I don't think this is what Margaret Mead had in mind but I admit it was the first thought that popped into my mind when I saw this composite photograph and read some of the accompanying blog commentary on DownWithTyranny! back on August 9th (a portion of which follows):
Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby
John Bolton, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, Frank Gaffney Jr.
The above "Dirty Dozen" are listed as the top 12 Neocons in America. They are enabled by the secondary tier of Neocons: Senator Joe Lieberman, Charles Krauthammer, John Podhoretz, Ted Koppel, Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Pipes, Max Boot, David Horowitz, Ron Silver, Jackie Mason . . . [Editor's Note: What's in italics is taken directly from the prior blog pieces at DWT! and Kick! Making Politics Fun. I therefore do not take credit or blame for the accuracy or completeness of their lists. In fact one can quickly spot a few omissions--James Woolsey, for instance, who is often publicly described as "neoconservative" but who didn't make the listing. Also if I had written this myself, I would have certainly inserted some qualifiers like "mostly"; as in "Neocons are (mostly) conservative Jewish journalists and politicians..."]
Neocons believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power-- forcefully if necessary-- to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
. . . Neocons are conservative Jewish journalists and politicians linked to the Right-wing Israeli Likud who support United States corporate, political, cultural and military imperialism with the use of preemptive World War if necessary-- without ruling out preemptive nuclear strikes-- to rid themselves of the Muslim Menace. This is understandable, but it is also the worst example of foreign policy in American history.
No matter. Time and time again, this group, going back to their beginnings, even before their Project for the New American Century in 1997, has shown the power of truly persistent and well organized Machiavellianism. When the more pragmatic Iraq Study Group, for instance, said the war on Iraq was not going well, Robert Kagan's brother Frederick got busy cranking out "Surge" strategy and naturally the neocon's idea prevailed against the combined intelligence of almost all other American foreign policy and military experts. A few months later, when surge news wasn't looking so rosy, the group sent neocon second stringer Kenneth Pollack and his buddy O'Hanlon on a day-or-two trip to Iraq to generate fresh propaganda to save the surge. Cheney praised their efforts liberally and, what d'ya know, the surge immediately turned into a long-term escalation.
No matter what you may think of their ideology or ethics, one cannot help being shocked and awed at the ability of this relatively small group to control the papers and politics of our country against all odds and against all reality. So they are hardly ready to Rest In Peace despite such predictions after the 2006 elections --see Salon article "Neoconservatism-RIP" for good analysis but lousy prediction. They have, in fact, proven so pre-eminently powerful that their next apparent task of rolling out this new campaign for pre-emptive massive bombing of Iran, seems nothing but a formality, a cakewalk if you will. Yes, while the rest of us mere mortals were caught up in the real reality of these first two terrible war quagmires, the neocons were already bent on making a third new war our reality.
They've given the ticket this time to first string and first-rate warmonger Michael Ledeen, with his "Iranian Time Bomb" book set to hit the airwaves and newsstands conveniently enough on the eve of 9/11. Folks may recall Ledeen as being the neocon with all that curiously coincidental but never quite proven connection to the forgery of documents about Saddam's seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger, the forged documents that Bush used to lie us into pre-emptively invading Iraq; that led to Plamegate and one other neocon (Scooter Libby's) conviction and pardon. The FBI of course couldn't solve the underlying mystery of the crude forgery. And how much do you want to bet that author Ledeen's talking head will not face one question on any news shows about his probable role in the yellowcake misadventure as he argues for new and improved war?
Sadly, you don't find hardly anyone asking the hard questions or exposing the neocons' "noble lies" except on blogs like DWT! (and Kick! which was DWT!'s original source for first and second tier neocons)--those not afraid of being politically incorrect (and, it goes without saying, from bloggers unafraid of being smeared as anti-Semite which is this "cabal's" preferred method of suppressing those who would expose them). The original blog piece, by the way, continued with the insight that "Neocons differ from old school conservatives in that they are so consumed with bombing the crap out of people all over the world that they have little inclination to bother with the social issues of guns, abortion, homos, religion and race. I suppose they could be considered the Vikings version of Rockefeller Republicans."
