“I was born in 1953. Like the rest of my generation, I took the America I grew up in for granted – in fact, like many in my generation I railed against the very real injustices of our society, marched against the bombing of Cambodia, went door to door for liberal candidates. It’s only in retrospect that the political and economic environment of my youth stands revealed as a paradise lost, an exceptional episode in our nation’s history.”
That’s the opening paragraph of my new book, The Conscience of a Liberal. It’s a book about what has happened to the America I grew up in and why, a story that I argue revolves around the politics and economics of inequality.
I’ve given this New York Times blog the same name, because the politics and economics of inequality will, I expect, be central to many of the blog posts – although I also expect to be posting on a lot of other issues, from health care to high-speed Internet access, from productivity to poll analysis. Many of the posts will be supplements to my regular columns; I’ll be using this space to present the kind of information I can’t provide on the printed page – especially charts and tables, which are crucial to the way I think about most of the issues I write about.
This should be a fine addition to your liberal dose of reality in Blogtopia. (Yes, skippy coined that!)
Jonathan Aponte, a 20-year-old Army private, has admitted that he arranged to have himself shot in the knee to avoid being sent back to Iraq and then told police he had been wounded in a robbery.
Today, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, the Bronx district attorney, Robert T. Johnson, announced.
In a deal with prosecutors, Private Aponte pleaded guilty to one count of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. Under the agreement, Justice John N. Byrne of State Supreme Court is to sentence him to a term of one year in jail on Oct. 17. His guilty plea in this case also covered any potential charges of perjury in connection with the investigation into the shooting, according to the district attorney’s office.
Support the troops... Bust a cap in their kneecap?
WTF???Is this what it has come to? (h/t Buzzflash)
This video introduces a series of "21st century disaster tips you WON'T hear from officials," by homeland security and disaster management strategist W. David Stephenson. The tips tell you how to use personal communication devices and apps you use every day -- and will use in a disaster whether or not officials want you to -- to communicate with family and friends, and perhaps even to relay critical information to officials, without making a bad situation worse by, for example, making voice calls to let your family know you're ok
I would highly suggest following his directions on this... Just in case. This is a bush disaster world. You never know when you will need this kind of back up.
I am not one for framing debates. Much like BooMan, I think that there is an inherent dishonesty in playing with people's emotions and minds in order to score a political point. But that still does not change the fact that I see things that "they" are doing and could not disagree with "them" more. And my gut tells me that we have to hit meet them head on with a loud and resounding "HELL NO!" And, IMHO, that has nothing to do with framing... It has to do with reality.
I've been trying to find the right words to describe the MoveOn.org advertising fiasco on General Betraeus. I think The Rude One found the right balance.
Obviously, the Rude Pundit doesn't believe in the Bob Shrum/DLC school of cautious political rhetoric, where you try real hard not to piss off the other side 'cause they might hit back. The language of inclusion, though, need not be the language of capitulation. Let's put this in historical perspective: You're Tom Hayden. Let the Rude Pundit and others be Abbie Hoffman. Out here in the blogworld, we can say shit like "Petraeus/Betray Us" because, well, shit, that's what we do. Let us be the dirty fuckin' hippies.
We need you to be mainstream, MoveOn. We need you to be the grown-up. The mainstream media is distracted by shiny objects. Don't actually try to dangle a sparkly charm in front of them.
Yeah...basically.
Sorry dudes... I heartily disagree with both the idea and the reasoning. Here, Lakoff gives his position on this and for a change it has less to do with framing an issue, and is more about the cold hard reality:
"The issue is this: Who has been betraying the trust of the American people -- including our troops -- in bringing about the American invasion of Iraq and in continuing the occupation? What were the acts of betrayal and with what consequences? And is a betrayal of trust still going on, and if so where, how, and by whom?
I have developed a deeper look at these issues. You can read that in my new article Iraq and the Betrayal of Trust. But meanwhile, let's talk about one of the traps we should stay out of: The Politeness Trap.
Bush took advantage of certain conventions of etiquette and politeness when he sent Petraeus to testify before Congress. Those conventions hold that one does not criticize the symbolic stand-in for the military, even when the uniform-wearing stand-in is on an overt political mission that is at the heart of the Administration's continuing betrayal of trust. Decorum can be put to political use, and Bush did just that.
Bush was using a familiar right-wing tactic: identifying himself with a military uniform and the stature of the military in general, when he had no military stature himself. Rudy Guiliani used the same tactic in his ad in Friday's New York Times: by associating himself with Petraeus' rank and role, hoping some of the stature of the military would rub off on him. The implicit message is an attack on MoveOn: in pointing out Petraeus' deception, MoveOn, so Giuliani implies, was being disrespectful of the military itself. This is a typical right-wing attack on progressives, and progressives shouldn't stand for it. They should not be allowed to hide behind the troops. The troops themselves have been betrayed."
Here is the political reality as I see it today:
MoveOn was right. They didn't write any facts that most reasonable Americans would dispute. Did they use harsh words in a flaming sound byte? Yep... And rightfully so. These harsh GOP tactics deserve nothing less than to be hammered with facts.
It is an outrage that these neocon wannabes would get their panties all twisted in a knot over MoveOn pointing out the obvious and, even worse IMHO, is having some Dems run from the facts.
This "polite" political tactic may cut it with the hardcore vote-Dem-until-they-die crowd, but the rest of the political nation is going to point out the absurdities of the Dems playing this game of footsie under the table, and playing it by the GOP rules. I am very disappointed, to say the least, with the repeated wishy-washy mixed signals sent by Dems. Someone has to stand up to the bullies in the GOP, and the Dems aren't doing it.
Forget about "Mommy" Democrats and "Daddy" Republicans and fuck thinking about the god-damned elephant and to hell with being polite about it all... The lefty-Bloggers are the ONLY adults and the Dems are the little kids that can't/won't fend for themselves. And, for a change, MoveOn got something right.
Connecticut's very own JR. Senator, Joe neocon Lieberman, bloviates in another WSJ propaganda hit piece claiming that "advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake" (Which mistake Joe? Of being completely and totally correct and making you and your warmongering republican brethren look like total failures and lunatics AGAIN?) and, meanwhile, support for the continued occupation of Iraq is slipping even further both in Iraq and the USA to the dismay of Republican operatives currently hitting the airwaves to share their rosy propaganda pictures.
Iraqis currently overwhelmingly oppose the presence of coalition forces to the point where the support of violence against the occupying coalition forces is rising.
Similarly, 80 percent of Iraqis disapprove of the way U.S. and other coalition forces have performed in Iraq; the only change has been an increase in negative ratings of the U.S. performance among Kurds. And 86 percent of Iraqis express little or no confidence in U.S. and U.K. forces, similar to last winter and again up among Kurds.
Accusations of mistreatment continue: Forty-one percent of Iraqis in this poll (vs. 44 percent in March) report unnecessary violence against Iraqi citizens by U.S. or coalition forces. That peaks at 63 percent among Sunni Arabs, and 66 percent in Sunni-dominated Anbar.
This disapproval rises to an endorsement of violence: Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis now call attacks on coalition forces “acceptable,” up six points from last winter and more than three times its level (17 percent) in February 2004. Since March, acceptability of such attacks has risen by 15 points among Shiites (from 35 percent to 50 percent), while remaining near-unanimous among Sunnis (93 percent).
Kurds, by contrast – protected by the United States when Saddam remained in power – continue almost unanimously to call these attacks unacceptable.
Acceptability of attacks on U.S. forces also varies by locale, peaking at 100 percent in Anbar, 69 percent in Kirkuk city and 60 percent in Baghdad, compared with 38 percent in Basra and just three percent in the northern Kurdish provinces.
Remember that one of those things that the lying Surge ESCALATION supporters are touting are the successes in Anbar. Anbar, where there is a 100% acceptability among locals of killing American and other coalition force occupiers.
Bush said he was encouraged by the update he received today from Petraeus and Crocker and touted recent progress especially in the Anbar province.
“I was pleased with what I heard,” the president said. “The strategy we put in place earlier this year was designed to help the Iraqis improve their security so that political and economic progress could follow. And that is exactly the effect it is having in places like Anbar.
Bush said continuing this progress is vital to meeting the strategic interests of our nation.
“We can’t take this progress for granted. Here in Anbar and across Iraq, al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will continue to try to kill the innocent in order to impose their dark ideology,” Bush said.
“I am going to reassure them that America does not abandon our friends. And America will not abandon the Iraqi people. That’s the message all three of us bring,” Bush said.
If Anbar is the success story, then it is obvious that bush is looking to replicate this 100% support for killing coalition forces across Iraq as a "key to a secure, stable Iraq." As you watch "All three" of them - Bush, Petraeus and Crocker - feed their propaganda and lies to Congress in the next week, remember these successes they had previously been touting in Anbar.
In fact, as near as we can tell, a lot of the numbers, the key metrics about what's actually happening on the ground remain classified.
And not just the numbers themselves.
A few days ago we flagged Karen DeYoung's piece in the Washington Post about critics questioning the alleged decline in violence in Iraq. And one key point she focused in on is the methodology that the folks in Baghdad are using to derive their numbers. Is it really true that it matters how a person is shot (in the front of the head or the back) for whether or not they get counted? Is it true that we're not counting Sunni-on-Sunni or Shia-on-Shia deaths? Or even killings by the folks we're now allied with in al Anbar province?
The best we can tell the methodology Petraeus's staff is using to tabulate the numbers also remains classified.
In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them.
The AP reveals that a “briefing chart prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency says what Gen. David Petraeus won’t. Insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians, their security forces and U.S. troops remain high.” Most of the insurgent attacks in Iraq continue to be focused on U.S. forces, as the chart shows:
Attacks are up, or have remained pretty much the same, even when you take into account the manipulation of data by the liars that are spewing them out as their idea of success. The only decline? Iraqis have figured out how to avoid killing Iraqis and shifted their focus, and sharpened their aim, on to coalition forces. The Iraqi puppet regime has figured out that the real numbers of casualties are hurting the failed bush administrations' quest for eternal war, so the neoconservative hands up the Iraqi governments asses are are playing the "hide the truth" game from the UN by denying the UN access to Iraq Health Ministry stats:
One of the most credible Iraq-casualties tabulations, crunched by the United Nations, was lost this year after the Iraqi government, embarrassed by the high reported death toll, refused the U.N. access to Health Ministry statistics.
And it's not hard to see why: here are the 2006 numbers from the U.N., month by month, versus an AP-reported month-to-month breakdown of figures compiled from the Iraqi ministries of defense, health and interior.
Jan 06: 1700 UN -- 549 Iraqi ministries
Feb 06: 2100 UN -- 545 Iraqi ministries
Mar 06: 2250 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Apr 06: 2200 UN -- 686 Iraqi ministries
May 06: 2669 UN -- 932 Iraqi ministries
Jun 06: 3149 UN -- 885 Iraqi ministries
Jul 06: 3590 UN -- 1062 Iraqi ministries
Aug 06: 3009 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Sep 06: 3250 UN -- 1099 Iraqi ministries
Oct 06: 3600 UN* -- 1288 Iraqi ministries
Nov 06: 3400 UN -- 1846 Iraqi ministries
Dec 06: 2800 UN -- 1927 Iraqi ministries
If I've made any mistakes in compiling this, I'll adjust as necessary. But here you can see the discrepancy in determining how many Iraqis died each month in 2006 alone.
Is there any doubt that the bush numbers for 2007 are even more dubious? The Iraqis that manage to survive this colossal failure can see the death count around them on a daily basis. There is little doubt why they want us to leave Iraq. But...
"How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"
The autumn 2007 poll reflects growing disillusionment with the occupying forces' presence in Iraq. There is a growing consensus among respondents that coalition troops should leave the country immediately.
