1
   

Bush's Neo-Con Advisers

 
 
Hazlitt
 
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2003 05:22 am
By now we are all fairly aware that President Bush has fallen under the sway of a group of Neo-conservative pro-war advisors that includes Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz and many others both inside and outside the government.

I happened onto this article by Robert Dreyfuss in the April "American Prospect." The article sets forth in astonishing fashion the program for remaking the middle east, which has developed in the Neo-Con think tanks over the last few years and seems to have been adopted, at the very least in part, by our president.

I am posting a link to the article because I think it important that we all be aware of the existence of these forces within our government.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/4/dreyfuss-r.html

Those of you who have access the last Friday's Wall Street Journal (3/21/03) can read a watered down version of the Neo-Con vision for the middle east. It's on the front page.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,259 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2003 11:58 am
This group, and the rest of the country, may be experiencing a rude awakening right now. It's not so easy, it now appears, to accomplish a "regime change" when we want to. As tragic as this war is, maybe it will convince this country that the new-con, mini-Machiavellis are getting us in over our heads...
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 06:21 pm
According to news reports Richar Pearl resigned his Pentagon position today. I have yet to see an on line link to his report. If this is true some samity may be slowly sinking in to the Bush administration.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 06:28 pm
Thanks to Sozobe:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=bush_administration
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 06:43 pm
While I am certain that the absence of Perle (which I applaud, by the way) will in no way dissuade you folks from your "IT'S ALL ABOUT US CONTROLLING THE OIL" mantra, it should at least point out that this administration is sensitive to public opinion.
0 Replies
 
nelsonn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 06:45 pm
The "true believers", starting in the Reagan administration have wanted to remake the world to suit their interests (remember supply-side economics and David Stockman who finally admitted that they just made up figures for budgets and taxes)? and remember Iran-Contra? Now, since their successful coup to gain the presidency, they believe nothing can stop them, especially since they capitalized so brilliantly on 9/11. They may be right and I am very afraid for my country.
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 06:56 pm
Thanks for proving my point, nelson.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 08:26 pm
Now Nelson, say "you're welcome" to the nice man.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 12:52 am
Tonight on NPR they announced that Perle wasn't resigning, just stepping down from the Chairmanship!
0 Replies
 
Hazlitt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 01:39 pm
Right , BillW, he is keeping his membership on the Defense Policy Committee. We are not rid of him yet, and, Max, the Bush administration has been pretty slow to dump functionaries who get caught in conflicts of interest. Usually they just say that no conflict exists--we're too honest for that kind of nonsense.

Two exceptions, first, Pearl dumped his job with the company, I forget which one, he was supposed to aid in the pentagon; and second, I read today that Hallaburton (or however they spell it) will not be getting certain contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq. We'll see if the administration is as good as its word.

I think Pearl ought to have to resign all government positions.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 01:47 pm
As Perle told US News & World Report: "The Iraqi opposition is kind of like an MRE [meals ready to eat, a freeze-dried Army field ration]. The ingredients are there and you just have to add water, in this case U.S. support." Testifying before Congress in 2000, Perle insisted, "We need not send substantial ground forces into Iraq when patriotic Iraqis are willing to fight to liberate their country." Last year, he conceded that the US troop requirement might go as high as 40,000.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 01:49 pm
Golbal Crossing - BTW, there is far more conflicts of interests, they are just caught up in the secrecy of this régime.
0 Replies
 
Hazlitt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 06:10 pm
Good quote Dislexia.

Thanks BillW for the boost to my memory.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush's Neo-Con Advisers
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 06:38:05