It is from here - and not from the LaRouchites and other eccentric, meaningless grouplets that Berlet and others obsess over and use as red herrings - that the American fascist movement of the future will come from. So far, it looks to be a very "pro-semitic" movement towards fascism (please note: a 'movement towards fascism', not 'fascism itself', so no distortions, please) - although, should this movement be ultimately successful, Christian Zionism could be jettisoned just as easily as "National Socialism" and the SA. Or alternatively, should the current project fail, there could be a ferocious anti-Semitic backlash from other corners of the American far right not currently enjoying the ascendancy of Christian Zionism, a backlash due to the latter's intimate association with Israel. Either way, an atrocious historical disservice to American Jewry.
BTW, Paxton is much more interesting than Berlet, even as he shares the latters' preoccupation with defining the "thing in itself" rather than the (potentially by many different processes) the roads to the thing. The thing in itself is knowable, but do we really seek to "know it" in reality? I think not! Consequentially Franco and (worse yet) prewar Showa Japan are "not fascist" (Paxton is exceptionally superficial on Japan, IMO). But it is possible that the process could be frozen before attaining the "ideal type" and still make the fascist grade. And further, Japan, and not Germany or Italy, may actually have been the closest approximation to the "ideal type". Gramsci might be wrong in his simple counterposition of the "traditional" right to the emerging fascist movement.
Rumors of the Neocons' Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated
By Jacob Heilbrunn Jacob Heilbrunn is an editorial writer for The Times. June 16, 2004
Neoconservatism is finished. According to the conventional wisdom, the Pentagon's top neocons, like Paul D. Wolfowitz, Douglas J. Feith and William J. Luti, have been discredited by the insurgency in Iraq, by Abu Ghraib and by growing public discontent with the war. The United Nations has been invited back — begged, really — while the organization's chief opponent, Richard Perle, has been marginalized. The exposure of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi as a charlatan, and possibly as an Iranian spy, has delivered the knockout punch. The neocons have lost President Bush's confidence, it seems, and will be abandoned if he wins a second term.
That's the way the story goes, anyway. In Washington, it is widely believed, easy to understand and fun to pass along. But it is also wrong.
Although it is certainly true that the neoconservatives have had to beat a number of tactical retreats, they have not lost the war for Bush's mind. Quite the contrary; that's just wishful thinking by their enemies on both the left and right.
For one thing, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have made no fundamental revisions in foreign policy. Sure, they've made a few modest concessions to Europe and the U.N. on Iraq. But the basics remain unchanged: Bush isn't bailing out of Iraq, and more than 100,000 U.S. troops will remain there for at least another year.
Rather than tone down his rhetoric, Bush has adhered to the twin neoconservative themes of promoting democracy abroad and aggressively employing U.S. military power. "If [the Middle East] is abandoned to dictators and terrorists," he said June 2, "it will be a constant source of violence and alarm, exporting killers of increasing destructive power to attack America and other free nations."
Nor has Bush wavered in his support of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an ally of the neocons. The president has insisted that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat be sidelined. He has slapped sanctions on Syria and pushed to isolate Iran. If this is moving away from neoconservatism, what would an embrace look like?
No doubt neoconservatives have been put on the defensive in recent months. When I met Feith, the undersecretary of Defense for policy, for an interview at his home recently, he was eager to discuss the attacks on him and his neoconservative associates. Sitting in his library surrounded by stacks of Commentary magazines and books on the British empire and the Middle East, Feith stated that his critics "are being shabby with the facts, cherry-picking evidence — doing things they're accusing us of."
But Feith was adamant in saying that the neoconservatives had not been sidelined. They remain influential, he said, and will remain so as long as ideas remain important in the administration. "Bush is not some empty vessel that we're pouring this stuff into. He's [been] underestimated the way critics underestimated Reagan."
The truth is that, currently, the neocons are the only ones with any ideas in the administration. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell bridles at any drafts from his speechwriters that he considers too theoretical. Feith, by contrast, filled his office with neocon intellectuals.
So far, no neoconservative has been thrown overboard. Despite charges that his homemade intelligence network at the Pentagon relied on bogus intelligence from Chalabi, Feith remains firmly in place at the Defense Department. David Wurmser, the architect of the pro-Chalabi strategy, is Cheney's Middle East advisor now. Mark Lagon, a neoconservative who worked for Jeane Kirkpatrick, has been promoted at the State Department. A host of younger neocons remains embedded in other agencies.
If Bush loses the election, a bloodbath will ensue; neoconservatives will be cannibalized by traditional conservatives and by their rivals at the State Department and elsewhere. But if Bush wins and the GOP retains its Senate majority, they will continue to rise. Neoconservative pit bull John Bolton, an undersecretary of State, might well head the CIA. Their main targets in a Bush second term: Syria and Iran.
Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neoconservatives, recently wrote in the Weekly Standard that neoconservatism is "enjoying a second life" under Bush. Foes on the right and left may be eager to bury, not praise, the neoconservatives, but the obsequies are entirely premature. If Bush remains president, the neoconservative moment isn't over. It's just begun.
As if to confirm, here's BushBoy. Nothing's changed:
Bush Disputes Al Qaida-Saddam Conclusion
28 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday disputed the Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the al-Qaida terrorist network responsible for the attacks.
"There was a relationship between Iraq (news - web sites) and al-Qaida," Bush insisted following a meeting with his Cabinet at the White House.
"This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida," he said.
"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida in Sudan."
The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein — a central justification the Bush administration had for toppling the former Iraqi regime. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country by with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.
Although bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted that "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.
Bush said Saddam was a threat because he had not only ties to al-Qaida, but to other terrorist networks as well.
"He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq," he said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is considered the most dangerous foreign fighter in Iraq and one of the world's top terrorists.
Attention on al-Zarqawi has increased in recent months as he became a more vocal terror figure, due in part to three recordings released on the Internet, including the video showing the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg. The State Department and other agencies that handle counterterrorism are considering raising the reward for al-Zarqawi from $10 million to $25 million, putting him on par with two al-Qaida leaders and Saddam, now jailed.
"The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power," Bush told reporters in the Cabinet Room where he met with his advisers to discuss Iraq and the economy.
It was Bush's 25th meeting with the Cabinet since the start of his presidency in January 2001.