The Neoconservative Threat to American Freedom
The Bush-Cheney White House, which told the American people in 2003 that the Iraqi invasion would be a three- to six-week affair, now tells us that the U.S. occupation is permanent. Forever.
Attentive Americans—of which, alas, there are so few—had already concluded that the occupation was permanent. Permanence is the obvious message from the massive and fortified U.S. embassy under construction in Iraq and from the large permanent military bases that the Bush regime is building in Iraq.
Bush regime propagandists have created a false analogy with "the Korean model" in their effort to sell the permanent occupation of Iraq as necessary for Iraq's security. More than one half century after the close of the Korean War, U.S. troops continue to be based in Korea, as they are in Germany more than six decades after the end of World War II.
The rationale for the U.S. troops in South Korea is to remind North Korea that an attack on the south is an attack on the United States itself. The rationale for U.S. troops in Germany disappeared when Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev brought the Cold War to an end.
There is, of course, no similarity between Iraq and Korea. There was no insurgency in Korea and no attacks on U.S. troops based in South Korea once the fighting stopped. The presence of U.S. troops in South Korea has produced many protest demonstrations by South Koreans, but the U.S. troops in the south have had no exposure to combat since the war ended in 1953.
In contrast, the insurgency in Iraq continues to rage and could expand dramatically if Shiites were to join the Sunnis in attacks on U.S. forces. Most American military leaders no longer believe the insurgency can be defeated. Permanent occupation means permanent insurgency. Indeed, an attempt at permanent occupation could possibly unify the Arabs in a joint effort to expel the Americans.
The absurd analogy with Korea is so far-fetched that it raises the question of whether the Bush-Cheney regime has entered a new, higher level of delusion. Bush cannot keep troops in Iraq permanently unless he intends to remain permanently in the White House. Even some Republicans in Congress are talking about beginning withdrawals of U.S. troops in September. Republicans believe that if withdrawals do not begin, their party will be wiped out in the 2008 election.
The wild card is the neoconservatives and their longstanding alliance with Israeli Zionists. The neoconservatives still have a death grip on the discredited Bush regime. Jim Lobe describes in his blog (www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe) the extensive international organization that the neoconservatives have put into place for the purpose of orchestrating an attack on Iran.
A sane reader might wonder why neoconservatives would want to expand a conflict in which the United States has failed. Surely, even delusional "cakewalk" neoconservatives must realize that attacking Iran would greatly increase the threat to U.S. troops in Iraq and perhaps bring missile attacks on oil facilities and U.S. bases throughout the Middle East. An attack on Iran would further radicalize Muslims and further undermine U.S. puppets in the Middle East. It could bring war to the entire region.
The point is that the neoconservatives do realize this. Their defeat in Iraq and Israel's defeat in Lebanon has taught the neoconservatives that the United States cannot prevail in the Middle East by conventional military means. As I have previously explained, the neoconservatives' plan is to escape the failure of their Iraq plan by orchestrating a war with Iran in which the United States can prevail only by using nuclear weapons. As previously reported, the neoconservatives believe that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran will convince Muslims that they must accept U.S. hegemony.
The neoconservatives have put the elements of their plan in place. They have powerful naval forces on station off Iran's coast. They have convinced President Bush that only by attacking Iran can he prevail in Iraq.
The neoconservatives have rewritten U.S. war doctrine to permit pre-emptive U.S. nuclear attack on non-nuclear countries. They have demonized Iran as the greatest threat since Adolf Hitler. Neoconservatives have invented "Islamofascism," something that exists only in the neoconservative propaganda used to instill in Americans hatred of Muslims.
The neoconservatives have dehumanized Muslims as monsters who must be destroyed at all costs. Recent statements by neoconservative leaders such as Norman Podhoretz read like the ravings of ignorant lunatics. Podhoretz has written Muslims out of the human race. He demands that their culture be deracinated.
Neoconservatives, convinced that a nuclear attack will bring Muslims to heel, are ignoring the likely blowback and unintended consequences of an attack on Iran, just as they ignored the likely consequences of their attack on Iraq. If the neoconservatives are mistaken in their assumption that nuclear weapons will cause Muslims to submit to the United States, the consequences will be unmanageable.
The neoconservative Bush regime has gotten away with more than I thought possible, perhaps because most of Congress and the American public cannot imagine the degree of insanity that lies behind the Bush administration. Most Americans who have turned against the regime think that the administration is incompetent, that it jumped to wrong conclusions about Iraq, and that it mismanaged the war and will not admit its mistakes. As every reason Bush gave for the war has proven to be false, people see no point in continuing the struggle.
If Americans understood the enormity of the deception behind the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the pending attack on Iran, Bush and Cheney would be impeached and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee would be forced to register as a foreign agent.
Just as Joseph Goebbels said, some lies are too big to be disbelieved. It is this disbelief that is so dangerous. The inability of Americans to see through the Big Lie to the secret agenda allows the neoconservatives to escape accountability and to continue with their plot.
The neoconservatives also believe that nuclear attack on Iran will isolate America in the world and, thereby, give the government control over the American people. The denunciations that will be hurled at Americans from every quarter will force the country to wrap itself in the flag and to treat domestic critics as foreign enemies. Not only free speech but also truth itself will disappear along with every civil liberty.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
I wish we’d not call this Camorra “neo-conservatives” and use instead “Hamiltonians”, or better yet, “Whigs”. That they ain’t conservative this blog and Chronicles have proven long ago. That they ain’t new obliges a 30 second history lesson.
The Whigs first saw the light of day with the Exclusion bill crisis of 1678-1681, and they haven’t been real warm to the constitution or Catholics ever since (Michael Novak notwithstanding). In 1688 they unjustly and illegally seized power from the harmless James II and brought in a homosexual as king; and they’ve been indifferent to sodomite marriage ever since (Midge Decker notwithstanding). Immediately they propagandized that their revolution was “glorious” (i.e. “bloodless” – hardly what happened in Scotland and Ireland), they proclaimed a Bill of Rights (which didn’t apply to Catholics, Dissenters, or West Indian slaves), and they’ve been fig-leafing matters ever since (with the help of their Commie aides Hobsbawm, Hill, and Foner) . They immediately set up the Bank of England to counterfeit money (fiat money), and they’ve been doing it ever since (Paul Volcker notwithstanding). They immediately made the East India Company a monopoly, with deleterious results in India, and they’ve been issuing corporate welfare ever since. They immediately got England into a senseless war with France, and only because John Churchill was a better soldier than Louis the Great were they able to save their rears; and they’ve been getting into senseless wars ever since (Baldwin and Grey re: World War I)(the sensible Gladstone notwithstanding). They immediately threw out the High Anglicans and made the Cambridge Platonist Latitudinarians bishops, with Quarterly Communion and general heresy ever since, and Whiskeypalians have been cursed with Bishopess Schori and Gene ever since (the Oxford Movement and Ritualism notwithstanding). They so bankrupted the country that when Queen Anne came in, she put the Tories back in power – only for the Tories to go out of power with George I, and deficits and bad bond ratings have bedeviled us ever since. With the Act of Union they centralized The State in the national capital at the expense of other regions and nations, and relations with Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and Dixie have been “problematic” ever since. They launched the big-time colonial empire, and Scotland, Ireland, India, Gibralter, Quebec, Dixie, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Palestine have cursed us ever since.
Sound familiar? In Gringoland they took firm control with Dishonest Abe, and took final control when the last Jeffersonian (Cleveland) left office. 30 seconds is up.
Hmm. So William of Orange would have been an OK prince had he been heterosexual? What the blazes does his putative homosexuality have to do with anything? Why is this charge always a trump card?
