Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who were the first to support **** necons or theocons?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:29 PM
Original message
Who were the first to support **** necons or theocons?
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 05:36 PM by bluedawg12
And who will stand by him the longest?

I think I understand how shrub got into power. But, I don’t have a handle on how he got in with the neocons and when.

KKKarl was the one who picked shrub as the pick of the litter. He was ideal, a brainless suit with an engaging smile ( KKKarl’s thoughts - not mine), who could be taught to read text from a teleprompter, and who had a few skeletons but they could hide that with Poppy’s connections.

KKKarl engineered shrub’s victories from the Texas Governors Mansion right through to the white house. He played shrub off as a regular guy and played on his family man image after the radicalright framed, entrapped and set up poor Big Dog.

But sure as hell KKKarl did not invent the current foreign policy and world view of shrubco. Even turdblossom has his limits.

So here is what I don’t get. When did the neocons get their grubby little bony fingers on shrub? Was it Darthcheney and if so, how did he get his foot in that door?

We know the PNAC has been after the prized Iraq war since Poppy blew it in 1991. But I have read that Poppy distrusted the neocons. Surely he would have advised junior to stay away from them.

I can see how the religious radicalright got in. That was KKKarl’s plan, to divide the country, ignore the moderates of this nation, and to go for the theocons.

Remember, “ I am a divider not a uniter”?

But who were the first neocons to get into shrubs inner circle? And how?

Did it happen before he ran for Preznit, or did they come out of the shadows after 9-11, because surely a man who sits and reads “ My pet goat” while he is being advised that the nation has been attacked, would be a man looking for leadership and ideas and council at such a time. So did the neocons enter the picture then?

Who made the chimperator? Was it KKKarl or was it the neocons all along?
Maybe they picked him and turdblossom did their bidding?

One of the reasons this is important is because we have been discussing who still supports shrub. Most agree that his voting base is the religious right which I believe was his initial base. But, if the shrub administration takes a permanent nose dive in popularity and he screws the pooche on Iraq, then the neocons will dump him. But will the theocons? After all they were first in, and maybe last out? Or is the other way around?

Anyone have any ideas?
.........

http://www.answers.com/topic/neoconservatism-in-the-united-states

The comeback of neoconservatism under George W. Bush

>Such so-called neoconservatives were eager to implement a new foreign policy with the change in Administrations from Clinton to George W. Bush. Early in the Bush Administration, it was confronted with its first foreign policy crisis known as the China spy plane incident....For instance, Frank Gaffney, who served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, warned in an article in National Review Online that President Bush "should use this occasion to make clear to the American people that the PRC is acting in an increasingly belligerent manner. Mr. Bush needs to talk about these threats as well as his commitment to defend the American people, their forces overseas and their allies."<10> (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/6/194726.shtml). Additionally, some neoconservatives perceived that Bush's Administration initially insufficiently supported Israel. As a result, many neoconservatives perceived Bush's foreign policies to be not substantially different from the policies of Clinton.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the The Pentagon, however, the influence of neoconservatism -- at least as it is understood to mean an aggressive stance toward foreign policy threats -- in the Bush administration appears to have found its purpose in the shift from the threat of Communism to the threat of Islamic terrorism.<


..................

Would You Buy a Used War From This Man?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. THE MSM BOUGHT IT, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The MSM Seemed a Bit Too EAGER to Go To War
IMHOP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. They didn't want to be called weak and liberal after 9-11
but now it seems that the MSM has turned on shrub and got their balls back.

But, how long will the base stay if the war is based on lies?

Will the religiousright stay with shrub, what would they have to gain by being so loyal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Their Fear of Looking too Liberal is a MYTH
I do not buy it... this MSM carried water for this administration from Monica on to today, because it wanted media consolidation and major tax cuts. Who do you suppose invests in the media? We are talking billions.

So far they have benefited... until of course New Orleans happened. Don't get me wrong... I do appreciate the media exposing more and more of Bush short-comings, but I do not mistaken it as a honest gesture of good will or duty. They are trying to save their asses, except for a few.

The bottom line for them is ratings, following lot's of money!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think Dimson is the Manchurian Candidate of the Neocons. The Neocons
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 05:45 PM by BrklynLiberal
have been doing the long term planning, and the Theocons have been allowed to join since their goals were equally nefarious.
I don't think either group gives a crap about the ultimate goal of the others, and if need be, they would sell out the other in a heartbeat if it would guarantee their goals.
The Neocons had their claws in Dimson first, and he was the perfect icon for the Theocons too after his "rebirth".
The Theocons will stay with him longer since the "faithful" may not be as pragmatic as the politically expedient planners of PNAC.
EDIT: I would be willing to bet that the remaining 35% who still think Dimson is doing ok is the "right-to-lifers" and other religious fundies who will never give up on him.


"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. BrklynLiberal- did you see krystalcon on TDS?
He was smirking right along with Jon Stewart about shrub.

They will drop kick him if he blows their world domination plans.

but, how did shrub allow them in when Poppy said, "no".

rebellious son bit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Absolutely. If Poppy says up, Dimson says down.
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 05:57 PM by BrklynLiberal
There is some really deep seated Oedipal thing going on there, and we are all being dragged along into it.

EDIT: Remember Poppy fired Rove's ass during a campaign when he found KKKarl pulling one if his dirty tricks?

"Rove was fired from the G.H.W. Bush campaign for leaking detrimental information about Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Rove viewed Mosbacher–a powerful politician and long-time personal friend of the candidate’s–as a rival for G.H.W.B.’s attention and tried to eliminate him by revealing to Novak the goings on in a high-level confidential campaign meeting. Not a good move. On the other hand, Junior picked Rove up from the garbage heap onto which Senior had so blithely tossed him, and the rest is, goddess help us, our living history."
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/28/video-bush-i/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. They tried with Clinton, but he was too smart. It started with Nixon
and was engaged with Reagan I believe. They used is good rapport and likability to wheedle their way into positions of power where they lay dormant and stealth until the time was ripe. The build up of the evangelical movement gave them their opportunity by aligning themselves with mindless evangelicals who, for biblical reasons, think that anything Israel does is hunky-dory. In short, they used the Christian religion and theology against us all even though Christianity has more in common with Islam than Judaism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It did start with Nixon, and the Bush Family was right there back then....
From "The Immaculate Deception" by Russell Bowen:

"According to Nixon's biography, his personal and political ties with the Bush family go back to 1946, when Nixon claims he read an ad placed in an L.A. newspaper by the Orange County Republican Party and a wealthy group of businessmen led by Prescott Bush, the father of George Bush.

"They wanted a young candidate to run for Congress. Nixon applied and won the job, becoming a mouthpiece for the Bush group, progressing to the U.S. Senate and in 1952 the vice presidency.

"In 1960, Vice President Nixon was scouring the world seeking the presidency. At his side was Prescott Bush. Congressman Gerald Ford was helping raise funds, as was George Bush.

"It took Nixon eight more years to reach his goal. And the canny politician always remembered who helped him get there. So again it was payback time for George Bush. Nixon appointed him Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and later ambassador to China.

"By 1976, Ford, who succeeded Nixon after Watergate, paid his due bill. He picked out big job for his old crony, Bush: the CIA. But this time Bush would not be an underling. Now he would be head man."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. But Poppy had enough sense to stop short of toppling
Saddam- he knew they could not keep the coalition together if they went to Baghdad and they were smart enough to understand that we should not be there alone. As we are today.

I think the old Scowcroft group and Poppy were against this invasion.

How did that old fool Cheney get back into power with shrub and why didn't bar and Poppy warn "the boy"? Or did they?

At any rate, the neocons were not part of the picture initially, I think it took 9-11 for surb to turn to them for a ready made war party to avenge the loss of face shurb felt by having the nation invaded on his watch.

What if this turns out to be simpy that shurb was insulted that they attacked us and he then fell for the neocon myth that this would be a cake walk?

Darth Cheney is really a mystery, he was back in the private sector before before becoming veep- how did he sneak back into the repug limelight? He must have had a mentor or patron in power???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Bombadil Donating Member (175 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. 9/11 really did change the world
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 09:48 PM by Tom Bombadil
So the neocons capitalised on 9/11 and are using Shrub as a puppet to shape their vision of the world.

Project for a new American Century: What a load of nonsense. What planet do they live on that they think they can impose their world view on the Islamic civilisation. what a bunch of ideological crazies.

Democratising the Middle-East? It might work after about 30 years of death and misery but is democracy worth it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Tom Bombadil- am presently watching the Crusades on History
Edited on Sat Nov-12-05 10:46 PM by bluedawg12
Chanel.

It struck me as very instructive that in 1033 (or there abouts) the first crusade took Jerusalem. Killed about 30,000 muslims, jews, and even local Xtians.

The main force went home leaving about 350 Crusaders garrisoned in the city. They couldn't go outside because they were encircled.
Sounds like they had their "Green Zone" back then too.

Eventually a guy named Saladin arose and the knights lost the city to him.

After another two Crusades they failed to get the city back and it remained under Turkish rule for another 1500 years.

Prior to Saladin an Iraqi war lord from Mosul, the same Mosul we keep fighting over, united the Muslims and joined Syria to Iraq.

It sounds like we keep replaying history.

The dumb f*ck neocons know this history, I am sure they have studied it in detail. It is their arrogance that makes them ignore the harsh realities of occupying a place on the map surrounded by hostile forces.

Sadly, we Americans don't get much world history in our public schools, so they can always count on our lack of knowledge and willingness to pitch in and be good guys with out being told the full story.

Before we invaded I-wreck there was always a concern about the unintended consequences- such as the collective historic memory of a people who still talk about the Crusades as if they happened last week. That underlying sentiment makes our dreamy ideology of bringing a western -style democracy, even if modified, an affront to those people.


I wish the chimperatp0r would have read a book on the outcome of the Crusades before he embarked us on this little journey, heck, they make audio books these days. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. The PNAC is a remora. They attached themselves to Clinton and would have..
attached themselves to Gore.

They don't care who's in the WH. They just want to spread their warmongering ideology.

The fundies just came along for the ride, this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-12-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Roland99- it's a kind of unholy alliance
between two opportunistic organisms, the fundys and the neo's.

Both the fundys and neo's are making a pretty penny on all of this.
A booming business selling fanatcism.

Do you see any of them or their kids being canon fodder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I know your question is rhetorical but it speaks volumes...
as to the character of these political freaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC