Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus · 2006-05-30 8:36 am

A worthwhile read in the Financial Times about the sinking fortunes of the neo-cons, and why they blame Bush.

�The administration�s bark is minimised, and much of the bite seems gone,� he writes in the Nixon Center�s National Interest journal. �Has superpower fatigue set in? Clearly so, to judge by the administration�s own dwindling energy and its sober acknowledgment that changing the face of the world is a lot tougher than it had hoped.�

Neo-conservative commentators at the American Enterprise Institute wrote last week what amounted to an obituary of the Bush freedom doctrine.

�Bush killed his own doctrine,� they said, describing the final blow as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. This betrayal of Libyan democracy activists, they said, came after the US watched Egypt abrogate elections, ignored the collapse of the �Cedar Revolution� in Lebanon, abandoned imprisoned Chinese dissidents and started considering a peace treaty with Stalinist North Korea.

The neo-conservatives offered no explanation for desertion of the doctrine, other than a desire to make quick but transitory short-term gains. �The president continues to believe his own preaching, but his administration has become incapable of making the hard choices those beliefs require,� they wrote.

There's more:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1f808bd2-ef54- … e2340.html

A little tid-bit; it used to be, not that long ago, that the neo-con apologists cited Libya, Lebanon, Egypt and even Palestine (Podhoretz did that), as examples of neo-con success. Now they are labelled as failures.

It's hard to keep up with the classic neo-con intellectual duplicity, but fortunately these clowns put their stuff in writing for the world to reference.

But this neo-con unhappiness does at least reveal their true(er) selves; democracies and elections are fine as long as the results are compatible with the greater agenda. Otherwise, democracies and elections aren't really the answer. But democracies and elections are supposed to be the answer, if one buys into the propaganda.

What they really mean is that their agenda is the answer, and democracy is simply a nice cover for it, as long as they can live with election results. If the democracy part doesn't give compatible results, then failure is declared. But again, their propaganda touts democracy as the 'end' justified by the 'means'. So their intellectually bankrupt philosophy is revealed, yet again.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2006-05-30 10:29 am)

user · 2006-05-30 8:58 am

Hell, I don't think they even believe in US democracy.

Hank Rearden · 2006-05-30 10:19 am

A.E.I. wrote:
The president continues to believe his own preaching, but his administration has become incapable of making the hard choices those beliefs require.

In other words, the neo-"conservatives" are tiring of the actual conservatives in the ranks. Better that they go back to the more left-leaning party of their roots. There they will find a more natural willingness to step all over peoples' liberties in the guise of "security".

Note that the British neo-cons reside in the Labour party. There is a great potential that neo-con Hillary (or some other candidate that sells out to Clinton's platform) will be the next president. And, even in Canada, we have a neo-con (Ignatieff) ready to take over the Liberal party. The rats are going back to the cheese.

bratboy · 2006-05-30 10:23 am

Hank Rearden wrote:
In other words, the neo-"conservatives" are tiring of the actual conservatives in the ranks. Better that they go back to the more left-leaning party of their roots. There they will find a more natural willingness to step all over peoples' liberties in the guise of "security".

...any recent examples?

Note that the British neo-cons reside in the Labour party. There is a great potential that neo-con Hillary (or some other candidate that sells out to Clinton's platform) will be the next president. And, even in Canada, we have a neo-con (Ignatieff) ready to take over the Liberal party. The rats are going back to the cheese.

I doubt Hillary will be the next president, and I see politicians considered further to "the left" than her that have been far more willing to protect liberties in the face of cries of "security."

Robert B. · 2006-05-30 10:31 am

I think Hillary's chances at the Presidency are greatly overestimated.

Ribtorus · 2006-05-30 10:36 am

I think the neo-cons are finally realising that they themselves are only useful to a certain extent. Their ideas were helpful to a point. They got their war and forced an election, but that was as far as they could take it.

There's no substitute for reality. No amount of philosophical crusading and earnest moralising will cut it.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2006-05-30 10:37 am)

ShnickyShnack · 2006-05-30 10:37 am

I find it interesting that the neoliberal militarist utopianism currently called "neoconservatism" has been centered on the Republican Party of late. You can trace this shift to the 70s, when conservative Democrats migrated to the right when the Dems, fed up with Vietnam and its accompanying scandals, began to turn its back on its sabre-rattling ... not toward anything enlightened, unfortunately, but that's another story.

It was very Wilsonian, and later Rooseveltian view of the world -- making it safe for democracy, indeed reshaping the planet entirely. It was continued through Truman, JFK and LBJ before it ran out of Democratic steam.

