Bush likens Hillary to Eisenhower

[Bronco Bob]

And himself to Truman.

At an off-the-record lunch a week ago, Bush expressed admiration for her tenacity in the campaign. And he left some in the room with the impression that he thinks she will win the election and has been thinking about how to turn over the country to her.

The topic came up when Bush invited a group of morning and evening news anchors and Sunday show hosts to join him in the executive mansion's family dining room a few hours before he delivered his nationally televised address on Iraq last week. Bush made no explicit election predictions, according to some in the room, but clearly thought Clinton would win the Democratic nomination and talked in a way that seemed to suggest he expects her to succeed him - and will continue his Iraq policy if she does.

The broadcasters were not allowed to directly quote the president, but they were allowed to allude to his thinking and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News later cited the analogy of Dwight D. Eisenhower essentially adopting President Harry S. Truman's foreign policy despite the Republican general's 1952 campaign statements.

"He had kind of a striking analogy," Stephanopoulos said of Bush on air a few hours after the lunch. "He believes that whoever replaces him, like General Eisenhower when he replaced Harry Truman, may criticize the president's policy during the campaign, but will likely continue much of it in office."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/21/bush_clinton_will_be_democrati.html

[Rohirrim]

Let's hope not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's hope not.

I hope not, but I still have to consider this:



Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Dozens of corporate executives who backed President George W. Bush for re-election in 2004, including some of his top fund-raisers, are now helping Democrats running for president.

John Mack, chief executive officer of Morgan Stanley, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp., and Terry Semel, chairman of Yahoo! Inc., are among some 60 executives writing checks to Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, a review of U.S. Federal Election Commission records shows.

Continues:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/afar_kazjeds

[ant1999e]

Eisenhower was a lesbian?

[peacepipe]

GWB knows that if there is one thing that can hurt Clinton, it is the perception that she will not bring change.

[peacepipe]

I hope not, but I still have to consider this:
You would be surprised to find out how common this sort of thing is.Alot of companies will do this to hedge there bet for lack of a better term.

[ant1999e]

I hope not, but I still have to consider this:

So seriously, what's the problem with this. Please educate me.:dummy:

[Taco John]

Hillary would absolutely continue George Bush's foriegn policy while in office. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/fisk/fisk13.html)


People who vote for Hillary thinking that they are getting rid of the Neocons don't understand that she's one of them.

[Rohirrim]

Hillary would absolutely continue George Bush's foriegn policy while in office. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/fisk/fisk13.html)


People who vote for Hillary thinking that they are getting rid of the Neocons don't understand that she's one of them.

I wouldn't go that far, but she's going to be a hell of a lot more status quo than most people think.

[Rohirrim]

I hope not, but I still have to consider this:

The merchant class is famous for their cowardice. One of the reasons Washington attacked the Hessians across the Delaware in the middle of a blizzard with barefoot troops is because he had to convince merchants in Philly to fund him. Many of them just wanted to make sure they ended up on the winning side. They didn't really care who it was, just as long as they could keep the profit coming in.

[Taco John]

I wouldn't go that far, but she's going to be a hell of a lot more status quo than most people think.


I would definitely go that far. Just look at her record. Just look at her husband's record. This neo-con stuff didn't start with Bush II. We were just too damned asleep, drunk on prosperity and petty partisainship to notice that it was going on during the Clinton era. The key people working in the Bush Administration were the same key people working for the Clinton Administration (most namely Wolfowitz, who is the architect of the so-called "Bush Doctrine.")

Clinton pushed for pre-emptive war against Saddam, for the exact same reasons that Bush did, but he couldn't get the Republicans to go for it, even after an attack on the World Trade Center. If that attack had been successful, or if Republicans weren't so focused on Clinton's pecker at the time, it would have been Clinton leading this Iraq war. There is no doubt that he wanted in there.

Even without being able to get our country into Iraq, Clinton took this country to war in Kosovo and Bosnia, under the authority of the UN. People accepted these wars, because they were sold under the misnomer "humanitarian war"; An oxymoron if ever I've heard one. This "humanitarianism" is the current justification for the Iraq war. The weapons of mass destruction got us in, but the need to deliver the Iraqi people from the violent arms of Saddam Hussein and into the loving embrace of gunpoint-forced democracy is what kept us there when the WMDs turned out to be fictional. Now we're told that prolonging our involvement in Iraq is necessary to avoid a supposed humanitarian disaster will sweep Iraq if we leave (as if they aren't already facing one now with us staying).

