Neo-conservatives coming out of the woodwork

[Brian4Liberty]

It has actually become ludicrous. They have pulled out all the stops. Every neo-conservative foreign policy pundit has been recalled to duty. Donald Rumsfeld is on Mark Levin. Paul Wolfowitz is on CNN. Marco Rubio is on Hannity. John Bolton, Jane Harmon, Madeline Albright, Kelly Ayotte and John McCain are everywhere.

The Cold War is back on! The neo-conservatives are back. Jeb Bush 2016!

Oh yeah, and as Mark Levin informed his audience today, anyone who uses the term "neo-conservative" is probably anti-Semitic. :rolleyes: (Update: Ironic that he (and Rush and even Hannity) have used it many times, and Michael Savage uses the term frequently.) He also assured us that there are no neo-Nazis or anti-Semites in Ukraine. :confused: (Update: They killed off the main one, so maybe there will be none before too long. Probably only a few of them anyway.)

Edit -

Naming names: this will be a list of lesser known pundits and "experts" coming out to cheer-lead for neoconservative foreign policy.


Bret Stephens, guest on Fox News Channel

Bret Louis Stephens (born November 21, 1973) is an American journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2013. He works for The Wall Street Journal as the foreign-affairs columnist and the deputy editorial page editor, responsible for the editorial pages of the Journal's European and Asian editions. He was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post from 2002 to 2004.
...
In 2005, Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. He is also a frequent contributor to Commentary magazine.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens

[Tywysog Cymru]

They know where Republican voters is heading in regards to foreign policy.

[Brian4Liberty]

They know where Republican voters is heading in regards to foreign policy.

Even worse than that, it is meant to drive voters back to the big government establishment. Fiscal conservatism, limited government, the Bill of Rights, State's rights and the Constitution all go right out the window when they can scream about the boogy-man that is lurking to get you. It's the biggest distraction possible. The next step would be to take the paranoia and fear and use it against Iran.

[klamath]

bound to happen and their rhetoric resonates stronger since they now have the back drop of libertarians and liberals defending the hell out of a Russian invasion with the same words and propaganda the neoconservatives used for American invasions.
If real lives weren't involved it would be quite the ludicrous circus.

[Brian4Liberty]

bound to happen and their rhetoric resonates stronger since they now have the back drop of libertarians and liberals defending the hell out of a Russian invasion with the same words and propaganda the neoconservatives used for American invasions.
If real lives weren't involved it would be quite the ludicrous circus.

Quick, everybody switch positions! ;)

I don't "approve" of Putin sending troops to Crimea or Ukraine (especially the vote by the Russian Parliament to authorize use of force). But on the scale of incidents of sending troops somewhere, this rates as just slightly less controversial than Reagan going into Greneda (so far). The situation could change, so it remains to be seen how this turns out.

[cajuncocoa]

Raise your hand if you saw this coming.

[Cap]

Raies hand.

[JK/SEA]

It has actually become ludicrous. They have pulled out all the stops. Every neo-conservative foreign policy pundit has been recalled to duty. Donald Rumsfeld is on Mark Levin. Paul Wolfowitz is on CNN. Marco Rubio is on Hannity. John Bolton, Jane Harmon, Madeline Albright, Kelly Ayotte and John McCain are everywhere.

The Cold War is back on! The neo-conservatives are back. Jeb Bush 2016!

Oh yeah, and as Mark Levin informed his audience today, anyone who uses the term "neo-conservative" is probably anti-Semitic. :rolleyes: He also assured us that there are no neo-Nazis or anti-Semites in Ukraine. :confused:

farts in the wind.

[Anti Federalist]

bound to happen and their rhetoric resonates stronger since they now have the back drop of libertarians and liberals defending the hell out of a Russian invasion with the same words and propaganda the neoconservatives used for American invasions.
If real lives weren't involved it would be quite the ludicrous circus.

Who's defending a Russian invasion?

We should stay the hell out.

Russia should stay the hell out.

Now, let's assume Russia does not stay the hell out.

What then?

War over Ukraine?

[Anti Federalist]

farts in the wind.

'MuriKa!

<belch>

[DamianTV]

Its all a facade to either conceal or justify US involvement in shit they should not be involved in. They hide behind excuses like Terrorists, Children, and the Bible, while the truth is they dont give a shit about any of these things except what they get out of it.

[Anti Federalist]

They missed their chance with Syria...by God and sonny Jesus, they are gonna get their chance to fuck some shit up in Ukraine.

[AuH20]

They missed their chance with Syria...by God and sonny Jesus, they are gonna get their chance to fuck some shit up in Ukraine.

And they supposedly have the valuable North Korea card in their back pocket. Joel Skousen still believes North Korea will be the trigger for WW3. That's the only logical reason why such a country composed of homicidal maniacs have been left alone for so long. The TPTB have plans for them.

[Mini-Me]

Who's defending a Russian invasion?

We should stay the hell out.

Russia should stay the hell out.

Now, let's assume Russia does not stay the hell out.

What then?

War over Ukraine?

I've been seeing a little bit more of what klamath's been saying over the past few days. I still think he overreacts to anyone who sympathizes with Russia's situation and actions (which are rather on the mild side for an interventionist country in their situation, despite still being both wrong and committed under false pretexts), but there are a handful of people - especially eduardo - who are all, "Rah-rah, Motherland!" It's just that klamath tends to conflate the larger former group with the smaller latter group...and doth protest too much. ;)

[DamianTV]

The whole Ukraine situation is all about weakening Russia.

Ukraine appears to now be a "strategic asset" for the US to occupy, either by relations or by installing a Puppet Leadership that cooperates with the US over Russia. The US dismantles any regimes they dont like by installing Puppets in damn near every place there has been a conflict. If Russia falls, you ban be assured that the next country on their shitlist is China.

Total Global Domination and they are willing to risk WWIII to get it.

[Mini-Me]

The whole Ukraine situation is all about weakening Russia.

Ukraine appears to now be a "strategic asset" for the US to occupy, either by relations or by installing a Puppet Leadership that cooperates with the US over Russia. The US dismantles any regimes they dont like by installing Puppets in damn near every place there has been a conflict. If Russia falls, you ban be assured that the next country on their shitlist is China.

Total Global Domination and they are willing to risk WWIII to get it.

What scenario are you seeing in which Russia falls, outside the context of them being a casualty of World War III?

[Brian4Liberty]

The next step would be to take the paranoia and fear and use it against Iran.

Caught a bit of the last hour of Levin, and he had an author on who wrote a book about the one state solution for Israel. Of course they also had to talk about the existential threat that Iran poses...and how we need a leader who will do something about it. Maybe they will push Lindsey Graham for President in 2016?

[Mini-Me]

Caught a bit of the last hour of Levin, and he had an author on who wrote a book about the one state solution for Israel. Of course they also had to talk about the existential threat that Iran poses...and how we need a leader who will do something about it. Maybe they will push Lindsey Graham for President in 2016?

Neocons are such an existential threat it's not even funny...

[angelatc]

You shoudl check out Michael Savage. He seems to have been delegated with the task of tying anybody that thinks the US was involved to the ALex Jones movement. And he's doing just that by having some InfoWars writers on the show this week.

Bizarro world is exploding again. We all knew it would, but doesn't mean we have to like it.

[Mini-Me]

You shoudl check out Michael Savage. He seems to have been delegated with the task of tying anybody that thinks the US was involved to the ALex Jones movement. And he's doing just that by having some InfoWars writers on the show this week.

Bizarro world is exploding again. We all knew it would, but doesn't mean we have to like it.

How on Earth does he explain the intercepted phone calls? EDIT: Ah, I see I misinterpreted you.

[fr33]

Who's defending a Russian invasion?

We should stay the hell out.

Russia should stay the hell out.

Now, let's assume Russia does not stay the hell out.

What then?

War over Ukraine?

There are some people here that are ok with govt intervention as long as it's not the US. I don't like agreeing with klamath but he has a point.

[thoughtomator]

Quick, everybody switch positions! ;)

I don't "approve" of Putin sending troops to Crimea or Ukraine (especially the vote by the Russian Parliament to authorize use of force). But on the scale of incidents of sending troops somewhere, this rates as just slightly less controversial than Reagan going into Greneda (so far). The situation could change, so it remains to be seen how this turns out.

IMO it is FAR less controversial than the invasion of Grenada.

[Superfly]

Nothin gins up good ole fashion hate and bloodlust like the dirty Ruskies!

[Petar]

Well, if the Neocons do get their way and really start confronting the Russians, then at least they will bring about to collapse of the USD I guess... that's bound to end up costing them at least a couple of credibility points I would think...

[kcchiefs6465]

There are some people here that are ok with govt intervention as long as it's not the US. I don't like agreeing with klamath but he has a point.
There are some people here who _____.

[dillo]

Its funny I was watching Oreilly with my father last night and Oreillys one segway was "Next well show you how some far left loons are going to spin this". He started criticizing some super liberal that was basically calling out how America telling another country not to violate sovereignty was massively hypocritical. When Oreilly started this segmant made a point to point out that "those libertarians" feel this way too.

It was a jab at our type, but I just smiled because finally that fuckface knows were too big to ignore.

[dillo]

If Obama was against doing anything, would Neo-Con Ted Cruz still be pro invasion of Russia.

[Mini-Me]

Well, if the Neocons do get their way and really start confronting the Russians, then at least they will bring about to collapse of the USD I guess... that's bound to end up costing them at least a couple of credibility points I would think...

It was Obama's fault for delaying so much! ;)

[fr33]

Well, if the Neocons do get their way and really start confronting the Russians, then at least they will bring about to collapse of the USD I guess... that's bound to end up costing them at least a couple of credibility points I would think...

They won't really confront Russia. Not in a physical battle anyways. They'll just use it to get voters to vote stupidly.

[Kotin]

They certainly smell blood..

[AuH20]

Nothin gins up good ole fashion hate and bloodlust like the dirty Ruskies!

when the Ruskies aren't the ones we should be worried about. The Chinese are the real threat down the road. Look up what they did to the Falun Gong & how they farmed their organs as political prisoners. I'm not an interventionist but Putin is nothing compared to the Chinese in terms of nefarious motives.

[Anti Federalist]

There are some people here that are ok with govt intervention as long as it's not the US. I don't like agreeing with klamath but he has a point.

Well, that's short sighted, then.

[Mini-Me]

when the Ruskies aren't the ones we should be worried about. The Chinese are the real threat down the road. Look up what they did to the Falun Gong & how they farmed their organs as political prisoners. I'm not an interventionist but Putin is nothing compared to the Chinese in terms of nefarious motives.

That is deeply disturbing, but I guess it shouldn't be surprising considering how collectivist China has always been from the beginning. It also reminds me of the Fallout games, which are set in a post-apocalyptic world devastated in a war between batshit insane US and Chinese governments. It's one of those "alternative history" kind of timelines, like Watchmen, but highlighting the Chinese rather than the Russians as the "others" may end up looking like insight before its time in retrospect. They're definitely the more economically and militarily powerful adversary though, as well as being more culturally "alien" to liberty.

From that perspective, I wonder what the Russians think about all of this: They undoubtedly have imperial ambitions of their own still, but US imperialism has forced them to ally with China, a stronger neighbor that's ultimately more culturally distant from them than their current adversaries in the west. Especially considering their geographical proximity, it's a pretty dangerous position for them when you think about it: They need the US empire to fall apart to survive without being assimilated by the NWO, but once it does, they could be sitting ducks awaiting another terrible fate should an unchecked China grow bold and decide to expand.

[donnay]

Caught a bit of the last hour of Levin, and he had an author on who wrote a book about the one state solution for Israel. Of course they also had to talk about the existential threat that Iran poses...and how we need a leader who will do something about it. Maybe they will push Lindsey Graham for President in 2016?

I think it is a distraction...if Russia is preoccupied with the Ukraine, then they cannot guard Iran.

[donnay]

You shoudl check out Michael Savage. He seems to have been delegated with the task of tying anybody that thinks the US was involved to the ALex Jones movement. And he's doing just that by having some InfoWars writers on the show this week.

Bizarro world is exploding again. We all knew it would, but doesn't mean we have to like it.

Paul Joseph Watson was great too.

[Brian4Liberty]

You shoudl check out Michael Savage. He seems to have been delegated with the task of tying anybody that thinks the US was involved to the ALex Jones movement. And he's doing just that by having some InfoWars writers on the show this week.

