The Neocon Media Offensive…and Hillary Clinton
Paul Wolfowitz and other sniveling Neocons are making the rounds on corporate media as events in Iraq escalate. If there was such a thing as an audacity meter, these fuckers would probably break ’em with statements like Wolfowitz made to Chuck Todd. You know, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of Iraq’s destruction who went on to scandalize his tenure at the World Bank. Thanks to MSNBC this insightful piece of shit got an opportunity to spout incendiary non-sense, stating explicitly that intervening militarily in Iraq is about “preventing another 9/11“. What the fucking fuck?
Who ultimately benefits from this ISIS offensive eliciting delusional rants from un-prosecuted Neocons like Wolfowitz is difficult to discern. I’m hoping to see a post from JC soon because I know he’s been digging into it. One of my favorite Counterpunch contributors, Michael Whitney, smells something fishy in the way this has been reported:
There’s something that doesn’t ring-true about the coverage of crisis in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the media reiterates the same, tedious storyline over and over again with only the slightest changes in the narrative. For example, I was reading an article in the Financial Times by Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, where he says that Maliki’s military forces in Mosul “melted away”. Interestingly, the Haass op-ed was followed by a piece by David Gardener who used almost the very same language. He said the “army melts away.” So, I decided to thumb through the news a bit and see how many other journalists were stung by the “melted away” bug. And, as it happens, there were quite a few, including Politico, NBC News, News Sentinel, Global Post, the National Interest, ABC News etc. Now, the only way an unusual expression like that would pop up with such frequency would be if the authors were getting their talking points from a central authority. (which they probably do.) But the effect, of course, is the exact opposite than what the authors intend, that is, these cookie cutter stories leave readers scratching their heads and feeling like something fishy is going on.
Whitney goes on to suggest there is an alignment between the objectives of ISIS and the foreign policy objectives of the Obama regime:
What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.
Destroying Iraq has cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives (though we don’t do body counts) and over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. Despite those incredible costs, the jihadists getting US support against Assad in Syria have expanded their reign of terror into Iraq, creating this obscene opportunity for Neocon cheerleaders to go on a cable news blitzkrieg.
Speaking of Neocons, b at Moon of Alabama highlights an awkward endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Robert Kagan that recently appeared in the New York Times. Here is the relevant quote:
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
For those keeping score, Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland, the subject of the infamously leaked phone call exposing US meddling in Ukraine.
What should we call Democrats who align their foreign policy with Neoconservatives? Maybe The Polish Wolf has a good idea, though his writing on these important topics of America’s role in the world have been curiously silent recently.
Regardless, it should be well established that corporate Democrats like Hillary Clinton have more in common with Neoconservatives than she does with the voters being conditioned to accept her coronation in 2016.