Why won't journalists call a "spade a spade"? Just about every politician that is labeled a neoconservative is either a Jewish or Christian Zionist. This racist tribe of humanity, which do not warrant such a generous label, is eviscerating our great nation with their iron will and blatant disregard of the people. Every one of them should be imprisoned for life for war crimes and other nefarious treasonous activities against America.
I have written elsewhere: A group is to be judged by how well it polices its own and those who would claim its affiliation: The Greens how they police Eco-Terrorists and Unabomber wannabes; the Libertarians how they police drug traffickers; the “Liberals” how they police Eric Foner, the Cultural Marxists, and other Latter-Day Commies; the Neocons those who would bomb Iran; the Theocons the Rev. John Hagee; Blacks the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, Professor Leonard Jeffries, and Dwight York (the last named thankfully now policed as #17911-054 in the Florence, Colorado, ADX Supermax); Hispanics the Mexica Movement (http://www.dailynews.com/bridgetjohnson/ci_6115657); Irish republicans the Provisional IRA; Orangemen the Ulster Defence Association; Royalists the Camelots du Roi; Catholics the Sedevacantists; Jews the late Meir Kahane and his Jewish Defense League; EVERYBODY Massachusetts College of Art professor Noel Ignatiev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev and http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html); and we paleoconservatives how we police Judeophobes, assorted racialists, Aryan Nation, and The National Alliance (the US bunch, not the Italian). (The National Vanguard, thankfully, has bit the dust and its duce is in the poky – prayerfully soon to join York, and for the same crime). Failure to so police discredits those who ought to so police, however worthy their cause.
I respectfully ask the editor of this blog, Ought the remarks of #3 supra be policed? Should my remarks regarding William of Orange’s and Gene’s homosexually be judged to need such policing also, then so be it.
So what to do?
I think just about everyone intuitively 'knows' who the neo-conservatives are and what they're trying to accomplish - with due exception to the 'I Stand Behind President Bush, Our Leader, Forever' crowd - but how to combat the inevitable 'anti-Semitism' smears when the murmur becomes a roar?
You name the menace, they conceal themselves behind their 'religious beliefs', and all criticism comes to a screeching halt.
What to do?
I especially agree with the last paragraph.
"The neoconservatives also believe that nuclear attack on Iran will isolate America in the world and, thereby, give the government control over the American people. The denunciations that will be hurled at Americans from every quarter will force the country to wrap itself in the flag and to treat domestic critics as foreign enemies. Not only free speech but also truth itself will disappear along with every civil liberty."
I fear this, and I don't know where to turn.
Alex in the above thread asks, what to do, what do to. I just don't know. But given that I don't know, the next best thing is for us to regain some part of the mass media, some newspaper perhaps. And not just regain it, but to make sure it is not taken away by devious means, as for instance the adverstisers in the paper starting to disappear.
The next thing is to do someting analogous with a part of some Ivy League University. These use to all belong to us. Now none of them do, not even in part.
Sid Cundiff:
"I wish we’d not call this Camorra “neo-conservatives” and use instead “Hamiltonians”, or better yet, “Whigs”."
They bear very little resemblance to actual Hamiltonians - HW Bush, James Baker, Colin Powell et al. Neo-Conservatism is derived from Marxism, not Whiggism.
1. There is a history of American ethnic groups lobbying for a certain foreign policy, and the more recent arrivals often are more knowledgeable. During 1914-1918, Irish, German/Central European, and Catholic immigrates opposed US entry of the side of the British and the French. These groups largely immigrated into the US after 1848. The old Jeffersonian Democrats agreed with them, “Twisting the Lion’s tail” a policy that went back to Jefferson and Polk. And they were right to oppose such entry The other big groups who mostly entered before 1775 – the East Anglians into New England, the Quakers into the Delaware Valley, the Borderers (the so-called “Scots-Irish”) into the Backcountry, the Cavaliers into Virginia, and the Scottish Highlanders (first into the Cape River Valley) – were Anglophilic, and thus foolish supported entry.
2. In my entry, #1, I attempted to demonstrate a historical legacy from the Whigs. I invite Mr. Newman (of #8) to offer evidence to demonstrate his assertion of a Marxist legacy. He may be right. He just needs evidence. Do Neocons believe in Dialectical Materialism? The Labor Theory of Value? The Marxist view of interest? The Marxist view of exploitation? Class Struggle? The Dictatorship of the Proletariat? Trotsky’s “permanent revolution”? Gramscian “Hegemony”? The Frankfurt School on “ideology”, “superstructure”, “authoritarian personality”, “one dimensional man”, and so called “critical theory”? Frankly, the only similarity that I see is their agreement with Marx on the class he hated the most: the lumpen-proletariat (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon ). Yet I’m willing to be persuaded.
"The more he listened to [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist 'neoconservative' ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. 'The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.'"--General Anthony Zinni
"Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn't say 'Jews.' He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: 'neoconservatives.' As the name implies, 'neoconservative' was originally meant to denote someone who is a newcomer to the right. In the 90's, many people self-identified themselves as 'neocons,' but today that term has become synonymous with 'Jews.'"--Joel Mowbray
...the dark secret of Jewish power is out. Just recently it was 'third rail', touch-and-die, deadly dangerous to mention, certain end to a career. Just recently, Joe Public snapped his TV from an eminence with an Israeli passport to a member of a Jewish think-tank, and muttered to himself: Surely it is just a coincidence that so many important and largely unelected people in our country happen to belong to this small minority group. Surely it is just a coincidence that they belong to different parties but reach the same conclusions. Surely it is just a coincidence that ninety per cent of American foreign aid goes to their cousins in prosperous Tel Aviv. Surely it is just a coincidence that they run our newspapers, television, cinema, universities. Anyway, we are not allowed to notice this elephant in our sitting room."--Israel Shamir, Midas Ears, March 11, 2003]
Here we go again. If it's not the homos, it's the Jews; if not the Jews, then the Masons, etc. Next up, it's the extraterrestrials, I suppose ...
In re conspiracy theories, consider an old Russian saying, pungent in the original, pretty good in Engklish, too:
Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
Yeah you're right, surely it is just a whole lot of coincidences.
"The radical disjunction between political and economic power in Poland meant that the enfranchised noble citizens gradually lost control of their culture. The easy-going Polish oligarchs, wedded to an economic system that seemed so eminently successful in bringing new lands under the Polish crown, failed to understand that the control over those territories was being undermined from within by the very people they relied on for its administration. This happened gradually, of course, and it began to manifest itself first in the area of religion. Flush with the short-term wealth which the arenda system created and the territorial expansion which it enabled, the Polish kings ignored the biggest cultural crisis of their day, the Protestant revolt against Catholic hegemony over Europe. There was no Inquisition in Poland. As a result, what might have happened in Spain did happen there. Poland became a model for tolerance, but in doing so paved the way for its own extinction at the end of the 18th century."
"Messianic politics lies at the heart of what the Jewish and Puritan revolutionaries of the 16th century had in common, which is to say, both the Puritan and the Jew shared a desire to attain the spiritual goods promised in the Bible by secular means. Messianic politics was a form of magic, since the attainment of wealth and power by spiritual means had always been the goal of Simon Magus and his followers, and as such it had a powerful appeal to a group of people who were just discovering the natural sciences at the same time that they were full of revulsion at the cross of Christ and the ideal of suffering which it embodied. "It is better," St. Augustine wrote, summarizing the Catholic alternative to Simon Magus, "to love God and make use of money, than to love money and make use of God." The Puritan rejection of the medieval worldview of the Catholic Church (and its Anglican surrogates) was ultimately traceable to the Jewish rejection of the suffering Christ as an unworthy Messiah. "The chief priests," St. Matthew tells us, "with the scribes and elders mocked him in the same way. ‘He saved others,’ they said, ‘he cannot save himself. He is the king of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.’"
http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html