Hope the toll from the attack is low… the DC subway will of course be on even higher alert than usual…
UPDATE: How sick is Fox News? They’ve turned a terrorist bombing into a political sledgehammer to swing their stuff around and claim that these other nations aren’t doing enough to fight terror.
UPDATE: The mayor of London is totally kickass. To the terrorists: “Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail”.
Ken Livingstone, mayor of London:
“This is not an attack against the rich and powerful. It is not an attack on the politicians, but on the common working people of London”
“[It was an] indiscriminate attempt to slaughter irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion — whatever.”
“We have seen that you are not afraid to take your own lives but what you did is just mass murder.”
“I can tell you now that you will fail in your long-term objectives to destroy our free society.”
“In the days that follow, look at our airports and seaports, and even after your cowardly attacks, you will still see people from around the world coming to London to achieve their dreams.”
Wasn’t there someone posting here who said the Global War on Terror should be called an Asian War on Terror?
I want to thank the terrorists for assuring passage of our Patriot Act.
Well as the Neo-Cons say….
It’s better to fight them there than here”
As much a bag of SHIT as the Chimpy McBush Show…..
JD
I made no such claim……
I said what I said what you read in it is in your won mind.
OK?
Right … the terrorists never bombed anywhere in Europe prior to Chimpy McBushitler taking office. Is your worldview so limited that you ignore the history of the terrorists ?
TomY: Save your self – righteousness for someone else.
What does respect for the dead mean to you? Come here and criticize me?
What a consolation to 33 families…
All I was saying was that just recently somebody made a special point of declaring that the Global War on Terror was actually an Asian war on terror, and, of course, they were wrong. It was no refletion on Londoners, and, in fact that FOX comment was posted after my post.
Mind your own business.
Feank…
You are a pussfilled asshole.
I don’t know what I expected. Oliver makes a comment about how conservatives use the victims of terrorism as fuel for their petty political arguments, and lo and behold, there’s Frank doing just that in the very first post. Have a little respect for the dead.
You do not know me…..
But cuz I disagree with you all of a suddenI’m a lib and ignorant?
Dude I have seen the crap you puke here.
If you do the same in RT……?
So unless you have something that adds to the conversation…..
Why don’y you do the world a favor……………
And die…….
JD: Every card – carrying leftie has a “blame Bush” algorithm saved in their hard drive, so it’s as simple as highlight, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V
What I find interesting, also, is the number of ignorant lefties like Grumpy and neoconsrloopy, who think that a “neo – con” is a modern conservative.
I’ll never tell what it really means; I enjoy chuckling to myself, every time they get it wrong.
Another sad day – a day that we should unite in our support for our friends and family in London.
As Bush said this morning – we will bring them to Justice. Let us focus on that for a moment before we return to the hatefulness – Frank and JD, please be respectful of the website that you choose to post at. In case you have not noticed this website is a progressive site. Please stop with the card carrying leftie stuff, the idiots stuff, the I am right you are wrong stuff. It does no good.
Grumpy: I will do as you suggest and die. Unfortunately for you, God will decide when that occurs. I’m not married to Michael Schiavo.
You’re not a liberal because you disagree with me; you’re a liberal because you refer to the current administration as a “bag of SHIT” and the “Chimpy McBush Show”, something conservatives and moderates are not inclined to do.
I called you and neoconsrloopy ignorant, because you continue to incoprrectly use the term “neo – con”, demonstrating your political ignorance.
You call my postings “puke I crap” indicating an ignorance of either physiology or anatomy, or both
If you do the same in RT& & ? What’s RT?
Should I lay off you until you call me a useless bag of shit. and then we can pick up where we left off?
Or, should I not act like a deranged, demented fool?
Consider yourself, from now until the end of the world, ignored and despised.
It is a sad day for sure, but we should remember that true peace is never achieved by dropping bombs and waging war.
Sure we can “strike back” at Al-Qaeda, but what would it achieve? I’ve never understood how anything can be accomplished if one just responds to violence with more violence.
Frank I’m not here to get in a flame war with you (or anyone for that matter)
You attacked me for no reason and I will not be insulted by you (Or anyone else) so lay the fuck off me personaly and I will do the same for you.
You useless bag of shit
Yeah I got what the fuck I wanted!
Ignored by a useless bag of shit!
Thank you!
Wow, guess I hit a nerve. Very well, keep up the great work showing conservatism to be the deeply moral, practical, and effective political philosophy that it is!
I bet Iran is to blame somehow
More terror.
Instead of catching the people responsible, let’s bomb Iran. The neocons are sure they have WMD. Never you mind that the neocons have never been there. Never. You. Mind.
Also, can we lock up random people and throw away the key w…
Frank……
Maybe I should make it more clear for you
Do the world a favor and die now
Ken Livingstone: This is not an attack against the rich and powerful. It is not an attack on the politicians….”
I appreciate the latter part of Livingstone’s comments, but this is the usual Trotskyite b.s. I’ve come to expect from him.
So, attacks on the rich, the powerful, and politicians are justified.
Gimme a freakin’ break, Ken.
OYE: I don’t believe you are right about option (c). And, I don’t think that’s what Todd B. was referring to.
How am I doing so far, Zappa?
“So, attacks on the rich, the powerful, and politicians are justified.”
It is a little questionable, especially out of context. But al-Qaeda often makes statements referencing the wealth and power of the West, so it’s not Troskyism so much as a response to them. And anyway, the overall thrust of his remarks is one of solidarity of all Londoners, so what’s the big deal?
Zappa,
Nowhere was I disrespectful. Not even remotely so. I simply pointed out that despite one’s desire to blame President Bush for all that goes wrong in this world, a larger worldview would show that the terrorists have struck at targets, domestically and overseas, when President Bush was not in office. The commenter prior to me would have you believe otherwise.
Well, Todd B., let me give you an example: Let’s say I’m pounding the crap out of you in an alley. You can’t call for help, and there’s no one around.
You can a) Allow me to continue to pound the crap out of you, until you are seriously injured, beaten senseless, unconscious, comatose or dead, OR
b) Pound the crap out of me.
While you are free to choose (a), most people choose (b)
Zappa: Does this post meet with your approval?
Wow, Tuco, where does Livingstone condone attacks on the rich and powerful?
Reading is fundamental.
I really do think that we need to see where we are in repsects to our preparedness and our intelligence gathering. I for one would love to say – “Despite all our differences – Bush sure did a great job of shoring up our borders and working so that we never have the extreme horror of another 9/11 type attack.”
My condolences go out to all those affected by this horrible crime.
Now, as long as we’re going to get political about this, why is it that terrorism is viewed as a problem requiring only military solutions when it’s clear that it’s going to require both military and law enforcement solutions? Pretty much any Metropolitan Police officer could tell you that today. Of course, they could have said the same thing back when the IRA was at its most virulent.
Oliver, thank you for watching Fox News so we don’t have to. Because otherwise I wouldn’t have know that Fox News would be so stupid as to accuse the Europeans of not doing enough about terrorism. To make such a statement requires ignoring the history of Europe since The Troubles began in Northern Ireland.
Hear of the Red Brigade lately? Or Baader-Meinhof? Didn’t think so. And the IRA has gone from a fearsome organization to one that’s now politically crippled thanks to the results of a simple pub brawl gone bad. And Fox says they don’t do enough to fight terrorism. Disgusting.
Again, my heart goes out to all of those affected by today’s crimes.
Todd,
That’s the most sensible thing I’ve heard all day. Congrats.
Unfortunately, that’s not how the world we live in works. Striking back is exactly what we’re going to do, because it helps politicians stay in office. And it makes a select few large shareholders stinking filthy rich. Anyone who advocates otherwise gets shouted down as “unpatriotic,” a “pussy,” a “communist” or just plain “crazy.”
Rule through fear. Turn your home country into a maximum security prison while making the terrorist problem even worse. Send several thousand kids off to die or get permanently maimed. Enrich your wealthy friends. Blow through billions in tax dollars to fund it all.
Sure, Zappa, I will do as you command. And when someone insults me, or calls me a name, or implies that I can’t or don’t read (e.g., “In case you have not noticed, this a progressive site”. Why, thank, M’sieu Zappa. As Johnny Carson used to say, “I did not know that.”), or that I am uneducated, or that I don’t know how to raise my children, or that I am … drumroll, please… a pussfilled asshole; I will not respond in kind. I will recognize my ‘place’ and my status here as a guest, who posts only by your leave.
As Gomer Pyle used to say, Thank ya’, Thank ya’, Thank ya’!”
I just wish we would strike back more effectively at the people who do this stuff, instead of getting diverted in Iraq. I certainly don’t blame Bush for all that’s gone wrong with the world; he deserves credit for his successes, and blame for his failures. And in terms of the war on terrorism, Iraq began as a diversion and has turned into a failure.
“the DC subway will of course be on even higher alert than usual& ”
DUDE!!!
…I’m driving.
Well, Todd B., let me give you an example: Let s say I m pounding the crap out of you in an alley. You can t call for help, and there s no one around.
You can a) Allow me to continue to pound the crap out of you, until you are seriously injured, beaten senseless, unconscious, comatose or dead, OR
b) Pound the crap out of me.
While you are free to choose (a), most people choose (b)
Except George Bush, who would probably choose -
c) Pound the crap out of someone who had nothing to do with it, lie about why you did it, and do mean things to people who question why you did it.
I, for one, am pleased that the world is a safer place today because the US defined Iraq as the place to fight the terrorism that brought about 9-11. This becomes clearer everyday, as Iraq embraces democracy and the opposition winds downs–evidenced by fewer attacks and fewer deaths and injuries; as the Afghanistan model takes hold with peace and prosperity accompanied by a near stand-down of the Taliban; and as world-wide terror wanes, despite London, Barcelona, and a few others.
JD
Tthat was not what I was saying……..
ToddB,
I thank God that you are not in a position of power. Do you think that the people who perpetrated this crime today respond to peace talks? That there is ANY rational way to deal with these monsters other than to take them out before they take us out?
Livingston had it right. And kudos to Oliver for recognizing that.
Thanks Frank – I appreciate both the effort and the sarcasm…
I would choose (b) – but as you can well imagine – I was often the target of bullies and the likes, and found another way to get out of a fight and that was talking to the bully…unfortunately this wont work in this world.
The problem that I have is that we started to do (b), and then we went on to option (c) – attack someone that did not beat us to a pulp but someone that called us names and was arrogant in their respect to authority.
We have an administration that has failed in Afghan that failed in its planning in Iraq and that is failing at making us a safer nation. I do not think for one second that you believe these things – or that I will or others will convince you otherwise.
You may call it a blame bush strategy – but in the world I live in – there is accountability and ownership. You own your mistakes and learn from them, you are held accountable if you make an egregious mistake.
In rereading Grumpymann’s first comment – I read concern about the policy of fighting them in Iraq and not on our own turf. If there is one thing that the horrific events in London this morning should teach us is: we are naive to think that we are invulnerable to attack again on our own soil.
So which country not involved with the terrorists will Shrub attack this time? Maybe he can be like Raygun and try Grenada again, that’s who we attacked when terrorists attacked us in Lebanon.
I see my post above being proven true right before my eyes…
I thank God that you are not in a position of power. Do you think that the people who perpetrated this crime today respond to peace talks? That there is ANY rational way to deal with these monsters other than to take them out before they take us out?
Your standard “kill the bastards”/”peace is for pussies” ranting.
OK, SaveFarris. Let’s say you are the one in the position of power:
Just how do you propose to “take them out”? How exactly do we find the “them”? And how do we take them “out”? Don’t you expect these people to have friends, families and relatives? Are we going to have to kill of them too, lest they seek revenge? What about innocent bystanders?
And who is going to do the “taking out”? Will you be the first in line at the recruitment office? Your kids?
And how are we going to raise the money for this grand battle? Would you pay more in taxes? Would you give up your gas guzzling car or other trappings of your comfortable existence?
Well, Todd B., let me give you an example: Let s say I m pounding the crap out of you in an alley. You can t call for help, and there s no one around.
Sure, you could fight back but then what would that prove? Your attacker would be just as upset and likely to come after you again because you didn’t take time to understand why your attacker came after you, right?
Grumpy: Your apology is accepted as mine is offered.
Now if we just can get zappa’s small enough to fit through a door =:-}
Well, do you think peace can be achieved if you keep referring to them as monsters ?
I see. These people were perfectly normal, and it was US calling them monsters that caused them to strap themselves with dynamite and set out to kill as many innocent people as possible. Does a SANE person do that? If not, why are you saying that is WE who have to change?
It has nothing to do with “hatred”. That’ll be around long after there’s nothing left but cockroaches and twinkies. It’s eradicating those who think that the answer is to blow up civies.
Frank
Accepted
Good, never let respect get in the way of a good disagreement.
And my thanks to Zappa for his calm handling of my raging temper.
Om with the arguing!
I think most people on this site, liberal or conservative, agree that we need to find, capture, and kill al-Qaeda.
“Anyway, the way you go after them is to Democratize the region and establish Freedom in the Middle East.”
I agree, but where liberals part ways with neo-cons is that the Iraq War was not the necessary next step in that process, and may be counterproductive in terms of democracy building, and certainly quite counterproductive in terms of terrorist suppressing.
zappa: you’re not seriously telling me you “appreciate the effort”…
WordPress hosts ‘blogs for free, as does Blogger. Nothing is stopping you from authoring your own.
And, finally, I don’t recall Oliver Willis, the real author of this weblog, refering to it as a “progressive blog”, or a blog for “progressives only”.
I hesitate to call you a liberal, lest you call me a pussfilled asshole, but such arrogance can only be ascribed to one ideological persuasion.
This thread is a waste.
Some of the people posting on this blog are beyond belief.
I thank God that you are not in a position of power. Do you think that the people who perpetrated this crime today respond to peace talks? That there is ANY rational way to deal with these monsters other than to take them out before they take us out?
Well, do you think peace can be achieved if you keep referring to them as “monsters”?
One needs to take a step back, look in the mirror, and learn why hatred exists on earth before you can do something about it.
I’d suggest educating each other about different cultures and religion, respecting other peoples sovereignty, promoting good will and peace instead of manufacturing bombs, and working with other nations to united instead of divide (”you are either with us or you are with the terrorists”).
Terror and terrorism is an ideal not a tactic that can’t be defeated by bombs or war; if you truly want to “defeat terrorism” then you need be educated and informed of other cultures.
Neocon is a term that was originally coined in the office of Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Democrat from Washington, in the 1970’s. It reflects a worldview which called for the destruction by any means necessary of enemies of the US, such as the (then) Soviet Union. Many/most of his policy disciples who worked with him in the 1970’s now work for the “president”.
You, Frankie, you dried up piece of shit, are a neocon, because you are an apologist for everything that the neocons do. What makes you even more ignorant is that you don’t realize that not one thing that the Bush administration does is conservative, other than intruding on peoples private lives (in the bedroom). And you are still marching in lockstep. Amazing. Have you been screened for Alzheimers?
O.Y.E.
You wouldn’t want me to enlist. I wouldn’t last 8 hours in boot camp, which is just as well because I’m also a horrible shot and would be more of a danger to my own unit than any potential enemy.
That said, it’s a good thing we have a Constitution which says you’re allowed to have an opinion about the use of military force without having to join the Armed Forces. I would note that all the folks such as yourself crying “Chickenhawk” would themselves be ineligible to protest the war since a vast majority of THEM aren’t enlisted either.
Anyway, the way you “go after them” is to Democratize the region and establish Freedom in the Middle East so that if/when they ever have a disagreement with us, they hold summits and press conferences instead of strapping dynamite to their chest and heading for Times Square. France hates our ever-living guts but they’re not blowing us up and it’s because they’re not under the thumb of a Totalitarian regime having hatred indoctrinated into their society.
Thanks for the tip Frank – and I was seriously thanking you as it appeared if you had moved into rational debate mode.
We all know what you think of liberals, lefties, progressives etc. – all good and fine – such is your right to think how you want to think.
The facts remain – our friends in London were attacked this morning – we are vulnerable to an attack. What are our leaders doing to protect us? Coming from a blue state, living in a large city – I am concerned about my families safety – I don’t know if you noticed, but the big cities seem to be a target – while those of us in a large Urban area may not be the voters that the current admin are trying get, they still have the responsibility to help protect us. I want to feel comfortable knowing that our Leaders have done all that they can to help prevent another attack on our soil.
I do apologize if I seemed to go off the deep end.
And to Frank as well.
On many boards I have been attacked and it all started off with what I saw as a Backhanded attack (Now I see he may not have meant to do that). I figured I would cut out the shouting hedging rules about personal attacks and get straight to the name calling from the start. I am not a milquetoast and Frank is not a unless bag of shit , pussfilled ass or any of the other things I called him.
He seems to be a man of clear passions and strong held beliefs. And I can respect that and will respect that and him from now on.
If I hadn’t been from now until the end of the world, ignored and despised . I would extend my hand knowing it would be rejected.
Disagree with my thinking and even my choice of words fine. Make it a personal attack and I will rise to the challenge. And that is what Frank did (As is his right).
And in this instance was my wrong.
I will ask for clarification before I turn into a deranged, demented fool .
Once again I apologize.
neconsrloopy:
There is no dispute that AlQaida is in Iraq TODAY. If the short-term approach is to F/C/K AQ, then our troops are in the exact right place.
Todd B:
Unless you live in the Middle East, then who are you (or anyone else) to determine what the people who live there want?
What culture you come from doesn’t matter: NOONE willingly chooses Despotism. That you would even THINK that is a plausible scenario shows just how out of the mainstream you are.
do you think anyone will turn around and say hey, maybe these people aren t all bad if you keep referring to them as monsters ?
Those behind todays attacks ARE “all bad”. Targeting civilians is what psychopaths do. And there’s no way you can ever convince me that this world would be a better place with them still in it.
Why do you feel that France hates our ever-living guts ?
Does it matter? They’re not firing missles at us nor is the Foreign Legion invading us. What differences we have can be worked out diplomatically and it’s BECAUSE both our countries recognize that indiscriminate terror is unacceptable. AlQaida hasn’t learned that lesson yet and the only way to teach it to them is to blow them into tiny pieces.
French bashing is indeed, one of the dumbest things about conservatives today. They say things about French people they wouldn’t dare say about any other nationality or ethnicity. Fine, Parisians can be rude. You know what, so can Londoners. People who bash the French usually have got larger problems that they’re projecting onto a convenient ethnic group to hate.
Fine, Parisians can be rude. You know what, so can Londoners. People who bash the French usually have got larger problems that they re projecting onto a convenient ethnic group to hate.
And, for that matter, so can New Yorkers – it’s just like singling out that one driver that cut you off by saying that all drivers are bad.
I’m sorry, this just happens to be one of my biggest peeves – it just screams of arrogance.
Anyway, the way you go after them is to Democratize the region and establish Freedom in the Middle East so that if/when they ever have a disagreement with us, they hold summits and press conferences instead of strapping dynamite to their chest and heading for Times Square.
So the answer is to democratize the Middle East? Have you gone door to door and asked the people living there if that is what they want? Or are you just assuming that just because we live like that that others will too?
Unless you live in the Middle East, then who are you (or anyone else) to determine what the people who live there want?
Part of the reason that fundamentalism and extremism exists is because of this style of thinking.
It has nothing to do with hatred .
It does have everything to do with hatred – do you think anyone will turn around and say “hey, maybe these people aren’t all bad” if you keep referring to them as “monsters”? (I’m not singling you out – I’m using “you” in the general sense)
France hates our ever-living guts but they re not blowing us up and it s because they re not under the thumb of a Totalitarian regime having hatred indoctrinated into their society.
Why do you feel that France “hates our ever-living guts”? Just because they didn’t agree with Bush’s policy? I know plenty of people over in France and they don’t hate Americans – they may disagree with the approach, but they don’t hate anyone.
I’m so sick of the ignorant French bashing that exists in the political climate today. It serves nothing other then dividing America from the rest of the world even more.
Farris,
There’s more to the military than firing a gun. If you really support the Iraq War and you really want to help your country, go visit your local recruiter and get the 4-1-1. The military has thousands of jobs that don’t require you to be a macho, gun-toting crack-shot.
While it’s true that you aren’t legally required to join the armed forces if you support the war, you really aren’t doing your country (or your conscience) any favors by cheering on the war without backing it up with some kind of service.
I know this is putting it pretty harshly, but either sign up or shut up.
The short term liberal approach to terror is to find, capture, and kill al-Qaeda. Clue: Iraq is not the best place to look.
The long-term approach is to approach foreign policy with respect for Arab people and their economies. Stop supporting dictators who starve their people and destroy their economies. Then, when a zealot like bin Forgotten comes around looking for recruits for jihad, maybe the people say “You know what, the west isn’t so bad. Go jihad somewhere else”.
Does it matter? They re not firing missles at us nor is the Foreign Legion invading us. What differences we have can be worked out diplomatically and it s BECAUSE both our countries recognize that indiscriminate terror is unacceptable. AlQaida hasn t learned that lesson yet and the only way to teach it to them is to blow them into tiny pieces.
But how can you hold one group of people to a different standard as another? If you are promoting that the way to resolve our difference is diplomatically, then how can you logically say that the only way to deal with Al-Qaeda is to “blow them in to tiny pieces”.
That seems to be a tad bit hypocritical, if you ask me.
What culture you come from doesn t matter: NOONE willingly chooses Despotism. That you would even THINK that is a plausible scenario shows just how out of the mainstream you are.
Sure no one wants to live under a realm of despotism, but the point is who are you to decide that a nation needs to be democratized if you don’t even live there? Would a country be any better if it was being bombed each night and had no food, water, or electricity while ushering in this new regime?
different argument about the taxes there SaveF – it would be:
I support a tax hike – but then refuse to pay them…
It’s spelled “pus-filled”. One ’s’, not two.
O.Y.E. and neoconsrloopy:
I might be starting to get behind this chickenhawk argument. Next time someone passes a tax increase, I can just say “Hey, I didn’t support it” and refuse to pay. And you’ll back me up, right???
Same argument, my friends: same argument.
Oh, and since my father, both grandfathers, and 3 of my uncles have already spilled blood for this country, I think my family’s earned the right to speak on military matters.
But how can you hold one group of people to a different standard as another? … how can you logically say that the only way to deal with Al-Qaeda is to blow them in to tiny pieces .
Easy. Their mission statement is “Die Infidels! Die!” I have no problem with us as a country using “any means necessary” to make sure that doesn’t happen. If they want to live, fine: STOP KILLING CIVILIANS.
Al Qaeda is everywhere. We can devote resources to chasing them around the world, or we can defend our homeland so that they can t attack here.
We tried that for 20 years. How’d that work out?
I agree that we need to:
Protect our borders
Rely on better intelligence
More CIA operatives around the globe (whoa, I don’t think I would have ever said that…)
Stop supporting tyrants that do kill and hurt their populations
Stop making our own WMD’s
Get off the reliance of Foreign Oil
Help those developing countries so that they are our friends in the future
Take our world leadership role more serious – less muscle more brains and example – Kyoto would be a start
On the other hand we can continue to give everyone in the world the finger, push people around until the fall in line, help big oil continue to supply us our drug, debate steroid use in baseball, favor corporate interest over public interest, create more debt then ever and on and on and on and on…
Nor can you see that those collateral deaths in Iraq create more enemies – no wonder your party fails at national security…
You can t see the difference between the unfortunate collateral deaths of Iraqi civilians killed by our bombs and tanks and the INTENTIONAL TARGETING of civilians by AlQaida?
I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference – death is death. I’m certain that civilians that have been killed during “Operation: Iraqi Freedom” can’t tell the difference either.
I would also like to point out that I would be just as hard on Democrats, don’t get me wrong. People just need to stop with this “they have a gun, so I’ll get a bigger gun” mentality to solving the worlds problems.
You can’t see the difference between the unfortunate collateral deaths of Iraqi civilians “killed by our bombs and tanks” and the INTENTIONAL TARGETING of civilians by AlQaida?
No wonder your party remains less than credible on national security…
Farris, I can tell you how that worked in the past 10 years….
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002
Easy. Their mission statement is Die Infidels! Die! I have no problem with us as a country using any means necessary to make sure that doesn t happen. If they want to live, fine: STOP KILLING CIVILIANS.
And yet you support killing civilians with the bombs and tanks that are used to go in to these countries where these “terrorists” are located.
You can’t have it both ways here – violence just leads to more violence, it doesn’t slow it down or stop it all together. If you keep attacking, you’re just going to create an environment where people are taught to fight back instead of educating them to using words instead of weapons.
Farris, let me know when you’ve signed up and where I can send the armor and flak jackets. There are no more brown people willing to go to war in your place.
Neo: I was a conservative before there were neoconservatives, you fist – fucking troglodyte. You still don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s really quite simple. Even a drooling anencephalic like you can understand it…
If you had gone over to Wikipedia, you would have found the correct information
Origins
Neoconservatives are conservatives who are “new” (neo) to the conservative movement in some way. Usually, this comes as a result from the migration from the left of the political spectrum to the right, over the course of many years. Though every such neoconservative has an individual story to tell, there are several key events in recent American history that are often said to have prompted the shift.
Some of today’s most famous neocons are from Eastern European Jewish immigrant families, who were frequently on the edge of poverty. The Great Depression radicalized many immigrants, and introduced them to the new and revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism. The Soviet Union’s break with Stalinism in the 1950’s led to the rise of the so-called New Left in America, which popularized anti-Sovietism along with anti-capitalism. The New Left became very popular among the children of hardline Communist families.
Opposition to the New Left and Détente with the Soviet Union would cause the Neoconservatives to emerge as the first important group of social policy critics from the working class. The original neoconservatives, though not yet using this term, were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War. Multiple strands contributed to their ideas, including the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman. The current neoconservative desire to spread democratic capitalism abroad often by force, it is sometimes said, parallels the Trotskyist dream of world socialist revolution. The influence of the Trotskyists perhaps left them with strong anti-Soviet tendencies, especially considering the Great Purges targeting alleged Trotskyists in Soviet Russia. A number of neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were Shachtmanites in their youth while others were involved in the Social Democrats, USA, which was formed by Schachtman’s supporters in the 1970s.
The original “neoconservative” theorists, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were often associated with the magazine Commentary, and their intellectual evolution is quite evident in that magazine over the course of these years. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the early neoconservatives were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the civil rights movement, integration, and Martin Luther King. However, they grew disillusioned with the Johnson administration’s Great Society. Some neoconservatives also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing “anti-Americanism” among many baby boomers, in the movement against the Vietnam War and in the emerging New Left.
According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a “liberal mugged by reality.” Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives.
As the radicalization of the New Left pushed these intellectuals further to the right in response, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism. Admiration of the “big stick” interventionist foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt remains a common theme in neoconservative tracts as well. Now staunch anti-Communists, a vast array of sympathetic conservatives attracted to their strong defense of a “rolling-back” of Communism (an idea touted under the Eisenhower administration by John Foster Dulles) began to become associated with these neoconservative leaders. Influential periodicals such as Commentary, The New Republic, The Public Interest, and The American Spectator, and lately The Weekly Standard have been established by prominent neoconservatives or regularly host the writings of neoconservative writers.
Academics in these circles, many of whom were still Democrats, rebelled against the Democratic Party’s leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. Many clustered around Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Democrat derisively known as the “Senator from Boeing,” but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront charges of Soviet “expansionism.”
In his semi-autobiographic book, “Neo-conservatism”, Irving Kristol cites a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on some neoconservatives has generated some controversy. Some argue that Strauss’s influence has left some neoconservatives adopting a Machiavellian view of politics. See Leo Strauss for a discussion of this controversy.
So long, buttmunch!
neconsrloopy:
you first. Remember when you said you wanted to find, capture, & kill AlQaida? I guess that means since you support that part of the war, you HAVE to enlist.
See you at the recruitment office!
Todd B:
Thanks for proving Karl Rove right!
Thank YOU for such a jingoistic attitude towards the United States.
It’s called patriotism baby!
Thanks for proving Karl Rove right!
Thank YOU for proving that Conservatives are nothing more then trigger-happy war-mongers who can’t wait to bang the drums for war.
Thank YOU for killing off any chance we have ever had for working with other nations diplomatically by having such an arrogant stance on foreign policy.
Thank YOU for such a jingoistic attitude towards the United States.
Thank YOU for refusing to believe that the United States could possibly be hindering the world’s progress towards peace and human rights rather then helping it.
See, it works both ways.