Archive for the ‘Neocon’ Category

Meet Palin’s Brain

September 15, 2008

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

How was the above enunciated foreign policy agenda of this first-term governor of Alaska/former beauty queen now candidate for U.S. Vice President formulated? The same way the outgoing idiot’s foreign policy was formulated:

Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy

Neoconservatives whose influence had been waning in Washington have hitched their colours to rising star Sarah Palin in a bid to shape US foreign policy for another decade.

Tim Shipman – Telegraph UK
13 Sep 2008

Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said Nato may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran’s nuclear programme, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.

Sources in the McCain camp, the Republican Party and Washington think tanks say Mrs Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007. That was when the annual summer cruise organised by the right-of-centre Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, the Alaskan state capital, and the pundits on board took tea with Governor Palin.

Her case as John McCain’s running mate was later advanced vociferously by William Kristol, the magazine’s editor, who is widely seen as one of the founding fathers of American neoconservative thought – including the robust approach to foreign policy which spurred American intervention in Iraq.

In 1988, Mr Kristol became a leading adviser of another inexperienced Republican vice presidential pick, Dan Quayle, tutoring him in foreign affairs. Last week he praised Mrs Palin as “a spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism” that “is haunting the liberal elites”.

Now many believe that the “neocons”, whose standard bearer in government, Vice President Dick Cheney, lost out in Washington power struggles to the more moderate defence secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, last year are seeking to mould Mrs Palin to renew their influence.

A former Republican White House official, who now works at the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, admitted: “She’s bright and she’s a blank page. She’s going places and it’s worth going there with her.”

Asked if he sees her as a “project”, the former official said: “Your word, not mine, but I wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment.”

Pat Buchanan, the former Republican presidential candidate and a foreign policy isolationist, who opposes the war in Iraq, the project most closely associated with the neocons, said: “Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has.

“Look for the neocons to move with all deliberate speed to take her into their camp by pressing upon her advisers and staff, and steering her into the AEI-Weekly Standard-War Party orbit.” The AEI, or American Enterprise Institute, is a free-market think-tank with many neo-cons among its members.

In the two weeks since she was named as Mr McCain’s running mate that is just what has happened. While Mr McCain was publicly distancing himself from the policies and personalities of the Bush administration, Mrs Palin was sequestered with a series of former aides to George W. Bush.

Mr McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, an influential neoconservative, wasted no time in briefing Mrs Palin. He quickly made Steve Biegun, a former number three on the National Security Council, her chief foreign policy adviser.

Steven Clemons, of the New American Foundation think tank in Washington, a chronicler of the ebb and flow of neocon power in the White House, bemoaned the appointment, saying Mr Biegun “will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney’s view of national-security issues.”

Eyebrows were also raised when, on the Tuesday after her selection, Mrs Palin was ushered into the company of AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby group in Washington.

In her first television interview, she was on message, agreeing with Mr McCain that Israel has the right to take military action against Iran if necessary. “I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security,” she said.

Jacob Heilbrunn, author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, said the interview was “further evidence that she has soaked up the neocon view of the world.” He was particularly alarmed by her suggestion that war with Russia is “perhaps” a possibility.

“The neocons surrounded Dan Quayle, with William Kristol becoming his main tutor. Now both McCain and Palin are being closely advised by neocons. Far from being chastened by the Iraq debacle, the neocons are now poised for their moment of greatest influence.” Mr Buchanan has predicted Mrs Palin will become a major player for years to come.

“In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history,” he said. “Should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base, wholly independent of President McCain.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2827217/Neoconservatives-plan-Project-Sarah-Pain-to-shape-future-American-foreign-policy.html

Advertisements

Meet Palin’s Brain

September 15, 2008

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

How was the above enunciated foreign policy agenda of this first-term governor of Alaska/former beauty queen now candidate for U.S. Vice President formulated? The same way the outgoing idiot’s foreign policy was formulated:

Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy

Neoconservatives whose influence had been waning in Washington have hitched their colours to rising star Sarah Palin in a bid to shape US foreign policy for another decade.

