Why, such statements you make, Belle. As I said, I've observed you in the past to be reasonably rigorous in documenting your sources. I simply attempted to assist you in making your case - any objection in my post to the source was simply an objection to the apparent lack of a source. Surely no more than simple administrivia, I think.
Although you say you documented this post to which we are referring, I must admit that your citation was far too subtle for me. What can I say - if you'll direct me to said reference, I'll be more than happy to make all the appropriate mea culpas.
My purpose in doing so was to provoke thought about the role of the Annointed Class in the United States--so-called bastion of free-wheeling freedom and thinking.
Why, Belle, such things you say. Were this one of my logic classes, I might have to call you out for petitio principii in the first degree.
Are you at all nervous that no one on this thread gave any consideration to Dr. Lewis' history except a crackpotsource? Perhaps not, since the undeniable goal of modern conservatism seems to be to protect and defend the globalist status quo.
I wonder. I wonder if, perhaps, at least some on this thread, and lurking in the shadows, gave due consideration to Dr. Lewis's history, and simply failed to reach the "correct" conclusion. To eliminate that possibility seems somehow...arrogant, doesn't it? As satisfying as it is to decide that those who disagree are simply deluded, or not in full possession of all the facts, it's really not entirely intellectually honest, is it?
And to be naturally suspicious of radical change - that seems to me to be the very essence of conservatism, does it not?
Are any of the facts in the crackpot article incorrect? Or simply unacceptaby sourced? The Annointed have much work to do in the world and will not brook being questioned as to their sources.
Yes, I admit - I'm a sucker for those sources. It helps me to establish the factual accuracy of assertions made therein, true. But, of course, the really important thing the sources do is to allow me to make judgements about the interpretations contained within. And that's really the crux of all this, isn't it - differing interpretations?
I'm the sort of person who likes to know if my interlocutors are the sorts who tend to look at events and facts with an open mind about their interpretation, or whether they are the sorts who tend to cast about for evidence to support whatever theory it is they hold near and dear, retrofitting and force-fitting the facts into the theory whenever necessary, or dropping inconvenient facts when necessary, or inventing facts when necessary. Surely this is not unreasonable of me, is it?
Perhaps that is why so few Americans bother themselves to do so.
Which is exactly why it is important for you to be the bellest dame you possibly can be. Critical views are necessary, but they do not hold the field exclusively...
What about this? Is it part of the conservative agenda to protect and nourish the status of this quo? How Jimmy and I Did It:
"..Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski (France)
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version...."
How can Washington DC not literally be on fire to discover the roots of the attack on New York City and Washington? Almost the first official action by President Bush in the wake of the September 11th attacks, was to trot over to the CIA and give the institution the kiss of peace. (We won't even get into the Bush administration's blanket refusal to consider any investigation of corruption on the part of the previous administration--let alone the national security questions raised. We all know there is a seamless connection between "far left" and "radical right wing" administrations. As conservatives in good standing we wouldn't want to do anything to rip the veil off THAT burkha. We'll stick to liberating Afghani women.) Why were no Senators prepared, or willing, to ask pointedquestions of the Director of the CIA? Senator Shelby's (I believe it was him) pathetic, soggy softball of "What happened?" doesn't qualify, in my un-expert opinion.
How did that Shiek-whatever-his-name-was get clearance to immigrate to our country after he went on trial for the attempted assasination of Mubarek? Only to "inspire" those frisky lads who committed the first attack on the World Tade Center?
What really happened in the Former Yugoslavia? How did that "Former" come about? And how about Lebanon? Why is it that any Arab moslem State that shows the fainest sign of modernism--like Lebanon or Iraq--suddenly finds itself "balkanized"?
Who does it benefit the most to have the so-called "moslem world" appear to be solely the sum total of its historic fanaticisms? Who does it benefit to have the flock in America all riled up believing that a "clash of civilizations" is occuring?
Everything seems upside down to me. Casual assertions in a crackpot-sourced article appear to have more foundation than the received wisdom of a Sage with the "good housekeeping seal of approval".
In the Hague, right now, we may be witnessing a court ritual in which the accused "mass-murdering, genocidal monster" is the only one telling the truth--or even a particle of the truth.
However, as you point out, one definition of conservatism is a distaste for radical change. And a sudden bout of truth-telling would certainly represent a "radical change"--wouldn't it? No country in history has ever been as fond of received dogma as we are. So, if I want to protect my conservative credentials I had better fold my hands and sit up straight and behave myself. Sort of what Tenent instructed the Senate to do.
We are all conservatives under the skin now.