Division by 2
Last night I came across a blog post about Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor for the first President Bush back during the Gulf War of 1991. Scowcroft has opposed the Bush II Middle East War from the time of the Iraq invasion. As with many others in Washington and around the world, he felt that the Iraq invasion sidetracked the War on Terror.
I almost lost this link, but here's the article referenced in the blog that I was reading:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001024.html
That article references an article in The New Yorker, October 31, 2005 issue, in which author Jeffrey Goldberg interviews Scowcroft. An online interview with the article's author appears here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051031on_onlineonly01
I find it interesting that Goldberg refers to the Pentagon's Iraq War planner Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank, this way: "Paul Wolfowitz, on the other hand, is a liberal, but a liberal who believes that transformation can be brought about by force, not just persuasion." This fact has been well documented in liberal cyberspace. Could it possibly be that conservatives are beginning to catch on? Is there any mention of this neoconservative/non-neoconservative split in the party on conservative talk radio yet?
Scowcroft's criticisms aren't new. Another article appears in the Washington Post from a year ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36644-2004Oct15.html
But are conservatives now beginning to listen? It must be painful in a culture dominated by loyalty to George W. Bush for conservatives to see their emperor with his pants down around his ankles. As for me, though, I'm more concerned with why Cheney and Rove and Card and Libby and Rumsfeld and Guckert and Bartlett and Gonzales and Miers and even Rice are on their knees in that metaphor... It must be something in the culture. Probably something left over from the Clinton years in the Oval Office?
Clearly there is developing a split in the Republican Party, one side still loyal to the Bush White House, the other side cautiously realizing that such loyalty almost certainly will spell political suicide. I attended a Democratic party fund-raiser this weekend at which Howard Dean was the keynote speaker. It amazes me now to see someone like Scowcroft whose views on Iraq are almost indistinguishable from those of Dean. If the Republicans do split and shed their emperor, I don't think that will bode well for the Democratic Party next year. But if they again rally around Bush, I think what I heard at this rally has a good chance of becoming true. 2006 will be an interesting year in American politics.
Rumors are flying around that Bush isn't a happy camper at the moment. I can't imagine why, can you?
I almost lost this link, but here's the article referenced in the blog that I was reading:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001024.html
That article references an article in The New Yorker, October 31, 2005 issue, in which author Jeffrey Goldberg interviews Scowcroft. An online interview with the article's author appears here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051031on_onlineonly01
I find it interesting that Goldberg refers to the Pentagon's Iraq War planner Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank, this way: "Paul Wolfowitz, on the other hand, is a liberal, but a liberal who believes that transformation can be brought about by force, not just persuasion." This fact has been well documented in liberal cyberspace. Could it possibly be that conservatives are beginning to catch on? Is there any mention of this neoconservative/non-neoconservative split in the party on conservative talk radio yet?
Scowcroft's criticisms aren't new. Another article appears in the Washington Post from a year ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36644-2004Oct15.html
But are conservatives now beginning to listen? It must be painful in a culture dominated by loyalty to George W. Bush for conservatives to see their emperor with his pants down around his ankles. As for me, though, I'm more concerned with why Cheney and Rove and Card and Libby and Rumsfeld and Guckert and Bartlett and Gonzales and Miers and even Rice are on their knees in that metaphor... It must be something in the culture. Probably something left over from the Clinton years in the Oval Office?
Clearly there is developing a split in the Republican Party, one side still loyal to the Bush White House, the other side cautiously realizing that such loyalty almost certainly will spell political suicide. I attended a Democratic party fund-raiser this weekend at which Howard Dean was the keynote speaker. It amazes me now to see someone like Scowcroft whose views on Iraq are almost indistinguishable from those of Dean. If the Republicans do split and shed their emperor, I don't think that will bode well for the Democratic Party next year. But if they again rally around Bush, I think what I heard at this rally has a good chance of becoming true. 2006 will be an interesting year in American politics.
Rumors are flying around that Bush isn't a happy camper at the moment. I can't imagine why, can you?
posted by Bill | 11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home