Humanitarian war. The Clinton Doctrine.

Say what you will about the NeoCons, but they believe that the humanitarian ends justify any blood-drenched means. Hillary is no different. Worse, she's just as hungry (if not more) for a place in history as both her husband and the current president. It won't be enough to be the first woman president in history -- she's going to want to fix things. And most of all, she's going to want to get re-elected. The status quo for accomplishing that is to appeal to the people with the money. She's already doing it now. She doesn't need to appeal to you or me. She just needs to appeal to the people who will put cash in her pocket so that she can use the television to manufacture appeal. You think Rupert Murdoch doesn't know that the money he gave Hillary Clinton is going to end up right back in his own pocket in one way or another? Why would the man behind the network that is in the business of manufacturing consent for the Neo-Con agenda give money to a candidate who opposes the very ideology that they are trying to push?

Hillary sure isn't saying that she's going to get America out of the war (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1130-35.htm). She's only saying that she will be smarter about it than Bush is. Once Bush announced troop reductions back to the levels they were at in 2006 when the American people voted the Democrats into office to stop the war, Hillary followed suit by saying that she'd start a reduction in early 2009. She's not going to use her considerably powerful position to challenge Bush to start drawing down troops at a quicker pace. That's not the plan.

Hillary is nothing more than the left arm attached to the same body that right arm, Bush is. That's why Bush is propping her up now.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even without being able to get our country into Iraq, Clinton took this country to war in Kosovo and Bosnia, under the authority of the UN. People accepted these wars, because they were sold under the misnomer "humanitarian war"; An oxymoron if ever I've heard one.

Then why does Clinton still receive a hero's welcome whenever he visits those two places?

[Taco John]

Then why does Clinton still receive a hero's welcome whenever he visits those two places?

Surely you realize that you just defended the neo-con doctrine by pointing out the ends while ignoring the means? Who cares what kind of reception Clinton receives overseas? How well do you think he's received in Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho? He didn't need the Patriot Act to commit either of those atrocities. I guarantee that you've never once called for him to be jailed like you would if it were Bush presiding over those events.

And... Make up your mind. You're either for "humanitarian wars" that aim to displace dictatorships with democracies, or you aren't. You can't pick and choose which ones you are down with, and which ones aren't ok based on who is president at the time, and whether or not they are popular once the job is done. You're either down with using our power to engage in world policemanship, or you aren't.

I know you really, really, really want to stick it to the "Repugs" by voting for Hillary... But open your eyes man. Seriously.

[Spider]

Ronald Reagan,was the father of Neo Cons ........ Reagan didnt invent it , he was the just the first one elected .........
T.J. is right about 1 thing , little difference in Clinton and Neo Cons , the difference is The Clintons will throw you some of the bone , while ****ing you , he Clintons are far more deceptive , hell by the time Hillary is done , not only will we be thinking Iraqi war is a damn good Idea , we will be blasting Bush for not marching into Iran..........
Eisenhower and JFK were the last real good Republican /Democrat that ran ....... the rest of them since have been watered down versions of each other , but as good Americans we stay divided , and stupid by all means ....
We have allowed Corporate America and lobbyist to take over and run this country on how they see fit .......I a a pro union guy , but even i understand a union will do whats best for a union before they do whats best for a employee ...........I dont see any change in the future .So I will continue on being a good American and insult the other side , even though there is very little difference in the 2 parties .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Surely you realize that you just defended the neo-con doctrine by pointing out the ends while ignoring the means?

Surely you jest?

How do the campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo qualify as examples of the neocon doctrine?

Who cares what kind of reception Clinton receives overseas?

Um, the people who were spared from ethnic cleansing and Milosevic's war crimes.

They obviously care a lot.

This, BTW, is just one reason why Clinton is a hero to those people while Bush is reviled by the Iraqi people.

Clinton leaves Balkans hailed a hero by Kosovar Albanians

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/22/clinton.05/


How well do you think he's received in Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho? He didn't need the Patriot Act to commit either of those atrocities.

Now you're sounding like W*GS, i.e., blaming Clinton instead of the man who bears the lion's share of the responsibility for the atrocity, viz., David Koresh.

I know you really, really, really want to stick it to the "Repugs" by voting for Hillary... But open your eyes man. Seriously.

You're obviously not paying attention.

I've said more than once that I don't support Hillary. In fact, I agree with practically everything you just said about her in your last post. I was only stating my disagreement with your characteriztion of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Clinton pushed for pre-emptive war against Saddam, for the exact same reasons that Bush did, but he couldn't get the Republicans to go for it, even after an attack on the World Trade Center. If that attack had been successful, or if Republicans weren't so focused on Clinton's pecker at the time, it would have been Clinton leading this Iraq war. There is no doubt that he wanted in there.


You've gotta be sh*ttin' me.

Clinton recommended various forms of limited military action against Iraq in response to specific situations, but he never sought a full-on invasion and occupation of the country like you're suggesting here.

You're playing WAY too fast and loose with the facts.

[alkemical]

PBS 1987 Bill Moyers - "The Secret Gov't"

Part1:

<embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=747769&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmai l%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3D182590%26fr%3Dyfp-t-471&imUrl=http%25253A%25252F%25252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252 52Fvideo%25252Fplay%25253Fei%25253DUTF-8%252526vid%25253D182590&imTitle=PBS%252B1987%252B-%252B%252526quot%25253BThe%252BSecret%252BGovernme nt%252526quot%25253B%252B%252528Part%252B1%252Bof% 252B2%252529&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/search/video?p=&profileUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?yid=&creatorValue=cXJ4eA%3D%3D&vid=182590' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>

Part 2:

<embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=747722&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmai l%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3D182589%26fr%3Dyfp-t-471&imUrl=http%25253A%25252F%25252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252 52Fvideo%25252Fplay%25253Fei%25253DUTF-8%252526vid%25253D182589&imTitle=PBS%252B1987%252B-%252B%252526quot%25253BThe%252BSecret%252BGovernme nt%252526quot%25253B%252B%252528Part%252B2%252Bof% 252B2%252529&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/search/video?p=&profileUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?yid=&creatorValue=cXJ4eA%3D%3D&vid=182589' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>

[Spider]

You've gotta be sh*ttin' me.

Clinton recommended various forms of limited military action against Iraq in response to specific situations, but he never sought a full-on invasion and occupation of the country like you're suggesting here.

You're playing WAY too fast and loose with the facts.

This`is the problem , not many of us like Hillary , the media says we are supposed to ...... But now many of us are getting painted into a corner defending her from lies and half truths ..... making it appear we support her ....
TJ's post is a prefect example of what I am talking .......take Ruby Ridge for example , that was Poppy Bush , clinton was no where near the whitehouse when Ruby Ridge went down , but Clinton gets blamed for it .........So much **** about WACO(We Aint Coming Out) hard to tell the truth from lies any more , Clinton was in the White house for a month when the 93 WTC bombing happened , it happened on his watch , Bush was in office damn near a year , excuse is , he didnt have alot of time .......

[W*GS]

Remember, folks - never, ever criticize Bill Clinton. You'll upset LABF - which is very odd considering everyone clustered around him in that far-left area of political ideology detested Clinton with a passion.

I've yet to see an explanation from LABF as to why he so ardently defends Clinton.

[Rohirrim]

There are very large differences between the Clintons and the neocons. The Clintons are internationalists, in the mode of Wilson. They seek international collaboration toward a democratic world. When you look at what happened in Yugoslavia there is no comparison to what Bush did in Iraq. In Yugoslavia there was a true involvement of the UN, not this bs that Bush is trying to sell where you have one Moldavian manning a phone and call it a "coalition of the willing." The neocons are flat out imperialists and believe in an American dominated, unipolar world, which is the exact opposite of the guiding theme that George Washington painted for this country when he left office. In other words, the neocon philosophy is a flat out violation of the traditions and "soul" of America.

In this statement by Charles Krauthammer, we can see the founding principle of the neocon agenda: “America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms . . . and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.”

This is the principle that Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bush/etc. based their entire governmental philosophy on. The Clinton philosophy is almost the exact opposite of this. You're right in one respect, though. I don't see the Clintons being shy about getting America involved in more foreign adventures, even if their reasoning is different. They still believe in the "America as policeman of the world" philosophy. They believe in globalization. They support amnesty for illegal immigrants. They believe in the WTO and the continued movement of the wealth of the world away from the hands of labor and into the hands of the rich, of which they are two members.

IMO, the Clintons entire lives have been one long struggle of ambition to not only join, but dominate the country club. Don't forget, Hillary started out as a Young Republican. Look at Bubba's love fest with Bush I. He's finally a member of the club. The Clintons won't upset that apple cart.

[Rohirrim]

I think what Americans should realize is that every single country (or regime) in history which has accepted the doctrine outlined by Krauthammer above, has fallen. It's almost as if a country that has the hubris to take that step toward imperialism has planted the seeds for its own doom. For one thing, if you are going to take that direction, you are going to have to pour the lion's share of your wealth and productivity into building and maintaining your military while allowing other facets of your nation (infrastructure, education, etc.) to regress.

[Taco John]

There are very large differences between the Clintons and the neocons. The Clintons are internationalists, in the mode of Wilson.


Wilson was the first Neocon.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Wilson was the first Neocon.Really, want to site some sources or links?

[W*GS]

There are very large differences between the Clintons and the neocons. The Clintons are internationalists, in the mode of Wilson. [...] The neocons are flat out imperialists and believe in an American dominated, unipolar world, which is the exact opposite of the guiding theme that George Washington painted for this country when he left office. In other words, the neocon philosophy is a flat out violation of the traditions and "soul" of America.

Washington also said: "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?--Why by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?"

Trying to make Washington a Clintontian "internationalist" is a load of baloney.

[Rohirrim]

Washington also said: "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?--Why by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?"

Trying to make Washington a Clintontian "internationalist" is a load of baloney.

You have a major reading comprehension problem. I linked the Clintons to Wilson. I didn't link Washington to anyone, other than to point out that the neocon philosophy of imperialism and pre-emptive war is exactly the opposite of Washington's guiding principles as outlined in his farewell address. You do this a lot.

[Rohirrim]

Wilson was the first Neocon.

Only in Wonderland, where words mean whatever you want them to mean.

[Spider]

You have a major reading comprehension problem. You do this a lot.

Ya think ? ;D

[W*GS]

I didn't link Washington to anyone, other than to point out that the neocon philosophy of imperialism and pre-emptive war is exactly the opposite of Washington's guiding principles as outlined in his farewell address. You do this a lot.

The Clintonian philosophy of "internationalism" is exactly the opposite of Washington's philosophy as well. Quoting him to bolster your views of the neocons ignores that his views are opposed to yours too.

The genuine inheritors of Washington are the libertarians. In fact, if both the internationalists and the neocons would quit using Washington, that would make him happy.

[Rohirrim]

The Clintonian philosophy of "internationalism" is exactly the opposite of Washington's philosophy as well. Quoting him to bolster your views of the neocons ignores that his views are opposed to yours too.

The genuine inheritors of Washington are the libertarians. In fact, if both the internationalists and the neocons would quit using Washington, that would make him happy.

I didn't do that and I don't agree with the Clinton's. Washington is dead and couldn't care less who abuses his memory, even when it's Libertarians.

[Taco John]

Only in Wonderland, where words mean whatever you want them to mean.


Woodrow Wilson being the original father of the neo-con doctrine is not only widely accepted in academic circles, but it's also incredibly obvious. He was the first president who was in favor of using the US as an interventionalist entity to bring democracy to other nations. The Bush Doctrine is nothing but an extention of Wilsonianism. And in fact, Bush is living proof of why Wilsonianism fails: eventually someone who isn't qualified to manage a grocery store let alone a country gets elected and overplays the nation's hand. Wilsonianism is proving to be a massive foriegn policy failure.

[W*GS]

So why did you mention Washington at all? The Wilsonian/Clintonian "internationalist" philosophy is also a "flat out violation of the traditions and "soul" of America."

[Taco John]

Only in Wonderland, where words mean whatever you want them to mean.

I just have to comment that your ignorant smugness here doesn't become you.

You really should at the very least wiki Wilsonianism before you start challenging people who actually know what they're talking about and aren't just experimenting with ideas. Not recognizing the Wilsonian roots of the Bush doctrine is much like someone coming in who didn't know Elway was the quarterback in Denver, and insisting that people who think he was live in fantasy land.

You're trying to tell me that the sky isn't blue.

[Rohirrim]

I just have to comment that your ignorant smugness here doesn't become you.

You really should at the very least wiki Wilsonianism before you start challenging people who actually know what they're talking about and aren't just experimenting with ideas. Not recognizing the Wilsonian roots of the Bush doctrine is much like someone coming in who didn't know Elway was the quarterback in Denver, and insisting that people who think he was live in fantasy land.

You're trying to tell me that the sky isn't blue.