It would appear to be running out of Republican steam too. Took less time, around thirty years instead of fifty or sixty, but one does get the sense that the whole empire thing is getting real old real fast.

Not to mention the same thing is happening now as happened the last time -- the ol' till is running dry.

Duke Stratosphere · 2006-05-30 10:43 am

Robert B. wrote:
I think Hillary's chances at the Presidency are greatly overestimated.

I'd really be surprised if this country elected a female President any time in the next 20 years. I'd have no objection, but plenty of old redneck male chauvinists would and I just don't see it happening.

ShnickyShnack · 2006-05-30 10:48 am

I think Hillary would be a Democratic Bush. Not in terms of record, necessarily, but someone who people either love or loathe.

Not to mention if I were her I'd be mighty reluctant to go for the job. All the Clinton hate from the 90s would just start up all over again. Guh, my stomach turns just thinking about it.

isaly · 2006-05-30 10:58 am

Many repubs are "jumping ship" not, as they claim, because bush made mistakes but because he is a lame duck. They are also aware that, strategically speaking, the dems are going to have to run someone "electable" which is a code word for pro "stay the course", pro globalization, pro corporate hegemony. . . in other words, business as usual since before Kennedy.

The aim was, and is, to keep US public opinion as far rightward (in terms of economic issues) which basically underpins the US arrogated right to conduct ourselves as we have in Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua. . . . and now Iraq and Iran. The military endeavors are seen as necessary to protect our "interests" read to protect the access to markets and to prevent countries with US corporate investment in terms of infrastructure from nationalizing market sectors. Either Hillary and Kerry will effectively accomplish this as well as Bayh, Warner, Biden, Edwards and everyone else. The Dems will not run someone who wants sea change. . . that person will be cast as too "radical". In a climate where Clinton and Kerry are perceived as far left, generally as a function of the punditocracy, it's easy to see just how fukt we are.

Jumping ship is intended to be taken as an admission of having been "wrong". There was sufficient evidence that bush was completely knackered in 2004 yet the idiots re-elected him. these are the same idiots.

DO NOT BELIEVE THEM !

Last edited by isaly (2006-05-30 11:04 am)

blank kludge · 2006-05-30 11:03 am

If the neocon agenda includes eviscerating the Constitution, then they can only be judged a huge success.
--------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi … gislation/

"Cheney aide is screening legislation
Adviser seeks to protect Bush power

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The office of Vice President Dick Cheney routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president's desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power, according to former White House and Justice Department officials.

The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush administration's leading architect of the ``signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws. The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

The Bush-Cheney administration has used such statements to claim for itself the option of bypassing a ban on torture, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and numerous requirements that they provide certain information to Congress, among other laws."...
-------
Domestic Spying isn't exactly the best practice of 'strict construction' either, imho.

Ribtorus · 2006-05-30 11:06 am

Sometimes I think the neo-cons actually believe their own press. But most probably, by declaring themselves to be separate from Bush policy when things go awry, they're just covering themselves.

Ribtorus · 2006-05-30 11:10 am

blank kludge wrote:
If the neocon agenda includes eviscerating the Constitution, then they can only be judged a huge success.
--------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi … gislation/

"Cheney aide is screening legislation
Adviser seeks to protect Bush power

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The office of Vice President Dick Cheney routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president's desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power, according to former White House and Justice Department officials.

The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush administration's leading architect of the ``signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws. The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

The Bush-Cheney administration has used such statements to claim for itself the option of bypassing a ban on torture, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and numerous requirements that they provide certain information to Congress, among other laws."...
-------
Domestic Spying isn't exactly the best practice of 'strict construction' either, imho.

It's foreign policy they're most upset with.

I I imagine new invasive powers will suit the Democrats just fine once they have the clout to use them.

Chipping away at civil liberties is certainly consistent with neo-conism, but not exclusively so. That's real bi-partisanship!

JakeTheTall · 2006-05-30 11:11 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
I think Hillary would be a Democratic Bush. Not in terms of record, necessarily, but someone who people either love or loathe.

Not to mention if I were her I'd be mighty reluctant to go for the job. All the Clinton hate from the 90s would just start up all over again. Guh, my stomach turns just thinking about it.

On the flip side, there must be a lot of people like myself, who would vote for Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the hope that she is elected, and causes all those old redneck male chauvinists' heads to explode. Probably a few right-wing pundits, too. i.e. Ann Coulter foaming at the mouth and unable to articulate a word for a year or three, for all the outrage++.

