Has the Neoconservative Moment Passed? - James Woolsey

[macsm]

These neocons are are like Nazis in spirit.

[Zzozze]

For most Iraqis it was a better place under Saddam Hussein.before Gulf War I

They had materialy an higher life standard as today: good hospitals, good universities, good roads, and a good food supply. Although he was a dictator, today is everything worse for them.

[christo930]

We are in iraq for oil purposes. Bush gave Matt Simmons a 1/2 meeting early in Bush's presidency and he was therefor well informed on peak oil. Many of these bozo's think they can use Iraq to make up for production shortfalls in the rest of the world. I don't even think that being there for oil is a bad thing, but at least be up front about it.

[LuckyPierre78]

Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have RECORDED HISTORIES of anti-semitic vitriol. Paleoconservative lunatic Alex Jones believes everything is a Jewish conspiracy. THEY are the anti-semites. They use words like "neocon" and "banker" as codewords for 'Jew'.

I'M a gentile, Republican supporter of Israel, always have been.

By independentfreethinkingJewishA­mericans you seem to refer to the new generation of American hipster Jews who care little for preserving their culture or following their religion.

[jayhawk2680]

See Luckypierre78, you are totally full of s**t. You stated TWO times, that Ron Paul and most classic conservatives are "Jew-hating conspiracy theorists".

I want to tell you something you Communist sack of s**t, I'm JEWISH motherf**er. My family was slaughtered in the Holocaust and I stillhave tons of relatives in Israel TODAY. It is Communist radicals like you whothe MAJORITY of independentfreethinking JewishAmericans HATE. You inject antisemitism because your argument is WEAK. YOUR a RADICAL

[jayhawk2680]

embraced every neoconservative myth...hmm and what would that be?

Bottom line is this....Neoconservatives are going to fall HARD when they try and hijack the Conservative movement. WE DON't EMBRACE BIG-govt loving fake religous non-creative never ran a business never enlisted in the military NEOCON....YOU AINT WANTED

[LuckyPierre78]

Again, if you disagree, that's fine, but the bottom line, as you say, is that you just don't know much about neocon ideology. I understand that there's so much conspiratorial sludge tied to its history, and you're just one of many people who have arrived at the erroneous conclusion that neocons are a well-organized, well-funded cabal of Jewish dual-loyalists engaging America in Israeli proxy wars under the spiritual guidance of Leo Strauss.

And I'm telling you that NONE of that is true.

[thebizkid84]

Roosevelt? Truman? Neo-Conservatism was an ideology created by Leo Strauss in the 1960's while America was self destructing with immoral decay through the war in Vietnam, racism, drugs, etc. all because of liberal reform that didn't work (Johnson-D, Kennedy-D, Truman,-D, etc.) That's alot of liberalist power in the first half of the century. Nixon was the last of the old time Republicans before the Neo Conservatives infiltrated the government starting with Ford.

[jayhawk2680]

well said. As much as I liked Reagan, he was completely hijacked by the Neocons.

Goldwater was the man.

Solid point though..Neocons are HUGE HUGE liberals....they just wear sheeps clothing...something weird about U. Chicago and John Hopkins....

[LuckyPierre78]

While they accept some liberal ideas like the welfare state, neocons are hardly identifiable with mainstream liberalism. Neoconservatism doesn't ascribe to any central, organized tenets. It's more a tendency or a reaction to the condition the modern world finds itself in. If you examine the foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson and John Adams, you'll find strong recurring strains of neoconservative ideology. They were all liberal hawks.

[jayhawk2680]

Woah Woah slow down there U. Chicago kid....you said neoconservatives do not ascribe to any central organized tenets? Really? Hmm I don't think so.

Now if we are discussing "Classic Liberalism" then thats a different story. But classic liberalism AINT around no mas. Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer...those AINT real liberals.Bottom line is that Neo-cons LOVE bigSTATIST govts. They have NO opinions that matter regarding socialissues. Also, Straussians LOVE the FederalReserve and remain enemies of freemarkets

[LuckyPierre78]

You guys are both mistaken. Neoconservatism was NOT created by Leo Strauss. The original neoconservative intellectuals were classical liberals who shifted allegiance to the Republican party after realizing the failure of liberal policies during the era of 60's radicalism. Strauss was an apolitical philosophy teacher whose main goal was to return recognition to the great thinkers of classical antiquity. Some neocons did study Strauss but hardly any read him today. Their real hero is Tocqueville.

[random0815]

haha, yeah "radicalism", someone watching hannity with a notepad at hand out to explain the philosophical profundity of the neocons, let me get my notepad ^^

[LuckyPierre78]

What in God's name are you yammering about?

[roberteckerson]

Passed? It's been going on for over a century. McKinely, Roosevelt, Wilson(worst prez ever) Roosevelt, Truman, eisenhauer, kennedy, john...........you get the point. This ain't ending soon until you people wake up to people like Ron Paul.

..............Gary Johnson 012

[snappa52]

He would have a point if we didnt prop up and knock down dictators and democratically elected governments alike.

[random0815]

thats like asking "has the nazi moment passed".., who are the neocons anyway, what do they bring to the table? why should the people care about them when their goal is to eliminate their voice

[sproutsprouts]

The CIA has a rotten core of smarmy stooges for the international corporate/banking extended racketeer families , of which the neocons are just one head, that look to subvert democracy and use all the countries of the world as their toilet paper. 9/11, the economic crisis, they're mixed up with all of it. All for a buck.

[davidmesaaz]

The invasion of Iraq reminded me of a Neo-wilsonian Make the world safe for democracy than a Neo-Conservative one.

The invasion of Iraq was a departure of realpoltik..

[LuckyPierre78]

It makes sense. Neoconservative philosophy is entirely Wilsonian in that respect.

[befranklintoo]

When ever the Neo conservatives lurk hell is certain to break lose. After all fascist can not rationalize their decay of thoughts to all human living under the same roof.

[thpt]

Excellent example of mealymouthed neocon trying to Cover His Ass. FAIL! Do not pass go, do not get to control the country ever again.

[ArkeAngelRevonulet]

As always necons argue the Iraq war was about getting rid of saddam to justify it and not mention THAT we invaded Iraq over a WMD lie! Not bad intelligence BUT a Lie! They are hoping people over next few years will forget all the lies and many many mistakes! Irag, Economy, Torture etc!

[hardsofty123]

okay,. but the purpose of the war was to install a democracy, so that better relations could be forged w/ iraq and to increase the output of oil (an issue of national security, USadmin. wants to avoid 'oil shocks' and decrease OPECs control over global oil supply) the WMD thing was to mobilize public opinion, nevertheless the administration was expecting to find stuff, whether saddam was actually a threat.. he obviously wasnt to US, but sorta was to israel.

[hardsofty123]

its funny that im like usually the only person to support the US position, most of the time. But try to understand from their point of view, their actions would make much more sense. This war was not a mistake, had it been, US would be gone by now. This war is in the interest of the United States(for maintainence of global economic superiority/stability), and US's continued presence in iraq testifies to that fact

[d3p3ch3mod3]

i don't think the govt should ever lie to its people about reasons for going to war.... MAYBE if it's a case as serious as WW2, but never just for strategic geopolitical control, domino theory or reverse domino theory or natural resources

[hardsofty123]

oil = nat. security objective/ nat. defense possible WMDs= see the 1 percent doctrine, and w/ saddam's islamic campaigns of '94 onwards, us admin didnt want to take n e chances (given their history w/ saddam) remember, the bush administrations principal mandate post 9/11 was to avoid any similar attack, (so mark that off as nat. defense, though saddam did, in the end, yeild, the US had already set their eyes on him)

WW2 was -all- about strat. geo-political control...

[d3p3ch3mod3]

oil might be about economic security but it's not about saving lives and its not worthy of killing anyone or sending anyone to die over and it's not worthy of doing those things and lying about your real reasons for else they would've been honest about the reasons to begin with.

the guy who spoke out about the 1 percent doctrine was exposing its stupidity, not saying it should be official us policy. besides it's not nat defense, the WMD's couldn't reach us even if they existed

[hardsofty123]

it's about the proliferation of wmds, obvis. saddam was in no position to attack the US directly.

look, im not trying to support this war, im just trying to make sense of it.

oil is considered a non-renewable resource, lives on the other hand, can be renewed, and rather quickly too. (relative to oil)

just imagine the choas that would befall the W. world if trucks, cars, machinery stopped working (widespread famine easy). The us wants to avoid this, for its citizens, and i don't blame them.

