Maher on Neocons


Scroll down until you reach it.

There should be a reckoning.

Pat Lang

This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Maher on Neocons

  1. JT Davis says:

    Col. Lang,
    Has he broken yet?
    U.S. to Hand Iraq a New Timetable on Security Role
    Published: October 22, 2006
    WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.

    And this.

  2. confusedponderer says:

    It’s indeed amazing, and Maher hits the nail on the head, that the only profession where being constantly wrong doesn’t completely discredit a person is the one of a political pundit.
    Were they doctors they’d drown in tort action lawsuits. No so with the neo-cons, and pundits in general. They claim to only opine, meaning that they will not take responsibility if they are wrong.
    Take the impeccable Michael Ledeen. In September 2001 he cam up with the whacky theory of “Creative Destruction”, claiming that where US bombs fall, western style democracy and Americanophilism will blossom.
    He was wrong. Undeterred he writes more collumns, usually promoting more of the same – by rational standards inevitably disastrous war – like this op-ed lobbying for war with Iran, closing with “Faster, please?”.
    For pundits like Ledeen it doesn’t matter that their theories have been thoroughly discredited. They ignore it (those leftist critics just don’t get that from a ‘creative destruction’ point of view, utter failure is in fact a catastrophic success), and repeat their theme ad nauseam, with plentry of unjustified gravitas and self-assuredness.
    Maher’s comment was long overdue. But to make a difference he needs a choire to join in.

  3. Serving Patriot says:

    Leeden should have been jailed for his involvement with the criminal conspiracy known today as the Iran-Contra Affair.
    Indeed, when looking closely at today’s cast of mis-characters, one cannot help be be amazed by the fact that many of them were also thoroughly involved with that sad chapter in our history (some of them criminally). They have learned nothing – except perhaps, hiding thier tracks better. Congress’ response (laying down for the Executive Branch) leads directly to where we are today – handing over much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as “quaint” provisions.

  4. Nicholas weaver says:

    It also brings up, to me, the sad observation that the most EFFECTIVE critics of this administration and the conservative policies are commedians.
    Its kind of scary when the Democrats are so cowed and cowardly that they can’t bring this up, that they sit on the sidelines while Colbert, Setwart, and Maher land bodyblows.

  5. confusedponderer says:

    Searving Patriot,
    Ledeen was not a criminal. It’s just that in the 1980s already he believed in the ‘unitary executive branch’ theory, that can be summed up as: “When the president wants it, it’s legal.” Or historically correct: “L’etat c’est moi!”
    If anything, Ledeen is a royalist.
    I have hardly a doubt that Reagan knew what was going on before Iran-Contra became a scandal, on an “Ok, but don’t get caught”-basis. When it became a scandal, Reagan got the Contra crew sacked. Nicaragua was not essential, and thus did not justify provoking a constitutional crisis. That Ledeen got pardoned so quickly to me underlines the ‘don’t get caught’ thesis.
    Bush would never do such a thing as to admit a mistake. He would have sent out Gonzales, to claim that his inherent powers as commander in chief, in a time of so high a peril as in the cold war with the red threat looming, perfectly justified him ordering the conspiracy. Bush’s troupe, most notably Cheney, Addington and the Gonzales crew, is far more radical than Reagan’s advisors. They do, with intent, provoke constitutional crises over non issues, in an effort to agressively expand presidential power. And this far, they have succeeded.

  6. billmon says:

    “There should be a reckoning.”
    There will be, Colonel. But on history’s schedule, not ours.

  7. Divyang Shah says:

    Maher is most certainly right in this instance.
    Ironically, his stance on the decimation of Lebanon by Israel this summer (i.e. supportive) wasn’t a million miles from that of the sort of neo-cons he skewers in this piece.
    Is there not a credibility issue here?

  8. Matthew says:

    I think Maher just abjures failure, not imperial violence. Considering the support our chattering classes offered to Israel during its rape of Lebanon this summer, these words (attributed to Brendan Behan) ring true: “The terrorist is the one with the little bomb.”

  9. confusedponderer says:

    Divyang Shah,
    consistency is not the issue here. What IMO counts is that this comment is very much on target.
    I don’t think he’s a hypochrite. Rather Maher is quite American (tongue in cheek) in that his focus is domestic. That’s a difference. Also, people can change their minds.
    Don’t mix up consistency or lack thereof with credibility. The neo-cons are absolutey consistent and utterly incredible.

  10. michael savoca says:

    Col. Lang,
    Have you heard , Daily KOS is reporting that part of Secretary James Webb’s name has been cut off on the display screen ballott for e voting in two. counties.
    I have not been able to access the original WaPo story yet…today page B4 allegedly.
    with hope for the future
    M. Savoca

Comments are closed.