Letters to the Editor
-
Chase Them Out Of Office
Now that David Chase has completed THE SOPRANOS perhaps he could just write the neocons off our show.
-
It looks like more than a few people...
are beginning to see them in the same light as Peter Viereck.
Dangerous radicals.
Jacobinism, Bolshevism
The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins
are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)
Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that
Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).
Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel: "They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Jacobinism.2C_Bolshevism
-
History repeating itself....
This behavior is a form of psychosis. It has roots in the paranoid delusions of narcissm—remnants of the hive or tribal mind from the Paleolithic period—prior to settling in villages and the advancement from "bands" of hunter-gatherers to the "chiefdom" level (i.e. above 50 adults). The collective use, or misuse from modern perspectives, of language I think illustrates a fundamental disconnect between the concept of self-centered or destructive power (its acquisition, care and feeding), and the self-less concept of power required to participate in a society.
I find Glen's description evocative of the mentality and behavior of Hitler's "Brown Shirts"--the SA, which proved to be the ultimate stepping stone on his rise to power--ruthless and mindless to the point of being conveniently disposable.
Thugs is thugs, or in the case of neocons--"thugs r us"
-
Excellent Detailed Analysis, But Don't Forget The Boss
As usual, Glenn, you've compiled and organized an impressive mass of detail on a number of high-profile examples. But lets not forget the man on top of the whole pyramid, G.W. Bush himself.
First, there is the whole matter of his deficient national guard service, which I wrote about here, shortly after CBS was savaged for relying on questionable documents whose essential content was, however, corroborated on air at the time:
http://www.randomlengthsnews.com/archive/coverupoctober1.html
"Cover Up: Bush’s Missing Guard Duty What CBS News Didn’t Find" in which I wrote:
Bush has unsigned pay and points records documenting training drills during part of his missing year, presumably in Alabama. However, no other documents support this evidence, which gives credit for drills outside the legally allowable time-frame,[11] and overstates the points earned. (November 13 and 14, 1972, and January 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 were weekdays, for which only seven points total should be credited. Bush received fourteen.[12]) A variety of such documents would normally exist for each of the drills. No one observed him at any of these drills. Other documents—such as his Chronological Listing of Service[13] and his Military Biography[14]—show no record of him being stationed in Alabama. There is no document authorizing his presence in Alabama after December 1972, or for the sessions he was paid for there in October and November.[15] He missed the sessions he was assigned to those months.[16]
Bush himself has never been seriously questioned about all these contradictions, much less given a straight answer. For years, his all-purpose response has been that he served honorably, because he got an honorable discharge. But his honorable discharge was fraudulently obtained, according to analysis by Colonel Gerald Lechliter (Retired), posted on the New York Times website,[17] and corroborated by a similar analysis by independent researcher Paul A Lukasiak,[18] prominently cited by Salon magazine for his role in analyzing and decoding the significance of Bush’s military record.
While their arguments go into considerable detail, a handful of documents readily reveals major contradictions in Bush’s defense. A memo released by the White House in February 2004, written by Lt. Colonel Albert Lloyd,[19] is clearly in error in claiming that Bush fulfilled his obligations with 56 points in 1972-73 and 50 points in 1973-74—the bare minimum accepted. For the later year, a document in Bush’s file (released by the White House that same week)—“ARF Retirement Credit Summary,” dated January 30, 1974—clearly states that he earned only 40 points for 1973-74, ten points short.[20] That alone is enough to discredit his honorable discharge.
In his analysis, Lechliter concludes that, “The pay records released by the White House this past winter prove Bush received unauthorized, i.e., fraudulent, payments for inactive duty training, even if he did show up for duty.” [21]
Lukasiak adds that the documents “also reveal that Bush’s personnel files were tampered with to disguise what had occurred.” [22]
(Numbers in brackets are footnotes compiled for the original print version.)
The evidence of tampering, unauthorized credit, and insufficient service points all indicate the existence of a conspiracy to protect Bush that has never been seriously examined by the Versailles press. CBS got beat up severly the only time anyone even came close--and they never really looked at the detailed level of analysis that Lukasiak (who posts here sometimes) and Lechliter provide.
Then there is the whole matter of his many impeachable offenses, particularly, as former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has repeatedly noted, the fraud involved in taking us to war. And there's the "smoking gun" of the Downing Street Memos. I'm not asking for impeachment just on my say-so. Only that obvious leads be followed up on. That alone is enough to make me a pariah by Versailles standards.
Even at 28% in the latest Newsweek poll, it is still unthinkable that the American people should want real accountability for how they were deceived into this disasterour war against a sworn enemy of those who attacked us on 9/11.