Neo-conservatives Continue to Turn on Bush: He's an "Appeaser"!!! (2 Viewers)

So, who inside the administration...who are the evil "neocons" who have been mis-advising Bush?
 
I'm so sick of these people who are saber rattling and most would never volunteer to figh nor wish their children to do so!
 
This isn't directed at you DD, but I've just can't understand this logic.

So, if you're not in agreement with someone, you can simply label (judge) the other which justifies the discredit or dismissal? This ignorance and lack of maturity (for lack of a better word) shouldn't be tolerated by the individuals we elected to office. This is Elementary actions IMO.

Namecalling provides reasons to not listen to the opposition?????????? :dunno:

EXAMPLE: Geauxboy, you're a stinkin' Falcons fan. Your opinion doesn't mean squat. Dog killer.
 
I don't know about any neocons mis-advising Bush, but many have mis-advised Bush. I don't care what label they are slapped with.
 
The Republican party might just implode over Iraq later in the year.
That coupled with a Bloomburg and or Hegel Presidency run might just ensure another Clinton in the White House.
 
I don't know about any neocons mis-advising Bush, but many have mis-advised Bush. I don't care what label they are slapped with.

EXAMPLE: You're a Dog Killer. You would think that way in your canine blood-soaked Vick jersey.

Now do you see how labeling works? :)
 
EXAMPLE: Geauxboy, you're a stinkin' Falcons fan. Your opinion doesn't mean squat. Dog killer.

If you wanna go there, so can I.

DD said:
Is there some official list or scorecard or something? I'm lost.

You're lost in the facinating world of Britney Spears trying to recapture your youth. Old fart.

[edit] btw, I get your example, but the name calling has no real affect on my decision making nor does it allow me the possibility of writing you off because of it.
 
Last edited:
Especially when the source of the list is funded by the Rockefeller Associates, the
Rockefeller Family Foundation and Ted Turner!


You miss the point.

It is a self-imposed label cooked up by Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol (Weekly Standard), and his friends. Irving wrote the manifesto. You can read his thoughts on what it means:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

No need to make up a label or put words in their mouths. They are open about what their politics are.
 
You miss the point.

It is a self-imposed label cooked up by Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol (Weekly Standard), and his friends. Irving wrote the manifesto. You can read his thoughts on what it means:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

No need to make up a label or put words in their mouths. They are open about what their politics are.

You keep saying "they" but there's only one self-avowed neoconservative in that whole article.
 
So, who inside the administration...who are the evil "neocons" who have been mis-advising Bush?

Evil????

Misguided, wrongheaded or dumb would be better words.

Many have been purged.

Those of the neoconservative persuasion left in the adminsitration in key roles would be Eliott Abrams (the same guy who lied to Congress during Iran-Contra), Eliot Cohen, & Abram Shulsky.

Most importantly Cheney seems to buy into their views wholeheartedly, so the view is still represented by him in the White House.
 
Evil????

Misguided, wrongheaded or dumb would be better words.

Many have been purged.

Those of the neoconservative persuasion left in the adminsitration in key roles would be Eliott Abrams (the same guy who lied to Congress during Iran-Contra), Eliot Cohen, & Abram Shulsky.

Most importantly Cheney seems to buy into their views wholeheartedly, so the view is still represented by him in the White House.

Eliott Abrams (the same guy who lied to Congress during Iran-Contra), Eliot Cohen, & Abram Shulsky...Cheney...are they self-avowed neoconservatives, or is that a label hung on them by others?
 
You keep saying "they" but there's only one self-avowed neoconservative in that whole article.


You are getting into splitting hairs again, like you are going to argue that there really is "no such thing as neoconservatism" because the manifesto was only written by one man.

You are smart enough to get the background without us doing this dance:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

Here you go, an article from one who used to be avowed, but left the flock:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?ex=1298005200&en=4126fa38fefd80de&ei=5090

It's real, even if its discredited somewhat and its members now try to avoid being publicly associated with their own movement.
 
Eliott Abrams (the same guy who lied to Congress during Iran-Contra), Eliot Cohen, & Abram Shulsky...Cheney...are they self-avowed neoconservatives, or is that a label hung on them by others?

I think they are all likely the kind of Washington operators that would never get caught on the record saying exactly what they really believe...

But, clearly, if the Weekly Standard publshes the manifesto on neoconservatism, then by extension I'd say that's an endorsement from William Kristol and Fred Barnes and the rest of the editors.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom