Donate to my Legal Action vs Oliver Kamm

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Exclusive: The world's first Neo-Con - English translation service

The internet is full of dictionaries that can translate words and sometimes even phrases, from one language to another. But there's one glaring omission. None of the online dictionaries I have yet seen feature Neo-Con.

Neo-Con may be a very rare language- spoken by no more than 200 people worldwide- and it is undoubtedly dying out. But I think it's a pity that there's no online Neo-Con - English dictionary.

That is, until now. As a free service to readers, I intend to offer, on this blog, the world's first Neo-Con- English translation service.

Neo-Con is a language like no other. Because it's speakers never, ever mean what they say.

If a Neo-Con speaker says 'Iran has a nuclear weapons programme' he/she really means 'Iran has no nuclear weapons programme'.

If a Neo-Con speaker says 'Saddam Hussein's Iraq possesses WMD and is a threat to the west', he/she really means 'Saddam Hussein's Iraq possesses no WMD and is not a threat to the west'.

If a neo-con speaker says 'Slobodan Milosevic was a dictator who started six wars', he/she really means 'Slobodan Milosevic was a democratically elected leader who started no wars'.

In time I hope to set up a website which will automatically translate words and phrases used by Neo-Con speakers into English. But in the meantime, I'll be translating Neo-Con articles on an ad hoc basis.

To kick off, here's a translation of a letter, written in Neo-Con by the writer William Shawcross to The Daily Telegraph.

SIR – Andrew Pierce (Comment, February 20) condemns Tony Blair for taking Britain into Iraq: “the most disastrous British foreign policy foray since Suez”. Iraq, he says, is a “stain” for which Mr Blair “will never be forgiven”.
How so? The invasion rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who had killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, at home and abroad. Serious mistakes by the occupiers were brutally exploited by al-Qaeda and other Islamist enemies of Iraq, but that does not mean that Mr Blair is to blame for the suicide bombers.

Thanks largely to the tactics of General David Petraeus, accepted by President Bush, those ideologues have (at least for now) been defeated. Iraqis have just conducted the most democratic elections ever to have taken place in the Arab world. The results strengthened the secular parties, not the religious extremists.
The Iraqis I know don’t excoriate Mr Blair or Mr Bush; they recognise that their chance for a decent future could never have arisen had Saddam and his gangster sons been allowed to remain in power.
William Shawcross
London W2

Here's a translation of Shawcross' letter, from Neo-Con to English.

How so? The invasion got rid of Saddam Hussein, a man who stood in the way of US hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East. Iraq also possessed very large oil reserves which the US wanted to control.

Iraq’s elections were not the most democratic elections ever to have taken place in the Arab world: those took place in Palestine in 2006, but as the ‘wrong side’ won those elections, we don’t acknowledge them to have been democratic.

The war has been great for corporate profiteers and has also removed from power a supporter of the Palestinian cause.

I know about five or six Iraqis.


Anonymous said...

Linguistically, what is the difference between Neo Con and Bullshit?

Roland Hulme said...

Ha! hilarious! I see what you've done. You've written what the neocons have said and then your 'translation' is actually the complete opposite, implying that they're all liars!


Neil Clark said...

anonymous: good question.

Neo-Con and Bullshit are closely related languages but there is one difference. While all Neo-Con speakers also speak Bullshit, there are some Bullshit speakers who don't speak Neo-Con. Jose Mourinho for instance. He's fluent in Bullshit, (particularly in post-match press conferences), but to my knowledge, he's never spoken Neo-Con.

roland: I never said Neo-Con is a difficult language to master, and that's why I won't be charging for my exclusive translation service.

Anonymous said...

very clever. When I first starting reading it, I actually thought there may be an online dictionary.

Anonymous said...

X.L.E.N.T piece Neil.

Now, Guess why this dicitonary is out of print??

Because Neo-cons never existed apperantly.... here is one of them confirming he has no presence.

