Some Weekend Reading

I’m blogging up a storm over at Taki’s Top DrawerHere‘s my Friday Evening Cyber-Stroll, with items on Ron Paul (the third party option), Gen. Ricardo  Sanchez (lashing out at the Bushites), and Chris Matthews (how the War Party tried to censor him). Here‘s a question: is neoconservatism an incurable disease? Here‘s a meditation on how hard it must be for the neocons to peddle Benito Giuliani as a “conservative” to the GOP base. And here, courtesy of Gen.Wesley Clark, is a visit to the future.

11 thoughts on “Some Weekend Reading”

  1. Bush, Aides ‘Grossly Misjudged Putin’ Is one of the headlines on the weekend page of Another (A Grand Misjudgment) speaks of how the Nobel committee has “devalued” the prize by awarding it to Al Gore…

    We are then asked: “is neoconservatism an incurable disease?” Since everyone seems to be reconsidering theirs and others thoughts, I thought that I would add my 2 cents to the pile.

    How about: “is blockeadedness endemic amongst the American people?” Americans elected both Bush and Gore to high office, twice, thus, in effect, making them what they are today. Americans are poised to elect Hillary Clinton, a loudmouth who has done absolutely nothing, to high office and suffer under her shortcomings and “misjudgements”.

    The phrase, “you are what you eat” comes to mind and until Americans get serious about changing their diets we will keep repeating history and reading about the consequences…

  2. If watch Sanchez’s speech carefully you will notice many blind spots, many weaknesses – The Bushies, Cheney and the neos could make quick work of him if they felt they had to – Expect to hear Abu Ghraib dumped in his lap – Sanchez was foolish the way he catagorized the whole world being pro war – This lack of awareness on his part illustrates, in micro, how his adversaries will defeat him politically if need be.
    We only watched him once – but anyone who watches will see what we are talking about – Like Wilkerson, he helps the anti war opposition in a limited way – but in a flawed way.

  3. I see by Jan Oberg’s article that Gore now has enemies not only on the right, but on the left. Obviously, Gore made the correct decision staying out of presidential politics. However, if it came to a choice between Gore and the campaign against global warming, and Oberg and the quest for peace-maker purity, I’ll take Gore.

    1. Likewise, despite some of my very strong reservations about Ron Paul’s politics (apart from his opposition to the war and occupation of Iraq), if it came down to a choice between him and the Goddess of War (as Justin Raimondo has called Hilary Clinton), I’ll take Paul.

      (Unfortunately, I don’t think he has a snowball’s chance of getting the Republican party nod for President. The same can be said for the Democrats’ anti-war candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. More’s the pity.)

      1. But that raises the questions (and I’m asking these of myself), “If you feel none of the surviving candidates qualify, what do you do? Do you vote? If you do, how do you decide which candidate gets your vote?” Anymore, voting seems an imposition upon personal standards.

    2. Did you read the Oberg article? He was criticizing the Nobel Committee for ignoring the issues of war and peace. He didn’t blame Gore.

      Go back and read the article, not just the headline.

      1. From the article: “In particular, Al Gore – as vice-president under Bill Clinton between 1993 and 2001 was never heard or seen as a peace-maker. Clinton-Gore had a crash program for building up US military facilities and made military allies all around Russia – and missed history’s greatest opportunity for a new world order.”

        That’s peace-maker purism. Not even “what have you done for me lately” would make Gore acceptable to Oberg or many others in the peace movement.

  4. The disease of Neoconservatism will afflict the USA as long as we stay glued to Israel. If we ever are able to fight free and start putting American interests first, then Neocons will have lost their power over us. Don’t count on that happening any time soon, however. The Israel Lobby is still overwhelmingly powerful, as Mearsheimer and Walt have shown.

  5. I can't believe that no one in America has had the sense to set

    up a pro-U.S. foreign policy PAC to counter AIPACs influence.

  6. The way our 2 major political parties pay fealty to Israel at the expense of our own national interest along with their trampling upon our Constitution, a coup d’ etat might just be what the doctor ordered to rid our republic or body politic of the zionist lice affecting us.

Comments are closed.