Real Conservative Foreign Policy

As you have probably noticed Republican/conservative foreign policy has been taken over by the neoconservatives.  What you may not know is that until about 1972 the neoconservatives were part of the Democratic Party - the Scoop Jackson wing.  The "real" conservatives over at The American Conservative magazine would like to bring back the old conservative foreign policy.
The cover story of the magazine this month is by Andrew Bacevich,  Counterculture Conservatism where he writes as one of his bullet points:

Exposing the excesses of American militarism and the futility of the neo-imperialist impulses to which Washington has succumbed since the end of the Cold War. When it comes to foreign policy, the conservative position should promote modesty, realism, and self-sufficiency. To the maximum extent possible, Americans should “live within,” abandoning the conceit that the United States is called upon to exercise “global leadership,” which has become a euphemism for making mischief and for demanding prerogatives allowed to no other nation. Here the potential exists for conservatives to make common cause with members of the impassioned antiwar left.

Now Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol aren't going to like this very much but Daniel Larison, a blogger at the same magazine, does.

In practical terms, it should go without saying that this rules out preventive war. Few things better reflect the belief that the U.S. should enjoy “prerogatives allowed to no other nation” than the idea that the U.S. has the right to attack other countries for what they might do in the future. The U.S. should also be less involved in supporting other states’ internal political opposition, which is often the very definition of “making mischief” and meddling where we aren’t wanted by most of the people in these countries. The U.S. should be reducing how much it spends to subsidize the defense of countries that can readily provide for their own defense, and it should be cutting back on the overseas commitments it already has instead of adding to them. Specifically, that would mean no more NATO expansion, no new security guarantees to other states elsewhere in the world, and a review of the existing guarantees that the U.S. has made to determine whether or not they are outdated and irrelevant to American security today. Conservatives in the U.S. should be interested in trying as much as possible to get the United States back to the position of being at least a normal major power that has no special obligations and assumes no special authority or rights.

I think this is right, our interventions since WWII have brought us nothing but blow back and pain.  When talking about why we are so hated in the Middle East Pat Buchanan, said it best:

They don't hate us because of who we are they hate because of where we are.

Now I don't agree with Buchanan on much of anything but he called that right.  bin-Laden himself said the reason for 911 was American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.  Most of our foreign policy difficulties today are the result of meddling to protect the interests of multi-national corporations since the end of WWII.  Case in point is Iran where the CIA overthrew a Democratically elected prime minister because he was going to nationalize the country's oil resources.  They put the much hated Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in charge and helped him create his secret police to hold onto his power.
Being the world's bad cop is not something that benefits the citizens of the United States and in addition we can't afford it anymore.

Is Hagel for Defense

Ever since the idea that Chuck Hagel would be nominated to take over at defense the neoconservatives and Likudniks have been up in arms and every attempt has been made to slime him. See:

• The Borking of Chuck Hagel
• Chuck Hagel and America First (Updated)
• Chuck Hagel - Not Crazy Enough
• Slimeing Hagel

Well now it's being reported that Obama likely to nominate Chuck Hagel for Defense secretary.

President Obama is expected to nominateChuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be Defense secretary, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of Hagel's views on Israel and Iran.
White House officials said Friday that the president hadn't formally offered the job to Hagel, but others familiar with the process said that the announcement could come as soon as Monday.
Hagel, who was elected to the Senate from Nebraska in 1996 and retired in 2008, was awarded two Purple Hearts for wounds he received as a soldier in Vietnam. His experience serving in that war made him wary about using force unless other options had been tried, he said in a recent interview with the history magazine Vietnam.
"I'm not a pacifist. I believe in using force but only after a very careful decision-making process. … I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war," he said.

 And yes the character assassination has start already resumed and who better to start it out than little Billy Kristol. So what is Bill's complaint?  Hagel tells the truth.

In a post yesterday waxing enthusiastic about Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, Michael Moore called attention to a statement of Hagel that I don't believe had been previously much noted. Here it is, from September 2007: 

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are," said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. "They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

This rounds out a Hagelian worldview—but I also wonder if it could be the straw that breaks the back of Hagel's chances. It's true that senators have been notified in the last few days that Hagel is the likely choice. But the latest AP story has the Obama administration keeping the door open for the president to go in a different direction: "White House aides said the president has not made a final decision on either post and won't until he returns from Hawaii, where he is vacationing with his family. Obama is due back in Washington Sunday morning." Now, when Obama returns, he'll have to come to grips with the Hagel war-for-oil statement.

Of course it was about oil.  Cheney himself was meeting with the major oil companies before 911 to divide up the Iraqi oil fields. Another problem is that Obama has not been inclined to let the Israeli tail wag the US dog and Hagel is not likely to change that.

