We've been NEO-CONNED

[Stephanie]

Your input on these talking points, please. (mods, not 2004 please - PNAC talking points work-in-progress).

Kerry can defuse all of the 'voted for it before he voted against it' BS if he addresses the REAL reasons for the war.

Kerry was lied to by the neo-cons before his vote on the Iraq resolution.

Was George Bush also lied to, or did he know the evidence against Iraq was false and demand America fight a war anyway?

Six years ago, an extremist right-wing think tank called Project for a New American Century dreamed up this Iraq war as the first stage in a planned 50-Years-War. They wanted to conquer the Middle East and then move on to establish America as the one supreme world power. American hegemony. They presented their plan to Clinton, who refused to implement it.

When George Bush came into office these neo-cons got themselves plum jobs in the Pentagon and the Vice President's office.

Immediately after 9/11 the neo-cons moved to exploit the tragedy to their advantage.

When they still couldn't justify attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, they installed a special office in the Pentagon.

The OSP was formed for the purpose of distorting intelligence and employing false intelligence to advance the neo-con agenda of invading Iraq.

The neo-cons surely knew their evidence was false. What did the President know and when did he know it?

Those lies got us into Iraq, and made a fool of Colin Powell at the UN.

Last summer, a diplomat named Joseph Wilson challenged Bush on one of those lies, by writing an article in the NY Times.

Consequently, the diplomat's wife was exposed by the neo-cons and the WH as an undercover CIA agent, jeopardizing not just her life but every member of her CIA network. This was a treasonous betrayal, and a felony. It is currently under investigation by the Justice Department.

Undeterred, the neo-cons now want us to move on to step two - Iran. Every day we see, in neo-con speeches and articles, hints that Iran will be next.

This despite the fact that, according to Bob Herbert in the NY Times today, it is common knowledge in Washington that we will not get out of Iraq for another 10 to 20 years. John McCain admitted as much.

America has been lied to. We've been neo-conned.

Is this President smart enough to know he's been neo-conned? Or will he let it happen again?

Should the US invade Iran, too? What about Syria?

Are you prepared to see your grandchildren fighting this same war in 30, 40, 50 years' time?

Are these neo-cons in the Pentagon working for the best interests of the United States?

If so, why are many of the neo-cons currently under criminal investigation for passing American state secrets to to the Israeli government, and to Ahmed Chalabi (who gave them to Iran).

Whose side are these neo-cons on? And why did George Bush hire them to run our foreign policy?

There are only two explanations: incompetence, or treason.

George Bush will have to tell us which it is.

[annabanana]

1. that's it alright

You've nailed the whole stinkin' thing right on the head. Now...how do we get the story out to people who still care about this country?

[LunaC]

58. Dropaganda helps

Check out the link in my sig line and join the fun! (It's enough to make a Freeper's head explode - ha!)

[Seabiscuit]

65. Kerry's message is still hollow.

Until Kerry personally and all of his staff begin attacking Bush in this manner, which necessitates a final admission by Kerry that he was deceived into voting in favor of the IWR, your excellent message will *not* get across.

This is EXACTLY the message a united Democratic Party has to pursue during the next 8+ weeks. Day in and day out. Not much time left.

Fuck the NeoCons.

Fuck their dancing chimp puppet Bush.

But Fuck Kerry as well for not having the balls to admit a "mistake" and also admit he was deceived, and having the balls to stand up to Bushco on this issue as he should have long, long ago!

[barbaraann]

2. It's a vast right-wing hoax.

n/t

[BrotherBuzz]

5. And that'a why Leo Strauss is smiling in his grave!

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Now if only that could be airing on every network, once an hour .....

...in prime time, starting Tuesday.

[mike_c]

4. one minor correction....

Most of the neo-con inner circle have been around since Reagan and Bush the Elder. Bush didn't actually hire most of them-- and there's still the issue of who's really working for who....

[Stephanie]

6. Well that's a question that I need help defining

It's so easy to toss around "neo-cons" and "hawks in the Pentagon."

It would be so much better to name names.

Pentagon: Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle (DPB)

Office of the VP: Libby, Hannah, who else?

Fourth Estate: Kristol, Brooks

[Stephanie]

12. Here's a start - a map of the Neo-Con influence (graphic):

[Jokinomx]

19. 79 of Bush's initial 189 appointees also served in his father's admin and

10 of his fellow members from the Yale secret society Skull and Bones he has named to important positions (including the Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. and SEC chief Bill Donaldson).

:evilfrown:

[Stephanie]

24. Wow. News to me and I thought I knew a lot.

Thanks. Is there a reference for that somewhere? Fascinating.

[Jokinomx]

59. From an article at the "The Independant" site.

It is called "By The Numbers" I think you find it absolutely astounding. Enjoy!!!


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746

[Seabiscuit]

66. Eggsactly.

Bush didn't hire the neocons.

The neocons went to Dubya's daddyo who served up his son's head on a platter to them, giving them the real hiring power, and the real power behind the throne.

[MichiganVote]

7. Read Woodward's book. Your answers lie within

[Stephanie]

9. If you know the answers, could you please post them?

I would read the book if I had time.

[MichiganVote]

22. Use the tapes

in a nutshell, ego, incompetence, greed, avarice and ignorance led to the Iraq war.

[Stephanie]

25. Also planning and strategy

but not by Bush.

[Cleita]

8. Watching Bill Moyers NOW now.

They are talking about the RINOS and conservatives like the Log Cabin Republicans and pro-choice women, and anti-war pacifists, who are clashing with the ideology of the hard right turn that the Republican Party has taken. I think that the PNAC fascists, Moonies and 700 Club fundies have taken the Republican Party hostage.

It seems to me it's time for those Republicans who want less government and fewer taxes to become Libertarians or they are going to put our country in grave danger by allowing those above mentioned cultists to push their robot George W. Bush on us for another four years. If they don't want to vote for Kerry, whom I'm sure they look upon as a latte liberal and tax and spend Democrat, they can vote for the Libertarian candidate.

I think when true conservatives, who still give a damn about their country and realize that the GOP has become the new American Nazi Party, wake up they should flock to the Libertarian Party or the Reform Party and let the GOP wither on the vine as the far right party of a minority of wingnuts.

[Stephanie]

13. The GOP has been hijacked

Limbo et al. have brainwashed the faithful, while the neo-cons have used their Straussian lies to get what they want. If the ordinary folks ever figure it out there will be hell to pay.

This is not your grandfather's GOP.

[Cleita]

14. That's for sure or my father's anyway.

He wouldn't recognize the meaness, really he wouldn't. His philosophy was more along the lines of working hard and being honest, never borrowing anything even if you were hurting.

[Z-E-R-0]

10. He Would Be Accused of Anti-Semitism

If he talked about the NeoCons though.

[Stephanie]

11. Too bad. We have SPIES in the PENTAGON

We have LIARS in the WHITE HOUSE.

It has to be addressed. It's not anti-Semitic to ask why George Bush didn't know his Pentagon employees were SPIES.

[KoKo]

15. Stephanie it's as plain as day, when you look at your timeline. Then

add the "Mother Jones" TREE of influence, and you have simply put "the truth of it."

But, John Kerry cannot talk about this. And, only "certain Democrats" mainly those in the "Black Caucus" and Henry Waxman" are allowed to even bring it up.

WHY? Why can't this be exposed by calling it out as treason? Because so many people agreed with it. Enough folks signed on of both parties that they had to know what they were doing. And Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy stood on the Senate Floor day after day debating this, trying to stop the Iraq Invasion and no one listened. The press never once showed the debates. They only existed on C-Span where those of us here watched this "give away" of our foreign policy to NeoConMen.

Until we know why both parties supported this in the majority, I don't think we will see it be an issue that anyone will bring up in this campaign. :-( But, the issue shouldn't die. Kerry's Campaign should be aware that there's a large group of us out there who know about this, and are very angry, and will work however long it takes to see that this is one day exposed.

[Stephanie]

16. You're saying the Dems, including Kerry, might have signed on to this?

Do we have any reason to think that? News to me.

[finecraft]

17. Here is a website that has excellent information

This is a European site: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm
that has excellent information on the neoconservatives. It has information on both the individuals, and the organizations that make up the neoconservative cabal. Here are some of the more prominent neocons: Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick and Lynn Cheney, Michael Ledeen, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Armitage, James Woolsey,William Bennett...and the list goes on. You can't think of the neocons as a type of political party. Their beliefs are philosophical, not political. They were born out of the far left of the Democratic party, then when they found out the Democrats could/would not advance their beliefs, they switched to "using" the republican party. (Like a parasite lives off of a host)They could care less who is President, or what political party they belong to, as long as they can manipulate them to advance their philosophy. They found their nirvana in George Bush. I'll guarantee you Bush didn't hire them, Cheney did. Remember when George ran for President in 2000 and he put Dick Cheney in charge of picking a Vice Presidential running mate for him.... and Cheney picked himself? Cheney did that so he could infest this administration with his philisophical brethren. These people only care about advancing their philosophy and proving that their theories work. They TRULY DON"T CARE if they destroy our country in the process, they'll just move on to another host. They believe in the "Noble Lie", and that they are the philosophical elite of the world. If they have to lie to achieve their goal, that is perfectly fine with them. They truly believe that they know what is best, and the masses are too stupid to understand the truth, so they must be lied to for their own good. People need to understand these people truly DON'T CARE IF THEY DESTROY OUR COUNTRY to advance their beliefs.

[Stephanie]

18. Very nice summary, thank you

Please post your link in DU's PNAC Archive, if you don't mind. That one is new to me. Nice to have the European perspective. Link is below:

20. CS Monitor NeoCon 101

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

Here's a good overview of who they are.

[Stephanie]

26. Welcome to DU, Overseas94118

That's a nice intro article, thanks.

Welcome aboard. We're glad to have you here.

[ILeft]

42. Thanks! Good mini-bios, too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

edit: What a bunch of creeps.

[sangh0]

21. Kerry "Misleading the nation into war makes you unfit to lead this nation"

How about we change the beginning of this and make it:

"Mishandling information makes you unfit to lead this nation"

In the runup to the war, the Colin Powell's State Dept sent a plan to Rumsfeld's Dept of Defense outlining what should be done once the war was over. It warned of widespread chaos, including looting, that would occur if actions weren't taken to prevent it. Unfortunately, the plan required large numbers of troops to implement so Rumsfeld, who wanted to keep the invasion force as small as possible, ignored the plan.

As a result, there was widespread looting and chaos, and it helped turn many of the Iraqi people against us. Some have taken up arms in the insurgency and fought and killed American soldiers in Iraq. All because Rumsfeld ignored information that didn't fit his preconceived ideas. When our government mishandles information, American die.

Similar things could be said about the WMD claims, the cost of Bush*'s Medicare prescription drug bill, and many others, including 9/11.

[Stephanie]

28. Both are too weak

Did Bush know about the phony intelligence, or not?

Did he know about the neo-con agenda to invade Iraq? Did he know they ditched State's post-war plans to gratify Rummy?

Bush is either complicit, or incompetent. Which is it?

[sangh0]

29. Fill in the 9/11 blanks

It will strengthen it up a bit. Also, I don't see how the term "unfit to lead this nation" could be considered "weak"

You're not going to convince anyone of that plot in the next 9 weeks.

[Stephanie]

30. Misleading, mishandling, are not strong enough, IMO

They lied. The evidence was false. I want to see talking points that really spell it out, not soft-sell it.

Did they lie deliberately, or did they believe their own lies? Did Bush have any idea what he was saying in the SOTU? Or is he so incompetent that he just blindly read the speech he was handed, even though it was riddled with lies.

Yes, the above history is a lot for people to grasp in a few weeks. But it is the truth.

[sangh0]

31. Your real complaint "Kerry won't do it exactly the way I say"

My argument is "incompetence", which you seemed to approve of. But since I didn't use the word, but said the same thing, it's "weak" to call them "unfit"

Unfit is worse than incompetence.

