|
RELATED LINKS:
I make no apologies for being a proud, ideological, extreme left-wing,
freedom-loving liberal. I have an extremely strong antipathy toward conservative Republicans (is there any other
kind) in general, and Neo-cons in particular. In my opinion, neo-cons are mean, nasty, devious, dishonest, intolerant,
hateful, mean-spirited liars. What the hell type of misguided values did their parents instill in them? Why did
their parents not abort them before they could spew their poison and hatred? Perhaps their parents should have been
aborted as well? This country, and the world, would be a much better place in which to live if neo-cons were not
a part of it.
PAGE CONTENTS:
The Neo-Cons
Anne Coulter
The Neo-Cons
By Denis Mueller
Here is a brief history of the neoconservatives and where
they came from. The neo-cons came out of the disillusionment with the peace wing of the Democratic Party, so they are aligned
with the mentality that brought on the Vietnam War. The neoconservative viewpoint is best expressed today in the inner workings
of the office of the Vice-President Dick Cheney. In many ways, they constitute a lie factory. In a floor speech, by
true conservative Cong. Ron Paul of Texas, they are described as follows. I must add that some of the additions are mine and
this view is influenced by John Dean's terrific book, Worse than Watergate.
1. They agree with Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution
and many of its members, such as David Horowitz, are former followers of Trotsky.
2. They identify with the writings
of Leo Strauss
3. They believe in a powerful government
4. They believe that the end justifies the means and
actually think that hardball tactics are a more necessity.
5. They believe that lying is a political necessity.
6.
They believe certain facts should be kept from the public.
7. They believe in preemptive war.
8. They openly
endorse the idea of an American Empire
9. They are willing to use force to impose that empire.
10. They eschew
the Founding Fathers belief in neutrality in foreign affairs.
11. They believe that 9/11 occurred because of the lack
of foreign entanglements.
12. They are Zionists who believe in unconditional support of Israel and the Likud party
13. They view civil liberties with deep suspicion.
14. They dismiss any arguments based on constitutional
ground because this is a restriction on the federal government.
15. They have brought the United States to the brink
of disaster.
16. They believe in total corporate power.
They call themselves the Vulcans and have wanted to
invade Iraq since the 1970's. What is especially troubling about them is their lack of faith in our form of government. This
should be no surprise since many, like their intellectual founder Irving Kristol, were actually Trotskyites in their past.
Some, such as David Horowitz, maintain their lies are not lies at all but are what the left means and tries to hide. In short,
they are liars and proud of it. It is also interesting to note that they dislike both true conservatives like Barry Goldwater
and former President Eisenhower. Most of them have never been in the military and made sure they did not partake in the Vietnam
War. So they love war but not if they have to fight it.
The question that some of you might be asking is how this
is related to history? The answer is that we must know where these undemocratic, democracy hating people, came from and why
they act like they do. Their hypocrisy goes hand in hand with segments of the Christian Right, an oxymoron if their ever was
one, with their willingness to lie whenever it pleases them because they feel the end justifies the means. They have captured
our country and it is time we returned to our historic roots. I think both true conservatives and liberals can unite on this.
We must see them for the threat that they are. We have another name for them, they are fascists.
Sources: Worse than
Watergate, John Dean
Copyright 2006 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Go ahead and forward this, in its entirety, to others.
In my opinion, Anne Coulter is one of the most dishonest, corrupt, mean-spirited,
despicable liars among the neo-cons. She is definately one who should have been aborted. What were her parents
thinking? Perhaps her parents should have been aborted, as well.
Anne Coulter
by Joe Conason
Here is a review of Anne Coulter's book on Mccarthy and the
lies surrounding it.
"Slander" is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as "a false defamation (expressed in spoken
words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed." The venerable American legal
lexicon goes on to note that such defamatory words are sometimes "actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages,"
particularly when they impute "guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the
criminal courts; as to call a person
a 'traitor.'"
So how appropriate it is that in the rapidly growing Ann Coulter
bibliography, last year's bestselling "Slander" is now followed by "Treason," her new catalog of defamation against every
liberal and every Democrat -- indeed, every American who has dared to disagree with her or her spirit guide, Joe McCarthy
-- as "traitors." And like a criminal who subconsciously wants to be caught, Coulter seems compelled to reveal at last her
true role model. (Some of us had figured this out already.)
She not only lionizes the late senator, whose name is
synonymous with demagogue, but with a vengeance also adopts his methods and pursues his partisan purposes. She sneers, she
smears, she indicts by falsehood and distortion -- and she frankly expresses her desire to destroy any political party or
person that resists Republican conservatism (as defined by her).
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating
for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America," according to her demonology. "They are either traitors or idiots,
and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them
down." And: "Liberals relentlessly attack their country, but we can't call them traitors, which they manifestly are, because
that would be 'McCarthyism,' which never existed." (Never existed? Her idol gave his 1952 book that very word as its title.)
...