I think Daniel Larison gets it right:

Yes, McCain and the usual hard-liners will grandstand during the hearings, but they likely would have done that anyway, and I doubt that there most Senate Republicans want to be seen blocking Hagel. Not only would that be an extraordinary thing to do in response to any Cabinet nomination, but it would be unheard of to do it to a former colleague and a member of their own party. Republican hard-liners will do what they can to make the hearings a tiresome and drawn-out process, but in so doing they will simply be reconfirming why the public doesn’t trust them and why Hagel was the right choice.

Will The Borking of Hagel Backfire?

I have written about the vicious attacks on Chuck Hagel by the Israeli Lobby and the neo-cons here, here and here.  James Fallows thinks the attacks may have been so baseless and vicious that they may have actually backfired.

People who have seen this sort of cycle before know how it typically ends. The nominee becomes "damaged" or "toxic" or "too hot to handle" or merely "embattled" or "controversial." An administration that has to choose its battles, chooses not to get messed up in one like this. That's what appeared to happen with Susan Rice last month, and with a number of proposed Obama selections four years ago.
This time, the preemptive strike may possibly have gone too far and been too crude. The most promising recent development is a letter today from nine former ambassadors, who individually and collectively embody "respectable" U.S. government views (including five former U.S. ambassadors to Israel). They all speak on Hagel's behalf, and against the smear campaign to force Obama to drop him. The letter is at the Foreign Policy site, and you can see it there (if you want to deal with a new mandatory sign-in process that FP has instituted). Or you can read about it inPolitico. It begins this way: "We support, most strongly and without qualification, President Obama's reported intention to nominate Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense."

Individuals who would normally remained silent are coming to Hagel's defense. From the Foreign Policy site:

"Each of us has had the opportunity to work with Senator Hagel at one time or another on the issues of the Middle East. He has invariably demonstrated strong support for Israel and for a two-state solution and has been opposed to those who would undermine or threaten Israel's security."
Who signed the letter: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece;
Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan;
Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria;
William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel;
Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt;
Sam Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel;
William H. Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia;
Frank G. Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Ambassador to Egypt and India.

Now who are you going to listen too?  These diplomats or William Kristol.
James Joyner had intended not to speak out since Hagel is his boss but:

It's perfectly reasonable to debate Hagel's views on the size of the defense budget, how best to respond to Iran's nuclear program, or, indeed, US security policy vis-a-vis Israel. Even sideline discussions, such as whether it's time for a woman to head the Pentagon or the wisdom of Democratic presidents routinely nominating moderate Republicans to this particular post, are well worth having.
What's beyond the pale, however, is the campaign of libel and innuendo underway by the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and others declaring Hagel to be "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic" in an attempt to poison the well. It's an outrageous charge that's sadly wielded all too often against Americans who deviate from the hard line Likudist position on the Israel-Palestine debate. We've somehow arrived at the bizarre point where espousing the platform of the Israeli Labor Party is enough to get an American politician labeled "anti-Israel."

Hagel's enemies are the perfect reason to appoint him.

Update
Now the Cubans are after Chuck Hagel:

Rubio Threatens to Hold Hagel
Rubio comms director: 'I’m sure we would have questions about Cuba positions'

The Footprint We Can't Afford

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
~ William Kristol, April 4th, 2003

William Kristol  takes to the pages of The Weekly Standard to bemoan the fact that the Conservative movement is in deep disarray.

And the conservative movement​—​a bulwark of American strength for the last several decades​—​is in deep disarray. Reading about some conservative organizations and Republican campaigns these days, one is reminded of Eric Hoffer’s remark, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” It may be that major parts of American conservatism have become such a racket that a kind of refounding of the movement as a cause is necessary. A reinvigoration of the Republican party also seems desirable, based on a new generation of leaders, perhaps coming​—​as did Ike and Reagan​—​from outside the normal channels.

Of course he's upset for all the wrong reasons.  What he is really upset about is the Neocons are no longer in power and the US is no longer the world's bully.  He want's the US to have a big footprint that it can no longer afford.

As the world unravels on Barack Obama’s watch, conservatives might want to take some solace in saying​—​We told you so! But they shouldn't  First of all, it’s not as if the Romney campaign or the GOP congressional leadership or most conservative organizations really spent much time bothering to warn of the consequences of Obama’s foreign policy. And in any case, there’s not much solace to be had, as the world coming apart threatens the well-being of America, not just the success of Barack Obama’s second term.

So what can conservatives do? They can explain that decline has been a choice, and that weakness has consequences. They can explain that Obama’s inaction in Syria now is of a piece with his inaction in Iran in 2009, that the abandonment of Iraq in 2011 prefigured the prospective abandonment of Afghanistan over the next couple of years, and that defense cuts at home go hand in hand with an oh-so-light footprint abroad. The Obama administration has chosen a course of American retrenchment and retreat. Conservatives can urge the president to reverse course. They can try to minimize the damage he can cause over the next four years. And, as important, they can prepare to be ready to repair the damage from the Obama years.

Sorry Billie, we simply can't afford that big footprint anymore.  We should have never gone into Iraq - a war based on lies and paid for on a credit card.  Afghanistan now also appears to have been a mistake.  And you want to get us involved in wars in Syria and advocate an attack on Iran.
 
And speaking of Iran - have you forgotten that Khomeini gained power in Iran because the democratically elected Prime Minster was overthrown by the CIA and universally hated Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was placed in power as a puppet of the US and Britain.  Our interventions have not really worked out too well.

No we can't afford that big footprint or the blow back that usually results when we insert ourselves.

Romney's Foreign Policy Trap

Daniel Larison has an interesting PEW survey "Most Want The US Less Involved In The Middle East".

As you can see according to this survey Obama is probably to the right of not only most Americans but a majority of Republicans.  Thanks to his reckless neoconservative advisers Romney has placed himself to the right of Obama.  So what does Romney do tonight?  Do an etch a sketch and alienate his neocon supporters or stay to the right and scare off 72% of the Independents, 65% of the Democrats and 53% of the Republicans?
Larison:

While the candidates do not differ from one another on policy questions as much as their campaigns want the public to believe, there does appear to be a significant difference between the incumbent, whose response to political upheaval in North Africa and the Near East is frequently faulted for its “passivity,” and the challenger, who seems to think that the U.S. needs to be even more assertive and involved in these developments than it already is. If most viewers perceive Obama and Romney that way, it is difficult to see how Romney’s message will be very appealing to most of them. The survey results clearly show that the public doesn’t favor a candidate pushing for a more activist and hard-line approach, and it’s not even a close contest. After the last decade, the only thing that is surprising about this survey result is that there is still any support for more involvement.

Romney has said that we should not have left Iraq and that we should stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014.  In addition he has been very hawkish on Iran.  All of these positions are contrary to public positions.  As I said here Romney Foreign Policy sounds a lot like Bush 2.0. While Romney studies Neoconservative talking points I would hope that Obama is prepared with Romney's past Foreign Policy pronouncements.

Update:
Romney knows he's not going to win tonight according to Politco. Larison's reaction:

The greatest danger for Romney is that he sabotages himself by repeating attack lines that only hawkish ideologues find credible. That would show that he is either just mouthing their phrases or so intent on proving that he is a hawk that he doesn’t care how politically harmful their hard-line policies are. For example, if he returns to dated, nonsensical complaints about the Green movement protests or missile defense, he wouldn’t land any hits on Obama’s record and he would demonstrate how much he relies on the movement conservative echo chamber for his arguments. The less that he sounds like the candidate who delivered the VFW and VMI speeches, the better it will be for him politically. A reliable standard for judging how well or badly Romney has performed is to see how the most ideological neoconservatives respond to what he says in the debate. If they are extremely pleased by his performance because he echoed their views, Romney will have lost the debate very badly indeed.

Update II
When The Former Head Of Mossad Calls You a Moron…Or Why You Don’t Hand Over Foreign Policy To An Out-Of-His-Depth-Hack Guided By The Worst People In The World
Read it and Romney should too but he won't!

Quote of the Day

This is the Quote of the Day neocon idiocy edition.  It comes from our sensible friend Daniel Larison:

Romney exaggerates the influence that a continued U.S. presence would give Washington, and he overestimates the ability of U.S. forces to prevent Iran from using its relationship with Baghdad to provide support to Assad. As usual, the people who favored deposing the old Iraqi regime and removing one of the main checks on Iranian influence are now deeply distressed there is an Iraqi government willing to cooperate with Iran. The conduct of Maliki’s government is a perfect example of what the U.S. can and should always expect even from those leaders that the U.S. helped bring to power.

Of course Romney is listening to the same  people who think we should occupy Afghanistan forever, occupy Libya and Syria and at the same time cut taxes and reduce the deficit.  The party of  Unicorns and fantasy.
If you liked the foreign policy of Bush/Cheney you will love Mitt Romney.

Rand Paul on Romney's Foreign Policy

For whatever other short comings Senator Rand Paul may have drinking the neoconservative koolaide is not one of them. Today he rips Romney's Foreign Policy.

At times, I have been encouraged by Romney's foreign policy. I agree with his call to end the war in Afghanistan sooner rather than later and with his skepticism of, and call for reform in, foreign aid, but I am a bit dismayed by his foreign policy speech Monday, titled "Mantle of Leadership."
Romney chose to criticize President Obama for seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department and for not being bellicose enough in the Middle East, two assertions with which I cannot agree.
Defense and war spending has grown 137% since 2001. That kind of growth is not sustainable.
Adm. Michael Mullen stated earlier this year that the biggest threat to our national security is our debt.
If debt is our gravest threat, adding to the debt by expanding military spending further threatens our national security.
While I would always stand up for America and preserve our ability to defend ourselves, a less aggressive foreign policy along with an audit of the Pentagon could save tens of billions of dollars each year without sacrificing our defense. To dismiss either idea is to miss the very compromise that will enable us to balance our budget. That compromise would be for conservatives to admit that not every dollar spent on the military is sacred or well-spent and for liberals to admit that not every dollar spent on domestic entitlements and welfare is necessary.
In North Africa and the Middle East, our problem has not been a lack of intervention. In the past 10 years we have fought two full wars there, and bombed or sent troops into several others.

Paul goes on to say that he will be campaigning for Romney because:

This week, I will campaign for Gov. Mitt Romney. I believe this election will and should be about moving America back from the edge of the abyss on which we stand, where our debt and spending threaten to overwhelm and drown us. Romney's belief in free markets, limited government and trade make him the clear choice to lead our country come January.

I would like to remind Senator Paul that if Romney is true to his promise to increase defense spending and interventionist foreign policy none of the above will really matter.

Romney and Foreign Policy Plattitudes

Romney goes to The Wall Street Journal to present us with a foreign policy statement. Like all Romney policy statements it is devoid of substance and loaded with neoconservative platitudes and talking points.

In this period of uncertainty, we need to apply a coherent strategy of supporting our partners in the Middle East—that is, both governments and individuals who share our values. This means restoring our credibility with Iran. When we say an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability—and the regional instability that comes with it—is unacceptable, the ayatollahs must be made to believe us.
It means placing no daylight between the United States and Israel. And it means using the full spectrum of our soft power to encourage liberty and opportunity for those who have for too long known only corruption and oppression. The dignity of work and the ability to steer the course of their lives are the best alternatives to extremism.
But this Middle East policy will be undermined unless we restore the three sinews of our influence: our economic strength, our military strength and the strength of our values. That will require a very different set of policies from those President Obama is pursuing.

OK Mitt, what different policies?  How would your policy differ from Obama's besides turning US Mid East  policy over to Bibi Netanyahu?   In reality Romney has no foreign policy ideas of his own and has been possessed by the neocons.  Doesn't Mitt realize most American's are not real crazy about the neocons and their endless wars?  I guess not.  I wonder if the Mormons have exorcisms.
Ed Kilgore:

Think about this: Mitt Romney is running for president on a platform of indistinguishable and conjoined exceptionalism for the U.S. and Israel. And because Israel faces a vastly greater military threat, this means America would abandon its own independence of action and consign its fate to Bibi Netanyahu, a man whose views on peace and security are highly controversial in Israel itself.
Republican foreign policy thinking has had to go through a lot of twists and turns to arrive at this extraordinarily anomalous place. But the bottom line seems to be remarkably similar to the one embraced twelve years ago by George W. Bush and his advisors, who took office determined to wage war with Iraq, despite the cover of all the middle-school bully-boy talk of preventing war by plotting it constantly.If Romney wins and the United States supinely follows Bibi into yet another, and this time vastly more dangerous, Gulf war, nobody can say we were not warned.

The thing that is so puzzling about this is it's not going to get him any votes from those who wern't going to vote for him anyway and could cost him the vote of some who would have.
Update:
Charles Johnson nails it:

But this pile of empty verbiage is amazing in at least one respect: somehow, Romney managed to write an entire piece about Middle East policy without mentioning either Iraq or Afghanistan. An odd omission, perhaps explainable by the fact that both of these long-term wars were fairly well devastating to the jingoistic “American strength” line Romney’s feeding to the right — so Romney just pretends they don’t exist.

Inside the Bubble II

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard is in the neoconservative bubble.

President Obama is outside the ideological mainstream, viewed as very liberal by an electorate that’s moderate or somewhat conservative. His domestic policies are unpopular, notably his health care law, economic stimulus, and spending plans. His foreign policy initiatives—curbing Iran’s nuclear weapons program, improving America’s position in the Middle East, fostering better relations with Russia—have failed. The public wants Obama to jettison his ineffective economic policies and implement new ones. But he refuses.

Yes I know, Fred Barnes is an idiot but he fails to recognize that a majority of voters don't want any more wars and interventions.  They are tired of extremists in Israel dictating U.S. foreign policy.  They are tired of Bibi Netanyahu  interfering in U.S. election politics. They are tired of the tail wagging the dog.
I have to give Joe Klein a pat on the back for the second time this week.

Notice the absence of facts, polling data. Notice the absolute wrongitude of Barnes’s foreign policy postures: the truth is, the American people–and most foreign policy experts who are not neoconservatives–believe that Obama has been a very successful foreign policy President. The public has mixed feelings about Obama’s domestic policies, which have not been a roaring success, but not nearly the utter failure that Republicans seem to have imagined in their Fox-Rush echo chamber. The stimulus prevented a Great Depression. Most of the health care plan hasn’t been implemented yet and the parts that have been are wildly popular, especially the “pre-existing condition” rules and the extension of coverage to children up to the age of 26. As for spending, his proposed balance of new revenue and entitlement reform, though relatively modest, is deemed far more realistic than the Republican tax cuts forever and ever mantra. 

These are not “very liberal” policies. They used to be Republican policies, especially the health care provision and the intelligent use of force overseas against our Al Qaeda enemies. The notion that Barack Obama is anything beyond a moderate liberal is laughable, especially given the wildly right-wing Romney positions on social issues, foreign policy and the aggrandizement of the plutocracy.

As Daniel Larison pointed out the other day the Republican party lost their foreign policy advantage because of the neoconservative misadventures championed by the likes of Fred Barnes.

Update ;
Ben Jacobs nails the hypocrisy:

 For a party that focuses so much on individual responsibility, it’s ironic that Barnes is blaming others, rather than Boston, for Romney’s faults.

Related:
Joe Klein on Netanyahu and Iran
Republican Foreign Policy and Iraq

Republican Foreign Policy and Iraq

Politico has a piece on the "surprising" Republican disadvantage when it comes to foreign policy.

This week’s political uproar over bloodshed in Libya and Egypt was a sharp reminder to Republicans: It’s tough to be the opposition party when it comes to matters of national defense.
And for Republicans, the challenge is actually deeper than being out of power. For more than a generation, stretching back to the age of Vietnam and the Cold War, the GOP has been the electorate’s default choice on national security. Not so this year, when the party and its presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, have struggled to confront both internal divisions and a landscape of global challenges that defy straightforward, doctrinal definition.
It’s not a unique predicament for either political party to struggle on national security issues when the other guys are running the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council. Both parties are still grasping for overarching policies that make sense of a world beset by still-potent terrorist networks, the unpredictable aftermath of the Arab Spring and an economically ravaged Europe.
Still, Republicans aren’t accustomed to fighting an uphill battle when it comes to the country’s defense. For the entire span of the Bush administration, the party was united by its pride in the president’s response to Sept. 11 and its support for the White House’s “freedom agenda” — promoting democracy across the Muslim world, in some cases with the help of the armed force.

Daniel Larison notes that in this 3 page article there is not a single mention of the reasons for the disadvantage - Iraq and George W Bush.

It isn’t possible to account for the Republicans’ loss of their advantage on foreign policy and national security without specifically addressing how the Iraq war and the GOP’s dead-ender embrace of the conflict destroyed it. Republicans were on the losing side of the foreign policy debate four years ago, but they didn’t know it. Because McCain was the nominee, and because McCain’s ratings on these issues were often higher than Obama’s, the assumption was that the traditional Republican edge remained. The truth was that the Iraq war had eliminated that edge, and in the four years since then the party has been unable to win it back because they still don’t fully appreciate why they lost it.

There are two words the Republicans dare not say - Bush and Iraq.  In spite of this the few specifics Romney gives can only lead one to believe that his foreign policy would be nearly identical to the foreign policy of Bush/Cheney.  It's not too difficult to see why Romney is losing the foreign policy war.  Romney has made it clear that he will turn U.S. Iran policy over to extremists in Israel - under Romney the tail will continue to wag the dog. Probably not a good way to win over any of the few undecideds.
Romney is a captive of the discredited neoconservatives.

Neocon Hillary - 2008

Two years ago I wrote Neocon Hillary where I discussed Justin Raimondo's commentary in the American Conservative Magazine, Hillary the Hawk. He quotes from a Hillary Clinton speech given on January 18, 2006.

“Let’s be clear about the threat we face now,” she thundered. “A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.” To be sure, we need to cajole China and Russia into going along with diplomatic and economic sanctions, but “we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Now it may appear that Hillary as made a move to the center but the Boston Globe reminds us that not much has changed.
Hillary Strangelove

AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.

This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.

It was not only dangerous but she sounded more like Dick Cheney or William Kristol that someone trying to get the Democratic nomination for President. At a time when it is becoming obvious to a vast majority that neocon policy and ideology has been a dangerous failure are the Democrats really going to nominate someone who talks like Dick Cheney? If the corporate media has it's way the answer is yes but it went virtually unreported.

Clueless, Dangerous Idiots

The Bush/Cheney administration and the neocons are truly clueless - dangerous - idiots.
Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says

Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Yes, they are still looking for an excuse to attack Iran. And if they do? It would appear they are oblivious to the fact that the ISCI and Da'wa party are even closer to Iran than al-Sadr. The ISCI's Badr brigade has infiltrated the Iraqi security forces and they will not stand by if the US should attack Iran. With the ISCI and the Da'wa party in charge of the government Iran is already calling most of the shots. Iran, unlike the US, realizes al-Sadr is popular and powerful so they give him token support. But they would much prefer to have the ISCI and the Da'wa party running the show in Iraq.

If the US thinks that al-Sadr is a problem just wait until the US bombs Iran. That's when all hell will break lose.

The Wild West

The Republicans have a number of things going against them. A lack of money, a soiled brand name and a President with a 30 percent approval rating. The mountain west has been red for several election cycles but the western Republican is really a libertarian and if truth be known this western progressive has a libertarian side. All you have to do is go over to LewRockwell.com or the CATO Institute blog to discover that the Libertarians are not too crazy about the neocons and the Republican party. In the west that has translated into into this:
GOP ACHILLES HEEL
HOW REPUBLICANS LOST WEST

CHEERED as Republicans may be by the Clinton-Obama wars, the fact is that long-term trends still favor the Democrats this fall. To see the problem, consider the interior West - the eight states between the Midwest and the Pacific Coast: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

This week, I spoke at a panel put on here in Denver by the America's Future Foundation, a youth-oriented libertarian-conservative group. The topic: "How the West Will Be Lost."

In fact, having heard my fellow panelists' takes on the situation in Colorado and the rest of the region, the use of the future tense looks optimistic: The GOP is already well on its way to losing the West.

The reasons were well summed up by the president of Colorado's Independence Institute and a popular conservative radio talk-show host in the state, Jon Caldara: "We lost our values. We lost our way."

It's been clear for years the interior West, once reliably Republican, was becoming a swing region. While 60,000 votes in Ohio would have thrown the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004, roughly the same number of votes, split between Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, would have done the same thing. All three were on the verge of turning "blue" in 2004; they've since gone over that edge.

Not the party of Barry Goldwater!

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that the share of voters who call themselves Republicans has dropped six points nationwide since 2004. That doesn't matter much in the Northeast (where the GOP's already locked out) or Down South (where the GOP remains dominant). But in the interior West, it's a big, big deal.

In 2000, none of these eight states had a Democratic governor. Now five do, including Colorado. A 2006 post-election Salt Lake City Tribune analysis showed that, where the GOP had beaten the Democrats by 20 points in the region's vote for the House in 2000, that advantage had fallen to one point in 2006. A few states, including Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, had seen a majority of House votes cast for the Democrats.

In fact, Colorado now looks bluer than a half-drowned Smurf. It's got a Democratic governor, House, Senate and high court. The GOP lost both houses of the Legislature in 2004 after spending a session on such issues as gay marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance and the liberal biases of college professors - while the state faced a massive fiscal crisis.

At the federal level, the state's got a recently minted Democratic senator (Ken Salazar, replacing a Republican in 2004) and two recently acquired House seats (one picked up in 2004, one in '06). Turning Blue on the presidential ballot is all that's left in this metamorphosis.

As Caldara put it: "Colorado is, in fact, the test tube of how to export liberal expansion to the Western states." A moderately conservative state has been turned Blue, Caldara says, because of "the absolute demolishing of what the Right stood for, how the Republican Party turned into something it was never meant to be and went away from Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan ideas."

Under Clinton and the DLC the Democratic party abandoned it's progressive roots and lost the House and the Senate. Under George W. Bush, the neocons and social conservatives the Republican party abandoned it's Libertarian roots and that's how the west was lost.

My thoughts five years later

Yesterday was a day when former supporters of the invasion and occupation documented how wrong they were. For Andrew Sullivan it was:

• Historical Narcissism.
• Narrow Moralism
• Unconservatism.
• Misreading Bush

John Cole admits he was wrong about everything including "I was wrong not to trust the dirty smelly hippies." On the other side Jim Henely tries to explain why he got it right. I think what Jim ends up saying is that he was paying attention.

Now I opposed the invasion and occupation - I got it right. But I didn't get it all right, I am guilty of under estimation. Now I knew that the neocons and the AIPAC Zionists were delusional and crazy but I underestimated just how delusional and crazy they were. I didn't fully appreciate that the only way you could get them to listen to you was to say exactly what they wanted to hear. And that worked even if you were a known con man and Iranian spy (Chalabi). I underestimated how little these mad men knew about the Middle East and as important how little they knew about unsuccessful occupations in the past. I also underestimated just how evil their real motivations were. Perhaps most of all I underestimated their incompetence which I suppose is a result of underestimating their delusions.

I was right - I knew the invasion was a mistake but I really didn't appreciate just how big a mistake it would turn out to be.

The lunatics win another one

You should be very afraid. Dick Cheney and the rest of the criminally insane neocons and Zionists have forced yet another rational senior military commander out paving the way for attempt to create Armageddon before they lose power.
Admiral Fallon Resigns as Head of Centcom

WASHINGTON — Navy Adm. William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, which leads U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is stepping down, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Tuesday.

Fallon claimed ongoing misperceptions about differences between his ideas and U.S. policy are making it too difficult for him to operate, Gates said, agreeing. He added that the differences are not extreme, but the misperception had become too great.

"I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy," Gates said, noting that he accepted the request to retire with "reluctance and regret."

"I don't know whether he was misinterpreted or whether people attributed views to him that were not his views, but clearly there was a concern," Gates said.

The misperceptions relate to an article published last week in Esquire magazine that portrayed Fallon as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy. It described Fallon as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

In a statement distributed by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla., Fallon said he requested permission to step down because the article showed disrespect toward the president and caused embarrassment and distractions that were the result of misrepresentations of his views of Centcom missions.

They may call it a resignation but you know he was forced out.

Larry Johnson says this can only mean one thing we are One Step Closer to War in Iran.

Admiral Fallon has led the resistance among military senior commanders who oppose a military strike against Iran. Fallon correctly recognizes that an attack on Iran will put the United States at great risk and ruin our ability to influence events for the good in the Middle East. He knows first hand that U.S. military forces are stretched past the breaking point and are unable to provide the military support required to carry out offensive operations against targets in Iran. This is madness and President Bush has not learned a goddamned thing from the mis-adventure in Iraq. It is time for Congress to stand firmly against this rush to war. But it is an election year and such a stand would require courage–a trait sorely lacking among most members of either party.

Related information here: Does Admiral Fallon have to go?

Update
I think Josh get's it right here which is why we should be really frightened.

It is widely believed in media and political circles that despite the difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, American foreign policy is back under some kind of adult/mainstream management. In other words, that we've left the Cheney/Rumsfeld era behind for a period of Gates/Rice normalcy and that Iran regime change adventurism is safely off the table. But put together what the disagreements with Fallon were about, the fact that the president chose him as someone he thought he could work with not more than one year ago, and the almost unprecedented nature of the resignation and it becomes clear that that assumption must be gravely in error.

Indeed - I fear the lunatics are still in charge of the asylum.

Does Admiral Fallon have to go?

Now we all know that George W. Bush wants to do whatever his bat shit crazy Vice President, Dick Cheney, wants to do and we all know that Dick Cheney and the rest of the lunatics want to attack Iran. According to Thomas P.M. Barnett there is someone standing in their way, the head of U. S. Central Command, Admiral William "Fox" Fallon.
The Man Between War and Peace

So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon--and apparently Fallon alone--to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Those are fighting words to your average neocon--not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform. But utter those words for print and you can easily find yourself defending your indifference to "nuclear holocaust."

How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?

The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough.

Yes, the last thing on earth the Bush/Cheney cabal, the neocons and the AIPAC crowd wants is a sane man in their asylum.

Go read the entire article and Tom Ricks' half hearted rebuttal.

And the winner is!

Many predicted when the Bush administration invaded and occupied Iraq that the ultimate winner would not be the United States but Iran.
Iran leader's Iraq visit eclipses US, Arab ties

BAGHDAD, March 2 (Reuters) - Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush.

Ahmadinejad held hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an Iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s.

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbours, both run by Shi'ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran's longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq.

A line of senior Iraqi political leaders welcomed Ahmadinejad when he arrived at Talabani's palatial home.

Ahmadinejad's well publicized and public visit is in stark contrast to George Bush's short secret sorties into the country. He not only was received warmly but got the flowers that were supposed to go to the Americans. This is just another indication of the misguided incompetence of the Bush administration and the neocons. Over two thirds of the Iraqis want the US out of their country and nearly two thirds of the American people want the US to leave Iraq. The US ousted Iran's long time enemy Saddam Hussein and made it possible for a Iranian friendly Shiite government to gain control.

Wingnuts in attack mode

Obama's honeymoon is over and he's about to find out that Hillary went pretty easy on him. The Neocon - Likud - AIPAC crowd are about to bring out the big guns. Yesterday Bill Kristol accused Obama of hating America because he won't ware a flag lapel pin. Well this should send Bill and the rest of the lunatics up the wall:
Obama: Pro-Israel needn't be pro-Likud

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud ap-proach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," leading Democratic presidential contender Illinois Senator Barack Obama said Sunday.

"If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress," he said.

He also criticized the notion that anyone who asks tough questions about advancing the peace process or tries to secure Israel by anyway other than "just crushing the opposition" is being "soft or anti-Israel."

Now it fills me with hope that a politician running for president would actually give AIPAC the finger. Of course Obama will soon be able to add antisemitic Nazi to his closet Islamic Terrorist tag.

And also today we are told that the Pentagon is afraid that Obama might just not be crazy enough.

Military fears 'unknown quantity'

Members of Washington's military and defense establishment are expressing trepidation about Sen. Barack Obama, as the Illinois senator comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination and leads in national polls to become commander in chief.

Of course there are more than a few in the Pentagon who would like a little less crazy in the White House.

But his backers, including a former Air Force chief of staff, say the rookie senator believes in a strong military, and with it, a larger Army and Marine Corps.

It took the criminally insane neocons a long time to get their hands on the controls and they are not going to give up without a nasty fight.

