Once More, Neocons, Into The Breach!
Of course. Of course!

"Unpatriotic Conservatives!" as David Frum said of the anti-Iraq War right in 2003. These people are shameless. I'm old enough to remember when Kristol predicted that the coming Iraq War would be "a two-month war":
My friend David Brooks -- whose friendship I always state because I am loyal to my friends, even when I disagree with them -- writes of the Zelensky speech in today's Times:
Sure, there were dissenters in the room, but they were not what mattered. Words surged into my consciousness that I haven’t considered for a while — compatriots, comrades, co-believers in a common creed.
Zelensky and his fellow Ukrainians have reminded Americans of the values and causes we used to admire in ourselves — the ardent hunger for freedom, the deep-rooted respect for equality and human dignity, the willingness to fight against brutal authoritarians who would crush the human face under the heel of their muddy boots. It is as if Ukraine and Zelensky have rekindled a forgotten song, and suddenly everybody has remembered how to sing it.
We never learn. To be clear, I don't blame Zelensky for giving that speech. The man is a patriot, and he is brave. Nobody can fault him for playing the hand history has dealt him. But come on: we fell for Ahmed Chalabi on Iraq. We fell for Hamid Karzai on Afghanistan. We Americans are suckers for foreigners who know how to strike a resonant rhetorical chord within our breasts. They make us feel good about ourselves. We keep shoveling gobs of money at them, for the sake of Democracy™, never once stopping to consider whether or not their crusades are in America's interests.
Saddam Hussein was a bad man. The Taliban were bad men. Vladimir Putin is a bad man. But their badness is not the most important thing about them, when it comes to assessing America's interests. Suddenly, the folly of the Iraq adventure we allowed ourselves to be talked into, and the Afghanistan democracy-building debacle, have all been memory holed.
From Live Not By Lies, this passage referring to a Czech communist leader quoted by Milan Kundera:
“Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain a child forever,” said Cicero. This, explains Kundera, is why communists placed such emphasis on conquering the minds and hearts of young people. In his novel The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, Kundera recalls a speech that Czech president Gustáv Husák gave to a group of Young Pioneers, urging them to keep pressing forward to the Marxist paradise of peace, justice, and equality.
“Children, never look back!,” [cries Kundera’s character Husak], and what he meant was that we must never allow the future to collapse under the burden of memory.
A collective loss of historical memory—not just memory of communism but memory of our shared cultural past—within the West is bound to have a devastating effect on our future. It’s not that forgetting the evils of communism means we are in danger of re-creating precisely that form of totalitarianism. It’s that the act of forgetting itself makes us vulnerable to totalitarianism in general.
It was only twenty years ago that the neocons led our country into foolish wars and nation-building projects that cost us trillions, to say nothing of the lives of American and allied troops, and innocent people in those countries, and for what? Now some of these same people are banging the war drums again, using the same techniques that apparently were not discredited. Back in the day, Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and the other so-called "unpatriotic conservatives," were not pro-Saddam or pro-Taliban. They were pro-America, and they pressed unpopular questions about whether or not the United States was right to spend blood and treasure on these particular foreign wars, following a messianic vision of global democracy. History has vindicated them.
Subscribe Today
Get weekly emails in your inbox
Here we go again. "Children, never look back!" say the neocon bigs to us today. If you ask for financial accountability, or question the wisdom of this endless war, well then, you are an unpatriotic conservative who simps for Putin. Simple as that. So say our neocons. And you know what? Evidently, the hustle still works.
Here's Unpatriotic Conservative 2022™ Tucker Carlson asking some rude but necessary questions. I could have done without the personal slams at Zelensky, but otherwise, Tucker is right on target. Thank God we have him to keep the heat on our politicians who care more about Ukraine than their own country. Whose unpatriotic now?
Z is shameless. His gay performing in 1999 and his perverse leather music video show a performer willing to prostitute himself, practiced at show business.
World War III now looms while imperial Washington's hubris has it delusional that unconditional surrender of Moscow to NATO and regime change in Moscow is now doable.
You don't think we have our own bad? The Trump clown show was better than this real life War Party zombie apocalypse.
Being sensible about the way of the world, you know very well where the rubber meets the road. It's the impossible decisions, the ones with no good outcome, only bad, or worse. We have a fait accompli in Ukraine. There is no way to walk any of it back. We can't just completely cut off their funding, not even Trump would do that. It's a horror show, as Ukraine is being slowly bled. We certainly could let it bleed out quickly, and let Russia handle the reconstruction. But who is making that argument?
Nobody knows what to do. We are stuck with Zelensky, like we're stuck with Putin. It's a real love triangle. In the end, the three parties will have to sit down sensibly and dissolve this antagonistic and unfair marriage, for Ukraine really is in the middle between two giants having a stare-down. I do agree there's something perverse about all of it. But I wouldn't fire my biggest guns at the weakest party, Ukraine.
Look at the rest of the players in this fiasco, with Biden and Putin first and foremost. Zelensky might well be the most sympathetic flawed and tragic figure in this whole ugly drama.
https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1606610858398056449/photo/1
The New Right brays a lot of about the virtues of nationalism-- and Rod has praised Hungarian nationalism. Well, what about Ukrainian nationalism? Are those people not allowed a national identity and to defend themselves against a foreign aggressor? I wonder what Rod would say and urge if Hungary were attacked by a bigger foreign power? I doubt it would be "Let the Bear have what it wants lest we inconvenience people or deprive them of their creature comforts".
And pre-emptory strike against the idiot Qanon Qontingent that infests this site these days: Ukraine is at least ass socially conservative as Russia. It is absolutely not San Francisco East.
As for Crimea and the Donbas I'm willing to entertain Russian claims. The USSR after all did much mischief in gerrymandering many of its constituent republics to ensure a Russian population who would be loyal to Moscow-- but not claims enforced by lawless, aggressive war.
I have no idea where you are deriving that wild conclusion from. I am in favor or both the Donbas region and the Crimea being allowed self-determination-- meaning an election with no Russian troops on hand, but with international observers from neutral nations (e..g, China, India...) to oversee such a process. In the case of Crimea that should include the option of complete independence.
But it is in the US interest, and has been US policy since the end of WWII, that territorial disputes between nations not be settled by invasion and war. We rolled back the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991 for that reason. It is also in our interest that Russia behave according to the rule of law and not as a lawless aggressor. Russia is a great nation, and the world will be the better with a Russia that it takes its place in the international order and not as a rogue nation determined to destroy it in the manner of a ganglord. And from this latter interest it is very much in our interest that the world not be set on a course that leads to nuclear war.
This is a little like affirming the basic necessity of the police, even when the police are occasionally corrupt, and occasionally brutal. You wouldn't sign on to defunding the police (at least I doubt you would), why sign on to a "Down with the international order!" agenda, which, just as reducing police presence greenlight thugs and gang lords, would greenlight rogue nations to do as they will. The rule of (human) law will always be imperfect, but it's the best we can do.
Juan Cole, following the WikiLeak’s 2011 publication of Glaspie’s July 1990 cable, noted that the Ambassador “pressed the dictator on the meaning of his troop build-up on the Kuwaiti border, letting him clearly know of American anxieties,” and argued that "her infamous reference to the U.S. not getting involved in inter-Arab disputes referred to a limited issue, the exact border between Iraq and Kuwait, and could not possibly have been interpreted as permission to invade Kuwait!" Cole concluded: "Ms. Glaspie's detractors owe her an apology.”
There is more to be found in the Wikipedia entry and there is doubtless more that could be said. But as a retired but long-practiced diplomat who has discussed this issue a number of times with people more directly concerned, I find the accusation echoed by Fran Macadam that “American diplomats greenlit the Iraqui operation” to be without any serious foundation.
This is a dangerous situation - Russia is going to attack in the next few weeks and if their blows turn the tide what will NATO do? Nothing? (FDR would have done nothing. It's not at all clear to me that he didn't think that Lend Lease etc would do the job in the war against Hitler. If you look closely at the crisis between Japan and the US in the summer and fall of 1941 it's easy to see that it was the State and Treasury Departments, not the White House, that were putting the screws on Tokyo. But all in all FDR was a great leader. Biden is not. And who in Europe would you put up against Putin and Lavrov?) So watch out. Morons like Lindsay Graham might want to drag the United States into a shooting war against Russia to help out - the new Churchill - V. Zelensky. And David Brooks and company will cheer the NeoCons on. What a hill to die on.
Whether or not a country's leader is "bad" is likely entirely different from the perspective of that nation's people. Objectively speaking, propaganda does not alter reality, just the perceptions in its victims' heads. I still recall Obama's executive order legalizing propaganda against the domestic population. Obviously covering for those who might become exposed.
Fascinating observation, and if true, consider why that might be the case. To help you out, think not of Hungarians looking downward, but of everyone else looking upward. Sure, the end result is the same, but why put all the blame on the Hungarians? It takes two to tango, though it's not so elegant if one party is enamored and distracted, stepping on my feet.
https://rumble.com/v22hc4c-media-rewrites-ukraines-dark-history-new-twitter-files-on-rigged-covid-deba.html
Starts about 16 minutes in. Irrefutable.