Posted on 05/25/2007 10:13:26 AM PDT by Irontank
Dr. Paul's ACU rating:
PAUL
2006 - 76
2005 - 76
Life - 82.3
Dr. Paul's self assessment would be correct.
BTW McCain's lifetime rating is also 82.3
A label made up from thin air to make it easy to focus blame on Republicans.
They even like the fact that it almost rimes with Communist.
Ron Paul gets 3% of the vote; Jessie Jackson got more votes so he must represent the Democratic Party, right?
A Jewish conservative, according to the lefties.
"Neo-conservatism" is more complex than that. It is rooted in a philosophy of big-government globalism that has no basis in U.S. Constitutional law. This is why, for example, you never hear neo-conservatives in the media supporting strict constructionism as a constitutional philosophy, and why most neo-cons have no problem with blatant violations of constitutional law (like gun control).
I don't know if that makes them "Marxists," but it sure as hell doesn't make them "conservative" in any sense, either.
Yes, and it exascerbated the Great Depression, and got us 60 years of big government welfare-state socialism as a result. Maybe a new approach is in order?
If you doubt that, look at the polls on immigration.
Whoa whoa whoa, hunh uh. Two different issues altogether. "Fortress America" has to do with the idiotic paleolibertarian views on foreign policy which state that the USA should have no dealings with other nations, and that we should let anyone and everybody walk all over us if they want to, in the name of "no entanglements". Trying to tie immigration - legal or illegal - in with this is balderdash.
Er, well, technically Taftian isolationism has no basis in U.S. Constitutional law, either....
“neocon movement is a belief that we should act preemptively in the world”
Well said.
And I’m much more of a ‘Taft’ or Paleocon; but I think that’s the best one sentence definition I’ve seen.
Open borders, big government, gun control, and this silly "war on terror" are defining parts of the neo-conservative agenda. There is nothing conservative about any of these.
I find myself at least partially in agreement with Dr. Paul on domestic issues. That said, his take on foreign policy is, well, I can’t adequately describe my disappointment (at least in terms suitable for a family site like this). Something in the Libertarian (as opposed to the little “l” libertarian) movement just cannot figure out that our enemies have motivations of their own. We just have to be ready to do unto others before they do unto us in this world.
A term coined by Michael Harrington who was a leftist writing about his fellow leftists who he believed had left the reservation (although they remained not what we used to call "conservative"). Irving Kristol (the Godfather of Neoconservatism) wrote a book entitled Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea. In it he described neoconservatism as:
It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group ... (which gradually gained more recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican party. We ... accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.
In 1983, Kristol wrote:
A conservative welfare state is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective.
Or take the words of Irving's son, Bill Kristol:
Are we willing to say that the country is worse off because of FDR or JFK or LBJ? I'm not willing to say that.
Irving Kristol again on neoconservatism:
Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked
So...its, in the words of Fred Barnes..."big government conservatism" (an oxymoron in my opinion). Affection for the New Deal, the welfare state, FDR (bit not much interest in Coolidge or Goldwater) and an internationalist, interventionist foreign policy...tremendous faith in the power of goverenment buraeucrats in other words
Even though Communisim is more closely associated with the left.
You and I are on the same page. I live the TX 14th CD, and have gleefully voted for Dr. Paul up until this next election. Since he has made his views known on the defense of this country, especially with his vote with the democRATs on the "Non-binding resolution on Iraq," I intend to work for his defeat in the primaries (both presidential and congressional).
“Taftian isolationism has no basis in U.S. Constitutional law, either....” Nor in the history of the early Republic either. Shores of Tripoli anyone? Quasi-war with France? War of 1812 (including the invasion of Canada)? War with Mexico later and on the Indian Nations? Isolationist? Not bloody likely.
FDR and the New Deal saved us from the Depression did it? Neoconservatives consider FDR a 20th century "hero"...do you?
The first three, I'm right there with you on. But why do you think the war on terrorists is "silly"? There is also nothing conservative about doing nothing in the face of an opponent who really, actually, truly does want to destroy you and your entire civilisation.
FDR made a bad business cycle worse (along with the failure of the Fed). Making labor more expensive through taxation (like social security taxes) and through regulation made the Depression worse, not better.
Perle: "Chairman Dean, let me congratulate you on your election as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The Democrats in their wisdom looked at the condition of the Democratic party and chose a physician to lead them. I say that as a Democrat, as a "Scoop Jackson" Democrat, and I look forward to the day when the Democratic Party will nominate a candidate whose views on national security are such that I can return to voting for Democratic candidates."
That's pretty astonishing. The Bush administration basically tossed away every shred of credibility it had when it allowed these big-government leftists to play such a key role in shaping our foreign policy and military affairs.
To be honest...I don’t understand why more FReepers are not angered at the Administration for allowing itself to be persuaded by a group of people (some of them former far left Social Democrats) that invading Iraq, deposing Saddam and building a “new” Iraq was going to serve America’s interests.
As early as 1996, a group of neoconservatives, Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Doug Feith, who are all part of the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, present a report entitled A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm to Israeli PM Netanyahu. As we know, all of these guys would later become part of the Bush Administration and all were key architects of the invasion of Iraq. Perle goes on to become the Chairman of Defense Policy Board, Wurmser works at the State Department, then become Mid-East adviser to VP Cheney and Feith would become Under-Secretary of Defense to Paul Wolfowitz.
A Clean Break sets forth why it’s in Israel’s interest to depose Saddam.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, ... This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right....
Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq...
Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria...
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War.
--A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Later in 1996, Wurmser writes a second report for the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies think tank, entitled Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant. This report expanded on the reasons to depose Saddam...but you can read through it and see that none of the reasons had anything to do with Saddam having WMD’s, Saddam’s connection to terrorist groups that threaten America, building a democracy in Iraq or liberating the Iraqi people. Quite the opposite...the report argues that the Iraqi regime was very weak and if it collapsed, Syria and Iran, Israel’s two most dangerous enemies, could fill the vacuum.
Wurmser is pressing for US and Israeli support for the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmed Chalabi. We all remember Chalabi. He was the first chairman of the INC. He led a failed coup attempt against Saddam in 1995 that was originally backed by the CIA before the CIA intercepted a message from the Iranian government showing that Chalabi had forged a document from the U.S. asking him to get help from the Iranian government, and had shown this to Iran. After that the CIA refused further help to Chalabi. Nevertheless, despite much evidence that Chalabi had extensive contacts in Iran and was using the US to get rid of Saddam...the neoconservatives maintained a close relationship with him. In his book Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, Wurmser, who became VP Cheney’s Middle East adviser, says that Chalabi is “one of two mentors who guided my understanding of the Middle East."
The Project for the New American Century...a neoconservative, internationalist group headed by Bill Kristol, members of which included virtually every advocate of war against Iraq in the Bush Administration including VP Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David Wurmser and John Bolton...published a piece in May 2001 called Liberate Iraq (“libertation”...this type of internationalist, nation-building was always the reason behind the invasion of Iraq and always very attractive to the neoconservatives who are, at their core, left-leaning, big-government types who revere FDR (in the words of Irving Kristol himself)). In that May 2001 article, PNAC wrote of Chalabi:
Foreign Affairs published a high-profile attack on the INC ... It left the impression that Ahmad Chalabi is definitely not the man to lead the opposition, let alone the nation. ... Yet Chalabi may be ideal for the task, for the very reasons that often cause critics to trash him. He is rich, upper class (in the old-world sense), well educated, highly Westernized, an expatriate, and, last but not least, a Shi'ite Arab.
...but the critical factor for his leadership would be America's support. Once Chalabi was chosen by us, everyone else -- the Kurds, the Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs, the Turks, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Saudis -- would view him in an entirely new light.
Chalabi also established his own intelligence service, which dwarfed the reach and understanding of the CIA's clandestine service.
But who was Ahmed Chalabi?...it seems clear now that he was a con man who, on behalf of his Iraqi National Congress, conned the likes of Bill Kristol, David Wurmser and other advocates of deposing Saddam and used the US military to help him and his INC remove Saddam. Chalabi provided some of the intelligence on WMD’s that was cited by the Administration. It was Chalabi’s defector and other INC sources that told American intelligence about the mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq that Colin Powell described in his address to the UN. But, we now know the intelligence was bogus...that Iraq had no WMD’s.
Another source , associated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) (hereinafter "the INC source") , was brought to the attention of DIA by Washington-based representatives of the INC. Like Curveball, his reporting was handled by Defense HUMINT. He provided one report that Iraq had decided in 1996 to establish mobile laboratories for BW agents to evade inspectors. 253 Shortly after Defense HUMINT's initial debriefing of the INC source in February 2002, however, a foreign liaison service and the CIA's Directorate of Operations (DO) judged him to be a fabricator and recommended that Defense HUMINT issue a notice to that effect, which Defense HUMINT did in May 2002. Senior policymakers were informed that the INC source and his reporting were unreliable. The INC source's information, however, began to be used again in finished intelligence in July 2002, including the October 2002 NIE, because, although a fabrication notice had been issued several months earlier, Defense HUMINT had failed to recall the reporting.
-- Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Report to the President, March 31, 2005
In 2004, Chalabi...hero of the neoconservative advocates of an invasion of Iraq...is found to be spying for Iran...at which point the US government finally cuts their ties to this dirtbag
'Rock Solid' Evidence Chalabi Spied For Iran
The same small group of neocons continued to push both Israelis and Americans (and both governments to depose Saddam and back Chalabi and the INC). In 1998, Forward, the American-Jewish newspaper published an article entitled, Iraqi Resistance Calling on Jewry For Support in Quest to Depose Saddam Allies of Chalabi Meet Ambassador Gold, Warn of White House Folly
From the article:
With Senate Majority Leader Lott pushing for $10 million in new funding for the Iraqi opposition, supporters of the free, democratic Iraqi National Congress are calling upon Israel and members of the American Jewish community to get behind their quest to depose Saddam Hussein.
An adviser to INC chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.
Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein. In international terms, pro-Israel, pro-INC policy analysts envision a Middle East where Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the liberated portion of Iraq confront the dictatorial, anti-Western nations of Iran and Syria.
A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. "Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support," said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.
Mr. Wurmser said an INC-controlled region in the north of Iraq is the missing piece to complete an anti-Syria, anti-Iran block. "If Ahmad extends a no-fly, no-drive in northern Iraq, it puts scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," Mr. Wurmser said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition."
The irony of ironies is that now we see that this small group of arrogant little bureaucrats who hitched their wagon to a guy (Chalabi) and a group (the INC) to remake Iraq (and in their grand plans...the Middle East) into an anti-Iranian, pro-Western region...the only problem for these government bureaucrats is that Chalabi and his INC turned out to be allied with Iran. Now, there are many in Israel (which, like America, was ill-served by listening to those obsessed with deposing Saddam) who now believe, in retrospect, that Israel was safer with Saddam in power.
Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer With Saddam in Iraq
Not only has Iran greatly expanded its influence in Iraq now that its mortal enemy Saddam has been deposed...and not only has chaos and destabilization reigned...not only has Al Qaeda established a base of operations in Iraq now...not has Al Qaeda used the huge US presence in Iraq to recruit thousands of new jihadists how can get experience in urban warfare...but one fact that has been lost is that Saddam had greatly moderated his anti-Israeli stance in the years after Iraq’s war with Iran. From the Forwardarticle:
A few years into the Iran-Iraq war, however, Saddam moderated his anti-Israel stance. Some observers believe he merely hoped to curry favor with Washington. Others say that even so, it might have led to a thaw. Jews in Iraq were now protected by a special unit and had a phone number to call if harassed. “Nobody could touch us,” said Emad Levy, who lived in Iraq at the time.
In 1982 Saddam told a visiting congressman that he supported the “existence of an independent Palestinian state accepted by the Palestinians.” He added, “It is also necessary to have a state of security for the Israelis.” Israeli officials publicly dismissed the feelers as a smokescreen.
Soon after, Saddam moved closer to Egypt, which he had previously snubbed for making peace with Israel. Iraq’s government-controlled newspapers began using the word “Israel” in place of “the Zionist enemy.”
In early 1986, Israel’s then-prime minister, Shimon Peres, a supporter of secret American-Iran arms deals, stopped supplying Iran and sent aides to meet secretly with Iraqi officials. The contacts were reported in the Israeli press but firmly denied by both sides. “Nothing came of the meetings,” Baram said, “but they showed that something was moving.”
And what about us...how has America benefited from the war in Iraq? I would say...like Israel...the toppling of Saddam was a Pyrrhic victory. What have we accomplished for the supreme sacrifice made by over 3000 great Americans...and the wounds to tens of thousands more...what have we gained for the half a trillion dollars spent in Iraq so far?
We’ve destabilized the country to such an extent that many argue the US military cannot leave lest there be a complete breakdown into chaos (although not leaving seems to just be delaying the inevitable now)...the war in Iraq has expanded Iranian influence...
Most importantly...the war has expanded the worldwide jihadist movement. This is a point lost on so many. Al Qaeda has benefited from the US presence in Iraq and will continue to do so. Yes...our brave soldiers are killing jihadists every day...but the jihadist movement is expanding...in large part the growth is feeding off the huge US military presence in Iraq. The April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate states:
Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.... We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
It is encouraging that the NIE states that if the jihadists perceive themselves as having failed, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight...but what is failure to Al Qaeda and the jihadists who fight for it? If, as have been the case, the extremist, anti-American jihadist movement is growing...to Al Qaeda, that is success. These same Islamists bled the Soviets for 10 years before the Soviets left Afghanistan...how long will Al Qaeda be able to bleed us (seeing as how, according to US intelligence, there are a growing the number of jihadists) before we recognize that the US military presence in Iraq is highly counterproductive to the War on Terror? Zarqawi, in a letter intercepted and translated by Centcom states that AQ would like to “prolong the war”:
The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission
AQ wants to prolong the war because its helped AQ breed new jihadists. Its not as though there are a finite number of jihadists in the world and we can defeat them through a war of attrition. As the NIE linked to above states....3 years after the US invaded Iraq...the number of jihadists is growing. Rueven Paz did a study of jihadists killed in Iraq that was published by the Israeli think tank Global Research in International Affairs Center. Paz found that “'the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.”
Arab Volunteers Killed in Iraq-An Analysis
But US intelligence has long known that the US presence in Iraq and the destabilization has only helped Al Qaeda...both in recruiting and in training the new jihadists in deadly urban warfare...experience they can take back with them from Iraq to further terrorize the middle east, the US and our allies. In February 2005, then-CIA head Porter Goss told Congress:
Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. Jihadists. Those Jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in, and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, networks, in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries
--Porter Goss, Testimony Before Congress, February 16, 2005
A couple of years or so ago, we took a good look at them, via an article by their alleged "Godfather:" The Neo-Con Phenomenon.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.