quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well we both agree that there is a neoconservative, hawkish political party of sorts that is striving to implement its policies. I think that the difference in opinion between us lay in two areas. A) You seem very convinced that the neocon element is single-minded in focus and blind to nearly every other issues in its attempts to implement its new world order of sorts. For example, your absolute convictions that they would plant evidence, escalate hostilities in the middle east to Iran and Syria, bomb N. Korea, etc. It seems that you anticipate the hardline, ultra-aggressive approach for many of your predictions. For example if you go to PNAC's site even they don't advocate using force in N. Korea. One would like to think that some of these analysts are moderately intelligent and have situational awareness of current events. B) I find the connection with which you associate the US government to the Hawkish, neoconservative party to be overexagerrated to the point where you establish the US government as being one and the same as the neoconservatives. First of all Bush is not a neoconservative. His foreign policies largely came about in reaction to 9/11. And your insinuations that he is a neocon puppet implies that the republican party as a whole is a neocon puppet. Additionally I think your assumptions about his IQ (further establishing him as a puppet) was based on false data. Are Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney neoconservatives? Hmmmm possibly. They are hawkish yes. But the fact that the three think alike is nothing we should really be surprised about. As you stated before, Wolfowitz was deputy defense secretary to both rumsfeld and Cheney. They've likely formed similar perceptions on middle east policy and what should be done about Iraq. But they are unlike Perle (a true neoconservative Hawk in my opinion) in a broader range of policy. That they have clashed with the pentagon is nothing we should be surprised at or correllate with neoconservative policies as well. McNammara essentially ignored the pentagon for all that it was worth. I'm sure you would find much interference by the white house in pentagon planning. And in this case Rumsfeld was correct. The pentagon DID need to be revamped. Remember the 15 billion dollar crusader artillery system that the pentagon was heavily backing? Can you imagine a more worthless investment today? The pentagon is still firmly entrenched in cold war mentality when we do need a smaller, more mobile, better trained fighting force. The soviet army is obsolete much like much of the pentagon military planning. I mean we can keep quoting analysts ... former officials who retired years ago (keep in mind all the armchair generals at the start of the war prediciting that the pentagon war plan failed) and double guess ourselves 10 times over. I think that sometimes you are looking into things a little too deeply and implying too much from it. At the same time however, I may not be picking up on things and not reading into things as much as I should. Haha I guess that's why I hate discussing current event politics, I like to stick to 10-20 year old issues when you can actually read primary documents and know for certain what elements were in control or what they thought. However, I am a gambling man and I will bet my shoes and my hat with regards to you know what

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz are neo-conservative from the inside out. All three have signed the PNAC statement of principles. Bush's campaign made him look moderately paleo-conservative, and perhaps he was. His administration since 9/11 has been acting the part of the conservative extremist, however. Whether the hawks took control, or the shock of 9/11 was what changed his policies is a subject for debate. Evidence shows, however, a George Bush (a president who didn't even win the popular vote) standing up against the majority of the world, including the CIA, State Department, the UN, and Democrats in favor of the clearly stated policies of the PNAC, which includes Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush. If the PNAC hasn't snatched Bush's puppet strings, than he is making an extremely independent decision; an uncanny and very unusual decision for a man who has spent his entire life being dependent on others. What makes you think that a man who has been dependant on daddy his whole life, dependent on alcohol for half of his life, and dependent on cocaine for a good portion of his life is suddenly able to make independent decisions as the president of the United States? Is it really Bush thinking outside of the box? Or is it just some crazy coincidence that the policies of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Eliott Abrams (the PNAC, neo-conservative crew) are the only ones that seem to materialize in reality?

___________________
Tracks that fuel my dreams:

CM - Dream Universe (Marino's Space Mix)
Illuminatus - Hope (Oliver Lieb Remix)
Virtualmismo - Last Train to Universe
Stefano Libelle - Ascension
Magica - Magica (Ibiza Remixx)