Some 47% of respondents now back an immediate withdrawal, compared with 35% in February.
The poll also shows dwindling support for troops remaining in the country, even in support of the Iraqi government and security forces. Only 10% of those surveyed favour coalition forces remaining for that purpose.
Iraqis want us out... So much so they overwhelmingly support killing us in order to get that message across and they really don't care about the disaster that bush and the neocons failures will leave behind. In other words: Don't let the IED hit you on the ass on your way out!
As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?
Increase 6% Keep the same 32% Decrease 39% Remove all troops 17%
So, even if Petraeus says that the surge is improving things, a solid majority -- 56% -- will still favor removing some or all of the troops. Of course, this number could be related to the fact that in two polls now -- by The Washington Post, and by Gallup -- solid majorities say they don't expect Petraeus to honestly assess the success of his own performance. So no wonder majorities are saying his testimony won't affect what they want for Iraq.
Hey! Americans are starting to get used to the fact that anyone associated with the bush administration will lie to anyone that will listen to them when it comes to keep their endless war alive.
General Petraeus will go before Congress this afternoon to argue that the surge is working -- that sectarian killings and attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces are substantially down. The military's secret numbers will serve as support for those conclusions, even as numbers from within the government (e.g. those collected by the Defense Intelligence Agency) dispute them.
Let's just repeat that fact over and over. Because that's what Petraeus is planning on doing on Monday, as Karen DeYoung (in an article buried on page A16) explains clearly. Go read the whole article, closely, for a description of the many methods of the Administration's hocus pocus. But I'd like to focus on one particular tactic.
MoveOn has a hot new ad in today's NYT pointing out that Petraeus' statements differ from all the known metrics out there. And boy has it made Sanctimonious Joe pissed. Not surprisingly, Joe is trying to call in those chits he got for agreeing to caucus with the Democrats in January.
The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by Moveon.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn.
General Petraeus has served his country honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He has risked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. For this, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of every American -- not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org.
It has been widely reported that Moveon.org has worked closely over the past months with many members of the Democratic Party in coordinating their efforts to derail the strategy that General Petraeus has been leading in Iraq.
[snip]
As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus. General Petraeus deserves no less.
Mind you, Joe doesn't address the central allegation that MoveOn makes--that Petraeus is lying to Congress. Which he'd have to do to prove his own accusations about slander. Rather, Sanctimonious Joe says we've got to honor Generals, even if they lie to us.
But the difference this time is that he will knowingly be getting up in front of Congress to tell these lies, and we, the vast majority of Americans, all know it well ahead of time.
Although he has already betrayed the USA by spreading bush propaganda, much like the mistake Joe Lieberman has continually made, we will all be watching to see if Petraeus goes the distance in a typical bush fashion and perjures himself in his testimony to Congress over the next little while.
Just how much of this is dressed-up "Stay the Course!" BS? Take a look at this graph showing troop levels past, present and future (If the incompetent bush gets his way):
WHOA! Is this a familiar pattern? And someone out there representing CT supports this rinse and repeat policy? Sure enough, Bush can always count on Joe Neocon Lieberman:
And lo and behold... We are right back to "STAYING THE COURSE" so that bush can try to punt his failure off on to the next administration. Bush got what he wanted with the last re-escalation, and I guarantee you that as soon as the few soldiers that come back after this most recent surge have finished their minimum time in the USA they will get another flight back to Iraq to RE-ESCALATE this Iraq hole even deeper than it has already been dug.
Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... etc. ad infinitum
Today, General Petraeus attempted to put a positive spin on a failed policy. While the General highlighted some notable military successes, other credible reports underscore the lack of real progress we have made in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office’s report released last week shows the Iraqis have failed to achieve fifteen of eighteen benchmarks. General Jones’ report states that the Iraqis are far from being able to take over for their own security. And the daily news reports out of Iraq paint a grim picture. Our Armed Forces, stretched and deployed nearly to the breaking point, have done their duty bravely and courageously, but the ends to which they have been directed – the political stability of Iraq - are increasingly beyond their control.
