The questions of the definition of neoconservatism and of the extent to which it is a movement dominated by Jews have received considerable scrutiny of late, by, e.g.,
- Irving Kristol, an ur-neoconservative (as opposed to “neo-urconservative”),
who defines “the neoconservative persuasion”; - Kevin MacDonald, who, in a short informal essay and a much longer quasi-academic article,
argues that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement; - Joshua Muravchik, Max Boot, and Jonah Goldberg,
- who argue strenuously that it is not intrinsically Jewish
(note the error in Muravchik’s article: Scooter Libby is Jewish); - J. J. Goldberg, who, writing long before the 2003 Iraq War,
states flat out that neoconservatism is “a school of thought dominated by Jews”; - Scott McConnell, who, in response to David Frum’s characterization of paleocons as
Unpatriotic Conservatives, examines the (generally hostile) relations between paleocons and neocons.
In this essay I excerpt from MacDonald (lengthily) and Goldberg (comparatively briefly), then provide a brief closing comment.
For more information on neoconservatism, see the references.
For more information on neoconservatism, see the references.
Kevin MacDonald
MacDonald’s long article Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement has many worthwhile passages,
but I suspect is a little long (~50 pages) for most readers to wade through. Below, from the green start line to the red finish line, I have extracted some of his conclusions and observations that seemed especially interesting or controversial. These are just some (highly debatable) highlights (or perhaps, from your perspective, lowlights); the full article provides supporting examples, arguments, and references.
Emphasis, links, headings, and an occasional comment in square brackets and this color, have been added.
but I suspect is a little long (~50 pages) for most readers to wade through. Below, from the green start line to the red finish line, I have extracted some of his conclusions and observations that seemed especially interesting or controversial. These are just some (highly debatable) highlights (or perhaps, from your perspective, lowlights); the full article provides supporting examples, arguments, and references.
Emphasis, links, headings, and an occasional comment in square brackets and this color, have been added.
In alliance with virtually the entire organized American Jewish community, neoconservatism is a vanguard Jewish movement with close ties to the most extreme nationalistic, aggressive, racialist and religiously fanatic elements within Israel. [Yikes!]
[Cf. Israel Shahak: JHJR, JF; MacDonald: Zionism.]
...
[B]y far the best predictor of neoconservative attitudes, on foreign policy at least, is what the political right in Israel deems in Israel’s best interests....
Neoconservatism [can be] described in general as
a complex interlocking professional and family network
centered around Jewish publicists and organizers
centered around Jewish publicists and organizers
flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews
in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States
in the service of Israel.
As such, neoconservatism should be considered
As such, neoconservatism should be considered
a semi-covert branch of the massive and highly effective pro-Israel lobby...
...
[T]he organized Jewish community shares the neocon commitment to the Likud Party in Israel.
...
...
[T]he organized Jewish community shares the neocon commitment to the Likud Party in Israel.
...
[T]he organized Jewish community has played a critical role in the success of neoconservatism and
in preventing public discussion of its Jewish roots and Jewish agendas.
...
[T]he main Jewish activist organizations have been quick to condemn those who have noted the Jewish commitments of the neoconservative activists in the Bush administration or seen the hand of the Jewish community in pushing for war against Iraq and other Arab countries....
[W]hen Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) made a speech in the U.S. Senate and wrote a newspaper op-ed piece [cf. this commentary] which claimed the war in Iraq was motivated by “President Bush’s policy to secure Israel” and advanced by a handful of Jewish officials and opinion leaders, Abe Foxman of the ADL stated, “when the debate veers into anti-Jewish stereotyping, it is tantamount to scapegoating and an appeal to ethnic hatred…. This is reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards [sic] about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government.”
[Compare ...]
Despite negative comments from Jewish activist organizations, and a great deal of coverage in the American Jewish press, there were no articles on this story in any of the major U.S. national newspapers
...
[Foxman and his allies are avoiding the real issues, which are:]
- whether it is legitimate to open up to debate the question of the degree to which the neocon activists in the Bush administration are motivated by their long ties to the Likud Party in Israel, and
- whether the organized Jewish community in the U.S. similarly supports the Likud Party and
its desire to enmesh the United States in wars that are in Israel’s interest.
...
Since ... 1981, the positive attitudes toward the Likud Party characteristic of the neoconservatives have become the mainstream view of the organized American Jewish community, and [various liberal Jewish critics] have been relegated to the fringe of the American Jewish community.
...
Since ... 1981, the positive attitudes toward the Likud Party characteristic of the neoconservatives have become the mainstream view of the organized American Jewish community, and [various liberal Jewish critics] have been relegated to the fringe of the American Jewish community.
...
[N]eoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century— massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present.
A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965— “this notion of a Christian civilization.”
As neoconservative Ben Wattenberg has famously written, “The non-Europeanization of America
is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
[Why is it that so many Jews and Dems hate European-Americans?
Why is it that no one is calling them haters?
What else does Wattenberg’s comment represent?
If you don’t think that there’s a double standard going on here, consider what the reaction would be to
“The non-Jewification of America would be heartening news of an almost transcendental quality,”
where it was made clear that “non-Jewification” didn’t mean that they were being eliminated in any sense,
but just that their relative power was being diminished.]
...
In general, neoconservatives have been far more attached to Jewish interests, and especially the interests of Israel, than to any other identifiable interest.
In general, neoconservatives have been far more attached to Jewish interests, and especially the interests of Israel, than to any other identifiable interest.
[Concerning the teachings of Leo Strauss
(if you’re really interested, cf. Robert Locke and straussian.net):]
Strauss understood that inequalities among humans were inevitable and advocated rule by an aristocratic elite of philosopher kings forced to pay lip service to the traditional religious and political beliefs of the masses while not believing them. This elite should pursue its vision of the good but must reach out to others using deception and manipulation to achieve its goals.
As Bill Kristol has described it, elites have the duty to guide public opinion, but “one of the main teachings [of Strauss] is that all politics are limited and none of them is really based on the truth.”
As Bill Kristol has described it, elites have the duty to guide public opinion, but “one of the main teachings [of Strauss] is that all politics are limited and none of them is really based on the truth.”
A more cynical characterization is provided by Stephen Holmes:
“The good society, on this model, consists of the sedated masses, the gentlemen rulers,
the promising puppies, and the philosophers who pursue knowledge, manipulate the gentlemen, anesthetize the people, and housebreak the most talented young” — a comment that sounds to me like an alarmingly accurate description of the present situation in the United States.
Given Strauss’s central concern that an acceptable political order be compatible with Jewish survival,
it is reasonable to assume that Strauss believed that the aristocracy would serve Jewish interests.
...
Strauss understood that neither communism nor fascism was good for Jews in the long run.
But democracy cannot be trusted given that Weimar ended with Hitler.
A solution is to advocate democracy and the trappings of traditional religious culture, but managed by an elite able to manipulate the masses via control of the media and academic discourse.
Jews have a long history as an elite in Western societies, so it is not in the least surprising that Strauss would advocate an ideal society in which Jews would be a central component of the elite...
the promising puppies, and the philosophers who pursue knowledge, manipulate the gentlemen, anesthetize the people, and housebreak the most talented young” — a comment that sounds to me like an alarmingly accurate description of the present situation in the United States.
Given Strauss’s central concern that an acceptable political order be compatible with Jewish survival,
it is reasonable to assume that Strauss believed that the aristocracy would serve Jewish interests.
...
Strauss understood that neither communism nor fascism was good for Jews in the long run.
But democracy cannot be trusted given that Weimar ended with Hitler.
A solution is to advocate democracy and the trappings of traditional religious culture, but managed by an elite able to manipulate the masses via control of the media and academic discourse.
Jews have a long history as an elite in Western societies, so it is not in the least surprising that Strauss would advocate an ideal society in which Jews would be a central component of the elite...
[The neocons] form an elite that is deeply involved in deception, manipulation and espionage
on issues related to Israel and the war in Iraq. They also established the massive neocon infrastructure in the elite media and think tanks. And they have often become wealthy in the process.
Their public pronouncements advocating a democratic, egalitarian ideology have not prevented them from having strong ethnic identities and a strong sense of their own ethnic interests; nor have their public pronouncements supporting the Enlightenment ideals of egalitarianism and democracy prevented them from having a thoroughly anti-Enlightenment ethnic particularist commitment to the most nationalistic, aggressive, racialist elements within Israel— the Likud Party, the settler movement, and the religious fanatics.
[Cf. Israel Shahak: JHJR, JF.]
MacDonald’s Conclusion
The current situation in the United States is really an awesome display of Jewish power and influence.
People who are very strongly identified as Jews maintain close ties to Israeli politicians and military figures and to Jewish activist organizations and pro-Israeli lobbying groups while occupying influential policy-making positions in the defense and foreign policy establishment.
These same people, as well as a chorus of other prominent Jews, have routine access to the most prestigious media outlets in the United States.
People who criticize Israel are routinely vilified and subjected to professional abuse.
Perhaps the most telling feature of this entire state of affairs is the surreal fact that in this entire discourse
Jewish identity is not mentioned.
When Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Rubin, William Safire, Robert Satloff, or the legions of other prominent media figures write their reflexively pro-Israel pieces in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Los Angeles Times, or opine on the Fox News Network,
there is never any mention
that they are Jewish Americans
who have an intense ethnic interest in Israel.
When Richard Perle authors a report for an Israeli think tank;
is on the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper;
maintains close personal ties with prominent Israelis,
especially those associated with the Likud Party;
has worked for an Israeli defense company;
and, according to credible reports,
was discovered by the FBI passing classified information to Israel—
when, despite all of this,
he is a central figure in the network of those pushing for wars
to rearrange the entire politics of the Middle East
in Israel’s favor, and
with nary a soul
having the courage to mention
the obvious overriding Jewish loyalty
apparent in Perle’s actions,
that is indeed a breathtaking display of power.
One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-seven years, despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories— an occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation, degradation, and apartheid.
During the same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force— for transforming America into a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of non-European ethnic minorities— the culture of the Holocaust.
People who are very strongly identified as Jews maintain close ties to Israeli politicians and military figures and to Jewish activist organizations and pro-Israeli lobbying groups while occupying influential policy-making positions in the defense and foreign policy establishment.
These same people, as well as a chorus of other prominent Jews, have routine access to the most prestigious media outlets in the United States.
People who criticize Israel are routinely vilified and subjected to professional abuse.
Perhaps the most telling feature of this entire state of affairs is the surreal fact that in this entire discourse
Jewish identity is not mentioned.
When Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Rubin, William Safire, Robert Satloff, or the legions of other prominent media figures write their reflexively pro-Israel pieces in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Los Angeles Times, or opine on the Fox News Network,
there is never any mention
that they are Jewish Americans
who have an intense ethnic interest in Israel.
When Richard Perle authors a report for an Israeli think tank;
is on the board of directors of an Israeli newspaper;
maintains close personal ties with prominent Israelis,
especially those associated with the Likud Party;
has worked for an Israeli defense company;
and, according to credible reports,
was discovered by the FBI passing classified information to Israel—
when, despite all of this,
he is a central figure in the network of those pushing for wars
to rearrange the entire politics of the Middle East
in Israel’s favor, and
with nary a soul
having the courage to mention
the obvious overriding Jewish loyalty
apparent in Perle’s actions,
that is indeed a breathtaking display of power.
One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-seven years, despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal suppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories— an occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation, degradation, and apartheid.
During the same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force— for transforming America into a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of non-European ethnic minorities— the culture of the Holocaust.
All this is done without a whisper of double standards in the aboveground media.
