Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

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

  1. #16
    Rick
    Guest

    Mediocrates

    ......as you can see by the mission statement that I posted above, the agenda of the PNAC goes far beyond stating that international relations are about power and not law.

  2. #17
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    No not at all, it's a simply amplification on that point. So we agree then; good.

    But the deeper question is, what effect do you think that an organization which spends maybe 1% of what George Soros does on influencing policy actually have? That number is a quote by Richard Perle who has publically stated he has NEVER had a personal meeting with Bush (but with Rumsfeld).


    I get this kind of thing all the time for example when talking about AIPAC which on a dollar basis is barely in the top 50 of Lobbying related/PR (AIPAC is not a lobbyist org, it's a PR org) orgs.

  3. #18
    Rick
    Guest

    Mediocrates

    ....no we do not agree, and regardless of statements made by anyone, the names involved all point to people at the highest places in power in the United States. One can assume that the Bush campaign people assessed the politics of the individuals which were recruited into the Bush administration, and the Bush agenda is no different than the PNAC agenda.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA449.htm

    Recommended reading on the sociology of protest. Too long to post here (8 pages, 3100+ words)

  5. #20
    Rick
    Guest

    interesting article

    .......thanks for sharing

  6. #21
    abu afak
    Guest

    Re: Re: Some things just don't translate

    Originally posted by 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.
    The fact that members of the PNAC.. who were just Conservatives before it's formation, have a similar opinion to Conservatives who weren't members... proves nothing.. there isn't even a case to overstate.
    'Finishing Iraq' was a Mainstream (if not universal) Conservative position.

    The advisor always seen with the President and may have had the biggest part of his ear was Condoleeza Rice. A member of no assignable politcial philosophy except practicality.
    Bushs' view of the world is more 'Teddy Rooseveltian' or perhaps 'Evangelistic' for Democracy (see Woodward's new book) than 'Neocon'.

  7. #22
    abu afak
    Guest
    'Neocon': Slang for 'Jew'?
    Joel Mowbray

    May 27, 2003

    Hitting at what may be a new low in the "neocon" code-word game, Business Week magazine recently ran a "news" story that practically screamed "Jew"--without saying the word at all.

    In an article titled "Where do the neocons go from here?" Richard Dunham attempts to explain to a lay audience what a neocon is and where the "movement" is headed. As anyone who's participated in various political and policy struggles inside the Beltway over the past few years can attest, this is no small feat, as the word neocon has meant many things to many people at many different times. It wasn't too long ago, lest we forget, that to be a neocon meant supporting John McCain for president in 2000, which could have led a casual observer to conclude that the "neo" part meant "moderate."

    But in the current era, there seems to be a strong tendency to use neocon as a label for someone who strongly supported the war in Iraq or to describe someone who is, well, Jewish. Mr. Dunham's Business Week piece at first only seems to be doing the former. Using neocon interchangeably with "superhawk," he further writes, "The close-knit intellectuals who make up the neoconservative movement have been called extremists, warmongers, American imperialists -- and even a Zionist cabal." Eschewing the traditional news reporting practice of countering criticism with praise, Mr. Dunham allows those shockingly harsh adjectives to go unchallenged.

    After laying the groundwork of neocons as superhawks, the Business Week piece informs readers that the key members of the movement who advise President Bush are "Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith and Defense Policy Board member Richard N. Perle." Fair enough. All three have, at various times, been labeled neocons. But then, Mr. Dunham draws an interesting distinction. He describes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney as "key allies," but not as "neocons." In the remainder of the article, former Reagan administration official Ken Adelman and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol are identified as other "neocons."

    What's the difference between members of a supposedly ideological movement and their allies? After all, to agree with someone's ideology--and in the case of Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, that's almost all the time in the foreign policy realm--would seem to make someone not just an ally but an actual subscriber to that ideology. Someone who supports lower taxes, smaller government and market-based solutions on the domestic front, for example, is not an ally of conservatives--he is a conservative.

    So how do Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney not make the "neocon" cut in Mr. Dunham's mind, when the two Bush officials hold the very same worldview as the people labeled neocons? The only difference between the two categories is not one of ideology, but religion. Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, Mr. Perle, Mr. Adelman and Mr. Kristol--the "neocons" (or "superhawks")--are Jewish. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney--the key allies (who interestingly were given no "super" in front of their "hawk" designation)--are not. Why did Mr. Dunham not list fellow ideological travelers such as Gary Schmitt, Max Boot or even Newt Gingrich? None is Jewish.

    Ironically, nowhere in the article does one find "Jew:" or "Jewish," although Mr. Dunham did manage to cite unnamed critics who have called the neocons a "Zionist cabal." But that's par for the code-word course. People who mean Jew or Jewish carefully avoid use of either word, often allowing the word "neocon" to roll off the tongue, injected with a tinge of disgust. Just as with Mr. Dunham, those who assail the "neocons" in the administration fault the supposedly all-powerful "Zionist cabal" as militarily trigger-happy idealists who will overextend American resources.

    To anyone who has taken the time to fully understand the worldview of so-called "neocons" like Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, however, the word superhawk is silly. These two men in particular--regarded as visionaries by many, and who have inspired gentiles and Jews alike to follow in their ideological footsteps--believe freedom is a God-given right that cannot legitimately be denied by any government, just as our Founding Fathers believed. They don't believe in coddling dictators and they believe that the United States should engage freedom movements, not the dictatorships repressing them. What anyone, including Mr. Dunham, has failed to explain is what's so "superhawk"-ish about that.

    It's possible Mr. Dunham didn't intend to portray being Jewish as a prerequisite to joining the "neocon" club, but it's difficult to fathom that that's the case. Maybe to avoid any future confusion, Mr. Dunham--and others--would be wise to simply abandon the use of "neocon" altogether.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20030527.shtml
    Last edited by abu afak; 05-13-2004 at 02:03 PM.

  8. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    5,219
    On NPR today a caller called in and asked about the connections between the "neocons" and the Likud party, and how this has influenced US Policy. Likud - you know, the conservative party in this small little country a couple thousand miles away that has to ask the US for permission to defend itself.

    This gets bantied about by modern liberals and old-school, James "F- the Jews" Baker conservatives like Bob Novak (who I believe is a traitor re Cynthia Wilson and, flatly, evil). In fact, these declarations of the Jewish control of the US are not just common on the public media and by "respectable" journalists - they are fashionable!

    You think anti-semitism is dead in the world....think again - its very much alive, and very much in the US.

    Originally posted by abu afak
    'Neocon': Slang for 'Jew'?
    Joel Mowbray

    May 27, 2003

    Hitting at what may be a new low in the "neocon" code-word game, Business Week magazine recently ran a "news" story that practically screamed "Jew"--without saying the word at all.

    In an article titled "Where do the neocons go from here?" Richard Dunham attempts to explain to a lay audience what a neocon is and where the "movement" is headed. As anyone who's participated in various political and policy struggles inside the Beltway over the past few years can attest, this is no small feat, as the word neocon has meant many things to many people at many different times. It wasn't too long ago, lest we forget, that to be a neocon meant supporting John McCain for president in 2000, which could have led a casual observer to conclude that the "neo" part meant "moderate."

    But in the current era, there seems to be a strong tendency to use neocon as a label for someone who strongly supported the war in Iraq or to describe someone who is, well, Jewish. Mr. Dunham's Business Week piece at first only seems to be doing the former. Using neocon interchangeably with "superhawk," he further writes, "The close-knit intellectuals who make up the neoconservative movement have been called extremists, warmongers, American imperialists -- and even a Zionist cabal." Eschewing the traditional news reporting practice of countering criticism with praise, Mr. Dunham allows those shockingly harsh adjectives to go unchallenged.

    After laying the groundwork of neocons as superhawks, the Business Week piece informs readers that the key members of the movement who advise President Bush are "Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith and Defense Policy Board member Richard N. Perle." Fair enough. All three have, at various times, been labeled neocons. But then, Mr. Dunham draws an interesting distinction. He describes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney as "key allies," but not as "neocons." In the remainder of the article, former Reagan administration official Ken Adelman and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol are identified as other "neocons."

    What's the difference between members of a supposedly ideological movement and their allies? After all, to agree with someone's ideology--and in the case of Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, that's almost all the time in the foreign policy realm--would seem to make someone not just an ally but an actual subscriber to that ideology. Someone who supports lower taxes, smaller government and market-based solutions on the domestic front, for example, is not an ally of conservatives--he is a conservative.

    So how do Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney not make the "neocon" cut in Mr. Dunham's mind, when the two Bush officials hold the very same worldview as the people labeled neocons? The only difference between the two categories is not one of ideology, but religion. Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, Mr. Perle, Mr. Adelman and Mr. Kristol--the "neocons" (or "superhawks")--are Jewish. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney--the key allies (who interestingly were given no "super" in front of their "hawk" designation)--are not. Why did Mr. Dunham not list fellow ideological travelers such as Gary Schmitt, Max Boot or even Newt Gingrich? None is Jewish.

    Ironically, nowhere in the article does one find "Jew:" or "Jewish," although Mr. Dunham did manage to cite unnamed critics who have called the neocons a "Zionist cabal." But that's par for the code-word course. People who mean Jew or Jewish carefully avoid use of either word, often allowing the word "neocon" to roll off the tongue, injected with a tinge of disgust. Just as with Mr. Dunham, those who assail the "neocons" in the administration fault the supposedly all-powerful "Zionist cabal" as militarily trigger-happy idealists who will overextend American resources.

    To anyone who has taken the time to fully understand the worldview of so-called "neocons" like Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, however, the word superhawk is silly. These two men in particular--regarded as visionaries by many, and who have inspired gentiles and Jews alike to follow in their ideological footsteps--believe freedom is a God-given right that cannot legitimately be denied by any government, just as our Founding Fathers believed. They don't believe in coddling dictators and they believe that the United States should engage freedom movements, not the dictatorships repressing them. What anyone, including Mr. Dunham, has failed to explain is what's so "superhawk"-ish about that.

    It's possible Mr. Dunham didn't intend to portray being Jewish as a prerequisite to joining the "neocon" club, but it's difficult to fathom that that's the case. Maybe to avoid any future confusion, Mr. Dunham--and others--would be wise to simply abandon the use of "neocon" altogether.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20030527.shtml

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The death of Israel or the end of the world?
    By klc in forum Israeli-Arab Conflict
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 04:03 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-16-2002, 03:00 PM
  3. What the World Needs Now
    By ibrodsky in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-13-2002, 12:31 AM
  4. Dear World...
    By NewsGuy in forum Tackling Anti-Semitism
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-10-2002, 01:11 PM
  5. The Strange World of Noam Chomsky
    By Solon in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-13-2002, 02:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •