Category Archives: Neoconservatism

UPDATE II: Mitt’s Foreign Policy Is Obama’s With A Daisy Cutter On Top (Unbridled, Bellicose American Exceptionalism)

Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Republicans, War

Today, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada, Mitt Romney renewed his allegiance to the Obama-Bush Warfare State, only with a cherry on top.

Or make that a Daisy Cutter.

Romney accused BHO, aka, Killer Drone extraordinaire—the man who has “developed” new theaters of war for America across the world—of compromising the US’s bloated military-industrial-complex by cutting its budget.

“I am not ashamed of American power,” Romney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention …, adding “I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced.”
…Romney said he wanted to bring an “American century” in which the United States has the world’s strongest economy and military that secures peace through its strength.
“And if by absolute necessity we must employ it, we must wield our strength with resolve,” Romney said to applause. “In an American century, we lead the free world and the free world leads the entire world.”

Since Republicans and Democrats have comparable records on sustaining the Welfare-Warfare State, you should remember that, “each party operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one set of colluding quislings to the other, and back. … No sooner do the Republicans come to power, than they move to the left. When they get their turn, Democrats shuffle to the right. At some point, McCain reaches across the aisle and the creeps converge.”

UPDATE I: In reply to the thread on Facebook:

While I feel immense sympathy for the poor men who were drafted, I don’t begrudge those, like Romney, who were able to avoid the draft. What I despise is when the same people talk up wars that others’ children must fight. I want a law enacted now that would draft the Bush and McCain girls and the Romney boys to the front. Oh, I already wrote a column in “support of the draft…for politicians and bureaucrats.”

UPDATE II: Romney’s unbridled, Bellicose American exceptionalism:

From Berlin to Cairo to the United Nations, President Obama has shared his view of America and its place among nations. I have come here today to share mine.
I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country. I am not ashamed of American power. I take pride that throughout history our power has brought justice where there was tyranny, peace where there was conflict, and hope where there was affliction and despair. I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced. I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, and that our influence is needed as much now as ever.

About Mormonism and American exceptionalism, Amy Sullivan at The New Republic says this:

…an enthusiastic belief in American exceptionalism is part of Mormon culture and theology. There is the sacred significance of America as the setting for the Book of Mormon and the birth of the Latter-Day Saints. But there is also the belief by early LDS leaders that Mormons would one day rescue the country when it threatened to fall apart.
In an essay on this topic last month, Pat Bagley of the Salt Lake Tribune included this quote from Brigham Young: “There is not a Territory in the Union that is looked upon with so suspicious an eye as is Utah, and yet it is the only part of the nation that cares anything about the Constitution.” Bagley explained:
The Saints saw themselves as a link in a chain beginning with the Pilgrims, continuing through the Founding Fathers, and leading up to the establishment of Christ’s righteous government.

My position is this: “the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals,” was unique. But most Americans know nothing of the ideas that animated their country’s founding. In fact, they are more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical liberal philosophy of the founders, and hence wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive state and the fulfillment of their own needs and desires through war and welfare.

We Know “What Kind of ‘Skeeza’ is a Condoleeza [sic]”

Bush, English, History, Iraq, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Terrorism

“Skeeza” was the moniker that Brother Amiri Baraka attached to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose VP candidacy many conservatives are pushing.

Via RT:

The latest reports out of the Republican Party’s inner circle suggest that Rice, the Secretary of State under former President George W. Bush, is a viable option for Mr. Romney as he comes close to selecting a vice presidential candidate. Drudge Report, the heated political website overseen by conservative pundit Matt Drudge, alleged that Rice was among Romney’s top picks in a posting made this Thursday.

Just this once, I must agree with New Jersey’s awful, inartful poet laureate.

Let us take a romp down memory lane (via the Mercer Archives) with Ms. Rice:

FROM “HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!”, dated May 29, 2002:

Condoleezza Rice [head of the National Security Council] was unblushing as she justified her dismissive treatment of the critical mass of intelligence pertaining to impending terrorist attacks. Her distinction between analytical reports and specific intelligence information was especially specious. …Is Rice claiming that the mental capacity for deduction is not part of her job description? (President Bush might get away with that.) Can’t Americans expect the thousands of agents they employ to possess the rudimental capability for drawing inferences from data and moving to verify or refute information? Can Rice not be expected to execute a simple algorithm, like instruct her subordinates to screen and canvass certain targeted suspects?

…the National Security Council … is an office created by the National Security Act of 1947 to advise the president on “integration of domestic, foreign and military policies relating to national security and to facilitate interagency cooperation.” If suspicion existed – analytic, synthetic, prosaic or poetic – Rice should have put the squeeze on the system she oversees.

Don’t go away. There is much more to come from the Mercer vault to counter the GOP ditto-heads’ historic Alzheimer’s.

Later.

Mercantilism Vs. Militarism

America, China, Energy, Neoconservatism, Trade

When a world power such as China pursues its national, economic interests, instead of busying itself with unprovoked, non-defensive wars, as America does—analysts in the US call it a free rider.

“China,” pontificates Niall Ferguson, “contributes almost nothing to stability in the oil-producing heartland of the Arabian deserts and barely anything to the free movement of goods through the world’s strategic sea lanes. …In terms of geopolitics, China today is the world’s supreme free rider.”

So that is what the US has been doing in the Middle East! Fostering “the free movement of good” there. I suspect the millions of Iraqis who’ve been displaced and murdered pursuant to our invasion in 2003 would dispute that notion.

Chinese mercantilism is not free trade, but is it not better than American militarism?

Keep It Regional

Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Islam, Middle East, Neoconservatism, UN, War

Al Jazeera, “headquartered in Doha,” “is the “broadcaster owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation.” Toward Syria, the Gulf state of Qatar has adopted the regime-change policy of Saudi Arabia (in particular), the Arab League (in general), John McCain’s, Sean Hannity’s, and as many liberals. While Qatar intensifies its efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar, it is, simultaneously, supporting Bahrain’s crackdown on dissent. (An Al Jazeera correspondent out of Beirut was so enraged by the network’s bias that he resigned.)

In the Middle East it all boils down to faction and tribe.

Not so long ago, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, ruler of Qatar, asserted that “Arab countries should send troops into Syria.”

We can agree with the Sheikh that the US has no business in Syria. But good luck to him in handling Arab civil wars regionally. South African President Jacob Zuma’s attempted to deal with Libya locally (in the Continent), but the “gorgon who heads Caesar’s state department” (Hillary) would have none of it.

Not even the African Union, which has a good working relationship with warlords, could keep the Über dogs of war of (America masquerading as “NATO”) from leveling Libya. The rest is history.