Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53252)	7/7/2004 6:58:33 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793742

As you know, I am no supporter of the Sharon government, but I do concur with your assessment of the use of "Neocon" as code for "American-Jew-in-public-life-who-promotes-Israel's-interests-over-American-interests." Interesting that it's used by people on both Right (Buchanan, for one) and Left. Both of whom would defend themselves by saying that what they really mean is "American-Jew-in-public-life-who-promotes-Likudnik/Sharon-interests-over-American-interests." They don't mean ALL Jews, you see, just the BAD Jews.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53252)	7/8/2004 7:13:39 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793742

Maybe neocon is becoming a term of art. Irving Kristol wrote awhile back that the term has outlived its usefulness. There used to be a real split among conservatives, but it seems to me neoconservatism is pretty much mainstream now. Where are the paleos? There is a small but vigorous intellectual movement, but unless you subscribe to Chronicles or Modern Age, their articles are hard to find. Pat Buchanan's magazine and Lew Rockwell's website aren't really paleoconservative, those guys are reactionary and pseudo-radical.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53252)	7/10/2004 7:50:29 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793742

But if the neocons mentioned only involve Jewish names like Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Krauthammer, with insinuations that this crowd somehow turned their potent Jew-beams on the hapless pliable goyim (to borrow Lilek's phrasing) like Rumsfeld and Cheney to make them support a policy that is in Israel's interest, not the US', then that is a slur at best and anti-Semitic at worst. I mentioned a couple of days ago I hadn't noticed this. But I haven't been following things that closely lately, so it could have easily gotten by me. Then I came across this column earlier today. Bagged and Tagged! by Karen Kwiatkowski The Senate has gingerly examined, apparently for the first time, what the CIA told them two years ago. Before this, they didn’t have time to question, to peruse, to use common sense, perhaps even to read what the CIA reports said and not just follow blindly the commands of the majority whip and our wild-eyed President. Its preliminary report indicates that much of the information was bad, and blames the CIA. The CIA was a victim of groupthink; it "interpret[ed] ambiguous elements . . . as conclusive evidence…"; its corporate culture is broken. Ouch! The CIA wasn’t pressured by anyone, either. It just produced boatloads of bulls%*t all on its own. Wrong, unreasonable, made no sense, by the boatload. Normal people (this apparently excludes most members of Congress) would wonder why you would believe anything from the CIA or DIA on Iraq anyway, given we had had no real in-country assets or visibility for years. Not even a military attaché, or a tiny hovel of a CIA station in Baghdad or Basra. Last CIA agent we had in Ba-ath country was an illegal member of the Hans Blix team. The CIA is the predominant intelligence agency, and the Director has authority over the whole shooting match. The community contains 15 different intelligence collecting organizations, over half of which belong to the Department of Defense. 80% of all intelligence funding is spent – and apparently wasted – by the Pentagon. Thanks to a convenient reorganization by the all-knowing and also wild-eyed Secretary Rumsfeld, this consolidation of budget and product has been further stovepiped into an even more politically manageable entity, the Defense Under Secretary for Intelligence. The office is currently staffed by neoconservative loyalist and Claremont Institute alumni Stephen Cambone and his deputy, Bible-thumping warmonger General "Jerry" Boykin. One wonders how long the rush to lay the blame in a neat package on the CIA corporate culture doorstep will distract the media from the obvious. With 80% of the cash, 80% of the blame may well flow to the Pentagon. But maybe, just maybe, the Pentagon will be OK. Work with me here. Let’s think back to the Pentagon behavior during the rush to war in 2002 and 2003…. As I recall, Rumsfeld was calm, slow to act, and full of wisdom. He is the man who insists on facts and hard evidence, or was it absence of evidence? Never mind…. Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz claimed that Iraqis want democracy and we should support them in their goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein from afar, given the lack of intelligence that would push us into any premature involvement in Baghdad. As a student of history, with a bloody painting of the Battle of Antietam dominating his office wall, Wolfowitz also understood the danger of war, the unintended consequences, the cost. Under Secretary for Policy Doug Feith was telling anyone who would listen that while it is unfortunate that ugly dictatorships and human rights abusers exist in the world, sometimes it is pragmatic to deal with them, instead of bomb and occupy them. Feith would also remind us of all the oil we bought from Iraq under the oil for food program. Who can forget the former Chair of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle who said any invasion of Iraq on such grounds would be illegal! Oops, he said that after we occupied the country…. But I’m sure he said it many times before! And of course, the Office of Special Plans was using its friendly backchannel to the Office of the Vice President to advise him that in the absence of reliable human intelligence regarding Iraq, the best policy would be a truly conservative one. The OSP surely told the Vice President that Iraq was in no position to threaten either her neighbors or the United States, and that containment of Saddam Hussein was working. Isn’t that how you all remember it? Many politicos in Washington hope against hope that this report will bag and tag the CIA with the Bush-Cheney festival of lies that have killed so many, for so little. And like a flock of geese at the sound of a shotgun, they are nervously considering flight and looking for leadership. July 10, 2004 Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com. lewrockwell.com