Comments on: The Power of Nightmares

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:22:03 +0000

Absolutely brilliant piece of TV I thought – really made me question a lot of what I “thought” I knew about recent history. I have a question for anyone with a more detailed knowledge of recent US political history than I have: In episode 2 it was made clear that Bush snr originally rejected the neocons, as proved by his exit from the 1st Gulf War without going on to Baghdad. But, by the time of the party congress (I forget which year) they seemed in full command again. Now I know the neocons made a play for the religious right wingers and they were very successful in this area it would appear, but that doesn’t really explain how they came to be back “in power”. Was Bush snr finally persuaded by their arguments? Did they become a force he could no longer ignore? Anyone have any ideas? Thanks.

By: Kerry

Kerry — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:38:00 +0000

Reading some of these comments I think that many people miss the point when it comes to broadcasting something like this. Of all the things we hear about Al-Quaida and the war on terror, I think it is important to understand that we also need something or someone to counteract what we are being told through the media on a daily basis. While some of Adam Curtis’s theories might seem a little far fetched to some of us, I think it demonstrates a real need for mainstream television to offer the public a different perspective on the war on terror. Thus, whether it is lies or not, someone out there is willing to offer the public some semblence of the truth. At the very least, it forces those who watched the programme to question what has become the popular way of thinking since September 11th.

By: Harris

Harris — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:00:15 +0000

The threat is grossly exaggerated especially in the USA. How many times have al-Qaeda attacked the US on their soil ?? Only once and Bush is a fear mongerer who wants to win the elections with the terrorism card. Chris Bertram, what do you mean by “reality-based community” ??? where is it ??

By: ed-t

ed-t — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:03:29 +0000

I missed the first part too. Any idea if there’s a transcript out there – couldn’t get one on the BBC site. No joy with the torrent link. From what I saw tonight, it was sexy TV, but raised more questions than it cared to answer, too busy in its to and fro globetrotting between Asia, N Africa and US. Some food for thought, perhaps, especially prior to Ledeen’s lecture here in Oxford tomorrow. (The lecture’s in honour of Isaiah Berlin. Yes, that ignoble relativist, who always displayed the full range of symptoms of a diseased modernity: spinelessness, lack of moral clarity, womanish liberal compromise over ‘manly’ assertion of absolutes, blah blah .. add your favourite neocon adjectives here …)

By: luinzi

luinzi — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:49:19 +0000

This series was hyped up as being a ‘conspiracy theorist’s wet dream’ but after watching the second episode I am appreciating it more. It is starting to draw some interesting arguments such as the American’s dilema, which do they choose …. the preservation of their moral society or the propergation of the individual’s rights and liberties. As the second episode covered events which have happened within my lifetime I can relate to them directly and how I felt at the time. All in all I think Curtis puts across a very poigniant fact that the neocons have created a situation where they have pounced on this evil spectre of Al Qaeida (which may be a slightly more capable terrorist organisation than the documentary makes out)and used it to syncronize the Nations political imperatives. Now the next US election hinges on one question “is the US safe from Terrorism?”

By: Robin Trueman

Robin Trueman — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:15:08 +0000

Does anyone have a copy of the first episode of “Power of Nightmares”? I missed it and after watching the 2nd would dearly like to view the first. Please email me on robin.trueman@btinternet.com

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:04:54 +0000

Thanks for clarifying, Ginger Yellow. None of the people named were actually Strauss students, although Harvey Mansfield did meet Strauss, I believe, and is by anyone’s measure certainly a leading Straussian (and the sometime mentor of Bill Kristol). Irving Kristol professes to admire Strauss, but I’ve always found his statements about Strauss somewhat shallow. I’ve never heard of Weyrich being a Straussian; I rather doubt that he can be considered one, even if one uses the term very loosely. I do tend to think that, while there are indeed plenty of Straussians who’ve become involved in conservative politics (as well as one or two, like Bill Galston, who’ve become involved in Democratic politics), a lot of those who are identified as, and even identify themselves as, ‘Straussians’ are just conservative would-be intellectuals looking for a weighty thinker onto which to hang their agenda; and Strauss, being obscure and sort of nebulously conservative, and having a number of devoted boosters, fits this role well. Qutb’s influence I take to have been more direct and profound; but this is perhaps just a reflection of my own ignorance.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:48:14 +0000

“So far as I know, the source for this claim is a brief comment in Bob Woodward’s Veil, made in response to Claire Sterling’s The Terror Network. Is there anything more authoritative?” Curtis interviewed a former CIA official who said (I paraphrase): “We knew none of it was true because we made it up ourselves and planted it in the press.” ” what students/adherents of Strauss were interviewed for this documentary?” I’m not sure which were students and which adherents, but the following all purported to be channelling Strauss on the programme, among others: Irving Kristol, Harvey Mansfield, Paul Weyrich. Bear in mind that the twin-thrust of the Strauss thead was a) that he expounded the value of the noble lie in ancient philosphy, and that b) a lot of present day neoconservatives took that idea and applied it to US politics. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Curtis blames Strauss for this, per se. In trying to draw parallels between the neocons and radical Islamists, he finds it interesting that they both adopt the idea that it’s OK for an elite to do bad things (lie to the people, kill Muslims) to save the masses from their own selfish behaviour, and that on either side, a surprising number were influenced by a single individual. To be sure he glosses over a lot of what Strauss actually said, as opposed to how he was interpreted, but the focus is always on the interpreters and their actions. Qutb, by contrast, was very much the focus of the Islamist thread.

By: John Watson

John Watson — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:00:44 +0000

It looks like many commenters here have not even seen ”The Power of Nightmares”. Get it online if you want to actually discuss its content. Get it here.
The link above is a bittorrent file. If you dont have bittorrent, you need to download it from here.

By: mitch p.

mitch p. — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:46:57 +0000

And then there was the bizarre demand that the CIA provide the evidence to back up a claim that the Soviets were behind a single, interlinked global terror network (IRA + Baader Meinhof + etc). This fell down because the CIA operatives knew that what was being cited as “evidence” was, in fact, black propaganda that they themselves had concocted and planted in European newspapers! So far as I know, the source for this claim is a brief comment in Bob Woodward’s Veil, made in response to Claire Sterling’s The Terror Network. Is there anything more authoritative? In the last few years I’ve often wondered whether US intelligence has a long-standing policy of denying state-sponsored terrorism directed against the West, starting with the 1963 Kennedy assassination, continuing with Soviet sponsorship of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s, and now reaching some sort of apotheosis with Iraq and al Qaeda. The policy would be: deny the element of state sponsorship if the sponsor is untouchable on that score. Thus it was safe to blame Libya in 1986, because Libya was weak and isolated; but the USSR was untouchable right up until 1991, and it took 9/11 to make regime change in Iraq the number-one priority. (I’ll also hypothesize that there was a relationship between North Korea and Aum Shinrikyo which remains buried.)

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:40:56 +0000

I have just a couple of issues with Scott Martens’s learned onslaught on Strauss, aside from what russkie says (by the way, was it really necessary to marr a perfectly reasonable defense of Strauss by associating John Rawls, even indirectly, with Counterpunch?) The main problem is that Scott attributes views to Strauss without citing where Strauss supposedly expressed these views. To do so would of course be difficult, since Strauss did not, in fact, express the views attributed to him (by some of his disciples, as well as detractors) regarding religion or liberal democracy. As to Qutb and Strauss as anti-modern, it’s a fair point, though again, Strauss’s critique of modernity is rather different in tenor from Qutb’s. But might it not be worth asking what the differences of their proposed alternatives were? I mean, classical Platonic rationalism (as Strauss conceives it) and Islamic fundamentalism (as Qutb conceives it) are rather different outlooks. To overlook this fact in comparing them is sort of odd. (By the way, neither this, nor my previous posts, are intended as ‘defenses’ of Strauss, if that be taken to mean defending him against criticism of his views or advocating his ideas. I merely think that depicting Strauss as analogous to Qutb is intellectually somewhat shoddy).

By: Omada

Omada — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:32:57 +0000

Someone wanted a torrent link?

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:46:00 +0000

I’m sorry, again. The link above is wrong. This is the correct link: Brzezinski Interview

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:37:08 +0000

“Torrent link, please?” Does that mean this? Brzezinski Interview OK? Sorry (:-(

By: hi-fi

hi-fi — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:20:42 +0000

Torrent link, please?