Go Home

neocon

54 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

When the FBI found sensitive — though it turned out, unclassified — documents in Thomas Drake’s basement, he was charged under the Espionage Act. When the Army found hundreds of thousands of classified — but not Top Secret — cables on Bradley Manning’s computer, they charged him with Espionage and Aiding the Enemy.

mcfarlane.jpg

But when the FBI found Top Secret documents on Sudan — our actual enemy, if sanctions count — in Reagan National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane’s basement, it decided to investigate him for illegal lobbying.

The FBI has searched the apartment of former Reagan administration national security adviser Robert McFarlane for evidence of whether he lobbied for the government of Sudan, in violation of federal law.The search warrant is on file in federal district court in Washington. It shows agents seized items this month including handwritten notes about Sudan and White House documents with classifications up to Top Secret.

From this I can only assume that McFarlane is being subjected to the same double standard that Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was (represented, it should be noted, by former Criminal Division chief Lanny Breuer), when he snuck 9/11 related documents out of the Archives, yet only plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

When National Security Advisors take top secret documents, they’re called lobbyists, not spies. I can’t wait to find out what Condi Rice will be called if she’s ever caught with sensitive documents in her basement.



Neocon Delights over Egypt

Abrams_Elliot

In this Washington Post op-ed ridiculously titled "Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world," Elliot Abrams attempts to show how GWB's democracy agenda forecast the desire for the Arab peoples of the Middle Eastern nations to be free. He says:

The three decades Hosni Mubarak and his cronies have already had in power leave Egypt with no reliable mechanisms for a transition to democratic rule. Egypt will have some of the same problems as Tunisia, where there are no strong democratic parties and where the demands of the people for rapid change may outstrip the new government's ability to achieve it. This is also certain to be true in Yemen, where a weak central government has spent all its energies and most of its resources simply staying in power.

All these developments seem to come as a surprise to the Obama administration, which dismissed Bush's "freedom agenda" as overly ideological and meant essentially to defend the invasion of Iraq. But as Bush's support for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and for a democratic Palestinian state showed, he was defending self-government, not the use of force. Consider what Bush said in that 2003 speech, which marked the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, an institution established by President Ronald Reagan precisely to support the expansion of freedom.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said. "As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."

Now I'm no foreign policy expert, but I'm thinking that GWB was meaning to use this phrase in the context of his preventive invasion of Iraq, to justify the burning, looted buildings and mass chaos that he left in the wake of that unnecessary violence. As Greg Sargent points out, the sad thing about neocons claiming credit for the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt is how they think that the model for democracy requires using foreign military intervention as a prerequisite. Yes, if only Elliot Abrams had been in charge of developing foreign policy in the Middle East so that democracy and freedom could "reign" across the region. Oh, wait. HE WAS.

While neocons want to somehow take credit for understanding the Middle East, the current conflict is more indicative of the failures of US foreign policy than any successful understanding. Considering that Abrams was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, a signatory of PNAC, and one of the main cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion, you'd think that he would be the one of the last people on earth that a responsible Democrat in the White House would call. And you would be wrong. Really, Mr. President? Have you no pride or sense at all? What a mistake.



EMP Cult of Crazy is Concerned

Emp

R. James Woolsey, former CIA director, neocon, and now director of a Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (yes, it's as Orwellian as you think it is), is joined by Rebeccah Heinrichs, a congressional staffer and long time missile defense proponent, as they take to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to warn us that President Obama's $4 billion missile defense NATO shield, planned to be located in Poland and the Czech Republic, will not shield U.S. territory from the Iranian nuclear ballistic missiles (that don't exist yet). He warns, "If Tehran were to achieve a nuclear missile capability, it could hold American cities hostage—unless, that is, the U.S. builds a robust and comprehensive ballistic missile defense." (unfortunately behind the WSJ subscription page)

Now, for some reason, Woolsey doesn't think that Iran's leaders either understand or follow the whole "overwhelming and devastating response" part of our rather large nuclear arsenal, but wait! There's another reason why we need that U.S. missile defense shield!!

If Iran were to launch a nuclear-armed missile from a ship near one of our coasts—say a primitive SCUD from a fishing boat—we would have very little warning and no protection. Defending the homeland against this threat would require a substantial deployment in and near the U.S. of the type of mobile systems that the administration plans to deploy in Europe.

Further, if the Iranians were to detonate even a primitive nuclear warhead over the United States, it could send out an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) destroying the electric grid and electrical systems across a wide swath of U.S. territory. Iranian military writings show the mullahs recognize the potential of this kind of attack. Depending on where it occurred and how large the warhead was, an EMP attack could cause large-scale fatalities and unimaginable economic devastation. Defending against this kind of threat requires defensive systems that can intercept an attacking ballistic missile while it is still ascending. But the Obama administration has no specific plans to develop and deploy ascent-phase interceptors in Europe.

Wow, if Missile Defense Agency hadn't been developing boost/ascent, midcourse, and terminal defense segments of its $9-10 billion/year ballistic missile defense system, I might be concerned, but in fact it is. The Obama plan is in fact to position SM-3 missiles in Europe as part of the NATO theater missile defense plan, which is all that Iran can threaten, assuming that it does in fact develop a nuclear weapon, minaturize it to fit on a ballistic missile, test it, and then launch it toward Europe in a state of suicidal vengence. It's all open-source, Mr. Woolsey, so please, reposition the tin-foil cap and take another slug of whiskey to steel your courage.

But really, here we go with the "Iranian nuclear missile being fired from a ship off the United States, resulting in the Collapse of Civilization As We Know It." Honestly, it smacks of the most ignorant, fear-based attacks on the American public that I know. It's an argument that's all too easy to counter, and yet the conservative Repubs delight in pulling this one out of their arsenal. Or is it just arse?

UPDATE: Wisco helpfully provides a public link to the WSJ article.



The Kagans Gloat About Afghanistan

Afghanistan02
I really thought the day of the Neocon was over when most people admitted what a screw-up the Iraq war had been, from start to almost-finish. But here we have Fred and Kim Kagan gloating in the Washington Post about the inevitable "troop surge that President Obama will be authorizing for Afghanistan next week.

Adding forces gives us leverage; military forces are vital to the success of any political strategy because they contribute directly to improving governance as well as to improving security.

The recent American experience in Iraq illustrates how U.S. forces and diplomacy helped correct the behaviors of a sometimes malign government in ways that helped neutralize insurgent groups.

For those of you just joining our show, the Kagans were loud proponents for dramatic increases in the number of US troops for Afghanistan. Yes, folks, the first thing we're supposed to believe is that Afghanistan is just like Iraq, and that adding tens of thousands of American troops will solve any problem in nation-building. Really! There are no problems in Iraq now...

If the Afghan government were fully legitimate, there would be no insurgency. ... [We] must persuade and even compel Afghan leaders to stop activities that alienate the people and create fertile ground for insurgents.

Wow. I'm torn between thinking that that paragraph is either the most patronizing or the most idiotically simple statement ever made. Do the Kagans really believe that if the Karzai government were less corrupt, that the Taliban would all say, "oh, obviously we can deal with this man, let's all give up our arms and drug money and participate in a democratic government." The Taliban are inherently opposed to a democratic-type government, they want to be in charge.

American military forces can also help restrain politicians' abuses of power. U.S. forces can develop a picture of local power structures, including those through which Afghan officials abuse their power and exacerbate the insurgency. American commanders can collect evidence on individual offenders that a reformed Afghan judicial system would one day be able to use.

That's a great idea, if Karzai doesn't go legit, we'll make him - by embarrassing him, because the blatant evidence of corruption in Kabul hasn't really done it enough. As for the Afghan judicial system, does "decades from now" count as "one day"? This is not a culture that will adopt Western values, but again, somehow the Kagans think that we can impose it on them. The Kagans' argument - that we need to force the Afghan government to behave so that our "security concerns" are met via the McChrystal options - is illegitimate and boastful. It could only appear on the Wall St Journal or - embarrassingly for the alleged liberal MSM - in the Washington Post op eds.



Mike's Blog Roundup

The Daily Dish: A boldfaced, neocon liar, and a pathological liar

his vorpal sword: MSNBC misses the Astroturf in its own building

Matthew Yglesias: What Price News?

new deal 2.0: Turning up the heat on non-bank lenders

Dusty Rice: Franken talks down a mob

Here's a nice piece about the great tour I've been playing on for the past month...

The brilliant and witty Lisa of All Hat No Cattle is ill and facing $30,000 in medical expenses. If you're able, drop over and make a donation.



Mike's Blog Roundup

The Confluence: Twittering the Revolution. Whatever happens, it's Obama's fault and the neocons are celebrating

The Oil Drum: Profiiting from Scarcity - the commodity price spiral & global resource depletion

World-O-Crap: A Brace of Imbeciles

Helena Cobban: Netanyahu: Tactical withdrawal from one disposable position?

Bubble Meter: Here's a perfect example of how Republicans lie when they say they believe in small government and the free market.

Lotsa 'Splainin' 2 Do: A plea from a pensive Mr. T



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1358)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4218)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

I know most of America understands this, but let me say it anyway. President Obama's speech to the middle east was not meant for the neocon, warmongering fringe psychos like Charles Krauthammer. He was apoplectic on Brett Baier's show today on FOX because Obama's team didn't craft a speech that the AEI would approve of. It was meant to reach out to the Muslim population and try to repair some of the damage caused by war hungry neocon fanatics that got their wish under George Bush with disastrous consequences.

Kauthammer: The damage in policy was rather small. The damage to our position philosophically was large. On policy the speech was small because the speech was so abstract and vapid in self absorbed that it didn't touch on a lot of policy except on Iran. Here he was exceedingly weak, that was the weakest statement on Iran on Nukes in at least eight or nine years from anyone in the west....there was once again apologies over and over again. Apologies in moral equivalence....

Moral equivalency was his theme and he gets crazier as he goes on...What he obviously means is that George Bush and Cheney are no longer in power to incite violence around the world...

President Obama's message has a much greater chance to start influencing some hearts and minds in the middle east where we need to do exactly that. I hope they realize that we all don't want to invade their countries and turn them into Christians. On that major point he succeeded. To all the neocon pundits that unfortunately dominate our airwaves I think I speak for many liberals when I say: Go Cheney yourself.

I want to give some props to Ed Morrissey (who I disagree with on most issues, but met and like personally) for not taking the usual conservative line as he called the speech: Quite Good. The readers on Hot Air were not too please with Ed on this one. I doubt you can read many of their comments because you'll constantly read teabagger nonsense about Obama like this: 'The first Muslim president,' and so forth...

And Malkin's comment section is much different then ours because we don't pre-screen and then approve people like they do.



Mike's Blog Roundup

Bring It On: Most corporations, including the vast majority of foreign companies doing business in the United States, pay no income taxes, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday.

Drexel Dems: Meet John McCain's policy director. We already know about his idiotic, neocon foreign policy advisor. At least one rightie blogger is concerned that the McCain campaign is antagonizing their own supporters.

Lost in Tarnation: A position of strength? Actually, the POTUS is just a lowly spectator.

The Debatable Land: Did you know Putin is really another Hitler?

Alas, a blog: We don't need no stinking environmentalists...Jesus already saved the planet!

Our Future: Confronting rising drug prices



Sunday Morning Bobblehead Thread

Fleetwood Mac - Little Lies from the Tango in the Night album

It's Sunday morning, so it's time for those little lies to come out. Meet the Press is pre-empted for Wimbledon coverage, but with that exception, it looks like the same lying liars out in force, including everyone's favorite neocon apologist in Democratic er, Independent clothing, Holy Joe Lieberman on This Week and Lindsay Graham on Face The Nation. We're also going to be subject to some of the self-reverential navel gazing the media loves to do with a "media panel" on FoxNews Sunday (I guess that's a kind way of referring to Bill Kristol and Mara Liasson) and a 10 year retrospective on Late Edition. Slim pickings, I'd say.

ABC's "This Week" - Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Bob Barr, Libertarian presidential candidate.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.

CNN's "Late Edition" - Retrospective on the show's 10th anniversary.

"Fox News Sunday" - Media panel.

"Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Katty Kay, David Gregory, Gloria Borger, David Brooks. Topics: Will Hillary's troops climb aboard the Obama bandwagon? What should Obama look for in a running mate? Can McCain escape the bad economy by warning that Obama will raise taxes? YES: 5 NO: 7 Will Hillary get on board convincingly for Obama? YES: 9 No: 3

So what's catching your eye this morning?



Mike's Blog Roundup

The Reality-Based Community: What sort of objectivity in the classroom?

No More Mister Nice Blog: But...I thought Muslims didn't drink martinis. Josh Marshall ran this item under, Uppity-Watch.

Connecting.the.Dots: Neocon sacrifices

Consortiumblog: Campaign Finance Reform has failed

Huffington Post: NASA climate scientist says that Oil executives should be tried for crimes against humanity.

HOLY CRAP: Same-sex marriage threatens Dad's day celebration...Crazed Holy Crapian invited to speak at Pentagon prayer breakfast...Fellow Christians, we have been fooled for too long...Lying for Jesus...Texas GOP passes a theocratic platform..Branding!...Carl Jung was prophetic of today's ongoing debate about religion and science as well as a much older debate about the 'individual' and the 'state'...Resolved to continue bigotry...FISA & Christian Nihilism...Dobson accuses Obama of acting like Dobson