Kerry blows Agent's cover?

[Tholiak Eladamri]

This isnt debunked..just libbies trying to do some damage control.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153145,00.html

Notice there isnt any outcry about this, but if it was a republican....

[Chants Evensong]

We all, I hope, recognize that Taranto and the WSJ editorial page lean right. I lean right. Other people on this board lean left.

I have yet, however, to see it established that merely attacking the political viewpoint of a particular opinion is enough to refute that opinion.

Does anyone else have any actual criticisms of Taranto's opinion, or are we going to just leave it essentially unrebutted?

[Chants Evensong]

You may be right, Tholiak.

From a follow-up to the AP story, from the NYT yesterday:

Though Mr. Armstrong had been identified in news reports two years ago about his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba, that was when he was the national intelligence officer for Latin America, and his name was no secret. When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name.

(I would provide a link, but I am not a subsciber to the NYT).

[Relbeek Einre]

Notice there isnt any outcry about this, but if it was a republican....

I see more of an outcry about this than about the Plame thing, and as (Chants?) noted, this one appears to be a tragic mistake rather than a deliberate act of character assassination.

Chants: Taranto's got a long record of distortionism, enough for me to presume him false rather than check up on his facts. I admit this is laziness, but there we are.

[Partha]

We all, I hope, recognize that Taranto and the WSJ editorial page lean right. I lean right. Other people on this board lean left.

Actually, if you really ARE a neocon, you actually lean left. Far left. Trotsky left. With an inordinate love of militaria. But that's another point.

[Chants Evensong]

Well. It's a theory, Partha. If taken to a logical conclusion, then the roots of our political environment today do, ironically, stem from nacsent Soviet Russia.

Some neo cons have roots to Trotsky to at least the degree that the present day radical left have roots to Stalin. Names like Walter Benjamin and Eric Hobsbawn. All Hardcore Stalinists. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed under the weight of a no-incentive amd insestive command driven economy, which robbed free speech and self-determination, these defenders of Stalin have left us with our landscape today.

The neo-cons abandonded Trotsky long ago. The left, however, clings to the beleif that somehow, somewhere, the US is wrong. They say we brough 9-11 on ourselves. They say we are no better than Saddam. Corporations control Amerika. The list is legion.

Refelxive hatred for America with no solutions on one side. Neo cons who co-opted the powerful liberal principles of thirty years ago on the other. One rooted in a discarded Trotsky; the other rooted in an embraced Stalin. One has a plan; the other throws pies.

It's just a theory. Partha.

[Partha]

The neo-cons abandonded Trotsky long ago.

I find no evidence in that. I'll reexamine what Trotsky material I have at home and get back to you.

[Chants Evensong]

The idea that neo cons embrace the permanent proletariat revolution is, to some, ridiculous on it's face.

But if you do not yet know, then yes, research it.

[Partha]

A quote everyone can argue, from 'Terrorism and Communism'.

"The only practical solution of the economic difficulties is to view the population of the entire country as a reservoir of labor power - almost an inexhaustible source - and to introduce strict order into the registration, mobilization, and utilization of that labor power...."

Pretty telling to me, both in terms of how closely Communism and Socialims really are, and in how neocons view labor, if you credit that they never left behind Trotsky.

[Ddrak]

The left, however, clings to the beleif that somehow, somewhere, the US is wrong. They say we brough 9-11 on ourselves. They say we are no better than Saddam. Corporations control Amerika. The list is legion.

Huh?

Do you seriously believe that?

Dd

[Partha]

The idea that neo cons embrace the permanent proletariat revolution is, to some, ridiculous on it's face.

But if you do not yet know, then yes, research it.

I'll submit that since the entrance of neocons into power, there has been a permanent state of enforced revolution that they've been attempting to implement. After all, it's public knowledge that Wolfowitz, Perle, et. al. were lobbying for (and advocating in position papers) the removal of Saddam Hussein, and in fact subordinated American national security problems to 'regime change'. Since then, we've had aggressive statements from them directed at Syria, Iran, and North Korea, all with that goal in mind - the conversion by direct action of states into forms most useful for their purposes. So far, the only thing that's stopped them is the relative weakness of the US military - only 'weak' if your goal is forced regime change across the globe.

The key to my eyes is the removal of the idea of 'proletariat' from the equation. However, Trotsky repeatedly defined the party as leading the proletariat, not as part of it. Neocons similarly seem to believe that as long as they can forcibly remove the opposition (Tsarists, dictators, what have you), that the people will follow their flag.

[Chants Evensong]

Ddrak said:

Do you seriously believe that?

No, not really. But I don't really buy into this Neocon ='s Trotskyite Worker's Party Unite claptrap either. Partha is being absurd, and you know it.

But look at Partha's last post. He is essentially calling the US evil because the neocons are articulating solutions to evil regimes, North Korea, Syria, Iran. He provides no solutions to the neocon plan. Continued starvation of millions, stoning of children, execution of thousands without trial is an acceptable status quo to him. His real goal is to label Americal policy as evil. Solutions? Who needs them, as long as he can tar and feather Amerika.

Just the rhetorical equivalent of a pie in the face.

[Relbeek Einre]

There is a very solid argument to be made that the origins of the modern neoconservative movement stem from Trotsky more directly than any other single source.

Though the implementation is more reminiscent of Lenin.

[Chants Evensong]

Yes, Relbeek, we know it is a popular opinion, Relbeek.

But to quote Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, Trotsky and neocon ain't even in the same ball park, hell, it aint even the same league, Fuck, it aint even the same goddamn sport!

To which, Relbeek should respond, hey, Chants, Can I get a unilateral foot massage?

To which, I would be cornered into a Fuck you man.

Yes, State power is important to both Trosky and neocons, I suppose.

[Ddrak]

No, Chants. Partha said nothing about "the US" in that post. If that were the case then every single person who disliked Clinton is also an America-hater.

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

Yes he did, Dd. Otherwise his statemente regarding the "neocons entrance into power" is meaningless.

[Ddrak]

So you are contending that "America" is synonymous with "the party in power"?

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

The party in control makes foriegn policy. That's how it works in a democracy, Dd.

[Partha]

But look at Partha's last post. He is essentially bitchslapping my lack of examination of the neocon philosophy and forcing me to redirect with an ad hominem attack that I wouldn't ordinarily try if I had a leg to stand on. But look at the shiny object!

Fixed it for you, Chants. Now perhaps you'd like to try, I dunno, debating the points raised?[/quote]

[Partha]

On second thought, don't bother, I'm not sure I want you to blow synapses.