The article today also names Hagel, Lugar and Hyde as being Republican "realists":

The second thoughts signify a striking change in mood over one of President Bush’s cherished tenets, pitting Republicans who call themselves realists against the neoconservatives who saw the invasion of Iraq as a catalyst for change and who remain the most vigorous advocates of a muscular American campaign to foster democratic movements.

"You are hearing more and more questions about the administration’s approach on this issue," said Lorne W. Craner, president of the International Republican Institute, a foundation linked to the Republican Party that supports democratic activities abroad. "The ‘realists’ in the party are rearing their heads and asking, ‘Is this stuff working?’ "

The critics, who include Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, as well as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, are alarmed at the costs of military operations and of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wow, I thought they’d all succumbed to the cult of Bush. Looks like there’s a twelve-step program underway within the GOP. One day at a time, boys.

 

blame-America firsters

If lefties were to do that, it might reduce the overall suffering in the world, as long as the govt didn’t mandate it, and it was done in the privacy of your own home.  That makes everything OK, you know.  Privacy=morality, leftie style.

Hope springs eternal.

Don, it’s quite simple:

1) The New York Times reported — weeks before we invaded Iraq — that Bush clearly stated that the reason for invading Iraq would NOT be about WMDs, but about establishing a free and peaceful Iraq. Note the date: February 27, 2003. Today is March 18, 2006, and it is the third anniversary of the invasion.

2) Fukuyama says in his book and to the Times that the “free and peaceful Iraq” argument came out AFTER the invasion, AFTER no WMDs were readily found.

3) Fukuyama’s argument, which has also been embraced by many critics of the war, is in flat contradiction to contemporary accounts of Bush’s statements in the weeks leading up to the war, before a single bomb fell, missile was launched, shot fired, or soldier set foot in Iraq. The New York Times ignored its own reporting on events as they happened and let Fukuyama’s accusations stand unchallenged.

Don, you and the other moonbats can keep chanting over and over that “Bush lied” and “there were no WMDs, and that was the excuse for invading” and the like, and it won’t change the cold hard facts that say they are patent falsehoods. (That means “lies,” Don.) The New York Times proves itself the real liar here, when their own prior words patently contradict their own statements, as well as those of Mr. Fukuyama’s.

Simple enough, Don?

J.

mcair spits, Yeah, and I’ll try to remember that Saddam probably had WMD and if we can’t find them in Iraq then he probably moved them to Syria, and if they’re not in Syria then they’re probably up Likwid’s ass.

Great argument. No wonder your kind is taken so seriously.

Get the picture? "Probably" doesn’t cut it.

Most of the world said that he probably had them and that is a lot more than a "fantasyland" statement. I have to ask: what is more likely? That the entire world’s intelligence agencies were wrong or that the entire world’s intelligence agencies were right?

In any regard, we are both working on the "probably" angle here because it all we have at this point. Your position is that the entire world’s intelligence agencies were probably wrong. Somehow, this kind of argument "cuts it" when you use it, but not when I use it. Nice double standard there chief.

Oh, and I spat that. ROFL.

Yeah. You spit most things out. Along with the petty insults and illogical mutterings, it’s a habit of yours.

The article doesn’t mention that Fukuyama was a founding member of PNAC.

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history’s pile of discredited ideologies.

Scotsman.com News – International – Neocon architect says: ‘Pull it down’

and Don is right.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the NYT has taken both sides of the same issue?  Aren’t they responsible for what they print in their paper??

GOP Trashed in Special Elections — In These Times

mcair: That is the only way you people could possibly succeed.  You can’t win at the ballot box, so you try real hard to overthrow the people’s choice.

One of those articles was QUOTING SOMEBODY ELSE.

Do you understand what "quoting" means?

Probably not. Why don’t you go back to your fantasyland where we were greeted as liberators and Saddam had WMDs?

You know what’s funny, Mcairhead?  The guy in your gravatar (Paulie Walnuts/Tony Sirico) is a died-in-the-wool conservative.  Totally, 100% pro-Iraq-war.

The irony is killing me. 

Dunno…I’ve never see you be right.

Says the guy who accuses me of wearing a tin foil hat.

Don, I disagree with just about every opinion you have…yet even I will admit to agreeing with something you say once in a while.

Maybe you ought to try looking in a mirror.