• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Roy Blunt - The Next Tom Delay?

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You think the GOP would learn from its mistakes, and make damn sure that whoever replaced Tom Delay would be beyond reproach. Seems they havent.

Roy Blunt, the majority leader replacement for Delay, has given out $88,000.00 to GOP consultant and indicted figure Jim Ellis. Blunt also has close ties to Jack Abramoff, who was indicted recently for real estate fraud.

While nothing may come of this, the naming of Blunt as the interim majority leader, is a huge mistake for the Republican party, and one that is going to give the Democrats even more fodder than they already have.

Article is here.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
danarhea said:
You think the GOP would learn from its mistakes, and make damn sure that whoever replaced Tom Delay would be beyond reproach. Seems they havent.

Roy Blunt, the majority leader replacement for Delay, has given out $88,000.00 to GOP consultant and indicted figure Jim Ellis. Blunt also has close ties to Jack Abramoff, who was indicted recently for real estate fraud.

While nothing may come of this, the naming of Blunt as the interim majority leader, is a huge mistake for the Republican party, and one that is going to give the Democrats even more fodder than they already have.

Article is here.
You are giving the GOP too much credit. Look at who they replaced Brownie with? As long as they can spin their way through it, that is all that matters. It is not that they haven't learnt from their mistakes - they know exactly what they are doing. They just have contempt for the system.

If they had start appointing and staffing with capable people who aren't just croonies or polical oppratives, they might end up with a respectable GOP that won't serve their croonie interests - something perhaps like the GOP that would have been created if Rove hadn't weasled Bush ahead of McCain in 2000.

I think the supports of today's GOP is best summed up as Ann Coulter. Did you see her on Larry King last night? Rabid hate for anything connected to the L-word (liberal) spraying in every direction - with message number one being that liberals hate America. What a pile of crap!

The GOP, however, has the most effective spin machine in the world. They actually have convinced a large part of the country that the word "liberal" is a dirty word. It is a good thing a lot of people don't know how to read the dictionary!

The GOP and the neocons are digging America into a hole in many different ways. I think eventually the voting Rebulicans are gonna realize that they are not true conservatives and take back their party. Then maybe the US can get some effective government.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
You are giving the GOP too much credit. Look at who they replaced Brownie with? As long as they can spin their way through it, that is all that matters. It is not that they haven't learnt from their mistakes - they know exactly what they are doing. They just have contempt for the system.

If they had start appointing and staffing with capable people who aren't just croonies or polical oppratives, they might end up with a respectable GOP that won't serve their croonie interests - something perhaps like the GOP that would have been created if Rove hadn't weasled Bush ahead of McCain in 2000.

I think the supports of today's GOP is best summed up as Ann Coulter. Did you see her on Larry King last night? Rabid hate for anything connected to the L-word (liberal) spraying in every direction - with message number one being that liberals hate America. What a pile of crap!

The GOP, however, has the most effective spin machine in the world. They actually have convinced a large part of the country that the word "liberal" is a dirty word. It is a good thing a lot of people don't know how to read the dictionary!

The GOP and the neocons are digging America into a hole in many different ways. I think eventually the voting Rebulicans are gonna realize that they are not true conservatives and take back their party. Then maybe the US can get some effective government.
To be honest, I dont like the Liberal agenda either, and will always respectfully disagree with you on the direction America should be heading. However, you are right in that the Bushneviks are not Conservative in the least. In fact, the founder of the Neocon movement, Irving Kristol, was once a card carrying member of the Communist party. His son, William, who is the founder of PNAC, and one of the main spokesmen for the Bushneviks, has stated on more than one occasion that Neocons would, in a presidential race, support a Liberal hawk over a Conservative.

The Bushneviks are Neoconservative. They also have strong elements of Neoliberalism. But they are not Conservative, never have been, and never will be. Their saying that they are Conservative is perhaps the greatest lie in politics today.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,297
Reaction score
13,529
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
danarhea said:
To be honest, I dont like the Liberal agenda either, and will always respectfully disagree with you on the direction America should be heading. However, you are right in that the Bushneviks are not Conservative in the least. In fact, the founder of the Neocon movement, Irving Kristol, was once a card carrying member of the Communist party. His son, William, who is the founder of PNAC, and one of the main spokesmen for the Bushneviks, has stated on more than one occasion that Neocons would, in a presidential race, support a Liberal hawk over a Conservative.

The Bushneviks are Neoconservative. They also have strong elements of Neoliberalism. But they are not Conservative, never have been, and never will be. Their saying that they are Conservative is perhaps the greatest lie in politics today.
I know you are a conservative, but I kind of get the idea though that you are not someone that believes that either side has a monopoly on good ideas.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,297
Reaction score
13,529
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
python416 said:
You are giving the GOP too much credit. Look at who they replaced Brownie with? As long as they can spin their way through it, that is all that matters. It is not that they haven't learnt from their mistakes - they know exactly what they are doing. They just have contempt for the system.

If they had start appointing and staffing with capable people who aren't just croonies or polical oppratives, they might end up with a respectable GOP that won't serve their croonie interests - something perhaps like the GOP that would have been created if Rove hadn't weasled Bush ahead of McCain in 2000.

I think the supports of today's GOP is best summed up as Ann Coulter. Did you see her on Larry King last night? Rabid hate for anything connected to the L-word (liberal) spraying in every direction - with message number one being that liberals hate America. What a pile of crap!

The GOP, however, has the most effective spin machine in the world. They actually have convinced a large part of the country that the word "liberal" is a dirty word. It is a good thing a lot of people don't know how to read the dictionary!

The GOP and the neocons are digging America into a hole in many different ways. I think eventually the voting Rebulicans are gonna realize that they are not true conservatives and take back their party. Then maybe the US can get some effective government.
Ann Coulter is a good indicator of an individuals IQ. If an individual thinks that Ann Coulter is a great advocate for conservatism, then you can bet that individual is probably not a particularly thoughtful and intelligent person.

Its kind of funny, if you describe something as left wing, its usually not taken as such as being as bad as describing something as right wing. However, describing someone as a liberal can be taken bad where usually describing them as a conservative is not as much. Just the same, being called “religious right” is worse than being called liberal.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
To be honest, I dont like the Liberal agenda either, and will always respectfully disagree with you on the direction America should be heading. However, you are right in that the Bushneviks are not Conservative in the least. In fact, the founder of the Neocon movement, Irving Kristol, was once a card carrying member of the Communist party. His son, William, who is the founder of PNAC, and one of the main spokesmen for the Bushneviks, has stated on more than one occasion that Neocons would, in a presidential race, support a Liberal hawk over a Conservative.

The Bushneviks are Neoconservative. They also have strong elements of Neoliberalism. But they are not Conservative, never have been, and never will be. Their saying that they are Conservative is perhaps the greatest lie in politics today.


Here he goes again.:rofl

You see, Dan seems to think that this very tiny group of former liberals, mugged by reality, make up the whole of new conservatives, he is wrong. The PNAC is not a strong voice, nor are they the ones behind the decision making in Washington. This is a lie that is being spread by irrelevant traditional conservatives, who's time has come and gone, and they are desperate to reclaim the glory they once enjoyed. They are mostly Jewish members, who do have some really good ideas at times, it's just a coincidence that they seem to be in line with the Bush admin. These old conservatives, Pat Buchanan is a perfect example, hate this Jewish party so much, that this is what they have decided would be the best way to wipe them out. It's really nothing more then ignorant racists, hell bent on regaining the power they once held, crying big tears for all to see.:roll:
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Here he goes again.:rofl

You see, Dan seems to think that this very tiny group of former liberals, mugged by reality, make up the whole of new conservatives, he is wrong. The PNAC is not a strong voice, nor are they the ones behind the decision making in Washington. This is a lie that is being spread by irrelevant traditional conservatives, who's time has come and gone, and they are desperate to reclaim the glory they once enjoyed. They are mostly Jewish members, who do have some really good ideas at times, it's just a coincidence that they seem to be in line with the Bush admin. These old conservatives, Pat Buchanan is a perfect example, hate this Jewish party so much, that this is what they have decided would be the best way to wipe them out. It's really nothing more then ignorant racists, hell bent on regaining the power they once held, crying big tears for all to see.:roll:
PNAC is not a big factor in this administration?!?!

Let's see:

Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Scooter Libby
Bolton

And that's just for starters!!!

ARE YOU BLIND?
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
PNAC is not a big factor in this administration?!?!

Let's see:

Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Scooter Libby
Bolton

And that's just for starters!!!

ARE YOU BLIND?

No, but you have been lied to, and I don't blame you, the fools who create this fabrication are not stupid, but they are wrong.

These men are a part of a great org. the AEI, and Reagan once said this about the group.....

"The American Enterprise Institute stands at the center of a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part. AEI's remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank. For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks – and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute."

They did little but rent space to the office of the PNAC, here are there prominent members..........

Project Directors

William Kristol, Chairman

Robert Kagan

Bruce P. Jackson

Mark Gerson

Randy Scheunemann

Project Staff

Gary Schmitt, Executive Director

Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director

Ellen Bork, Deputy Director

Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow

Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative

Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director

Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate


Please try to educate yourself, and try not to rely on the internet for your facts.:roll:
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
No, but you have been lied to, and I don't blame you, the fools who create this fabrication are not stupid, but they are wrong.

These men are a part of a great org. the AEI, and Reagan once said this about the group.....

