GOP magazine blasts "vulgarized neoconservatism"

[quaoar]

This is simply amazing. It is also posted at Kos.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/feature.html

< snip >

You see it on certain blogs and hear it in the rants of some of the most widely listened to right-wing talk-radio hosts. If the Arabs don't want to be democratic, we should nuke them. We have no choice but to nuke them for our own safety. It's a vulgarized neoconservatism --no one from the American Enterprise Institute speaks like this (in public). But this talk is around in the heartland and growing, and it is wind in the sails of the new administration.

At this writing, the staffing of a new foreign-policy apparatus is not complete. But the broad strokes are plain. At CIA, there is a new emphasis on loyalty to the president over readiness to provide objective analysis; Porter Goss will ensure that the agency provides information that the White House wants to hear. At the cabinet level, the direction is clear. Colin Powell is leaving, exhausted by his losing tussles with the Pentagon, semi-humiliated by the president. His crime was that he was right about war in Iraq, right that we needed allies and more forces for the invasion, right that postwar Iraq would be chaos and quagmire. His caution about the use of force --the Pottery Barn rule--must have irked the president every time he saw him, so better to banish him. Promoted instead are those who were consistently wrong. Rumsfeld remains, though his neocon aides "stovepiped" phony intelligence about Iraq's WMD capacity, he botched the post invasion, and was responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture. Stephen Hadley, who "forgot" to remove the false claims about Iraq's yellowcake purchases from the president's 2003 State of the Union speech, is the new National Security Adviser. Condi Rice, whose TV musings about "mushroom clouds" helped frighten a nation into an unnecessary war, becomes the nation's top diplomat <...>

ow has the country changed? Two years ago, when National Review editor Rich Lowry said that an appropriate response to a WMD attack on the United States might be to nuke Mecca, there was a fair amount of outrage. But Lowry, recall, was imagining how the United States might respond to a massive terrorist attack. Now the American airwaves and blogosphere are rife calls to nuke those whom military invasion couldn't turn into democrats. "Could it happen here?" the old question goes. In one sense it already has.

[hatrack]

1. Too fucking late, "American Conservatives"

You got what you wanted, and now you get to live with the consequences. You won - and that's what counts, isn't it?

Isn't it?

[jonnyblitz]

2. no shit. I doubt they voted for Kerry. n/t

[tk2kewl]

4. actually, i think this mag endorsed Kerry

on edit:

yep... http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

[w4rma]

9. Not true. The editorial staff was split. Buchanan supported Bush.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html

[hatrack]

13. In other words, you got what you wanted, Pat. Bush won.

Given that, why don't you sit down and enjoy the refreshing flavor of a steaming hot mug of STFU?

These people rode the mouth-breathing sons-of-Koresh "nuke the ragheads" vote all the way to the White House twice.

And for the prior eight years they didn't have the White House, we all got to listen as froth and slime and bile caromed across this country like a tidal wave of puke, driven by millions of people who hated, Hated, HATED Bill Clinton and all things Democratic, and they happily harnessed that hate, and it continues today, 12 years later.

And when wave after wave of the same froth and slime and bile smeared the Democrats during the 2004 political season they didn't do a Goddamned thing.

And now they're all worried and breaking out in hives over the "coarsening of political discourse in the United States"? Again, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the American Conservatives can
GO FUCK THEMSELVES!!

[InvisibleBallots]

23. Buchanan was more openly anti-Bush than any Republican on TV

Buchanan was way more openly Bush than say, Powell or McCain. Buchanan went about as far as he possibly could and still be considered a Republican and a conservative.

[jonnyblitz]

10. wow.

I am stunned. thanks for pointing that out! :wow:

[katinmn]

11. great summary statement from their endorsement of Kerry

but like the progressive voice, their voice was silenced. I doubt many * supporters were aware of this and even if they had been, would have rejected it since it requires the ability to think on one's own.


"George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support."

Hear! Hear!

[crasmane]

19. thoughtful conservatism?

I've never heard of it.
Mostly it's lust for power, terror of personal poverty, and perponderance of greed that keep conservatism going. It's the fountainhead of stagnant wages for workers, and the reliance on the market to create wealth. As if human beings don't exist and money is important.
I've never heard a bigger contradiction in terms.

[Florida_Geek]

3. that is Pat Buchanan's mag

and he has always been against Iraq invasion

[tk2kewl]

5. its freaking scary when Buchanan becomes the moderate voice

of the republican party

[Traction]

21. Buchanan is way further to the right then Bush

Or the rest of the Republicans in power. You see, the far, FAR-right is so far to the right, they start turning left on some issues. These issues include war (they are protectionists), Israel (far right hates Israel and anything Jewish controlled, such as Hollywood and major media and newspapers), the Patriot Act (they oppose it because it can be used against militias, the Klan, or Nazi groups), etc. Also, as you can see, they agree with us on a few issues (like civil liberties), but for very different reasons. Buchanan is also way further to the right then Bush on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, immigration, and guns. He is what's called a paleo-con. Bush is a neo-con.

[xultar]

6. Did you here Pat on Randi's show a few months back...they found

common ground.

So if we are starting to find common ground with typical rethuglicans you know the neocons have gone tooo dammnnnn far.

[Elise]

18. Lie down with dogs..........

There has always been some common ground with Buchanan for me:

he's anti-NAFTA

he's anti-Iraq war

however, he is way too sick on other issues for me to stomach actually incorporating into my vision of the future.

[xultar]

22. Yes, but does that mean we shouldn't use him to help turn others

against * and the BFFE?

[katinmn]

7. like rats abandoning a sinking ship

They helped get the neocons in power.

[mcscajun]

8. Complain, complain, complain!

"They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining!'"

[rlpincus]

14. Cold Mountain?

Is that from Cold Mountain? Great book, pretty good movie.

[mcscajun]

15. Yup...although the sentiment has been uttered by others elsewhere.

I think it's an old expression.

[zulchzulu]

12. I'm glad they know they have targets on their backs for 2006

Anyone who voted for anything that relates to Bush and his illegal war, his Medicare bill, his deficits and his corruption are going to be open game in 2006 and 2008.

People hopefully will finally wake up and see who the real enemy is. It's the Repug neocons and their gladhanding theocrats.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

16. We still are coming after the GOP in the 2006 elections!

[VioletLake]

17. Yet another conservative mouthpiece denying fascism...

and shifting the focus to the architects & managers of foreign policy. Read this thread from last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2868961

In America, the phase is "it can’t happen here."

-----

One must be clear what "it" is. The Patriot Act is not a giant step towards domestic fascism, and we are not halfway to martial law. George W. Bush bears no hatred towards any minority group or even any domestic constituency.

-----

For contemporary America, the "it" is the setting in full motion of an aggressive, reckless, militarized foreign policy, viewed as lawless by much of the world—one whose almost inevitable outcome is nuclear war.

It looks like they're trying to save their domestic racket by offering "it" as a sacrifice. They want us to believe that "it" has no connection to it.

It's the fascism, stupid. "It" is simply the way that fascism conducts itself when it has the means.

They're afraid of the fascism charge because it thoroughly exposes them to the only people in the world they truly fear: their fellow citizens. They know that we alone have the power to put an end to their charade. If they can convince us to focus solely on "it," their domestic racket has a chance to survive intact.

"It" is certainly important, but it is what makes "it" possible.


Edit: added a Bold tag & link

[Skittles]

20. you made 'em, you support them, you f***ing OWN THEM

bastards