A ripped mark is fed expectations and carfully prepared for the fleece. A ribbed mark is played and finally conviced that a big payoff with little or no investment on their part is a sure thing. However, once the mark has been fleeced it may become necessary to cook the mark, or to console them after the con, should the egg decide to become a comethrough and refuse to be taken.
Apparently, some "traditional conservatives" can recognize a confidence game when they see one. In a similar vein to Lambert's post below, "Bait and switch in the Iraqi war", the following observation concerning neoconservatives and the media shills and ropers in White House who gave us the WMD sham comes from a self described "traditional conservative" website titled "Original Dissent"
[begin excerpt]
"Where the neoconservative program of deceit has taken a new and interesting angle this time around is the way in which they are handling the (minimal) extent of discussion and revelation surrounding their nonexistent "evidence" for Hussein's WMD's. Knowing perfectly well that they were the agent provocateurs behind these claims, the neocons have quickly moved to cover their flank by effectively pinning whatever blame there might be on those they swindled. It's a strategy all shysters use: find a willing dupe and junior partner for your scam, and then when the effort fails, pin all of the blame on unwitting assistant."
[...]
"That leaves the American public, at least those who have the sense to remain skeptical of what they are fed by the mass media, to hold congenital liars like Kristol and his associates accountable for their actions."
[end excerpt]
For the full post see: "The Neocons and their Lies", by Max Shpak
For some additional observations on the subject of Neocons and the PNAC see:
PNAC watch (liberal perspective) and Shocking Elk's "What Is A Neoconservative", which contains links to both "Original Dissent" and to "PNAC Watch"
*