So do we all stand here, like helpless bystanders awaiting more world destruction from these Viking pillagers and plunderers? Or do we remember some wisdom learned the hard way, from the sign on the Holocaust Museum: "Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander." And, similarly phrased by Albert Einstein: "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." These quotes certainly don't mean that any one bystander is worse than any particular perpetrator. All they mean is that the perpetrators are few in number while the bystanders are many and could easily stop the perpetrators if they only tried.
On page 362 of the Epilogue of his insightful book Chain of Command, Seymour Hersh asked the question back in 2004 that I predict will become the major question all historians will have to answer: "How did they do it? How did eight or nine neoconservatives who believed that a war in Iraq was the answer to international terrorism get their way? How did they redirect the government and rearrange long-standing American priorities and policies with so much ease? How did they overcome the bureaucracy, intimidate the press, mislead the Congress, and dominate the military? Is our democracy that fragile?"
Historians may soon have to extend this question to include neocon-produced war on Iran. Their answer will probably not be that democracy was that fragile. Only that we had too many bystanders. Who preferred to shut their windows and close their ears so they wouldn't hear as our poor democracy was being strangled in the alley. Just like Kitty Genovese.
I enjoyed reading you post and many of the comments that it has inspired.
To your question, "How did they do it?" there is a simple answer. They didn't. When faced with the assertion that the impossible has been accomplished it is best to question the premise rather than accept it.
Your commenters(?) are an hillarious and hysterical bunch indeed.
It is amusing to read people complaining about being the victims of ad hominem attacks while they are comparing those they disagree with to the most horrible human beings the earth has ever known.
That two liberal democracies which have been close allies throughout 13 administrations should have similar foreign policy goals is not surprising. It is predictable and thoroughly rational.
Though my issue is always defined as the Jewish Right-wing it made no difference. I am quite used to this kind of thing because as a humor site I use hyperbole to get a laugh, but I was unaware that censorship ran so deep on this issue.
I just came across an article today about this in the Guardian. Two Harvard professors did an article and when they received the Jewish angst, rather than run, they turned it into a book.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2169838,00.html
RJ
The whole Western world has been under seige since 1914. And neoconservatives need to be correctly called what they are: Talmudic Zionists. If you haven't done so already, may I suggest that you Google: "The Controversy of Zion". In its 46 chapters of well-documented facts you (we)find the answers to all the political plagues afflicting the Western world.
Why 1914?
Why not 1913?
In the U.S. alone, 1913 was the starting date for Wilson's administration, the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax system, and the involvement of future political leaders in Skull and Bones (such as Prescott Bush).
In 1913, there were also events in Europe and the Middle-East which resulted in military preparation for the Great War (such as the Coup of 1913 which resulted in greater centralization within the Ottoman Empire).
the TV news puppets.
That is, too many people fear that because the neocon cabal is unscrupulous in its methods, to defend oneself appropriately would require adopting such tactics, thus ceding the higher moral ground.
Thus, the question arises of what a suitable counter-strategy would be against such a dedicated and unscrupulous group of historical agents. History has shown that the single-minded can, and indeed do, affect and manipulate the course of history to their whims, whilst the intellectual and cultural counteragents often fail to counteract these trends directly.
They, the left, instead employ soft measures, such as MLK's and Gandhi's strategies of nonviolent resistance. Unfortunately, these require substantial populace buy-in to be effective, and whilst these do maintain moral integrity, they do it at the cost of much suffering.
Thus, we have two distributions: a small but effective group of agents on the right, and a large but individually ineffective group on the left.
However, I contend that one does not need to sacrifice one's moral ground to be effective. It requires a set of individuals with true compassion for one's fellow man, and a respect for life without qualification. That, and the ability to navigate the maelstrom of contemporary political existence. I'm thinking of an FDR-type, who managed to lead America through attempted fascist takeover (at home and abroad), while strategically placing mechanisms for the benefit of society over the concerns of corporate and private interests. I'm refering to someone who can play the game and still maintain an interest in a populist agenda, who can play hardball when needed but ultimately cares about his fellow citizens.
This is what is needed to inoculate history from the small group of thoughtful and committed... another such group as a counterweight. Where are they? I don't hear Pelosi or Reid answering this call any time soon.
This in my opinion is the only way the U S citizen can make his or her voice heard. This would eliminate the need for BRIBE [reelection] Funds. Please America WAKE UP.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush was never elected President. Not if you take a hard look at Florida/2000 and Ohio/2004.
Yet, there he sits.
During the Republican majority in Congress there was practically no business done "for our country" that didn't fall into the category of the PARTY first. Democrats were forced out of any power and when committees were held, they weren't even told about it.
Despite the narrow margin of Bushes '04 victory, he claimed he had "Capital" to invest in setting the country on the right path.
All we got though was more of the same old BS (Bush Shit).
He projects an image on the world stage as a buffoon BUT a buffoon carrying a gun!
Meanwhile, we sit with the slimest of majorities in the House and Senate and that slim lead is not enough to get things done.
I read, I try to educate myself, I contribute to campaigns, I blog, I sign petitions and try to stay active in spreading the word about the Bush/Cheney cabal.
But it's not enough!
They're going to bomb Iran and there is not a god damned thing I can do to stop it!
I'm so frigging frustrated I can't stand it.
Your post is excellent (as usual) Ms. Rowley. But the real issue is "How did we allow these fools to take over our country? I know the mechanics of it, I just don't understand how we let them get away with it.
Yes, I believe we will get a super majority of Democrats and a Democratic President. But that's a long way off and we need to understand exactly how this happened so that we can't allow it too happen again.
Even with any of the Democratic candidates running, it's going to take years to undo what BushCo has done and I wonder if ANY candidate in either party is strong enough to rescind the multitude of broken laws, illegal actions, signing statements, etc. that Bush will leave behind.
That would be never to vote for an incumbent, no matter what He [she] is running for. If we would stop the career politico's from getting entrenched in office, we could maybe stop the purchase of influence. Then the Military Industrial complex would have to move impossibly quick to keep the spigots open..
Our national experiment in democracy is more fragile than we think, and more vulnerable from WITHIN than without. Of that, our Founding Fathers were accutely aware; Abraham Lincoln was accutely aware; but we have grown fat and complacent -- and with six years of evidence, in denial.
It is indeed up to us to keep America from becoming...
The United States of Kitty Genovese.
March for Impeachment in DC on September 15. 939,615 of our fellow Americans have already signed the Petition to Impeach Bush and Cheney. Let's make it 1,000,000 by September 15.
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
Great article and in your mention of the quotation of the quote at the Holocaust Museum namely: "Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander" it brought back memories of when my wife and I visited the Holocaust Museum on September 11, 2002. At the end of the tour there was a guest book that asked about our feelings of what we had just seen. I wrote "and the Holocaust continues to this day".
It continues and differs only by different names and organizations that continue the death and destruction. What is the difference if six million die in seven years or if six million die over 10 to 20 years for a few people's economic interests. As Ghandi said "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
I will not stand by and let the Holocaust continue without uttering a word of protest. A museum was built to protest the inhumanity of the Holocaust. Where are those voices today? Will we simply wait and build more museums in protest and as we build new war memorials.
Bill Habedank
Also, neocons must realize that they need to be patriotic within the confines of the law and the constitution. Otherwise, there is no difference between them and the autocratic regimes that their policies tend to target.
In a December 2004 interview [7], Mearsheimer argued that the architects of the invasion, however misguided, were motivated by a sincere desire to protect American interests. In his March 2006 paper with Walt he argued that "the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure". [8]
He further wrote in an article in Foreign Policy in May 2006 [9]:
We also traced the lobby’s impact on recent U.S. policies, including the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Neoconservatives inside and outside the Bush administration, as well as leaders of a number of prominent pro-Israel organizations, played key roles in making the case for war. We believe the United States would not have attacked Iraq without their efforts. That said, these groups and individuals did not operate in a vacuum, and they did not lead the country to war by themselves. For instance, the war would probably not have occurred absent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which helped convince President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to support it.
Quite an impressive essay/post, profound and poignant in its eloquence.
Now, will you please run for the United States Senate in MN. As this issue needs to be placed in the forefront of the 2008 election cycle, far too few People are aware of what's going on, and the electorate needs to understand this.
Agape.