tyrannical intervention is so naked, so brazen in its hubris that whatever shred of goodwill America had left is completely gone. America is officially the most murderous, anti-democratic, terrorist nation the world has ever known.
And get this, on the very same day of this unconstitutional act of war, ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel reintroduced his National Service “Draft” bill. Rangel pointed out in his announcement that the government lied us into the Iraq war that ultimately resulted in the deaths of over 4,400 servicemen with over 32,000 injured. He claims this is the reason we need a draft:
Based on false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction and involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the unfunded war in Iraq has cost our nation not only $800 billion dollars, but the lives of more than 4,400 brave American patriots. Over 32,000 U.S. soldiers have also been seriously wounded in the war we should not have been in the first place.
It is because of these devastating statistics and the commitment our nation must make to sharing in duty and service that I reintroduced the Universal National Service Act, commonly known as the draft bill.
You can’t make this stuff up. So, our government lies us into wars for profit and oil, thrusts our brave young men and women in harms way against poor nations who in their wildest dreams couldn’t threaten America, and puts off paying for them as long as the banks and China get their interest payments at gunpoint from the taxpayer. And now you want to force all of our kids to take part in this sociopathic behavior?
Rangel continues:
Currently the burden of defending our nation is carried by an increasingly smaller segment of our population. Only 1 percent of the American population currently makes the sacrifice of laying down life and limb for our country.
Far too many are being forced into repeated tours of duty, sometimes as many as six deployments. This repeated combat exposure to our troops is why 25 percent of America’s active duty military personnel suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It is why the Army’s current suicide rate is far above the civilian rate at 22-per-100,000. The rate for the Marine Corps is even higher.
Boy, Rangel is a first-rate salesman. Who could resist the idea of forcing their children into repeated tours of duty and a 1-in-4 chance of getting ruined by PTSD? Or, making them so miserable that they think suicide is better than killing poor brown people for Big Oil profits and their pocket-change politicians — all while bankrupting the country and their home towns in the process?
Rangel’s pitch that a draft would alleviate these problems is ill-conceived, as he even pointed out: “Having a draft does not necessarily mean that everyone called to duty would be required to serve in the Armed forces.” Who in their right mind would choose the Armed forces in this corrupt imperial climate if given a choice of community services?
Of course, liberals like to think Rangel’s hidden argument is that a draft would actually discourage war by making the people pay more attention to the wars enough to protest. Wake up! We can’t even get Congress to vote for these wars anymore! The notion that the decision makers will actually give a shit about the people’s will is laughable. Besides, we all know how they handle peaceful protesters these days, despite their lofty rhetoric of fighting for people’s rights in foreign countries.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-starts-another-illegal-war-rangel-calls-for-draft/What balls! What hubris! What hypocrisy! What happened to America?
Once again,... more
-
-
The pimp from the Neocon pimp 'n ho team that targeted ACORN and goaded a submissive Democratic-controlled Congress into gutting Democratic-leaning ACORN has scored another victory in covertly taping a NPR fundraiser claiming that the Tea Party was "racist" and "scary." NPR, facing possible elimination of funding, along with PBS, at the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress, chose to "accept the resignation" of the fundraiser involved and the CEO of NPR, Vivian Schiller. NPR would not comment as to whether Ms. Schiller was forced to resign.
This comes at a time when Neocons have targeted muslims as an enemy and laws are being passed in several states, including Oklahoma and Tennessee, declaring following Sharia Law - such as requiring prayer five times a day - a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
http://www.newser.com/story/112713/tennessee-bill-would-outlaw-shariah-law.html
This also comes at a time when the right wing in the US Congress is to begin holding hearings on the "muslim threat," reminiscent of the Army-McCarthy hearings of the 1950s.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/09/gop.islam/index.html?hpt=C2The pimp from the Neocon pimp 'n ho team that targeted ACORN and goaded a... more
-
-
Luke Rudkowski and Anthony Antonello confront right intellectual and former Marxist David Horowitz on 9/11 at CPAC, Washington D.C. 2011.
Horowitz largely dismissed the questions, indicating that 9/11 issues like Pakistani ISI connections to terrorist financing or the 9/11 Commission being ‘set-up to fail’ were “not on his radar” and “not what I do.” We Are Change, for their part, were trying to put these issues back on the radar.
...
