The Antiwar Right Is Ready to Rumble (Paleocons Vs Neocons)

The Antiwar Right Is Ready to Rumble
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

AROUND 8 p.m. Tuesday, a gloomy mood was settling over the dozen conservative stalwarts gathered with martinis and glasses of red wine in an office in Arlington, Va., to watch the returns. Early exit polls showed President Bush trailing, and Richard Viguerie, dean of conservative direct mail, thought he knew who was to blame: the neoconservatives, the group associated with making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

"If he loses, they are going to have a bull's-eye on their back," Mr. Viguerie said.

Ronald Godwin, a top aide to Dr. Jerry Falwell, agreed. "I see a real battle for the Republican Party starting about Nov. 3," he said.

The euphoria of Mr. Bush's victory postponed the battle, but not for long. Now that Mr. Bush has secured re-election, some conservatives who say they held their tongues through the campaign season are speaking out against the neoconservatives, against the war and in favor of a speedy exit.

They argue that the war is a political liability to the Republican Party, but also that it runs counter to traditional conservatives' disdain for altruist interventions to make far-off parts of the world safe for American-style democracy. Their growing outspokenness recalls the dynamics of American politics before Vietnam, when Democrats first became identified as doves and Republicans hawks, suggesting to some the complicated political pressures facing the foreign policy of the second Bush administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07kirk.html

it's only a matter of time

Let them reap what they have sown. They are the enablers, and now they have decided to dump the alcoholic. They will be marginalized just like the moderates in the Senate. We shall see how much power they truly have.

Between the Dems and disaffected Repubs, could we do it?

Conservatives are now in ecstasy.

The only thing that can stop the Nazi Party now is if foreigners stop buying Treasury bonds and demand immediate payment in full.

Conservatives don't constitute a monothilic point of view, any more than do liberals.

If foreigners quit buying U.S. securities, and demand payment in full on those they hold, everybody loses, which is why it won't happen. As the sell off goes on, the value of the securities drops, thus the very holders lose. Why would they want that to happen ?

It would be as disastrous for them as for us. Kinda like the GBP in the 19th century.

As for the Nazi party, what stopped them was the Soviet army in the east and the U.S. and UK armies in the West. Nothing to do with T-bills, everything to do with an all out assualt on Germany. Sort of like what needs to happen in the Sunni triangle.

Even Old Fart Powell says we've lost, of course, he won't say that in public...

The price of oil and other international natural resources goes down for everyone else in the world, and they can keep more of their "gross national product" at home, to the benefit of their own people.

I think the United States is out on a limb here... Watch the foreign exchange rates. It's my personal belief we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. Our share of the world economy is about to be reduced to something more consistent with the overall productivity of our population.

paper assets to Europe or the far east.

To these people it matters not which country has the upper hand.

Please don't use the more acceptable word to describe them. Never use the description THEY choose.

I was given an explanation for the term "reactionary," which makes sense to me but I can't explain it yet because I'm not totally familiar with the concept and how it applies to bush's political idealogy.

Maybe somebody else here can help to explain why "reactionary" is an appropriate descriptive term for bush and his ilk.

the spectrum we were given in poli sci class goes this way from left to right: radical, liberal, moderate/centrist, conservative, reactionary. it also goes from progressive to regressive politics as you go from left to right. the way it was taught to us was that the progressives believe the best days are ahead (take our country forward to what it should be), while the regressives believe that the best days are behind (take our country back to what it used to be).

Bush and the neos want to take this country to a place it has never been. A one party totalitarian dictatorship.

the Pacific Fleet will be parked in their harbor the next day to negotiate. Its called gunboat economics.

Much cheaper than gunboats.

Anyway, you can't "demand immediate payment" of a bond that isn't due
yet. You are entitled to payment when the bond matures.

What people won't do is roll them over into more of the same bonds
when they're due. They'll want their cash then.

you cowardly weasels.

To bad they couldn't bring themselves to work to defeat Bush.

I can see a real oppotunity here. Liberals and Democrats could, and probably should, reach across the aisle to those more traditional Conservatives who will open the rift in the party.

I think there is enough wild, crazy stuff going on from the Radical Right to warrent a treaty here. That's the kind of healing I would like to see.

As far as the wingnuts go when it comes to anything, they can piss off.

so many have been chanting.

in time for us to win in 06

I've always thought there's a large group of true conservatives who hate Bush and his policies, but are afraid of coming out against him. If we can show them that it's okay to criticise the war, I bet they'll come out of the woodwork.

This is bullshit. Bush can do anything he wants and these losers will support him 100%.

This is fantasy. The Cons have the power. That is all they give a crap about.

The real unmasking will occur when the rapture nuts realize they are being had by the Eugenics cabal who is really in charge. In other words the Cheney wing trumps the Robertson wing. The Cheney wing needs the Robertson foot soldiers to maintain the majority. But they will have no problem with the "final solution" when they don't need them anymore - in other words after the takeover of democracy is complete.

The Buchanan wing is being shown the door, as warned by Barry Goldwater before he died. He cautioned against the NeoCon/BiblioCon takeover of his beloved Conservative movement. It has become a caricature of what he believed in.

Once the voting machine takeover is complete, the religious right will be dropped if they get in the way.

such as below (from the main article)--and this is a good thing --as Martha babe says!!!!!

.....On Thursday, Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, issued a call to conservatives for a serious debate about the administration's foreign policy. "The consequences of the neocons' adventure in Iraq are now all too clear," he said. "America is stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight. Our military is stretched too thin to respond to other threats. And our real enemies, nonstate organizations such as Al Qaeda, are benefiting from the Arab and Islamic backlash against our occupation of an Islamic country.".......

Fuck those treasonous bastards who "held their tongues."

the monied conservatives would definitely be blaming the religious fanatics. As is they are not at all happy with the boy and his spending habits. This division is something that needs to be fostered and encouraged.

Holding their tongues and casting their votes while US soldiers' lives are on the line, safe at their wine and cheese soiree, plenty of serviettes to wipe the blood off their hands. Disgusting

Fuck them all.

didn't have the guts to stand up to Chimpy before now. Too late, Mr. Fraudwell. What IS it with these nutjobs and their false titles?

Professor 2

(I believe)

What would (if it ever becomes more than just some Repuke jerking our chain) the Repukes who abandon Bush be called? (Aside from "Prisoners numbered n through nnnnn)

good train wreck." Who is credited with originating that quote? Help me DUers, it's driving me nuts!

Professor 2

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Always liked the sound of that.

Yes, those who put money where their mouths are...like the Antiwar.com writers (e.g., Raimondo, Charley Reese, William Lind, Hackworth, and so on).

As for those who held their nose and voted for Bush (e.g., Buchanan, in all probability), lie in the foul beds you made for yourselves!!!

losing their influence.

Idiot.

He's the guy who thought the United States should impose an Anschluss on Canada, for cryin out loud!

:eyes:

The blind-partisan gene makes the body politic susceptible to ethical cancer. True democrats ally themselves to issues, not parties.

nothing but political pawns. F'ing bastards!

nt

opposition candidate!

Nothing will come of this. The paleos are idiots.

The paleocons absolutely hate what bush has done to the economy, plus they are pissed at the senseless war and it's incompetant leaders. He vowed a war with the neocons. And from the look on his face he was pulling nobody's leg.

Everyone just take their seat in the bleechers and watch the bloodletting.

Me, I welcome anyone's efforts to call a halt to chimpy's "pre-emption" crusade. And I enjoy reading antiwar.com , now that I've trained myself to ignore the frequent paeans to Murray N. Rothbard.

But my question is, where do these Republicans really stand in their own party nowadays? The way some of them were talking before the election, you'd expect a systematic purge of neocons in the near future. I sure hope it happens, but is it really likely?

I dunno... :think:

Trying to prove what a mighty warrior he was in Nam, the Libertarians were making the case against the war that we should have made with Dean or Kosinich or Graham as our candidate. We might have still lost but we would have had to compromise our core beliefs the way we did for Kerry in the name of "electability".

The word most used by these people has been "baa" ever since they chose the Chimp over John McCain.