Tim Shipman – Telegraph UK
13 Sep 2008

Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said Nato may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran’s nuclear programme, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.

Sources in the McCain camp, the Republican Party and Washington think tanks say Mrs Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007. That was when the annual summer cruise organised by the right-of-centre Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, the Alaskan state capital, and the pundits on board took tea with Governor Palin.

Her case as John McCain’s running mate was later advanced vociferously by William Kristol, the magazine’s editor, who is widely seen as one of the founding fathers of American neoconservative thought – including the robust approach to foreign policy which spurred American intervention in Iraq.

In 1988, Mr Kristol became a leading adviser of another inexperienced Republican vice presidential pick, Dan Quayle, tutoring him in foreign affairs. Last week he praised Mrs Palin as “a spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism” that “is haunting the liberal elites”.

Now many believe that the “neocons”, whose standard bearer in government, Vice President Dick Cheney, lost out in Washington power struggles to the more moderate defence secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, last year are seeking to mould Mrs Palin to renew their influence.

A former Republican White House official, who now works at the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, admitted: “She’s bright and she’s a blank page. She’s going places and it’s worth going there with her.”

Asked if he sees her as a “project”, the former official said: “Your word, not mine, but I wouldn’t disagree with the sentiment.”

Pat Buchanan, the former Republican presidential candidate and a foreign policy isolationist, who opposes the war in Iraq, the project most closely associated with the neocons, said: “Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has.

“Look for the neocons to move with all deliberate speed to take her into their camp by pressing upon her advisers and staff, and steering her into the AEI-Weekly Standard-War Party orbit.” The AEI, or American Enterprise Institute, is a free-market think-tank with many neo-cons among its members.

In the two weeks since she was named as Mr McCain’s running mate that is just what has happened. While Mr McCain was publicly distancing himself from the policies and personalities of the Bush administration, Mrs Palin was sequestered with a series of former aides to George W. Bush.

Mr McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, an influential neoconservative, wasted no time in briefing Mrs Palin. He quickly made Steve Biegun, a former number three on the National Security Council, her chief foreign policy adviser.

Steven Clemons, of the New American Foundation think tank in Washington, a chronicler of the ebb and flow of neocon power in the White House, bemoaned the appointment, saying Mr Biegun “will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney’s view of national-security issues.”

Eyebrows were also raised when, on the Tuesday after her selection, Mrs Palin was ushered into the company of AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby group in Washington.

In her first television interview, she was on message, agreeing with Mr McCain that Israel has the right to take military action against Iran if necessary. “I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security,” she said.

Jacob Heilbrunn, author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, said the interview was “further evidence that she has soaked up the neocon view of the world.” He was particularly alarmed by her suggestion that war with Russia is “perhaps” a possibility.

“The neocons surrounded Dan Quayle, with William Kristol becoming his main tutor. Now both McCain and Palin are being closely advised by neocons. Far from being chastened by the Iraq debacle, the neocons are now poised for their moment of greatest influence.” Mr Buchanan has predicted Mrs Palin will become a major player for years to come.

“In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history,” he said. “Should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base, wholly independent of President McCain.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2827217/Neoconservatives-plan-Project-Sarah-Pain-to-shape-future-American-foreign-policy.html

Neocon Establishment Runs Cover for Benedict

November 19, 2007

The liberal press loved JPII. The Neocon press loves Benedict XVI. Those who know John 15;18-20 will not be deceived by this Neocon puff-piece. Benedict and his papal rabbi-knights are “cleaning house” and “conserving tradition” in the spirit of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher whose legacy is invoked, a dead giveaway as to the style of “conservative” synthesis the author champions and sees in Benedict. The thread-worn “the ‘conservative’ pope is isolated among ‘hostile’ liberals” canard is also given another spin by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor who recently pronounced that denial of the dogma of Auschwitz is a “sacrilege” HERE and who also has the support of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland HERE.

