Letters to the Editor
-
Wilkerson Is Mistaken
L.W.M.:
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."
There has always been an absolutist authoritarian strain of conservatism, represented back in the French Revolution days by Joseph de Maistre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre
Indeed, the belief in divine sanction has always stood ready to pull conservatives towards Maistre's position.
Like Pat Buchanan today--also no neocon--Maistre was always ready for another go-round in the culture wars. The order and stability that "mainstream conservatives" love to champion (when deploring liberal/radical agitators) have never appealed to de Maistre conservatives.
-
Paul Rosenberg
"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."
Paul,
Great letter! Just to clarify: Shouldn't the above read...
Even at 28% in the latest Newsweek poll, it is still unthinkable that the American people SHOULDN'T/WOULDN'T want real accountability for how they were deceived into this disasterour war against a sworn enemy of those who attacked us on 9/11."
If not, could you please explain your point? Thanks!
-
Real Name:
In other words, in case I'm being too vague for you, when you make claims of 'irrefutable proof', it's good to at least make a game try at sourcing that. A footnote, an attribution, something. See not everyone has spent the morning sucking the liberal tailpipe. It might not be one of those self evident truths handed down from St. Joan of Salon to everyone concerned.
Ignoring the cited evidence and then claiming there is none will persuade nobody.
In the case of Libby, I made clear that, first, a Republican prosecutor, and then a carefully selected jury of 12 people unanimously, found the evidence of his guilt so overwhelming that they concluded there was not even a reasonable doubt.
In the case of Larry Franklin, he had confessed to his crimes in a court of law.
Those are the only two cases about which I said I was personally convinced of guilt.
In the case of Paul Wolfowitz, the World Bank investigative committee examined the evidence and found he was guilty of wrongdoing. Both Conrad Black and the other AIPAC officials are currently on trial. In those cases, I expressly said I had no opinion of their guilt.
The point is that neocons reflexively defend other neocons before the evidence is even known, or even once it becomes conclusively clear. They do so by embracing principles and standards that they reject in every other context.
Nothing you've said relates to, let alone, contradicts any of that. All you've done is come and (a) argued against claims of "irrefutable evidence" where none was made, and (b) insisted that there was no evidence cited to support claims of guilt even when there was evidence presented -- evidence which you simply ignored in order to pretend there was none.
Do you really not see that?
-
@RealName
Lest Salon become just another screeching blog ...
See not everyone has spent the morning sucking the liberal tailpipe. ...
Thank you for your attention and re now return you to our regularly scheduled dickwaving mob.
-- RealName
Obviously, if we want to avoid "just another screeching blog" you must be firmly dis-invited from posting here.
-
@LWM - You give the neocons much too much credit
The words "democracy" and "neocon" occupy opposite ends of a dialectic.
They are master propagandists. I think they have absolutely nothing to do with democracy. The things they write and say remind me not of anything democratic, but of statements like this:
It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.
-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 01 Aug. 1923
-
He renounced his Canadian birthright because it was less valuable to him than being able to pose as:
http://www.usmarkets.nl/userimages/221105-142-echtpaarBlack.jpg
-
Others
Don't forget Jeff Gannon-- there was widespread outrage, even straight-faced charges of homophobia by neo-conservatives that his personal life (e.g. his sex-for-hire escort site, possible relations with high-ranking White House officials, etc.) was outed.
And don't forget Peggy Noonan's whistful so-long to Enron's multi-billion dollar looter poor Ken Lay-- whom she mourned as dying of "a broken heart." This of course, was approximately one year after she had written a column advocating that looters in New Orleans be shot on sight.
-
"neo" cons
Rhetoric aside, in my lifetime politicians and intellectuals who call themselves "conservative" have always behaved exactly like the Bush-Cheney crowd.
Why do so many "progressives" fixate onn this idea that "The Neocons" are the villains in this piece?
Well, it upsets us libertarian types to be conflated with the fascists.
Of course there is something to the idea that neoconservatism is just the latest development of tendencies latent in the American conservative demographic, but I do think a clear line can be drawn, neocons explicitly and plainly advocate for US domination over the entire world and themselves dominating the US, e.g. PNAC plans, although there are others.
Another defining line is the tactics they take, as crooked as the old conservatives may have been, at no time in American history has such a group so blatantly defied the law and redefined the law to excuse their own actions. No other group of "conservatives" has ever expressed such contempt for the Constitution.
-
Grand Delusion
It's amazing how two conflicting states/beliefs can exist concurrently in one mind or a collective mind.
When one adopts a prescriptive dogma or doctrine, the investment is deeply woven into the person's identity. To allow concession, on any level or in any degree, is to call the very identity into question. That’s terrifying. The doctrine will defend it’s “life” against all reason.
Cognitive Dissonance must be made into consonance, ASAP, and this is done with astonishing efficiency by humans of every political stripe. Ridicule, out-right dismissal, and/or outrage are common tools to bring about the consonance, and the neo-cons have perfected this process, but they aren't the only ones who have.
More evidence, more warning to those of us who wish to remain open to new information and the problems that invariably ensue when one's identity is tilting on a mutable perception that one believes, with absolute certainty, as eternal and unquestionable truth. If the unquestionable truth is, unquestionable, then anyone questioning must be suspect.
Amazing, the tautology of conflicting premises.
Great illustration Glenn.