Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: How do Conservatives Answer This Conservative?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,990
    Post Thanks / Like

    How do Conservatives Answer This Conservative?

    Duncan's position regarding foreign intervention is pretty much what I would have always expected a true conservative to believe. What made the Neocons fall for Richard Perle's snake-oil?

    May 29, 2007
    Tenn. Republican Calls for End to Intervention
    An interview with Rep. Jimmy Duncan
    by Charles Davis

    Rep. Jimmy Duncan (R-Tenn.) is considered one of the most conservative members of Congress – the American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime score of 88 out of 100. But that doesn't mean Duncan always goes along with the Bush administration. In fact, when it comes to foreign policy, Duncan has been one of the most outspoken critics of the White House. In 2002, Duncan was one of just six House Republicans to vote against the authorization to go to war with Iraq. At the time, Duncan argued that Iraq posed no threat to the United States' national security and that the authorization to go to war was unconstitutional.

    Since then, Duncan has continued to be vocal in his criticism of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. On May 10, he was one of only two Republicans to vote for a bill introduced by Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern that would have provided for the withdrawal of all troops and military contractors from Iraq within 90 days. And on May 15 he delivered a floor speech making the case that the war in Iraq is anything but conservative. [B]"It is sure not traditional conservatism to carry on a war in a country that did not attack us, did not even threaten to attack us, and was not even capable of attacking us," he said, "and it is sure not traditional conservatism to believe in world government even if run by the U.S." [/B]

    The next day, Duncan sat down to offer his take on the South Carolina Republican debate held the night before. In the following interview, Duncan focuses on the heated exchange between Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani over Paul's statement that the 9/11 attacks may have in part been the result of "blowback" – the CIA's term for the unintended consequences of the United States' foreign policy. He then discusses what the leading Republican candidates' embrace of the Bush administration's foreign policy means for the future of the party and for the future of conservatism.

    CD: In the South Carolina Republican debate, Congressman Ron Paul was denounced for arguing that the United States' foreign policy in the Mideast provided motivation for al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack. He argues the U.S. should take a noninterventionist approach to international affairs. So what do you make of the vitriolic response Rep. Paul received from the other candidates for stating what used to be a more popular conservative position?

    JD: Well, you're exactly right. The traditional conservative position on foreign policy is a noninterventionist foreign policy, and Congressman Paul has been a very forceful advocate of that. What he should have said, in my opinion, is that nothing that we've ever done or not done could ever justify the killing of innocent people such as occurred in New York City. [B]On the other hand, at some point we're going to have to realize that we can't afford to keep getting involved in every religious, ethnic, and political dispute around the world. It's unconstitutional and unaffordable, and it goes against every traditional conservative position I've ever known.[/B]

    CD: I was watching every candidate come on to talk to Sean Hannity afterwards, basically to denounce Ron Paul and his foreign policy views. What does that portend for the future of the Republican Party if they're going to condemn a foreign policy that they traditionally embraced?

    JD: Well, it's almost impossible to take on the bully pulpit of the White House and the top-rated [conservative] national TV and radio shows. They've wanted to support the president, and I've supported him on far more than I've opposed him on. But President Bush, when he ran in 2000, he came out very strongly against nation-building, which of course is exactly what we've been doing over in Iraq. And he said very forcefully, and many times, that we needed a more humble foreign policy. And I agree with that, because the GAO tells us we've got at present about $50 trillion dollars in unfunded future pension liabilities in addition to our almost $9 trillion national debt. And there's no way we're going to be able to pay our military pensions and our Social Security and all these other promises we've made to the American people if we keep trying to run the whole world. It's unconstitutional and unaffordable.

    CD: But what's going to happen to the Republican Party if all the major contenders for the nomination are basically embracing the Bush foreign policy of the last seven years?

    JD: Well the political pendulum swings, both nationally and within parties. [B]And so temporarily the so-called neoconservatives, who I don't believe are conservative at all, are in control of the White House and the party. But I think what it is, I think a great majority of the people in the party have not realized that what they're doing is going against every traditional conservative and traditional Republican view that the party has traditionally espoused.[/B] I remember when I was a teenager reading something from the Republican National Committee that said that Democrats start wars, Republicans end them. I sent my first paycheck as a bag boy at the A&P grocery store when I was 16 years old as contribution to the Barry Goldwater campaign. I'm very comfortable in the Republican Party, and I don't mind being in the minority on certain things at this point because I think that my views – I think the majority of Republicans will come back around to this position, but it just may take awhile.

    CD: Is there any Republican candidate right now that you think best embodies the spirit of Barry Goldwater?

    JD: Well you know, here's the thing: President Reagan used to say that if you found somebody in politics you could agree with 80 percent of the time, that was about as good as it could get. I've added to that that even husbands and wives and best friends disagree sometimes. So I've never expected everybody to agree with me 100 percent of the time. And I can tell you that as far as I'm concerned, our worst is better than their best. I would support any of those Republican candidates who participated in that debate last night over anybody that the Democrats have running. Because even though I wouldn't agree with them on everything, and I would disagree with them on a neoconservative foreign policy, a neocon foreign policy – I'd rather call it neocon because I think it's more like a con game really, but anyway – you know still, I don't have any problems supporting whoever becomes the Republican nominee for president because I would agree with them probably on fiscal policy and taxes and domestic concerns and social issues a lot more than I would anybody that the Democrats would nominate.

    CD: But if a Republican nominee proposes an interventionist foreign policy, isn't that going to translate into "big government" here at home?

    JD: That's exactly right, and that's one of the main reasons why I've taken the position that I've taken. [B]You know, I think the foreign policy that we're following, and the policy on homeland security, is just leading to a great expansion of federal power. I opposed the creation of the Homeland Security Department. I've opposed the PATRIOT Act. Because to me those things are leading to more and more and bigger and bigger and much more expansive government that I don't think we can afford. And it's making our federal government more powerful and more intrusive, invading the privacy of many of our citizens and so forth. And it goes against every traditional Republican, traditional conservative view that I've ever known. [/B]So I'm going to try and remain consistent to what I believe are traditional conservative viewpoints.

    CD: In an ideal world, who should be the Republican nominee?

    JD: Well, I'm not going to… I'm supporting Fred Thompson because I've known Fred Thompson for many years, and I'm supporting him because most of his views are very consistent with mine and he has the best chance. I'm a good friend of Congressman Paul's and his views are probably closer to mine than maybe all of Fred Thompson's, but Congressman Paul does not have a chance to win the nomination. And that's no criticism of him, it's just that there's just not a majority of the Republican Party that's going to support somebody like him at this point. So I'm going to continue to speak out on the issues, but who I support for president is almost meaningless. Because congressional endorsements can make a difference if you have two unknown candidates running for some local office, but they're almost meaningless in presidential races. People make up their own minds about presidents. And I'll be very comfortable supporting whoever the Republican nominee is. I endorsed Mitt Romney earlier because I didn't know Fred Thompson was going to get in the race. And he understands that if Fred Thompson gets in the race and stays in it that I would be supporting Fred, but I'll support Mitt Romney if he gets the nomination.

    CD: Despite the foreign policy objections?

    JD: Yes.

    CD: A lot of conservatives would argue that foreign policy is the most important issue and everything else flows from that. So how can you support someone whose views on foreign policy are so different?

    JD: Now, I'll tell you this. I have very strong views on a lot of issues and I try to express them in not a hateful or mean way. And I almost never, and I try to never, attack anybody because I believe I can express my views without doing that. Now, you know I'm comfortable with my foreign policy views and you know if I had to choose what to me is the most important issue at this point in time – now a few years ago it would have been probably some domestic issue, taxes or fiscal policy, and I'm not sure, even now I think the biggest problem that we face is all these unfunded future pension liabilities and the fiscal condition of the federal government and all this debt. That probably is going to do more harm to our people in years ahead. But probably the issue that I'm most concerned about is what I think is our foreign policy. I've stated my views; I did a five-minute special order on the floor yesterday. But I'm not a single-issue person, I never have been. I'm against abortion, but if somebody who was in favor of abortion got the Republican nomination and I felt like I agreed with them on 75 percent or 80 percent of the other issues, I would vote for them. I just never have been a single-issue person. I grew up in a political family, and nobody agrees on everything. I mean, I don't agree with myself 100 percent of the time. Sometimes I change my mind and wish I'd voted a different way than maybe I'd voted on some bill two or three years earlier.