[d3p3ch3mod3]

lol i hope you're saying that human lives are a renewable resource and oil is nonrenewable is supposed to be how Dick Cheney and the Neocons think and not that that really is true

[hardsofty123]

anyone who would think otherwise, would be fooling themselves. There is no room for moralilty in politics, though its appearence seems necessary~

[d3p3ch3mod3]

you're saying that you believe that oil is more precious than human lives?

[hardsofty123]

what a loaded Question

it depends on the context... as a morally conscious human being, i would have to say no (politicians appear this way)

But as a realist, of course it is(politicians act this way)

Anyone who consumes oil or products made with/using oil (which, with the inclusion of transportation = practically everything), is indirectly supporting this war, (US has highest oil consumption, thus they must -secure-/-garuntee- access to it.) and terrorism as well (saudis, iran fund 'em)

[random0815]

yeah no room for "moralilty" -.-, nice example of neocon-think, fancying oneself in toying with big topics while not willing to do the most basic homework

its a religion, like all religions its all about narcissism and self-indulgence, "we have this special knowledge which lets us know what to do - you wouldnt understand.."

[LuckyPierre78]

It's incredible how much misinformation has been spread by the international media regarding neoconservatism. Neocon philosophy can almost be summed up by the idea that America, in clashes with authoritarian states, must sometimes act against character in the defense of liberal democracy. Neocons aim at educating and directing democracy rather than seeking to overcome or scorn it. They are MORALISTS with good eyesight. The significance of their order lies in the strength of their arguments.

[random0815]

oh thats really bad, where to start - "moralist" is not a favourable term, misinformation spread by the media? the neocons owned the media for about eight years, plenty of room to make their case, they did and were proven wrong in every regard

as said, neo-cons fancy themselves in toying with big philosophical poses but arent willing to do the real homework, they arent well educated or thoughtful, watch chomsky slaughter buckley who tried to make your silly case of the unwilling america

[LuckyPierre78]

You've embraced almost every neoconservative myth, categorically. It's okay if you disagree with neocons, but let's be truthful. You seem to be another detractor who associates all Republicans with neoconservatives. The truth is most conservatives and Republicans reject neoconservative philosophy. Also, consider Joshua Muravchik, Irving and Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, are all brilliant minds in classical learning. Chomsky never supported anything American.

[jayhawk2680]

None of those neocons you NAMED ( and yeh those guys and gals would be defined as neocons) are "brilliant" in "classical learning"

You are really stretching on this one.... All's I know is this...classic or paleo-conservatives ( REAL conservatives) do not ascribe to ANYTHING I have ever read Kristol discuss. Names that come to my mind (quit making assumptions about Chomsky etc ) would be someone like Ron Paul. See in reality libertarians are almost identical to REAL classic conservatives

[LuckyPierre78]

That's exactly what I said, that most conservatives reject neocon philosophy. And I also don't deny that libertarianism is most closely related to classical Republicanism. I identify myself as a neoconservative and I do disagree with just about anything that Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky have to say regarding just about anything. Paul is another Jew-hating conspiracy theorist in line with Pat Buchanan (who I once admired), and Chomsky is a rabid Marxist with a warped worldview.

[random0815]

yeah he only drives constantly through the world to help people organize - including americans, he supports people, not america, there are more footnotes in a 5 minutes chomsky speech than in entire books of these - in fact any neo cons, none of them is even the same species as him, they want to pose as intellectuals but not do any intellectual work

the neo cons never delivered any serious scientific work, they had the country for 8 years and it was desastrous in every regard..

[LuckyPierre78]

He's a bum. I've read his stuff. Not impressed. He's never supported any American endeavor in history.  He certainly doesn't support liberal democracy.

