BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!

Subject: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 06:08 AM

Been waiting a long time to see the neo-con rats start scurrying away from the disaster they created -- and here we go! This month's issue of Vanity Fair (a perfect place for these vain rats) -- Richard Perle, David Frum, the scumbags of all time -- gee, nothing to do with us, it was all those dysfunctional Bush politicians, we were merely advisors! Where did they get the idea they could change the world without paying attention to reality ? Well, we will recreate reality! Of course Haliburton and Bechtel can do the job! Of course the rest of you peaceniks are delusional!!

They were lying miserable scumbags at the start and now they are lying miserable turncoat scumbags.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: kendall
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 07:21 AM

There are no roads that do not turn.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 10:25 AM

not bloody far enough in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 10:45 AM

On behalf of rats, I must take issue with your perjoritive use of the term "rat"- especially as applied to neo-con assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 11:04 AM

Just in case, someone isn't familiar with them:


"An End to Evil" by David Frum and Richard Perle

Undaunted by the Iraq debacle, uber-hawks David Frum and Richard Perle air their fevered wet dream of a national-security superstate that slaps down uppity Muslims, bombs North Korea, slices and dices civil liberties and scatters the Palestinians like birdseed.

By Gary Kamiya
Pages 1 2 3 4

NothingJanuary 30, 2004 | Forget "The Tell-Tale Heart." Put down "The Shining." Retire that dog-eared copy of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear." If you really want to feel the cold fingers of fear running up and down your spine, pick up David Frum and Richard Perle's "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror." It's the scariest book since the novel Saddam Hussein reportedly wrote while his underlings pretended to work on those nonexistent weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities -- you remember, the ones the authors and their friends in the White House used to justify invading Iraq.

"An End to Evil" is like Bush on crack. It's a kind of neocon orgy, a Bohemian Grove weekend for militaristic moralists, a chance to get naked and do tribal, Lord of the Flies dances -- "Invade Iran! Kill Yasser! Drink Kim's blood!" But if its recommendations are a little too extreme even for the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney-Paul Wolfowitz triumvirate, its underlying worldview is identical to theirs. It's a kind of CAT scan of the Bush administration's collective brain, an entity so weird it should be cryogenically frozen so future scientists can study it. Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and author of a recent encomium to his ex-boss, presumably represents the right brain, glibly spinning and selling, while neocon guru Richard Perle provides the left-hemisphere gray matter. With its trademarked combination of chipper propaganda, bullying bluster, intellectual dishonesty and radical policy prescriptions, "An End to Evil" offers a guided tour of the mind of George W. Bush, as filtered through the higher-grade neurons of its authors.

Here are some of the authors' policy recommendations: Preparing to launch a preemptive attack on North Korea, after moving our troops out of range of their artillery and missiles. Taking direct action to topple the regime in Iran, by providing aid to Iranian dissidents. Being prepared to invade Syria, of whom the authors write, "Really, there is only one question to ask about Syria: Why have we put up with it as long as we have?" Being prepared to invade Libya. "The illusion that Muammar al-Qaddafi is 'moderating' should be treated as what it is: a symptom of the seemingly incurable wishful delusions that afflict the accommodationists in the foreign policy establishment." (Now that those accommodationists in State have been proven right, don't expect an apology from the authors: They'll claim Qaddafi got rid of his WMD programs only because Bush invaded Iraq. All other answers, no matter if they're true, don't fit with their Manichaean, evildoers-respond-only-to-force worldview. Besides, those who are always right must never apologize. It is a sign of weakness, which our evil Muslim terrorist enemies (TM) will exploit with evil terror.) Taking a superconfrontational line with Saudi Arabia, including letting them know that if they don't reform we would look with favor upon a Shiite uprising in their oil-rich Eastern Province. Abandoning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process altogether. In a radical departure from U.S. policy, they say the Palestinians should not be given a state. Creating a Palestinian state out of the West Bank and Gaza, they write, will not bring peace to the region, because the Palestinians and other Arabs are only interested in vengeance, not justice. Instead, the Palestinians should "let go of the past" and content themselves with becoming citizens of the Arab countries in which they now live. The authors do not say what should happen to the 3.9 million Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories: Presumably they should either agree to become second-class citizens like the other Israeli Arabs, or leave.

Their domestic policies are equally arresting: Requiring all residents to carry a national identity card that includes "biometric data, like fingerprints or retinal scans or DNA," and empowering all law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws. The authors admit that such a card "could be used in abusive ways," but reassure us by saying that victims of "executive branch abuse will be able to sue." Those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear! Encouraging Americans to "report suspicious activity." Apparently alone among Americans, the authors lament the demise of the TIPS program. Changing immigration policy so that the U.S. can bar all would-be visitors who have "terrorist sympathies." The authors define "terrorist sympathies" so broadly that this would rule out a high percentage of visitors from Muslim or Arab countries. Reforming the CIA to make it more hard-line on the Middle East. There can be no argument that American intelligence desperately needs reform. But after the yellowcake scandal, after the Valerie Plame leak, after the lies and distortions and creation of special offices to cook evidence, for Bush hard-liners to trash the intelligence community and the State Department takes some chutzpah.

The remarkable thing about these ideas is that, just a few years ago, they existed only in the feverish fantasies of wack jobs at extreme right, virulently pro-Israel think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute. But then came Sept. 11, 2001, and an ill-starred roll of the dice that brought together superhawks Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, hard-line Likud supporters Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith (and Richard Perle, offstage), and a devoutly religious, intellectually overmatched, politically shrewd president who embraced a permanent war on terror as if God had spoken to him (and as the only way to salvage his disastrous presidency). The result: Not only were these radical ideas given respectability, they actually became U.S. policy.

Not all of them, of course. One of the few interesting things about this insufferably smug, intellectually shallow book is trying to predict which of the authors' wilder policy recommendations will actually be implemented, and which will remain mere gleams in the right wing's Cyclopean eye. In fact, none of their dreams are likely to become reality. The U.S. is not going to invade North Korea, thereby condemning tens or hundreds of thousands of Koreans (from both North and South) to death. Nor will it invade Iran: After the Iraq debacle, even the most ignorant, deluded neocon is probably beginning to realize that toppling the mullahs will not guarantee that a U.S.-friendly regime would follow.

And invading Iran would exacerbate the worsening political crisis in Iraq, where the Bush administration is desperately running again to the despised United Nations to bail out the U.S. plan for rigged elections, which were put in place to prevent an Iranian-style theocratic Shiite state emerging. Typically, Perle and Frum, who wax eloquent about bringing democracy to the Arab world, have not a word to say about this -- although every knowledgeable commentator warned of this danger before the invasion. (Similarly, they make much of their concern for the woeful plight of women in the Arab world, but ignore the fact that women in Iraq now face the likelihood of being forced to live under Islamic law -- a fate they escaped under Saddam's secular regime, dreadful as it was.) It is not even likely to whack little Syria, which poses no conceivable threat to the U.S.

Next page: OK, so they think we made one mistake in Iraq: Not installing Perle's pal Ahmad Chalabi as a puppet dictator

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 11:09 AM

From today's news, a little more: Click HERE. From that article: "I think the influence will be on morale [among Republicans]," said Steven Clemons, the head of the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation. "I think they are confusing the right. What this is yielding is ambivalence, and people will stay at home."

I hope he's right er...correct!

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 11:43 AM

And if the war had paid off, they'd have been the first to jump up screaming, "It was all me! It was my plans and policies! I'm the one who made it happen!"

Basically, this is no different than Limbaugh's "Why I Am Not to Blame" which he released after the OK City bomber revealed his fascination for the rightwing and all its talking heads. CYA they call it.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 03:48 PM

This is just an aside...but regarding the commonly used pejorative phrase "like rats abandoning a (sinking) ship"...

The fact is, rats will definitely and absolutely abandon a ship at once when they sense it is going to sink. This is not despicable, it is 100% sensible and rational, and only a rat who was a complete idiot in rat terms would NOT abandon a sinking ship.

I mention it because the phrase gets used out of context a lot. Rats should not be criticized for absndoning the ship.

The characterization of people as "rats" is a separate concern, of course, and has its own implications, which are clearly negative. I think of Perle as a larger and much more dangerous animal than a rat. Frum? Well, yes, perhaps he could be termed a rat...a jackal...something like that. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 04:43 PM

Actually, I wouldn't want to insult the animal kingdom, so I think it's best to just call them human..sad commentary on our species, though, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 05:23 PM

yes, sorry, I am content with miserable scumbags. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 05:29 PM

Yeah, like Richard Pearle was one of the two architects of this war... He and Paul Wolfowitz tried to get Clinton to do the same stupid thing way back in the early 90's... Now that their dumbass idea has blown up in the faces, Richard Pearle is tryin' to make it sound as if he's now on the good guy's side...

Bull...

I ain't buyin' this creeps lies now any more than I was buyin' them during the mad-dash-to-Iraqmire...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 04:56 PM

What exactly is a neo-con?

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 05:20 PM

On behalf of rats, I must take issue with your perjorative use of the term "rat"- especially as applied to neo-con assholes.

On behalf of arseholes we would not like to be associated with the neo-cons either......

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: GUEST,Martian Observer
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 06:50 PM

The term "neo-con" in present Earth parlance is a term that has arisen out of the American political ferment of the last 20 to 25 Earth years, approximately, roughly since the inception of the Reagan presidency. It is a generalization pertaining to certain individuals in the political arena who style themselves as "conservatives", to use another such term, but it denotes a very radical form of conservatism (which is, oddly enough, a somewhat contradictory concept since conservatism is supposed to be opposed to radicalism). This neo-con form of conservatism claims to be against "big government" but actually promotes big government heavily by increasing government spending and government authority and control. It embraces a messianic philosophy of intervention in world affairs through military force, whether or not the USA has actually been attacked or even threatened by the targets of that military force. It envisions an executive branch with much greater powers, served by an obedient and toothless Congress and judiciary which act primarily as servants of major corporations and as a rubber stamp for the executive. It envisions a military which again serves as a compliant servant of the executive branch, thus surrendering what independent authority it may once have had in crucial military decision-making. It sees the USA as destined to rule the entire world through being the one and only superpower...all other countries to be rendered subservient for their greater good and for the good of their people.

That other countries do not respond well to the latter proposition should not come as any surprise, but the application of major corporate financial pressure, combined with the threat of massive military intervention by the superpower is assumed to be enough to bring them into line. If not, then war is considered to be justifiable and laudable in achieving that purpose.

The neo-con, believing fervently in his messianic mission to transform his country and the world, is also frequently under the impression that God Himself has ordained all this to be...although it must be said that some neo-cons are atheistic...but if they are, they remain quiet about it.

The so-called "neo-con", meaning "radically new conservative", is thus anything but conservative in nature. His is a mission which tosses out all that has gone before in favor of a bold new approach which in its radicalism might better be compared to the sort of extremism which led to movements such as the Fascist movement in Italy in the 20's and 30's or the Nazi movement in Germany in the 30's and 40's.

Those movements ultimately failed because of disastrous wars that discredited them and brought them down, and the same is likely to happen with the neo-con movement. In fact, it is happening right now.

Whether the neocons can rebound from their losses and take "another kick at the can" remains to be seen. Tune in to the Earth Channel for further fascinating updates in the days to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 09:22 PM

Very good explanation, Martian Observer.

By their own words and deeds, ye shall know them.

Here is the Web site of the main neo-conservative think-tank. And here is their Statement of "Principles"

Alphabetized list of the signatories to the PNWC Statement of Principles (boldfaced names are ones that anyone should recognize unless they've been living in a cave and surviving on lizards and bats for the last few years. Note how many of the signatories are in the government right now).

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

THIS is pretty revealing.

I've heard some folks (invariably Republicans) try to blow off any mention of the Project for the New American Century as if it were some nutty "conspiracy theory" like the Illuminati or something, but that just doesn't wash. Although they did have offices of their own, I understand that they decided they wanted to keep a lower profile and now share offices with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, despite the fact that some of the aims of the two organizations are in conflict. They do share most aims, however.

Read the articles on their own web site. They have been setting American foreign policy for the last several years.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 12:54 AM

Thanks for that, Don.

Every U.S. citizen should know that.

My fear is that even if they knew, they wouldn't care.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 04:46 AM

Regarding Richard Perle and David Frum: Fuck 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Old Guy
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 05:27 AM

Are these people Jewish by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 07:44 AM

At least one is Canadian - so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 07:45 AM

Old--

And your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 08:33 AM

David Frum is Jewish and Canadian, and in spite of those he is an idiot.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Neo-Con Rats Abandon Ship!
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 08:42 AM

And Fat Old Woody is niether, and in spite of that he is an idiot.