Planet Chomsky: How the 'Neocons' took over the World

[abu afak]

(I would also liked to have posted this in the Iraq section where it is equally relevant, and where Takeo, TDidier, & co can see it.. but decided here)

How the 'neo-cons' are taking over the world - or Not
January 7, 2004
(Originally Appeared in NY Times; SMH link here)

As the United States enters an election year, the conspiracy theories are on the rise, writes David Brooks.

Do you ever get the sense the whole world is becoming unhinged from reality? I started feeling that way a while ago, when I was still working for The Weekly Standard and all these articles began appearing about how Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Bill Kristol and a bunch of "neo-conservatives" at the magazine had taken over US foreign policy.

Theories about the tightly knit neo-con cabal came in waves. One day you read that neo-cons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and move into Syria. Websites appeared detailing neo-con conspiracies; my favourite described a neo-con outing organised by Dick Cheney to hunt for humans.

The Asian press had the most lurid stories, the European press the most thorough. Every day, it seemed, Le Monde or some deep-thinking German paper would have an expose on the neo-con cabal, complete with charts connecting all the conspirators.

The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, it is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neo-con tentacles.

We'd sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neo-con influence has now hardened into common knowledge. The Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.

In truth, the people labelled neo-cons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is another term for new, although some see it as short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another.

The ones outside government have almost no contact with President George Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to the insidious power of Richard Perle, chairman of the Defence Policy Board, over Administration policy, but I've been told by senior Administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he's shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings.

It's true that both Bush and the people labelled neo-cons agree that Saddam Hussein represented a unique threat to world peace. But correlation does not mean causation.

All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently. Besides, if he wanted to follow the neo-con line, Bush wouldn't know where to turn because while the neo-cons agree on Saddam, they disagree vituperatively on just about everything else. (If you ever read a sentence that starts with "neo-cons believe", there is a 99.44 per cent chance everything else in that sentence will be untrue.)

Still, there are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organised and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything.

There's something else going on, too. The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it's much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques. Some people live in towns where nobody likes Bush. Others listen to radio networks where nobody likes Bill Clinton.

In these communities, half-truths get circulated and exaggerated. Dark accusations are believed because it is delicious to believe them. The White House aide Vince Foster was murdered. The Saudis warned the Bush Administration before the September 11 attacks.

You get to choose your own reality. You get to believe what makes you feel good. You can ignore inconvenient facts so rigorously your picture of the world is one big distortion.

And if you can give your foes a collective name - liberals, fundamentalists or neo-cons - you can rob them of their individual humanity. All inhibitions are removed. You can say anything about them. You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate in your own contrasting virtue.

You will find books, blowhards and candidates playing to your delusions, and you can emigrate to your own version of Planet Chomsky.
You can live there unburdened by ambiguity.

Improvements in information technology have not made public debate more realistic. On the contrary, anti-Semitism is resurgent. Conspiracy theories are prevalent. Partisanship has left many people unhinged.

Welcome to election year, 2004.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...268035178.html

The New York Times

[Kev]

I really do like David Frum.

That said, I saw a recent article somewhere.....wish I had the link to it now, where he states his backing of Israel but in the next breath explains why the US has to stop Israel from retaliating, going into depth as to why Israelis could not be allowed to fly over Iraq....etc.



I will try to find the link and post it here.

[nuttie]

An extract from a MEMRI dispatch:

Saudi Princess Fahda bint Saud ibn Abd Al-Aziz: Conspiracy Theories and Other Writings


The following is a collection of writings by Saudi Princess Fahda bint Saud ibn Abd Al-Aziz. According to the Saudi press, the princess is "the daughter of King Saud and the historian of her father's reign."(1)

Princess Fahda often warns about conspiracies by "neo-conservatives" to control the world and by Israel to attack Saudi Arabia. She explains that her father, King Saud, set forth a plan of how the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and all Muslims today should deal with the "cancerous Zionist threat," and how to fight against U.S. propaganda campaigns. The princess is also reported to be the chairwoman of Saudi charities.(2) The following are excerpts of articles by Princess Fahda:

The Neo-Conservative Conspiracy to Control the World

On November 15, 2003, writing in the Saudi government daily Okaz, Saudi Princess Fahda bint Saud ibn Abd Al-Aziz wrote an article titled "The Bombings: Who is Behind the Scenes? Who is Behind Terrorism?" The following are excerpts from the article:

"It is our turn to think and say that we, in our country, are in dire need of revealing the truth to our peoples and to explain who stands behind the violence in our country and behind the conspiracies that shook its security and took us by surprise like a spark flamed by the wind throughout the country. We need to realize who stands behind those simpletons, who tempted them and supplied them with weapons and money to commit their crimes against their people and their country... We say that Islam disavows them, because what they do is as far as can be from the true Islamic ideology and method.

"Therefore, blaming Islamists [for terrorism] is a policy played by those who want to undermine security in our country. And the Muslims know that the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] is the only country in the world that follows Islam and its laws in every sector of life, and although many [Saudi] Islamists are against American policies in the region, they do not rise to hit and kill their brethren...

"So, who stands behind the violence in our country? Let us stop for a while and think in earnest and let us urge our nation to wake up and see the great enemy who is fiddling with our fate, our unity and our resources and is trying to shatter it for whose benefit?

"Wake up, oh Saudis, and look around you... We should comprehend that Islam is the target, and [so is] the undermining of our Islamic values, ideologies, and unity which made us into a safe and cohesive society, and a supreme example in Islam. Furthermore, the goal is to create strife within [our] society and paint a bad image of it and its cohesiveness. That is why we have to think and analyze who is behind these sudden bombings and agitation, and who is directing them from behind the scenes?

"It is not a puzzle ... and it is not a mystery to us ... most of us know the truth and who is behind it. We are now required to go beyond questioning to the phase of acting and contributing [to the effort] to put an end to the conspiracies which were never a trait of our society. All the Saudis, with their varied ideologies: Islamists, intellectuals, thinkers, preachers, academicians, educators, liberals, and the people at large should put an end to the conspiracies by standing together, by being cohesive and by containing these misled youngsters so that they do not participate in implementing conspiracies against the unity and security of their country.

"And let us say together: Wake up Saudis because the conspiracies are surrounding our society and agitating our youth. Let us stand as one and do everything in our power to expose these conspiracies and let us fight our enemy with the weapon that he fears most, our unity, and by organizing an all-inclusive forum, not only for dialogue, but also to reveal the truth to our society and to be able to fight back the great conspiracies and to expose who is planning, financing, and implementing them, and how to get to them, because the country is the victim of this major conspiracy."(3)

- snip -

For the full MEMRI article, LINK HERE

[Mira~]

You now what I can't understand and has never been sufficiently explained to me by any of the cabal theorists is why didn't the US take out Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War? Wolfowitz was undersecretary for Bush Senior. Abrams was also a member of Bush's National Security Council and William Kristol was Chief of Staff under Bush senior. So most of the players are the same now as they were then and yet Bush senior was strongly against invading Iraq and his son was strongly for it. Other than sanctions not working, and the possibility of faulty intel on WMD, what is different now?

[TDidier]

Do you know what "neo cons" mean in french ?

[Mira~]

Originally posted by TDidier
Do you know what "neo cons" mean in french ?

Oh shut up, you idiot!

[Kev]

So most of the players are the same now as they were then and yet Bush senior was strongly against invading Iraq and his son was strongly for it. Other than sanctions not working, and the possibility of faulty intel on WMD, what is different now?

IF I remember correctly........it was Colin Powell that stopped it directly?

When the first Gulf War Coalition was formed together they decided that the US would not occuppy Iraq or root out Saddam.
However had he somehow died in the fighting, then fine, that would have been wonderful but they couldnt be seen as having killed him directly.

And, had a "spontaneous" uprising caused his death, that would have been wonderful as well, but alas, it did not happen!

My understanding is that they were concerned mostly about inflaming the Arab/Muslim world.

In retrosepect, we now realize no matter what is done, they become inflamed.


That is at least my simplistic understanding of the situation, albeit, I didnt pay nearly as much attention to foreign affairs as I do today.

[Kev]

So most of the players are the same now as they were then and yet Bush senior was strongly against invading Iraq and his son was strongly for it. Other than sanctions not working, and the possibility of faulty intel on WMD, what is different now?

IF I remember correctly........it was Colin Powell that stopped it directly?

When the first Gulf War Coalition was formed together they decided that the US would not occuppy Iraq or root out Saddam.
However had he somehow died in the fighting, then fine, that would have been wonderful but they couldnt be seen as having killed him directly.

And, had a "spontaneous" uprising caused his death, that would have been wonderful as well, but alas, it did not happen!

My understanding is that they were concerned mostly about inflaming the Arab/Muslim world.

In retrosepect, we now realize no matter what is done, they become inflamed.


That is at least my simplistic understanding of the situation, albeit, I didnt pay nearly as much attention to foreign affairs as I do today.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mira
Oh shut up, you idiot!

Exactly Mira, you are right:

neo cons : new idiots (...in french...)



|"""]
O¿O?
( - )
><¬
Homer the donuts killer.
Georges the bretzel injuried.

[nuttie]

Originally posted by TDidier
Exactly Mira, you are right:

neo cons : new idiots (...in french...)

How very witty ! Is it for such trans-lingual cleverness that French culture is renowned?

[Donna]

Originally posted by nuttie
How very witty ! Is it for such trans-lingual cleverness that French culture is renowned?

Some things do. . .

http://www.brokennewz.com/worldnews/jerryjewish.asp

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Donna
Some things do. . .

http://www.brokennewz.com/worldnews/jerryjewish.asp

Hard to trust, don't you think?
If those affirmations are right the responsables would be conduce to a judge.

[Rick]

Without overstating the facts and, generaly dismissing the links between the PNAC and former members who are now important members of this administration, it can easily be deduced that the agenda of the PNAC for american domination in the region of Iraq has been served through a contrived need to invade Iraq. Sure it could be a coincidence that the PNAC argued for the invasion of Iraq years before it took place, while former members were in place in the Bush administration at the time of invasion, but then the unorthodox methodoligy of the Bush administration in many regards parralels that of PNAC philosophy.

[Mediocrates]

Then don't overstate the facts. All the PNAC says is this: that international relations are about power and not about law. Hard to quibble with that.

[Rick]

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz