Go Home

Due to a recent server outage, our video archives are currently unavailable. We are working as fast as we can to remedy this. Thanks for your understanding.

Rachel Maddow: The Neoneocons

DOWNLOAD (333)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (323)
WMV QuickTime

Neocons never die. They just keep giving themselves new names. After claiming "mission accomplished" in Iraq, it seems the PNAC crowd has done just that with their latest attempt at re-branding, The Foreign Policy Initiative. Rachel Maddow brings in Matt Duss from Think Progress to fill us in on their recent make-over. You can read more about this group in Matt's post over at the Wonk Room: Foreign Policy Initiative: Housebroken Neocons? From the article:

Attending the Foreign Policy Initiative’s inaugural conference on Afghanistan today at the Mayflower Hotel, I was struck by how very little that was said was controversial. And that’s really the point — in the wake of Iraq debacle, for which the neocons are widely and rightly held responsible, it simply won’t do to bang the drum for American military maximalism. One has to be a bit slicker than that. And these guys are nothing if not slick.

As their website makes clear, FPI intends to re-brand and mainstream-ize neoconservatism as a “reasonable” and “moderate” — and of course “serious” — alternative to the rising tide of isolationist sentiment in American politics (the fact that no such tide of isolationist sentiment is rising in American politics is entirely beside the point.) This strategy was evidenced in the morning’s first panel, as Robert Kagan praised President Obama’s “gutsy and correct decision” on Afghanistan, but warned that “the United States is at a tipping point between desire to maintain extensive engagement in the world, as it has done since World War II, and the temptation to pull back…[Obama] has decided to maintain the commitment.”

Transcript below the fold.

MADDOW: Representatives of 72 countries are meeting in Holland to try to figure out a way to snatch a victory in Afghanistan from the jaws of American neo-conservatism‘s defeat, to try to come up with a working plan for success in that poor country. You know who‘s not there at that meeting? The neoconservatives, the old gang from the Project for a New American Century.

Why are they not at the world-figures-out-Afghanistan meeting? Because they lost the elections badly, specifically the Republican Party that attached themselves to the neocons, and put their cockamamie ideas into action to disastrous effect, the Republicans lost the last two elections badly.

So while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke are working with 72 countries now to try to clean up the mess created by the Bush administration‘s neoconservative foreign policy, the neocons themselves are back home in Washington with their minority party lost the election Republican patrons. Together they are forming a new neocon think tank.

The old neocon think tank was called the Project for a New American Century. The new one is, the Foreign Policy Initiative. Yesterday, the paid blogger of the McCain campaign last year, Michael Goldfarb, Twittered, quote, “PNAC, Project for a New American Century equals mission accomplished. New mission begins tomorrow morning with the launch of the Foreign Policy Initiative.” Mission accomplished—you know, that does have a familiar ring to it with these guys.

Bill Kristol, who recently lost his job as a “New York Times” columnist, he was a founding member of both the Project for New American Century and this new neocon group. He is famous for proclaiming, quote, “The endgame seems to be in sight in Afghanistan.” He said that on—let me see—November 26th, 2001. That would be six weeks into the Afghanistan war, of which we are in year eight now, but six weeks in, Bill Kristol and the neocons thought the end game was in sight. So, no reason not to move on to Iraq then, right? Shazam! Mission accomplished.

In April 2003, a month after we invaded Iraq, Bill Kristol also proclaimed, quote, “The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively.” In 2003. So it was a six-week-long war in Afghanistan and a one-month-long war in Iraq before he proclaimed victory.

Is this the point where I point out that the new neocon think tank that has launched itself has done so with a conference called “The Path to Success in Afghanistan”? Would you buy a pack of batteries from these guys on the subway, let alone a supposed “Path to Success in Afghanistan”? And John McCain was the featured speaker at their conference today—really?

Joining us now, Matt Duss, national security editor for ThinkProgress.org. He attended the Foreign Policy Initiative conference today.

Matt, thanks very much for coming back on the show.

MATT DUSS, THINKPROGRESS.ORG: Thanks, Rachel.

MADDOW: There are these guys here who said back in 2001 that Afghanistan‘s already won, mission accomplished. Then they made the case that we should go on ahead into Iraq. Those were the guys that were at this conference today. Does that mean that their conference was a “Whoops, we sure blew it” apology conference?

DUSS: Well, certainly not. There‘s never really been any accountability for these guys or any admission that any of their fantasies about transforming the world at the point of an American gun were kind of ridiculous. They‘ve just kind of moved on to their new attempt to rebrand themselves as a bipartisan foreign policy organization, protecting America from what they seem to think is this rising tide of isolationism.

I haven‘t seen any evidence of this isolationism, but they were telling us today that it‘s all around us and we need to guard against it.

MADDOW: Well, what about the things that have come to pass, that the neocons argued so vociferously against? Things like a binding time line for leaving Iraq, things like talks with Iran—are they still railing against all of those things, because they said it would be the end of the world if either of those things happened and they both happened?

DUSS: Right. I mean, they just moved very smoothly into, you know, support for President Obama‘s plan, and as part of their attempt to kind of reintroduce themselves into the conversation.

But as you said, it‘s very striking that a lot of these things that are now treated as really just conventional wisdom, the idea that we are going to reach out to our enemies and see if we can gain strategic advantage over other worse enemies, we‘re going to try to negotiate with Iran to see if we can come to some accommodation before just going ahead and bombing them, as the neoconservatives have advocated for many years. There‘s really no admission that these ideas have simply been discarded as part of this project that they‘re now trying to rebrand themselves.

MADDOW: Well, it‘s one thing to campaign against this straw man of isolationism that doesn‘t really exist; it‘s another thing for them to take policy positions that are different than what‘s actually happening in the U.S. government now. What, for example, is John McCain proposing when he spoke there today that‘s any different than what Obama is already doing?

DUSS: Well, you can always count on these guys to be in favor of more force, and to the extent that they differed from the Obama administration‘s plan for Afghanistan, there it was. There was general agreement among Kristol, Kagan and Senator McCain that President Obama should have gone ahead and just given General McKiernan all of the troops that he asked for instead of the more limited increase in troops that President Obama announced. And this really—this was what generally they‘ve always been about. There‘s really no problem in the world that can‘t be solved with the application of more military force.

But as President Obama said in an interview on Sunday, he seems to understand that there are problems that cannot be solved by simply adding more troops. And as we go forward in Afghanistan, and if it isn‘t working, he‘s not—as he said, he‘s not simply going to say let‘s add more troops. And I think that‘s really important and refreshing.

MADDOW: And, of course, one of the main things of counterinsurgency theory is sometimes more force is the problem and less force is more effective.

One very quick last question, Matt. Did you have any neocon celebrity sightings today?

DUSS: Oh, yes. There were quite—it was kind of a reunion of John McCain‘s presidential campaign but I also saw Scooter Libby showed up.

MADDOW: Oh, no way.

DUSS: Yes. You know, he came out for that, you know, to see all—to shake hands and kind of see the people. So, that was exciting.

MADDOW: Yes, I forget he‘s not in prison.

Matt Duss, national security editor for ThinkProgress.org—thank you for coming back on the show.

DUSS: Thanks, Rachel.

Share This Post

Link To This Post


17 Comments

and the majority of voters in last years election had the fantastic wisdom to deny him and vastly underqualified, Gov Sarah Palin, the two top jobs in the country: Prez and VPrez. just see who McCain is palling around with here, those wretched and criminal neocons, and its all you need to know, to know that we escaped a really big one. those villains advised Bush, and McCain wouldve been taking his marching orders from them as well. thank goodness that didnt happen. phew. they are all a bunch of unconvicted felons, as far as im concerned. they dont care about anyone or anything, just their own agenda. "onsequences, consequences, as long as we're right", is their mantra.

McCain and his close friends...

→ → →[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw ]


Study the symptoms not the virus...

Wesley E. Ledjennes's picture

She's PRICELESS... she knocks 'em DEAD and expioses their non-existant value to history with a wink and a smile.

9-11 wasn't good enough?

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/

"The United States remains the world’s indispensable nation -- indispensable to international peace, security, and stability, and indispensable to safe-guarding and advancing the ideals and principles we hold dear."

The Mission

"In 2009 the United States--and its democratic allies--face many foreign policy challenges. They come from rising and resurgent powers, including China and Russia. They come from other autocracies that violate the rights of their citizens. They come from rogue states that work with each other in ways inimical to our interests and principles, and that sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction."

They forgot to mention the Word "Oil" and Natural Gas

and the trillion Dollars a year "National Defense" MIC

lex's picture

She's great at exposing the Republican Neo-Cons sinister agenda of world dominance thru force.

ctalk's picture

"Neocons never die."

I disagree, the infamous neoconservatives have been greatly discredited and rightly so. They know it too or they wouldn't be trying to hide with a filthy new outfit. They can run but they can't hide. Kudos to Maddow for having the guts to expose these dirty rats. We need more like her.


Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein

NoBuddy's picture

I think that they're going to brand any reduction in military spending as isolationist. I think their hope is that the U.S. is going to piss away 50¢ of every dollar spent in the world on defense.

I think the Chinese have too many eggs in the U.S. basket, and are already expressing concerns, and Obama is going to be forced to be more fiscally responsible. That will include military spending cuts if he wants to keep his domestic agenda going. I think borrow and spend isn't an ever ending option. Borrow and spend is a great strategy for awhile, but 8 years of B&S under Bush has tapped that strategy out. As the Germans are trying to explain to Obama, they've gone that route, and their currency became worthless, whereupon, their people elected a "decider" that got them into World War II.

Of course, the neocons have espoused a military buildup in support of beneficial hegemony. However, as Osama bin Ladin recognized, attacking the economy of the U.S. is the best way to curtail the ability of the U.S. to project power. Wall Street has accomplished bin Ladin's dreams beyond his wildest expectations. So, now, we have to choose between domestic concerns, or spending on the military. Any cuts in military spending will be deemed as "isolationist".

numfar's picture

must mean "not attacking countries who have not attacked us because the President has daddy issues".

Just a guess.

jwf's picture

of a sadistic psychopath trying to show his daddy his dick is bigger (not Cheney),
it's nice to have a sane person in charge.

DrDick's picture

Just a minor quibble, but you really can't housebreak neocons. They are quite simply untrainable.

Different Anonymous's picture
.

...alternative to the rising tide of isolationist sentiment in American politics (the fact that no such tide of isolationist sentiment is rising in American politics is entirely beside the point)...

Well, if isolationism means minding our f*cking business and not shipping our jobs overseas then there's at least a one person "tide" of isolationism. Me.

I find it intersting that whenever the G20/6/8 or other economic gatherings get together the first thing out of their mouths is "nobody's trying to undo globalism". Yeah? Well I would LOVE it if they were as it's very high on my agenda. Luckily for them my agenda has little to no impact.

Xe (pronounced /ˈzi/, formerly Blackwater Worldwide & Blackwater USA)

"Franklin Bancorp. Inc., parent of three Twin Cities banks, changed its name to Sunrise Community Banks at the end of January. The new identity will unite the three banks-St. Anthony Park Bank, Franklin Bank and University Bank-in that customers may make withdrawals and deposits at all locations."
(The name change makes this possible):-/

When you have a physical structure of divisions, like [AIG-FP] or is it [AIU-FP]? Maybe [American International Group, Inc.] or [AIU Holdings]? Who is in charge, AIU Holdings, Inc. or AIU Holdings, LLC?
You think AT&T® gobbled up their competition... think again..."AT&T, Inc. was formed in 2005, when "Baby Bell" SBC Communications Inc. purchased former "Ma Bell" AT&T Corporation"

Is it about synergies, could be? Is it about profits, definitely! Getting back to that bank "Franklin Bancorp. Inc." and it's "NEW" subsidiary - [Sunrise Community Banks] the pinnacle of St. Anthony Park Bank, Franklin Bank and University Bank, or is "Franklin Bancorp, Inc (Minneapolis, MN)" the top dog?
Any interest? http://investing.businessweek.com/research/st...

As far as transparency goes and holding people accountable... you can change the name and image all you want for prosperity purposes, but when you change your name to an alias for deviant purposes, that's got to stop through some kind of "Truth in labeling" device. We need such a scheme, to stay on top of the un-ethical scheme's, or they will just hide, off in some sovereign land, not unlike some of (AIG's FP's) clan... How much is it costing us to change our name, signage, letterhead and the like anyways?

Look at Bank of America or many others for that fact, you may be surprised just who your dealing with?
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America ]

PS. Notice at the bottom of the "Sunrise Community Banks" Annual Privacy Policy Statement...
"This notice is adopted in recognition of our obligations under Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999." :-/
[ http://www.sunrisebanks.com/documents/annual-... ]
Or should I say Franklin Bancorp, Inc's, "Sunrise Community Banks" Annual Privacy Policy Statement? What's in a name?


Study the symptoms not the virus...

Truth_Critic's picture

"However, each bank will retain its independence through separate charters and boards of directors. Cumulatively, the banks have $175 million in assets and four offices.

"We were looking for something that symbolizes our energy, optimism and whole attitude toward business and people. The sun symbolizes all those things," said Rick Beeson, president of St. Anthony Park Bank in St. Paul.

The corporation's new logo will be a blue-and-yellow sunrise."
[ http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/... ]

PS. This is just for an example... It should in no way be construed as an deviant entity(s).


Study the symptoms not the virus...

cwazycajun's picture

Who exactly won in this whole clusterf%#k in Iraq??

AL-QAEDA they couldnt have a better PR tool than Iraq they have recruited more ppl and have got more funding..from the saudi's no dounbt because of it

No bid contractors they have came our very well in this useing our military as there private security gaurds to suckle at the tit of our national treasury 10's of billions of dollars tru mismanegment and incompetence at best fraud and out right theift at worst

The Iranians never have in the history in that region has iran had so much political influence in iraq thanks to this war

the military industrila complex they have also done very well selling us all those weapons to kill and destroy a country that had nothing what so ever to do with the ppl that attacked us on 9/11

and last but certianly not least thed oil companies for the giant oil feilds they were hopeing to exploit in iraq

those are the winners and we the people of america our military and the world are the losers...now its time to hold those accountable for this huge criminally inept plan.. unless we do that this will certianly happen again

5by5's picture

Point blank -- these guys are ALWAYS wrong. Why would ANYONE take ANY advice from them??

ysbaddaden's picture

So does this make michelle bachmann and jean schultz neonatalcons?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

follow the money's picture

want to see a list of neocons?

check out this one right here.

http://zfacts.com/p/775.html

interesting list, huh?

Comments are closed on this entry