Again, he is not a liar, he simply don't exist.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say it, but I don't think US hegemonic ambitions are going to be your biggest problem in the years to come.

I found this talk by Dmitry Orlov at the Institute of the Long Now to be most interesting...

Anonymous said...

Great article, Neil. The Neocons are at it again, attacking anyone who gets in their way. They're ecstatic that Clinton appointed "Israel lawyers" Dennis Ross, furious that Obama appointed Charles Freeman who wont toe an Israel-first line to the National Intelligence Council.

Robert Dreyfuss

A thunderous, coordinated assault against one of President Obama's intelligence picks is now underway. It started in a few right-wing blogs, migrated to semi-official mouthpieces like the Jewish Telegraph Agency, and today it reached the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, in the form of the scurrilous piece by Gabriel Schoenfeld, a resident scholar at some outfit called "the Witherspoon Institute."

The target is Charles ("Chas") Freeman, the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former top Defense Department official during the Reagan administration, and president of the Middle East Policy Council, whose wide-ranging experience stretches from the Middle East to China. Freeman is slated to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the arm of Admiral Dennis Blair's Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The NIC is the body that includes a host of analysts called national intelligence officers who are responsible for culling intel from sixteen US agencies and compiling them into so-called National Intelligence Estimates. It's a critical job, since NIE's -- often released in public versions -- can have enormous political and policy impact. Cases in point: the infamous 2002 Iraq NIE on weapons of mass destruction and the 2007 NIE on Iran that revealed that Tehran had halted its work on nuclear weapons.

If the campaign by the neocons, friends of the Israeli far right, and their allies against Freeman succeeds, it will have enormous repercussions. If the White House caves in to their pressure, it will signal that President Obama's even-handedness in the Arab-Israeli dispute can't be trusted. Because if Obama can't defend his own appointee against criticism from a discredited, fringe movement like the neoconservatives, how can the Arabs expect Obama to be able to stand up to Israel's next prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu?

Freeman is a one-of-a-kind choice: with an impeccably establishment pedigree, Freeman has developed over the years a startling propensity to speak truth to power, which is precisely what one would want in a NIC chairman. Over the last decade, he's excoriated Israel for its stubborn refusal to compromise with the Palestinians, he's accused George W, Bush and the "neocons" of having pushed America over a cliff in Iraq, and he's ridiculed the military-industrial complex for trying to tout China as a bugaboo because, Freeman once told me, the Pentagon has suffered from "enemy deprivation syndrome" since the end of the Cold War.

Just last December, in a Nation cover story, "Obama's Afghan Dilemma," I quoted Freeman's incisive analysis on Afghanistan, and it's worth citing here again at length:

"What we conveniently have been labeling 'the Taliban' is a phenomenon that includes a lot of people simply on the Islamic right," says Freeman.

"What began as a punitive raid aimed at beheading Al Qaeda and chastising its Afghan household staff has somehow morphed--with no real discussion or debate--into a prolonged effort to pacify Afghanistan and transform its society," says Freeman. "This moving of the goal posts gratified neoconservatives and liberal interventionists alike. Our new purpose became giving Afghanistan a centrally directed state--something it had never had. We now fight to exclude reactionary Muslims from a role in governing the new Afghanistan." Freeman suggests that this is an untenable goal, and that it is time to co-opt local authorities and enlist regional allies in search of a settlement.

"What the insurgents do seem to agree about is that foreigners shouldn't run their country, and that the country should be run according to the principles of Islam," says Chas Freeman. "We need to recall the reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place," he says. "Our purpose deny the use of Afghan territory to terrorists with global reach. That was and is an attainable objective. It is a limited objective that can be achieved at reasonable cost. We must return to a ruthless focus on this objective. We cannot afford to pursue goals, however worthy, that contradict or undermine it. The reform of Afghan politics, society and mores must wait."

