Yes, you all know who he is. I will now respond to the two questions he’s been howlingly repeating because, y’know…why not? And the rub of it is, he probably won’t understand either answer.
Response number one: The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it’s an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless.
Response number two: He has demanded to know how any of our individual lives are hurt or worsened because of the actions of George W. Bush…a man who needlessly launched a war that’s resulted in the deaths of 1600+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. The answer is quite simple:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
–John Donne
And thus am I Donne with the clod.
PAD
• 
“Ohhhh, the old reverse psychology ploy”
Dear Genius: Actually, it was the old “satirize the way Peter David halted comments in his latest post” ploy.
By the way, thank you all for your posts — we have now reached 300 comments!
That was my goal after someone said 300 was the record.
The author is not the site editor.
The essay is a good example how the most effective critics of a movement are those who have been converted from it.
If your opinion is unimportant… then why are you disagreeing with me?
CSO,
Wrong. Go back and check the ‘9/11 Commission Report’. Is it true that Saddam and Iraq had no direct connection to AQ and UBL’s planning of 9/11, but the two men did broker deals with each other through go-betweens. In 2001, for example, UBL helped Ansar Islam, an extremist Islamic group within Iraq. And I quote, “There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and my even have helped Ansar al Islam against common Kurdish enemy.”
Degrees of seperation? Who knows for sure, but with Saddam mouthing off after 9/11 it wasn’t without merrit to think at some point the two might help each other out, if even in just a harboring or financial way.
Interestingly, the veracity of this ‘urban legend’ is the exact opposite of another ‘urban legend’, which is that Bush stated Iraq and Saddam were responsible for 9/11. Such a statement never occured.
The three were frequently muttered in the same breath, and some may even say intentionally so, but the direct statement was never made. Cheny mouthed off like a moron and came close, but again, never stated that. Ever.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
And, should you find the above dubious, try this, too:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1417930,00.html
The author is not the site editor.
Mm-hmm. That’s why I said “the homepage that this is posted on”. I also did not mean to imply that it was the same author that wrote the other bits mentioned, just to give a flavor of the somewhat, er, lax standards. I probably even agree with some of the selections posted there but it would be a bit disconcerting to see them right next to the latest dispatches from Wackyland.
The essay is a good example how the most effective critics of a movement are those who have been converted from it
I really didn’t think so–it was pretty juvenile. At the very least the author comes off as a bit of an unthinking stooge–he goes from being a soundbite spewing right wing nut to the same thing in a left wing model. And he doesn’t even know why he switched. I’d say someone like David Brock over at Mediamatters would be a better or at least far more intelligent and effective example.
Not that being a convert instantly gives one any legitimacy–there are certainly plenty of former radicals turned conservatives but I would only judge them on their merits not their history.
If your opinion is unimportant… then why are you disagreeing with me?
Didn’t say it was unimportant–I’m just saying that the two of us are not in any way part of any “talking points” or RNC or DNC covert operations or whatever. The republicans did not gain power by unleashing science teachers on helpless comics blogs and the democrats will not regain it by acting like they did.
By the way, thank you all for your posts — we have now reached 300 comments!
That was my goal after someone said 300 was the record.
Gosh, that’s swell! Well, off you go to conquer ever-new challanges! Godspeed! Sayonara! Bon voyagee! Hasty Banana!
My point was that it was not one, single nation, victor or otherwise, imposing it’s sole will and version of justice over another. It was a collection of Allies, forming a consensus of opinion over a course of action.
And my point was, how is that different from Iraq? In Germany, the big 3 (US, UK, USSR) and charity case France used a hastily-cobbled-together set of laws to impose their will on a humbled and defeated set of mass murderering fascists. In Iraq, the big 2 (US, UK) are using a hastily-cobbled together set of laws to impose their will on a humbled and defeated set of mass murderering fascists. I support both endeavors, but your nostalgia for the good old days of international criminal law is misplaced.
???
I read the “I used to be a neocon” site. I’m not impressed. He doesn’t actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad– he just says that he woke up one morning, said “what the fûçk?” and recanted without offering a reason to recant. I have to say I’m unmoved.
I did like his the metaphor he drew between a consrvative movement and a large machine, in which the individuals are gears and wheels. In a lot of ways it’s the same argument I made a while back, explaining why I and other conservatives feel insulted when our candidates are excoriated as evil. They would not be in the positions to which they have been elected without the assistance of us, the organic components of the system, and we know that. If they’re criminals, we’re accomplices; fortunately, they’re not criminals. I voted the way I did because Bush et. al. were the best available choice. I wasn’t brainwashed by a cult, and I offer no apologies.
For what it’s worth, I think the left is wrong. I don’t think they’re evil and I don’t think they’re stupid. It’s a shame that these political discussions consistently devolve into flamewars, when we should be having intelligent debates about the direction of a country we should all love.
Mike,
I guess I’m not being clear. I never said that either of our opinions were not important…at least to us and perhaps to that tiny group of people who look to us as wizened sages (God help them!). But we–you and I–the two of us–are, as far as I know, that major players on the political scene. Well, I know that I’m not. Nobody gives me any talking point memos. Maybe you are Mike Dukakis or Mike Moore or MST3K’s Mike Nelson–wouldn’t that be great?!?
But the point was, you had seemingly laid out this idea that– well, here it is:
I’ve noticed in online liberal communities that republican attacks are overwhelmingly optimized to drive the liberal subjects from casualness to formality.
Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity hand out republican talking points to allow trolls to do this.
This was, near as I could figure out, a response to my opinion that Bobb was able to disagree with me in a calm, rational, logical way, as opposed to, say, the oh so effective Dr Dean approach. And if you think that “formality” is a bad way to do things (and I would hardly characterize Bobb’s comments as “formal”), hey fine. But to suggest that I am part of a spoooooky plot to undermine liberal thinkers…I’m tempted to use unkind synonyms for “insane”.
If I’ve misunderstood this situation, by all means let me know.
…
Republicans should try to read the things they say they read.
“…he doesn’t even know why he switched?”
“…doesn’t actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad?”
There’s no defense against your Lennie-like relentlessness.
“…he doesn’t even know why he switched?”
“…doesn’t actually present a theory about why neoconservatives are bad?”
There’s no defense against your Lennie-like relentlessness.
Ok, I’m done with you. From the article:
The fact is, the neocon movement is a lot like a cult. I don’t remember how I got so involved and the details are hazy on how I got out. I just woke up one day and said “WTF!” and then ran outside to rip the “bring it on” sticker off of my car bumper.
I guess one could deny that this statement is consistant with “”…he doesn’t even know why he switched?” but both the point and you are not worth dealing with.
You’d do better to hang out here a while and watch your betters argue honestly. You’ll be far more effective. For one thing, you’ve obviously wanted to use the “Lennie-like relentlessness” bit…should have waited for something abit more appropriate. Seemed sort of forced.
These recent posts make ME look sane!
“Jerry,
The problem with ever using a quote by H.L. Mencken is that you’re liable to get one thrown back at you….”
Bill,
Yeah, I know. That’s why I just hung that one out there by itself rather then linked to other stuff in one of my 5000 word postings. Plus, I know he has lots of other quotes that make him look as nice a guy as a jagged knife smeared with salt paste. That was more a “tweek a few people post” then a serious debate post.
But you could have at least given it a little more time to tweek a certain trio of posters before taking the air out of its tires. Where’s the fun in doing that.
;(
Jerry,
My bad. I had Mencken on my mind because I’d always enjoyed his quotes and eagerly read a book on him only to discover waht a rat the guy could be…I’m usually forgiving of the faults of our Ancient Greats because I think it’s stupid to expect them to follow the codes of today but H.L ain’t that old and some of what he said was just so beyond the pale…in his defense, his actions sometimes were quite the opposite of his words–for someone who had such a low view of Blacks he did a lot to see Black writers get opportunities.
I suppose most of us would be lucky to have twice his faults and half his accomplishments. That said, I’m sure my wife and kids would disagree (My ex-wife’s father was a great writer and a man of singular accomplishments. But life with him was not pretty.)
Well, if nothing else, at least this thread has gotten me to add you as one of the Posters Whose Name I Shall Immediately Click On When I See It In The Recent Posts Section. You may want to update your CV. 🙂
Mike, I’m hardly neocon myself (liber/libertarian, mostly), but I have to throw the bûllšhìŧ flag on two of those points.
When the Pentagon’s propoganda office was uncovered, I learned about its existence from the local newspaper – a (Republican-owned, right-leaning) media outlet.
When the Downing Street memo – pardon me, minutes – came out in this country, again, I heard about it from mainstream media outlets before I ever heard about it in such fora as this.
I will not excuse the Bush administration’s rabid insistence on expanding the War on Terror until it encompasses every possible aspect one could consider (really, who actually believes there’s an al Qaeda cell in Lodi, California??), nor will I excuse the concerted effort by Faux News and certain television “news” shows to portray Bush as some kind of misunderestimated genius, but let’s not cast our net too widely…
???
This is an essay by a converted neo-con. He was getting all his news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh. I’m not going to second guess him on this.
I’m going to second-guess him. Sloppy use of language reveals sloppy thinking. If he is still confusing Limbaugh and Faux News with the American news media as a whole, any opinions he has derived from his information, left, right, or off at some strange non-Euclidean angle, are suspect.
I’m happy he’s departed the neocon flock, but jumping straight into the lefty flock is hardly an improvement – there are too many sheep in the world as it is, content to let someone else think for them.
He should watch CNN … the Clinton News Network. Now THEY are not biased at ALL!
By the way, this topic doesn’t require discussion, and it sure doesn’t need another round of pathetic attention-craving idiocy. End of discussion.
I think it’s sloppy to think turning partisan against neo-conservation means becoming liberal. That’s like saying Reagan turned Nazi for calling the soviet union the evil empire — all of his republican staff thought he was crazy for antagonizing the soviets publicly.
Republicans should try to read the things they say they read.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Nothing in that “I used to be a neocon” blather looked anything like a refutation of conservative ideology. There was a rant, which you quote at length, about the media, but “the media sucks” is not precisely a policy statement. Two of his claims– about things the media did not reveal to the public– are demonstrably false, considering that I am a member of the public and learned about them from the media. Two others– the media as a lapdog rather than a guard dog in the buildup to war, and the same metaphor repeated with regard to his position on the USA-PATRIOT Act (it’s an acronym, by the way) are expressions of his opinion divorced of supporting argument, failing to explain why he switched. The fifth comment you quote, about Shock and Awe, is a non sequitur– running the actual name of the campaign (Shock and Awe) along with the stated goal of the campaign (part of the war on terror, at least according to the people undertaking the endeavor) isn’t really the sort of endorsement he implies, and for what it’s worth I disagree with his classification of the campaign as an attack on the Iraqi people. So yes, I read the column, I thought about it, and I didn’t see anything remarkable about it. I reread it after your posting in case I really did miss something, and I am still not impressed.
In an effort to raise the level of discussion, I’d like to toss out a new topic: what do we mean by “neocon?” I offer the following link, which I have no idea how to hypertext, as a pointer to the concept of “neoconservatism” with which I associate myself: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
I may have reading comprehension skills, but apparently I lack the ability to italicize properly. Oops. Only the first sentence of that last post was meant to be in italics. I apologize.
Who claimed I Used To Be a Neocon was a refutation of conservative ideology?
I just figured “neocon” was an attempt to try to do to “conservative” what conservatives have been fairly successful in doing to “liberal”–make it a word that people avoid. It has been very irritating for real liberals to see almost every politician on the national scene do contortions trying to deny they were liberal, like it’s a dirty word. Meanwhile, conservatives openly claim to be conservative. You even get primaries where two candidates argue over who is the “real conservative”.
So using “neocon” to mean “anyone I dislike” is probably a good tactic, though it may not work. It’s usually used in regard to support for the war though in that case one could argue that future Democrat Candidate for President Hillary Clinton is a neocon. Could be a neocon vs neocon race in 2008 (I have no idea who the republican front runner would be at this point. McCain, I suppose.)
I’ve always thought the neocon label went with those who call themselves conservative republicans, but are pretty much anti-environment (the psuedo science that denies global warming for example), rabidly pro-christian fundamentalist(to the point where it is anti-constitutional), for the federal government to trump states rights and fiscally irresponsible. I’ve always thought there was a big difference between true conservatives and neocons. In a generation past I would have been labeled conservative since I am pro-environment, for equal religious rights for all religions, states tights and a balanced budget. I am a liberal in todays atmospher, though. (Of course I am VERY liberal when it comes to social issues and would never have been mistaken for a conservative in that area.)
That should have been states RIGHTS, not states tights. And atmosphere should have the e at the end. I hit post too quickly. Sorry.
Who claimed I Used To Be a Neocon was a refutation of conservative ideology?
Let’s see here. You posted the link, I said it made no impression on me because the guy talked about decamping from the conservative base without explaining why, and you implied I didn’t really read it. So I think that means… YOU did.
Come on, admit it, you’re Dee aren’t you?
I’m for State’s Tights as well, but there should be some kind of means testing. No Ron Jeremy types in speedos, that’s for sure.
Karen, you dfinition of neocon pretty much makes my point–it’s whatever people say it is. Among some Europeans it is almost a code for “Jew”, so the “rabidly pro-christian fundamentalist” part would seem odd.
I like the Victor Davis Hanson definition of a neocon as someone who’s socially moderate but conservative in foreign policy.
Personally, I thought “neocon” refered to arch-arch-arch-conservatives.
Funny, I thought it was some new faction in the Cybertronian wars.
Learn something new every day…
-Rex Hondo-
Personally, I thought “neocon” refered to arch-arch-arch-conservatives.
That’s why it’s important to have an agreed-upon lexicon for discussions. I’m not at all one of those, but I’m very much one of the creatures from either the Kristol or Hanson descriptions.
“I’d like to toss out a new topic: what do we mean by “neocon?””
Let’s start with a few high profile names to point out who is being talked about. Most of the following have been or are members of Project for a New American Century (PFNAC from now on.)
George W. Bush, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ðìçk Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fûkûÿámá, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel and Paul Wolfowitz to name just a few.
What makes a person a neocon rather then a conservative?
Some of it is in the extremes in the idiology and the lengths they will go to push it. Take Pax Americana.
“The term Pax Americana (Latin: “American Peace”) denotes the period of perceived peace in the Western world since the end of World War II in 1945, coinciding with the dominant military and economic position of the United States. It places the US in the military and diplomatic role of a modern-day Roman Empire or British Empire (based on Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, respectively). During this period, no armed conflict has emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no strategic weapons been used, while the United States and its allies have been involved in various regional wars (such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War), and have maintained espionage and covert operations in various other areas.
The term Pax Americana is used by critics of U.S. policy to describe an effort they allege is made by the U.S. to suppress countries that do not cooperate with U.S. policy, but some supporters of American foreign policy also use the term, so it is not necessarily derogatory. For example, it appears repeatedly in a September 2000 document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, by the Project for the New American Century, widely regarded as a neo-conservative think-tank.”
A short version fromWikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Most neocons seem to be promoting a concept of global dominance by the U.S. while deflecting conversation away from that topic when addressed by critics. Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not, despite the war in Iraq, saying that the present leaders of America want to go on a world wide military block party. But, by there own writings, they see America as the only country deserving of making any decisions in the world and would discourage any other country, even our friends and allies, from even believing that they have the right to have a voice and have stated that a strong military and the well placed usage of same would go a long way toward that goal.
The neocons’ crusade into Iraq does show some of this. This is a plan that most members of the George W. Bush administration had wrirten out and signed onto as far back as 1996. Rumsfeld laid out in parts the basic attack plans for the war through 97 & 98. One of the points repeated in PFNAC writings to their own in congress was to pressure Clinton into going into the Iraq war back then. They admitted at the time that there was little real reason for this other then their disagreement with the containment argument of Clinton and their desire for the removal of Saddam. They also admitted to there being no way that they could build support for this with the American people. The solution would be to take advantage of any large event related to The Middle East to create an argument for and support of attacking Iraq and removing Saddam or any other leader in power in Iraq. The need was to protect our “interests.”
After 9/11, we saw this plan put into play. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but it was linked by innuendo, speculation and implication without any actual, strong or solid facts. Members of the Bush Admin would do news shows where they would put the names Saddam and Bin Laden in the same sentances. They would talk about Iraq’s WMDs while talking about 9/11. They would use the words mushroom clouds and eminent threat when talking about Iraq when neither applied and those became the talking points for their boosters (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Ingrahms, Savage, Fox News, etc.) who spread the word to a huge listener base and used that to build fear. They would release parts of transcripts that claimed, from former members of Saddams army or weapons people, that they had tons of WMDs. But, when those full transcripts were obtained by watchdogs in the press, we would find that the next unreleased page stated that the weapons being discussed had been destroyed.
Any General, Intel spook or advisor who spoke against this was silenced or ignored. The minutes from Number 10 that just surfaced re-enforce the charges that the Bush people fixed intel to suit the war desire. Yet, they all claim innocence on any charge of preplanning a war with Iraq or wanting to go into Iraq from day one of the Bush Presidency.
Conservatives would not have done all of this. Most conservatives I know believe in a strong military and a strong place for America in the world. Most believe that we should defend ourselves when attacked. Most believe that we should have strong, democratic allies to share the burdens of a growing world. Most traditional conservative writings state this as well.
Neocons and their writings tilt a bit more into the idea of us running everything and pushing down any who would question our rule. Peace through strength is not a bad thing if it is used, as conservatives would, to defend ourselves or show that we can defeate a threat. We show that we are strong enough that many don’t want a war with us. Neocons seem to believe that we should obtain peace threw strength in the form of forcing our views and ways onto the world at the point of a gun if need be.
Most conservatives would have dealt with America from a base of honesty (or as honest as a Pol can get.) There may even have come solid reasons to go into Iraq (although, I doubt it.) True, conservatives do have a history of playing CIA games in other peoples countries. But so does the Liberal or Democrat side of the game.
The neocons lied, used fixed intel, used fear and used the “treason” brush to push a war. You were a patriot if you just went along with them and did not question your orders from above. You were a traitor and hated America if you asked even the most basic of questions. You were with Saddam, UBL and the terrorist that wanted to kill us if you weren’t with Bush.
Conservatives have always been big on the military. My votes that went R went to those types. Conservatives have a tradition of wanting a large, strong military that is updated and given the latest toys when they come about. They have spoken against Democrats who would reduce our military. Clinton played shell games with the military. He did believe in upgrading the forces with the latest tech but he also wanted a reduction in size. He wanted a smaller, faster more modern force. I and many conservatives I knew, read, heard or saw didn’t agree. A larger, faster more modern military was better. Bush even ran on restoring the military. Once in, that was out.
Look back to early 2001. Rumsfeld signed off on a military review that was to cut the size of the military by 20%. Bush smiled upon it. it would allow his high end tax cuts and he and Rumsfeld would defend this with the “faster, more modern” line. Then 9/11 happened and we went to war. Rumsfeld pushed his ideas on an army whose leaders disagreed with him. Yeah, we won (sorta.) But look at how many problems we had and continue to have with these two thrid world countries. One of them all but broken for years and the other not much better. And one of the big problems? Not enough men to do the job. The conservative ideas of what to do with the military would have been to build a strong military that would not look so stretched and worn. The neocon idea is a mess. It doesn’t stop them from eyeing the war sabres for Iran or other crusades though.
