Neocons:

Steer eyes for the military guy. Enough said.

Here we go again-same dance, different song. The neocon half-step is getting mighty old.

If these god-forsaken chickenhawks don't start enlisting in droves to fight this potential war with Iran, it just might become obvious to even the most slack-jawed that these duds aren't working in the best interests of the USA.

May G-d bless us with GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR!

I just love Cheney's tortured logic . . . when I want a good laugh.

Let's see, he says we need to invade Iran because they're causing American deaths in Iraq and contributing to the chaos there, and if the situation worsens in Iraq, we would have to go into Iran to cause chaos there, so things would get better in Iraq, and Iran.

Okayyyyy! I think I got it now. More war equals more $$$ for defense contractors, more opportunitiies for Big Oil to get back what is rightfully theirs -- the oil fields of the ME -- and more hard-ass, good ol' conservative American street cred.

Yep. Every drop of American blood shed in this noble effort has been, and will be, worth it . . . for Bush's precious legacy.

"Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."

LMFAO
They wish to dominate and their are making them nukular bombs.

And not a shred of evidence. Just the imperial march.

Does Experience Matter? (Clinton and JFK didn't think so)

This Video Is Showing That Obama can be president because two fmr presidents were
where he is right now, history proves experience makes an either worse president( nixon, bush, vp dick cheney, defense sec.rumsfeld)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBy3AKn_2Fk

What an excellent thread.

It should be quite interesting if we follow Cheney's passion and attack Iran. Has it occured to anyone that the reason the President of Iran is so confrontational with the US is because he might already have a nuclear bomb? Perhaps from Pakistan?

All I can say is I hope our folks in Iraq have a lot of sunscreen.

The consensus developing between Democrats and moderate Republicans is to support Bush's policy -- keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. The Dems are simply trampling over progressives in the belief they'll all vote for Hillary in the end, even though they know she'll continue the war. With that reality, there is no reason for the hawks to moderate. The further they push, the further the Dems will back down. They were even able to get a majority Democratic Congress to vote for the Trample Civil Liberties Act 2 (Protect America Act). Why would they back down when they know the farther to the right they go, the farther to the right the Center will go?

In this brave new world, the doves are hawks too. The "progressives" are going to vote for Hillary.

"When people speak to you about a preventative war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." - Dwight Eisenhower

When I read reports and comments on the Middle East today I conclude that I must be living in 1913. Same shit only different players!

How many in congress will act surprised when BushCo decides
to retaliate against some confusing provocation by Iran and bomb
1200+ sites in Iran over a long weekend?

The Senate must declare any war but Dumbya and Darth don't need
no stinking declaration to retaliate, even on a contrived event that
later, appears to be a false flag.

Another gem from Francis Fukuyama, the NeoCon:

""The United States today spends approximately as much as the rest of the world combined on its military establishment. So it is worth pondering why it is that, after nearly four years of effort, the loss of thousands of American lives, and an outlay of perhaps half-a-trillion dollars, the US has not succeeded in pacifying a small country of some 24 million people, much less in leading it to anything that looks remotely like a successful democracy."


"American military doctrine has emphasised the use of overwhelming force, applied suddenly and decisively, to defeat the enemy. But in a world where insurgents and militias deploy invisibly among civilian populations, overwhelming force is almost always counterproductive: it alienates precisely those people who have to make a break with the hardcore fighters and deny them the ability to operate freely. The kind of counterinsurgency campaign needed to defeat transnational militias and terrorists puts political goals ahead of military ones, and emphasises hearts and minds over shock and awe."

I don't agree with attacking Iran, but one can hardly call it a Republican idea. Consider the following quotes:

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,"

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force,"

That's not George Bush talking, it's not even a Republican, it's Hillary Clinton last February:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

As long as the Democrats are promoting an attack on Iran, what does Bush have to lose by ratcheting up the threats?

Francis Fukuyama is one of the original signers of the PNAC Statement of Principles " the "NeoCon Oath" of sorts: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

It is enlightening to read what Fukuyama has to say now, after four years of Iraq fraud, in his new book. Excerpts are available at The Guardian web site:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2002439,00.html

______________________________________________

"The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe. Their zealous advocacy of the invasion of Iraq may have been a disaster, but now they want to do it all over again - in Iran "
______________________________________________


"The US unintentionally abetted Iran's regional rise by invading Iraq, eliminating the Ba'athist regime as a counterweight, and empowering Shia parties close to Tehran. It seems reasonably clear that Iran wants nuclear weapons, despite protestations that its nuclear programme is only for civilian purposes; nuclear energy makes little sense for a country sitting on some of the world's largest oil reserves, but it makes sense as the basis for a weapons programme. It is completely rational for the Iranians to conclude that they will be safer with a bomb than without one."
_______________________________________________


That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is from a NeoCon, and not a "Librul, HuffKid, Hufftard".


Do look up the link. It is a good read.