Neocon (High on War Fever) Unleashes on Non-Interventionists

By, Chris Rossini

Neocons are an interesting bunch. They're like a group of toddlers sitting in the back seat of a car asking "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?".

Except in their case, we're talking about grown adults who are incessantly asking "Can we bomb yet? Can we invade yet? Can we get involved yet?"

Their policies have left nothing but ruin in one foreign nation after another, and have dragged the U.S. government's finances (and the U.S. economy) into the abyss.

But, we are talking about government mentality here, where nothing succeeds like a good failure.

President Obama, who has been ridden with a deluge of scandals, has decided that it's time for The Empire to Strike Back. He's gonna take Slick Willy's advice and roll those bones.

Neocons, who have been whining for yet another foreign intervention are getting their wish.

Washington Post's warmonger-in-chief Jennifer Rubin, who's still high on the popping of the war fever bubbly, unloads in an article today:

The two-year delay in offering assistance to the rebels was unconscionable. If we can figure out the recipients and the correct weapons to deliver now, why could we not have done this six months or a year or 18 months ago?

What's unconscionable is that we've had to listen to the neocons beg for another war for two years, and Obama is finally starting to cave. What's unconscionable is the belief that the U.S. will be able to funnel weapons to the "right" recipients, who are (ironically) affiliated with Al Qaeda. 

What a disaster in the making!

Then Rubin turns to us non-interventionists...As if we had anything to do with Obama's decision not to directly intervene until now. Obama is not one of us, and he was surely not staying out because of our preaching of common sense.

But this is a pointed lesson for those who want to do nothing in the face of genocide and Iranian aggression: If you don’t act decisively early on, your options become more limited, the cost (in lives and material) becomes steeper and the chances of defeat go up. It would be useful if the isolationists understood that their demands for inactivity do not prevent action, but rather reduce our effectiveness when events compel us to act.

First of all, she uses the "isolationist" word (perhaps out of spite). Those who follow in the ideas of the original America, and the ideas that were reborn thanks to the heroic Ron Paul, do not believe in isolation. We, in fact, believe in freedom of trade, travel, commerce, communications, etc. 

There have been many examples in history of nations who completely isolate themselves from the outside world. In modern times North Korea is a good example. Non-interventionists want nothing of the sort. We merely want to stay out of the affairs of other nations...no entangling alliances...no funneling weapons to terrorists!!

It is the getting involved which causes us "defeat" (using Rubin's term). It's what has caused every military empire in history to go down in flames.

Rubin then flies off the handle and starts defending NSA spying!

Syria is an object lesson in why delay and avoidance in foreign affairs are unworkable and dangerous. Likewise, the National Security Agency programs offer another opportunity to rebut the know-nothingness of some who concoct conspiracies and poorly grasp the Constitution.

That is so outlandish, that out of respect for the high intelligence of EPJ readers, it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.

The bottom line is this: The Neocons have finally received their lolli pop. They can now strategize on how they'll cause havoc in another nation. And the rest of us will have to suffer and bear the consequences (yet again).

---

Follow @ChrisRossini