The likelihood is that Coulter's many avid fans are as conveniently ignorant of the past as she seems to be. So
the rubes who buy "Treason" will believe her when she accuses George Catlett Marshall, the great general who oversaw the reconstruction
of Europe, of nurturing a "strange attraction" to "sedition" and of scheming to assist rather than hinder Soviet expansion.
Her duped readers will believe that Marshall and President Harry S. Truman
opposed Stalin only because Republicans won the midterm elections in 1946. They probably won't know that Truman confronted
the Soviets in the Mediterranean with a naval task force several months before Election Day; or that the new Republican majority
cut Truman's requested military budget by $500 million as soon as they took over Congress in January 1947, nearly crippling
the American occupation of Germany and Japan; or that Truman, Marshall and Dean Acheson had to plead with the isolationist
Republican leadership to oppose Russian designs on Greece and Turkey.
Her deceptive style is exemplified in an anecdote
she lifts from an actual historian and twists to smear Truman. She writes: "Most breathtakingly, in March 1946, Truman ostentatiously
rebuffed Churchill after his famous Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Immediately after Churchill's speech, Truman
instructed his Secretary of State Dean Acheson not to attend a reception for Churchill a week later in New York."
In
that passage -- footnoted to James Chace's magisterial 1998 biography of Acheson -- Coulter demonstrates that she is both
an intentional liar and an incompetent writer. The pages she cites from Chace explain quite clearly that Acheson (who was
not then Secretary of State and would not be promoted to that office until 1949) was urged to avoid the New York reception
by Secretary of State James Byrnes, not Truman. The British apparently didn't notice that "ostentatious rebuff," since they
immediately invited Acheson and his wife to a cordial lunch with Churchill in Washington. And as for Truman, Chace notes that
it was he who had invited Churchill to Missouri, his home state, to deliver the speech -- which the American president read
in advance, assuring the former prime minister that his strong warning about communist intentions would "do nothing but good."
So replete is "Treason" with falsehoods and distortions, as well as so much plain bullshit, that it may well create
a cottage industry of corrective fact-checking, just as "Slander" did last year. (The fun has already begun with Brendan Nyhan's
devastating review on the Spinsanity Web site. So far the Spinsanity sages have found "at least five factual claims that are
indisputably false" in "Treason," along with the usual Coulter techniques of phony quotation, misleading sourcing, and sentences
ripped from context or falsely attributed.)
Such heavy-handed deception was precisely the sort of tactic employed
by McCarthy himself against Acheson and all his other targets. In his book "McCarthyism: The Fight for America," for instance,
he charged that the Truman aide had "hailed the Communist victory in China as 'a new day which has dawned in Asia.'" Of course,
Acheson had neither said nor written anything of the kind.
To Coulter, McCarthy is simply a great man worthy of her
emulation. In her alternate universe, he isn't the slimy traducer Americans have come to know and despise. He's bright,
witty, warm-hearted and macho, a sincere farm boy who exposes the treasonous cowardice of the urbane Acheson, Marshall and
other "sniffing antywaists." She seems to regard him as kind of a Jimmy Stewart type, albeit with jowls and five o'clock shadow
and a serious drinking problem. And he never, ever attacked anyone who didn't deserve it.
"His targets were
Soviet sympathizers and Soviet spies," Coulter proclaims without qualification. But elsewhere she says that he wasn't even
really trying to find either communists or spies, but only seeking to expose "security risks" in government jobs. Whatever
his mission, it was noble and succeeding admirably until 1954, when "liberals immobilized him with their Army-McCarthy hearings
and censure investigation."
Actually, McCarthy was brought down by his own televised misconduct during those hearings
-- and by the outrage not of Democrats but of Republicans, including President Eisenhower and a caucus of courageous GOP senators.
(Among the latter was the current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush of Connecticut, whose vote to censure McCarthy is
another little fact that Coulter forgets to mention.)
The truth is that some of McCarthy's targets were or had been
communists -- and therefore by definition "sympathizers" of the Soviet Union -- but he never uncovered a single indictable
spy. There had been dozens of Soviet agents in government before and during World War II. But those espionage rings had been
broken up by the FBI well before McCarthy showed up brandishing a bogus "list" of 57 or 205 or 81 Communists in the State
Department.
Yet the Wisconsin windbag amassed sufficient power for a time to destroy innocent individuals, most notably
Owen Lattimore, described smirkingly by Coulter as McCarthy's "biggest star" and the man he once named as Stalin's "top espionage
agent" in the United States. "Somewhat surprisingly," as Coulter is obliged to note, Lattimore's name has yet to be found
in Moscow's excavated KGB archives or in the Venona cables decrypted by U.S. Army counter-espionage agents. The dearth of
evidence against Lattimore matters not at all to Coulter, however. Though the eminent China expert was neither a spy nor a
communist, he certainly knew and worked with some communists -- and worst of all, he disagreed with the far right about U.S.
policy
toward China.
Copyright 2006 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved. Go ahead
and forward this, in its entirety, to others.
|
