It’s a “free-fire zone” rhetorically on warmongering Neocons and the Biden administration here, and on websites I appreciate. Such as with a recent Ted Galen Carpenter article denouncing both. But not even the sound of crickets in regard to the far more zealous warmongering of the “New Right,” and/or, the "National Conservatives,” of the Trumpites. But in the election cycle we’re already in, I would hope a “token” opposition to the New Right of Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy, and their advocates, would be allowed here. And in the vacuum of that here, I hope some opposition to them by me, might be allowed. Especially as their policies stand in opposition to every policy Chas Freeman has ever stood for! So kudos to Responsible Statecraft for the article at bottom here! A refreshing change from their usual promotion of Trump and Trump endorsed politicians, as I’ve noted in the past. I have unapologetically been a critic of Responsible Statecraft when they’ve lapsed into promoting the ultra-warmongering “Right-wing Peaceniks” of the "Surveillance Industry Complex” oligarch Peter Thiel’s “New Rightists,” as I’ve shared ample evidence of. That is, those Republicans like Trump, DeSantis, Matt Gaetz, Josh Hawley, Chip Roy, Warren Davidson, et al., who, whatever “restraint” position they feign on Ukraine, are out of the hyper pro-torture, pro-war, authoritarian Republican camp, and worse. And more aligned than any group with Bibi Netanyahu, as Trump promised, and proved! Far more than even the Neocons, as Norm Coleman came to recognize in flipping for Trump. Yet, they have been presented, to include by RS, going back to Trump’s ascendance to Republican Party “Leader,” depending upon which “faction” of Republicans he was appealing to at a given moment per the Arthur Finkelstein cognitive warfare “Six-Party Theory” of campaigning, as the President who “would end the endless wars.” Or, the President who would restore torture as U.S. policy, and make the US Military the Greatest Ever, to the cheers of the Republican “mainstream.” So let me say, at least on this one occasion, kudos to RS for an objective and honest appraisal of the war-mongering Republicans (and the Democrats, though that’s routine) who in spite of mainstream Democrat’s best efforts, far out-strip the Democrats in warmongering, as is apparent on right-wing TV. And always have throughout my lifetime, indisputably. But I have a major quibble nevertheless, which is this statement: "Vivek Ramaswamy: He pushes for strong support of Israel and blasts Hamas, but warns of a wider war that could include the U.S. He presented a 6-point plan on X, which included critiques of Haley and Pence for escalatory rhetoric:” As with China and Russia, and Iran, one needs to parse Ramaswamy’s rhetoric to get past his double-talk, which he duplicitously excels at. Here are some examples of what he “really means,” which I wouldn’t expect non-analytical journalists to understand. From his 6-point plan, with the most egregious point below, emphasized:
BLUF: "In his conversation with Kilmeade, Roberts pointed out how Biden’s weakness toward Russia is only emboldening China and encouraging more aggressive behavior from Beijing down the line: “China is drawing a competing conclusion, which is that America has not been proactive in Ukraine ... and therefore what will America's response be if China continues to show aggression toward Taiwan?” "Roberts also slammed the Biden administration’s push to secure another nuclear appeasement deal with Iran." And with their latest war mongering provocations: “America must stand united with our great ally Israel. The first priority is to make sure Israel has everything it needs to neutralize the terrorists and rescue the Israeli civilians who have been taken hostage.
“The Biden administration has to answer for its policy of appeasing Tehran and granting the regime unprecedented revenues through ransom and illicit oil sales—money that is flowing directly to terror attacks on Israel.” RS in league with extreme Trumpites like Mollie Hemingway and Saurabh Sharma falsely asserted a “Conservative” tradition of “foreign policy restraint,” which belies historical facts, as does the false claim here that Kevin Roberts “flipped the script” of extreme warmongering at Heritage: "And D.C., which is the city of false dichotomies, it's been apparent to me for months, that when someone like me says that, even though I'm very much a foreign policy and defense hawk, immediately that means that you must be for a weak Department of Defense. And you and I both know and any reasonable person knows that that's simply not the case. "In fact, we're saying that we care so deeply about a strong America, we care so deeply about a strong Department of Defense, and most importantly, we care so deeply about the rank-and-file servicemen and servicewomen that we want to ensure that Congress is doing its job and providing the Pentagon direction on where money should be best spent.” Exactly, only for “Warfighting!” Against China and Iran first, with Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Palestinians, etc,, all “mopping up operations” thereafter, in their fanatical minds. While the headline of this is more truthful, the substance of the article makes clear that this is a very idiosyncratic definition of “restraint,” to say the least: Quote: "What is relatively novel is that traditionally Cold War warrior/hawkish Republican conservative organizations are dipping a toe into restraint. Case in point: the Heritage Foundation, the seat of Reagan Era “peace through strength” foreign policy. For decades Heritage has been the engine powering GOP politics and policy and has been consistently supportive of bigger defense budgets, American power projection, and U.S. interventions abroad, across the board. (TP-It still is, see their Project 2025.) "Today, when Heritage president Kevin Roberts talks about current approaches to foreign policy, he is more circumspect. He talks about intervention much in the way that Donald Trump did — and like the national-populist conservative movement in the ex-president's wake does now. Are forever wars serving the American people? He says not.” No, only wars Heritage Foundation, Trump, and the "New Right” of Israeli Settler Yoram Hazony’s National Conservatives, and his US collaborators, like the aforementioned Republicans, say are “in our interest.” A very broad category! Which this makes clear, with Israel’s interests at the top of the list! "Roberts described Heritage’s grand strategy for foreign policy as “what we call the third way… which is to say neither interventionism nor isolationism.” The strategy aligns with the populist national conservative movement, which promotes a more isolationist foreign policy coupled with protectionist trade measures. Roberts has described Heritage as part of this movement, with which Vance and Hawley are also aligned.” (Emphasis in original.) …. "Although the prime focus for Heritage and its keynote speakers was on shifting resources toward Taiwan and away from Ukraine, Roberts emphasized that Israel remains a key interest — and another example of why the U.S. needs to conserve the resources being sent to help Kyiv fend off the Russian invasion. "The Heritage president classified Israel as “near the top of the scale” or potentially “at the very top” of vital U.S. interests because it is among the U.S.’ most “consistent all[ies] in world politics,” “geopolitically important for those of us who appreciate the shared [Judeo-Christian] heritage we have” and because the U.S. and Israel share the same existential enemies. "While Roberts said that Heritage does support Ukraine, he argued it ultimately isn’t enough of a priority to merit the aid it’s receiving, in comparison to partners such as Israel, the United Kingdom, Taiwan and India. "Heritage — perennially a major influence in U.S. foreign policy — could be poised to have an even greater sway in shaping the policy of the next Republican administration. It’s coordinating the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, a partnership among dozens of right-leaning organizations that seeks to establish a policy platform and lists of potential staff for any future Republican president.” Helpfully, the Heritage Foundation names those collaborators in their uber-hawkish designs on the world, far exceeding in extremism the worst of “Neoconservatism” and "Neoliberalism,” as they self-describe as “Illiberal,” and standing against the U.S. Constitution of 1789 and those Enlightenment ideas of “Rights,” as their Israeli Settler Guru Yoram Hazony makes so clear in his book on Conservatism, as against all “rights” obtained in 1789, by us common people, like me, with the ultra-right collaborators of Heritage’s war provoking Project 2025 named here: |
Attachment:
The Project 2025 Advisory Board.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Forgive me for speaking against these right-wing fanatics but with their all-out support for obliterating Gaza, and support for the Israeli fascists, and war against China, they are the “existential threat” to the United States, and need to be called out by someone, beyond the “Democrat’s and Neocon’s name-calling of “Isolationists,” when they’re anything but. So again, kudos to RS for this, and next time please, “parse” Ramaswamy a bit more.
|
|