-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/37774/a-glimpse-into-the-conservative-mind-michael-scheuer-and-the-desire-for-another-terrorist-attack-on-america/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
For one thing, I don't think Scheuer was actually stating his desire that America be attacked. It seems to me that he was simply saying that another terrorist attack was only plausible scenario in which he envisioned Democrats and Republicans in congress ending their political squabbling and doing the right thing for the country.
Secondary, this usage of one or two cases to brand an entire portion of the political spectrum is something I find quite concerning.
Consider, for instance, Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol. Both consider themselves to be "conservatives" and members of the "political right." Yet, in terms of foreign policy, the two could not be more ideologically opposed to one another.
Ron Paul is a libertarian (albeit with conservative leanings) who opposes foreign adventurism and nation-building and spoke out more forcefully against the Iraq War than just about anyone in Congress.
William Kristol, on the other hand, is a neoconservative who sees America as a "benevolent hegemon" in the world arena and was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq War.
There are also Paleoconservatives, such as Patrick Buchanan, who toe the conservative line on numerous domestic issues but who spoke out against neoconservatism and the Iraq War.
Then there are people like Glenn Beck, a "conservative" who doesn't seem to know what he believes in--vociferously supporting Bush and the Iraq War when it was going well and then reluctantly criticizing Bush and the Iraq War only after it became painfully obvious that the war wasn't going that well and not serving America's interests.
Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" have become so confusing and so meaningless in modern discourse that resorting to blanket criticism of "liberals" and/or "conservatives" without any modifiers explaining just who it is that we're criticizing only further sullies our debates.
Fiscal progressives are not the same as social liberals.
Fiscal conservatives are not the same as social conservatives.
Paleoconservatives are not the same as neoconservatives.
The Antiwar Movement is not the same as "the Left."
Libertarianism is not the same as "the Right."
I hate to be a stickler for political nuance. Politics would be a lot simpler if it were simply black-white, left-right. But it isn't.
Yep. Keep reminding America what you are about. I totally love it.
"PNAC says that what was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of September 11, 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merge the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime. Time and again, September 11 is described as an "opportunity". It provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the "war on terrorism" shortly after September 11. Condoleezze Rice said she had called together senior members of the National Security County and asked them "to think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities, which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947"; the start of the cold war. "
Sounds like Scheuer thinks we need ANOTHER "new Pearl Harbor." Meshes 100% with the neocon perspective represented by PNAC. Who is PNAC? - Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's Deputy Defense Secretary. John Bolton, Bush's Undersecretary of State. Stephen Cambone, Bush's head of the Pentagon’s Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advised Rumsfeld. Devon Cross a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advised Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby Chief of Staff to Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim, Bush's Comptroller for the Defense Department. Vice-President Dick Cheney , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett (Reagan’s former Education Secretary), and Zalmay Khalilzad (Bush’s Ambassador to Afghanistan).
Never mind you call me inhuman, God Forbid you call me anti-American!
"But what’s clear is that conservatives like Scheuer — and there are many of them (neocons, mostly, but not only), — promote a Cheney-esque national security agenda that is, at its core, violent."
You can set your watch by it.
And it makes me wonder... Bush's financial ties with the Bin Laden family is like the cherry on top of the "I wonder" sundae. Two parts "get american to hate a single man and his group", One part "illegally invade "his" country of influence [Iraq] and a scoop of "takeover that country's prized resource.", which just happens to be the business to which Bush and Bin Laden's were in together: BigOil...
So, if "Bin Laden" strikes again, I will first suspect Dick Cheney. It isn't pretzel logic when you follow the breadcrumbs..
"Insane" -- truly reflective mirror talk. Insane hatred, for starters...
I can’t see how.
Update: Michael is in competition with Mike Allen at Politico. Listen to the audio:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/01/audio-joh...
Dick Cheney and I both know that there are things that need to be done for the sake of world peace.
“I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks.”
Hey, sometimes you got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
TIC -- The Immoderate Couple
(Kathy is the saner member.)
Actually, you're describing those on the Left and notably on the farther Left, if you honestly omit "love for their country." In fact, we're seeing exactly what you describe, about the Left, with the current extremism related to the environment and "global warming," and the development of a similar syndrome with health care, as we're already seeing and hearing (not only with the Dems' remarks in Washington but with hype and misleading advertising about the health care "crisis" [sic] and necessary government solution NOW!).
Agreed, both sides have their fair share of extremists. Sadly, one group actually managed to gain control of the government for about 6 years.
And the other is now in control. The early word is not good on them either, unless you like econimic depressions and socialization/nationalization.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/289253.php
In fact, Michael Scheuer has actually been rather antagonistic towards neoconservatives. He was extremely critical of the Iraq War (going to far as to write columns for www.antiwar.com). He was also very critical of what he perceives as the "Israel Lobby", exactly the OPPOSITE of what one would expect of a neoconservative.
I don't know what his exact politics are, but he strikes me as a paleoconservative.
I'm not saying that I agree with the views he expressed on Glenn Beck's show. I'm just pointing out the silliness of those on the Left who, in knee-jerk fashion, criticize anyone on the Right as being "neoconservative."
Words have meanings. We ought to understand what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" and "neoconservative" actually mean before assigning these labels to people.
GreenDreams,
If you don't believe my words, then consider Scheuer's own words. Back in 2007, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he criticized George Tenet but also had some rather unflattering things to say about neoconservatives:
Or consider his September 2007 www.antiwar.com article Why Does Norman Podheretz Hate America? in which he wrote:
I rest my case.
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2009/01/...
http://libertymaven.com/2008/08/08/glenn-beck-o...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ashton1.html
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/0...