If there is any doubt...

[Moliere]

How do you define neo-con? Also, what quote's/positions can you attribute directly to Cheney that categorize him as such. He's often portrayed by the left as a near Nazi, but I've never heard anything from him that suggests he is any farther right than Obama is left.

Also, what makes you so certain this was a Cheney/Rumsfeld push ? Everything I have read from insiders indicates that this was Bush's decision based on intelligence from the field. Is there something other than liberal talking points that directly supports your theory? Again, I hear this a lot, but I don't know of any concrete evidence to support it.

I'm basing my opinions off of a Frontline 4 hour special I watched on the war. Sure Frontline is a bit lefty on the political spectrum, but there is a lot of evidence (and I mean evidence) that Cheney/Rumsfield pushed like crazy to make a connection of 9/11 to Iraq, to the point where they were making connections up or interpreting evidence to suit their desires.

There's a reason the coalition to enter Iraq was not nearly what it could have been had there been real evidence to link 9/11 to Iraq. Other countries saw through the shaky evidence and basically told us to piss off.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Also, what quote's/positions can you attribute directly to Cheney that categorize him as such.

...

Also, what makes you so certain this was a Cheney/Rumsfeld push ? ...

I don't have the quote in front of me, but Dick Cheney in his book mentions the story where he was strongly urging the President to invade Syria, and eventually portions of Iran, as part of the original Iraq invasion. Every other person in the meeting (including Rumsfeld) very strongly opposed such a move. George Will commented on the book and mentioned Cheney strictly refused to take any blame or provide any apologies for some of his positions.

Cheney still believes he was correct to push for that additional bit of adventurism. The General Shinseki wanted 300k+ soldiers to maintain security in the country after the invasion/overthrow was complete, and was fired for his advice. Adding an invasion of Syria (and Iran) would have divided the forces and likely would have required 500k - 1M soldiers.

Invading foreign countries to 'democratize' them is not a true conservative ideal, but is very strongly tied to the neo-con ethos. We don't have a very good track record with nation-building, with possible exceptions of Japan and Germany (topic for another thread).

In fact one of the great ironies of the last 30 years is the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini, despite the very strong religious backdrop, was far more free-market oriented than the Shah (Pavlavi) who was a brutal, pro-oil, anti-free market (speaking of small domestic businesses in Iran), American-installed dictator.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Gotta go with IPU on this one. What condescending load of crap. Lines like this:

and I think even people on the right know this,

And in its heart, the nation knows it.

make me ill. State your point, Paul, but spare us the arrogant mind reading act.

And finally...

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Chickenshit.

[Jacob]

Is Bush a neo-con? I don't really don't know.

Or the current Secretary of State, or the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, etc, etc?

[Jacob]

The first 2 sentences aren't what make the blog post awful, but they are an example of terrible writing or bad thinking, right?

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What? Why did he post either of those sentences?

And why would anyone expect such a commemoration to be anything other than subdued? It's not a celebration.

[Eddie]

The first 2 sentences aren't what make the blog post awful, but they are an example of terrible writing or bad thinking, right?



What? Why did he post either of those sentences?

And why would anyone expect such a commemoration to be anything other than subdued? It's not a celebration.

Does he also find funerals to be oddly subdued? I haven't read the article, but that particular sentence doesn't make much sense to me.

Did he miss the multiple documentaries showing all of the work done at ground zero? The millions poured into it? Does he think that is subdued? I don't know about the rest of the US, but I kind of connect the monument there to 9/11. And I would hardly describe it as subdued.

EDIT:

OK - I went and read it. I was expecting it to be longer.

I understand the sentiment that politicians often use tragedies to further their own agenda. Frankly, I don't think it happened to the extreme that he describes in this instance. I think they really thought they were doing what was right.

I suppose I'm OK with him taking the Republicans to task on this if this is what he believes - so long as he is willing to take the Democrats to task equally when it happens. I think that anyone who doesn't recognize that it happens on both sides of the isle is a complete idiot.

[taekwondave]

I'm not sure why this is a democrats/liberals vs republicans/conservative issue at all. I hear this all the time when I criticize Bush, "liberal." ha! I'm about as liberal as as Michael Moore is thin. Do republicans identify with bush so much that they feel the need to defend him like they are defending their own characters? I can't speak for everyone else but that was how I used to feel. I'd watch "my" fox news and venture a glance at "their" msnbc just to get riled up every once in a while and the next thing you know I thought the only two people int the conversation were the dems and reps. If someone disagreed with me in any way, myself being a rep, I automatically assumed they were a leftist dem and couldn't be reasoned with because of their evil ulterior motives to enslave us all. But what choice did I have when those stations were all I knew existed? When those story lines were all I heard? I didn't yet have cuf!!!

[Surfah]

I'm not sure why this is a democrats/liberals vs republicans/conservative issue at all.

Probably because Krugman makes it one. Have you seen the name of Krugman's column?

