Naomi Wolf continues to weave her conspiracy fantasies

A few weeks ago, I used Naomi Wolf’s latest anti-American article as the springboard for a larger post about the new conspiracy theorists among us.  Well, she’s back, and this time the Confederate Yankee is leading the attack, exposing her ignorance about matters historic, as well as her logical fallacies and paranoid fears.  She’s very, very smart (and always has been), but my God, does that girl lack common sense.


9 Responses

  1. Naomi Wolf was such a fan of state power the that she once advocated government coercion to restrict male reproductive rights by forcing men to submit to temporary sterilization & require government licensing to be allowed to father children. Her turnabout on the lofty idealism embodied by the “spectacular state” reveals what a fraud she is. What a joke that she, of all people, is now pretending to espouse the cause of paleoconservatives like Will Grigg and the John Birch Society in preserving civil liberties and diminishing state power.

    She is like the neocons who draw their inspiration from Irving Kristol, an associate, close colleague, and committed follower of Leon Trotsky, founder of the Red Army. Where Trotsky once preached global revolution and argued that communism could only succed if it was a global phenomenon, the neocons advocate spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun and pan-Islamic regional transformation that seeks to coercively deracinate Muslim culture – an overreaching and self-destructive ideology that can scarcely be believed to be “conservative.”

    Wolf is every bit as much of a fraud as Norman Podhoretz.. Scratch the surface of either one’s glossy and superficial veneer and what will be revealed is nothing more than an old school leftist boasting a bold new look.

  2. San Fran,

    Where have neocons advocated spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun? The Iraq war was not some dream of democracy pulled out of a hat. It was a response to the threat posed by Saddam should he shake the fetters of sanctions and no-fly zones. He was well on his way to doing this as we knew from his starving children propaganda before the invasion and the oil for food revelations since. It is true that neocons believe democracy if preferable to tyrany and should be supported, but the military element came into play because Saddam was not being contained , because the UN was being played for a fool, and because America was being blamed for the results of his unspeakable rule.

  3. Did you know, San Fran, that hating too many sides and people inevitably ends up dsirupting your reality matrix given the imbalance between dark and light, good and evil, etc?

  4. Weimar, I assume that when it comes to the pernicious effects of ethnic hatred you of all people would know what it does to you.

    As for permanent revolution. That is the name of the game – regional transformation of the middle east. What threat did Saddam pose? I take it you aren’t aware of the intelligence we had from Hussein Kamal that Saddam had no WMD’s and that this was confirmed by both the IAEA & UNSCOM.

    The policy was always regime change & regional transformation. I assume you’ve probably not read Michael Ledeen’s War Against the Terror Masters in which he advocates using American military power to overthrow regimes unfriendly to Israel. Here is some of what he writes:
    “First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize…”

    “Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

    Passages like this owe more to Leon Trotsky than to Robert Taft and betray a Jacobin streak in neoconservatism that cannot be reconciled with any concept of true conservatism.

    But the nuttiness described above is typical of the neoconservative strain of thinking. Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol bragged that the coming war “is going to spread and engulf a number of countries. … It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. … [I]t is possible that the demise of some ‘moderate’ Arab regimes may be just round the corner.”

    Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol, boasting that we embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission “to fight World War IV—the war against militant Islam.” By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘“friends” of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the “timorous counsels” of the “incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell,” wrote Podhoretz, and “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated [Islamic world].” As the war against al-Qaeda required that we destroy the Taliban, Podhoretz wrote,

    “We may willy-nilly find ourselves forced … to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies in the Islamic world (including that other sponsor of terrorism, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority). I can even [imagine] the turmoil of this war leading to some new species of an imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region more amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place. … I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more come to wonder why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage over us and everyone else.

    Eliot Cohen’s bellicose rhetoric is quite similar. He was pushing for war with Iran right after 9/11:
    “Afghanistan constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign. . . . First, if one front in this war is the contest for free and moderate governance in the Muslim world, the U.S. should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces there. The immediate choice lies before the U.S. government in regard to Iran. . . . The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden.”

    Then there’s Robert Kagan who wrote “America must reconcile herself to an era of ‘nation-building'[sic] on a grand scale, and with no exit strategy.”

    The push for endelss war has been corroborated by Wesley Clark in an interview with Democracy Now!
    “About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

    So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!””

    All these wars are to be fought against nations which pose little threat to America but are hostile to Israel. Why spill American blood and treasure and risk a global recession by sending energy prices sky-high in the name of this Jacobin ideology?

    If you want to know more about noeconservatism, how it originates from a thoroughly unamerican political ideology and its roots in the doctrines of Strauss, Leon Trotsky, and Machiavelli, Congressman Ron Paul’s speech NeoConned! provides a useful primer. If you would prefer to watch a video rather than read a speech just click on the link to my name above to find a C-Span recording of this speech.

  5. Most of the things you wrote, Sam, are good things. Like any good principle plan, all it needs are the proper details.

  6. All these wars are to be fought against nations which pose little threat to America but are hostile to Israel. Why spill American blood and treasure and risk a global recession by sending energy prices sky-high in the name of this Jacobin ideology?

    As you may notice, Book, when Hizbollah sheds American blood in Lebanon, it is only a little threat to such as Sam. They don’t lose out after all, since their America is not real or at least only real to them and theirs.

    Somalia owes us about 100,000 bodies for MOgadishu.

    Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.

    Saddam in Iraq owed us his life and the life of his tribe because he tortured and disappeared American POWs.

    Syria has a little matter of a blood debt concerning the amount of Americans killed through their economic aid of your small threatening nations, Sam.

    Libya’s got too many hijackings of air that wasn’t theirs to begin with, Iran’s always good for a hit contract on an American Colonel and his family once or twice.

    These folks are not a threat to your tribe, Sam. They are, however, a threat to the nation. The nation, however, isn’t your tribe.

  7. Wolf is scary-crazy. And there’s a lot like her!

  8. Wolf takes herself too seriously. Most likely because men have been telling her that she is “smart” just to get her in the sack.

    At least that was my impression, I’ve only seen her once on the Colbert report.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: