Apparently conservatives are energized by the Benazir Bhutto assassination because they think it proves how much America needs an aggressive foreign policy in a dangerous world.
In the past, I have chastised Joe Scarborough for "siding" with the neo-cons while not going so far as to label him as a neo-con. His conservative roots have made him an enabler to the neo-con ideology in much the same way many spineless Democrats also enabled the neo-con’s invasion of Iraq, but that’s not quite the same as someone who intentionally supports the neo-con ideology. However, all that has changed. This morning, Joe Scarborough openly showed his true colors on the Morning Joe show in a debate with David Schuster over the Bush foreign policy. After visiting what he calls "red-state America" in his hometown in Florida, Joe Scarborough now maintains conservatives are energized by the developments of the Bhutto assassination because it emphasizes the dangers of the world we live in and the success of the Bush foreign policy in handling those dangers. Furthermore, Joe even acknowledged support for the Bush foreign policy on several occasions during this debate by injecting his own opinions that "America wants a strong leader" versus Bill Richardson’s comment that "America wants decisive leadership" and by contending "America should stay on offense". That comment of "strong leader" translates into more of the same type of leader (after all, conservatives admire GWB as "a strong leader") for our future and Joe admitted that means more support for the neo-con on steroids, Rud-e Giuliani and the neo-con sympathizer, John McCain. David Schuster correctly pointed out that more of the same might be what conservatives want, but it’s NOT what "America wants", as Joe put it. David also refuted the successes of the Bush foreign policy, but the end result was that this discussion revealed the neo-con preference for more "strong leadership" AND "staying on offense" versus a liberal view of a more pragmatic approach of dialogue and a more multi-national approach. It also revealed Joe’s approval of the neo-con foreign policy. I’m convinced my fellow Kossacks support David Schusters opinion, but I’d like to know what Independents think about this issue. Does the assassination of Benazir Bhutto help neo-conservatives in their quest to use fear (of a dangerous world) as a tool to impose their will on the world or does it emphasize the failings of the neo-con foreign policy? I believe the answer to this question will reveal the winner in the general election and may also affect the Democratic primaries as well. I also believe the biased slants of Joe Scarborough this morning represent open support for the Bush foreign policy AND when one considers his unabashed support for torture, one would have to conclude that Joe Scarborough is a closet neo-con that cannot be trusted as an unbiased news reporter.
I apologize for not being able to provide transcripts of this debate, but MSNBC does not provide access to these transcripts until at least 24 hours after the show.