A real conservative voice

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
In keeping with its established role as purveyor of disinformation, Fox "News" talking head Brit Hume misreported Fox’s own poll. On "Special Report" (January 26) Hume said that 51% of Americans "would now support" air strikes on Iran.

wow 51%

that is a fecking huge landslide mandate

why isn't Iran a pool molten glass?
 
deep said:
wow 51%

that is a fecking huge landslide mandate

why isn't Iran a pool molten glass?

Roberts point here is about Fox mis-representing its own poll to suit (in his view) its neo-conservative agenda.
 
The title of the thread is partly humorous BTW:wink:

There lots of different strands of opinion within conservative thought (as with liberal thought).
 
financeguy said:

mis-representing its own poll to suit (in his view) its neo-conservative agenda.
and ???


were making history here
(mother-fecker)
don't be an isolationist defeatist
 
financeguy, do you agree with his conviction that the Iranian nuclear threat is a total mirage? I do believe much of it is overblown and amplified beyond all prudence by hawkish fearmongering, but he appears to find Iran's "domestic use" rationale wholly believable, a leap I'm not fully prepared to make. Not that I'm inclined to support airstrikes or beyond because of that--I figure Iranian nuclearization, like (??) Israeli nuclearization, is inevitable in the long run, and that it makes more sense to start from that assumption and focus on a politics of containment instead.

The image of AIPAC as an all-powerful sinister puppeteer yanking helpless, otherwise well-intentioned establishment hawks around is stupidly hyperbolic. No one yanks these folks around nor needs to, and it foolishly underestimates the prevalence of their worldview in political circles to reduce it all to would-be Jewish imperialists manipulating would-be gentile doves.

I don't fully buy the idea that Ahmadinajad is speaking only to Muslims with his Israel-in-Europe schtick, either. My guess is that this is simultaneously a calculated, if unlikely, attempt on his part to problematize European commitments to Israel's safety by (correctly enough) pointing out that fears of a postwar influx of unwelcome Jewish refugees had much to do with Lloyd George et al. being so receptive to a Palestinian homeland for Jews to begin with. In other words: you made innocent-and-beleaguered-us do your dirty work for you then, and shame on your democratic freedom-loving heads for still doing it now.
 
yolland said:
financeguy, do you agree with his conviction that the Iranian nuclear threat is a total mirage?



No I wouldn't agree with him on that. Anti-semitism and isolationism are the banes of the paleo-conservatives. I don't know if Roberts is personally anti-semitic but his fellow paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan has made some pretty indefensible anti-semitic remarks in the past.

US foreign policy is influenced by a whole range of interests, one of them may well be pro-Israel lobbyists but the paleo-conservatives tend to overstate the case.

However he has called bullshit on Fox News propagandising - for that if nothing else I applaud him.
 
I just wonder, how can anyone at this point see the Bush admin as "conservative"? They spend like gambling addicts, expand Big Brother, wage an aggressive rather than defensive war, spend hundreds of billions of money taken from hard pressed TAXPAYERS on 'spreading democracy', etc, etc.

None of the above is "conservative". The foregoing describes neo-'conservatives' - global imperialists of the 21st Century.
 
Back
Top Bottom