g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,102
- 2,605
^
And here is one of those rubes who bought into the WMDs story that Trump says is a total lie made up by Bush.
Trump Just Walked Back His Statement About Bush and Iraq
- Thread starter OKTexas
- Start date
And here is one of those rubes who bought into the WMDs story that Trump says is a total lie made up by Bush.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,102
- 2,605
No he hasn't.
The rubes are doing all sorts of mental leaps and twists to accommodate themselves to the fact that Trump has always been a Bush hating, cut and run, Democrat and are groping for a way to still be in love with Trump without their heads exploding from cognitive dissonance.
Based on the tards' prior behavior, I have every confidence they will pull it off with a combination of willful blindness, stupidity, and repetitive piss drinking.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,102
- 2,605
Pro-choice.
Pro socialized medicine.
Pro big government.
Anti-war.
Wanted Bush impeached.
Wanted to cut and run from Iraq.
Big contributor to the Clintons.
Wake up, tards. That's a list of qualities one only finds in a hardcore, far left liberal. This guy is practically a member of Code Pink!
You dumb ***** call other Republicans a RINO for MUCH, MUCH LESS reasons.
Hypocrites.
Pro socialized medicine.
Pro big government.
Anti-war.
Wanted Bush impeached.
Wanted to cut and run from Iraq.
Big contributor to the Clintons.
Wake up, tards. That's a list of qualities one only finds in a hardcore, far left liberal. This guy is practically a member of Code Pink!
You dumb ***** call other Republicans a RINO for MUCH, MUCH LESS reasons.
Hypocrites.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Trump is a coward and a liar.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,102
- 2,605
As are his supporters. And they are hypocrites of the highest rank.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,560
- 2,645
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,560
- 2,645
I love how the 'anonymous' properties of the internet make 'lions' of the biggest cowards among us.....
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,720
- 13,434
- 2,280
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, "Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism."[42] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[43]
Strauss asserted that "the crisis of the West consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose." His solution was a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West.[dubious – discuss] Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the essentials of the Great Tradition in Strauss's work.[44] Strauss emphasized the spirit of the Greek classics, and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American "Founding Fathers" were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes.[citation needed] For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[45] O'Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss's influence caused his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted a so-called Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[46] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.
The Truth about Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy by Catherine and Michael Zuckert, an excerpt
The Economist identifies Strauss as the latest in a long list of alleged "puppeteers" pulling the strings of President Bush. Jeet Heer in the Boston Globe informs us: "We live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss, who is 'the thinker of the moment' in Washington." In an article entitled "The Long Reach of Leo Strauss," William Pfaff assures us that "Strauss's followers are in charge of U.S. foreign policy." Even though he is among those who explicitly note Strauss's apparent remoteness from politics, James Atlas takes seriously the claim that the Iraq War "turns out to have been nothing less than a defense of Western Civilization—as interpreted by the late classicist and philosopher Leo Strauss." He cites certain "conspiracy theorists" who believe that "the Bush administration's foreign policy is entirely a Straussian creation." Although Atlas seems reluctant to endorse the view of these conspiracy theorists—which he nonetheless repeats without dissent—he does, in his own name, answer the question "who runs things?" as follows: "It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to answer: the intellectual heirs of Leo Strauss." As evidence in support of that answer, he points to the fact (or alleged fact) that "the Bush administration is rife with Straussians." The Le Monde writers identify Strauss as one of two "master thinkers," the "theoretical substratum" beneath the neoconservatives, who, they say, "have marginalized center or democratic center left intellectuals to occupy a predominant position where the ideas are forged that dominate the political landscape."
The Neocon Godfather - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Norton uses the telling example of Machiavelli to considerable effect: while Strauss himself described the author of The Prince as "a teacher of evil," neoconservative Straussians today, in their defense of and even enthusiasm for acts of despotism in the alleged service of a higher good, appear to embrace the Machiavellian idea of the morally autonomous state. Indeed when Straussians refer to the concept of "statesmanship," they very often have in mind a politician’s willingness, in pursuit of his objectives, to break with received morality or his own country’s traditional legal order.
This point is arguable, however, and Strauss may have been philosophically closer to the ideological clique that today bears his name than Norton is prepared to admit. Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient world nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power. The statesman thus enjoyed a relatively wide latitude for the exercise of his prudential judgment. Norton herself points out that the Straussians’ almost cult-like admiration for Abraham Lincoln derives from the sixteenth president’s willingness to act outside the law: e.g., suspending habeas corpus, jailing dissidents, and suppressing free speech. "Lincoln," Norton writes, is for Straussians "the model of prudential leadership" (p. 130) — a concept that, at least in its fundamentals, can be traced to Strauss himself.
Particularly satisfying, at least to this reader, is Norton’s discussion, quite contrary to the misleading conventional wisdom, of the lack of conservatism among today’s Straussians:
Appeals to history and memory, the fear of losing old virtues, of failing to keep faith with the principles of an honored ancestry, came to seem curious and antiquated. In their place were the very appeals to universal, abstract principles, the very utopian projects that conservatives once disdained. Conservatives had once called for limits and restraint; now there were calls to daring and adventurism. Conservatives had once stood steadfastly for the Constitution and community, for loyalties born of experience and strengthened in a common life. Now there were global projects, and crusades (p. 174).
Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, "Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism."[42] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[43]
Strauss asserted that "the crisis of the West consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose." His solution was a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West.[dubious – discuss] Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the essentials of the Great Tradition in Strauss's work.[44] Strauss emphasized the spirit of the Greek classics, and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American "Founding Fathers" were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes.[citation needed] For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[45] O'Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss's influence caused his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted a so-called Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[46] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.
The Truth about Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy by Catherine and Michael Zuckert, an excerpt
The Economist identifies Strauss as the latest in a long list of alleged "puppeteers" pulling the strings of President Bush. Jeet Heer in the Boston Globe informs us: "We live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss, who is 'the thinker of the moment' in Washington." In an article entitled "The Long Reach of Leo Strauss," William Pfaff assures us that "Strauss's followers are in charge of U.S. foreign policy." Even though he is among those who explicitly note Strauss's apparent remoteness from politics, James Atlas takes seriously the claim that the Iraq War "turns out to have been nothing less than a defense of Western Civilization—as interpreted by the late classicist and philosopher Leo Strauss." He cites certain "conspiracy theorists" who believe that "the Bush administration's foreign policy is entirely a Straussian creation." Although Atlas seems reluctant to endorse the view of these conspiracy theorists—which he nonetheless repeats without dissent—he does, in his own name, answer the question "who runs things?" as follows: "It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to answer: the intellectual heirs of Leo Strauss." As evidence in support of that answer, he points to the fact (or alleged fact) that "the Bush administration is rife with Straussians." The Le Monde writers identify Strauss as one of two "master thinkers," the "theoretical substratum" beneath the neoconservatives, who, they say, "have marginalized center or democratic center left intellectuals to occupy a predominant position where the ideas are forged that dominate the political landscape."
The Neocon Godfather - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Norton uses the telling example of Machiavelli to considerable effect: while Strauss himself described the author of The Prince as "a teacher of evil," neoconservative Straussians today, in their defense of and even enthusiasm for acts of despotism in the alleged service of a higher good, appear to embrace the Machiavellian idea of the morally autonomous state. Indeed when Straussians refer to the concept of "statesmanship," they very often have in mind a politician’s willingness, in pursuit of his objectives, to break with received morality or his own country’s traditional legal order.
This point is arguable, however, and Strauss may have been philosophically closer to the ideological clique that today bears his name than Norton is prepared to admit. Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient world nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power. The statesman thus enjoyed a relatively wide latitude for the exercise of his prudential judgment. Norton herself points out that the Straussians’ almost cult-like admiration for Abraham Lincoln derives from the sixteenth president’s willingness to act outside the law: e.g., suspending habeas corpus, jailing dissidents, and suppressing free speech. "Lincoln," Norton writes, is for Straussians "the model of prudential leadership" (p. 130) — a concept that, at least in its fundamentals, can be traced to Strauss himself.
Particularly satisfying, at least to this reader, is Norton’s discussion, quite contrary to the misleading conventional wisdom, of the lack of conservatism among today’s Straussians:
Appeals to history and memory, the fear of losing old virtues, of failing to keep faith with the principles of an honored ancestry, came to seem curious and antiquated. In their place were the very appeals to universal, abstract principles, the very utopian projects that conservatives once disdained. Conservatives had once called for limits and restraint; now there were calls to daring and adventurism. Conservatives had once stood steadfastly for the Constitution and community, for loyalties born of experience and strengthened in a common life. Now there were global projects, and crusades (p. 174).
