February 20, 2006Quotable"Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support." --Francis Fukuyama, writing in the NYT magazine. Comments
If you want to know what a conservative will realize today, go read what Democratic bloggers said two or three years ago. Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at February 20, 2006 12:46 AM | Permalink to this commentDr. Frankenstein, disowning the monster he helped create. If his article has any positive effect on neocon lunacy, then I'll give him kudos. Judging by the Right's reaction so far to the others who've 'wandered off the reservation,' though, I expect he'll be attacked and vilified. Maybe even called a 'liberal,' the dirtiest epithet of all. Posted by: CaseyL at February 20, 2006 01:29 AM | Permalink to this commentEven while reading this article this morning, I was looking forward to B.D.'s take on it. I hope you expand on this truncated note in the next few days, because I do think this debate is important. I am still more with Krauthammer than Mr. EndofHistory, for several reasons. We have shown we will not be a punching bag. That's why we're hanging ourselves up in Iraq. We have given the Shia and the Kurds a viable shot at living out from under the Sunni boot. And if they succeed, then we can liberate the Sunni. Meanwhile, Sudan? Zimbabwe? N.Korea? We have kicked over the ant hill that was breeding the Mohammed Atta's throughout the region. And watched myriad new ant hills take shape in its place. our fears of WMD were real, palpable If we were out of the loop and credulous - not if we were dishing out the phony intel, or not buying it. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 20, 2006 08:38 AM | Permalink to this commentWe have shown we will not be a punching bag. That's why we're hanging ourselves up in Iraq. He does have a point. We've showed that we're always ready to get stuck to tarbabies. But when we hit a tarbaby, it's bad for us but it isn't that much fun for the tarbaby either. Posted by: J Thomas at February 20, 2006 03:49 PM | Permalink to this commentAlan, Perhaps down under you had a different perspective back in 2002, but here in the belly of the beast we did sincerely believe Dr. Germ was brewing her cauldrons of smallpox and ricin. We also had the anthrax incidents, Mr. John Muhammed's sniper spree, and some unpleasantness in lower Manhattan on our mind. We recalled that the 1993 WTC bombers jumped bail and were given a hero's welcome in Iraq, so it wasn't much of a stretch to think mean thoughts about Saddam, Uday and Qusay. Posted by: wks at February 20, 2006 04:28 PM | Permalink to this commentFukuyama still doesn't get it --- he's still pushing the same old racist neo-con crap, but in a "new and improved" package. His explanation for why "democracy" has resulted in radical islamist victories at the polls is that the US was engaged in another experiment in social engineering overreach. What he's saying is "these ragheads weren't ready for democracy". But the reality is that the reason that radical theocrats are winning elections in the middle east is the result of the US presence in Iraq, and its support for the muderous Likudnik policies adopted by Israel for the last five years. It is these radical theocrats that are the most vocal in objecting to the US and Israel --- and they are reaping the benefits of their opposition at the polls. "neo-conservatism" has never been a viable international policy because it is, and will always be, nothing more that racist neo-colonialism dressed up in "human rights" drag. It has never been about self-determination and democratic rights --- its always been a means of "opening up" markets for western corporations that could rape the resources of these nations for their own benefits. Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 20, 2006 06:27 PM | Permalink to this comment we did sincerely believe Dr. Germ was brewing her cauldrons of smallpox and ricin. No, "we" didn't. The nutless pansies that voted for Bush might have felt that way, but many of us remained sane. "We" instead wondered why people would group chemical weapons (Tokyo attack - 12 people dead, I think) and biological weapons (Anthrax attacks - 7 dead, I think) with nuclear weapons (are you kidding?). "We" wondered why we'd attack a country that simply lacked the capabilities to be a threat to us. "We" are still wondering precisely how small a threat could be before Bush voters would start trading in all of "our" civil liberties. Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at February 20, 2006 10:36 PM | Permalink to this comment"We" instead wondered why people would group chemical weapons (Tokyo attack - 12 people dead, I think) and biological weapons (Anthrax attacks - 7 dead, I think) with nuclear weapons (are you kidding?). Well, by that logic, we didn't have to worry about the WTC attack, since the first effort only killed six. One kilogram of anthrax, dispersed effectively over a major US city, could cause 123,000 deaths (according to a mathematical model). An anthrax weapon aimed at a major city could kill at least 123,000 people even if every victim received treatment, experts have calculated.Should "we" let 'em keep trying 'til they get it right? Posted by: Cecil Turner at February 21, 2006 02:03 AM | Permalink to this comment wks: In downtown Sydney Australia, pop 4m, I am way nearer your "belly of the beast" than any number of bellicose US hicks. Especially since our brown-nosing Prime Minister joined the coalition of the willing. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 21, 2006 07:14 AM | Permalink to this commentwks: In downtown Sydney Australia, pop 4m, I am way nearer your "belly of the beast" than any number of bellicose US hicks. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 21, 2006 07:21 AM | Permalink to this comment |
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006
|
|||