Schoenfeld, in the Wall Street Journal piece, says that Obama is placing a "China-coddling Israel-basher" in charge of writing intelligence estimates that, he says -- with no evidence whatsoever -- will reflect Freeman's own "outlandish" ideas.

But the firestorm directed at Freeman didn't start with Schoenfeld. It began with alarmist postings on a blog by Steve Rosen, the former official of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee who's been indicted for pro-Israeli espionage in a long-running AIPAC scandal. Rosen, whose blog is entitled "Obama Mideast Monitor," is published by the Middle East Forum, a rabid, right-wing Zionist outlet led by Daniel Pipes, whose Middle East Quarterly is edited by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. Said Rosen, whose blog appears alongside the Pipes-Rubin axis:

Freeman is a strident critic of Israel, and a textbook case of the old-line Arabism that afflicted American diplomacy at the time the state of Israel was born. His views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship, not the top CIA position for analytic products going to the President of the United States.

The Steve Rosen blast, which was followed up by Rosen here and here, richocheted around various AIPAC-linked blogs until it was picked up by (of course) Fox News on Monday. Fox settled on Frank Gaffney, an extremist, right-wing Zionist who leads the Center for Security Policy, to blast Freeman:

"This is a really serious error on the part of Dennis Blair and the Obama administration," said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the think tank Center for Security Policy . "Both in government and certainly in the period since he left government, he has compromised the objectivity that one would want in the person whose job it is to oversee the production of National Intelligence Estimates."

Gaffney called Freeman's perceived lack of concern for the Iranian threat to the U.S. and Israel "profoundly troubling," saying it would be "irresponsible in the extreme in the person who runs the National Intelligence Council."

"Whether it's his association with organizations with close ties to Iranians or close ties to the Chinese, these are disqualifiers for the job," Gaffney said.

Marty Peretz, the arch defender of Israeli depradations, weighs in too at The New Republic:

Freeman's real offense (and the president's if he were to appoint him) is that he has questioned the loyalty and patriotism of not only Zionists and other friends of Israel, the great swath of American Jews and their Christian countrymen, who believed that the protection of Zion is at the core of our religious and secular history.

And today, the smearing of Freeman landed on page 15 of the Wall Street Journal.

Some defenders of Freeman have begun speaking up. Jim Lobe, at, calls it "amazing" and "stunning" that Freeman was selected for the NIC chairmanship, and praised Freeman, writing: "He doesn't pull punches." Dan Froomkin, at Nieman Watchdog, called Freeman "a one-man destroyer of groupthink," and added:

The man is one of a rare breed: He is a Washington insider, and yet he is also a ferociously independent thinker, a super-realist, an iconoclast, a provocateur and a gadfly. He has, as I wrote in a article about him in 2006, spent a goodly part of the last 10 years raising questions that otherwise might never get answered -- or even asked -- because they're too embarrassing, awkward, or difficult.

But Freeman needs more defenders. The campaign by AIPAC, AEI, Pipes, the Wall Street Journal and their ilk can only be expected to intensify, using lots of muscle behind the scenes to pressure the White House, and Admiral Blair, to capitulate.


Robin Carmody said...


I never thought I'd say this, but I think this post - at this moment - is profoundly crude, crass, simplistic and unworthy of you.

Anonymous said...

crass, crude and simplistic? perhaps we should let the 'intellectuals' at specified think-tanks do the thinking, eh?
don't mention the millions of dead or homeless, don't mention the neo-conservatives or their agenda no matter how much it costs people like you and me directly never mind the arabs, yugoslavians, next stop, iranians.

al Jazeera. Empire, Israel and the US

three more british servicemen killed in afghanistan this week, hope it's not too crude to menion dead British boys brought home in boxes on the QT.


Robin Carmody said...


I don't support the neocon agenda as such, and I hope Obama can stand up against it (viz the Charles Freeman issue) - I just find it rather petulant and childish to still be writing articles like this at a time when Iraq finally seems to be taking a turn for the better. It isn't always quite so simple ...