    CD: If the Republican nominee embraces a neoconservative foreign policy…

    JD: I'll be very disappointed, but not surprised.

    CD: But with public support for the war as low as it is, how does that bode for the Republican candidate in '08? If Republicans lose, will that lead to a change in the way the party approaches foreign policy?

    JD: [B]Let me explain it this way. You know, probably President Bush, I guess he gets very angry with anybody who opposes what he's done in Iraq. He should be getting angry at the neocons that got him into that in the first place. [/B]Because that's what's turned off most of the independents who otherwise would have voted for us. It's done, in my opinion, three really bad things. One, it's hurt the Republican Party and the conservative philosophy in which I believe very deeply, and it's hurt us very badly – and you can see that in President Bush's 26 percent or 28 percent favorable ratings. Because even many of those people are not enthusiastic about Iraq, they're just polling that way because they don't want to be considered on the same side as Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi on anything. [B]But worse than what it's done to our party is what it's done to our country, because it has greatly harmed our reputation throughout the world, and it's hurt our relations with other countries, particularly those in the Middle East. We should be friends with Israel, but we should also try to be friends with all those other countries in the Middle East, too. And then the worse thing it's done, worst of all, is all those thousands of young people who've been killed or horribly wounded. [/B]And so, that's just the way I feel about it.

    [url]http://www.antiwar.com/orig/duncan.php?articleid=9165[/url]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    we need more real Republicans like this guy in Congress. The neocons are ruining not only the country, but the world, because the global economy depends on the dollar.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    As a conservative, I say you guys should create a unified antiwar thread.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,943
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2464258]As a conservative, I say you guys should create a unified antiwar thread.[/QUOTE]

    What is your definition of "conservative"?

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]"It is sure not traditional conservatism to carry on a war in a country that did not attack us, did not even threaten to attack us, and was not even capable of attacking us," he said, "and it is sure not traditional conservatism to believe in world government even if run by the U.S."[/QUOTE]

    I disagree, to a point. Iraq did indeed engage in aggressive Warfare against Kuait. THAT, in my view, was the time to do what we're trying to do now.

    [QUOTE]On the other hand, at some point we're going to have to realize that we can't afford to keep getting involved in every religious, ethnic, and political dispute around the world. It's unconstitutional and unaffordable, and it goes against every traditional conservative position I've ever known.[/QUOTE]

    I agree we should be less interventionist (both millitarily AND economicly, i.e. cut our wasteful and corrupt "foreign aid").

    [QUOTE]And so temporarily the so-called neoconservatives, who I don't believe are conservative at all, are in control of the White House and the party. But I think what it is, I think a great majority of the people in the party have not realized that what they're doing is going against every traditional conservative and traditional Republican view that the party has traditionally espoused.[/QUOTE]

    There is no question in my mind that Bush and Co. have no been Conservative in their Administration. There only claim to conservativism IMO is religious/social, the once branch of Conservativisim I have issues with.

    [QUOTE]You know, I think the foreign policy that we're following, and the policy on homeland security, is just leading to a great expansion of federal power. I opposed the creation of the Homeland Security Department. I've opposed the PATRIOT Act. Because to me those things are leading to more and more and bigger and bigger and much more expansive government that I don't think we can afford. And it's making our federal government more powerful and more intrusive, invading the privacy of many of our citizens and so forth. And it goes against every traditional Republican, traditional conservative view that I've ever known.[/QUOTE]

    There is no question Bush is expanding the power of the president, and the size and power of the U.S. Government.

    [QUOTE]But worse than what it's done to our party is what it's done to our country, because it has greatly harmed our reputation throughout the world, and it's hurt our relations with other countries, particularly those in the Middle East. We should be friends with Israel, but we should also try to be friends with all those other countries in the Middle East, too. And then the worse thing it's done, worst of all, is all [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, I continue to not buy the "Reputation" argument. It's trite fantasy, and meaningless all things considered. And I disagree that Israel and the Arab Extremists States deserve or warrant similar treatment. This is not conservativism, it's Liberalist "all are equal no matter their actions" PC Speak.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2464375]I disagree, to a point. Iraq did indeed engage in aggressive Warfare against Kuait. THAT, in my view, was the time to do what we're trying to do now. [/QUOTE]

    here's a question Warfish if we got invaded would Kuwait send troops to help us?

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2464375]I disagree, to a point. Iraq did indeed engage in aggressive Warfare against Kuait. THAT, in my view, was the time to do what we're trying to do now.
    ......
    I agree we should be less interventionist (both millitarily AND economicly, i.e. cut our wasteful and corrupt "foreign aid").
    [/QUOTE]

    contradiction there?

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bush ran on essentially a none interventionist platform against Gore.
    The thing that changed is we were attacked on our soil. That kind of changed the landscape.

    Was the Bush administration just entertaining an experiment in Democracy in Iraq or did they have real fear that Sadam was a danger in part of an expanding war against the US both here and abroad?

    Now if you come down that this was just a social experiment than of course the administrations actions were not conservative. If you believe that Sadam was a threat to US citizens at home and abroad than his actions were simply the justifible act of the President and Commander and Chief and no label need apply.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2464525]Bush ran on essentially a none interventionist platform against Gore.
    The thing that changed is we were attacked on our soil. That kind of changed the landscape.

    Was the Bush administration just entertaining an experiment in Democracy in Iraq or did they have real fear that Sadam was a danger in part of an expanding war against the US both here and abroad?

    Now if you come down that this was just a social experiment than of course the administrations actions were not conservative. If you believe that Sadam was a threat to US citizens at home and abroad than his actions were simply the justifible act of the President and Commander and Chief and no label need apply.[/QUOTE]

    9/11 didn't change much other than the skyline, it was a continuation of a battle that had been going on for decades. The American military and CIA were wreaking havoc on their soil since the 1950s. We can't expect to do that without consequences otherwise we have a problem.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2464541]9/11 didn't change much other than the skyline, it was a continuation of a battle that had been going on for decades. The American military and CIA were wreaking havoc on their soil since the 1950s. We can't expect to do that without consequences otherwise we have a problem.[/QUOTE]



    Huh?

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2464541]9/11 didn't change much other than the skyline, it was a continuation of a battle that had been going on for decades. The American military and CIA were wreaking havoc on their soil since the 1950s. We can't expect to do that without consequences otherwise we have a problem.[/QUOTE]

    Neo-cons don't believe in "blowback;" just giving "blowj*bs" to Perle and Kristol. Cheney was hot after our 80's buddy Hussein since 1991. He and his boy-Robin, Rumsfeld, wanted to tie WTC to Iraq the day after the towers went down, even though all intelligence had already shown that Iraq had no ties to Al Queda. That's why they set up their own intelligence shop and started drumming up their fiction factory to "make it so." Bush is just a damn fool. He has never been a match for guys like Rove, Rumsfeld, or Cheney. He's a stooge.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2464525]Bush ran on essentially a none interventionist platform against Gore.
    The thing that changed is we were attacked on our soil. That kind of changed the landscape.

    [B]Was the Bush administration just entertaining an experiment in Democracy in Iraq or did they have real fear that Sadam was a danger in part of an expanding war against the US both here and abroad? [/B]

    Now if you come down that this was just a social experiment than of course the administrations actions were not conservative. If you believe that Sadam was a threat to US citizens at home and abroad than his actions were simply the justifible act of the President and Commander and Chief and no label need apply.[/QUOTE]

    The Bush administration was following the neo-con lead to "use" the WTC attack as a vehicle for global interventionism and strategic re-alignment in the Middle East. It was hard-core, cynical power-grabbing riding on the convenient wave of American horror at the WTC attack. If you think for a second that guys like Perle care about anything other than stroking their enormous egos on the world stage, you've got to wake up.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2464564]Huh?[/QUOTE]

    The major think-tank that drove neoconservative ideology early this decade was PNAC, the Project for the New American Century (co-founded by Bill Kristol)

    Now, if you'll go read the PNAC reports on their website, you'll see that they were hellbent on invading Iraq [U]before 9/11[/U]. 9/11 didn't change anything to these policy-makers, it just gave them an excuse to carry out their megalomaniac plans to conquest oil-rich nations.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Frankly, some of you have become impossible to really discuss things with. Every issue is a grand Right-Wing Neo-Con Conspiracy, meant to destroy Democracy, Kill Americans, form a One-World Government and generally Rule the World with the Iron Hand of....I don't even know. And Mumbles Bush is somehow both the powerless puppet, and grand scheme master of this Evil Cabal.

    Thats your answer to everything, and you have thousands of conspiacy theory website links, and major media speculation links, to "prove" it. Very little actual fact, mind you, just theory, ideology and general tin-foil-hate Conspiracy true believerdom.

    Occums Razor is a lost concept for some of you. And it doesn't matter what anyone says, the answer is the same "Well, YOU must be naive, YOU must have not have read (inset left-wing conspiracy thery or shoddy fact-free journalism website here), YOU must be one of the Soldiers Of MumblesBush! Get Him!!!!".

    Put simply, if things were 1/4 as Mysterious Neo-Con-Conspiracy-Run as you claim it to be.....well ****, I give up anyway. You don;t really think some doofuses on a Jetsfansite is going to expose this grand thing, and somehow bring it down......do you?

    I'm sure the American Idol/Survivor Obsessed Uncaring American citizenry will be RIGHT behind you storming the Gates. Good luck.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,419
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2464617]Frankly, some of you have become impossible to really discuss things with. Every issue is a grand Right-Wing Neo-Con Conspiracy, meant to destroy Democracy, Kill Americans, form a One-World Government and generally Rule the World with the Iron Hand of....I don't even know. And Mumbles Bush is somehow both the powerless puppet, and grand scheme master of this Evil Cabal.

    Thats your answer to everything, and you have thousands of conspiacy theory website links, and major media speculation links, to "prove" it. Very little actual fact, mind you, just theory, ideology and general tin-foil-hate Conspiracy true believerdom.

    Occums Razor is a lost concept for some of you. And it doesn't matter what anyone says, the answer is the same "Well, YOU must be naive, YOU must have not have read (inset left-wing conspiracy thery or shoddy fact-free journalism website here), YOU must be one of the Soldiers Of MumblesBush! Get Him!!!!".

    Put simply, if things were 1/4 as Mysterious Neo-Con-Conspiracy-Run as you claim it to be.....well ****, I give up anyway. You don;t really think some doofuses on a Jetsfansite is going to expose this grand thing, and somehow bring it down......do you?

    I'm sure the American Idol/Survivor Obsessed Uncaring American citizenry will be RIGHT behind you storming the Gates. Good luck.[/QUOTE]

    History is a series of power grabs. Is that really so unimaginable? Conspiracy theory is only a less-than-perfect observation of what is simply natural in the course of human events. People operate in their own rational self-interest, so it's understandable that aristocrats would hijack conservatism and turn it into a philosophy to suit themselves.

    Bush's grandaddy tried to conspire to overthrow the US govt in the early 1930s before the coup plot was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, he also gave Hitler the money to make his steel to go to war. His father George H.W. gave Iran, Iraq, and Al-Qaeda its resources. Do you think this family actually cares about what is best for the general population? No, they care about what makes them more powerful.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2464577]The Bush administration was following the neo-con lead to "use" the WTC attack as a vehicle for global interventionism and strategic re-alignment in the Middle East.[B] It was hard-core, cynical power-grabbing riding on the convenient wave of American horror at the WTC attack.[/B] If you think for a second that guys like Perle care about anything other than stroking their enormous egos on the world stage, you've got to wake up.[/QUOTE]

    The same dolt who can’t construct a sentence who went into Iraq with no plan for occupation and reconstruction is actually an evil genius?

    Is it a conspiracy that the Democratic Congress didn't stop funding the war so they could win the Presidency? How hard core and cynical power grabbing is that?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-04-2008 at 03:26 PM.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2464617] I'm sure the American Idol/Survivor Obsessed Uncaring American citizenry will be RIGHT behind you storming the Gates. Good luck.[/QUOTE]


    I agree with most of your post, there really aren't any deep rooted conspiracies anymore in today's information age...


    my problem is you constantly make the above statement..as if the mainstream reality show watching american is somehow less informed than you are and somehow wasting away their lives on the couch...and subject to any sort of drivel that pours forth from the TV set.

    What is the difference between watching millionaire athletes, who break the law constantly, try and move a ball 80 yards with a reality show like Survivor?

    I mean, if you are an avid sports fan (I would assume you are, being on a fan based football website) where do you come off thinking you are above the people who watch American Idol?

    I mean, really, there is no difference between anesthesizing yourself with sports or reality tv. ANybody who think so is very delusional.....

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,943
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2464617]Frankly, some of you have become impossible to really discuss things with. Every issue is a grand Right-Wing Neo-Con Conspiracy, meant to destroy Democracy, Kill Americans, form a One-World Government and generally Rule the World with the Iron Hand of....I don't even know. And Mumbles Bush is somehow both the powerless puppet, and grand scheme master of this Evil Cabal.

    Thats your answer to everything, and you have thousands of conspiacy theory website links, and major media speculation links, to "prove" it. Very little actual fact, mind you, just theory, ideology and general tin-foil-hate Conspiracy true believerdom.

    Occums Razor is a lost concept for some of you. And it doesn't matter what anyone says, the answer is the same "Well, YOU must be naive, YOU must have not have read (inset left-wing conspiracy thery or shoddy fact-free journalism website here), YOU must be one of the Soldiers Of MumblesBush! Get Him!!!!".

    Put simply, if things were 1/4 as Mysterious Neo-Con-Conspiracy-Run as you claim it to be.....well ****, I give up anyway. You don;t really think some doofuses on a Jetsfansite is going to expose this grand thing, and somehow bring it down......do you?

    I'm sure the American Idol/Survivor Obsessed Uncaring American citizenry will be RIGHT behind you storming the Gates. Good luck.[/QUOTE]

    Well, what do you expect people to think when every god damn thing they forecasted about Iraq has turned out to be, oh so terribly...I don't know....dead freaking wrong. It has to be a conspiracy. I couldn't have f***ed up so much crap if I seriously put forth the effort and tried. Read the PNAC website. It doesn't help when they post their opinions prior to 9/11 on the internets only to have them almost word for word fleshed out in real life.

    I mean, instead of lambasting every crazy loon critical of the administrations actions who buys into conspiracy nonsense...why don't you hold the people in charge who f***ed everything up on an almost legendary scale feet to the fire?

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2464730]
    I mean, instead of lambasting every crazy loon critical of the administrations actions who buys into conspiracy nonsense...why don't you hold the people in charge who f***ed everything up on an almost legendary scale feet to the fire?[/QUOTE]

    Bush is done, history just like Johnson, he will leave office in disgrace. He is already a footnote. We did hold their feet to the fire we kicked out the Republican Congress and are ready to put in a Democratic President. The only conspiracy left is why the Democrats have let the war continue when they took over the Congress with the promise to end it.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2464696]The same dolt who can’t construct a sentence who went into Iraq with no plan for occupation and reconstruction is actually an evil genius?

    Is it a conspiracy that the Democratic Congress didn't stop funding the war so they could win the Presidency? How hard core and cynical power grabbing is that?[/QUOTE]

    Why does the word "conspiracy" keep popping up? I don't ascribe to any conspiracy theory here, merely the way Washington's latest power elite functions. The same dolt you refer to didn't do more than follow his advisors' lead and rubberstamp it. The corruption of Congress doesn't excuse the schemers who wove this messed-up plan and put it into play... they got their heads handed to them, frankly, because they had the arrogance to believe they would be received as "liberators." Oye.

    P.S. for Warfish: It's Occam's Razor, and I do know full well the theory of parsimony. Not sure why that's relevant to what I'm saying. I haven't mentioned the word "conspiracy" anywhere...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us