The Absurdity of Neo-Con Fundamentalism: Only Osama Can Protect the US



Really, this video is quite amazing. A Fox News discussion, in which the interviewee claims that:

The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama Bin Laden to detonate a major weapon in the United States.

and that,

“Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently and with as much violence as is necessary.”

Perhaps the clearest statement yet of the need that every extreme movement has for its shadow.

Neo-Conservatism is nothing without Bin Laden. And he is nothing without them. They are both desperate to return to power. One wonders who will fire the first shot, under the auspices of fighting the other, but in reality in desperation to get back into power.

It’s ‘the only way to save the village was to destroy it’ all over again.


6 responses to “The Absurdity of Neo-Con Fundamentalism: Only Osama Can Protect the US”

  1. You have a legitimate critique here, but you are, IMO, playing the same game as those you criticize. Your rhetoric in this brief post is just as polarizing as theirs, with words like “desperate” and so on. Why not write a critique in a more irenic fashion and focusing on issues, not labels like neo-con and so on?

    For example, you might charitably say that, “Opinion talk on radio and television can often lead people to make horrific statements which we certainly hope are nothing but hot air and not actual hopes and desires.”

    Is your statement really any better than their when you say “neo-con is nothing without Bin Laden”? Maybe if you narrowly define neo-con as nothing but a populist movement. But it gives the impression you are saying all conservative political ideas are of no account. As an intelligent person, I doubt you follow a party line on every issue. You might actually agree with “conservatives” on some point against “liberals,” right?

    So here is a call for a third way, using neither label and pursuing peace and justice and God, not labels.

    Derek Leman

  2. I’d want to disagree. We need to be able to make strong statements, and I really don’t think that there’s a great deal that can be charitably said about someone wishing a terrible and violent attack on a nation because they disagree with someone’s political ideology. If we cannot react strongly to such things then I’m concerned that we lack any proper backbone, something liberalism has suffered from in the past: refusing to take strong positions.

  3. Okay, I hear you. But you can make strong statements that are more realistic. I assume you know enough about human nature to understand that people say things rhetorically, in the heat of the moment, that are foolish and wrong.

    It is despicable to suggest that it would be worth families at a shopping mall dying horrible deaths to stop the spread of socialism or to stop policies which will increase abortions. The foolish people who made such a statement should apologize.

    So why not say, “It was a horrific and foolish thing to say and if you have any decency [interviewee on Fox News] you will apologize”?

    I am not against you, as a liberal, making strong statements about your political beliefs. I am calling foul when you use similar rhetoric to the people you say you oppose. Rise above them.

    Derek Leman

  4. Kester – the point of Fox News is to make money as is the case with the other news outlets owned by multinational corporations. Hence they put on programs designed to entertain not inform the viewers. They hire hosts like Glen Beck and bring on hosts like Ann Coulter in the hopes of stirring up controversy that they hope will lead to an increase in ratings (let’s turn on the TV and see how crazy Glen will act today) and hence increased ad revenue. Some of the left do the same moves but the problem that the radical left tends to be broke hippies living in communes – hence, not a demographic worth catering to with advertising dollars.

    I tend to ignore the extremists and let them duke it out amongst themselves. The exception is when someone like Ann Coulter writes a book claiming to be a Christian. While I leave it up to God to judge what’s in someone’s heart, I feel it’s fair to see if she tries to implement the teachings of the very Savior she claims saves her.

  5. How is Michael Scheuer a neo-con? He’s an opponent of the US Israeli lobby and the Iraq war. His analysis of al-Qa’eda’s motivations (US foreign policy, Palestine etc) is the same as a liberal’s. The fact that he’s a mad Republican who wants OBL to bomb America makes me want to say that maybe the liberals have it wrong in sharing his analysis.

    Actually I don’t think ‘maybe’, I’m just being polite.

  6. I’ll hold my hands up to that one – a misnomer on my part. The neo-con label isn’t appropriate, but regardless of that the driving spirit of the argument is still shocking. However, even if the analysis is the same, I hardly think this makes liberals in the US wrong. It’s the action that comes out of that analysis that stinks in this case.