Convergence

[A_Wanderer]

The Paranoid Style
Iraq: Where socialists and anarchists join in with racialists and paleocons.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

It is becoming nearly impossible to sort the extreme rhetoric of the antiwar Left from that of the fringe paleo-Right. Both see the Iraqi war through the same lenses: the American effort is bound to fail and is a deep reflection of American pathology.

An anguished Cindy Sheehan calls Bush "the world's biggest terrorist." And she goes on to blame Israel for the death of her son ("Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel").

Her antiwar venom could easily come right out of the mouth of a more calculating David Duke. Perhaps that's why he lauded her anti-Semitism: "Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media."

This odd symbiosis began right after 9/11. Then the lunatic Left mused about the "pure chaos" of the falling "two huge buck teeth" twin towers, lamented that they were more full of Democrats than Republicans, and saw the strike as righteous payback from third-world victims.

The mirror-imaging fundamentalists and censors in turn saw the attack as an angry God's retribution either for an array of our mortal sins or America's tilting toward Israel.

In Iraq, the Left thinks we are unfairly destroying others; the ultra-Right that we are being destroyed ourselves. The former alleges that we are bullying in our global influence, the latter that we are collapsing from our decadence.

But both, in their exasperation at George Bush's insistence on seeing Iraq emerge from the Hussein nightmare years with some sort of constitutional government, have embraced the paranoid style of personal invective.

They employ half-truths and spin conspiracy theories to argue that the war was unjust, impossible to win, and hatched through the result of a brainwashing of a devious few neocons.

I'll consider four diverse attacks (by a socialist, anarchist, racialist, and paleocon) on my support for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and the effort to prompt constitutional government in his place, that are emblematic of this bizarre new Left/Right nexus, shared pessimism, and paranoid methods.

link

 

[LoveTown]

well, as Ive made it very clear, I don't support this war. Mostly because I dont think it was started with the pure-as-the-driven-snow intent as our president would like us to believe. I think it was started over a grudge, over bruised egos and over oil. Those are all horrible reasons to go over there and kill people...and to have our young men and women killed as well.

That being said, the article you posted is extremely interesting. Cindy Sheehan may be protesting a war I don't support. However, I am disturbed by her anti-semitic type remarks. I also question if she supported the war before her son was killed. If she did, then yes I feel badly that she lost her son. But, you cant play with a match then sue the makers of the match after you burn your fingers....if that makes sense

 

[financeguy]

Ok so you go from posting articles from Christopher Hitchens (helpful hint to those wishing to establish the credibility or otherwise of Christopher Hitchens: google "Christopher Hitchens alcohol" and see how many links it throws up. Say no more, lol.) to some guy called 'Victor Davis Hanson'.

Who the fuck is Victor Davis Hanson and what is his background as a matter of interest?

And more importantly why is he smearing Cindy?

Not sure why I even bother asking.

It is abundantly clear that the tactics of the Troskyite neo-con movement are now based largely on smear campaigns, as their fantasy little world falls to dust around them.

 

[financeguy]

Quote from the article:-

"But then we remember that the prime directive of the hard Left is to be against anything that Bush is for — even if it means praising the hyper-capitalist, commodities speculator George Soros, whose machinations once nearly ruined the Bank of England along with its small depositors."

Seriously, what an idiot. The Bank of England is not a private bank with 'small depositors', what the fuck is this guy smoking? The Bank of England is the UK equivalent of the US Federal Reserve. The reason Soros speculated against sterling back in '92 was that the pound was over-valued. If he hadn't done it, sooner or later, other speculators would. The market finds its own level.

A_Wanderer, seriously, why waste our time with this kind of crap article?

I want those five minutes back.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The concept of independent events seems to have no bearing in FYM. Yes I have posted some articles from Hitchens before; he is a trot who's analysis of the situation I find to be generally interesting. I also read and post articles from other sources and collumists ~ including VDH who delivers some very well constructed and thought out analysis of the GWOT and has been doing so for years.

You are free to write the articles hypothesis that these various political points have a point of convergence in opposing the war in Iraq as a piece of neocon propaganda.

 

[financeguy]

I also read and post articles from other sources and collumists ~ including VDH who delivers some very well constructed and thought out analysis of the GWOT and has been doing so for years.

Well constructed to you perhaps but on a very brief perusal I spotted a glaring error. Now where can I get those five minutes back?

 

[LoveTown]

A_Wanderer, speaking on how I sometimes feel towards you... I get frustrated...I find myself saying "pick a side!!" but you know, the fact that you don't and that you look at all the angles is VERY cool. I have a lot of respect for you. Keep looking at all those angles and keep challenging people like me who tend to only see the one side

 

[anitram]

The right was full of love for George Soros in the 1980s. He was pouring millions into Eastern European Communist states in an effort to subvert the oppressive regimes through intellectual and academic means. He did some incredibly important and influential work then and Reagan et al salivated all over him privately.

