http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

 

Man, even though I'm not a fan of Bush, this is hard to read. This thing is getting ugly.

 

 

Frances

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

 

Man, even though I'm not a fan of Bush, this is hard to read. This thing is getting ugly.

 

 

Frances

 

As one who did indeed support the President in the polling booth and in the public opinion forums re: the war, its very disappointing. These are some stinging comments (and thank goodness they weren't in the NYT) that even his most ardent supporters have to fully digest and ask "are they right?"

Couldn't this guy find anyone who had anything positive to say? Of course he could. Totally one sided doomsday political article rushed out before the election (wasn't going to hit the newsstands in time).

 

cshs81: Two simple questions that I would like simple yes/no answers to, since you have said on here no less than 10 times you supported Bush and are disappointed. 1. Are you a registered Republican? 2. Do you wish you had voted for Gore or Kerry instead of Bush?

Without a doubt, you can find people that still support Bush, and think that the war in Iraq is going great.

 

When the people that are this close to the situation, and know the men and women of the administration this well, but are willing to express these opinions on the record - well, most people would consider that to be newsworthy.

 

If everything story such as this is simply a well timed plot structured to upset the balance of power just prior to the election, why would these STAUNCH conservatives (who are diehard Republicans) go on record to express their views? Why wouldn't they simply decline to answer or be interviewed. If they did not see this administration as a total failure, you would think that they would (at the very least) hold their thoughts until after the election.

 

The bottom line is that this isn't some smear campaign being conducted by the Democrats and the liberal media machine. These words are coming directly from the mouths of the people that have been a strong part of Bush's inner circle.

 

 

 

Frances

Couldn't this guy find anyone who had anything positive to say? Of course he could. Totally one sided doomsday political article rushed out before the election (wasn't going to hit the newsstands in time).

 

cshs81: Two simple questions that I would like simple yes/no answers to, since you have said on here no less than 10 times you supported Bush and are disappointed. 1. Are you a registered Republican? 2. Do you wish you had voted for Gore or Kerry instead of Bush?

My answers to those two questions is 'yes' for # 1 and 'no' for # 2.

But I am also disappointed with the way Bush has handled a few things. For one, he has allowed this war, a war we should have never been in to begin with, to cost thousands of soldiers and others their lives. It has also dragged down the whole party, and the GOP will pay a dear price next Tuesday. I feared in 2003 that we were making a mistake going into Iraq (but not Afghanistan), and I think my fears have come fruition. We're now bogged down in an unwinnable war, and someone is going to have to figure out the easiest way to get out, and that won't be in the near future. It's a no-win situation involving tribal conflict and religious sects. These people have been fighting and hating each other for 1500 years, and it's not going to stop now.

 

Going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan had merit. But we went into Iraq for very shallow reasons with questionable information, much of which has now been proven false.

 

This is not a war against terrorism....it's a relgious/tribal war, and the U.S. is smack-dab in the middle of it with no clear outlet. That bothers me.

My answers to those two questions is 'yes' for # 1 and 'no' for # 2.

But I am also disappointed with the way Bush has handled a few things. For one, he has allowed this war, a war we should have never been in to begin with, to cost thousands of soldiers and others their lives. It has also dragged down the whole party, and the GOP will pay a dear price next Tuesday. I feared in 2003 that we were making a mistake going into Iraq (but not Afghanistan), and I think my fears have come fruition. We're now bogged down in an unwinnable war, and someone is going to have to figure out the easiest way to get out, and that won't be in the near future. It's a no-win situation involving tribal conflict and religious sects. These people have been fighting and hating each other for 1500 years, and it's not going to stop now.

 

Going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan had merit. But we went into Iraq for very shallow reasons with questionable information, much of which has now been proven false.

 

This is not a war against terrorism....it's a relgious/tribal war, and the U.S. is smack-dab in the middle of it with no clear outlet. That bothers me.

 

Even though I am not a Republican (no small surprise there), I have to say that this is an excellent encapsulation of our current situation.

... that even his most ardent supporters have to fully digest and ask "are they right?"

 

Well, it would appear that this part of your post isn't exactly right, even though it should be.

 

 

Frances

Couldn't this guy find anyone who had anything positive to say? Of course he could. Totally one sided doomsday political article rushed out before the election (wasn't going to hit the newsstands in time).

 

cshs81: Two simple questions that I would like simple yes/no answers to, since you have said on here no less than 10 times you supported Bush and are disappointed. 1. Are you a registered Republican? 2. Do you wish you had voted for Gore or Kerry instead of Bush?

1. No

2. No

 

I agree that the war is a major problem at this time. I do think we have gotten are self into a tribal/religious conflict but also think that terrorists group have been focusing on Iraq and it does have "war on terror" overtones.

Without a doubt, you can find people that still support Bush, and think that the war in Iraq is going great.

 

When the people that are this close to the situation, and know the men and women of the administration this well, but are willing to express these opinions on the record - well, most people would consider that to be newsworthy.

 

If everything story such as this is simply a well timed plot structured to upset the balance of power just prior to the election, why would these STAUNCH conservatives (who are diehard Republicans) go on record to express their views? Why wouldn't they simply decline to answer or be interviewed. If they did not see this administration as a total failure, you would think that they would (at the very least) hold their thoughts until after the election.

 

The bottom line is that this isn't some smear campaign being conducted by the Democrats and the liberal media machine. These words are coming directly from the mouths of the people that have been a strong part of Bush's inner circle.

 

 

 

Frances

 

 

You missed my point. The president has many supporters the guy could have quoted in his article. Since he doesn't even quote ONE person who agrees with the President (or doesn't agree with him, but still supports him instead of throwing in the towel), it's clear what his intent is here. Are there people out there who disagree with the President? Even some conservatives? Of course. Everyone already knows this. We don't need some hack with an agenda giving us yet another article that is so one-sided it fails to even address the other side of the issue.

You missed my point. The president has many supporters the guy could have quoted in his article. Since he doesn't even quote ONE person who agrees with the President (or doesn't agree with him, but still supports him instead of throwing in the towel), it's clear what his intent is here. Are there people out there who disagree with the President? Even some conservatives? Of course. Everyone already knows this. We don't need some hack with an agenda giving us yet another article that is so one-sided it fails to even address the other side of the issue.

 

I think it you who misses the point.

 

The author of the article decided to interview the neocons that are as close to the situation as he could get. If these men that he interviewed had said "I don't agree with the President, but I still support him", then that is what would have been printed in the article. He didn't seek out only people that would rip the administration - he sought the people that were the closest to it, to get their point of view. What you are reading in the article is their opinions of what has unfolded over the last 6 years. Those opinions are expressed in total candor, and the fact that they reflect negatively on the White House was not the goal of the author, but the result of people speaking the truth, as they see it.

 

If every article that reflects poorly on the White House or Republicans is going to be dismissed as simply being a leftist attack by the liberal media, then there really is no hope of getting better. That is exactly the core of the problem that this administration suffers from. They are completely unwilling to listen to dissenting points of view, which has led them into the trap of believing that no matter what they do, they are right. This arrogance is exactly why we are where we are.

 

Whether it is pretty or not, one must allow dissent. It is the very strength of our country. Dissenting opinion is what forces those in power (Democrat or Republican) to examine their position. The political rhetoric of saying that a given politician is "waffling" or that they "listen to the polls" is reflective of this. When a political party (or a single politician) refuses to listen to what the populace is saying, a day of reckoning will soon come to pass.

 

The day that the Republicans swept into Congress with the Contract With America was just such a day of reckoning. This Tuesday will be just such a day. It won't be as profound as the 1994 election, but it will be a direct response to the same problem.

 

 

Frances

I think it you who misses the point.

 

The author of the article decided to interview the neocons that are as close to the situation as he could get. If these men that he interviewed had said "I don't agree with the President, but I still support him", then that is what would have been printed in the article. He didn't seek out only people that would rip the administration - he sought the people that were the closest to it, to get their point of view. What you are reading in the article is their opinions of what has unfolded over the last 6 years. Those opinions are expressed in total candor, and the fact that they reflect negatively on the White House was not the goal of the author, but the result of people speaking the truth, as they see it.

 

If every article that reflects poorly on the White House or Republicans is going to be dismissed as simply being a leftist attack by the liberal media, then there really is no hope of getting better. That is exactly the core of the problem that this administration suffers from. They are completely unwilling to listen to dissenting points of view, which has led them into the trap of believing that no matter what they do, they are right. This arrogance is exactly why we are where we are.

 

Whether it is pretty or not, one must allow dissent. It is the very strength of our country. Dissenting opinion is what forces those in power (Democrat or Republican) to examine their position. The political rhetoric of saying that a given politician is "waffling" or that they "listen to the polls" is reflective of this. When a political party (or a single politician) refuses to listen to what the populace is saying, a day of reckoning will soon come to pass.

 

The day that the Republicans swept into Congress with the Contract With America was just such a day of reckoning. This Tuesday will be just such a day. It won't be as profound as the 1994 election, but it will be a direct response to the same problem.

 

 

Frances

 

 

LOL! You're going to stick with him not being able to locate anyone with a positive opinion. Too funny, he tried his best, but just coudn't find a differing opinion. :sleep:

LOL! You're going to stick with him not being able to locate anyone with a positive opinion. Too funny, he tried his best, but just coudn't find a differing opinion. :sleep:

 

Stay with me on this - HE WASN'T LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WITH A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE OPINION.

 

He was simply interviewing people that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy.

 

For what it's worth, I find your use of the "Sleep" icon to be quite apropos.

 

 

 

"At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols". - Alduous Huxley

 

 

Frances

Stay with me on this - HE WASN'T LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WITH A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE OPINION.

 

He was simply interviewing people that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy.

 

Frances

 

Stay with me on this - IN ALL HIS WORK HE NEVER RAN INTO ANYONE WITH A POSITIVE OPINION?

 

You're saying he interviewed people that had direct access to the administration, and the formulation of policy, AND NO ONE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE FORMULATION OF POLICY HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION THAT WHAT HE CHOSE TO PRINT???

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

. 1. Are you a registered Republican? 2. Do you wish you had voted for Gore or Kerry instead of Bush?

 

Yes.

No.

 

What does either answer have to do with anything?

LOL! You're going to stick with him not being able to locate anyone with a positive opinion. Too funny, he tried his best, but just coudn't find a differing opinion. :sleep:

 

What should jump out of the story is this: President Bush's most ardent supporters in going to war for the reasons stated have NOW said that they wish they had not pushed him/supported him because in their view (and the view of many on both sides), the administration screwed up. These folks believed in the idea 100% but now realize that President Bush and his team were not/are not equipped to handle the strategy. THAT is the story.