Neocons Turn on Bush!

I believe that if they test a nuclear weapon they should suffer a good bombing raid on all their nuclear installation sites whether powerstations or not - by that stage it would be the only diplomacy they understand. I was against the Iraq war but would be for a war against Iran (BUT ONLY IF THEY TEST A NUCLEAR BOMB).
If North Korea really did test a nuclear device I think the states should whip up support for more than trade sanctions against NK as well.

Only because they have to be against him - what politician would run the next election with a new leader at the helm whilst supporting the old leader - isnt it just a case of
"the king is dead, Long live the king"?

 

Yes, I agree. It's to save their own asses and the image of the party.

 

Perhaps there is hope if Osama or Kim Jong Il gives an endorsment to
the Democratic candidates.

Hey didn't Osama's endorsement help Bush last time?

Did anybody see the Colts - Patriots football game yesterday ?

 

You do not think that any action should be taken to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear device? And by action I do mean exclusively military action.

They really did test a nuclear device.

 

rat and shane are so right... and so unhappy

now that you have found out the reality of politics, if you want to change it... have fun

skip, thanks for quoting me else it would have been lost as my computer has been malfunctioning and the post disappeared

 

many people make the mistake of equating neo-cons with conservatives. This essay should explain ALOT.


GO, NEO-CONS, GO!
STRAIGHT TO HELL!

By: Jim Moore

I don't tell an audience on a whim that somebody should go to hell. Especially when many Americans seem confused about the
people who I suggest should get their epidermis fried.

But neo-cons have taken over the reins of the American government, and are presently calling our major policy shots, including
how to keep us at a state of perpetual war, for their own benefit. That, in my opinion, deserves banishment to that place down
under; and I don't mean Australia.

Therefore, those who don't have a clue about neo-cons----who they are, what their agenda is, or even what the word means----would
be wise to find out. And quick. Here's their rap sheet.

Neo-con is short for neo-conservative; translation: new conservative. Sounds innocent enough. But it's actually a slick misnomer,
because neo-cons are neither new nor conservative.

They started as a bunch of intellectual elitists who began their incursion (subversion) of the conservative approach to America's
foreign and domestic policies, at least 50 years ago---and were determined to change it to fit their schemes.

But who back then knew about neo-cons and how dangerous they would become? Nobody even heard of the word. People who
neo-cons consider their enemies are the true-blue, old-line, conservatives (paleo-conservatives); paleo meaning primitive, or first.

Paleos are the Americans who traditionally have always stood for less government, decentralized power, states rights,
non-intervention, strong national defense, and strict adherence to the Constitution. They never believed in excessive deficit
spending, massive foreign aid, global government, the United Nations, international defense, and policing the world. THAT'S
"conservative" thinking.

Neo-cons, on the other hand, are opposed to what the paleos stand for. Among other things, they advocate strong central power,
expanding American "democracy" via military intervention, ignoring the debt incurred, empire-building---especially in the Middle
East, and strong ethnic and family ties to Israel. THAT'S "neo-conservative" thinking.

As you can see, there's quite a difference between the two "conservative" reference points. Neo-cons are really liberals who have
managed to wheedle their way into traditional, conservative circles; where they have disrupted their agendas, mutilated their ideals,
and stolen their thunder.

Now a question: which brand of conservatism sounds more like "America"? Who seems to have the best interest of this nation at
heart? Which type of conservatism best stands the test of our founding fathers? Which conservative position most realistically
reflects the essence of our Constitution?

Any American worth his citizenship should clearly see the difference between the two positions: one real, the other fake.

The most serious problem we have in America today is, in my opinion, not illegal immigration, racial prejudice, religious
intolerance, depreciating school systems, or the shaky economy---though they are all tough problems that need answers. The big
problem is the phony conservatives (neo-cons) who are now in control of the most vital departments of our government!

Nobody seems to know exactly when or how this happened, but today, neo-cons are running the show.

I mentioned neo-cons' penchant for military invention, and strong ties to Israel. That is a lethal combination, in my book, and sure
to spell disaster for America. If that should ever happen, all our other problems will be moot.

Let's explore further.

Neo-cons are mostly Jewish. (Twenty or more are in top advisory positions in the Bush administration today.) That is not to say
that ALL neo-cons are Jewish, or that ALL Jews are neo-cons.

But it IS a fact that the preponderance of high officials in both our Defense Department and Administration are Jews, and those
Jews ARE neo-cons, who just happen to have powerful positions of influence in making foreign policy decisions----with the safety
and security of Israel in mind, of course.

To add fuel to the fire, many (probably most) Jewish neo-cons in the American government are also Zionists. Zionists are people
(mostly Jews) dedicated to keeping Israel a strong and viable nation----WHATEVER the cost in money and lives----and to
encourage all Jews worldwide to come and live in Israel.

Moreover, Zionists have no compunction about serving two masters: i.e. dual-citizenship, swearing allegiance to both America and
Israel----so long as their Israeli master is top dog.

This being the case, the neo-con responsibility for the war(s) America is getting into, and the state of perennial war they want to
keep us in, is a political reality that cannot be dismissed.

And the neo-cons are very sly about doing all this; as in the case of going to war with Iraq where they knew that touting a war for
"democracy and freedom" sounds a lot more acceptable than a war for Israel.

Talk about devious and destructive activities, the planning, timing, and sophistication of neo-cons makes the terrorists, who they've
conned us into fighting against, look like a gang of back-country rubes.

Given these facts, it is inconceivable that any thinking American would condone or even tolerate this internal assault on their
nation. Yet, in my travels and research I found that most Americans are either unaware of, sheltered from, or indifferent to, this
disastrous political cancer festering in the top echelons of government.

I am often asked: If we know that our government has been sabotaged by neo-cons who will stop at nothing to defend Israel, even
at the cost of our own country, why did we allow this happen? When did it start? How did this treacherous cabal of armchair
intellectuals manage to infiltrate and take over the most important functions of the strongest government in the world?

To find out, you have to dig into our history books and note the changes that were gradually taking place say, since the 1930's,
and who was benefiting most from them.

Anyway, that's the wrong questions. The real question is, if this is taking place now, and the country is in the grasp of ruthless
neo-cons intent on pushing us into "imperial" conflicts in the Middle East, for Israel's sake, just what can we do about it?

The first thing we must do is stop turning our back on the reality of the devil within, and what we did to invite him in. To see and
clarify our mistake, we don't have to invoke the words of our founding fathers.

Going back 40 years is far enough.

In 1962, President Kennedy said, "We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient---that we are
only six percent (now four percent) of the world's population---that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of
mankind---that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity---and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to
every world problem."

Whether we like it or not, friends, we are saddled with a vicious enemy, and he is not in Iraq, or Pakistan, or North Korea, or China,
or Timbuktu. He's right here in Washington, D.C. His name is Neo-Con, And while we've been asleep, he's winning the war.

It's about time we woke up.


"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

 

No, he's right they are.

That's why so many conservatives are so pissed at this Admin.

 

Skip, they are LIBERALS! Some first-generation neocons are admitedly former Trotskyites. For instance, Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol.

Liberals are never for war? Really? So what about when Clinton bombed Serbia into the ground? Was he just having an off 78 days?

I think it's time some people understand what "liberal" and "conservative" really means, other than basing it on the most superficial nonsense such as being pro-war or anti-war.

True conservatism is totally at odds with the neocon agenda. That's why it's called NEO-conservatism, which could just as well be called NEO-liberalism.

 

Actually the rest of the world DOES call it neo-liberalism.

 

It's certainly liberal with respect to what noecons are doing with the military and deficit spending. I refer to it as military adventurism. Military liberalism would be another term for it.

.

 

AMEN

A-damn-MEN

Start here:

http://www.liberalforum.org/

then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics#Left-wing_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism
http://www.neo-liberalism.org/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
http://usliberals.about.com/

Only 727 days until the presidential election, time to get busy ....

Peace,
poor_old_dad

 

Well, Skip, it appears you're the one buying into the lie. At the very least, you're accepting the idea of liberalism as it's sold to the masses. This is very different from applied liberalism in relation to government. There is a difference between liberal ideology and applied liberalism.

If I was to ask you in what way the neocons or the Bush regime is "conservative," you would not have an answer other than that they support war. This alone does not make somebody a conservative. I can name many liberals throughout history who have been more than eager to embrace wars.

I am not a liberal. Nor am I a conservative. I shun both because the truth is neither Left or Right. However, when I think of liberalism I think of big government. Bush has nearly tripled the size of government since he's been in office and has spent more money than any president before him. He has nearly eviscerated the constiution and is pro-open borders, despite recent attempts to save his image by making people think he's not. He is all for the proposed North American Union, which seeks to merge the US with Canada and Mexico.

Big government is NOT conservative, and anyone who thinks otherwise is the one who needs to be educated.

True conservatism no longer exists. The entire global system is based on liberalism and more power in the hands of all-powerful government, who are using this power to gain more control over the population. It's called socialism, and socialism is the tool used to usher in the New World Order. The ultimate goal is a one world socialist dictatorship in which every person will be controlled and managed by the government.

 

True, and you ask any radical leftist activist and they will tell you the same.
Liberalism and leftism today are not what they wer 40 years ago...

The Democrats are not your saviors they are wolves in sheeps clothing.

 

LOL

Yep !!! Again - Amen ...

Peace,
poor_old_dad

 

That's the point we're trying to make Skip.
Those people who just got elected, the dems, the ones you are cheering for, are the new liberals, not what seem to think they are.
they are carbon copies of their opponents.
Your liberalism (the real liberalism) is not represented in this government any more than real conservatism is represented(not at all), Dem or Repub.

The only place your liberalism exists is in protest marches and hippy circles.
The liberalism that is practiced today is commerialized and corporatized stalinism.

And it's practiced by both parties.

One of the many reason those with "alternative politics" are running toward anarchism(especially the expanding post-left movement), not the marxist rhetoric of the hippy movement.

The only way to be your liberal anymore is to be anti-political, as soon as libs became "respectable", they became another powerhouse of hypocrisy, power, greed, and perversion.