Carlyle Group founder disses Dubya!
Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan
wenhuadageming at comcast.net
Wed Jul 9 00:26:03 MDT 2003
there is a split in the republican party, roughly between "classical
conservatives" and neo-cons. bush's cabinet, advisors and overall
administration generally fall into the latter camp. they are the dominant
ideological force at the moment, but they are now reaping their own
whirlwinds, and the classicals and the neo-liberals as well would probably
like to see the neo-cons come tumbling down in a ball of fire. my
observation is that the mainstream domestic press is finally starting to
follow suit with their overseas counterparts and report on the
administrations' blunders and outright lies, whereas before with enron and
with the lead-up/early stages of the invasion they were generally silent
and obedient. the administration is on the defensive now, and eventually
crucial power-players in the military, press, finance, and congress, etc.
will make their move. they may wait until after (probably stealing) the
'04 election, so as to secure a republican administration despite a
resignation or something. but whatever the case, from what i can tell,
and of course, no, i have no desire to meet any of these bastards at the
barricades, unless it's war and i have them in my gunsights.
At 11:42 PM 7/7/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan:
> >>i just thought it interesting to see the competing
>interests at play and bring it to light. the left may
>not ultimately "care" or have sympathy for dissension
>within the ruling circles, but i personally think we
>should be aware of them and perhaps even use them to
>our advantage when possible. traditional
>conservatives, top military brass, and the
>intelligence agencies, not to mention the neo-liberals
>of the clinton and soros variety, are starting to
>choose sides and even break ranks with the neo-con
>clique. why is this not significant?<<
>Let's see, they chose sides prior to 9-11 and
>'debated' whether or not Bush or McCain was their man.
>The Republican party platform is built around regime
>change in certain countries, and Iraq has long been
>top of the list. They chose sides after 9-11 and
>debated not IF but when to attack Iraq, and they
>debated how many allies does it take to spell
>'unilateralism'. In other words, it was all
>pseudo-debate designed to take the microphone away
>from anyone who had anything to say besides what they
>wanted to hear (e.g., attack Iraq now or attack them
>next year after we've wheedled and cajoled France and
>Germany into supporting us).
>So in short, I can't for the life of me see the
>significance of it. None of these guys are going to
>meet you at the barricades, so I wouldn't read too
>much into any of their sniping. I suppose right now
>they are debating whether or not Bush will need 200
>million dollars to steal another election, or if 150
>million will do it.
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
More information about the Marxism