Neocons don't do any intellectual work? I'm guessing you've never read anything they've actually written. If their output seems "unscientific", that's because we don't hire scientists for the business of politics and government any more than we would hire politicians for the business of scientific research.

[random0815]

well sorry, you demonstrate what i said about neocons, big opinions, no knowledge or reflection behind it, the neo-cons are much closer to marx than anything chomsky has ever written, his professed ideal is anarchy,

read him! you can very well ignore his conclusions because 90 percent of his writing is factual data and direct quotes - mostly by the people he critizises, for the most part he just gives you the sources with a little commentary attached which usually is not even necessary

[jayhawk2680]

theres no room for fake b**tches like you in MY REPUBLIC BOY

[valgehiir]

exellent channel. pointless upload this.

[Plutonwolf]

Expecting an honest answer from Woolsey on this (or most any other) subject is tantamount to expecting a condemnation of terrorism from a Taliban leader living in a cave in Pakistan.

Neo-Conservatism is a failed philosophy that has brought America to the brink of collapse and may still finish the job. Nice work fellows and gals.

[nfusionlabs]

Neo-Conservatism is the child of Zionism

[adamthebaddun]

This is the same old rhetoric and double-speak: "freedom" means "controlled by the US" and "peace" means "no-one arguing with us".

[FattKidd]

I believe Iraq would be better off under Hussein. So do most Iraqis.

[hardsofty123]

you're wrong there

[FattKidd]

says you

[hardsofty123]

ask the kurds, many of the shi'ite, and the various secular groups within iraq, like chaldians... the only groups who opposed the war were the sunni, and some others who just dont like war. But the public, by large, wanted saddam ousted. Though now it appears they wish the US would gtfo, but that's up to the iraqi gov't, and i think they want the US to stay until greater stability is achieved. this gov't is fragmented atm, it could all come undone very quickly

[MMS747]

Getting rid of Saddam was Iraqi business, not ours. It is an excuse for our being there, not a reason. I think even Bush would admit it's a lousy excuse.

[hardsofty123]

any kind of national revolution/uprising would require the invitation of the US(along with other nations, but US mil. capacity would be key), either through a UN mandate or through US unilateral intervention to offset any Iranian ambition.If this revo. were to happen, you could expect much more damage being done to iraq, and much more death within that region

[d3p3ch3mod3]

iraqi civilians and iraqi govt both sided with the proposed withdrawal timeline and disfavored bush's "withdrawal horizon" didn't they?

[FattKidd]

both the kurds in the north & shia in south were being protected by NATO under 'no-fly' zones after the 1992 war. that territory, in all reality, had already been taken away from Hussein & they both enjoyed peace, prosperity, & relative autonomy. saddam ran a progressive (for-mid east mind you) secular regime in which women were free, tribes got along, etc. now, women are persecuted & you will have never ending conflict between the tribes. kurds are under assault from turks.

[hardsofty123]

women r not persecuted, at least by the state, and now they enjoy more political participation (constitution has min. req. of 25% in parliament), the kurds would b persecuted w/o the US, or an iraqi gov, [which would result in US withdrawal and subsequent deterioration of the gov't. the kurds would try to form somewhat of an autonomour region/state, and the turks -might- intervene (though itd destroy their chances @ EU membership, so its unlikely, nevetheless, they fund opposition groups)

[hardsofty123]

ya, those nofly zones werent UN sanction, thus US was already in a state of war w/ iraq, Saddam had been an incredibly unstable actor within that region, 2 wars genocide... and he somewhat retain a capacity to produce WMDs (so no1 would fuck w/ him, thats y he was playing games w/ un, although he possessed no stockpiles, he emitted the appearence he that he did, and everyone believed it.

[FattKidd]

also, sunni extremists have been creeping into kurdish areas & conducting bombings, assassinations, etc. remember too that the weapons saddam got, he got from US & Brits. He was prodded by us to attack Iran & invade Kuwait. Then, after the 1992 war, we cut off electricity, clean water, food, medicine, etc during an embargo which UN estimated killed 1 million Iraqi children. Moral of this story? Stay the fuck out of these people's business. All we do is cause death/destruction.

