is only strictly adhered to when a policy they favor is supported by it, but when it gets in their way, the Neocons are perfectly ready to get creative with the law. This is the point I was trying to make. Nixon conveniently bypassed the technicalities of the law when it was his patriotic ass he wished to keep in power, and Saint Ronnie was ready to ignore very specific and unambiguous congressional mandates in order to carry out his sordid litttle Central American adventures. But as we all know, when you're fighting Communism, anything goes, even raising moolah from the mullahs. That was my extra credit question, what was yours?
Of course, today, when there are no Communists, some raghead regime can always fill the bill nicely, and liberals, or anyone who can be defined as such in a pinch, have always served well as a stand-in for Commies. The important thing is that the fundamental Neocon freedom, the right to accumulate wealth without interference or oversight, is left intact.
Flame » in reply to Or like this:
The cult of Conservative constitutional constructivism
The whole thread (28 posts)
- For those "paranoid" Dems who distrusted Cheney - Bush.
- Hey my blood pressure just went down....
- The reasoning goes something like this:
- Or like this:
- 1776
- Remarkable.