This surge isn’t working and General Petreaus effectively admitted this today. This summer has been the bloodiest yet so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 264 soldiers killed. There is indisputable proof that this strategy has not accomplished the basic goal laid out by the President in January – giving the Iraqis breathing room to achieve political consensus. To grant this Administration an extension of this failed policy would not only put our soldiers at greater risk, it would put this country as a whole in a more perilous position.
I hope that today marks a new era in our national debate on Iraq. The President must face the facts - achieving military success will not lead to Iraqi political success.
Every best wish, Christopher S. Murphy
Ain't nobody holding their breath on a reasonable response like Murphy's coming from the Lieberman warmongers' camp for lying republican children...
At tonight’s Emmy Awards show, the audience cheered Sally Field’s acceptance speech, which the recognized mothers of U.S. troops. “Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world,” she stated. “May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women.”
Field then continued, “If mothers ruled the world, there would be no –” But the Fox Emmycast cut off her sound and pointed the camera away from the stage, silencing the rest of her sentence: “god-damned wars in the first place.”
But Canadian television obviously didn't get the GOP memo passed down to Fox and so they didn't censor Sally Field's Emmy speech:
Robert just called home and asked me to post a warning on he site for any of you coming into Washington for the demonstrations this weekend. Has Washington closed it's doors to the public? Well at least the ones on buses. You're not welcome, that is, unless they know you're coming.
Washingon D.C. has passed an ordinance that took effect on the first of August that requires buses to have a permit to enter the district. All buses that are coming into the district for the demonstrations are either being turned away or fined $500. There is afee of $50 for a 6 day permit to enter the city with a charter bus. Robert asked my to pass along the information for anyone who may be coming inot the city wither this weekend or next.
Apparently if you took one of the Answer coalition buses (there were 3 leaving from Connecticut last I checked) you should be OK as they were aware of the fee, but some buses have been turned away or fined.
If you are planning on taking a bus for DC activities later on this week take note:
Ordering a Trip Permit
A trip permit may be obtained from any of the three sources below
Print & Fax or Email Processing - Please print, complete and fax/email the Trip Permit Application* with a $50 check or money order, made payable to “DC Treasurer” to the DMV address on the application.
TRANSMIT AMERICA - Please visit their website for more information. (Trip permits are available for Trucks only)
Processing Time: All requests will be processed within 24 to 48 hours upon the receipt of payment and application.
This is a sad statement on the loss of freedoms in this country, and just how far bush wing-nuts will go to quell dissent.
Promises, promises... Ones you never seem to keep:
Chris Shays was quoted by the Hartford Courant as saying that he will not run again in 2008 if he is not promised the top post in the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.
But he certainly is the poster boy for having the right to voice your own opinions without being used as a presidential prop. Keep your head down soldier... The shit from farrr right wing-nuts will be flying fast and furious in your direction now.
Your first few promotions in the military (on the officer side of things) are all pretty much mandatory - related to time in service and time in rank - But once you get up to Major and above it is with each following promotion, and to a larger and larger degree , all politics. As a Captain once said to me: "Anyone with a heartbeat can make Captain." I bit back on my tongue while thinking to myself that he was a prime example of that. He was a good guy and incredibly book smart, but when it came to basic Infantry skills (little things like reading a map) he had no sense whatsoever.
Anyways... After Captain you start to get into the politics of the military. Promotion boards weigh in more on your promotion with each higher grade, and much of it comes down to your abilities to get noticed by the right people in the military and the civilians that provide some oversight to those promotions. Pure politics.
Those that make it past Colonel have all exhibited, to varying degrees, excellent political suckuptitude skills. But when other officers call you out on it you really must be among the worst case scenarios.
"Ass-kissing little chickenshit."
Too funny!
Rose is a Rose wonders if this is a knock on Petraeus' credibility.
Hell yeah! It goes directly to his credibility. Comments like that from your superiors can be career killers in the military.
If Fallon said this he has, very likely, sent General chickenshit a clear signal that there will be no more "stars upon thars"... No wonder the ass-kisser is thinking about a future career in politics. His career in the military is finished, IMHO.
It’s unlikely that Petraeus would be as warmly received by the American public. In anticipation of this week’s congressional testimony, 53 percent of the public believed Petraeus would “try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is.” According to a Rasmussen poll of major political figures, Petraeus has an approval rating of only 24 percent — a number lower than even Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
What a fucking joke! Is one of the many other "heckuva job, Brownie!" types going to run as his Vice Presidential running mate? Yeah! There is a real winning ticket. Right up there with "Joe Lieberman for President!"
You might be very surprised at the answers that Greg Sargent puts up at TPM Election Central:
This is interesting: A new study finds that contributions to Democrats from members of the U.S. military have shot up dramatically since the start of the Iraq war in 20003.
The study, by Capital Eye, which is a newsletter for the Center for Responsive Politics, finds that this year, 40% of military money has gone to the Democratic Party or Dem Presidential candidates, compared to only 23% in 2002, before the war started.
Even more interesting, it finds that of all the Presidential candidates, the one receiving the most military money right now is Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the beginning ...
Griggs, who voted for George H.W. Bush but not his son the current president, contributed to Obama 's presidential campaign this year, she said. Among the military forces, she's not alone in her support for the Democratic senator from Illinois, who has spoken out against the war since its start. Obama, who has never served in the military, has brought in more contributions from uniformed service members—about $27,000—than any other presidential hopeful, Democrat or Republican. "I feel that he's the most progressive candidate and he stands for change," Griggs said. "I believe he is that breath of fresh air that we need to get this country back on course."
Among GOP candidates, Ron Paul, the only Republican who opposes the war, has brought in the biggest haul from the military since the start of the 2008 election cycle in January—at least $19,250.
Clearly, it does not pay to support the occupation of Iraq. Not if you want the political donations, and not if you want the support of the voters.
I'm sure race has nothing to with the recent surge of nooses in the news since we are soooo over bigotry in the U.S.
Police are looking for whoever dangled a 3-foot rope with a small loop at its end from a tree outside a campus cultural center that is home to several black organizations. The incident is being treated as a possible hate crime.
"This is bigger than a noose," Black Student Union President Altmann Pannell told his fellow students, many of whom were wearing "Terps as one" buttons."
"This is bigger than a noose because we as a community know that something else is going on in this country," Pannell said to murmurs of agreement. linkage
That "something else" is not missed by minority communties, especially when the disparities in justice are blatantly tied to the color of one's skin.
For a year, Jena (pronounced JEEN-uh), a poor mining community of 3,000 people, has been embroiled in racial tensions pitting the black community against white school officials and a white prosecutor. It began last August when a black student asked at an assembly if black students could sit under a tree where white students usually sat. The next day, two nooses hung from the tree.
Black parents were outraged by the symbolism, recalling the mob lynchings of black men. They complained to school officials. District superintendent Roy Breithaupt and the school board gave three-day suspensions to the white students who hung the nooses, overruling the recommendation of then-principal Scott Windham that the students be expelled.
The case of the Jena Six has been covered extensively by fellow bloggers, such as Hello, Negro with information on how to donate to the defense fund; also My Right Mind! who offers a slew of tips to assist these young teens.
Nooses are more than just complex slip knots in a rope - they are both symbolic and directly representative of torture, murder and racist mob rule.
But before you go there, I want you to think about this:
Lynching is sometimes justified by its supporters as the administration of justice (in a social-moral sense, not in law) without the delays and inefficiencies inherent to the legal system; in this way it echoes the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was justified by the claim:
"Terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice."
What are some of the possible reasons why racism seems to be on the rise in the Good Ol' USA? Hey! It's not like anyone in our government would ever encourage this kind of terrorizing behavior with its own actions and ideologies...
The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins
are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)
Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that
Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).
Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel:
"They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."
Sheeple see... Sheeple do... Or some terrorizing thought like that?
