Neocon Insiders: Who is John Fund?

Why Scooter Libby is Toast and Rove will provide the butter:
Tuesday, February 28, 2006

And why no one connected with John Fund can get life insurance

Scooter Libby made a mistake. He thought he was a NeoCon Insider. It was a natural mistake for him to have made, his business cards, the perks, the deference, the salary, and the access to power, all spell out Insider using the usual formula for such. But he was wrong and will now find himself tossed off the back of the Sleigh of State into the gaping maws of righteous indignation, there to serve his ultimate purpose, scapegoat and distraction. The NeoCons waste nothing, not even their hapless tools, that is their environmental policy.

Your standing and importance in the NeoCon world depend not on where you graduated college, in Scooter's case Columbia University, or on your overt title or what you do in the administration, that is mostly window dressing. What matters is how important you are to the inner workings of the NeoCon Cabal. No one who came on board after 1999 is really an insider. The insiders earned that status far earlier; Insiders do the work you can't afford to have known. Therefore no matter what they must be protected.

Scooter's knowledge about the actions taken by this administration can all be parsed as missteps by those at his level. The very visibility he was allowed and his connection to so many events points not to his importance but to his expendibility. Those in this administration who know themselves to have been brought on board after 2000 who also participated in questionable activities should be contacting their attorneys and working on building up funds for their defense.

The real NeoCon Insiders are political operatives placed in media, politics, and in prominent places in the larger cultural frame.

What you do as a political operative in carrying out the covert machinations of the Plan, that is what matters; that is what determines your expendibility factor. Real insiders do not have to worry about being tossed off the back of the sleigh. For them, anything is possible in terms of defense. They know too much for it to be otherwise.

(snip)
One of the best examples of this is John Fund. He is carrying his weight as a political operative; he is not expendable though occasionally he is forced to spend time on the side lines for bad behavior.

The internal structure of the NeoCon world means the need to know is based on what the individual will be doing for the Plan. This correlates with their routine inclusion on insider information. Fund has been 'briefed' with confidential information since 2000 and before then with their internal plans, which he helped formulate. He is briefed because as a first level operative he handles what is most sensitive to them.

When the NeoCons transferred their cabal into positions within government and the media they assigned duties to those operatives they knew they could trust. Newbeys were used but not trusted with the most sensitive activities. For NeoCons trust takes a long time.

Fund, they knew they could trust. He had been one of them for nearly twenty years by then. He worked hard to make himself useful, suggesting many major appointments for this administration, providing names of individuals who would bring 'cover' for what the administration intended to do. He wrote the book they intended to use to stifle comment on the election fraud they had already planned, and providing presence useful to them ideologically, though that is now slipping.

(snip)

My own involvement in this story is of long standing. I had doubts and questions about John Fund from the time I noted he was using me to place rumors in the early months of the Clinton Administration. Not that I liked Clinton but neither do I like being used for someone's dirty work. I was then well involved in the National Federation of Republican Women. I had known John since before he was hired as Executive Director for the Libertarian Party of California in 1981. I was then Southern California Vice Chairman. Unlike Fund, I was always a volunteer whose focus was not on personal profit but on changes I wanted to leave my children. My family has a long history as champions for freedom.


More . . .


http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-scooter-libby-is-toast-and-rove.html

Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server. Please visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance.

...

he was forced out after it was revealed that not only was he beating his girlfriend, he was screwing her daughter.

Pretty much your average 'winger, but smart.

Perhaps that explains "occasionally he is forced to spend time on the side lines for bad behavior." What a cavalier attitude toward battery and sexual abuse.

Fund used to BABYSIT the daughter he knocked up...it is a sick scenario, and the guy is a real asshole. The mother is Melissa, the daughter, Morgan...

when those guys scew up they do it large, don't they?

He claims the real "Threat to Democracy" is "voter fraud"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001

<snip>

John Fund's book on voter fraud is a fraud
In his recent book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Democracy (Encounter Books, September 2004), Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist and author John Fund uses distortions and half-truths to impugn Democrats who, he states in his introduction, "figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in this book."

Fund has made numerous media appearances to promote his book. In October alone, he appeared on FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, CNN Daybreak, twice on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, twice on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and on National Public Radio's The Tavis Smiley Show. Numerous conservative columnists have promoted the book, including George F. Will, Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, and R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

Following are some of the false or unfounded claims in their order of appearance in Stealing Elections.

<snip>

more at link

I appreciate you linking -- John Fund is horrible, yet I still see naive DU'ers linking to his pieces as if he has a credible bone in his body.

Pictures of John Fund for easy identification when you see him on TV frothing at the mouth:

http://www.ashbrook.org.nyud.net:8090/images/fund.jpg

http://www.clubforgrowth.org.nyud.net:8090/blog/images/050921-fall-21.JPG

Just nicely-bordered red X's.

He needs a nice X put over his pictures!

I was trying that "don't steal bandwidth" way of linking pictures, as detailed on this DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=339904

I can see them, don't know why you can't! Sorry. . .

At any rate you can see him here at his WSJ bio page:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/bio.html

Creepy. I bet he fits right in. Brown nose and all.

Smarter than Ann, but just about as honest

Can't stand the shitstain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A58111-2002Jan16

and deserves to have attention paid to it. The proof of what she says is before our very eyes: our country is being sold off, our jobs outsourced and our treasury bankrupted. And men behind curtains are the ones pulling the strings. Just how is it that Fund, a despicable piece of work that reminds me of the Joker, gets briefings or that the Newt is a member of WHIG or that Norquist screens Rove's calls? These self appointed "visionaires" have been stealing us blind: our rights, lives and our ability to govern ourselves. I wonder how many republicans are having the awakening she is?

Only someone who doesn't know Scooter would suggest that he was brought into the neocon fold post-1999. The idea about the need for neocon privacy is evidenced, of course, in Libby.

Based on historical fact. Blogs are great, but it is really helpful to have historical resources to check facts on stuff like this. I mean, where can we find factual references (as opposed to the opinions of "insiders") to the rise and fall of people in positions like Libby? Oh, I'm having a niche market moment.

Wolfowitz's student at Yale University in the early 70s. In 1981, Wolfowitz tracked him down, and asked Libby to come to work for him -- Wolfowitz was working at the State Department at the time, under Reagan. Some others that Wolfowitz brought in at the time included Francis Fukuyama, Alan Keyes, and Zalmay Khalilzad.

Also, check out post #194 from this old DU thread that gives some insight into Libby's influence, for example, in the final draft of the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=370469#374700

Edited to add:

Libby also worked with Wolfowitz in 1989 at the Pentagon to conduct a study reviewing the US defense policy toward the Soviet Union.

Later, during the lead up to Desert Storm with Bush I, Cheney (Defense Secretary -- in the Pentagon-- at the time), Wolfowitz (undersecretary of defense for policy at the time--a senior policy-making position at the Pentagon under Cheney) and Powell (chairman of Joints Chief of Staff at the time) were involved. Rice was also brought in at this time, under Scowcroft, on the National Security Council.

During the discussions and planning of the war, Cheney and Wolfowitz met secretively, without telling Powell, and drafted a separate war plan. Wolfowitz and Libby, who was a civilian aide of Wolfowitz's at this juncture, created a secret group to further develop this war plan of Cheney's and Wolfowitz's (based on some initial ideas by a guy named Henry S. Rowen). It was called Operation Scorpion. I won't go into the detail of the plan -- unless someone wants the details -- but, Cheney, while Powell was out of town, took the civilian-drafted plan to Bush I and the national security advisor. (FYI, Powell was looking at containment options, and Cheney was seeking war, and Cheney was campaigning for a war plan much different than one entertained by Powell and others).

Eventually, the plan was set aside, and criticized by Schwarzkopf later, who was supposedly angry at Cheney: "Put a civilian in charge of professional military men and before long he's no longer satisfied with setting policy but wants to outgeneral the generals." (Rise of the Vulcans, p.188) According to this same passage in this book, where this info is derived from, btw, Cheney's plan was viewed as too risky and politically disruptive -- "The fear was that if the plan succeeded, the result would have been chaos inside Iraq." (p. 188)

Later, getting back to Libby, when the war had ended, he had said that he and Wolfowitz were both "deeply disappointed" about the decision to terminate the war. Wolfowitz had wanted to march into Baghdad.

here's more info


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1271

Thanks!

thorough. This page is good for searching on individual profiles and info on orgs and companies:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/?sort=title_tagline

leading up to impeachment.