No, I'm trying to tell you that the core of Wilsonianism was cooperative security among nations and cooperative action to fight aggression between countries via the intervention of an international force, which is what the UN is based upon, and which is the guiding principle for what Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Internationalism is a core, liberal concept. It's what Bush made fun of when he was running for president (ie. "nation building"). The neocon philosophy of unilateralism pursues an American dominated world, as the Krauthammer quote makes clear. It's pure imperialism. Bush didn't give a **** about spreading democracy in Iraq until his first five reasons went down the tubes. It's a sham.

Wilson wanted the world to be a collection of cooperating nations all geared toward an idealistic, and democratic, pacifism. The same concept the Clintons share. The neocons want a world dominated by the United States. I don't see any philosophical connection at all between Wilson and Bush. Wilson's operating principle was the good of humanity. The neocon's is power.

[Rohirrim]

So why did you mention Washington at all? The Wilsonian/Clintonian "internationalist" philosophy is also a "flat out violation of the traditions and "soul" of America."

Because the Right does more flag waving and boasting that its philosphy is somehow more in tune with the Founders than the Left's. Personally, I'm more in agreement with G. Washington. I'm sick of all of the intervention. It's been going on my whole life. We haven't constitutionally (legally) declared war since 1941. I think the internationalist philosophy is a little less odius because at least its motives have some shred of humanity to them. However misguided, it's an attempt to do some good. The neocon philosopy, like Krauthammer stated, is pure Roman in its concept: We're the baddest so we're going to take what we want.

IMO, we are at a crossroads where Washington is the perfect example for us to use as guidance. Just when his own soldiers were ready to pronounce him king, he stopped them. When his second term was up, he stepped down from power - an unheard of concept at the time. Even George the III said, "If he really did that, then he's a better man than I am." Now, America is the most powerful (technologically) country on earth. Do we reach out and grab what we want, or do we follow Washington and step back, knowing that the purpose of all our endeavors is to support liberty, not power.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, I'm trying to tell you that the core of Wilsonianism was cooperative security among nations and cooperative action to fight aggression between countries via the intervention of an international force, which is what the UN is based upon, and which is the guiding principle for what Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Internationalism is a core, liberal concept. It's what Bush made fun of when he was running for president (ie. "nation building"). The neocon philosophy of unilateralism pursues an American dominated world, as the Krauthammer quote makes clear. It's pure imperialism. Bush didn't give a **** about spreading democracy in Iraq until his first five reasons went down the tubes. It's a sham.

Wilson wanted the world to be a collection of cooperating nations all geared toward an idealistic, and democratic, pacifism. The same concept the Clintons share. The neocons want a world dominated by the United States. I don't see any philosophical connection at all between Wilson and Bush. Wilson's operating principle was the good of humanity. The neocon's is power.

Yep.

Funny how so many Libertarians twist facts and revise history to agree with their ideology.

[Taco John]

Yep.

Funny how so many Libertarians twist facts and revise history to agree with their ideology.

I don't have to revise anything. I am fully aware of the naive Wilsonian ideology. I also know that the Neocons share the same vision as Wilson. They think that what they are doing is for the good of humanity. You Wilsonians can argue amongst yourselves in your own little spectrum where the baby is split. But make no mistake: Neocons are Wilsonian. This isn't something I've made up on the fly. This is widely accepted fact. You've got Google, don't you? Look up Kissinger's ties to both factions.

Wilson was one of the most damaging presidents in the history of the United States. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't have to revise anything. I am fully aware of the naive Wilsonian ideology. I also know that the Neocons share the same vision as Wilson. They think that what they are doing is for the good of humanity.

Here's where you're wrong:

The neocon doctrine advocates unilateralism and the creation of a "pax Americana," i.e., the establishment of "democracy" at gunpoint (the neocons' botched attempt to turn Iraq into a "free market" paradise is the paradigm example.)

The Wilsonian ideology, on the other hand, supports the values of multilateralism, pluralism, and pacifism.


You Wilsonians can argue amongst yourselves in your own little spectrum where the baby is split. But make no mistake: Neocons are Wilsonian. This isn't something I've made up on the fly. This is widely accepted fact.

"Widely accepted" by whom? Sounds like a bandwagon appeal or an appeal to authority.

And it's not a "fact" - it's your opinion (an opinion that doesn't seem to have much factual support.)

[Rohirrim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uT7kcAu4i8&NR=1

I can't imagine how this can be linked to Wilson's ideas, unless the people forwarding that connection have some other axe to grind, like legitimizing the radicalism of the neocons through such linkage, making it appear more palatable - or mainstream.

[Spider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uT7kcAu4i8&NR=1

I can't imagine how this can be linked to Wilson's ideas, unless the people forwarding that connection have some other axe to grind, like legitimizing the radicalism of the neocons through such linkage, making it appear more palatable - or mainstream.
yep.....

[W*GS]

Funny how so many Libertarians twist facts and revise history to agree with their ideology.

Thanks for the a.m. guffaw...

One could get dizzy from all the spin you apply to everything you post...

[W*GS]

Because the Right does more flag waving and boasting that its philosphy is somehow more in tune with the Founders than the Left's. Personally, I'm more in agreement with G. Washington. I'm sick of all of the intervention. It's been going on my whole life. We haven't constitutionally (legally) declared war since 1941.

Indeed. So why aren't you a libertarian, instead of a left-winger?

I think the internationalist philosophy is a little less odius because at least its motives have some shred of humanity to them. However misguided, it's an attempt to do some good.

As TJ said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't understand why you think that one aspect of US foreign policy should be to manipulate other nations towards what we think is good governance.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uT7kcAu4i8&NR=1


Creepy!

As the narrator points out, the neocons knew there was little chance that the American people, the foreign policy establishment, or even their own Republican party would support their agenda without some sort of "new Pearl Harbor."

Just by "coincidence" such an event happened a year later. ;)

Take away this event and the Bush presidency is dead in the water, the neocons don't get to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, no GOP "trifecta," no Patriot Act, no warrantless wiretaps, etc., etc.

[Rohirrim]

Indeed. So why aren't you a libertarian, instead of a left-winger?



As TJ said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't understand why you think that one aspect of US foreign policy should be to manipulate other nations towards what we think is good governance.

I am in agreement with some Libertarian ideas, not all. And I'm not doctrinaire about anything. I didn't say I agree with the internationalist philosophy. I said I find it less harmful than the neocon doctrine.
Wilsonianism has the fragrance of the English "White Man's Burden" to it, which I find deeply suspect. I think the U.S. should be standing by, ready to help any country (not militarily) that wishes to move toward democracy, but I don't think it's our business to impose any part of our culture on anybody. And I believe that the business of the UN stops where our sovereignty begins. No American soldier should EVER be under the orders of any foreign powers' officers, for instance.

[Rohirrim]

Creepy!

As the narrator points out, the neocons knew there was little chance that the American people, the foreign policy establishment, or even their own Republican party would support their agenda without some sort of "new Pearl Harbor."

Just by "coincidence" such an event happened a year later. ;)

Take away this event and the Bush presidency is dead in the water, the neocons don't get to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, no GOP "trifecta," no Patriot Act, no warrantless wiretaps, etc., etc.

I think they would have invaded Iraq anyway. They would have used Saddam's violations of the UN restrictions and the no fly zones. They were already setting that up before 911. Anyway, even after 911, their main argument for invading Iraq was WMDs. Maybe Afghanistan wouldn't have happened, but I'm certain Iraq would have.

[W*GS]

I am in agreement with some Libertarian ideas, not all. And I'm not doctrinaire about anything. I didn't say I agree with the internationalist philosophy. I said I find it less harmful than the neocon doctrine.

The evil of two lessers...

Wilsonianism has the fragrance of the English "White Man's Burden" to it, which I find deeply suspect. I think the U.S. should be standing by, ready to help any country (not militarily) that wishes to move toward democracy, but I don't think it's our business to impose any part of our culture on anybody. And I believe that the business of the UN stops where our sovereignty begins. No American soldier should EVER be under the orders of any foreign powers' officers, for instance.

I don't think it should be US governmental policy to help or hinder any other country, except when we're under attack. We defend ourselves, not anyone else - and we certainly don't station thousands upon thousands of US soldiers in other countries.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think they would have invaded Iraq anyway. They would have used Saddam's violations of the UN restrictions and the no fly zones. They were already setting that up before 911. Anyway, even after 911, their main argument for invading Iraq was WMDs. Maybe Afghanistan wouldn't have happened, but I'm certain Iraq would have.

It's hard to know for sure in hindsight, but I, for one, can't see them getting the support they need for a full-on invasion/occupation of Iraq without 9/11. Without 9/11, Dim Son doesn't have any "political capital," the GOP doesn't control both houses, etc.