This effort to demonize him is recent. God forbid anyone disagrees with the BushCo, you're immediately branded an extremist even when you've been sharing their bed for decades before that.

 

[financeguy]

^ Spot on Anitram.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I have picked a side; it just doesn't match the often false dichotomy of left and right.

All of these writers represent a different form of convergence ~ the mirror of the one described in the article; you have leftists like Hitchens, conservatives. libertarians and a whole manner of other groups that have an interest in seeing the "stability" of the Middle East broken down as a means to fight totalitarian Islamism. There are surely flaws that have become apparent; Iraq will probably become a soft Islamist state ~ but can it preserve democracy at the same time, what long term effect will that have.

 

[LoveTown]

right you are Wanderer.

and anitram, there is so much truth in what you say about being called an extremist.

 

[U2Bama]

A_Wanderer, speaking on how I sometimes feel towards you... I get frustrated...I find myself saying "pick a side!!" but you know, the fact that you don't and that you look at all the angles is VERY cool. I have a lot of respect for you. Keep looking at all those angles and keep challenging people like me who tend to only see the one side

In this single post, someone whom I usually disagree with (LoveTown) said exactly what was on my mind; thank you, LoveTown.

And thank YOU, A_Wanderer for often littering this place with "smear campaigns," "crap articles" and other articles which "waste our time." I must have some type of defect, because I enjoy seeing articles in here that go against the grain and make us think. They are not a waste of my time. And I for one agree with you and your articles on some issues and disagree on others.

I especially enjoyed your Cohen article from Guardian a couple of weeks ago. Keep up the crap!

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

Much obliged, I think that the authors deserve some of the credit though

 

[LoveTown]

Thanks Bama! I'm happy to give credit where it's due. I'm also happy you are back and posting....even if we don't agree very often

 

[U2Bama]

I think that the authors deserve some of the credit though

Oh, no, that wouldn't be appropriate, because we don't know who the fudge the author is nor his background. He may have an alcohol problem or go out drinking with Hitchens or Cohen or Gene freakin' Simmons.

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh, no, that wouldn't be appropriate, because we don't know who the fudge the author is nor his background. He may have an alcohol problem or go out drinking with Hitchens or Cohen or Gene freakin' Simmons.

~U2Alabama

lol; the authors background can matter and effect the importance of their comments; thats why Kissinger makes for a very powerful advocate (except in circles that disagree with him) but an anonymous blogger is more or less useless.

As far as Hitchens and booze go all I can think of is relevence. How is his propensity towards alcohol effect his arguments any more than his political biases, blinkered world view and single issue positions.

 

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Victor Davis Hanson is a well respected military historian. His background is also in the classics. He has written some really good books, the latest of which is titled (IIRC) Ripples of Battle. Also check out his books the Western Way of War, Carnage and Culture, and Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece. I think he taught at Stanford (he may even have his PhD from there also).

 

[financeguy]

Victor Davis Hanson is a well respected military historian. His background is also in the classics. He has written some really good books, the latest of which is titled (IIRC) Ripples of Battle. Also check out his books the Western Way of War, Carnage and Culture, and Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece. I think he taught at Stanford (he may even have his PhD from there also).

Thanks for the heads up.

It looks as though his expertise on financial affairs is not at the level of his military expertise.

 

[melon]

I read this article, and I see "fearmongering wheel reinvention." Either that, or I was prophetic at the age of 12. I said a long time ago that the "extremes" of all ideologies have much in common far before 9/11 and the "war on terror."

However, the trouble I have with this article is that it paints all dissent as "extremist." That is, unless you love Bush and you love the war 100% unquestioningly, you must be somewhere in bed with either Benito Mussolini or Joseph Stalin. And, more importantly, it firmly establishes "neo-conservative" as the "mainstream," without ever having to say it at all. Cindy Sheehan is not an extremist; she is the face of *vocalized* "soccer mom" dissent. It won't always be the most eloquent of protest, but the average person is far from perfect.

I do appreciate your search for truth, which I also believe to be earnest. I just happen to disagree with this article based on its merits, not its sources.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

Indeed; I think that these articles generally write to a specific audience, as most do, they do not challenge the given mindset of that environment ~ which is true for most.

 

[financeguy]

The problem with neo con writers painting others as the extremists is that they are the most far out of the lot in terms of their weird marriage of Trotskyism and the One Best Way approach.

Simplistic one-side-fits-all doctrines gave us the gulags of Siberia and today another simplistic world view has given us the gulag of Abu Ghraib.

Sorry I forgot, Abu Ghraib is IN NO WAY comparable to a gulag etc, etc.