04-18-2003, 12:10 AM
That President Bush, the elder, rejected such a policy as inconsistent with US long term aims, and even demured from rolling to Baghdad, when he had the chance, the capability, and the force in hand, for long term regional political reasons.
You will probably find that since this group of opinion holders is not, as you wish to characterize it, some 'lurking in the shadows' cabal, but rather a pretty well advertised 'think tank' (hell, they set up a web site in 1997) that such ideas will get plenty of public scrutiny: which condition is good. Folks in Washington who matter have known 'who stands where' for a loooooooong time.
For the same reason that Barry Goldwater failed to get elected in 1964, extremists could expect to lose in any future election: too extreme don't cut it.
Every president has had his council of advisers. Ball, the Bundy brothers, Schlesinger McNamara were some of Kennedy's idea men. Kissinger was one of Nixon's prime advisers. Carter had Zbignew Brzinski and his mom. (I probably screwed the spelling on that.) Clinton had Paneta and others, and I suspect his wife had massive amounts of influence, being bright and driven and in the right place.
Inside the beltway, all of these people are well known, as are their view points. You may think that they are a secretive cabal because you are an outsider, as am I to a certain extent.
Our government has always had, and been approached by, myriads of interest groups, all of whom are trying to influence policy. Some are more successful than others. The folks on The Hill know who they are, they have to in order to provide 'the advice and consent' element of their task.
If you spent as many years reading the Washington Post as I did, rather than whatever your favorite Canadian newspaper is, you might have seen the agendas of any number of 'power brokers,' like Clark Clifford, the sort of folks folks, Un Elected, who have the ear of the resident of the White House.
That has been part of our system since long before the internet was invented. Hell, since long before I was born. :)
In short, it aint news to anyone who understands the system.
You will probably find that since this group of opinion holders is not, as you wish to characterize it, some 'lurking in the shadows' cabal, but rather a pretty well advertised 'think tank' (hell, they set up a web site in 1997) that such ideas will get plenty of public scrutiny: which condition is good. Folks in Washington who matter have known 'who stands where' for a loooooooong time.
For the same reason that Barry Goldwater failed to get elected in 1964, extremists could expect to lose in any future election: too extreme don't cut it.
Every president has had his council of advisers. Ball, the Bundy brothers, Schlesinger McNamara were some of Kennedy's idea men. Kissinger was one of Nixon's prime advisers. Carter had Zbignew Brzinski and his mom. (I probably screwed the spelling on that.) Clinton had Paneta and others, and I suspect his wife had massive amounts of influence, being bright and driven and in the right place.
Inside the beltway, all of these people are well known, as are their view points. You may think that they are a secretive cabal because you are an outsider, as am I to a certain extent.
Our government has always had, and been approached by, myriads of interest groups, all of whom are trying to influence policy. Some are more successful than others. The folks on The Hill know who they are, they have to in order to provide 'the advice and consent' element of their task.
If you spent as many years reading the Washington Post as I did, rather than whatever your favorite Canadian newspaper is, you might have seen the agendas of any number of 'power brokers,' like Clark Clifford, the sort of folks folks, Un Elected, who have the ear of the resident of the White House.
That has been part of our system since long before the internet was invented. Hell, since long before I was born. :)
In short, it aint news to anyone who understands the system.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete