! We're dealing with a defined entity, the neocon gang, the folks who ! signed the PNAC Statement Principles and then got into positions of ! power and acted on it. Only one of them, Cheney, was elected, and that ! was on the coat-tails of Bush, who himself got into office as ! the lesser ! of the evils choice. Did you vote for Rumsfeld, Libby, ! Wolfowitz or the ! rest of them? Did anyone? Just how did they get so powerful, then?
Uhm, in case you didn't notice, whenever we vote for anybody we get the whole kit and kaboodle, which only becomes perfectly clear after the fact. Assuming you voted for Clinton (which I don't) I should like to ask whether you were also voting for Hillary, Jocelyn Elders, or Henry Cicneros, or James Carville, or Vernon Jordon, or Dick Morris, or Madeleine Allbright, or any number of executive branch public servants hired at the pleasure of the new president, or any of their "attitude" either. I'm sure real Clinton supporters will say "Yes" just as Bush supporters will generally say "Yes" regarding who they thought they were voting for. The notion that PNAC principles were "hidden" or the policy of "pre-emption" was never articulated publicly is simply disingenuous and false. It was put on the table, it was discussed, it was even ridiculed and attacked by opponents, just like any other policy proposal, and it was accepted by a majority of Americans in the last election. "For good or ill." You can't make the "we were duped" argument. You can even point to position papers and websites that were up well before Bush got in office. It's not some freaking secret. "Democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it---good and hard." -- HL Mencken I think at bottom you only like democracy with it gives you the results you want; otherwise you see only conspiracy and dysfunction. ! This problem is deeper than the PNAC principles, it's ! attitude. Well I'm glad you're sticking to objective criteria. :| ! In it's ! essence their attitude is that we have the biggest military power in ! history, therefore a mandate to use it. This is diametrically ! opposed to ! the peaceful, helpful, builder status that would have this country in ! good standing with the world around us. Instead, thanks to their ! belligerence, we're facing a world that's hostile in too many ways and ! places. ! ! That 'axis of evil' talk may have sounded cute to the warmongers, but ! what it really accomplished was to put countries like China, Korea, ! Iran, Venezuela, ? on notice. You know Bill, sometimes calling a spade a spade is just what the Dr. ordered. You seem to believe in that principle, and are "calling out" the evil ones as you see it. They just happen to be us, not the actual bad guys, but you are entitiled to your opinion. I think the argument that Iran and North Korea have "evil" regimes is almost on the order of res ipse loquitur. Far clearer to me than that the neo-cons (with whom, I shall remind you, I disagree on trade and immigration completely) are "evil". I think they are humanly misguided as many are, but evil requires a lot more evidence than pointing to the PNAC statement of principles. They are on notice. We aren't turning a blind eye any more to their clandestine activities because 9/11 gave us a bigger "attitude adjustment" than any you can impose by recourse to fascile delusions of "peace on earth" and the illusory "brotherhood of man". If there is any argument that made sense to me from the PNAC crowd, it's the argument that to do nothing when you can is an act that will be regretted when/if later you can't and realize you should have. We can do something to undo the stupidity of past policies of blind appeasement and create a dynamic for democratic reform in places that previously knew only butchery and brutality. For good or ill we are doing that; but it cannot be done with regimes like Hussein's, the mullah's of Iran, or North Korea. They need to be taken out. On the other hand, I recognize the fundamentally (or I suppose I should say temperamentally) conservative argument that regime change breeds chaos and uncertainty and I am very sensitive to that. I'm not 100% sure we did the sensible thing even if emotionally we did the "right" thing. Time will tell. But it is clear that the status quo ante was far worse because we had blinders on to what hit us. Now we don't. But that isn't the argument most often made: usually it's just a bunch of invectives about how PNAC rules the cosmos with an iron fist and must be destroyed at all costs. The irony of your position in my opinion is that you think its more urgent to overturn our regime than those of Kim Il Sung or the mullahs, or Saddam et al, which really are brutal, repressive and frankly inhumane regimes. Your argument that we are the butchers is pure hysterics. Which is why I find it humorous to see such similarity between the terms you use and those these very regimes use to justify their nefarious activities. - Bob ! _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