Consider this: clarification is expected soon on certain questions pertaining to the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum related to the traditional Latin Mass at the request of many bishops, and coincidentally, many Judaic power-brokers. It is expected that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews from the traditional Latin Good Friday liturgy will be suppressed or entirely censored (and perhaps replaced with some “elder brother” nonsense?). The illusion advanced by this article provides a smokescreen that will allow Benedict to suppress the prayer while appearing to be an embattled staunch conservative who in reality, along with his “liberal foes,” prefers the ridiculous, Kabbalah-based philosophic scribblings of Hasid, Martin Buber to the logic of St. Thomas. The reality is that the “isolated pope” and his “foes” preach the theology of the “elder brothers” and the doctrine of Auschwitz in perfect unison. Conservative vestments and smokescreens from the establishment can’t cover this up:

Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans

By Damian Thompson
16/11/2007

Telegraph UK

Two and a half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.

The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.

The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it at all.

Ever since the shock of Benedict’s election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest – and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is in the thick of it.

“Pope Benedict is isolated,” I was told when I visited Rome last week. “So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely.” Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet “wets” sabotaging her reforms Benedict’s pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.

With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass – in effect banned for 40 years – to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II’s Masses into politically correct carnivals.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a “commentary” on Summorum Pontificum.

According to Murphy-O’Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops’ power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal – who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling – is misrepresenting its contents.

Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.

Murphy-O’Connor’s “commentary” was modelled on equally dire “guidelines” written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.

A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.

This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that “bishops and even cardinals” who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were “in rebellion against the Pope”.

Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.

He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.

This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for “full, corporate, sacramental union”.

Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.

This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers’ conservatism and would rather “dialogue” with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.

The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans – all these ambitions reflect Benedict’s conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.

This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.

By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives – or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected – the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict’s low opinion of them.

Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml

Neocon Establishment Runs Cover for Benedict

November 19, 2007

The liberal press loved JPII. The Neocon press loves Benedict XVI. Those who know John 15;18-20 will not be deceived by this Neocon puff-piece. Benedict and his papal rabbi-knights are “cleaning house” and “conserving tradition” in the spirit of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher whose legacy is invoked, a dead giveaway as to the style of “conservative” synthesis the author champions and sees in Benedict. The thread-worn “the ‘conservative’ pope is isolated among ‘hostile’ liberals” canard is also given another spin by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor who recently pronounced that denial of the dogma of Auschwitz is a “sacrilege” HERE and who also has the support of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland HERE.

Consider this: clarification is expected soon on certain questions pertaining to the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum related to the traditional Latin Mass at the request of many bishops, and coincidentally, many Judaic power-brokers. It is expected that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews from the traditional Latin Good Friday liturgy will be suppressed or entirely censored (and perhaps replaced with some “elder brother” nonsense?). The illusion advanced by this article provides a smokescreen that will allow Benedict to suppress the prayer while appearing to be an embattled staunch conservative who in reality, along with his “liberal foes,” prefers the ridiculous, Kabbalah-based philosophic scribblings of Hasid, Martin Buber to the logic of St. Thomas. The reality is that the “isolated pope” and his “foes” preach the theology of the “elder brothers” and the doctrine of Auschwitz in perfect unison. Conservative vestments and smokescreens from the establishment can’t cover this up:

Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans

By Damian Thompson
16/11/2007

Telegraph UK

Two and a half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.

The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.

The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it at all.

Ever since the shock of Benedict’s election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest – and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is in the thick of it.

“Pope Benedict is isolated,” I was told when I visited Rome last week. “So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely.” Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet “wets” sabotaging her reforms Benedict’s pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.

With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass – in effect banned for 40 years – to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II’s Masses into politically correct carnivals.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a “commentary” on Summorum Pontificum.

According to Murphy-O’Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops’ power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal – who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling – is misrepresenting its contents.

Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.

Murphy-O’Connor’s “commentary” was modelled on equally dire “guidelines” written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.

A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.

This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that “bishops and even cardinals” who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were “in rebellion against the Pope”.

Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.

He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.

This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for “full, corporate, sacramental union”.

Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.

This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers’ conservatism and would rather “dialogue” with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.

The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans – all these ambitions reflect Benedict’s conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.

This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.

By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives – or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected – the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict’s low opinion of them.

Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml