I am hearing that CICERO magazine in germany was banned/closed due to security concerns.

Have you got any thing on that?!

For those of us in So Cal, is LA still on AQ's target list to finish?

M. Ledeen - the archetypical neocon (and Dan's handler) - says that instabiltiy in the M.E. is a good thing; an American thing. He says that destruction - "creative destruction" - is the essence of the American way.

Out of chaos comes order.

So maybe we should be celibrating these bombings. We're shaking things up and that's a god thing, right.

Hey, sometimes you've got to crack some eggs to make an ommlette, right?

What's a few lives in the grand scheme of things?

Bush and his neocon pals are very smart and they must have anticipated this sort of blow back (literally). I'm sure it was all part of their intelligently calculated cost/benefit analysis that they worked up before embarking on the invasion of Iraq.

They didn't share it with us because we are not smart enough to understand it, but that's ok. I trust my government to always do what's right, so I don't need to think or question.

All I need to know is that I am good and they are evil.

So this bombing is a neocon plot?

Can't you just say "dirty jew" like you mean?

How are we shaking things up in Jordan? How many sorties flew bombing missions from Amman? How many troops are stationed there?

Hey, maybe there is a slight possibility that the AQ types actually are imbued with fanatical hatred for anything Western or non-Islamic? Maybe they see that that hatred translates into political power?

Could be quite a few folks over there aren't going to respond to bribery, diplomacy or "midnight special" cruise missle salvos.

Blowing up hotels as a political tactic might suggest thus.

"Can't you just say "dirty jew" like you mean?"

Nope. Can't say it because 1) I don't mean that and 2) I find racism to be abhorent.

Reading "dirty Jew" into my comment is something that came from the twisted recesses of your own mind.

That or it's some sort of sleazy tactic aimed at critics of the neocon war mongers and incompetent designers of military adventures.

Either way you're the one fixated on the jew thing.

At any rate, I consider Rumsfield to be a bat shit crazy neocon and he is not a jew. Ditto for Cheney.

True, some of the main neocons are Jews. Some are ardent proponents of far right Likud policies. Some would use (perhaps do use) the US military and other resources to advance hard right Isreali agendas.

They are bastards of the first order, but their being Jewish has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, bastards do what bastards do. They are only able to do their thing in Washington because non-Jewish elected officials allow them to.

Ultimately, it is non-Jewish neocons who are responsible for what I - and many many others - see as extreme policy blunders (both in concept and in execution) and, worse yet, corrupting our democratic institutions.

So, once again, I am not pointing a finger at "jewish" neocons. You, on the other hand, are.

Conservative Reader, you appear to have no idea what "neocon" actually means. You seem to be doing what do many among the Left do, and that is use "neocon" as a meaningless epithet for people you disagree with.

Rumsfeld is a neocon? Cheney? That's just absolutely hilarious.

I would say that anyone who is a signatory on the PNAC manifesto is a neocon. I would also say that anyone who help establihs or who has worked for the Office of Special Plans (where intel. was filtered and cherry picked so as to support the neocon assertion that Saddam was an immediate threat that needed to be removed by invasion (now!) - is a neocon. That's my definition.

Though not all neocons were signatories of the PNAC or worked for the OSP.

Some say that neocons are followers of the really terrible philosophical dribblings of Leo Strauss. That is, of course true of Wolfowitz and some of the other players.

Some, Like Rummy and Cheney are just these mediocre personalities with compromised morality. They mostly just want to help the military industrial complex reap profits. So they're not true neocons from a purely philosophical standpoint. However, given that their methods and incentives are aligned with their more pure brethern and given that they have enabled the pure neocons, I would definitely say that Cheney and Rummy fall into the neocon camp.

Bush does not. He is merely a useful idiot for these people.

Some neocons are self-professed, so they're easy to identify. Some of these work on the propaganda end of the operation, guys like Ledeen and the NRO crowd generally.

What's your definition of a neocon? a "a dirty jew" seems big
on pro-war sites. Is that your definition?

I doubt you have read original source material from any of the writers that you have mentioned above that wasn't filtered through a left-wing newspaper or website.

But back to my question, if you are dealing with a group that blows up hotels as a deliberate tactic, what is your response?

The usual left knee-jerk reaction is to claim that they were deliberately provoked by [insert right-wing conspiracy here]. The terrorists are never seen as responsible. Very seldom do you hear what the terrorists actually say they believe. There is almost never a solution offered. Yet most pro-war conservatives feel they have to be on the defensive.

My definition of a neocon is:

1. A Reagan era conservative, who doesn't want jews to be excluded from his country club or blacks kept off his lunch counter. He is patriotic and respectful of his countries traditions, especially the military. He is anti-communist and anti-islamist. He is an advocate of individual liberty and free trade. He is more likely than not very religious, but is more tolerant of differing faiths.

He is suspicious and critical of the main stream media, but unlike his predecessors he would rather play offense than defense in the culture war. He is part of an energized intellectual movement, competing for hearts and minds against a vast left-wing conspiracy of Hollywood, MoveOn and government bureaucracy.

As far as foreign policy goes, he is critical of most international organisations such as the UN or EU, seeing them as corrupt, obstructive or ineffective. He is an avocate of using American military power to enact regime change, to support native democracy movements and to preempt threats before they become serious.

2. An epithet used by a member of the vast left-wing conspiracy to denigrate anyone to the right of Noam Chompsky.

3. A code-word used by Pat Buchanon and the anti-semitic left to smear conservative jews who have the temerity to belive that Isreal should have the right to exist.

Eric,
One of your problems is that you see our country and our policy as a battle ground between a monolithic left-wing and a monolithic rightwing. Worse, you have not only stereotyped both sides, but you have gone on to assign the value of "bad" to one side and "good" to the other.

I think what you have done is a grave mistake. Perhaps blogging too much, or blogging too much at extreme blogs (on one side or the other) has distorted your perceptions. You are erecting straw men and arguing via reductio ad absurdum. Regardless, buying into this cartoonish vision of political life and citizenship in the US is to mis the mark by a wide margin.

Second, you stereotype me incorrectly. I consider myself an old school conservative and I consider the neocons to be irresponsible radicals. I served eight years active duty in the Marines (post ROTC). I have full respect for our armed forces. I recognize that sometimes war is unavoidable.

Third, having read the original documents to which I refered, I have formed the opinions that I offerred.

Fourth mistake, on your part, is that how you define neocons is not how they actually define themselves. So, again, you are way off the mark.

Fifth mistake, assuming that doing what the neocons prescribe will cure the problem of suicide bombing. Doing something, anything, is not always better than doing nothing. Not that I am suggesting that nothing would be better in this case; just that it always is a valid option that must be considered.

As it is, there is scant evidence that the neocon solution will improve the situation. Alternatively, there is some evidence (or good reasoning) to suggest that invading muslim countries and toppling governments might make the problem worse (e,g. spreading the troubles throughout the the region, opening the door for the people to select theocracies that might increase religious based terrorism, etc, etc, etc).

As for neocons (by your definition) caring for blacks, etc. I find this to be an entirely unsubstantiated claim made not by neocons themselves, but by you. One impact of the "neocons' " tax cuts for the wealthiest segments of society while simultaneously waging an indefinite war in Iraq (for which costs were either most incompetently estimated or criminally lied about - your choice) is that educational programs, school lunches and other programs that target the poor - and predominately black - are to be cut (see last week's discussions in Congress).

oh well, perhaps it is easier to have Rush stuff you, like a big turkey, with his retarded and mean spirited vision of US policy and political life generally.

Conservative Reader, I'm baffled by your criticisms of "neocons" since you seem to have no idea who the term describes or the ideas they hold. You've applied the term to people who have had no part of the neoconservative movement. You seem to have a built an entire movement of strawmen.

One of your problems is that you see our country and our policy as a battle ground between a monolithic left-wing and a monolithic rightwing. Worse, you have not only stereotyped both sides, but you have gone on to assign the value of "bad" to one side and "good" to the other.

I see the left as more of a disorganised cloud of gnats (moonbats?)than a monolith, but that is a limited metaphor. The main problem I have with the right is that they are still acting like they are wandering in the desert for 40 years. They have won and it is time they acted on it.

I have a real problem when the left denigrates the military, I have a real problem that they are spending a huge amount of effort to highlight every mistake they make while ignoring vast gains they have made. And for what purpose? To prove how clever they are? To get the Dems back in power?

I think what you have done is a grave mistake. Perhaps blogging too much, or blogging too much at extreme blogs (on one side or the other) has distorted your perceptions. You are erecting straw men and arguing via reductio ad absurdum. Regardless, buying into this cartoonish vision of political life and citizenship in the US is to mis the mark by a wide margin.

Hmm. Everything bad about the war on terror is due to neocons, maybe I'm missing the nuance. I asked a fairly straightfoward question.

What response should we use against an enemy using suicide bombers as a political tactic? And does this imply that the traditional Cold War methods of propping up a dictator to gain "stability" has gone out the window? Of "Mutually Assured Destruction"?

Second, you stereotype me incorrectly. I consider myself an old school conservative and I consider the neocons to be irresponsible radicals. I served eight years active duty in the Marines (post ROTC). I have full respect for our armed forces. I recognize that sometimes war is unavoidable.

Fair enough, I apologise and thank for you service to our country.

Third, having read the original documents to which I refered, I have formed the opinions that I offerred.

I don't think you read Strass or Kagan or Sharansky.

Fourth mistake, on your part, is that how you define neocons is not how they actually define themselves. So, again, you are way off the mark.

Nope, they call thmeselves conservatives. Very few actually use the N word.

Fifth mistake, assuming that doing what the neocons prescribe will cure the problem of suicide bombing. Doing something, anything, is not always better than doing nothing. Not that I am suggesting that nothing would be better in this case; just that it always is a valid option that must be considered.

Well that's got your bases covered eh? Do something or nothing, what a great plan! Care to elaborate?

As it is, there is scant evidence that the neocon solution will improve the situation. Alternatively, there is some evidence (or good reasoning) to suggest that invading muslim countries and toppling governments might make the problem worse (e,g. spreading the troubles throughout the the region, opening the door for the people to select theocracies that might increase religious based terrorism, etc, etc, etc).

They attacked because they thought we were weak, a paper tiger. Google Osama and "Strong Horse".

Somehow I think that toppling Iraq and Afganistan made some of the other Arab governments a little more cautious about really pissing us off. The evidence seems to suggest that. This war isn't over yet though, Iran's mullahs still have to fall. Saudi Arabia still exists.

Invading and occuping these countries has brought the terror war home to the Arabs. I don't understand why people fail to grasp this. Terrorists are killing muslims now, this is really bad PR for Al Queda & company.

A bad democracy is much better than a "good" dictatorship. A bad government in a democracy can be voted out, a bad dictatorship can only be overthrown.

As for neocons (by your definition) caring for blacks, etc. I find this to be an entirely unsubstantiated claim made not by neocons themselves, but by you. One impact of the "neocons' " tax cuts for the wealthiest segments of society while simultaneously waging an indefinite war in Iraq (for which costs were either most incompetently estimated or criminally lied about - your choice) is that educational programs, school lunches and other programs that target the poor - and predominately black - are to be cut (see last week's discussions in Congress).

If you are talking about the food stamps, it was being cut because fewer people were using it. This is the usual playbook tug on the heartstring approach whenever anyone want to cut the budget.

The tax cuts have stimulated the economy, which is why you never hear about how bad it is anymore.

If anything, Bush has spend more on a laundry list of social programs (breaking a few records, I believe).

A neocon would argue that the incentives of the welfare state lead to dependency cycle of poverty, ignorance and crime. That argument gets fewer votes.

oh well, perhaps it is easier to have Rush stuff you, like a big turkey, with his retarded and mean spirited vision of US policy and political life generally.

Or not, I suspect you are flying a false flag.

conservative reader said,

i heard it many times before, an unstable country is more conducive to this "regime change" thingy.
especially for countries such as china,

another way to put it is, "inorder to to good , we have gotta do some bad things first"
who was the one who said this.?

to these great schemers of the nwo,
every cloud has a silver lining, er, as long as the cloud is over at the other side...

there are two broken links in this article,
i extract one, indonesia's kristallnacht from google archive,

the other one, about "the bright side of china's instablity, which isnt such a bad thing ..."
was an article in the right wing rag, the insightmag, and it is nowhere to be found any more.

denk