Yet, even now, Rumsfeld pushes the neocon idea. We have tours being extended 6,8 and 10 months because we don’t have enough men. The Army can’t recruit enough people. But Rumsfeld still pushes the idea because it is part of some insane idea hatched by these bozos.
Many (not all, but many) conservatives are just that with money. Tax cuts are fine but they know that you need to balance what you spend to what you tax. Not all of them have gotten the formula 100% right but the true conservatives do try.
Neocons seem to set their tax ideas by their agenda. They have a base that they serve and they don’t care beyond that.
Fund the war? No. Stay out of debt? No. Fund the basics of the fedgov or their own budgets? No. Why? Taxes must be cut on the few while spending sees almost no limits.
Conservatives are adults. Neocons are teenagers with their first credit card.
Conservatives have long been vocal about their religion and faith. No big deal really.
The neocons have spent ten plus years growing and shaping their debate on religion and faith into venom for the weakest minded of the masses. How do you know when a neocon is speaking on faith?
It’s when you hear how their opponents hate people of faith, want to destroy God and the belief of him in this country, how it’s the job of government to keep and preach the faith for the people, how our god can whup their gods or how we should force other people to give up their faith and take up ours.
I also don’t believe that conservatives would have smiled on the Bybee memo or played the games with prisoners or soldiers that the neocons have.
There’s lots more as well.
Don’t get me wrong. There are and always have been conservatives, Republicans, liberals, Democrats, Bull Mooses, etc. who were in the bad seed division. Everyone has them. But this isn’t a “bad seed” or “a few bad seeds” type of deal. This is a full fledged movement with a doctrine and membership. Even other conservatives have pointed to them and winced as they took control of the party. But, far too many of the elected sort of conservative/Republicans have seen the power they can have and the perks with this “strong” faction in charge.
Oh, yeah.
Your article on how sunny and great neocons are? Written by Irving Kristol. See the top of my post again. Back? Good. William (Bill) Kristol is Irving’s son. Irving is part of the movement. Hate to tell you this, but most Nazi spokesmen (I’m not directly comparing them. I’m just using an extreme example here) and PR people painted their party as sunshine and roses too. Reading the PR on the Hitler Youth without question would lead you to believe that they were better then the Boy Scouts. Same with any movments PR.
Oh, check out the PFNAC web page and its writings from the years. Check out how many crossovers they have with the Wallstreet journal Op/Ed page. Think about that the next time you just read it without thinking about fact checking it or at least seeking out another POV.
Threw strength? Ðámņ it. Through strenth.
“Strength”
I need sleep. Long shift today in the heat.
My wife just read my above post and pointed out that, “you got so detail focused that you wrote a book to cover almost nothing about what you hate about neocons. Idiot.”
She suggested a more simple tact that kinda hits all the bases in a less then 10,000 word essay.
Her version:
Neocons are a branch of conservatives. They are seperated from “concervatives” by their extremes in POV. They are no less real a distiction in belief then from a conservative then a hard left liberal Democrat would be from a regular Democrat. They seem to have more power and numbers then they do because they often cross over with the more extreme factions of the religious right. They are also the Republican flavor of the month as the Religios Right was brief times in the 80’s and 90’s. They will overreach and implode when the mainstream conservative Republican party has had enough or is damaged by them.
Yes, some distinctions in the “who” and “what” category are matters of perspective and opinion as is any definition of “extreme.” It’s where you stand to some degree. But many are divisions in thought and action that even “traditional” conservatives (Will, Novak, etc.) have pointed out before. It’s also an easy distinction to make when the subjects call themselves neocons.
I hope her version clears mine up a bit. Or at least makes it more ubderstandable.
So, signing off: I’m my wifes secretary and dictations taker. Good night,
“understandable”
I can’t win tonight. I’m going to sleep.
Night all!
Please take your alleged reading comprehension, and cite the passage in the essay where he says he decamped from the conservative base.
Jerry,
Don’t agree with everything you wrote but it was good stuff nonetheless.
I’d tease you on the spelling mistakes but that would be like a frog calling someone ugly. Usually I use Firefox with a built in spellchecker but I’m in NY for the summer and having to work with my parent’s primitive technology.
“I’d tease you on the spelling mistakes but that would be like a frog calling someone ugly.”
Yeah. That’s why I tend not to post as much when I’ve been working lots of overtime (as I have the last two days) and I really need sleep. My brain shuts down so bad.
I get some sleep and have a fresh brain and the first thing I see when I look at it is things like, oh, “seperate.”
But “concervative” is not a typo. It’s an in joke.
Jerry didn’t say anything I didn’t disagree with at all, but it was long and it didn’t provide a summary with which a reader could walk away with and relay succinctly.
Bill’s encouragement is the typical neo-con encouragement of posts he can’t disagree with but finds less threatening.
Jerry, however well you support it, if no one can refer to your point, you may as well as not have made a point in the first place — this isn’t a mistake you hardly ever see the neo-cons making.
This is a mistake you almost never see the neo-cons making.
Mike wrote Please take your alleged reading comprehension, and cite the passage in the essay where he says he decamped from the conservative base.
Well, starting with the title, “I used to be a neocon…”:
*I Used To Be a Neocon
*I’m a recovering neocon.
*I just woke up one day and said “WTF!” and then ran outside to rip the “bring it on” sticker off of my car bumper.
*That’s why I am an ex-neocon and I am in recovery
The only possible point you can have now is to imply that he might still be a conservative, and that I shouldn’t assume that disavowing neoconservatism is equivalent to “decamping from the conservative base.” I really don’t think you’re that subtle, but I’ll allow for the possibility. I would argue in response to the claim that you didn’t actually make, that the neoconservatives do in fact function as the the base of the modern American conservative movement, so that disavowing neoconservatism does constitute withdrawal from the conservative base. Now, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the possible distinctions between “neocon” and “conservative,” that’s different. In fact, it’s directly related to the topic for conversation that I posted yesterday. However, since that would require making reasoned arguments rather than poorly-thought-out snide comments, I will understand if you don’t feel up to it. I have traditionally argued against ad hominem postings in this forum, but this discussion with you has been very frustrating because you’re so remarkably obtuse; I should feel sorry for saying these things, but somehow I’m not.
I will now try to explain my objection to “I Used to be a Neocon” in clear, simple language. The author by his own statement has ceased to consider himself a neoconservative. He apparently wrote this column in order to (1) announce this fact, and (2) put forward the claim that he was right to do so. He accomplished (1) above. He failed to accomplish goal (2) in any meaningful way. He did rant about the media, but this does not accomplish any obvious goal, unless it’s an end in itself (which is possible; I don’t like Hannity either, because he’s rude and obnoxious irrespective of his voting habits). He does not discuss conservative or neoconservative positions and explain why they are wrong; he merely refers to the “shock and awe” bombing strategy as “the assault on the Iraqi public.” His depiction of his epiphany is rather less poetic than St Augustine’s depiction of his own conversion: “the details are hazy on how I got out. I just woke up one day and said “WTF!” and then ran outside to rip the “bring it on” sticker off of my car bumper.” So we know the author is impulsive, without understanding his impulse. The closest he comes to an explanation is his comment, again with regard to the media’s involvement in the neoconservative publicity machine, “Most of all the tiny wheels do not know about the big wheel that’s pulling them. But now I do. That’s why I am an ex-neocon and I am in recovery.” Unfortunately, everything after “that’s why” is a non sequitur. At the very least, there’s a missing step. He may be implying that neoconservative tactics are insupportable and he’s withdrawn in protest, but that wouldn’t explain his obvious hostility to neocon goals. If there’s a reason he’s turned against neocon goals themselves, he hasn’t revealed it to the reader. In short, it is a very poorly written persuasive article. If someone wants to make the argument that the author didn’t really intend (2) at all, and that it was essentially a typed-out rant, that’s fine, but in that case I would have no idea why “Mike” felt we needed to see it.