[hardsofty123]

in no fucking way did the US want him to invade kuwait, and he knew this. Moreover, during iran/iraq war, the large majority ofarab gulf states were in support of iraq, as was US and much of the W. world, since irans ambitions in the region (exporting islamic revo.) were considered threatening and very real. ju8st remember that saddam's decision to go to war was his own, and the US simply watch'd/supported intelligence/weapons. This was in the context of the era, mind you.

[FattKidd]

Same thing with Iran. The Dulles bros overthrow the democratically elected gov't & president mossadeq in 1953 & install the Shah who was a brutal dictator. CIA even trained his death-squads, intel, special ops, guards, etc. Result? 1979 Islamic Revolution. Moral? Stay the fuck out of their business. We turn democracies into dictatorships & actually PUSH people to extremism. Woolsey is a fool. He THINKS he can dictate to those people how they should live. It's not up to him or us.

[FattKidd]

And, you're right. The situation there is fragile. But, we WANT it that way! Otherwise we have no excuse to be over there. This war wasn't about Hussein or helping Iraqis or democracy or any of that bullshit. It was about controlling the flow of oil out of Iraq & establishing a forward operating base in the mid-east from which to cause more death & destruction. Saudi Arabia kicked us out. We needed a new base. We've built 14 HUGE permanent bases in Iraq since 2003. YOu think we're ever leaving?

[hardsofty123]

trust me, the US wants to get out, but they dont want their shit to fall apart. this war is a huge drain on the fed. gov't(financially and legitimatly) the bases, ya death and destruction will be their result, (if sum1 misbehaves) but their PURPOSE is deterrence/security u fool. it would be niave to think the US will go into iran at any point in the next 15years (if they get nuks, however, expect Israel to intervene, w/ US, but not4 groundinvasion/regime change, only to kill facitilies.)

[mendelbot]

@FattKidd We wouldn't have had all those WWII casualties if we let hitler reign over europe. Peaceful surrender to tyrants is the path to lasting submis.. erm, peace.

[PoliticalSilence]

Lets hope it has!

[xkeltoix]

does this guy even know what democracy is?

neocons need to go away

[whoo689]

The problem is that neocons are almost always politicians. Few actual experts outside the political arena who don't get involved in politics think neoconservatism works. But politicians don't care about evidence or facts. They'll endorse any cockamamie idea as long as it sounds good on paper, and they feel like they're doing something good. Politicians think they know better than everyone else when it comes to policymaking. They don't. They're just as fallible as the rest of us.

[whoo689]

Int'l relations experts, professors, you name it, very rarely are neocons. They know it just doesn't work. It's a failed ideology. Afghanistan isn't exactly a "true" democracy, even with the advances it made since 2002. A man was put to death not long ago for proposing equality for women. The Afghani region is still tribal and "balkanized", if you will. You cannot put it together as one consolidated democracy. It just won't work. Same for Iraq. Only war hawks and idiots are for this.

[whoo689]

I'm sure the Freedom House people aren't exactly on-board with forcing democracy on peoples at the barrel of a gun. So, Woolsey needs to shut the hell up when he references them. Why does he think the only way to spread democracy abroad is to invade countries, bomb places, and kill some evil people and cause chaos in a certain region?? There's more than one way, you know! I don't doubt that they have good intentions, but they are severely misguided and are in no way experts in int'l affairs.

[eirefrance]

The problem with Woolsey's assertion that the neo-con position is still politically legitimate is that its hard to argue that it ever was. Support for the war in 2003 was not a product of neo-conservative spreading of freedom but of the imagined fear of an imminent attack. Considering Bush won in 2000 on a foreign policy platform that was anything but neo-con, where does Woolsey imagine public support coming from?

[silenciohospital]

James Woosley is a braindead neocon. And what about this ex cia director "helping" ngo's like freedom house, jajaja to "spread" democracy. And he has this vision of democracy in Iraq, that is: thousand of kids murdered with USA bombs so they can be "free".

[whoo689]

What a joke you are, Woolsey. A former CIA Director that's a neocon? Come on! I would think CIA people are a little smarter than that, like Michael Scheuer. He's not saying "they hate us for our freedom" like Bush is.