An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Pakistan Crisis (2): Musharraf Summons Army Commanders
Eight reform organizations unite to promote public financing for elections. »
A Neoconservative Gathering
Glenn Greenwald has a long, interesting post up about a “literary luncheon� hosted by U.S. President George W. Bush, to honor historian Andrew Roberts.
Roberts wrote a book called History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 in which he argues that British imperialism wasn’t “a Bad Thing�, “that the Versailles Treaty was not harsh enough on Germany, [and] defends the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki…�
Please click here to read more.
11 Responses to “A Neoconservative Gathering”
You can breathe a sign of relief. Given how Iraq has turned out, “benevolent global hegemony” is not going to materialize any time soon!
Yeah, British Imperialism wasn’t a bad thing, just look how well places such as the middle east turned out. And how about India and Pakistan? They get along great do they not?
Heck, just the Balfour Declaration made everything OK.
Man, these people are psychotic.
These people are scary.
Their influence on the current administration has led to the biggest disaster of our age: the Iraw war.
MvdG – This is a change, many have accused you of being a neocon, and now you denouce the idealogy. Welcome back to the real world. Benevolent colonialism is just as bad as Communism.
Those who accused me of being one, simply don’t know a lot about neoconservative ideology.
Anyway… Doma and carpeic: I agree.
Not sure whether all of you already read this article about neoconservatism. If not: you should, it’s a fascinating read.
The neocons critics include paleoconservatives such as Paul Gottfried and Shadia B. Drury. May label their critisms with the claim of anti-Semitism. All charges aside, the results of W’s war in Iraq have damaged the crediblity of many neocons. Many blame Bush’s prosecution, ignoring the radical implications of their idealogy. Fukuyama critisim of the philosiphy, after being one of the biggest supporters, is another interesting read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2002290,00.html
You are right, Michael- that link was fascinating. It put into words what I’ve feared about my government for quite some time, but didn’t quite understand. I have believed for a long time that growing authoritarianism in government and the resultant loss of civil liberties at home combined with an aggressive foreign policy abroad were a bigger threat to democracy than (to quote GW ) the terrorists “who hate our freedoms”.
It’s no coincidence that the biggest supporters of the Bush Doctrine were always the evangelicals- who believed in it, and him with a religious fervor that is terrifying. The PNAC policy in reality has proven disastrous for America’s image abroad, while an authoritarian executive bypassed Congress to whittle away at our civil liberties on the domestic front.
Thanks for a great read!
The article will give me nightmares, I think.
You mean he ripped off Churchill’s title?