Yes, the above history is a lot for people to grasp in a few weeks. But it is the truth.

So if it does nothing to help, that's OK with you?

Telling people about the lies is our job, and it's going to take a while. Does everyone you know agree with you? Haven't you persuaded them yet?

If you can't persuade the people who know you, what makes you think Kerry can do it in a few weeks to millions of people?

[Stephanie]

32. Excuse me?

I am not bitching about Kerry.

What are you suggesting?

I am looking for a way for Kerry to answer the BS thrown at him every day. I know this answer is too long. But this is what happened.

Why so hostile?

[sangh0]

33. I am suggesting we use something effective

"Bush* was in on 9/11" is not going to win an election, but it might just lose it.

Why so hostile?

Because I'm agreeing with you on the incompetence angle, but because I put a different slant on it, one that involves more than 9/11, you've rejected it as weak.

I prefer an approach that puts showing the American people how Bush*'s policies and habits endanger them personally, instead of trying to convince them that Bush* is an evil, evil man, even if it's the truth. Saying the President mislead the American people, and is unfit to lead is not weak.

Kerry doesn't need to be a Republican. Kerry can point out how Bush* can't handle information that conflicts with their ideology, and the dangers that puts us in without having to engage in childish name-calling. That would only attract votes from people who already know that Bush* is evil.

[Stephanie]

35. I did not say "Bush was in on 9/11"

The incompetence argument is good, IMO, but I find those adjectives weak. Rove would reject those adjectives. "Misled" has been tried with not much effect. We have the Daily Misleader. Misled us into war. Etc. I feel it's time to make a stronger accusation.

You think it is Republican to call Bush's lies, lies?

I am looking for an effective argument too. I realize the PNAC history will not fit in a sound bite. But we need to find a way to get it into the conversation.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just stating my preference for words I think might be effective. I want stronger language from Kerry and his team. Less euphemism. More direct, honest discussion of how we got into this mess.

We were neo-conned.

[sangh0]

49. You said "complicit". What do you think that means?

Your preference with regards to adjectives is limiting. Kerry doesn't have to appeal or persuade you. He has to persuade people who think differently than you.

And these arguments take time and lots of repitition. The fact that it hasn't worked only means it hasn't worked YET. Furthermore, I would say the criticisms have worked marvelously. Bush* has gone from 93% approval rating to below 50% and that's AFTER his convention.

Bush* is behind Kerry on EVERY issue but terrorism. Bush* is seen as untrustworthy by a large share of Americans, and a majority do think that Bush* has "misled Americans" on Iraq. I put it in quotes because "misled" is the exact word they used in the poll.

I agree that we could use a more direct approach. It needs to be simple and clear. But I feel we must avoid name-calling or any other sort of shallow chest thumping. It would only be used by Bush* to justify their behavior.

Saying "When our leaders mishandle intelligence, Americans die" is a powerful statement, and it clearly criticizes the Bush* administration. Being "unfit to lead this nation" is a strong criticism. Both are miles above "Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!"

Those attacks aren't working for Bush*. In spite of the tens of millions of dollars they've spent on negative ads, Bush*'s numbers stood still, while Kerry's went up. For all the money, time, and effort spent, the SBVT ads barely affected Kerry's #'s, and it was during a time when Kerry has to conserve cash. He's about to get $75 million, and this is when people really start paying attention. I expect that within the next two weeks, you will see several attacks on Bush*. They won't be what you are suggesting, but they will be strong and they will get media attention

[sangh0]

50. Please read this article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2308063

Ask yourself "Is it maybe possible that the press got this info from the Kerry campaign's opposition research team?"

Kerry *is* fighting back.

[Stephanie]

54. Thanks, I will read it

But I don't know why you think I am attacking Kerry. I am not.

[Stephanie]

52. I meant complicit WRT the Iraq war lies

I did not discuss 9/11.

[Pobeka]

23. Bush doesn't know when he's being fooled.

That's the fatal flaw in electing a dumb president. I hate to say how many smart people I know told me with a straight face that Bush only needed a good team and things would be fine.

But Bush is too dumb. He has no control, no sense of who on his team is fooling him. Regardless of the election/selection issue, people who were not on the ballot in 2000 are now running the country, because we have no leader, only a puppet who gives prepared speeches and repeats approved soundbites (if he can get it right).

You're absolutely right.

Bush is incompetent, and he doesn't know it.

[Stephanie]

27. There's the bottom line - Bush is incompetent

Or worse....

Either he's incompetent or he's a liar. No in-betweens here.

[Only Me]

34. I don't know about talking points but...

"Was George Bush also lied to, or did he know the evidence against Iraq was false and demand America fight a war anyway?
Six years ago, an extremist right-wing think tank called Project for a New American Century dreamed up this Iraq war as the first stage in a planned 50-Years-War. They wanted to conquer the Middle East and then move on to establish America as the one supreme world power. American hegemony. They presented their plan to Clinton, who refused to implement it."

George W. Bush wasn't lied to..He lied to this country and other countries...He stated on the "Jesus Factor", PBS 2004, that "the hand of God was on his shoulder guiding him to make peace in the Middle East." Well then, what was he going to do about the WORLD TRADE CENTER bombings? Isn't that why we went to Aphganistan in the first place? We supposedly went into Iraq because, Shrub claimed that Asama Bin Ladin was hiding in Iraq or Iran.
Now was our invasion because... Saddam hid Asama Bin Ladin or was it Saddam had WMD? Or was it...now they don't have weapons of mass destruction, they have chemical labs and the probability to make chemical/germ warfare. Or was it...no. We are being good samaritians and taking Saddam off the Iraq's hands. Oh, but no, it is because "God instructed him to do this" so he could make peace in the Middle East.
I don't know anymore....Really, the recounts of the past few years of events is just unbelieveable. I just think he is a nut and anybody that votes for him is even more nut. I have always believed that the extreme conservatives were crooked as a spring, but honestly, the man was president of multi million dollar corporations, a ball team owner, and business owner, etc.,.
Shrub is not a dumb as he portrays....But he is still a nut.
IMHO anyway.

[Disturbed]

36. An incompetent liar.

He told his staff to get info for him to get the American people to support the invasion of Iraq. The CIA had raw intell and doubts of WMDs and connection of Saddam with al Q. So Cheney and Rumsfailed set up the OSP, got Chalabi to get intell and fashioned the CIA intell to suit the situation that GW demanded. They all knew it was one big con job but figured it wouldn't matter after Iraq was defeated and the US took over.

Things fell apart right after the major battle was over. The Occupation was and is a giant series of screw-ups.

[Stephanie]

Incompetent liar sums it up

But we don't really know if bush told his staff to do anything, do we? I find it hard to believe that bush gives direction to his staff. I think they direct him.

[Only Me]

51. Shrub is not stupid..that is the ultimate lie he tells, he is mean and

ruthless, but far from dumb. That is just his "Good Ole Boy" Personna. The more people look at him as incompetent, the more we look to others to find failure in his administration. And he
comes out just looking mislead. The best kinds of cons don't look like cons they look just like me or you, really even a little less intimidating. Look at the mans work history and his financial portfolio. As some one suggested on another sight...Look at his T-bills. He is a multi-millionare and making a fortune off the interest of his T-bills from this war. The GOP way, 'War makes the rich richer,' He created an oil exploration company, and sold it after it's decline for millions in profits.
He was the president of several major oil companies that answered to major stock holders. He had to be able to be function at a higher level of capacity than we see. And then to be governor of
a state and now he clawed his way into a presidency.
His work history is pretty dang impressive. I know
by listening and looking at him...it is truly hard to believe...

He gets what he wants at any and all costs. Just like his past elections. If he can't figure it out, thats o.k., he will just hire people who can. Just like... Osama Bin Laden, If he really wanted him, he would have him. We can take over a whole country but we can't find one man?
Again just my humble opinion.

[seemslikeadream]

37. Israeli Spy - Neo Con Story

Here are some of the threads

White House Learned of Spy Probe in 2001
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=800454

Spy probe scans neo-cons' Israel ties (long article from Asia Times)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=794029

Wider FBI Probe Of Pentagon Leaks Includes Chalabi - WaPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=798333

Ashcroft Nixes Arrests in Israeli Spy Probe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=796806

Israeli political advisor may have received U.S. secrets
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=795817

Serving Two Flags The Bush Neo-Cons and Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=799167

Alleged Pentagon Leak to Iraqi Is Under Investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=798060

Israel's Mole Inside the Pentagon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=783161

AIPAC hires lawyers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=794332

WP: Spy Probe Expands/Linked to NSC Probe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=795385

FBI seizes computer from AIPAC offices
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=791564

F.B.I. Interviews 2 Suspected of Passing Secrets to Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=792950

FBI intensively reviewing several high-profile neocons going back 30 years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2294390

[Stephanie]

38. Wow, thanks!

Damn, and I wanted to go outside this weekend.

[seemslikeadream]

40. You're welcome Stephanie

I just put it together because someone in LBN was wondering why the story wasn't being talked about.

[Disturbed]

41. GW Bush spokesperson

He was the main person that had to talk the American public into supporting the Iraq invasion so yes, he needed the info. Of course, I don't feel that he needed to be convinced to have the Military to invade Iraq.

[Oilwellian]

39. It's not just George...

but the entire Bush crime family we must consider when deciding whether George is incompetent or treasonous. I tend to favor treasonous simply because of his history and that of his family. They and their cronies are thugs, thieves and liars, in positions of unbridled power, and George is fully aware of what they are doing because he too is all three of the above. Hell, if he were just incompetent, he'd have fired at least ONE of the neo-cons. Instead, we see they have a long history together and they are all profiting handsomely from war. Follow the money.

[Carla in Ca]

43. And in his speech

didn't he say something about spreading democracy "throughout that area"?
Could this be similar to the argument regarding FDR; some think he knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked (we needed way to get into the fight). Others say it was a complete surprise.

I have heard whispers lately that he knew something was going to happen. It would be his way of getting the ball rolling.
Further proof is that August 6th PDB and Israel "may" strike Syria for latest bombings.

Just asking.

[The_Casual_Observer]

44. The Neocons are officially out

The theory didn't work. It is well known. The freepers can stop defending it now, it's official they will be booted in January. Nothing was said about the reasons for going to Iraq at the coronation. It's all forgotten. It's time to move on to the Ownership Society now.

[Stephanie]

45. Where did you see that they will be booted?

I'd rather they were tried and jailed.

[The_Casual_Observer]

46. Just about every every conservative talking head is saying it

please keep your ears/eyes open. There has also been some topics today about Colin, Condi , Rumsfeld.

[DemBones DemBones]

47. That could mean the neo-cons are just going

to be farther in the background. After all, Cheney, Feith, Wulfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bolton are still in the administration with no talk of leaving, and it's Colin and Condi who are rumored to be unwilling to stay throughout a Bush* second term. Cheney is key. As long as he's VP, I don't believe there will be an end to the neo-cons.

[The_Casual_Observer]

48. No doubt this is all bullshit, however this is the latest

line of crap they are casting out, sort of a post orgasmic introspection & regret on their part I think.

[DemBones DemBones]

53. Cheney is key, we must remember that. Remember

his wife is as neo-con as he is. The PNAC folks have finally got themselves a guy in the Oval Office who'll do their bidding and I don't believe they'll give up. Nor do I believe Bush* will stop listening to them. If he had reservations, wouldn't he have gotten Cheney to step down this year?

[Swamp Rat]

55. He's not just the key. He's also the liaison for the mother ship.

[The_Casual_Observer]

56. Getting rid of cheney/neos bush will be harder than

non medical wart removal.

[Swamp Rat]

57. Ha! What a gross analogy!

I love it! Maybe someone should make a do-it-yourself-in-the-home Cheney removal kit. The "doctors" in Washington can't seem to do it for us.