"The American Enterprise Institute stands at the center of a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part. AEI's remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank. For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks – and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute."

They did little but rent space to the office of the PNAC, here are there prominent members..........

Project Directors

William Kristol, Chairman

Robert Kagan

Bruce P. Jackson

Mark Gerson

Randy Scheunemann

Project Staff

Gary Schmitt, Executive Director

Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director

Ellen Bork, Deputy Director

Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow

Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative

Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director

Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate


Please try to educate yourself, and try not to rely on the internet for your facts.:roll:
Well none of them are part of PNAC now, as I think they all had to leave because they are serving in office. But in 1997 they were signatories on the statement of Principles.

I am sorry for relying on the Internet, but I figured that if I got it of THEIR OWN WEBSITE, that might excuse it. Or is this site just a liberal conspiracy?!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

And none of these guys are current fellows or scholars at AEI - I assume for the same reason they are not in PNAC while being part of the adminstration.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
Well none of them are part of PNAC now, as I think they all had to leave because they are serving in office. But in 1997 they were signatories on the statement of Principles.

I am sorry for relying on the Internet, but I figured that if I got it of THEIR OWN WEBSITE, that might excuse it. Or is this site just a liberal conspiracy?!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

And none of these guys are current fellows or scholars at AEI - I assume for the same reason they are not in PNAC while being part of the adminstration.

Of course, they should not be part of any group that may lend credence to the smear campaign of the irrelevant conservatives of old, the isolationists to be direct. They signed on to a belief, and one I subscribe to, as well as many millions of other Americans, and we won't apologize for those beliefs. Here is what they signed on to, and it's strictly an American concern.....

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What happened to your claim that those guys aren't part of PNAC, and then your smug suggestion that I not use the Internet for fact checking?

And then you are proven to be wrong with PNACs very own website! Now you jump agruments as to the validity of Reagan's defense policy?

How am I suppose to take what you seriously when you agrue with such selective memory?

Remember I was responding to your claim the PNAC is not a major factor in today's Whitehouse - WHEN IT IS! Please acknowledge your mistake, because if you cannot, then you are not worth debating.

The only "belief" that I see you agreeing with is that spinning the facts for your own agenda is great! So it is not surprising that you are supporting the Neocons; that is their bread and butter.



Deegan said:
Of course, they should not be part of any group that may lend credence to the smear campaign of the irrelevant conservatives of old, the isolationists to be direct. They signed on to a belief, and one I subscribe to, as well as many millions of other Americans, and we won't apologize for those beliefs. Here is what they signed on to, and it's strictly an American concern.....

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
What happened to your claim that those guys aren't part of PNAC, and then your smug suggestion that I not use the Internet for fact checking?

And then you are proven to be wrong with PNACs very own website! Now you jump agruments as to the validity of Reagan's defense policy?

How am I suppose to take what you seriously when you agrue with such selective memory?

Remember I was responding to your claim the PNAC is not a major factor in today's Whitehouse - WHEN IT IS! Please acknowledge your mistake, because if you cannot, then you are not worth debating.

The only "belief" that I see you agreeing with is that spinning the facts for your own agenda is great! So it is not surprising that you are supporting the Neocons; that is their bread and butter.
They are not part of the PNAC, the lend their names to a principle, and only a principle. You are wrong, and I will give you a chance to go google their membership, I will patiently await your response.;)
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
They are not part of the PNAC, the lend their names to a principle, and only a principle. You are wrong, and I will give you a chance to go google their membership, I will patiently await your response.;)
OK, as I said, that are not currently part of PNAC. But they are signatories of the 1997 Statement of Principles. If that doesn't mean that they were part of PNAC, then you are splitting in a "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is" kinda way.

They signed it in 1997, they supported the goals, and now they are executing them from inside the Whitehouse. Maybe PNAC doesn't mean much now - CAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED TO! The people who molded the PNAC vision are in total control of the government.

PNAC is part of the neo-conservative movement? right?
They signed the Statement of Principles in 1997? right?
They are now in various offices executing neo-conservative policy? right?

right?

Just where exactly do think the administration got its defence doctrine from anyways?
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
OK, as I said, that are not currently part of PNAC. But they are signatories of the 1997 Statement of Principles. If that doesn't mean that they were part of PNAC, then you are splitting in a "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is" kinda way.

They signed it in 1997, they supported the goals, and now they are executing them from inside the Whitehouse. Maybe PNAC doesn't mean much now - CAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED TO! The people who molded the PNAC vision are in total control of the government.

PNAC is part of the neo-conservative movement? right?
They signed the Statement of Principles in 1997? right?
They are now in various offices executing neo-conservative policy? right?

right?

Just where exactly do think the administration got its defence doctrine from anyways?

Ask your question sir, and quit beating around the Bush, lol.

