Jump to content
The Education Forum

Matt Cloud

Members
  • Posts

    407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Matt Cloud

Profile Information

  • Location
    The room where it happened.
  • Interests
    #WhoWasJohnMcMahon?

Recent Profile Visitors

397 profile views

Matt Cloud's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done
  • Dedicated
  • Collaborator
  • First Post

Recent Badges

  1. The meaningful question as regards Moynihan and the neo-cons is why did he ostensibly break from them, in public that is, after 1982. Why do histories of neoconservatism say that after 1982 moynihan is ideologically meaningless from the neo-con pov? To begin to answer that you need to begin to understand Moynihan's relationship with DDCI John McMahon. (That's the classified portion of this history.) Remember McMahon debriefed Gary Powers plus Golitsyn and Nosenko, and then in 1985 "staked is career on Yurchenko's bona fides."
  2. There's deception going on here. You are going have to go deeper. Moynihan set-up iran-contra before he took it down. Moynihan was writing Scoop Jackson's campaign speeches in 76. Blah blah blah. If you want to delve deeper into DLC we can. Neo-lib and neo-con are the same thing, essentially, with subtl differences at the edges perhaps, but think of that as a PR device to not sound so conservative. Two side same coin -- that';s the centrism, the uni-party. This is so utterly superficial by you. Are you analysts or what?
  3. Yes, a little due diligence, as you just did, would behoove everyone around here before spouting off.
  4. That's why it's a secret, what Bernstein called the greatest secret ever. I more or less walked through the analysis over a year ago over in the comments section at Roger Stone's site -- he doesn't like Moynihan being Deep Throat either -- but he has reasons of his own to insist it be Haig. The Plumbers -- whom Moynihan brought on to the Nixon WH staff -- were actually working for the neo-cons. If Stone admitted that his fraud would be exposed. Anyway you can try and make your way through the comments over there: https://rogerstone.substack.com/p/nixon-threatened-to-reveal-the-cias/comments#comment-47932941 Alternatively, or additionally, you can go to my twitter feed @realmattcloud and poke through there. #MoynihanWasDeepThroat. There's over ten thousand tweets by me making the case. Not going to go through it all here, again. A key starting point would be however, Deep Throat according to Woodard knew of the taping system. his was told to Woodward circa first week November 1973. Moynihan was ambassador to India by then but when was back in town, in DC, during the needed time period. The taping system went in when Moynihan left the Nixon WH in Feb 71. Butterfield was Moynihan's nightly drinking buddy. Start there. By the way, Moynihan carried Harriman's briefcase in the 1950, yes. I carried Moynihan's in the 1990s. I was his last personal aide.
  5. Moynihan more than anyone destroyed the McGovern wing of the D Party. He was Deep Throat. He was Woodward's no. 1 guy, of course, from All The President's Men through Veil and beyond.
  6. Moynihan created the centrist DLC, after recommending to ADA in 1967 (attended by Elliot Abrams) that they fuse with the GOP. Buckley like the idea. He endorsed it. It happened. You just haven' been paying attention.
  7. Or see his other bestest friend James Q. Wilson who vouched for him to get the Harvard professorship in 1965 when and where he began tutoring Edward Jay Epstein. Moynihan did. His office was like bureau of Commentary Magazine. What do you think "giving them hell at the U.N. was all about?" How bout Claire Sterling and Michael Ledeen? Ever read The Spike, Arnaud's 1980 "novel" about Pat Moynihan taking over the US government? "Zionism is not racism." 1975. How bout the destruction of the Paul Warnke nomination? How bout creating FISA? Didn't W F Buckley urge Moynihan as Reagan VP over Bush? How bout Intelligence Identities Protection Act? When Cheney and Rumsfeld are mobilizing in December 2000, who do they call? Pat Moynihan.
  8. See also Stephen Sestonovich. A Neo-Con Repents University of Redlands http://bulldog2.redlands.edu › Spickard › NeoConservative Feb 19, 2006 — ... Stephen Sestanovich calls American maximalism, wherein Washington acted first and sought legitimacy and support from its allies only after ... The neoconservative theory of international politics AUC Knowledge Fountain https://fount.aucegypt.edu › cgi › viewcontent PDF by Z Larwood · 2018 · Cited by 2 — New York Times editorial board member Bret Stephens, a neoconservative himself, ... Moynihan, and Stephen Sestanovich. “Responses to ... “Looking Back on Neo- ... After Neoconservatism The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com › 2006/02/19 › magazine › af... Feb 19, 2006 — Of course, the cold war was replete with instances of what the foreign policy analyst Stephen Sestanovich calls American maximalism, wherein ... Stephen Sestanovich Council on Foreign Relations https://www.cfr.org › expert › stephen-sestanovich Stephen Sestanovich is the George F. Kennan senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Kathryn and Shelby ...
  9. See also Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt. I could go on for days on this. But I won't because that's your responsibility.
  10. Or if you like Bill Kristol interning for Moynihan at Nixon WH. Or ... George Will being recommended to Moynihan by Kristol and than Moynihan recommending to The Post that he be hired there. Utterly absurd display of (feigned?) ignorance.
  11. If the words Moynihan and neo-con are two you haven't seen together before, you're going to have read-up on the side. But I'll throw in a couple teasers for you to help you along. Kristol and Podhoretz were among Moynihan's closest friends. Kristol having published him at neo-con The Reporter magazine in 1958. Moynihan essentially founded The pUblic Interest, along with Kristol and Bell. Virtually his entire first-term senate staff was the neo--cons like Elliot Abrams who would join the Reagan administration. This is like you telling me the sky is not blue and demanding I prove it. Come on.
  12. To be sure, yes, once "boots on the ground" typical refrain from the Right is to do more. That's one reason why wars start under "left" administrations perhaps. They can always be ramped-up. And yes, democratic party was fractured by the Red Scare. Already noted. And yes, terminology is very relative and even reversible. Yes. Especially as right and left fuse into essentially a uni-party from esp 1975 say to 2003. The Soviet Union was the backer of wars of national liberation. That's a fact. The Left -- the Soviet Union -- wants wars in the third-world to end colonialization, imperialism, racism. A goal shared by many on the Left in America and many on the Right, too. No a slight or an insult. Both of these groups would effectively merge during the cold war, as I have been stating. And the isolationists, the "america-firsters", the old-time right, was effectively removed from political discourse during this time. Same for the "true Left" as referenced above. This really is not anything controversial as regards history of the last 80 years, provided it is done with detached and straight-forward perspective. All that's happening here, on this thread, is certain contributors are having reactionary recoil based on certain terminology as if they can't take an honest look in the mirror. Labels and associations are controlling and getting in the way of honest understanding.
  13. Lighten up. The comments stand on their own and are here to be subjected to scrutiny. Besides, Geneva Conventions for the Treatment of Prisoners require I give only name, rank, and serial number.
  14. Yes the dirty secret is that Left -- not your student protesters of later years -- but your egghead intellectuals -- your whiz kids, people with actual policy power, were both pro VN war (until they were against it, after it was "lost" politically in America) and pro Civil Rights. That's what the Left is desperate to hide and never admit. As evidenced here. That's how you get Progressive change -- which the Left wants. That's how you get decolonialization -- which the Left wants. You need conflict. You need turmoil. You need upheaval. These are not conservative tactics and goals. This is not complex.
×
×
  • Create New...