Jerry didn’t say anything I didn’t disagree with at all
Let’s see here, double negatives mean… I surrender. You’ve stumped my reading comprehension skills.
Jerry didn’t say anything I didn’t disagree with at all, but it was long and it didn’t provide a summary with which a reader could walk away with and relay succinctly.
Bill’s encouragement is the typical neo-con encouragement of posts he can’t disagree with but finds less threatening.
David, you’re right. Dee is back.
Yeah, Mike you’re sooooooooo threatening. I sure hope everyone doesn’t become like you, what with your scary logic and oh so witty ripostes. I can’t not disagree with nothing you haven’t not said.
???
D’oh, Nurse Ratched, please don’t tell my mother!
Jerry, what I meant to say was: you’re a good American.
(My typo makes my point about leaving the readers a point they can take from your post, yes?)
Mike,
I don’t know.
I was a bit brain fried last night but I worked at pointing out a number of philosophical and ideological differences in how conservatives and neocons work. I listed a long bit related to the run up to the Iraq war and pointed out how I thought that most conservatives I’ve read would have chosen a different path then the one taken to point out the contrast of styles. Hëll, I even started out by throwing out a sourced definition from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that pointed out how the term was used and by who. Then my wife used me as a dictation machine to give her short version summery of what her POV of what a neocon is and how they relate to and fit in the conservative movement.
“Some of it is in the extremes in the ideology and the lengths they will go to push it.” That’s from the first portion of my post. I think it works as a summary and as a point that underlines the difference between the two factions. I should have gone that route in the main body but I wanted to avoid using a POV that is so open to the vague nature of perspective and site clearly defined actions or thoughts. My version just may not do as well for the summery treatment since it’s a bit harder to summarize, “A does this. B does this. A does that. B does that. A does this. B does this. A acts this way. B acts this way. A acts like that. B acts like that.” If I had just posted that they’re different or just more extreme the next posts would have been people asking, ” how are they different? How are they more extreme.”
You’re the proclaimed expert on neocons. Why don’t you tell us what you think a neocon is. Just, please, try to stay away from the stereotypical garbage about how they’re all evil. That’s too easy to swat down.
The preview function for Peter’s forum posting isn’t working for my browser, and I can’t predict how it will throw line-breaks in my HTML. Please forgive my this repost.
???
D’oh, Nurse Ratched, please don’t tell my mother!
Jerry, what I meant to say was: you’re a good American.
(My typo makes my point about leaving the readers a point they can take from your post, yes?)
“Bill’s encouragement is the typical neo-con encouragement of posts he can’t disagree with but finds less threatening.”
No. In the last year of my on and off postings on this site I’ve had Bill disagree with me and rip my posts’ foundations apart. If he disagrees with me he has more then proven in the past that he can obliterate any point of contention that he wants to target.
And unless he posts that he is in fact a neocon I wouldn’t think that he was. He’s never said anything that’s so far right that I saw it as veering into neocon zone.
If by “stereotypical garbage” you mean short and succinct, then your opposition to the neo-cons will always be blunted against their superior branding.
I’ve been more casual in my phrasing, but when I say “Republicans [neo-cons] measure strength by dominance,” I believe this summarizes what you cited with pax romana, pax britanica, pax americana, etc.
One of the space-race docudramas on cable cited JFK saying how we do things not because they are easy, but because they are difficult. Kennedy was serving a distinction from “We will know we are strong from our dominance” with “We will know we are strong from our generosity.”
And it worked then. Now Americans simply want to measure strength by whatever the hëll they are, which so far in the 21st c. is dominating.
No. In the last year of my on and off postings on this site I’ve had Bill disagree with me and rip my posts’ foundations apart. If he disagrees with me he has more then proven in the past that he can obliterate any point of contention that he wants to target.
I don’t see the Bill you refer to in “Don’t agree with everything you wrote but it was good stuff nonetheless.”