Which candidate is the neocon anointed one?

Does anyone actually believe that the ruthless, war-obsessed neocons will acquiesce
and turn over the keys to the White House--without ensuring that the winner of
our Presidential election will carry on their agenda?

For decades, the neocons have clamored for power. In 1997, the Project for a New
American Century was formed, to "market" their warmongering to the American public.
Their top "core missions for US military forces" outlined on their Website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars

These people planned for years. Their first conquest--and the most difficult to obtain--would
be gaining a permanent foothold in the Middle East--via Iraq. This is stated on their Website.

Iraq is the linchpin. It is the springboard from which they will launch additional
wars. This is also stated on their Web site. They want to dominate the region militarily.
Iraq first. Iran next. Syria follows.

They've broken through. Does anyone actually believe they are going away quietly, and that
they will relinquish the progress they've made--to someone who will destroy their "progress"?

So, a very important question for all Americans to ask: Which candidate have the neocons entrusted
to propagate their agenda and propel it forward? Remember, Iran is next.

David Gregory was on MSNBC this week, discussing his conversations with the White House regarding the
presidential candidates. Gregory stated that senior-level White House members do not
want Romney. Gregory said, "They've tolerated his campaign and they've been polite, but they do
not want Romney in the White House." Romney's signs to say, "Government is broken", so that
makes sense.

Gregory went on to say that McCain never made it in to the White House circle. There's still animosity
between the White House and McCain, and they've never appreciated his "maverick" status. Many Republicans
have been signatories on PNAC/neocon letter and policy statements. Never McCain. In fact, he's
openly criticized Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

So, who is left...Huckabee? Not a chance.

I think we all really need to think long and hard about this. Who is the candidate that the neocons
are entrusting to carry on their agenda?

As painful as it is to face, there can only be one answer. Hillary Clinton.

She voted for the Iraq war--and never spoke a word about knowing what the neocons were doing. BUT, SHE DID KNOW.
The same neocons--led by George Bush--asked Bill Clinton for war with Iraq in 1998--when he was Clinton President. He
said no.

Here is that letter: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

The same people who sent and signed that letter to Bill Clinton (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Perle)
were back in 2001--making the case for the SAME WAR WITH IRAQ. Only this time, they were riding into Iraq on
a wave of Sept 11 fear. Hillary stood on the Senate floor and made the case for war with Iraq--by parroting
the Bush talking points. She never mentioned that these same neocons had been pedaling this war for
years. She could have dented, or even stopped their plans--as a powerful New York Senator.

Why didn't she?

Most recently, she voted for Kyl/Lieberman. Iran is next on their agenda. Their Web site spells it out.
Kyl/Lieberman defines an arm of the Iranian government as a "terrorist organization". This bill is
propaganda, and is part of their plan to "soften up" America on war with Iran. Hillary has explicitly
stated that "War with Iran is not off the table".

Please. Take this seriously.

I'm willing to have an open dialog about this. I'm not posting from a position of hatred or animosity.
I'm not bashing.

I'm looking at the facts and I fear for our nation and our future.

They will gladly take Romney if they can get him and would rally to McCain if they have to. The neocons will fight tooth and nail against either Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards

The DLC is infested with neocons.

Hillary's war and national security votes are in line with the neocons.

Don't be fooled. The neocon agenda crosses party lines.

I have a hard time believing Hillary is on our side or that she will do anything to restore the Constitution. Obama talks a good game but he's probably owned too.

handling of the war, but admitted he would have started the war HIMSELF, even knowing everything he knows now. Gregory/NBC is just trying to paint him as an ethical maverick, because they want him to win and keep the GE defense contracts/profits rolling along. DO NOT BELIEVE what they say about him. And if McCain wasn't a neocon, why the bosom-buddy friendship with Lieberworm? Please.

...that they don't have a neocon-sympathetic politician on the Dem side.

After all, they can read the writing on the wall.

They know that a Republican has a snowball's chance in hell of taking the
White House. They are representing a failed agenda, and most of them
are very weak candidates.

They've got a Dem on their side.

It's not that difficult to see this. Just look at her votes on national
security and war--and read her rhetoric. It is Lieberman in spades, and
in line with the neocons.

I understand it's easier to shut this out--because the implications are
really miserable. However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

She votes like they do--and she damn well is versed on their agenda.

said that the Bush Administration would be more comfortable with Hillary Clinton than a lot of republicans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4l9yRezxsA

Guiliani. Hilary's votes were political in the sense that she needs to make herself appear tough...she's at a disadavntage being a women. Those votes do not come from any warped mind-view of the neocons.