Some politicians have been linked to groups that they must now move away from, Senator Byrd would be a good example, he was part of the KKK, where's the outrage sir? These men simply put their names to a principle, and it was well known, and they were shortly after, elected to the office of the most powerful admin. on the planet, that does not happen by accident.

Again, what is your question?

This was all well known when they campaigned, it just didn't stick the way you loons hoped it would have, just move on to a new smear campaign.:roll:
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Ask your question sir, and quit beating around the Bush, lol.

Some politicians have been linked to groups that they must now move away from, Senator Byrd would be a good example, he was part of the KKK, where's the outrage sir? These men simply put their names to a principle, and it was well known, and they were shortly after, elected to the office of the most powerful admin. on the planet, that does not happen by accident.

Again, what is your question?

This was all well known when they campaigned, it just didn't stick the way you loons hoped it would have, just move on to a new smear campaign.:roll:


Sen. Byrd is a left over from the Strom Thurmand era, but I don't need to quote ol' Strom do I?

What does this have to do with PNAC?

This was all well known when they campaigned? Well maybe it wasn't hidden, but what percentage of the American public even knows what PNAC stands for? I'd imagine less than 1 or 2 percent - so I find it hard to believe you are trying to pass off those guys signing of PNACs Statement as a campaign move.

Bottom line is their pre-emptive warmongering desires were clear way back when, but the issue here is your following claim:

"PNAC is not the ones behind the decision making in Washington"

when in reality, this is extremely misleading because the people who wrote up the "Statement of Principles" for PNAC are now the ones running Washington!

PNAC wrote the doctrine, Rove got Bush elected, and now the Whitehouse is running on that doctrine.

So my question is: who do you think developed the current defence doctrine of this administration? GWB? Colin Powell? GHWB?
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
python416 said:
Sen. Byrd is a left over from the Strom Thurmand era, but I don't need to quote ol' Strom do I?

What does this have to do with PNAC?

This was all well known when they campaigned? Well maybe it wasn't hidden, but what percentage of the American public even knows what PNAC stands for? I'd imagine less than 1 or 2 percent - so I find it hard to believe you are trying to pass off those guys signing of PNACs Statement as a campaign move.

Bottom line is their pre-emptive warmongering desires were clear way back when, but the issue here is your following claim:

"PNAC is not the ones behind the decision making in Washington"

when in reality, this is extremely misleading because the people who wrote up the "Statement of Principles" for PNAC are now the ones running Washington!

PNAC wrote the doctrine, Rove got Bush elected, and now the Whitehouse is running on that doctrine.

So my question is: who do you think developed the current defence doctrine of this administration? GWB? Colin Powell? GHWB?
Brilliant, only 1 or 2 % know what the PNAC is all about, yet they are the are, in some folks opinion, THE MOST POWERFUL GROUP IN THE COUNTRY!

You can't have it both ways, are they the whole of the Republican party, or a small fringe group? Some would have you believe we all fall in lock step with their mission, but you yourself, now admit, they are hardly even recognized.

But to answer your question, Cheney did, and it was not the PNAC, but the AEI, that founded these principles, and the PNAC is just a group that spawned from that. Now........because these folks are dirty f**king Jews, they are now being targeted, and used to smear the entire project, so much for a diverse society huh?:roll:
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Brilliant, only 1 or 2 % know what the PNAC is all about, yet they are the are, in some folks opinion, THE MOST POWERFUL GROUP IN THE COUNTRY!

You can't have it both ways, are they the whole of the Republican party, or a small fringe group? Some would have you believe we all fall in lock step with their mission, but you yourself, now admit, they are hardly even recognized.

But to answer your question, Cheney did, and it was not the PNAC, but the AEI, that founded these principles, and the PNAC is just a group that spawned from that. Now........because these folks are dirty f**king Jews, they are now being targeted, and used to smear the entire project, so much for a diverse society huh?:roll:
Yes you can have it both ways! You are claiming that it is not possible to simulatiously be:

1) unknown to the general public
2) have a lot of power of American policy

That is crap! Before this year, most people didn't know how Karl Rove is, but he is one of the most powerful people in the country - and has probably done more to shape its future than all but a handful of other people

The AEI and PNAC both pursue neo-conservative policy, but the defence doctrine was formalized in PNAC. But whatever! It doesn't matter. AEI or PNAC, they are still a lot of the same people, and the ones I quoted were part of PNAC. They wrote the defence policy and now they are executing it.

Cheney is one of the masters behind it, and I would also say Wolfowitz.

Do you subscribe to their views?

You believe that America is destined to mold the rest of the world into its image using pre-emptive military action? Cause that is what they are peddling!

PNAC, AEI, this Whitehouse, Leo Strauss, Kristol, Perle, etc.
 
Top Bottom