Bizarro world is exploding again. We all knew it would, but doesn't mean we have to like it.

Savage has been nailing McCain today. Playing a cuckoo clock sound every time he mentions him. :D

Savage has always been skeptical of these European interventions. He was completely against the Kosovo fiasco, and has talked about how this Ukraine situation is similar. All about resources and corporatism.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Let's Reflect...



The Project for the New American Century. Click here for other articles on this topic (http://www.google.com/custom?sa=GIMP%3Ared%3BT%3Ablack%3BLW%3A501%3BALC% 3Ablue%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearingh ouse.info%2Fimages%2FBAN1.gif%3BGFNT%3Agrey%3BLC%3 Ablack%3BLH%3A61%3BAH%3Acenter%3BVLC%3Ared%3BS%3Ah ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%3BAW FID%3A5e7ae7f73a1389ac%3B&domains=www.informationclearinghouse.info&q=Project+for+the+New+American+Century&cof=Google+Search&sitesearch=www.informationclearinghouse.info)
The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.
By William Rivers Pitt
02/25/03 -- - The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:


* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could? Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

http://www.operatorchan.org/t/src/13902871537.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

I don't approve of Russia getting involved, but its not really the same thing if Russia gets involved compared to the US. At least with Russia its their own continent.

[Snew]

They missed their chance with Syria...by God and sonny Jesus, they are gonna get their chance to fuck some shit up in Ukraine.

spot on.

[RandallFan]

Ayotte and Rubio could be gone after 2016. They could lose the primary or lose based on Hilary's turnout or GOP staying home.

[Lucille]

It has actually become ludicrous. They have pulled out all the stops. Every neo-conservative foreign policy pundit has been recalled to duty. Donald Rumsfeld is on Mark Levin. Paul Wolfowitz is on CNN. Marco Rubio is on Hannity. John Bolton, Jane Harmon, Madeline Albright, Kelly Ayotte and John McCain are everywhere.

The Cold War is back on! The neo-conservatives are back. Jeb Bush 2016!

Oh yeah, and as Mark Levin informed his audience today, anyone who uses the term "neo-conservative" is probably anti-Semitic. :rolleyes: He also assured us that there are no neo-Nazis or anti-Semites in Ukraine. :confused:

I would never use the term "conservative" when referring to the neo-Trotskyites.

I know PCR tends toward the dramatic, but he lived among those vampires (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2008/02/13/the-monster-that-wouldnt-die/), so I believe that they are this BSC!:


"The neoconservative ideologues, who have been lusting for war with Russia ever since the 1980s when I was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, will take advantage of the war preparation, which the White House Fool and his State Department excrement are creating with their rhetoric, to start a war that will destroy life on earth.

The neoconservatives are insane. They believe that nuclear war can be won, and that the US has the advantage to destroy Russia in a first strike. (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/03/end-nearer-think-paul-craig-roberts/)
[...]
War will be the result of the ignorance, gullibility, and stupidity of the American population, its prostitute media, and the hegemonic ambitions of the evil neoconservatives."

[compromise]

Even worse than that, it is meant to drive voters back to the big government establishment. Fiscal conservatism, limited government, the Bill of Rights, State's rights and the Constitution all go right out the window when they can scream about the boogy-man that is lurking to get you. It's the biggest distraction possible. The next step would be to take the paranoia and fear and use it against Iran.

Harmon and Albright are Democrats so they don't matter so much.


You shoudl check out Michael Savage. He seems to have been delegated with the task of tying anybody that thinks the US was involved to the ALex Jones movement. And he's doing just that by having some InfoWars writers on the show this week.

Bizarro world is exploding again. We all knew it would, but doesn't mean we have to like it.

So the guy literally flip flopped (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445541-Michael-Savage-weighs-in-on-Ukraine) in less than a week? (http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/obamas-ukrainian-pink-line/) The guy does seem to have a short attention span. He won't support Rand because he regards him as too moderate, but will support Christie because he thinks Christie can win, he's a really weird guy tbh.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I wonder how long it takes to drive from Louisville to Mexico. My Spanish is decent so I might be able to get by there during the war.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't approve of Russia getting involved, but its not really the same thing if Russia gets involved compared to the US. At least with Russia its their own continent.

Crimea also wants to be part of Russia (something like 75%+ speak Russian). Also, I haven't heard any reports of Russian soldiers killing anyone.

[John F Kennedy III]

Neo-Con= Socialist in a red tie holding a bible he's never read.

[enhanced_deficit]

Actually Mark Levin opposed invasion of Iraq and has called for equal rights/liberation of Palestinians.. he is not a neocon.

[John F Kennedy III]

Actually Mark Levin opposed invasion of Iraq and has called for equal rights/liberation of Palestinians.. he is not a neocon.

Under any label, Mark Levin is a shill for the system that is oppressing us.

[kahless]

Google seems to disagree also, if you type 'Mark Levin neoconservative' without quotes in Google it instead displays.

Showing results for Mark Levin Conservative
Search instead for Mark Levin neoconservative

I suspect Neocons are distancing themselves from the name since people are waking up to what Neo-Conservatives really are, that they are not Conservative. Of course the media and the internet will help likely help in rebranding them as simply being Conservative.

[Todd]

Oh yeah, and as Mark Levin informed his audience today, anyone who uses the term "neo-conservative" is probably anti-Semitic. :rolleyes: He also assured us that there are no neo-Nazis or anti-Semites in Ukraine. :confused:

I've been told Neo Con is just another way of saying "dirty jew". If that's so, it's ironic that they are supporting Ukrainian leadership that is Fascist in nature.

[AuH20]

Google seems to disagree also, if you type 'Mark Levin neoconservative' without quotes in Google it instead displays.

Showing results for Mark Levin Conservative
Search instead for Mark Levin neoconservative

I suspect Neocons are distancing themselves from the name since people are waking up to what Neo-Conservatives really are, that they are not Conservative. Of course the media and the internet will help likely help in rebranding them as simply being Conservative.

Too many people paint with the broad brush of neoconservative these days, when they don't know what they're talking about frankly. That along with the word Isolationalist. Neoconservative and isolationist are two of the most incorrectly used words in our political dialogue.

[cajuncocoa]

Under any label, Mark Levin is a shill for the system that is oppressing us.
^^All one really needs to know.

[cajuncocoa]

Google seems to disagree also, if you type 'Mark Levin neoconservative' without quotes in Google it instead displays.

Showing results for Mark Levin Conservative
Search instead for Mark Levin neoconservative

I suspect Neocons are distancing themselves from the name since people are waking up to what Neo-Conservatives really are, that they are not Conservative. Of course the media and the internet will help likely help in rebranding them as simply being Conservative.
Maybe Levin is a closet Liberal then, since Google doesn't reject the search parameters. :rolleyes:

[kahless]

Maybe Levin is a closet Liberal then, since Google doesn't reject the search parameters. :rolleyes:

Kind of surprised to see Google actually go that far on a search request that was not a spelling error or an unusual keyword. To actually change my request from NeoConservative to Conservative means someone at Google programmed that symbolic link at some point either intentionally or out of ignorance.

[cajuncocoa]

Kind of surprised to see Google actually go that far on a search request that was not a spelling error or an unusual keyword. To actually change my request from NeoConservative to Conservative means someone at Google programmed that symbolic link at some point either intentionally or out of ignorance.
I wouldn't be surprised that it might be intentional. Neocons have been trying to co-opt the meaning of "conservative" for years.

[Warlord]

Caught a bit of the last hour of Levin, and he had an author on who wrote a book about the one state solution for Israel. Of course they also had to talk about the existential threat that Iran poses...and how we need a leader who will do something about it. Maybe they will push Lindsey Graham for President in 2016?

No, Ted Cruz

[oyarde]

No, Ted Cruz

I think so .

[cajuncocoa]

No, Ted Cruz
of course.

[JustinTime]

Never let a crisis go to waste, and they are using Ukraine and desparation to come up with any criticism of Obama to gin up the "strong on foreign policy conservatism" thats been waning since the latter Bush years.

[Brian4Liberty]

Too many people paint with the broad brush of neoconservative these days, when they don't know what they're talking about frankly. That along with the word Isolationalist. Neoconservative and isolationist are two of the most incorrectly used words in our political dialogue.

I tend to stick with the actual definition that the neo-conservatives gave themselves, best exemplified by PNAC. Then there are those who follow the neo-conservative foreign policy, with no knowledge of the background or agenda. I used to be one of the misled and ignorant sheep.

Yesterday, Michael Savage called Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity the neo-conservative radio media. He pretty much has it correct, as far as foreign policy goes.

[Madison320]

Actually Mark Levin opposed invasion of Iraq

You sure about that? I recall him being one of the biggest cheerleaders for invading Iraq.

Here's an excerpt from his book "Liberty and Tyranny" where he defends the invasion:

"The key is that these decisions must never be motivated by utopianism or imperialism but by actual circumstances requiring the defense of America against real threats. If the war in Iraq is understood as an effort to defeat a hostile regime that threatened both America’s allies and interests in the region, the war and the subsequent attempts at democratic governance in that country can be justified as consistent with founding and conservative principles"

[Brian4Liberty]

Wolfowitz was on the Fox News Sunday panel today. It seems they have rehabilitated him, even touting him as "former President of the World Bank".

History has been erased.


Wolfowitz, 63, is facing the biggest crisis of his career: a scandal involving promotions and pay hikes to his girlfriend that threatens his control of the world’s largest and most influential anti-poverty institution, which doles out some $20 billion annually in loans and grants to developing countries.

After a week of shifting explanations by bank officials, a clearly-beleaguered Wolfowitz on Thursday announced at a Washington press briefing that he made "a mistake for which I am sorry" over his handling of a promotion and huge pay increases for bank staffer Shaha Riza, who had a romantic relationship with Wolfowitz that precedes his appointment to the bank’s helm in 2005.

Wolfowitz declined to elaborate on what those mistakes were - but said he now regretted having been involved at all in her job-related negotiations at the bank. And, within hours of his apology, the bank’s ‘staff association,’ made up of half the bank’s 10,000 employees, called for his resignation.
...
The pressure has been building rapidly on Wolfowitz, following allegations that he may have broken bank rules in ordering hikes in job status and pay for Riza. (Both are divorced.) The main problem is that Wolfowitz may have done this without consulting organs of the bank board that would otherwise deal with such conflicts of interest.
...
The controversy dates back to 2005, when Wolfowitz, then the Bush Administrations No. 2 man at the Pentagon, joined the bank. At that time, Riza, who joined the bank in 1997, occupied a communications advisor job involving the Middle East region. In recognition of Wolfowitz’s conflict of interest as her ultimate boss, Riza was moved to a post at the U.S. State Dept. where she worked directly for Liz Cheney, the daughter of the vice president — even while remaining on the Bank payroll. Her job title was bumped up to a managerial level.

Her tax-free World Bank salary also moved—in fact it rocketed, from $132,660 to $193,590 by 2006 — making her better paid that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who earns a gross salary of $186,000, and pays taxes on it.
...

More:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/12/wolfowitz-may-not-survive-world-bank-scandal-involving-girlfriend-promotion-pay/



World Bank Scandal: Paul Wolfowitz's Fatal Weakness

By Juan Cole

The cronyism that may cost him his World Bank job is also what caused the Iraq debacle.

The executive board of the World Bank mulled a possible vote of no confidence in the leadership of its president, Paul Wolfowitz, this weekend. How did the renowned neoconservative and former deputy secretary of defense, a primary architect of the Iraq war, come to these straits? Is he, as he claims, the victim of a smear campaign by those who dislike his politics? Or do the charges of favoritism and nepotism reflect genuine character flaws?

The small morality play unfolding at the World Bank tells us something significant about how the United States became bogged down in the Iraq quagmire when Wolfowitz was highly influential at the Department of Defense. The simple fact is that Wolfowitz has throughout his entire career demonstrated a penchant for cronyism and for smearing and marginalizing perceived rivals as tactics for getting his way. He has been arrogant and highhanded in dismissing the views of wiser and more informed experts, exhibiting a narcissism that is also apparent in his personal life. Indeed, these tactics are typical of what might be called the "neoconservative style."

