A Neocon is a neocon is a neobastard
Colin Powell’s chief of staff keeps rocking the boat. And I have to admit, he’s right on target by describing the neocons as neo-Jacobins.
Except that many Americans lack sufficient history knowledge to know who the Jacobins were. Maybe neo-Saddams or neo-commies would provide a better understood punch.
But whatever they’re called, they’ve made the shining city on the hill look more like a gang-ridden slum.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski explains why a nuclear assault would be disastrous, illegal and impeachable. And a major point he makes is one I’ve made before: the size of the Iranian population far exceeds that of Iraq. It compares more closely with the size of Vietnam and Korea and that alone should make one think thrice before taking on another quagmire like those.
But are we, as a nation, a rogue and pirate? Not yet, we aren’t. But we certainly have a government composed of traitors like Hadley (see April 22), liars and murderers!
April 24th, 2006 at 7:38 am
“Jacobins” were radical left wing / populist revolutionaries and were possibly derived from similar groups who fled America after the aristocratic counter-revolution (coup) in America in 1787, and the brutal use of troops against the populist movements (eg Shays Rebellion) that had initiated America’s first Republic in 1775 (when they were called Minute Men) among them Thomas Paine.
These guys (Bush etc) are not neo-Jacobins. They are not even that radical in a right-wing way. In terms of late 18th century politics they’d be more like the aristocrats (ie George Washington) who later introduced the infamous Sedition Act, which were certainly worse than anything Bush has done in terms of claiming unlimited executive power or stamping out free speech.