TURN ON CSPAN 2 Now!! .."THE CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT ENDORSING B*SH!"

I just turned it on ---- that is what the commentator just said..He is quoting from VARIOUS Newspapers.

also, comments on the chimp's speech....
mostly all negative comments!!

its only 2 on the west coast and Im still in my damn cubicle!


www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/robinson200501201415.asp


And Buckley was "confused"

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200501211206.asp

It seems that not all conservatives are enamored with rebuilding the world in our image..

:)

are not happy with this rhetoric and they've been nervous about it all along. The Bush Doctrine is repulsive to those who believe in small government for instance. they spoke out some before the election, but I think that the speech was just too much!

spoken out against Bush repeatedly.

Many conservative newspapers did not endorse Bush. Bush is by no means a conservative. He and his fellow lunatics are neo-conservatives. A much different animal.

Do a search on Leo Strauss who is considered the father of neo-conservatism. He was originally from Germany, an early follower of Hitler, but had to leave Germany once Hitler decided to attack the Jews. Leo was Jewish.

In fact, he advocated what he called "Universal Fascism," which is Fascism for Jews or without the anti-Semitism. One of his protogees, Micahel Ledeen, has written a book by the same title.

Here are some links for you:
NEO-CONS
One more time: LEO STRAUSS AND THE NEO-CONS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7200&forum=DCForumID70&archive=yes
WAKE UP! - Strauss / Neocons and Terror PLUS dire warnings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1780890#1781801

Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie: The Neo-Cons at War
http://www.logosjournal.com/mason.htm

Straussian.net -- Leo Strauss and the History of Political Thought
(with Discussion Forums! Book Reviews and a News Blog)
http://www2.bc.edu/~wilsonop/strauss.html

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
linked to from this thread: Has Straussian ideology permeated the GOP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2121269#2122935

Eurolegal Services - Neoconservatives
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm

changed.

His Iraq War stance is good, but that's about it.

Google this guy: Glen Yeadon
Maybe it's a bit weird but I'm beginning to wonder!

My stream is too fuzzy to tell. Anyway, is this guy a shill for Bush? He seems to have no comments for the republican callers, and he tries to change the opinions of all the dem callers.

Someone needs to point out that while the the aim of bringing freedom to the world is indeed a noble one, we currently do not have an official policy in place that states who, when, where and why America as a sovereign entity should offer our aid to affect such change.

Thus the hypocrisy of our leaders. Why Afghanistan and Iraq and not Rwanda, for example? It does not say much about our nation when we only take action in cases that are self-serving.

It also needs to be pointed out that the reasons for doing such things need to be made clear to the American people, and there needs to be accountability for knowingly misleading the public with faulty information. We were lied to about Iraq and the WMDs and therefore the Bush administration no longer merits any trust for any further actions. Even less so since he seems to exalt those in his cabinet who screw things up the most.

I don't quite know how we got here, even tho I watched it happen over the last 4 years. We're in a place where seriosly whacked underlying premises or assumptions are not being questioned at all.

Thus we have the debate about Iraq happening at the "should we have/shouldn't we have" invaded RATHER THAN -- is pre-emptive war an okay idea? Is it ever just?

And so forth.

In this case, aside from you and I and a few other DUers and perhaps a few Europeans, we're not even debating whether or not the U.S. has the right to impose democracy on others at the point of a gun.

However, Gandhi had something to say about it and was downright prophetic to boot:

"What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" - Gandhi

From "Hardball" Chris Matthews blog:

"The president of the United States is the chief law enforcement official of this country. The president yesterday committed to his personal responsibility that he enforce freedom around the world.

A couple of questions I asked my guests last night:

The world listened to that speech. They got it in many languages. Putin, Chirac, Tony Blair, Mandela, and all the Arab leaders. I wonder, what do they make of it?
Was the speech reflective of maybe too bold a mission of democratizing the world? Aren't we saying "our way or the highway?" Is that America saying, if you don't have a form of government we like, we're going to change it?
I think if you're not caught up in the charm of the president, if you're not caught up in the charm of inauguration day… and if you just read this speech, you might be petrified by it. It is a frightening claim of American moral authority over the world. It is a powerful statement of mission, an almost open-ended commitment to bring down tyranny in the world, to pay the price.

It's one thing to speak as a world visionary, it's another to realize the consequences of that..."

More:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

Hmmnnn... Buyer's Remorse setting in? :evilgrin:

Scarborough talking about Repubs & Bush...

see thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x297278

Let the Republiscum CIVIL WAR begin!!!

Thanks for that piece from Chris Matthews. Hope he continues in this tone.

Crooks and Liars has a video clip of Peggy Noonan on Hannity:
Header: Bush even freaked Peggy Noonan
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/01/20.html#a1376

Her column title: Way Too Much God (!)
Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?

excerpts from Peggy Noonan:

"But whoever picked the music for the inaugural ceremony itself--modern megachurch hymns, music that sounds like what they'd use for the quiet middle section of a Pixar animated film--was . . . lame. "

"The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike."

"And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.

One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not. "

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

..as if Bush's global democracy war is something new? He has been saying since January of 2002 that his MAIN goal is to spread democracy and freedom around the world. That's like Cuba saying their main goal is to spread communism around he world. This is the issue that about Bush that has always scared me to death, and is probably the main reason I voted for Kerry. Bush thinks this will protect us more, by getting them befor they get us, but I have to disagree. Here is a letter of mine printed by a local news paper during the election. I think it says it all.

Assume You Live In Iran

Let’s assume for a moment you live in Iran. Find it on a map and picture yourself there. Your country is bordered by Iraq to your west, and Afghanistan to your east.

The USA, the most powerful country in the world, invades Afghanistan to hunt down those who attacked their country in September of 2001.

In January of 2002 the President of the USA declares your country, Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea as the “Axis Of Evil”. The US President declares he wants to spread democracy around the world.

In May of 2002 you become very concerned when the USA begins to develop a new weapon. It’s a nuclear weapon of mass destruction know as a bunker buster, that may be used to destroy their enemy that hides in caves within the mountains of Afghanistan.

In March of 2003 the USA invades your neighbor, Iraq, and overthrows the government. You now have major wars waging in the countries at both your eastern and western boarders. You are frightened the USA may use their weapons of mass destruction. They have already called your country a part of the axis of evil, and you fear you may be next on their list.

You decide your only hope is to develop your own nuclear weapon, because it is the only means you have for defending your country from the powerful giant who is determined to spread its democracy around the world.

Now.... you’re back in the USA. Ask yourself if you are safer than you were before president Bush publicly declared three countries the “axis of evil”, started development of a new nuclear weapon, and invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

they wouldn't listen...

Nobody listens till it's either "Their idea" or "Their hind end."

years and they called us kooks, looneys, conspiracy theorists unamerican, unpatriot we dont love america. shutting us up all the way thru the 2004 campaign

hypocrits. now they are fearing whata we told them was coming. and they will act all noble as they call bush on it, instead of giving us credit for figuring it out long, way long before them. at a time we could have done something about it and elected kerry. but nnnnnnooooooo, they knew what they were talking about and kept us quiet or ridiculed us as they set it up for bush to win, (i believe in fraud, so) or allowed the theft getting bush in.

they dont get to fuckin be noble now. they are the cause in their own blindness

I saw him speak to a crowd of (mostly) loyal supporters, 20,000 strong. It was the warm-up speakers who dealt most of the fundie red meat like anti-abortion diatribes and so forth.

Bush came out in shirt sleeves and gave a very moderate speech, even liberal in broad strokes. I.e., it was all about what government was going to do to make their lives better. So while the assembled Republicans all wanted to believe in some facile bogeyman of "libruls" to get their blood moving, they really are looking for the government to lead us out of the darkness. NOT a Reaganesque tear-it-all-down message at all. Even in his Social Security plan, he proposes a new government program to administer the accounts. And the government will keep you safe, oh yes, from the evildoers through the wonderful Homeland Security Department.

Now, my take is that Bush really only does this to get elected, for despite posing to the contrary, the nation is basically liberal. He needs the votes. Now that he has them he will probably do what he did in his first term: adopt the policies of his Reaganite puppet-masters. Say one thing, do another.

But he could fool them I suppose. That would be interesting.

But I am absolutely not surprised that his rhetoric of the last months has the conservatives baying at the moon.

You wanted him so you got him! And in the words of our Vice pResident you love so much: Go fuck yourself!!


:nopity:

Having once bought a book online from what turned out to be a libertarian bookstore, I seem to have gotten myself onto some sort of right-wing mailing list. A couple of days ago, something came in asking us to subscribe to Reason Magazine. And though the libertarians still have a lot of their old paleoconnish gripes about the government trying to take away their guns, their SUVs, and their right to blow smoke in our faces, most of their invective is against the administration:

Bin Laden handed the Establishment -- on a silver platter -- a free pass to invade your personal life anytime they feel like it, and anyway they want!

<snip>

NOW we've got . . . "Sneak and peek" search warrants, more pork-barrel spending, roving wire taps, arbitrary seizures of medical records, secret tribunals, red and orange alerts, trillion-byte databases, airport harassment, still more government secrecy, total access to genetic records, faceprints, Bigger Government -- and your kids in Iraq.

<snip>

- Why does the government want more secrecy for itself -- and less for everybody else?
- Why was airport security designed to be as intrusive as possible?
- What about the call for citizen snitches, secret tribunals, and a militarized national police force?

Yep, they're pissed.

This one was highly touted during Kerry's campaign:
<http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html>

But there were a plethora of them: One for Kerry, one for Nader (believe it or not), two for Peroutka, one for the "Libertarian Resistance" (Badnarik), one for staying home, one for roast beef (and this little piggy had none), and one for the Shrub called, oddly enough, "Coming Home." Guess who wrote that last one? None other than Patrick J. Buchanan! He's the only one of the lot that went for Bush. Here's his simplistic argument: “Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.” Brilliant huh?