In his recent post, Help Me Make It Through the Night, Stacey Youdin quoted from a column by Charles Pierce, a takedown of village idiot Bill Kristol. Pierce did not mince words, and what he said bears repeating at length:
"Blow me, you monstrous, bloodthirsty fraud, you silly, stupid chickenhawk motherfker who plays army man with the children of people who are so much better than you are, and who would feed innocent civilians in lands you will never visit into your own personal meat-grinder to service your semi-annual martial erection. You and the rest of your cowardly cohort helped prepare the ground for the worst geopolitical mistake the country has made in 30 years. You fought the battle of the Green Rooms and the think tanks, while other people's sons and daughters died for your fantasy of how the world would work if you really were the pimply, adolescent Zeus you see when you look in the mirror every morning. The country does not need your lectures any more. The country does not need your counsel. The country does not need your advice. And, as sure as human beings have become dead because of your lectures, and counsel, and advice, human beings about whom you otherwise care nothing, the country does not need your hectoring that it has become insufficiently bellicose to fulfill your newest, blood-drenched fantasies. Even here, even now, you hide behind the skirts of a woman from Indiana who, while I believe her to be wrong, seems to be genuine in her beliefs. You are unworthy of her intellectual camouflage. You should be driven from polite society, consigned to an ideological Molokai so you can no longer infect the rest of us. People should shun you. You should wear the bell for the rest of your miserable days."
I couldn't have said it better, but that won't keep from saying it longer.
· · ·
Why does anyone pay any heed to Kristol and other Neocons when they have been so completely and utterly wrong so consistently about everything? And why do we call them Neo-Conservatives when there is nothing conservative about their war-mongering agenda?
The worst of the Neo-Cons multitude of mistakes was their Project for a New American Century, a think tank of sorts founded and chaired by Bill Kristol. Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Bill Bennett, Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama and Dan Quayle were among the many rightwing conservative signatories to PNAC's Statement of Principles, a sort of manifesto that was a militarist's wet dream.
Among other things, the manifesto promoted going to war in the Mideast, toppling a dictator and establishing a democracy, as a means of remaking the Mideast in our image – or at least in the image of the Neo-Cons. Think of it as a sort of reverse Domino Theory.
Or at least that was the story the movers and shakers in PNAC intended to try to sell to the public. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, their real interest was oil, either owning it or controlling it. Indeed, in his book former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan flatly stated that the Iraq War was about oil.
· · ·
These Neo-Con's may have begun to believe God was on their side, when a few hanging chads in Florida – and unprecedented interference by five partisan Supreme Court Justices – resulted in their hand-picked stooge becoming President of the United States.
When George W. Bush took office, he had some experience with oil, having driven four start-up companies bankrupt when he couldn't find oil even in Texas. But at the time, he knew as little about foreign affairs as Sarah Palin. And rather than get right to work at the job he had been appointed to by the Supreme Court, rather than heed the warnings of his predecessor about terrorist plans, Bush took a six-week vacation.
The Neo-Cons delusion that God was on their side was likely confirmed by 9-11. That awful tragedy provided the cover and presented the perfect excuse to execute their plan. Now they didn't have to try to sell the public on the dubious notion of a war to bring democracy to the Mideast (that lame excuse never came up until all other excuses – like WMD – failed); now they had revenge as an excuse for their oil wars.
Well, you know what they say about best laid plans.
· · ·
For those who may have forgotten, which apparently includes most Americans, those plans put the cost of the Iraq War at $72 billion dollars. As if that dubious estimate wasn't absurd enough, the public was told the actual cost would be $0 dollars, since we would be reimbursed for all expenses from Iraqi oil revenues. When an expert in the Bush administration dared to suggest the cost would be at least $200 billion and could cost as much as $400 billion, he was told in no uncertain terms to revise his estimate or find another job.
When General Shinsheki said it would require at least 350,000 troops to win the war and keep the peace in the aftermath, he was essentially demoted. Who needed all those troops when the Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers and open arms?
Then there was the Neo-Cons “slam dunk” insistence that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, the most awful weapons employed before, during and after the Iraq War were Weapons of Mass Deception, weapons so effective many Americans still don't believe they were deceived about all this.
· · ·
What's the point of rehashing all this? To point out just how horribly wrong the Neo-Cons were about everything, and thus confirm why they shouldn't be given any credence – let alone an audience.
After Bush the Least crawled from office, leaving behind two unfinished disastrous wars and a financial meltdown, the Neo-Cons slinked off and hid in his dark shadow – for a little while. Too bad they didn't remain there.
But the gang that can't think straight – or learn from its mistakes – was soon back at it – pressuring President Obama to go to war in Libya and Syria. And now they're beating the drum for a military response in Ukraine. Even worse, they're making the specious and traitorous claim that Obama's “weakness” on these and other matters emboldened Vladimir Putin and led to Russian aggression.
Well, let's examine the facts, shall we?
· · ·
The fact is the responsibility for our weakened foreign policy position can be laid directly at the door of the Neo-Cons. To begin with, they made a mess and couldn't figure out how to clean it up. Their tragically inept prosecution of their elective oil wars left President Obama with his hands tied financially and militarily.
Indeed, it's doubtful we could mount a far-flung land war even if this President was inclined to do so. Certainly, we would have to borrow the money to do so – or raise taxes, and what are the chances of that?
Rather than raise taxes, the Neo-Cons took the cost of their oil wars off the books; and those wars, coupled with simultaneously and idiotically cutting taxes during wartime, are responsible for most of our current deficit. But those misbegotten oil wars have consequences far beyond their financial costs.
For one thing, the volunteer armed forces touted and promoted by Cheney and Rumsfeld after Vietnam have been strained to the maximum. Many soldiers did four and five tours of duty in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and shouldn't even be asked to sacrifice themselves and their families in another dubious war – even if we could afford one.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the oil wars had an outcome the Neo-Cons surely never anticipated. Rather than intimidating Mideast countries into bowing to the will of the sole remaining Superpower, rather than forcing them to adopt a political system we insisted they ought to have, the oil wars proved that even with our vast military superiority, we could not defeat a rag-tag army of dedicated warriors, armed with antiquated weapons – and cheap cell phones.
That's what happens to those who don't learn from history. Certainly, the descendants of the rag-time Colonial Army that defeated the vastly superior forces of the mighty British Empire, should have known better. But alas, the only lesson we took from our victory in the American Revolution was that it was due to American Exceptionalism.
What the Afghan War and the Iraq War, like the Vietnam War and the Korean War before them, should have taught us is that we are not all that exceptional as warriors. But apparently, that's a lesson we don't want to learn.
Certainly, other nations – including Russia – noted the failure of our armed forces to quickly and easily impose our will in the Mideast. And that, not Obama's supposed weakness, is what emboldened Vladimir Putin.
· · ·
If the Neo-Cons want to find the culprits responsible for Putin's aggression, they should look in the mirror. But alas, when they look in the mirror they see a “pimply, adolescent Zeus” … they see god-men and warriors ... they see eagles, where others see only chickenhawks.
If the Neo-Conmen really want war, they should volunteer for it – or at least volunteer their grown children. The most egregious example of their hypocrisy was the tough talk vomited-up by Citizen Romney, who didn't even bother to offer a lame excuse for why neither he nor any of his five strapping sons volunteered for the armed forces. No, Mitt, intoned, they had more important things to do.
Nor will you ever find dilettante Bill Kristol volunteering to serve in a war. Momma always said if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything; but in Kristol's case, I'll make an exception and repeat the comment I made on Stacey's post:
I agree with every spit-drenched epithet Pierce hurled Kristol's way, but I think he went too easy on the bastard. Kristol's of the same smug, sneering, sarcastic, surly, insufferable, self-aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual stripe as Darth Cheney and his boot-licking toady, David Addington ... same as Ted Cruz ... they're all chickenhawks to their rotten core.
I know we're not supposed to make the comparison, but every one of these officious, pompous, ass-kissing suck-ups would have been right at home in the Third Reich. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see these fuckers signing the paperwork that sent millions off to concentration camps. Kristol doesn't deserve to be called a Jew.”
©2014 Tom Cordle