Posted on 06/09/2003 12:42:54 PM PDT by hchutch
You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution, Jack. Either you're talking about serious solutions to real problems, or you're just another moron wasting the grownups' time.
I know John Galt. John Galt is a personal friend of mine. You, sir, are no John Galt.
Fine, I would settled for one firing and one pension stripping, and I would have supported your Middle East adventure.
Hmm. Your approach reminds me of the Queen of Hearts' "Sentence first, verdict afterwards," because the process of identifying who (if anyone) should be held accountable for 9/11 would take years. So you'd either (a) accept that the United States would do nothing in its defense, or (b) just fire somebody for s**ts and grins.
You went along with a foreign war without so much as one dissmisal-- I hope I am never as cynical about the United States governmetn as you are.
Ol' John Galt demands his pound of flesh as the price of supporting a war--he ignores the actual merits of whether or not we should go to war with Iraq, he just demands that SOMEONE get fired and stripped of his pension, and he's cool with a war.
This WMD mass hysteria in no different than the Enron issue. As soon as it is debunked, the lefties will move on to another anti-Bush attack.
Let's be honest here, there is no "original" conservatives, Paleos, these are disaffected Republicans.
If there are so many cynics, why are there unprecidented gains for the GOP in recent elections, hmmmmm?
No thanks to your kind, in fact despite you best efforts
...nuclear materials that could easily have supplied terrorists with "an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs."
"Inestimable." Iraq either had enough nuclear material to build thousands of bombs, or it didn't have enough to even build one. We just have no way of knowing, so the Bush Doctrine calls for a "better-safe-than-sorry/shoot-first-ask-questions-later" approach to foreign policy.
The former.
Since he doesn't agree with you, he's "splitting the party?"
I disagree with many Republicans on many issues. They disagree with me on those issues as well. However, 99.99% of them (and 100% of me) disagree in an open, forthright manner that doesn't involve rumor-mongering, back-stabbing, and so on, but instead revolves around open debate and discussion.
Kristol's in the 0.01%.
Kristol has this habit of using "anonymous sources" allegedly within the Bush administration that (a) just HAPPEN to agree 100% with his interpretation of things, and (b) have been conclusively demonstrated as being dead wrong whenever he was dead wrong--which was frequent.
In this post-Jayson Blair era, I think I might be forgiven for thinking that he made up his "sources" out of whole cloth.
Funny, the Paleos accuse him of leading the party about by it's nostrils. How can he be "splitting" the party at the same time he hijacked it? does not compute.
Perhaps the paleos are misreading the situation, because they are fixated on something else re: Kristol.
Or the Bush-knew issue, or the quagmire-in-Afghanistan issue, or the quagmire-in-Iraq issue, or the priceless-treasures-have been-looted issue, or the Jessica-Lynch-rescue-was-staged issue, or the half-a-million-people-will-die-if-we-go-to-war-with-Iraq issue, or the damn-he-looks-good-in-a-flightsuit issue ...
Funny, the only Republicans I see nowadays engaging in "rumor-mongering" and "back-stabbing" are the ones who have invented a sinister cabal of "neo-cons" who are somehow secretly behind everything the "good" Republicans disagree with.
The most notorious one is an ex-Republican.
Now, if only we could get Buchanan to run for the Democratic nomination :o)
Kristol is a special case. He has a personal vendetta against either mainstream conservatives and/or the Bush family, and whenever he has the opportunity, he likes to throw spitballs, carry tales, and generally cause problems.
Krauthammer, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. are fine by me, and I think they are an asset to the Republican party and the administration.
Kristol, however, is not always helpful. I am on record about this since long before the war...in fact since before the Jeffords defection, which I would bet Kristol had something to do with. Kristol was causing trouble in the first Bush administration. He is not trustworthy, in my opinion.
"Depending on its potency, a contamination-spewing radiological bomb could kill dozens, hundreds, possibly thousands. Its toxic plume could render a square mile or more uninhabitable for a decade or longer. It would cause a huge cleanup and demoralize a city, perhaps a nation.
Dirty Bombs aren't WMD eh? Global Security seems to disagree. Would "dpWHINER" care to post some rebutting information or should we all just put on our tin foil hats to stop the government from lying to us about the effects of "dirty bombs"
The fact remains that the Al Quaeda connection appears and appeared before the war to be B.S. It couldn't sell, so the war was sold on WMD. Now, you can get all over me all you want, but it isn't playing in Peoria or anywhere else in the world. I'm just a messenger. Bush has a problem and Rush's repeating the claim that the war was sold on other than the WMD doesn't make it so.
You will disagree with the entire second paragraph, so do it and let's end the debate. Your mind won't change; until we see something substantive, mine won't. I think we were--probably inadvertently--sold a bill of goods.
I go you one further: I don't even know who the so-called "neo-cons" are. Here is my current, complete, confirmed list of "neo-cons": 1. Norman Podhoretz, 2. Irving Kristol, 3. (maybe) David Horowitz
I agree with many, if not most of their positions, including, on occasion, Kristol.
Are you saying that Bill Kristol is one such so-called "neo-con"? Says who?
Kristol is a special case. He has a personal vendetta against either mainstream conservatives and/or the Bush family,
He does? So you can read his mind?
he likes to throw spitballs, carry tales, and generally cause problems.
In English please? What's a "spitball"? This is starting to remind me of the '90s when leftists would constantly describing Newt Gingrich as "bomb-throwing". I would always think, "what the hell are they talking about? what 'bombs'?"
What "spitballs"?
Krauthammer, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. are fine by me,
That's terrific, really. What do they have to do with anything? You think they're "neo-cons"? Why do you think that?
Kristol, however, is not always helpful.
Okay so boil this all down and what we've got is that: you don't entirely like or appreciate the contributions to the political sphere of one Bill Kristol, news opinion writer and TV commentator.
Well! That's fascinating. Anything else? Because as a grand analysis of the political scene it doesn't tell me all that much.
Kristol was causing trouble in the first Bush administration. He is not trustworthy, in my opinion.
Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinions and all. Personally I have almost no opinion of Bill Kristol one way or the other.
I haven't the foggiest idea what any of this has to do with a discussion of "neo-cons".
Which ones might those be?
We also saw that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and know that Saudi Arabia currently, as well as in the past, supports terrorism. But yet they're our ally and Iraq is the terrorist supporter. Makes sense to 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.