When Rachel Maddow is considered a "Hero", it's time to reboot.

Wolfowitz is sort of like Bill Kristol, save that Wolfowitz's positions actually put people in harm's way, as opposed to Kristol, who just opines to defend positions that are inherently indefensible, and to make them at least sound half way convincing.

In this, Maddow is correct. Going to this cat on matters of war is essentially going to a guy who has made a career out of putting forth policy decisions to back up preconceived notions, as opposed to developing policy decisions based on evidence. Wolfowitz creates evidence to back decisions, as opposed to creating policy based on actual conditions. It is the opposite of sound foreign policy, it is disastrous when applied to wartime. It is the same sort of screwed up thinking that threw men against trenches defended by machine guns time and time again, because that was the "brave" thing, and we had so many "brave" soldiers, that we could ask them to do incredibly dumb things, and some of them might actually succeed on occasion, but that is not the way wage a successful campaign. Men succeeding in spite of your strategy is a bit different than men succeeding because of the strategy. This is the sort of policy that Wolfowitz exemplifies, and in no way, shape, or form, should he be listened to, save perhaps as a guide to understanding what ideology drives current pushes in foreign policy makers, and examining it to see exactly what they truly want, and how much they don't care how many folks die, how much capital the taxpayers expend, and how long we will take securing resources for folks who pay for his positions.

THIS is the failing of the Neocons in foreign policy. It is based on not just on ideological principles, as opposed to examination of facts and conditions, but also on a pure profit motive that looks on our soldiers and military as an asset to be deployed, that those who wish to use it, don't have to pay for. Couched in terms that make some folks feel good about our brave men and women in the military, it spends them like dollars, and uses them poorly, for gains that are of questionable value to the nation, as opposed to the grasshoppers who are looking to feed once the smoke clears a bit. If anything, the "ideological" principles behind most Neocon foreign policy is a smokescreen to hide the profit motive. There are papers written to justify the policies that will profit some, and those folks then use scholars of this sort of questionable ethics to justify actions that will cost OTHERS so that they can move after the hard stuff is out of the way, and open the taxpayer troughs for them to sup upon.

THIS is one of the reasons that Neocons have not just my derision, but my ire. It is a contravention of good Conservative policy and thought. It puts our taxpayers and our soldiers on the sharp end for profit, and then tries to smokescreen the ends, with pithy justifications that have f*ck all to do with the real reasons. It would be comical, if it didn't view our taxpayers and soldiers as expendable resources, and that is why these folks are dangerous, and putting these asshats anywhere near our pursestrings or military, you have only the first eight years of this new century to illustrate why it's a bad idea not just for this nation, but all nations to have these Philosopher Kings anywhere near the leadership. Ethically, morally, and intellectually bankrupt, we have only ourselves to blame for letting them lead us, and damn us if we let them do it again...

What hubie and Rachel said.

Bloody William: fark it, I want to play the blame game. I'm sick of the fact that shiatheads who got us into a war that's cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives are still respected. Hell, that they're still free. So yeah, blame game. The actual architects and cheerleaders of the farking war in Iraq. Wolfowitz. Perle. Rumsfeld. Kristol. Why the fark are they given any attention, respect, or money? In any other field, when you fark up that comprehensively and are proven that wrong, you are not given credence ever again. You get shuffled off to the fringes.

The problem is, is that to the folks who hold them up, they succeeded. That's the screwed up part of the show. From the standpoint of the folks who paid for their opinions, we spent how many dollars on this? It sold how many books? It got how many folks into office? Yes, it cost a lot of lives. Yes, it cost a LOT of cash--but, that was sort of the point. It separated tax dollars from the nation, and into the accounts of folks who invested "wisely." That they created self fulfilling prophesies, that they profited heavily from war time, that they sold books, that they got money to friends, that they built political capital, that was the point.

The effect on the nation? Not so great, but these aren't patriots. These are opportunists who are picking over the scraps, who are hoping that the lion will fall, so they can pick its bones. They are betting on index of misery, and investing in it, hard. And all the while trying to get folks to cheer.

Yes, I am a bitter motherf*cker.

WTF Indeed: I like ya, hubie, but the current administration's foreign policy is more akin to strict west coast neo-conservatism than Bush's East Coast/U of Chicago neo-conservatism.

West siiiiide represent.

BloodySaxon: I have a hard time believing Maddow is as loved anywhere in the world as she is on Fark. All politics to the side, she just isn't very good at what she does. I've seen a small sample but I've been aware of her for a number of years and I have a Beckian (I know that's not fair) gag everytime she thinks she's on a roll.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are. Maddow always has facts, video, or unbiased new reports to back up anything she says. You may not like it, but you can't deny the accuracy of her statements. And on the very rare occasion she is wrong she is more than willing to offer a correction.

hubiestubert: It is based on not just on ideological principles, as opposed to examination of facts and conditions, but also on a pure profit motive .... If anything, the "ideological" principles behind most Neocon foreign policy is a smokescreen to hide the profit motive.

No.

It is simply not acceptable for the neoconservative movement to be misunderstood anymore.

This "pure profit motive" is flat wrong.

No.

Party Boy: hubiestubert: It is based on not just on ideological principles, as opposed to examination of facts and conditions, but also on a pure profit motive .... If anything, the "ideological" principles behind most Neocon foreign policy is a smokescreen to hide the profit motive.

No.

It is simply not acceptable for the neoconservative movement to be misunderstood anymore.

This "pure profit motive" is flat wrong.

No.

Then, please, explain it then. Please do.

andrewagill: Rachel Maddow: The answer is no, no, no. Ten years of hell, no. Not again.

So, maybe?




/does not approve

LasersHurt: Care to share what you think the primary motivation of Neocons is?

Control by any means necessary?

No, really, it's that they feel a personal responsibility to keep the little workers well fed and productive, therefore it is natural that they be rewarded in kind for their overseeing.

Result #2 from GIS for "Wolfowitz rat":

I really want to try to bang Rachel Maddow until she likes guys à la the chick Tony Baloney maced at OWS, but I would probably wind up getting into some very reasonable political discourse and forget why I was there.