J. J. Goldberg
J. J. Goldberg’s 1996 book, Jewish Power, discusses the neoconservatives in the context of overall American Jewish political power and influence. Below, from the green start line to the red end line,
are some excerpts from pages 160–162 of its Chapter Six, “Six Days in June: The Triumph of Jewish Insecurity.” The emphasis is added.
are some excerpts from pages 160–162 of its Chapter Six, “Six Days in June: The Triumph of Jewish Insecurity.” The emphasis is added.
Not all the neoconservatives were Jewish, and those who were Jewish were ambivalent about it; they still clung to the secularism and anticlericalism of their old Marxist days.
Nonetheless, they became known as a Jewish group, for several reasons.
For one thing, most of them were Jews.
More important, they were an anomaly: a school of thought dominated by Jews, on an American right which had always been alien territory to Jews.
...
[The chapter’s conclusion:]
In the popular mind, the New Jews of 1967— the Zionists, the Orthodox, and the neoconservatives—
quickly came to be identified as the leadership of the American Jewish community.
Their defiance was so strident, and their anger so intense, that the rest of the Jewish community respectfully stood back and let the New Jews take the lead.
The minority was permitted to speak for the mass and became the dominant voice of Jewish politics.
[Compare ...]
In this new mood, the cause of Jewish advocacy underwent a fundamental transformation of values.
The world after 1967 was regarded as a hostile place, divided between the Jews’ friends and their enemies.
The values that for so long had characterized American Judaism— equality, tolerance, and social justice—
became suspect in New Jewish leadership circles.
A new set of basic values came to replace them: loyalty to the Jewish people, commitment to its survival, and hostility to its enemies.
The Jews who rose to the leadership of the Jewish community after 1967 were those who most embodied these new values.
Jews now expected to be represented, not by those who best expressed their beliefs and aspirations,
but by those who seemed to them to be "most Jewish": most loyal to the Jewish people and its traditions, or most hostile to its enemies.
Conclusion
Goldberg’s examples and arguments, in my view, substantiate and support the arguments and conclusions of MacDonald, both those on neoconservatism excerpted above from Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement, and those on Zionism, presented in Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism.
Further, they totally reflect the picture that is presented in the media.
Further, they totally reflect the picture that is presented in the media.
The neocons vs. the generals
Perhaps the most surprising thing about the “revolt of the generals” is that the neocons have come out so uniformly and vitrolically against the generals who are criticizing Rumsfeld. Consider the following example:
2006-04-21-Krauthammer
Miscellaneous References
(Those dated 2003 or earlier are mainly from Kevin MacDonald’s excellent essay
“Thinking About Neoconservatism”.)
CSM-Neocon-101
CSM-Neocon-Spheres-of-Influence
Spheres of influence: Neoconservative think tanks, periodicals, and key documents.
Christian Science Monitor, undated
Christian Science Monitor, undated
2002
2002-01-10-Gottfried
2002-02-25-Raimondo
2003
2003-01-25-Christison
Bill and Kathleen Christison, Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq
2003-03-27-Lobe
2003-04-06-Lind
2003-05-23-Grichar
2003-06-10-North
2003-06-23-Wald
2003-06-30-Lind
2003-12-23-Lobe
2004
2004-02-23-Lind
2004-09-06-Christison
2004-11-06-Lobe
2006
2006-05-24-Meyerson
2006-11-03-Raimondo
The Neocons, Undaunted They’re looking to make a comeback after the elections by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2006-11-03
Antiwar.com, 2006-11-03
2006-11-06-Raimondo
The War God That Failed The neocons turn on their ‘leader’ by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2006-11-06
Antiwar.com, 2006-11-06
2006-11-14-Kamiya
The moralistic ideology has utterly failed. But as long as Bush still abides by it,
his disastrous "war on terror" will drag on.
By Gary Kamiya
Salon.com, 2006-11-14
his disastrous "war on terror" will drag on.
By Gary Kamiya
Salon.com, 2006-11-14
2006-11-16-Hadar
2007
2007-01-05-Buchanan
2007-03-29-Greenwald
Neoconservative radicalism has reshaped our political spectrum
by Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com, 2007-03-29
[T]he dominant right-wing political movement in this country that has spawned and driven the Bush presidency has nothing to do with -- it is in fact overtly hostile to -- the ostensible principles of Goldwater/Reagan small-government conservatism.
...
[T]he Bush presidency and the political movement that supports it is not driven by any of the abstract political principles traditionally associated with “liberalism” or “conservatism.” Whatever else one wants to say about the Bush presidency, it has nothing to do with limiting the size, scope and reach of the federal government. The exact opposite is true.
...
That is the central point of our current political predicament: the Bush presidency, and more importantly the right-wing movement which created and sustained it (and which will survive Bush’s departure), are not adherents to any mainstream American political ideology. And many people, including neoconservatives themselves, have acknowledged this, and that is also the critical insight of Brooks’ column today.
George Will previously called the “neoconservatism” which drives the right-wing movement in this country “a spectacularly misnamed radicalism.”
by Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com, 2007-03-29
[T]he dominant right-wing political movement in this country that has spawned and driven the Bush presidency has nothing to do with -- it is in fact overtly hostile to -- the ostensible principles of Goldwater/Reagan small-government conservatism.
...
[T]he Bush presidency and the political movement that supports it is not driven by any of the abstract political principles traditionally associated with “liberalism” or “conservatism.” Whatever else one wants to say about the Bush presidency, it has nothing to do with limiting the size, scope and reach of the federal government. The exact opposite is true.
...
That is the central point of our current political predicament: the Bush presidency, and more importantly the right-wing movement which created and sustained it (and which will survive Bush’s departure), are not adherents to any mainstream American political ideology. And many people, including neoconservatives themselves, have acknowledged this, and that is also the critical insight of Brooks’ column today.
George Will previously called the “neoconservatism” which drives the right-wing movement in this country “a spectacularly misnamed radicalism.”
One of America’s most influential neoconservatives, Robert Kagan, previously admitted -- just like Brooks -- that the current right-wing ideology has nothing to do with the Goldwater/Reagan limited government mythology; in fact, it is overtly hostile to it:
This is where Bush may lose the support of most old-fashioned conservatives. His goals are now the antithesis of conservatism. They are revolutionary.
...
Pat Buchanan founded The American Conservative based principally on the same observation: namely, that
the right-wing, Bush-supporting movement has nothing to do with the political principles they manipulatively tout...
...
Brooks’ column (like those of Will and Kagan before it) makes clear just how radical it is, how unmoored it is to any principles which previously defined the political mainstream. The terms “left” and “right” do not mean what they meant even ten years ago, though they still have meaning. At least for now, until this movement is banished to the dustbin, those terms have come to designate whether one is loyal to, or whether one opposes, this government-power-worshipping, profoundly un-American right-wing cultism that has been the dominant political faction in America for many years.
2007-05-25-Raimondo
The Cabal Strikes Back
The neocons are discredited – but not defeated
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-05-25
[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]
The President, reined in by his party’s fear of electoral disaster and his nation’s war weariness, has hesitated to go all the way with the neocons’ plan to open up the second phase of their bid to “transform” the Middle East into a pile of “democratic” rubble: no one in this country but Dick Cheney and his boys think going to war with Iran is such a grand idea, but that isn’t stopping the neocons from trying to pull it off anyway.
Clemons informs us that the plan is to have the Israelis mount the first strike, after which the Iranians will retaliate against U.S. troops in Iraq – and the fight will be on.
...
The Cheney administration, in alliance with the Israel lobby and the currently dominant “red-state fascist” wing of the GOP, is determined to gin up a war with Iran, and they just may get away with it. Politically, there is almost no opposition to or even much awareness of this headlong rush to war, with all “major” presidential candidates committed to confronting Iran militarily, if “necessary,” over the nuclear issue.
...
George W. Bush is totally out of the loop.
The Cheney cabal is mobilizing all its considerable power to launch a final Middle Eastern offensive,
and their Lebanese excursion – reportedly a major reason for the sudden reassignment of John Negroponte to the State Department – is just the beginning of what they have in store for us.
In the end, however, when it comes down to launching a full frontal assault on Iran, it all depends on the Israelis.
The War Party is counting on them to strike the first blow, with the guarantee that the Americans
will strike the second, third, fourth, and fifth blows, ad infinitum.
Blows directed not only at Iran, but also against Syria, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians.
...
In any case, there are reasons to believe the current Israeli government would like to be the spearhead of the coming blitz, especially if it rehabilitates leaders who have lost all credibility with the stark failure of the IDF’s most recent incursion into Lebanon.
The neocons reportedly were quite displeased with the Israelis for not going all out to smash Hezbollah and
this could be a way for Tel Aviv to make up for it.
The idea that the US would have to “finish the job” if the Israelis started it shows how we have become the prisoners of our own satellites.
[More exactly, satellite.]
According to the scenario as presented by Clemons, Israel is to be the catalyst that forces the hand of a reluctant President and traps us in a regional conflagration that will make the Iraq war seem like a mere skirmish.
Yet, as Clemons makes clear, the real catalytic element here is Cheney, widely regarded as Bush’s co-president, the patron and protector of neoconservative ideologues whose agenda involves much more than advancing Israeli interests.
As Colin Powell told Bob Woodward, after 9/11, the neocons centered around the office of the vice president
set up “a separate government.”
That government – widely discredited, and reeling from the recent trial and conviction of one its principal figures – is now engaged in a struggle for power with the legal and duly constituted government, the outcome of which has yet to be determined.
What is clear, however, is that the Cheney administration will stop at nothing in its effort to win that fight –
even if it means starting World War IV.
This is an outcome the neocons would dearly love to see, and I have to say that, sadly, their chances of success are quite good.
The neocons are discredited – but not defeated
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-05-25
[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]
The President, reined in by his party’s fear of electoral disaster and his nation’s war weariness, has hesitated to go all the way with the neocons’ plan to open up the second phase of their bid to “transform” the Middle East into a pile of “democratic” rubble: no one in this country but Dick Cheney and his boys think going to war with Iran is such a grand idea, but that isn’t stopping the neocons from trying to pull it off anyway.
Clemons informs us that the plan is to have the Israelis mount the first strike, after which the Iranians will retaliate against U.S. troops in Iraq – and the fight will be on.
...
The Cheney administration, in alliance with the Israel lobby and the currently dominant “red-state fascist” wing of the GOP, is determined to gin up a war with Iran, and they just may get away with it. Politically, there is almost no opposition to or even much awareness of this headlong rush to war, with all “major” presidential candidates committed to confronting Iran militarily, if “necessary,” over the nuclear issue.
...
George W. Bush is totally out of the loop.
The Cheney cabal is mobilizing all its considerable power to launch a final Middle Eastern offensive,
and their Lebanese excursion – reportedly a major reason for the sudden reassignment of John Negroponte to the State Department – is just the beginning of what they have in store for us.
In the end, however, when it comes down to launching a full frontal assault on Iran, it all depends on the Israelis.
The War Party is counting on them to strike the first blow, with the guarantee that the Americans
will strike the second, third, fourth, and fifth blows, ad infinitum.
Blows directed not only at Iran, but also against Syria, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians.
...
In any case, there are reasons to believe the current Israeli government would like to be the spearhead of the coming blitz, especially if it rehabilitates leaders who have lost all credibility with the stark failure of the IDF’s most recent incursion into Lebanon.
The neocons reportedly were quite displeased with the Israelis for not going all out to smash Hezbollah and
this could be a way for Tel Aviv to make up for it.
The idea that the US would have to “finish the job” if the Israelis started it shows how we have become the prisoners of our own satellites.
[More exactly, satellite.]
According to the scenario as presented by Clemons, Israel is to be the catalyst that forces the hand of a reluctant President and traps us in a regional conflagration that will make the Iraq war seem like a mere skirmish.
Yet, as Clemons makes clear, the real catalytic element here is Cheney, widely regarded as Bush’s co-president, the patron and protector of neoconservative ideologues whose agenda involves much more than advancing Israeli interests.
As Colin Powell told Bob Woodward, after 9/11, the neocons centered around the office of the vice president
set up “a separate government.”
That government – widely discredited, and reeling from the recent trial and conviction of one its principal figures – is now engaged in a struggle for power with the legal and duly constituted government, the outcome of which has yet to be determined.
What is clear, however, is that the Cheney administration will stop at nothing in its effort to win that fight –
even if it means starting World War IV.
This is an outcome the neocons would dearly love to see, and I have to say that, sadly, their chances of success are quite good.
Raimondo overlooks a key component of the neocon network in Washington: the media.
Notice how when Tenet in his memoir discussed the key role the neocons played in getting us into this disastrous Iraq war, the U.S. media fell all over itself to discredit, not the neocons, but Tenet.
Thus when Tenet mentioned how Rice had all but ignored his 2001-07-10 plea for an all-out effort to prevent the terrorist attack that he saw coming, Woodward, in his review, criticized not Rice but Tenet.
Tenet, according to Woodward, should have gone around Rice and made his case directly to the president.
But what would the president have said if Tenet had done so?
Very likely, something like this:
“Look, Condi is the national security adviser, closer to these issues than I am, and she didn’t believe we should take your advice. If she doesn’t think your advice is valid, then why should I? If I were to do so, it would undercut her, and I might as well replace her. That’s not going to happen. Have a nice day, George.”
2007-06-25-Wolcott
Ship of Ghouls
The Muslims Are Coming cruise
by James Wolcott
(more here;
there is also a bootleg copy of the full article here, but the download took about a minute
(it contains an illustration from the original The New Republic article))
Vanity Fair Blog, 2007-06-25
The Muslims Are Coming cruise
by James Wolcott
(more here;
there is also a bootleg copy of the full article here, but the download took about a minute
(it contains an illustration from the original The New Republic article))
Vanity Fair Blog, 2007-06-25
2007-07-03-Lobe
Libby and His “Conservative” Supporters
by Jim Lobe
LobeLog, 2007-07-03
One of the most irritating things about mainstream media coverage of the Bush administration, including its coverage of the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence, is its pervasive use of the word “conservative”
to describe the administration’s (and Libby’s) core supporters.
To me, this has given respectable semantic cover to what really are a collection of right-wing radicals – mostly ultra-nationalist hawks, like Libby’s former boss and John Bolton;
pro-Likud (and, in the case of the older generation, often former Trotskyite) neo-conservatives, and leaders of the Christian Right — who have made clear time and again that they have little or no respect for law and tradition if either one should somehow constrain their freedom to make the world a better place.
[I have two exceptions to Lobe’s comments:
First, in many respects these people aren’t right-wing at all (e.g.).
Second, “making the world a better place” is entirely dependent on your point of view.
As we all should know by now, there is little agreement in the world as to what “makes it a better place.”]
by Jim Lobe
LobeLog, 2007-07-03
One of the most irritating things about mainstream media coverage of the Bush administration, including its coverage of the commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence, is its pervasive use of the word “conservative”
to describe the administration’s (and Libby’s) core supporters.
To me, this has given respectable semantic cover to what really are a collection of right-wing radicals – mostly ultra-nationalist hawks, like Libby’s former boss and John Bolton;
pro-Likud (and, in the case of the older generation, often former Trotskyite) neo-conservatives, and leaders of the Christian Right — who have made clear time and again that they have little or no respect for law and tradition if either one should somehow constrain their freedom to make the world a better place.
[I have two exceptions to Lobe’s comments:
First, in many respects these people aren’t right-wing at all (e.g.).
Second, “making the world a better place” is entirely dependent on your point of view.
As we all should know by now, there is little agreement in the world as to what “makes it a better place.”]
No comments:
Post a Comment