LF: Neocon Chickenhawk War Mongers Want To Get Their Wars On Again

Title: Neocon Chickenhawk War Mongers Want To Get Their Wars On Again
Source: Tucson Citizen
URL Source: http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/ ... Arizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29
Published: Oct 21, 2012
Author: Tucson Citizen
Post Date: 2012-10-21 13:43:59 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 2602
Comments: 2

The attempts by the Neocon chickenhawks in the right-wing noise machine, e.g., Charles Krauthammer, as well as by super-chicken Vietnam draft dodger Willard "Mittens" Romney Willard 'Mittens' Romney had better things to do during the Vietnam War and his Neocon chickenhawk boy wonder Paul Ryan, to conflate the attack on the consulate office in Benghazi, Libya as "what we see in front of us is the absolute unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy" as Ryan did yesterday, is complete and utter nonsense.

The Neocon chickenhawks in the right-wing noise machine who have no military or foreign policy experience, and super-chicken Vietnam draft dodger Willard "Mittens" Romney and his Neocon chickenhawk boy wonder Paul Ryan, are in no position to preach to anyone about foreign policy. This is the least experienced, least qualified nominees of a political party in modern American history.

These assholes fully supported the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq based upon falsified intelligence of "weapons of mass destruction" cooked up by Neocon war mongers serving in the Bush-Cheney regime. Even after this "massive intelligence failure" was self-evident, they insisted that the war in Iraq was justified.

Out of Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it's likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity -- a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.

[O]ne of Romney's top surrogates on the campaign trail is John Bolton, who served as President George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton embodies the reckless neoconservative thinking that was largely responsible for getting us into Iraq under false pretenses. Today, he openly roots for diplomacy with Iran to fail and is all-too-eager to send our men and women in uniform into war. Last year, for instance, Bolton said that, "It would be in our interest to overthrow this regime in Syria."

The Neocons from Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are now with The Foreign Policy Initiative, and this week they argued for U.S. intervention in Syria -- not out of any humanitarian concern for the slaughter of innocents, but out of geopolitical strategy: Syria is a client state of Iran, and supports the Palestinian organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Now is the Time for a Safe Zone in Syria | Foreign Policy Initiative.

Earlier this year, "Galt - Gekko 2012" Neocon war monger adviser Elliott Abrams asked that Congress enact another Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution, this time against Iran. Ryan Adviser Calls On Congress To Authorize War With Iran. Dan Senor, America's version of "Baghdad Bob" during the Iraq war, is also a foreign policy adviser to Paul Ryan.

These Neocon war mongers should be standing trial under the Nuremberg Principles for their Iraq war crimes, not preparing plans for new wars of adventure in Syria and Iran should "Galt- Gekko 20102" win in November.

There has been far too much shitty reporting in the media on the attack on the consulate office in Benghazi, Libya. The most definitive reporting comes from the New York Times whose reporters were in Benghazi at the time of the attack and spoke to the persons carrying out the attack. David Kirkpatrick of the Times filed this report several days ago. Election-Year Stakes Overshadow Nuances of Benghazi Investigation - NYTimes.com:

[T]he circumstances surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 have become clouded in ambiguities and questions: Did the attack grow out of anger against an American-made video mocking the Prophet Muhammad, or was it waged by an affiliate of Al Qaeda out to mark the 11th anniversary of its attack on United States soil?

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts.

* * *

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day.

* * *

At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.” Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown.

* * *

They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula.

Got that? A homegrown Islamist group, Ansar al-Shariah in Benghazi, got pissed off by the anti-Muslim video that was roiling the Muslim world that day, so they carried out a spontaneous attack on the American consulate office in Benghazi, killing Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was not an affiliate of Al Qaeda carrying out a pre-planned assassination of the ambassador on the 11th anniversary of 9/11unrelated to the anti-Muslim video causing riots throughout the Muslim world that day, as so many right-wing pundits and politicians and shitty reporting have suggested.

It is deeply offensive that super-chicken Vietnam draft dodger Willard "Mittens" Romney and his Neocon chickenhawk boy wonder Paul Ryan are trying to conflate the attack on the consulate office in Benghazi, Libya as "what we see in front of us is the absolute unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy," i.e., a foreign policy disaster.

Really boys? Do you really want to relitigate George W. Bush ignoring intelligence warnings that led to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 -- the greatest intelligence failure ever? Do you really want to expose your Neocon war monger foreign policy advisers from the Bush-Cheney regime to questions about their role in cooking up falsified intelligence of "weapons of mass destruction" (a "massive intelligence failure") for an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq? And why they are not standing trial for their war crimes?

Do you really want Bob Schieffer asking you about a Romney administration's plans for military intervention in Syria and a war with Iran, and staying in Afghanistan indefinitely? And why you would bring back these Neocon war mongers responsible for the greatest intelligence failures ever into your administration? PNAC's "Pax Americana Empire" through military conquest and occupation still lives in the hearts of these Neocons at The Foreign Policy Initiative who are advising the "Galt - Gekko 2012" campaign.

The ultimate question Bob Schieffer should ask the shameless Neocon super-chicken Vietnam draft dodger is: "Will you send your five sons to fight your wars in Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan? If not, how dare you ask other Americans to sacrifice their lives or their children's lives for your Neocon wars of adventure?"

After 12 years of "permanent war" it would be an act of insanity for Americans to allow these Neocon war mongers anywhere near the White House and to put them back in charge of our foreign policy.

The title of the article tries to make it sound as if the Neocon Chickenhawk War Mongers actually left, completely disregarding the actions of Robama over the last four years.