Libertarian Website: Neocons turning on Bush?

[arendt]

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121203.html

<snip>

Bill Kristol raises the dread specter of Howard Dean in the White House, and it's all because the President's hawkish impulses are being somehow subverted by out-of-line subordinates:

"While Bush is committed to victory in that war, his secretary of state seems committed to diplomatic compromise, and his secretary of defense to an odd kind of muscle-flexing-disengagement. And when Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., said on Sunday with regard to Iraq, 'We're going to get out of there as quickly as we can, but not before we finish the mission at hand,' one wonders: Wouldn't Howard Dean agree with that formulation?"

Actually, it's hard to say what Dean would or would not agree with: the probable Democratic nominee has also said that we can't just get up and leave, while somehow gaining a reputation as the "antiwar" candidate. Whatever. The point is that no presidential candidate who tells the truth about Iraq – that we'll be there for the next decade or so, barring an outright military defeat, no matter which party is in power – can possibly hope to win.

</snip>

Fairness note: although I support Dean, I publish the slam on him in the
third paragraph. Please get it , that I could have not included this. I
want to talk about the GOP civil war. Not ours.

----------

This is the only "Civil War" I want to hear about.

Come we pour gasoline on this fire!

arendt

[arendt]

1. You can't juggle chainsaws forever

More juicy details. The article has links. The links have got to
be wonderful Xmas gifts for your dittohead in-laws.

<snip>

It seems pretty clear that a political decision has been made to at least give the appearance of handing power over to the Iraqis before the election really begins to heat up.

This rankles the neeocons to no end, and there are many signs, aside from Kristol's complaint, that they may be turning against the Republicans. They never had any loyalty to the President to begin with, and, as has been foretold in this space many times, would turn on him viciously if it ever came to that.

Vicious certainly describes the attack launched by Frank Gaffney, ostensibly directed at conservative leader Grover Norquist,

<snip>

happy holidays

arendt

[arendt]

4. I can't believe nobody wants to talk about W. Kristol trashing Bush n/t

[salin]

2. printing this out for a closer read

thanks for the link.

[cliss]

3. Good point, AR.

William Kristol is one of the "Founding Fathers" of the PNAC. He also writes a newsletter that describes the tales of woe of his organization.

Kristol is probably on the hard-core end of the spectrum. It's pretty clear when he says things like, "his secretary of state (Colin Powell) seems committed to compromise", and his secretary of defense (Don "Quijote" Rumsfeld)"to an odd kind of muscle-flexing engagement."

I'm curious about the muscle-flexing engagement. What does he mean by this? Would Kristol prefer that we just drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq and pick up the pieces later? It would probably be easier to start pumping the oil if everybody was gone.

I wonder about this man. If he feels that these two are "whimps", I wonder what he says about Cheney.