Hank Rearden · 2006-05-30 11:16 am

bratboy wrote:
...any recent examples?

Uh, didn't I mention Blair, H. Clinton, and Ignatieff? I'm sure that I could find examples in other countries if I had more of a clue about their politics.

In any case, whether or not Clinton wins the Democrat primaries, whomever emerges will likely mirror her ideas. Primaries don't act to select for differing opinion, but rather for vanilla status quo. So, if Democrat neo-conservative neoliberalism is "in", because Clinton is getting the votes, then whomever actually wins (whether it be Clinton or someone else) will be saying things quite similar to Clinton.

Duke Stratosphere · 2006-05-30 11:24 am

JakeTheTall wrote:
On the flip side, there must be a lot of people like myself, who would vote for Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the hope that she is elected, and causes all those old redneck male chauvinists' heads to explode.

Hell, yeah. I'd actually vote for her myself just to see the reaction. lol

blank kludge · 2006-05-30 11:35 am

IMHO, whoever can be perceived as being furthest away from the current junta/rubberstamp is 'electable'. I'm not talking MY vote, I really think it'll be an 'outsider' whose hands are seen as clean.
------
caveat: IF there IS an election...

Last edited by blank kludge (2006-05-30 11:36 am)

ShnickyShnack · 2006-05-30 11:44 am

JakeTheTall wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
I think Hillary would be a Democratic Bush. Not in terms of record, necessarily, but someone who people either love or loathe.

Not to mention if I were her I'd be mighty reluctant to go for the job. All the Clinton hate from the 90s would just start up all over again. Guh, my stomach turns just thinking about it.
On the flip side, there must be a lot of people like myself, who would vote for Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the hope that she is elected, and causes all those old redneck male chauvinists' heads to explode. Probably a few right-wing pundits, too. i.e. Ann Coulter foaming at the mouth and unable to articulate a word for a year or three, for all the outrage++.

I must say that's a magnificent upside I hadn't even considered.

Go Hillary go!

bratboy · 2006-05-30 12:19 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
Uh, didn't I mention Blair, H. Clinton, and Ignatieff? I'm sure that I could find examples in other countries if I had more of a clue about their politics.

Not examples of people....actions. You said this:

Better that they go back to the more left-leaning party of their roots. There they will find a more natural willingness to step all over peoples' liberties in the guise of "security".

So, if Democrat neo-conservative neoliberalism is "in"...

Is it? I don't see anything nearly as uniform as it seems you're suggesting (amongst the public).

isaly · 2006-05-30 12:38 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
I think Hillary would be a Democratic Bush. Not in terms of record, necessarily, but someone who people either love or loathe.

mmmm. . . nope. . . it'd be record.

If Hillary were to actually make it possible for real wages to significantly increase, she'd be cool with the red statey workin' class folks regardless of her foreign policy. She could wage as many wars as Gaius Julius Caesar in Europe to make sure the rest of the world stays "with the program".

Of course, the people who hate her and call themselves 'conservative' are not really conservative at all. I believe they need her to be an enemy for the purpose of being able to blame her AS BEING A "LIBERAL" (which should be obvious is false because she's NOT a 'liberal") and so maintain rightward pressure on public opinion.

She'll be okay with spankin' Iran too. . . because it'll enhance the bottom line of the energy and defense folks and provide US with a larger bridgehead and all that entails.

Hank Rearden · 2006-05-30 12:46 pm

bratboy wrote:
Not examples of people....actions.

Ribs said it best so far: http://www.macaddict.com/forums/post/1226009#p1226009

Ribtorus wrote:
I imagine new invasive powers will suit the Democrats just fine once they have the clout to use them.

Chipping away at civil liberties is certainly consistent with neo-conism, but not exclusively so. That's real bi-partisanship!

bratboy wrote:
Is it? I don't see anything nearly as uniform as it seems you're suggesting (amongst the public).

Does the "public" really matter? If the old boys can make sure that their kind is in charge of both major parties, then it doesn't matter what the outcome of an election is.

bratboy · 2006-05-30 12:56 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
Ribs said it best so far: http://www.macaddict.com/forums/post/1226009#p1226009

Okay. I suppose I was looking for more specific examples from within the "other party" of "a more natural willingness to step all over peoples' liberties in the guise of "security." It's certainly there, but I see more dissent amongst the Dems than from the ranks of the current GOP.

Does the "public" really matter? If the old boys can make sure that their kind is in charge of both major parties, then it doesn't matter what the outcome of an election is.

I think the public could matter in that Hillary might be viewed as not 'different' enough.

ShnickyShnack · 2006-05-30 1:58 pm

isaly wrote:
ShnickyShnack wrote:
I think Hillary would be a Democratic Bush. Not in terms of record, necessarily, but someone who people either love or loathe.
mmmm. . . nope. . . it'd be record.

If Hillary were to actually make it possible for real wages to significantly increase, she'd be cool with the red statey workin' class folks regardless of her foreign policy. She could wage as many wars as Gaius Julius Caesar in Europe to make sure the rest of the world stays "with the program".

Of course, the people who hate her and call themselves 'conservative' are not really conservative at all. I believe they need her to be an enemy for the purpose of being able to blame her AS BEING A "LIBERAL" (which should be obvious is false because she's NOT a 'liberal") and so maintain rightward pressure on public opinion.

She'll be okay with spankin' Iran too. . . because it'll enhance the bottom line of the energy and defense folks and provide US with a larger bridgehead and all that entails.

To be perfectly honest I don't think any president, for at least a couple of terms after Bush, will be able, much less willing to start a war. It's gonna take years to undo the damage caused by the present one(s).

What America needs now is a top-flight manager who can get the smurf back into some kind of sane structure again. Frankly I don't think it's even possible to reconstitute the state to its former levels of effectiveness and competence, but if anyone can I'd say Hillary is it.

iBubba · 2006-05-30 2:01 pm

Clinton.

You know you were just waiting for me to say it. Admit it.

isaly · 2006-05-30 2:26 pm

ShnickyShnack wrote:
To be perfectly honest I don't think any president, for at least a couple of terms after Bush, will be able, much less willing to start a war. It's gonna take years to undo the damage caused by the present one(s).

Well, if Hills were to govern in the abstract, separate from world events, you might be right. History will continue to unfold as a function of it's current state, Iran will want it's nuclear power and there is a large percentage of the US population that sees that as necessarily a bad thing. Pundits will selectively trot out R. Khomeni's statements about the US in the '70s, and the apocolypticos will do their best to keep the hive stirred up. . . a few suicide bombers on buses, restaurants, weddings etc. here in the US and folks'll be buying more than duct-tape and plastic sheeting.

ShnickyShnack wrote:
What America needs now is a top-flight manager who can get the smurf back into some kind of sane structure again. Frankly I don't think it's even possible to reconstitute the state to its former levels of effectiveness and competence, but if anyone can I'd say Hillary is it.

What makes you think Hillary's got any of that?

Good fiscal management and the re-enfranchisement of the US working class would be a great thing, unfortunately this is not going to come from Hillary of the Rose Law Firm, as beholden to a corporate board as anyone.

Hillary will ensure that we "stay the course" in Iraq and whatever spillover into other nations happens will cause her to act in a way which she and her handlers will tell us is regrettable, yet necessary. "Bring 'em on" will be a thing of the past but we'll be fightin' and Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Kellog, Bechtel Exxon, Mobil, Shell, and all their buddies will get to continue feeding at the trough of what will be a re-considered and re-marketed version of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2006-05-30 8:36 am

More disgruntled neo-cons

#2 2006-05-30 8:58 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#3 2006-05-30 10:19 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

A.E.I. wrote:

#4 2006-05-30 10:23 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

Hank Rearden wrote:

#5 2006-05-30 10:31 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#6 2006-05-30 10:36 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#7 2006-05-30 10:37 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#8 2006-05-30 10:43 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

Robert B. wrote:

#9 2006-05-30 10:48 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#10 2006-05-30 10:58 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#11 2006-05-30 11:03 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#12 2006-05-30 11:06 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#13 2006-05-30 11:10 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

blank kludge wrote:

#14 2006-05-30 11:11 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#15 2006-05-30 11:16 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

bratboy wrote:

#16 2006-05-30 11:24 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

JakeTheTall wrote:

#17 2006-05-30 11:35 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#18 2006-05-30 11:44 am

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

JakeTheTall wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#19 2006-05-30 12:19 pm

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

Hank Rearden wrote:

#20 2006-05-30 12:38 pm

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#21 2006-05-30 12:46 pm

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

bratboy wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

bratboy wrote:

#22 2006-05-30 12:56 pm

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

Hank Rearden wrote:

#23 2006-05-30 1:58 pm

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

isaly wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#24 2006-05-30 2:01 pm

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

#25 2006-05-30 2:26 pm

Re: More disgruntled neo-cons

ShnickyShnack wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Board footer