|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 7, 2010 19:10:20 GMT
My guess would be that he's a traditional Randist type of Republican who doesn't really like the way the nutters like Huckabee have become so influential but is too loyal to change his political alleigances, Beth.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 7, 2010 21:16:58 GMT
My guess would be that he's a traditional Randist type of Republican who doesn't really like the way the nutters like Huckabee have become so influential but is too loyal to change his political alleigances, Beth. Couple of things - first, the Rand disciples are not Republicans but Libertarians. Next, the right rev. Huckabee has nothing to do with the Project for the New American Century, neither does Palin or any of the other far right social conservatives who pander to the fundamentalist Christian movement. The main distinguishing issue re. the PNAC is a lust for conquest and empire building, aka "spreading democracy". There are more issues than that, but it appears to be first and foremost. Here's a list of those who signed the policy statement that was featured on the PNAC home website until is was disabled sometime during the past 2 months. Signatories to Statement of Principles Elliott Abrams[5] Gary Bauer[5] William J. Bennett[5] John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[5] Richard B. Cheney[5] Eliot A. Cohen[5] Midge Decter[5] Paula Dobriansky[5] Steve Forbes[5] Aaron Friedberg[5] Francis Fukuyama[5] Frank Gaffney[5] Fred C. Ikle[5] Donald Kagan[5] Zalmay Khalilzad[5] I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[5] Norman Podhoretz[5] J. Danforth Quayle[5] Peter W. Rodman[5] Stephen P. Rosen[5] Henry S. Rowen[5] Donald Rumsfeld[5] Vin Weber[5] George Weigel[5] Paul Wolfowitz[5] and . . . here's a link to an excellent article by Will Pitt that gives a good bit of insight. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 7, 2010 22:18:10 GMT
What I don't understand is why he'd want to deny the existence of the neo-cons and PNAC and try to pretend they are a liberal invention - although if you trace the movement back far enough, it probably did start among liberals (neo-liberals) but never got a foothold until it was warmly embraced by Cheney and his ilk. Beth sorry if I wasn't clear on that point. I did read your original link to the PNAC site. I didn't mean for you to get the idea that I was in denial that it existed. Maybe I can make my point a little better by trying again. PNAC was not invented by the liberals but it was they who claimed it was important. They saw it as a smoking gun and tried to sensationalize it. They succeeded to a degree but only among themselves. It was a hot topic on liberal propaganda sites like Indymedia.org, Moveon.org, DailyKos, and Huffington Post. I never saw it mentioned or discussed on any of the sites I frequent. To the best of my knowledge it was never on the mind of most Republicans. It was a non-starter for us.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 8, 2010 19:49:00 GMT
What I don't understand is why he'd want to deny the existence of the neo-cons and PNAC and try to pretend they are a liberal invention - although if you trace the movement back far enough, it probably did start among liberals (neo-liberals) but never got a foothold until it was warmly embraced by Cheney and his ilk. Beth sorry if I wasn't clear on that point. I did read your original link to the PNAC site. I didn't mean for you to get the idea that I was in denial that it existed. Maybe I can make my point a little better by trying again. PNAC was not invented by the liberals but it was they who claimed it was important. They saw it as a smoking gun and tried to sensationalize it. They succeeded to a degree but only among themselves. It was a hot topic on liberal propaganda sites like Indymedia.org, Moveon.org, DailyKos, and Huffington Post. I never saw it mentioned or discussed on any of the sites I frequent. To the best of my knowledge it was never on the mind of most Republicans. It was a non-starter for us. I think they had good reason to be somewhat alarmed and to watch this org. carefully. After all, several of the PNAC major players were in positions of power, including the vice prez and the sec of defense. I'd even suggest we would have concentrated our efforts and multi-billions in other areas than Iraq if not for Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others who wanted to hit the ME country they thought they could must easily take down with a bully leader and trumped up "evidence" as excuses. That's actually my grievance. I give the neo cons credit and blame for the Iraq debacle. If they weasel their way back into power, I suggest they will happily use every influence to send us out again - in the same direction, for the same cause. I also suspect they will groom Jeb Bush for the top job and attempt to use him to take the WH, sometime in the next few years. Interesting that you chose lib sites I seldom ever go to read - Adrianna's site occasionally if a link leads me there - only run into MarKOS on TV where he does a pretty good job holding up his end (for a blog guy) - MoveOn. not at all, though I think they've done some good things. One of these days, when time and inclination meet, I'll provide a list of really good liberal sites.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 8, 2010 22:43:36 GMT
Well Beth I don't know about any great right wing PNAC conspiracy but I'm certainly glad that we went into Iraq and took down Saddam. Ditto for going into Afghanistan and kicking the Taliban out of power. Bush had some faults but failure to take action wasn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 11, 2010 0:41:07 GMT
What I don't understand is why he'd want to deny the existence of the neo-cons and PNAC and try to pretend they are a liberal invention - although if you trace the movement back far enough, it probably did start among liberals (neo-liberals) but never got a foothold until it was warmly embraced by Cheney and his ilk. Beth sorry if I wasn't clear on that point. I did read your original link to the PNAC site. I didn't mean for you to get the idea that I was in denial that it existed. Maybe I can make my point a little better by trying again. PNAC was not invented by the liberals but it was they who claimed it was important. They saw it as a smoking gun and tried to sensationalize it. They succeeded to a degree but only among themselves. It was a hot topic on liberal propaganda sites like Indymedia.org, Moveon.org, DailyKos, and Huffington Post. I never saw it mentioned or discussed on any of the sites I frequent. To the best of my knowledge it was never on the mind of most Republicans. It was a non-starter for us. wrong lad. it is the ONLY thing on the mind of ALL right wingers. you just don't call it pnac, but everything that you think is straight out of pnac
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 11, 2010 2:10:37 GMT
Conspiracy? No, they are very open about their agenda. They are ideologs and opportunists - out of the lime light for the most part now - except, of course, for Cheney who seems to have a hard time letting go. Waiting in the shadows for a chance to come along, a door to open just a crack, and, when it does, to look for an opportunity - an advantage - to drag this country into their obsessive dramas. History always repeats itself eventually. Let us hope this smarmy crew dies out before they can gain power and influence again.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 11, 2010 3:28:32 GMT
I like all those guys. Can't stand Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Clintons, etc. The USA and the World were much better off with Bush and Cheney than they are now.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 11, 2010 17:23:56 GMT
I like all those guys. Can't stand Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Clintons, etc. The USA and the World were much better off with Bush and Cheney than they are now. I can understand your feeling that way. They probably seem just like regular guys. GWB, I think, is a pretty 'regular guy' type in the U.S., if those guys are college educated with decent incomes and feel easy on the golf courses and in the country clubs of this country. I've been around people like that a large part of my life, das. If you own up to Bush not really being presidential material, but good middle management for . . . say, maybe an insurance company or bank - I can agree . . . he's very likable - a regular guy. But, turn around and take a closer look at Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams. Do you seriously think they are likable people or guys we should entrust with the affairs of this country? I'm certainly not arguing the lefties are all that much better - just that we have had every opportunity to learn and understand the agenda of the PNAC. Don't give them an inch to carry out that agenda because they are likable.
|
|