"I haven't looked at any of the evidence" - David HorowitzLuke Rudkowski and Anthony Antonello confront right intellectual and former Marxist... more
-
-
It might just be a neocon’s wet dream today, but if Sarah Palin is elected President of the United States next year, I’d say the odds suddenly change in favor of adding Reagan’s ugly mug to Rushmore … ABC News reports on a serious campaign to make it happen:
Ask the most passionate admirers of former President Ronald Reagan to rate the greatness of his legacy, and they’ll likely put him in the company of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt.
While Congress debated and ultimately rejected that idea in 1999, the concept still tickles conservatives, who see the question — should Reagan be on Rushmore? — as an entree to discussing the former president’s clout.
“Is he of that stature? The answer is yes,” said Grover Norquist, chairman of the Reagan Legacy Project. “Reagan was the most successful president of the twentieth century. He took a country that was in economic collapse and militarily in retreat around the globe and turned it completely around.”
Norquist, who led the effort to rename Washington’s National Airport after Reagan, has been using the president’s centennial anniversary to make a renewed push to bring the Reagan name and likeness to every county in all 50 states.
“In South Dakota, Reagan deserves a mountain carving of his own, like Crazy Horse,” he said, referring to the Native American leader who has a monument down the road from Rushmore.
Reagan already has more than 100 official physical namesakes in at least 27 states and four countries, according to a list compiled by the National Archives through January 2010…
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/02/ronald-reagan-could-be-added-to-mt-rushmore/It might just be a neocon’s wet dream today, but if Sarah Palin is elected... more
-
-
Well, this is interesting. The neoconservative (or liberal interventionist) wing of American Jewish political thought (not that all neocons are Jewish, God forbid anyone should think that!) is cheering on the revolution in Egypt, while the Israeli government, and much of Israel's pundit class, is seeing the apocalypse in Mubarak's apparent downfall. Writing in The Times today, Yossi Klein Halevi captures the despairing mood of the Israeli policy elite:
"(T)he grim assumption is that it is just a matter of time before the only real opposition group in Egypt, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, takes power. Israelis fear that Egypt will go the way of Iran or Turkey, with Islamists gaining control through violence or gradual co-optation.
Either result would be the end of Israel's most important relationship in the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood has long stated its opposition to peace with Israel and has pledged to revoke the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty if it comes into power. Given the strengthening of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas's control of Gaza and the unraveling of the Turkish-Israeli alliance, an Islamist Egypt could produce the ultimate Israeli nightmare: living in a country surrounded by Iran's allies or proxies.
But the neoconservatives, who have made democracy promotion in the Middle East an overarching goal, are scratching their heads at what they see as Israeli shortsightedness. I asked Elliott Abrams, formerly of the Bush Administration National Security Council, and now at the Council on Foreign Relations, what he makes of the Israeli longing for Mubarak. He was scathing in his response:
The Israelis first of all do not believe in the universality of democracy. They believe what many American "experts" did in, say, 1950--democracy was fine for us and Western Europe, but not for Latins (too much Catholic culture) and Asians (too much Confucianism). They believe Arab culture does not permit democracy.
They see a danger in Mubarak's fall, and they are right: we do not know who will take over now or in a year or two from now. But this is at bottom a crazy reaction. What they are afraid of is the Muslim Brotherhood, right? Mubarak has ruled for THIRTY YEARS and leaves us a Brotherhood that is that powerful? Isn't that all the proof we need that dictatorship is not the way to fight the Brotherhood? He crushed the moderate and centrist groups and left the Brothers with an open field. He is to blame for the Brothers' popularity and strength right now. The sooner he goes the better.
It's worth remembering that, despite the various Walt and Mearsheimer-style conspiracy theories about Israeli influence on American politics, the Israelis themselves were noticeably unenthusiastic about another neoconservative notion, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In other words, the gap between Israel and the neocons that has widened over Egypt is not, in fact, new.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-neocons-split-with-israel-over-egypt/70636/Well, this is interesting. The neoconservative (or liberal interventionist) wing of... more
-
-
This Tea Partier pretends that she supports "limited" government, but she ends up proving that she's much worse than the Democrats, who she calls socialists. Listen closely to the ending, she blends in the birther conspiracy, the socialist conspiracy and the Obama-muslim conspiracy. It's hilarious and worth watching.This Tea Partier pretends that she supports "limited" government, but she... more
-
-
Lying is wrong, regardless of who does it. We live in a world of 'spin' ie. lies. How's that working out for us? Shouldn't we seek truth? Honesty should be a requirement, not just an option.
It's time to address the dishonesty and move along with truth. If the truth hurts, maybe they are doing something wrong?Lying is wrong, regardless of who does it. We live in a world of 'spin' ie.... more
-