[finecraft]

60. The wise and few, the gentlemen, and the vulgar many

We must start thinking about this group in philosophical terms...not political or social. The political and social order in our country is based on a belief that "all men are created equal". Part of this belief says that if a social or moral code is broken, one will be held accountable for their actions, regardless of your lot in life. It doesn't matter if you are the President, or a janitor, break the law and punishment will be delivered.

The followers of Strauss (Neoconservatives), DO NOT view the world in that way. Laws are beneath them...they do not apply. The view the world in terms of Plato, and apply those philosophies to shape their world view. The constitution has no meaning to them because they follow the belief that all men ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL. Their political and social order is broken down into three classes:
1. The wise and few - The neocons, the true intellectuals, the only ones capable of directing a society
2. The gentlemen - those easily manipulated through their religious or patriotic ferver..the true believers in God and moral imperatives, the lovers of honor and glory
3. The vulgar many - all the rest...those whose very existence is based solely on the pursuit of wealth and pleasure. This group can be controlled through fear and impending catastrophic loss of their very existence----wealth and pleasure.

Read this article: http://dks.thing.net/ShadiaDruryIsRight.html

"The real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise (see Strauss The Argument and the Action of Platos Laws). This covert rule is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them. Supposedly, Xenophon makes that clear to us.

For Strauss, the rule of the wise is not about classic conservative values like order, stability, justice, or respect for authority. The rule of the wise is intended as an antidote to modernity. Modernity is the age in which the vulgar many have triumphed. It is the age in which they have come closest to having exactly what their hearts desire wealth, pleasure, and endless entertainment. But in getting just what they desire, they have unwittingly been reduced to beasts."

The neocons played their strategy perfectly after 9/11. They were already in enough positions in every branch of our government (and the press) that they had effectively set up a "Shadow government", one that held the position of power. They manipulated the "gentlemen" in congress by impuning their patriotism, "moral clarity", and honor. (ie....the case against Max Cleland). They manipulated the "Vulgar Masses" by the constant threat of death and destruction of our way of life, mixed with an assault on liberal values and beliefs as being an underlying cause of attack, (ie..they hate us for our freedoms, as a veiled message that because of our freedoms and liberties we are paying a price, so if we do away with some of those (think the Patriot Act), maybe they won't attack us anymore).

The bigger point though, is will he ever have to be held accountable for his actions? Neoconservatives are firmly entrenched in positions of power in every branch of our government. They are also everywhere in our media. If our government is based on a system of checks and balances, but all three branches (and the press), are on some level acting in concert to advance a new set of philosophical beliefs that will radically change those foundations on which our country is built, can (or will) anyone be powerful enough to stop them? There is no moral imperative in the Neocon world. They believe whatever needs to be done to advance wealth and success should be done with no fear of reprisal, because nothing is amoral. Until the conservative base realizes that their party has been hijacked by a group of amoral people that view religion and patriotism as tools to control and manipulate, we will have a very hard time holding anyone in this administration accountable.

[Stephanie]

61. And that's why Dems have to take the GLOVES off

These people play by no rules. Dems have to stop being so goddamn polite. They ruthless and amoral and dangerous.

[Stephanie]

62. Quote from Joe Wilson (C-Span book panel)

The neo-cons are probably mad because I said they are a parasite loyal only unto themselves who found the Republican party a willing host.

[finecraft]

63. Ha! Has Wilson been reading my posts on DU?

He's 100% right. We are fighting a philosophical war with an enemy that has no morals. They are trying to reshape our entire social, philosophical and moral foundation...and judging from the number of people that listen to right-wing hate radio and watch Fox news, they appear to have made great inroads.

[Stephanie]

64. I don't think he meant it that generally

There are RW conservatives, such as Limbaugh, and then there are the neo-cons, a very specific group of idealogues who are signatories to the PNAC docs, members of AEI, working in the Pentagon or the VP's office or the Weekly Standard, disciples of Strauss and Wohlstetter, and the architects of the Iraq war. Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cambone, Libby.