MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

"LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!!"

European and soon to be American liberal mantra, "Long live Vidkun Quisling!!"

BigBoy-

More like- extremism.

Yet another story that is only tangentially about politics brings about a thread of more conservative vs liberal sniping, mainly without any logic or reason.

I'm a heart-on-sleeve liberal (fiscally, socially, religious), yet during the run-up to the 2004 Presidential Election, I argued with such mental heavyweights as Jay Rice that the USA needed to focus on the integrity of its own borders as a more efficient and prudent method of ensuring homeland security; for this, I was called a pinko tree-hugging faggot amongst other less well-reasoned epithets. Yet here we are: another year into the expensive (both in human and economic terms) "Vietnam for people who don't like jungles" and suddenly - four years after 9/11 - comprehensive border security has finally made its way onto the administration's radar.

Losers asks "What is a "neocon"? Is it the latest word to try to denegrate conservatives? I guess it is an attempt to come up with something to combat the term "liberal" which liberals despise."

That's not something I recognise: I personally don't have a problem with traditional conservatives, no matter how much I might disagree with their beliefs or philosophies. My problem with neo-conservatives, typified by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc, is their willingness to politicise intelligence in order to support a political agenda.

1) In the Seventies, Rumsfeld - as Ford's Defense Secretary - pressed ahead with a program of expansion in military spending in response to a wholly fatuous perceived threat from the former Soviet Union and in contradiction to most conventional assessments of Soviet's own military programs.

2) In the Eighties, William J Casey ( (Reagan's CIA Director) used propaganda that the CIA had previously placed in a book as incontrovertible evidence that the Soviet Union was involved in supporting global terrorism, despite being told by his own staff that the propaganda was false in every way. Unfortunately, this came back to bite the Western world in the ass, as part of Casey's answer to this phantom menace was to support the Islamist mujahaddin in Afghanistan represented by internationally recognised best-dressed men such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

3) Skip forward to the Noughties and we have the spectacle of Colin Powell spreading some of the most unsubstantiated, politically-driven "intelligence" to the global community at the UN. The fact that this "intelligence" was largely generated by people who had an axe to grind (i.e. the Shi'ite opposition in exile, as typified by Ahmed Chelabi) appears to have gone unnoticed until it became obvious that it was more likely that the coalition would find The Ark of the Covenant than genuine evidence of an active WMD program: Cue the neo-conservative's disowning Chelabi in the most extreme way possible - arresting him for allegedly supplying US state secrets to Iran. Here's a question: what was a chancer like Chelabi doing in possession of US state secrets anyway?

Nixon, Kissinger and Bush Sr. would never have bought into the steaming pile of crap that was the Iraq War as they were, somewhat bizarrely, too smart to buy into neo-con propaganda; indeed Kissinger was a notable target of the Neo-conservatives in the Seventies.

The sad thing is that, even if the cynics are correct and the Iraq War was largely motivated by oil interests, the likelihood is that - within a decade - the Shi'ite dominated Iraqi government will, as likely as not, have nationalised the newly rebuilt oil industry (reneging on any agreements in existence today) and will probably have been seduced by the "charms" of the People's Republic of China. So the USA will have spent in excess of $500 billion for no particular "return on investment", quite apart from incurring in excess of 2000 fatalities and 15000 injuries.

And, apart from the financial and human cost of the Iraq War, the image of the USA has, rightly or wrongly, been undermined by aspects of this administration's response to the discovery that global terrorism was a real threat to American national security: allegations of various sorts (illegal surveillance, complicity in kidnap/abduction and torture, disregard for international law, illegal identification of serving CIA officers, etc.) have made this administration appear hypocritical, self-serving, and amateurish.

So, on top of spending a shed load of cash to - as likely as not - help the Chinese build an economy that will threaten American jobs, this bunch of hapless idiots have compromised the integrity of the American intelligence community, created a recruiting mechanic for Islamic terrorism from North Africa through to South-East Asia and probably harmed military recruitment for the next decade.

MCCFR,

BUT, with regard to Powell...

I agree with your assesment, what he did in supporting the bush-led lie for war, was unspeakably bad for our country. I must point out that he was a MILITARY MAN, and sworn by DUTY to support the president. He had neither the intelligence of the authority to do otherwise.

Now, Im not defending him, other than to say that he told the lie he was duty sworn to tell.

I should also point out, that Powell has since publicy gone on record as saying that was the lowest point of his life.

The LOWEST POINT OF HIS LIFE.

Thats just something to think about. You might have done better in his shoes, but then again maybe not.

Powell was at least man enough to appologize to America for the lies he helped advertise.

American:

You are absolutely right - and I should have explained that in the post.

Actually, if you watched Powell's presentation to the UN, you can almost sense his own incredulity that his reputation is being used to promote the credibility of the so-called intelligence - he almost stumbles through his presentation, as if he's hoping that gravity will somehow accelerate the end of the most embarrassing farrago of b••lsh•t that he's ever had to talk about.

Personally, I felt sorry for him - he knew that he was going to land up being implicated in what can, in hindsight, be called a conspiracy to get American and allied forces killed and injured for no practical purpose. Sadly, I suspect the whole experience of being the first Secretary of State for this administration will have soured Gen. Powell's taste for continuing in public life which is a waste of a man who knows what it takes the most of yourself from the most humble of beginnings.

You know, as much as I disagree with Bush, how can one with any sense of honesty say he lied when the intelligence agencies of four other countries (including France) indicated there was WMD?

Granted, not enough effort was put into checking it out. That is quite clear.

But saying Bush lied is off base. Now blame him for actions following the realization of the huge error, but don't say he lied out it.

One thing I will agree with - China will be far more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was. Over a billion people who've never culterally known anything other than authoritarian rule is a force to be worried about. Shiites being attracted by the Chinese?... The US is already losing South America to the Chinese.

Zupchuck:

1) If you read what I wrote, you'll find that I was very careful about who I accused of lying.

2) I can - using the ethics of neo-conservatives - say what I like about them: just as they practice accusation on circumstantial evidence, to the point of killing innocent civilians, plus American and allied forces, I can accuse them of prosecuting a war based on false and misinterpreted intelligence as well as outright disinformation.

If you want to apply the notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to whether the neo-conservatives are guilty of dragging the USA into an expensive and unwarranted military campaign, then maybe we should start by applying those same legal ethics to people kidnapped and abducted from countries that are not "at war" with the USA who are subseqently exported without due process.

I'm not going to get too far into the "torture" question here, because I'm not sure the evidence exists; but even the information we do have should make one ashamed to belong to an allegedly civilised democracy - I'm in the UK, and the revulsion I feel every time the Prime Minister or our Foreign Secretary come on television to mouth another set of somewhat equivocal denials makes my skin crawl.