[Eddie]

I'm not sure why this is a democrats/liberals vs republicans/conservative issue at all. I hear this all the time when I criticize Bush, "liberal." ha! I'm about as liberal as as Michael Moore is thin. Do republicans identify with bush so much that they feel the need to defend him like they are defending their own characters? I can't speak for everyone else but that was how I used to feel. I'd watch "my" fox news and venture a glance at "their" msnbc just to get riled up every once in a while and the next thing you know I thought the only two people int the conversation were the dems and reps. If someone disagreed with me in any way, myself being a rep, I automatically assumed they were a leftist dem and couldn't be reasoned with because of their evil ulterior motives to enslave us all. But what choice did I have when those stations were all I knew existed? When those story lines were all I heard? I didn't yet have cuf!!!

To me it became more and more that way when it started to seem like the folks in power only do stuff to keep themselves in power.

So when they criticize something that the guy in power from the other side is doing - it isn't because they have a better option to offer. It is because they want to criticize the guy and get people to vote him out of power and them into power.

So it became more and more a game of comparisons for me. Sure - this guy is making mistakes. Tell me what your plan is? Don't just hammer him, tell me something positive about yourself? Can't do it? Then why don't you just shut up.

I hate the game of slinging mud and being critical without offering a better option. Quit telling me what is so wrong with the other side. Offer something better.

I know there is a fine line between offering constructive criticism and working to make things better versus simply bashing the other side. And it doesn't help that I'm pretty skeptical of any politician now so they have to work to get me to believe that they actually have something in mind beyond being in power and gaining more power.

[Goatnapper'96]

To me it became more and more that way when it started to seem like the folks in power only do stuff to keep themselves in power.

So when they criticize something that the guy in power from the other side is doing - it isn't because they have a better option to offer. It is because they want to criticize the guy and get people to vote him out of power and them into power.

So it became more and more a game of comparisons for me. Sure - this guy is making mistakes. Tell me what your plan is? Don't just hammer him, tell me something positive about yourself? Can't do it? Then why don't you just shut up.

I hate the game of slinging mud and being critical without offering a better option. Quit telling me what is so wrong with the other side. Offer something better.

I know there is a fine line between offering constructive criticism and working to make things better versus simply bashing the other side. And it doesn't help that I'm pretty skeptical of any politician now so they have to work to get me to believe that they actually have something in mind beyond being in power and gaining more power.

I think this dynamic is going to seriously reduce the advantage incumbents have in Presidential elections. Especially in light of our fiscal woes, which I believe to be very deep and continuing to impact our standard of living for quite some time. Given the proliferation of information and attacks and the reality of our problems it is too easy for a challenger to win by pointing out how shitty things have been- it is like the weather report from "Good Morning Vietnam:" the outlook in America is hot and shitty and it will continue to be hot and shitty! Then 4 years later when the FNG doesn't deliver lollipops and rainbows after promising said lollipops and rainbows, that soul's ass will be voted out. However, I wonder how destabilizing this will be as major aspects, positions and ideology of our government change every 4 years. From foreign policy decisions to domestic issues the rapid changes could have a real destabilizing affect on our world and I am uncomfortable what that future will look like.

[il Padrino Ute]

He's right, and IPU has just reinforced his point.

IPU calling anyone a partisan hack is simply decadent.

How do you feel about Rahm Emanuel's "never waste a crisis" comment? Do you put him in the same category as you do me?

I've never denied not being partisan, but cowardly assholes like you and Krugman are the worst of this country. Go to hell.

[NorthwestUteFan]

How do you feel about Rahm Emanuel's "never waste a crisis" comment? .

That is precisely the same thing. The modern parties exist solely to acquire and maintain power and may eventually have a hand the destruction of the republic in pursuit of said power.

[il Padrino Ute]

That is precisely the same thing. The modern parties exist solely to acquire and maintain power and may eventually have a hand the destruction of the republic in pursuit of said power.

You know that and I know that, but woot most likely thinks it's different.

[cowboy]

Downing Street memo?

I'm basing my opinions off of a Frontline 4 hour special I watched on the war. Sure Frontline is a bit lefty on the political spectrum, but there is a lot of evidence (and I mean evidence) that Cheney/Rumsfield pushed like crazy to make a connection of 9/11 to Iraq, to the point where they were making connections up or interpreting evidence to suit their desires.

There's a reason the coalition to enter Iraq was not nearly what it could have been had there been real evidence to link 9/11 to Iraq. Other countries saw through the shaky evidence and basically told us to piss off.

I didn't see the Frontline special, so I can't really comment on it other than to say that their bias suggests they wouldn't let facts stand in the way of them drawing their own conclusions.

The Downing Street Memo, while still a second-hand account of one person's opinion, merely reaffirms what most of us have concluded anyway: The Bush Administration was convinced that Iraq was a substantial threat in the post-911 world. Did they have their minds made up before the evidence was vetted? Probably, but the evidence suggests that 911 was the reason, rather than an excuse for, that decision being made. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe he took office looking for an excuse to go to war, and that he was glad 9-11 came along to give him said excuse.

[woot]

You know that and I know that, but woot most likely thinks it's different.

This picture you have of me is due to my pestering you about your blind partisanship and your belief that everyone is as brainwashed as you. Therefore, I must be an equally-mindless partisan for the other side. You should really consider using that brain you've got once in a while. It's super-derived for such tasks as considering more than two options, or even for breaking your lockstep with the crowd occasionally.

To indulge your silly riposte, I'm not familiar with the quote in question but if it is really as simple as you say it is, then I would condemn him as a vehemently as anyone else who uses war or other atrocities to further their influence over others.