Last edited:
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
Jesus! No, Trump simply changed his mind. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Nothing of 'changing ones mind' has anything to do with lying.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
No, the fact is that you cannot distinguish between what happens around you and what you prefer to have happen around you.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
Conservatives need to have the demon of neoconservativism exorcised.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #75
Other than your one little rant about Blair you still haven't explained how all the other member states, of the coalition, were duped into joining Bush's conspiracy.
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,802
- 2,415
Did Boosh lie, or did he carry out the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs that clinton signed?
There is a distinction. Remember, Boosh was not the first to propagate existence of WMDs.
It was more than just clinton and Booooosh. Saddams son in laws along with UN security council also claiming he had them. All before Booooosh took office.
We also know the country's paradigm shifted on how to deal with terror sponsored nations that were enemies of this nation. No longer could we be reactive to posed threats. Look what 19 men did with out a gun. The democrats seemed to agree considering how they voted for the war, before they spoke out against it.
Just saying.
Last edited:
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,102
- 2,605
Trump says so, and that Bush should be impeached for it.
Which one invaded Iraq?
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,102
- 2,605
Here's the link: Republican town hall: Donald Trump challenged over 9/11 - CNNPolitics.com
I saw Trump on MTP on Sunday, and he refused to repeat his claim on there, too. I was angry the host was not more aggressive with Trump and let him off the hook so easily.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,719
- 92,102
- 2,605
I've linked to the interview from CNN where Trump plainly stated he was disappointed that Nancy Pelosi did not impeach Bush. He said an impeachment would have been "a wonderful thing". It's on the record for all time.
Watch Trump run like the chickenshit he is from that:
CHUCK TODD: I want to go to the debate last night. Your 2008 comments about George W. Bush were brought up, and this idea that you were surprised at the time that then Speaker Pelosi had ruled out impeachment. Did you believe that, and I just want to clarify this, did you believe that there was enough there to bring up impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush in 2008 over Iraq?
DONALD TRUMP: No, I was in the private sector, so I didn't think about it too much. But certainly, the war in Iraq was a disaster. No, not to be impeached, but the war in Iraq was a disa-- it was a mistake. He just made a mistake. We went into Iraq, we lost thousands of lives, we lost trillions of dollars, $2 trillion.
CHUCK TODD:You don't believe it's an impeachable offense now? You were implying that it might be in 2008.
DONALD TRUMP: Well, that's for other people to say.
No, dickface, you decided it was something for YOU to say at the time.
How the **** is this guy the GOP front runner?
Someone please explain.
Watch Trump run like the chickenshit he is from that:
CHUCK TODD: I want to go to the debate last night. Your 2008 comments about George W. Bush were brought up, and this idea that you were surprised at the time that then Speaker Pelosi had ruled out impeachment. Did you believe that, and I just want to clarify this, did you believe that there was enough there to bring up impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush in 2008 over Iraq?
DONALD TRUMP: No, I was in the private sector, so I didn't think about it too much. But certainly, the war in Iraq was a disaster. No, not to be impeached, but the war in Iraq was a disa-- it was a mistake. He just made a mistake. We went into Iraq, we lost thousands of lives, we lost trillions of dollars, $2 trillion.
CHUCK TODD:You don't believe it's an impeachable offense now? You were implying that it might be in 2008.
DONALD TRUMP: Well, that's for other people to say.
No, dickface, you decided it was something for YOU to say at the time.
How the **** is this guy the GOP front runner?
Someone please explain.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,560
- 2,645
By all means, please go right ahead and begin Impeachment proceedings on President Bush.
WHO invaded Iraq? President Bush ordered it with the full support of and authorization from Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others.
WHO took the country to war on his own, by-passing Congress to sue our military to help terrorists take over Libya? That WOULD be Obama and Hillary. Impeachment proceedings SHOULD begin against Obama for THAT.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Politico poll shows many western nations turning to China, more, as a result of Trump's presidency- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 8
-
-
Pakistan says it hit militant hideouts in Afghanistan’s Kandahar as fighting shows no letup- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
putin agreed to stop enlisting Kenyans to fight in the Kremlin’s colonial war in Ukraine- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
