Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (153661)	12/8/2004 1:42:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

You must remember that Win is deeply and emotionally repelled by the "N" word, a real bugaboo. That according to Zakaria, who suggests that ideologically those whose N-names-must-not-be-mentioned have a lot in common with folks such as Thomas Friedman and, though not mentioned, Zakaria himself and probably Ken Pollack, but do not share the zeal or the style, must have come as a rude surprise: On the ideological front, Frum and Perle urge a battle against radical Islam, support for moderate Muslims and, in particular, the promotion of women's rights. They urge zero tolerance for the Saudi export of fundamentalism, and propose financing progressive and modern Islamic education as an alternative to madrassas. Above all, they want to make a success of Iraqi democracy. Most of their arguments and proposals on these three fronts are intelligent and worthwhile. Many have been put forward by other writers and political figures at different points on the political spectrum (among them, Thomas Friedman, the editorialists of The Washington Post and this writer). But to say this would not please Perle and Frum, for the central stylistic pose of their book is angry radicalism. The war on terror has reached a ''crisis point,'' they declare. ''We can feel the will to win ebbing in Washington. . . . The ranks of the faint hearts are growing and their voices are echoing ever more loudly in our media and our politics.''

To: Neocon who wrote (153661)	12/8/2004 1:44:25 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Issues of eponymity aside, I think that maybe Bill Kristol is a little more central to neocon thought than you are, and he's right there at the top of the list, newamericancentury.org The neocon thing is sort of a red herring, though, it's pretty clear that W shared the obsession of the PNAC people with Iraq from the beginning, way before 9/11. W's actual concern with "Islamic terrorism" is somewhat more obscure; there's no indication he had any particular interest in Al Qaeda before 9/11, despite certain intellegence briefings and the obsessions of certain other parties subject to the usual smear campaign leveled at anybody who might question the official administration line. Anyway, you still got to connect this: Being at the end of one's rope is not a matter of "hard evidence", it is matter of revulsion at the series of attacks we have sustained due to Al Qaida, and especially the 9/11 attacks, and the determination to act before they escalate. with W's war in Iraq; the evidence of any substantial connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda is, to the best of my knowledge, considerably weaker that the dreaded WMD evidence was, and that's pretty darn weak.