Soon after becoming head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz lapsed into his typical favoritism, even while he was, ironically, decrying the technique as practiced by governments of the global South. Instead of having an open search for some key positions and allowing for promotions from within, Wolfowitz simply installed Republicans from the Bush administration in high positions with enormous salaries. He brought Kevin Kellems from Dick Cheney's office (where he had been communications director) and gave him a tax-free salary said to have been as high as $250,000 a year. As Wolfowitz's new senior advisor, Kellems was leap-frogged over hundreds of officials with serious credentials in development work, something about which he knew little. When representing Cheney, Kellems went to great lengths to defend the vice president's implausible conspiracy theory linking Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Another controversial Wolfowitz appointment was Robin Cleveland, whom he made his assistant. She had been an aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell and then associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. She had been implicated in a corruption and nepotism scandal at the Pentagon, but the Department of Defense had determined it did not have jurisdiction to investigate her.
...
Experienced, high-level World Bank officials began resigning in droves as they saw Wolfowitz institute a reign of cronies with little development experience and massive salaries. The management style of the newcomers, cliquish among themselves and harsh toward outsiders, alienated those who remained.

None of these appointments, however unpopular, proved Wolfowitz's undoing. It was the provisions he made for his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, that finally blew up in his face.
...
More:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world-bank-scandal-paul-wolfowitz-s-fatal-weakness-a-482945.html

[Brian4Liberty]

It's also been interesting to see the previously "hidden" neoconservatives come out on TV and radio. For instance, some guy from the Heritage Foundation was on a show, and he was 100% towing the neoconservative line on foreign policy. Maybe he is a teocon, instead of a full blown neocon, who knows.

[acptulsa]

I don't approve of Russia getting involved, but its not really the same thing if Russia gets involved compared to the US. At least with Russia its their own continent.

Add that to the fact that Putin sat back and waited until the EU and the CIA gave him an excuse by moving first, and we really played to his hand. He's gaining territory, but he can say with a straight face that his game isn't imperialist, but that he's merely playing defense. How could we give him that gift?

If this is the 'superior proactive foreign policy that the modern world demands' that they powers that be say is their big selling point, Rand Paul and the libertarians are looking better every single day.

The EU, the CIA and the neocons are making dumb chess moves. If they had told us what they were up to, we could have told them they were making dumb chess moves. And now they want us to beat up Putin because they're pissed that he can play chess.

Anyone really want to die for that?

[Brian4Liberty]

It's also been interesting to see the previously "hidden" neoconservatives come out on TV and radio. For instance, some guy from the Heritage Foundation was on a show, and he was 100% towing the neoconservative line on foreign policy. Maybe he is a teocon, instead of a full blown neocon, who knows.

Saw another somewhat unknown pundit on Fox News today cheer-leading neoconservative foreign policy. Probably a good idea to note actual examples of this trend. Here's who it was:


Bret Stephens

Bret Louis Stephens (born November 21, 1973) is an American journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2013. He works for The Wall Street Journal as the foreign-affairs columnist and the deputy editorial page editor, responsible for the editorial pages of the Journal's European and Asian editions. He was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post from 2002 to 2004.
...
In 2005, Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. He is also a frequent contributor to Commentary magazine.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens

[vita3]

I guess the good news is the masses are not buying their bullshit.

Need to really stop this lying, stealing deceptive group. Who have caused so much damage & want MORE.

[Brian4Liberty]

And to follow up Obama's speech on Ukraine, Fox News (aka neoconservative central) had John Bolton on to tell us how weak Obama is against that scary Putin.

[AngryCanadian]

And to follow up Obama's speech on Ukraine, Fox News (aka neoconservative central) had John Bolton on to tell us how weak Obama is against that scary Putin.
As for what John Bolton the war monger stated what makes him think an Republican would have done any differently then Obama this idiot knows they cant attack Russia or half of the world even India will dump the American dollar is that the risk the American Republicans are willing to take?

[Brian4Liberty]

As for what John Bolton the war monger stated what makes him think an Republican would have done any differently then Obama this idiot knows they cant attack Russia or half of the world even India will dump the American dollar is that the risk the American Republicans are willing to take?

They want someone who will rant and rave like a lunatic or like McCain or Hillary. Then they want to drop some bombs on Iran, just to show Putin they're serious.

[Brian4Liberty]

Saw another somewhat unknown pundit on Fox News today cheer-leading neoconservative foreign policy. Probably a good idea to note actual examples of this trend. Here's who it was:

Update: it looks like he gets his own page on the neoconservative tracking website.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Stephens_Bret

Here's your one stop list of those who push neoconservative foreign policy in the US:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profiles/category/individuals/

[surf]

thanks for the list. nice to see Cruz identified

[Brian4Liberty]

thanks for the list. nice to see Cruz identified

Well, the people who make the website certainly won't hold back against any Republicans, since it is progressive in nature...

http://www.ips-dc.org/about

[Brian4Liberty]

Just taking notes...

Bret Stephens and James Pethokoukis are a couple of the latest neoconservatives to pop their heads up.

[Brian4Liberty]

Saved for future reference.

James Jeffrey, neoconservative:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?449819-Washington-Post-quot-U-S-should-send-troops-to-quell-Ukraine-crisis-quot

[acptulsa]

Neoconservatives coming out of the woodwork.

Well if that keeps happening, paneling on the walls will never be stylish again.

[Brian4Liberty]

Another one...

A guy named Stephen Yates was just on Fox pushing the neoconservative agenda. Hadn't noticed him on TV before.

He seems to be associated with Heritage:
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/y/stephen-yates

From his company's website:

Since 2006, he has been senior advisor to presidential campaigns, a frequent media commentator, and CEO of DC International Advisory. The analytical and advisory practice assesses political risk and opportunity and provides situational awareness of developments in Washington and select foreign capitals.

Before opening DC International Advisory, Mr. Yates served in the White House as Deputy Assistant to the Vice President [Dick Cheney] for National Security Affairs from 2001 through 2005. During his tenure in government, he was deeply involved in the development and execution of U.S foreign policy priorities.
...
Mr. Yates was senior campaign advisor and director of national security staff for Newt 2012 and was senior Asia advisor for the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee during the 2008 campaign.

Mr. Yates previously served as Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation and an analyst at the National Security Agency.
...
More:
http://www.dciadvisory.com/stephen-yates.php

[GunnyFreedom]

Who's defending a Russian invasion?
Actually, quite a few here did, and quite passionately.

We should stay the hell out.

Russia should stay the hell out.
hear here!

Now, let's assume Russia does not stay the hell out.

What then?

War over Ukraine?

Pretty sure nobody around here was advocating THAT though.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Just taking notes...

Bret Stephens and James Pethokoukis are a couple of the latest neoconservatives to pop their heads up.

All the USUAL SUSPECTS have the credentials to be initiated into the grand plans... BTW, Pethokoukis is a media whore and chameleon, he'll morph himself into anything that brings in a bigger paycheck. He's on Twitter I've watched him closely since 2008.

Back to the Inner Cabal Club:
Stephens studied political philosophy at the University of Chicago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago). He earned a masters in comparative politics [3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens#cite_note-nytm1-3) from the London School of Economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics). He is married to Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim, a music critic who writes for the New York Times. The couple have three children and reside in New York City.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens#cite_note-wlstref1-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens#cite_note-5) Career Stephens began his career at the Journal as an op-ed editor in New York and later worked as an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal_Europe) in Brussels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels). In 2006, he took over the "Global View" column from George Melloan when he retired. In 2009, he was named deputy editorial page editor following the retirement of Melanie Kirkpatrick.

Between 2002 and 2004, he was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Post), a position he assumed at age 28 – the youngest person to fill the role. He won the 2008 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Breindel_Award_for_Excellence_in_Opinion_Jour nalism) and the 2010 Bastiat Prize. In 2005, Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum). He is also a frequent contributor to Commentary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_Magazine) magazine.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens#cite_note-6)

Stephens won the annual Pulitzer Prize for Commentary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Commentary) recognizing his 2012 columns for the Journal, citing "his incisive columns on American foreign policy and domestic politics, often enlivened by a contrarian twi

[JustinTime]

bound to happen and their rhetoric resonates stronger since they now have the back drop of libertarians and liberals defending the hell out of a Russian invasion

I havent noticed that many liberals defending the Russian, ah-hem... "invasion". Most of the textbook liberals and Obama worshippers seem to be fine with beating the war drum as long as their guy is the C-i-C .

Now what I call "true blue" liberals are rooted in their ideology and seem to oppose it.

BTW, I cant call whats happened in Crimea an invasion, for Gods sake most Crimeans want to be part of Russia, theyre ethnic Russians, they speak Russian.