Posted on 06/09/2003 12:42:54 PM PDT by hchutch
Keene correctly identifies conservative christians as "social conservatives". One assumes that grouping would include other religious conservatives besides just "christian" conservatives, which might explain why you're not happy about it.
-BTW are there any elected officials anywhere that you DO support?
And as far as I know, Kristol has nothing to do with policy in this administration. The last time Cheney made a public comment about Kristol, he said that "Bill just wants to sell a lot of magazines."
As critical as I can be of Bush, you are just plain wrong. A dirty bomb in downtown Manhattan would destroy a sizable portion of the economy -- a little bit more serious than 'annoyance'.
Furthermore, the fairly serious increase in cancers in the effected area would result in a goodly body count.
Or would you argue, as I would, that it would destroy a sizable portion of the economy?
As far as the discussion of neo-cons, I was using the generally accepted grouping often bandied about here. Frankly, it doesn't make much difference to me.
However, Kristol's opinion (exagerrated by Newsmax) is what prompted much of this discussion, and since the administration is accused of allowing people like Kristol to drive policy (not true) some discussion of his history was in order.
Sorry if you felt I was off-topic.
People are taking this too lightly. Saddam had maybe 20,000 litres of anthrax, enough to wipe out much of the world's population if he had the means of delivering it. And that's just one WMD.
I'm not so worried about a truck bomb in front of a building, as I am about a poison gas attack in a subway or other crowded public place. It's pretty easy to make poison gas from household kitchen chemicals that can kill hundreds. Saddam had his experts making the real toxic stuff. Be afraid and be vigilant.
Krauthammer, Perle, Wolfowitz, as well as Cheney and Powell were at the PNAC with Kristol. So part of the PNAC is good and the rest bad?
LOL. The funny part here is that you seem to think that's IMPOSSIBLE. You ACTUALLY think that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a person such as Miss Marple to dislike Bill Kristol, but have no problems with Krauthammer, Perle, or Wolfowitz, because they all were "at the PNAC".
One either must like everyone "at the PNAC" or hate them all! No in betweens!
That's darn hilarious.
Good question... because you wrote to me? And because you seemed to think your comments about Kristol had something to do with "neocons"?
As far as the discussion of neo-cons, I was using the generally accepted grouping often bandied about here.
I know, but I don't accept that grouping, because it is used neither consistently nor comprehensibly. I can't find two different Freepers who agree fully on what a "neo-con" is.
I do know, however, that it is supposed to have something to do with being a former socialist who has converted to conservatism. How that is supposed to relate to Bill Kristol still stumps me (which is why I asked).
Sorry if you felt I was off-topic.
I didn't. I'm sorry you got that impression.
That settles it, then. We haven't found any WMDs, so there obviously were and are no WMDs. Haven't found Saddam Hussein, so it is clear there is no Saddam Hussein. In fact, there never was a Saddam Hussein. Uday and Queasy? Colorful inventions hatched from the fevered brow of Paul Wolfowitiz or some other deceitful neocon.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence--unless you are a paleocon and the subject is Iraq.
He roomed with Alan Keyes in college. He got his first break in government by being hired as a domestic policy advisor to Dan Quayle. He was mistrusted by the Bush I White House. By the time he got to be Quayle's Chief of Staff, Baker wouldn't even allow him into campaign meetings because he said he didn't want to see everything in the press. Quayle says this was because James Baker was intimidated by Kristol's leadership and intellect. (Anyone who thinks Kristol could intimidate Baker may now quit reading, as you are a hopeless case.) Personally, that sounded very much to me like an idea that Kristol planted in Quayle's mind...much as he "suggested" that Quayle include that Murphy Brown reference in his speech, which of course was so helpful to Quayle's career.
Kristol was the campaign manager for Keyes's senate campaign, whicih was a failure. He then managed to convince Rupert Murdoch to start the funding for The Weekly Standard.
He was instrumental in getting the Republicans to go for a government shut-down in the budget confrontation with Clinton. He went on and on about Colin Powell being the ONLY possible candidate who could beat Gore. He switched to McCain when Powell refused to run. This, of course, is the same powell that Kristol is now attacking at every opportnity. Let us also not forget his bomb about the China plane incident , "Our Profound National Humiliation," which prompted the Cheney quote about selling magazines.
I would also bet cash money that he egged Jeffords to switch parties. He was a bit too gleeful about his scoop on Brit Hume's show, and I am wondering exactly where Jefffords got the mistaken idea that the administration was going to cut his milk funding.
Kristol, as a person with press credentials, has access to the halls of Congress and most agencies. I think he is like Iago, skulking around and carrying tales, dropping little divisive hints when he thinks it will cause the maximum effect.
This is, of course, my interpretation. I have spent a lot of time watching him and have concluded he shouldn't be trusted.
Watch what he says and does for 6 months and perhaps you will agree with me.
I just don't understand what it has to do with so-called "neo-cons". Maybe nothing.
Pike helped form the National Campaign to Save the ABM Treaty, and served on its Executive Committee. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has served on a variety of non-governmental boards and advisory committees, including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Peace Research and European Security Studies Center, and the Verification Technology Information Centre of London. He has been a consultant to numerous groups, including the United Nations Group of Government Experts on Confidence Building Measures in Outer Space.
A real lefty peacenik from way back. You might want to learn about someone's background before you worship his analysis. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Sorry, next contestant.
One more hint - go back and count the number of "coulds" in your quote. Covers a lot of uncertainty; can also cover a lot of exaggerations.
Why do you act as if the Bush Doctrine is such a bad thing?
Probably because it IS a bad thing.
Can you imagine the Bush Doctrine being applied to everyday life? Let's assume for a moment that a family member of mine is indiscriminately killed in a drive-by shooting. If I were to hunt down and kill the gang members directly responsible for the shooting, some people would agree that my actions were just. A jury of my peers might even let me off the hook with a ruling of "justifiable homicide."
Taking it a step further, let's assume that I not only kill the gang members responsible, but I start shooting other gang members simply because they pose a "potential threat" to the safety of my home and family. Would my actions be justified? No. And there wouldn't be a jury in the nation that would acquit me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.