Target Obama

They have Obama in their sights. No, I'm not talking about the Clintons but AIPAC and the neocons. Justin Raimondo reports that:
The War Party Targets Obama
They'll never let him become president

He's said it many times, in many different venues, and perhaps the words change a bit over time, and the cadences, too, but the message is always the same:

"I think the pundits have it wrong. I think the American people have had enough of politicians who go out of their way to look tough, who say one thing in a caucus and another in a general election. When I am the nominee of our party, the choice will be clear. My Republican opponent won't be able to say that we both supported this war in Iraq. He won't be able to say that we really agree about using the war in Iraq to justify military action against Iran, or about the diplomacy of not talking and saber-rattling. He won't be able to say that I haven't been open and straight with the American people, or that I've changed my positions. And you know what? The American people want that choice. Because I believe that's what we need in our next President.

"We've had enough of a misguided war in Iraq that never should have been fought – a war that needs to end."

Barack Obama said that in a Des Moines speech back in October, but he's been repeating it – with added emphasis – as his campaign has taken off. It's that last line that always gets the loudest, most prolonged applause: the audience goes wild, people stand and cheer – as well they should. We are told that the ideological differences between Obama and the Clintons aren't all that great, that in fact they barely exist, which I think is a highly dubious proposition, but, in any case, on this issue – the vital question of war and peace – the gulf between them could not be wider, or deeper.

She, after all, voted for the war, and she's been saber-rattling over Iran – much to AIPAC's delight. Obama, on the other hand, has taken a clear and consistent antiwar position on the Iraq war, as angular as one could hope for in a mainstream politician, while her insincere pandering to the antiwar instincts of the Democratic base has been absolutely shameless.

This of course scares the hell out of the Israel is always right crowd - the neocons and they are mining for dirt.
Jewish functionaries stirring the Clinton-Obama race

Tensions in the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination are mirrored in the American Jewish community. As the gap between the front-runners narrowed in the primaries, the clash between the two Jewish camps has become more heated.

Official Israel is making an effort to maintain a respectable neutrality. Has-beens are being called into the ring, like a former ambassador to Washington, Dan Ayalon, who jabbed Obama in a sensitive spot - the volume of his support for Israel. Ayalon is not alone. Jewish advisers and non-Jewish supporters are almost obsessively occupied with searching for skeletons in the black candidate's past.

The Republican Party's neoconservative clique is trawling archives for "anti-Israeli" essays by advisers who had been seen in Obama's staff. Robert Malley, who was President Bill Clinton's special assistant during the Camp David talks, joined Obama. The neoconservatives reached Malley's father, a Jew of Egyptian descent, who, alas, kept childhood ties with Yasser Arafat. Malley junior is accused of publishing a joint article with an Oslo-supporting Palestinian, in which they dared to argue that Ehud Barak played a major role in the Camp David summit's failure in July 2000.

Obama is working hard to allay the fears of "Israel's friends," a description reserved mainly for activists of the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC and for Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents. As far as they're concerned, whoever doesn't support the Israeli government's policy 100 percent is unfit for leadership.

Now these same people would be more than happy with Hillary. As I discussed here Hillary Clinton can rattle sabers with the best of the neocons. Raimondo reports that the Likudniks in Israel and their neocon allies in the US are ready for an all out attack on Obama.

This election year, warns Hoenlein, is signaling a sea change away from unconditional support to Israel, which most Americans see, he avers, as "a dark and militaristic place." Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the repeated invasions of neighboring states by the IDF? Or perhaps it's the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, which is both brutal and seemingly never-ending.

Oh well, never mind that: what Señor Hoenlein is worried about is "the greater tolerance of anti-Israel statements that wouldn't have been allowed in the past." Could he perhaps be referring to Obama's statement that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians."? By the standards of our American Likudniks, such a remark is evidence of vehemently "anti-Israel" sentiments. After all, doesn't he know that the Israelis have a monopoly on suffering? Has he no respect?

[....]

In fact, I give it until sometime next week, when we'll be hearing that Obama is an anti-Semite – or, at least, that he is close to "known" anti-Semites (specifically, the Nation of Islam and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright); that he's anti-Israel, and that he – Barack Hussein Obama – is an "appeaser" whose foreign policy views are way to the "left" of right-reason. I wonder if Marty Peretz will assign Jamie Kirchick to do the job….

[....]

The War Party's agenda is clear and simple: de-legitimize anyone who advances foreign policy ideas that go against the grain of militarism and slavish appeasement of Israel. Anyone who questions why we are in a war in the midst of Mesopotamia for no apparently good reason is going to be smeared, and brought down. The War Party – and by that I don't just mean Republicans – plays dirty, and they play for keeps.

We know they will try to slime Obama but with a war weary electorate will they be able to make it stick?

Time Dumps Kristol and Krauthammer

I was going to comment on this but I procrastinated long enough and TRex did it for me.