Did the neocons find there sucker in Bush?

[59millionmorons]

I was listening to a RW radio show today and this host is a RW who was against the war. A caller ask the standard question "well if there were no WMD's why did Clinton think Iraq needed to be dealt with" The RW host said that the neocons were for years telling Clinton he needed to attack Iraq. Clinton refused, (host)Smith said when Bush was elected they had there sucker.

[w4rma]

1. IMHO, yes. (n/t)

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. That is exactly what happened...

...

[59millionmorons]

4. Shameful

nt

[drthais]

3. more than a sucker

...I believe this was a well-planned choice.
W was not just a sucker
he was a sucker born to George HW
Daddy's gang saw the perfect opportunity
to grab that power ring once again
only this time, their plans were mapped out.
I cannot think of one other candidate
that could have been 'put over' on the american people
four years ago
and would have been in the inner circle of these guys


I see it as very sinister (of course)

I do wonder though
why daddy's name never comes up in this mix
surely he's down with the plan, wouldn't you think?

[Zookeeper]

5. Bush Daddy was irked with Junior

and he showed it by giving Ted Kennedy a lifetime service type award recently. It was meant as a dig at Junior because he disapproved of Dubya's invasion of Iraq.

I've read that in 1997 the neo-cons, including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfiwitz (sp?), were part of a think tank (name escapes me at the moment) that came up with the plan to overthrow Saddam and eventually move on to other parts of the Middle East. As much as I loathed Bush Sr., he actually was against an invasion to overthrown Saddam.

[jansu]

6. Do you have any links for that amazing spin on Bush I?

I would love to read about that!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. The organization was called Project for a New American Century

http://newamericancentury.org/

It's not exactly secret, all their position papers and documents are on their website, including their 1998 letter to Clinton advocating the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. You'll often see it referred to here on DU and other places as PNAC.

I don't see shrub as a PNAC true believer. I think he is a cynical opportunist at heart. Wouldn't surprise me if the born again Christian stuff is just a facade for political points as well. I suspect when he was down in the dumps with crap economy, Enron all over the news etc., Wolfowitz and co. made a really hard pitch to Rove, showing how fomenting this bullshit war could increase their political stock by whipping the masses into a warlike frenzy. Wolfowitz is a true believer. I truly believe that shrub started this war to help himself get reelected. Worked like a charm for midterms. It may still work, but I hope that the Iraq war is the platform on which this corrupt and bloodstained administration is destroyed.

Does anyone know if PNAC is still active? If so, who's a member these days?

[Zookeeper]

10. Dastardly plans

I was looking for more specific info to answer Jansu and entered "neo-cons think tank 1997" on Google and there were about a bazillion responses. Perhaps there is an answer to your question there.

[maxanne]

7. I had an interesting conversation

today with a guy who thinks Bush has outlived his usefulness to the neocons, and is becoming a liability. He is increasingly incoherent, whicha will be a handicap in any debates that may occur. If he has no telepromptr he speaks in sound bytes only. He looks increasingly bad, also.

It's interesting to think about - what will they do with him? They don't want Unca Dickie taking over - he's too dirty. Will they make the best of it for the next for years?

[NV1962]

8. Are you serious: "Will they make the best of it for the next for years?"

What next four years?

He's toast - ready to be chucked, come November.

[maxanne]

11. ah, you're

assuming there will be an election!

[NV1962]

12. You think he'll MIHOP another 9/11?

In that case, forget about the next four years, and think Civil War II instead...

Many people who usually have very little interest in politics (the ones who make up the big chunk of "popularity polls" but hardly vote) are taking a close look at the primaries.

And it's a safe bet that most of the "issues" will fly (once more) over the heads of most people (heck, Kerry as the Dem front-runner?) but too many people have 9/11 (and the lack of results on Al Q'aida / ObL) and the still unresolved anthrax attacks still in their mind; with the current economic situation (which won't turn around until next year) and the widely known manipulation of Iraq, "another" 9/11 or somesuch orchestrated pretext will plunge this country into perdition, and with it its government.

It's not lack of scrupules; it's survival instincts that'll hand Bush's ass back to Texas.

[maxanne]

13. MIHOP

is a very real possibility. There's also Osama and Reagan to think about.

The voting machines are a significant threat to this election, and to our democracy. The CEO of Diebold may well make good on his promise to deliver the election to Bush.

Call my cynical - but there's a lot of scary possibilities around this election.

[union_maid]

14. Well, going with the assumption that there will be one..

they're stuck with him. Their policies really aren't that popular. Bush is still somewhat popular. Nice guy, honorable (gag me with a coke spoon), good ol' boy (in the prep school genre of good ol' boys) and all that. They get rid of him they'd have to take a chance on a new face like Frist or Santorum. They have to deal with the electability factor, too and Cheney is not the poster boy for electability. The only one in the whole administration who might be electable is Powell and I don't think they'd want to take a chance on his continued cooperation, nor do I think he's anxious to prostitute himself more than he already has. I agree, though, Bush is getting more incoherent and I think they're going to try to ditch debates altogether. I hope not, but how could they let Bush debate Kerry or Edwards?

[maxanne]

15. good point

union_maid, about the debates. After his embarassing performance on "Meet the Press," we know that he can't work without a script. Will the debates be cancelled due to national security? Look for an orange alert to become long term around July.

Powell may have had some credibility in the past, but he's so thoroughly whored himself he wouldn't stand a chance.

[Zookeeper]

16. Dubya has always been incoherent...

But in the past he has always worked from a script. I was thrilled (and surprised) that his handlers allowed him to appear on Meet the Press.

I would gain great pleasure from an Edwards/Bush debate (or even Kerry/Bush). Kind of a sadistic pleasure, though. It would be like sending an eagle after a weasel.