Ah, yes, that's why Bush went along with Wolfowitz, Perle and Krauthammer when they turned on the Jew-beams. But what is their motivation supposed to be?
Why do you insist on throwing Jew-beams into the mix?
We start with some neocons who want to spread Western liberal democracy around the world because that's part of their calling. Along with strengthening traditional values at home and curing conservatives of their aversion to big government. In the course of building their movement, they get the bright idea that the ME stalemate isn't getting anywhere and the way to break it is, big surprise, spreading democracy in the ME. Along comes George Bush and 9/11 and the confluence of events is serendipitous, almost miraculous. We have synergy. We have lift off. No Jew beams needed. It all comes together without them. That's not to say that there weren't any, only that we can get there without them so why focus on them. The only reason to focus on them is because one is either a Jew-hater or paranoid about Jew-haters, to be blunt about it. Or maybe just an afficionado of conspiracy theories.
I think we need to get you a tin-foil hat. <g>
Seriously, re Hollings naming the three neo-muskateers, I can see where that might look suspicious. It's hard to imagine that he wanted to make sure that those fine fellows got credit for all their good work. But maybe he didn't think his audience would know what a neocon was so he threw out some names that people would recognize. I dunno. Suspicious, perhaps, but compelling, hardly. |
