If you had a choice: Bush or the neocons

If you could only choose one or the other, who would you choose to fall and never recover: Bush or the neocons?

but water and more water cannot.

Bush is what neocons are.

the neocons. If Bush dropped dead today he would just be replaced by a neo-con.

Even after Bush is gone, we'll still have to deal with human exremement like Frist and DeLay.

We should settle for nothing less than helping the neocons make their way to complete destruction.

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2004-05-19.htm

History's Fools

In the wake of Iraq, the term "neo-conservative" may come to mean "dangerous innocence about world realities"

?

Besides well. . .the obvious.:evilgrin:

many people don't know the true meaning of the word.

One entry found for neoconservative.


Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
- neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective

Bush is a far rightwing republican on social issues who happens to agree with the neo-con platform. Neo-cons don't care at all about domestic issues either.

they are all outta here. i would pick bush,. cause they all go with him anyway. regardless of saying one or the other

While Bush has forwarded a lot of the neocons' agendas, it can be argued that Bush is not a neocon by heart but by political convenience. Look at the Chalabi situation now. See how the neocon writers are howling about how the Bush gov is mistreating a key ally. So it is reasonable to believe that Bush (for political convenience) would set more distance from the neocons. So let's say that Bush and the neocon crew (Wolfowitz, Kristol, Ledeen, Pipes, Feith, Chalabi, et al) are alienated from one another...who would you want to go down first?

have the bulk of whatever brainpower they ...uh, 'have'...Shrub is just the vessel holding the hemlock. He probably never really had a rational thought in his whole wretched life...

Separating the poster boy of the neocon movement from those that not only influence him, but do his bidding.

I can't separate the two, even with clarification.

I don't hear the howling. I hear the discomforting verbal farts from previously true conservatives, but I hear nothing from the neocons to indicate a break.

Their heavy handed BS is nationwide, sadly.

Just today, in the Tucson Arizona Daily Star, this editorial:
Searching for Moderates

<snip> The triumph of moderates in the Legislature last week reminds us that powerful extremist conservatives continue to exert influence on Arizona far out of proportion to their numbers. The Arizona Republic reported last week that flurries of politically threatening e-mails were sent to 18 moderate House Republicans.

<snip> These were intimidating "or-else" e-mails warning moderates not to attempt to pass the Senate's budget, which was significantly higher than the House bill and provided for social services spending.

<snip> The e-mails were a reminder that the Legislature's conservative leadership is uncompromising and guided by right-wing ideology. It has no use for discourse. Its tactics consist only of intimidation, revenge and punishment.* Rarely has compromise been such a foreign term in the Legislature.
*bold face mine for emphasis

As repugnant as bush* is, he is a symptom, not the disease. There are hundreds of local neocon office holders all across the nation employing the same tactics from school boards wanting to gut real science instruction to state legislatures giving handouts to corporations and shredding the safety net any civilized nation knows is essential to protect the its most vulnerable members. These people are a blight destroying our nation for their own sick views. They are not acting like Americans at all and we need to remove them from positions of power all over the nation.

neocons couldn't be worse. Maybe their new leader would have ethics or at least the ability to think critically. But i guess those are characteristics all neocons lack.

Idealistic, but misguided

I don't understand the question; it is like asking whether I would like a Chevy or a GM made automobile.

Bush is just their figurehead, Neocons control the white House. I still believe Bush is too stupid to screw things up this bad by himself. It takes some real fucking evil people to do this kind of damage

Choose between only Charlie McCarthy or Edgar Bergen. Either way, one without the other and the act is gone.

Of course, Edgar Bergen could replace Charlie much easier than Charlie could replace Edgar Bergen. In other words, if Bush goes down and the neo-con structure stays intact, they will just whip up another puppet.

That's enough of the direct puppet analogy. I don't think Bush can take a fall without toppling Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. with him. If he does leave the equation in some way - even through an act of God - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc. already have too much dirt on them to be allowed to stay in power.

But, if Cheney and Rumsfeld were to go, that could seem like enough of a change to satisfy most people. That's still like pulling the leaves on a dandelion and leaving the root. It grows back, stronger each time.

God help us if the neo-cons are allowed to retreat and grow even stronger.