The Neo-Cons Strike Back

[kalm]

Yes, I remember your earlier claims about this and neoconservatism's ties to the left. Instead of being coy, why don't you produce a definition of neoconservatism so we are on the same page. And remember, the term really wasn't used much until the 2,000's so a relevant, modern, definition would be handy.

Also...I forgot to list your boy, John Bolton.

Klam calling someone else coy

You are the one who is putting out the lazy liberal pop version of what a neocon is without anything to back it up. You started the thread with a fail, so I suggest that YOU go look it up. There are many different definitions out there but the common thread between all of them has to do with origin and foreign policy (liberal interventionist).

I dont know where you got John Bolton as "my boy" from, either. I'll just chalk that up as you just grasping.

Since YOU started this goofy thread with a shaky premise maybe YOU should put up a definition of neoconservatism as YOU see it.

it should be entertaining

I like this article as a definition. I would hope you'd agree but your level of butthurt seems to be on the rise lately.

But this has always been the neocon ruse—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection—much less regret—for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America’s wars are valid by their own volition. America’s “mission” is its missions. Writes Max Boot: “Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators.”

Needless to say, perpetual war to rid the world of evil is about as far as one can get from traditional conservatism but it was also the mantra of Bush’s Republican Party. Boot now snidely asks the current GOP if they want to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party” due to their opposition to the Libyan intervention. This argument might sound strange yet familiar to Republicans—it was exactly what they said about Democrats who opposed the Iraq War. John McCain now calls Republicans who oppose the Libyan War “isolationist.” The Senator’s use of that term is as illogical as it is illustrative—in that his bizarre definition is identical to what most of his fellow Republicans believed just a few short years ago.

The Libyan War makes clear what the Iraq War made confusing: There is a difference between conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and neoconservatives who believe in policing the world under the guise of national defense. The neoconservatives will only remain successful to the extent that they can continue to blur this distinction. Conservatives will only remain conservative to the degree that they can continue to maintain it.

Rubio’s flowery rhetoric is worth noting because neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America’s “greatness” or “exceptionalism.” This is essentially the Republican Party’s version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy.” Douthat describes Rubio as the “great neoconservative hope” because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say “still” because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush’s GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives’ worries and the Republicans’ shift into context:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... servative/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

Kalm... Rush already said none of them are true Republicans
I'm just saving CID the time required to post that (minus the Rush certificate of approval)

what is it national miss the fvcking point day?

chizzy still in a tizzy

Yeah I'm pretty worked up over here...

[CID1990]

what is it national miss the fvcking point day?

chizzy still in a tizzy

Yeah I'm pretty worked up over here...

you dont usually sound like Klam or D1B so i know i have wounded you

can we be pals again?

i wont call the Devil lucid or well researched any more

[Ivytalk]

Klam calling someone else coy

You are the one who is putting out the lazy liberal pop version of what a neocon is without anything to back it up. You started the thread with a fail, so I suggest that YOU go look it up. There are many different definitions out there but the common thread between all of them has to do with origin and foreign policy (liberal interventionist).

I dont know where you got John Bolton as "my boy" from, either. I'll just chalk that up as you just grasping.

Since YOU started this goofy thread with a shaky premise maybe YOU should put up a definition of neoconservatism as YOU see it.

it should be entertaining

I like this article as a definition. I would hope you'd agree but your level of butthurt seems to be on the rise lately.

But this has always been the neocon ruse—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection—much less regret—for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America’s wars are valid by their own volition. America’s “mission” is its missions. Writes Max Boot: “Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators.”

Needless to say, perpetual war to rid the world of evil is about as far as one can get from traditional conservatism but it was also the mantra of Bush’s Republican Party. Boot now snidely asks the current GOP if they want to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party” due to their opposition to the Libyan intervention. This argument might sound strange yet familiar to Republicans—it was exactly what they said about Democrats who opposed the Iraq War. John McCain now calls Republicans who oppose the Libyan War “isolationist.” The Senator’s use of that term is as illogical as it is illustrative—in that his bizarre definition is identical to what most of his fellow Republicans believed just a few short years ago.

The Libyan War makes clear what the Iraq War made confusing: There is a difference between conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and neoconservatives who believe in policing the world under the guise of national defense. The neoconservatives will only remain successful to the extent that they can continue to blur this distinction. Conservatives will only remain conservative to the degree that they can continue to maintain it.

Rubio’s flowery rhetoric is worth noting because neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America’s “greatness” or “exceptionalism.” This is essentially the Republican Party’s version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy.” Douthat describes Rubio as the “great neoconservative hope” because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say “still” because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush’s GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives’ worries and the Republicans’ shift into context:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... servative/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You rearranged the article a bit in your block quote -- the article actually ended with the first three quoted paragraphs, not the last -- but it raises a valid point. There is an inconsistency between neoconservatives' muscular, quasi-Wilsonian worldview and that of the traditional Republican conservatives, who believe only in strong national defense qua defense. As an earlier poster pointed out, a number of neocons are former Democrats of the Scoop Jackson school of "world police."

[CID1990]

Klam calling someone else coy

You are the one who is putting out the lazy liberal pop version of what a neocon is without anything to back it up. You started the thread with a fail, so I suggest that YOU go look it up. There are many different definitions out there but the common thread between all of them has to do with origin and foreign policy (liberal interventionist).

I dont know where you got John Bolton as "my boy" from, either. I'll just chalk that up as you just grasping.

Since YOU started this goofy thread with a shaky premise maybe YOU should put up a definition of neoconservatism as YOU see it.

it should be entertaining

I like this article as a definition. I would hope you'd agree but your level of butthurt seems to be on the rise lately.

But this has always been the neocon ruse—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection—much less regret—for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America’s wars are valid by their own volition. America’s “mission” is its missions. Writes Max Boot: “Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators.”

Needless to say, perpetual war to rid the world of evil is about as far as one can get from traditional conservatism but it was also the mantra of Bush’s Republican Party. Boot now snidely asks the current GOP if they want to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party” due to their opposition to the Libyan intervention. This argument might sound strange yet familiar to Republicans—it was exactly what they said about Democrats who opposed the Iraq War. John McCain now calls Republicans who oppose the Libyan War “isolationist.” The Senator’s use of that term is as illogical as it is illustrative—in that his bizarre definition is identical to what most of his fellow Republicans believed just a few short years ago.

The Libyan War makes clear what the Iraq War made confusing: There is a difference between conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and neoconservatives who believe in policing the world under the guise of national defense. The neoconservatives will only remain successful to the extent that they can continue to blur this distinction. Conservatives will only remain conservative to the degree that they can continue to maintain it.

Rubio’s flowery rhetoric is worth noting because neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America’s “greatness” or “exceptionalism.” This is essentially the Republican Party’s version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy.” Douthat describes Rubio as the “great neoconservative hope” because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say “still” because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush’s GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives’ worries and the Republicans’ shift into context:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... servative/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with his portrayal of the neoconservative foreign policy mindset.

But the underlying premise of the article is way off- putting the cart in front of the mule- if you have ever supported a neoconservative adventure, then you are a neocon. Or, if you consistently support an interventionist stance, then you are a neocon.

Whether someone is an adherent of neoconservative philosophy is solely a function of MOTIVATION and that is what you and the article miss. The article is obviously slanted towards a condemnation of the Bush administration, but Bush was initially at odds with the neoconservatives. He allowed them to manipulate his foreign policy, but that does not make him a neocon. The same goes for Dick Cheney, who did an about face on Iraq between the two wars there. Condi Rice also took a national defense tack on the Iraq war. In fact, you will almost never find that crowd espousing a true neoconservative mantra going into Iraq. It was used to sweeten the pot for some liberals (we will bring democracy and peace to Iraq) but it was never the cause de guerre.

If you want to go by Hunter's flawed definition, then by all means do so. But his definition also includes Madeline Allbright, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and a whole slew of lefty foreign policy wonks. In fact, if you buy that we went to Iraq over the oil interests (Hi Cleets) but into Libya over humanitarian reasons, then it is the Hillary Clintons who are neocons and the Cheneys who are old school natl defense/corporate Repubs.

pretty much the only real neocon on your earlier list is Paul Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld was borderline. None of the rest of the Bushies were neocons.

Maybe you should have just titled the thread "mainstream Republicans attacking Paul over isolationist stance" which has about the same "so what?" factor but would have been more accurate

[Chizzang]

Yeah I'm pretty worked up over here...

you dont usually sound like Klam or D1B so i know i have wounded you

can we be pals again?

i wont call the Devil lucid or well researched any more

CID, he's all yours - I wouldn't expect you to call him anything else
I have a huge range of friends - and - even though you've obviously moved down a few notches on the wall chart of respect, you're 100% A-okay by me

[Chizzang]

In fact, if you buy that we went to Iraq over the oil interests (Hi Cleets) but into Libya over humanitarian reasons, then it is the Hillary Clintons who are neocons and the Cheneys who are old school natl defense/corporate Repubs.

Since you're playing "smartest guy in the room" why don't you tell us why we really attacked Iraq and then explain Libya in a few short sentences too please...
From the perspective: We're all still holding fast to the "greeted as liberators" proposal offered up by the genius administration executing the plan on day one

I'm very curious

[YoUDeeMan]

In fact, if you buy that we went to Iraq over the oil interests (Hi Cleets) but into Libya over humanitarian reasons, then it is the Hillary Clintons who are neocons and the Cheneys who are old school natl defense/corporate Repubs.

Since you're playing "smartest guy in the room" why don't you tell us why we really attacked Iraq and then explain Libya in a few short sentences too please...
From the perspective: We're all still holding fast to the "greeted as liberators" proposal offered up by the genius administration executing the plan on day one

I'm very curious

After CID is done, perhaps you can explain why Obushma is still in Afghanistan (and desperately wanting to stay), Syria, invested in the Ukraine, and why we wanted to stay in Iraq (but we got kicked out), and...well, we'll just start there and work our way through a very long list.

[Chizzang]

Since you're playing "smartest guy in the room" why don't you tell us why we really attacked Iraq and then explain Libya in a few short sentences too please...
From the perspective: We're all still holding fast to the "greeted as liberators" proposal offered up by the genius administration executing the plan on day one

I'm very curious

After CID is done, perhaps you can explain why Obushma is still in Afghanistan (and desperately wanting to stay), Syria, invested in the Ukraine, and why we wanted to stay in Iraq (but we got kicked out), and...well, we'll just start there and work our way through a very long list.

I believe we will be in Afghanistan for decades
for the rare earth mining rights and control of global rare earth distribution
as well as all the other natural resources...

Of course that's just my opinion - our fearless leaders would never admit that - and I'm open to the possibility that the Mining and oil processing going on in Afghanistan is just a remarkable coincidence
But the Mining companies already said they need a 10 year plan in Afghanistan

[CID1990]

In fact, if you buy that we went to Iraq over the oil interests (Hi Cleets) but into Libya over humanitarian reasons, then it is the Hillary Clintons who are neocons and the Cheneys who are old school natl defense/corporate Repubs.

Since you're playing "smartest guy in the room" why don't you tell us why we really attacked Iraq and then explain Libya in a few short sentences too please...
From the perspective: We're all still holding fast to the "greeted as liberators" proposal offered up by the genius administration executing the plan on day one

I'm very curious

I wasnt refuting your oil theory in Iraq, I was just waving at you

I am also fairly certain that if Libya was bereft of resources (like Sudan for instance) then I doubt we would have intervened there

But my point is that neoconservatives are true believers- they really do think that it is America's responsibility to protect the world's innocents from dictators and give them the gift of democracy (because a democratic world benefits us all... heh).

To say that the Bush administration was full of these true believers (i.e.: that they were mostly neocons) is to be willfully ignorant. Plus, to make that assertion means that Iraq was NOT about resources and how they are traded, or revenge, or national defense. Klam's article would suggest that neocons will package their causus belli in any form they think will achieve their ends- but that is a fallacy. Neocons rarely hide their motivations.

We'll be greeted as liberators was nothing more than a pot sweetener in Iraq AND Libya. BUT it IS something a true neocon would say, and that part came directly from Paul Wolfowitz via Donald Rumsfeld.

Iraq was about a lot of things - but bringing the joy of democracy to them was not one of them insofar as it applied to the Bush administration

[kalm]

Since you're playing "smartest guy in the room" why don't you tell us why we really attacked Iraq and then explain Libya in a few short sentences too please...
From the perspective: We're all still holding fast to the "greeted as liberators" proposal offered up by the genius administration executing the plan on day one

I'm very curious

I wasnt refuting your oil theory in Iraq, I was just waving at you

I am also fairly certain that if Libya was bereft of resources (like Sudan for instance) then I doubt we would have intervened there

But my point is that neoconservatives are true believers- they really do think that it is America's responsibility to protect the world's innocents from dictators and give them the gift of democracy (because a democratic world benefits us all... heh).

To say that the Bush administration was full of these true believers (i.e.: that they were mostly neocons) is to be willfully ignorant. Plus, to make that assertion means that Iraq was NOT about resources and how they are traded, or revenge, or national defense. Klam's article would suggest that neocons will package their causus belli in any form they think will achieve their ends- but that is a fallacy. Neocons rarely hide their motivations.

We'll be greeted as liberators was nothing more than a pot sweetener in Iraq AND Libya. BUT it IS something a true neocon would say, and that part came directly from Paul Wolfowitz via Donald Rumsfeld.

Iraq was about a lot of things - but bringing the joy of democracy to them was not one of them insofar as it applied to the Bush administration

Okee Dokee. They weren't neocons, they were a different brand of conservatives who believed in intervention. Are you tired yet from all the mental gymnastics?

[CID1990]

I wasnt refuting your oil theory in Iraq, I was just waving at you

I am also fairly certain that if Libya was bereft of resources (like Sudan for instance) then I doubt we would have intervened there

But my point is that neoconservatives are true believers- they really do think that it is America's responsibility to protect the world's innocents from dictators and give them the gift of democracy (because a democratic world benefits us all... heh).

To say that the Bush administration was full of these true believers (i.e.: that they were mostly neocons) is to be willfully ignorant. Plus, to make that assertion means that Iraq was NOT about resources and how they are traded, or revenge, or national defense. Klam's article would suggest that neocons will package their causus belli in any form they think will achieve their ends- but that is a fallacy. Neocons rarely hide their motivations.

We'll be greeted as liberators was nothing more than a pot sweetener in Iraq AND Libya. BUT it IS something a true neocon would say, and that part came directly from Paul Wolfowitz via Donald Rumsfeld.

Iraq was about a lot of things - but bringing the joy of democracy to them was not one of them insofar as it applied to the Bush administration

Okee Dokee. They weren't neocons, they were a different brand of conservatives who believed in intervention. Are you tired yet from all the mental gymnastics?

No, Im tired of you trying to play thoughtful middle of the road intellectual when in reality you're just a Koz parrot

neoconservative = Republican

how quaint

[Chizzang]

I don't want to interfere with you and kalms dizzying interpretations of the finer points... but help a brother out here for a minute. Are you suggesting that there are elected officials (regardless of affiliation) who actually believe - and I mean really believe it - that Democracy can be "delivered" to a people like a pizza order dropped from a B-3

Tell me these people do not exist / I am in a state of complete disbelief

I get that there are something like 100 million Americans who believe that old chestnut
but you're telling me ELECTED OFFICIALS with knowledge of the world beyond Cobb County (or wherever) actually buy into that patriotic jingo????

Say it isn't true

[YoUDeeMan]

I don't want to interfere with you and kalms dizzying interpretations of the finer points... but help a brother out here for a minute. Are you suggesting that there are elected officials (regardless of affiliation) who actually believe - and I mean really believe it - that Democracy can be "delivered" to a people like a pizza order dropped from a B-3

Tell me these people do not exist / I am in a state of complete disbelief

I get that there are something like 100 million Americans who believe that old chestnut
but you're telling me ELECTED OFFICIALS with knowledge of the world beyond Cobb County (or wherever) actually buy into that patriotic jingo????

Say it isn't true

We have elected officials who believe that overpopulation will tip over an island. We have others that believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. We have others still that believe they can actually be outraged at possible Russian subversion of a Ukrainian government while, at the same time, telling people we are supposed to help violent Muslins, the same ones attacking us in Afghanistan, and the ones that killed thousands in the Twin Towers, tear down the Syrian government in the name of freedom.

We send in the clowns, and the wolves among sheep, every couple years.

[CID1990]

I don't want to interfere with you and kalms dizzying interpretations of the finer points... but help a brother out here for a minute. Are you suggesting that there are elected officials (regardless of affiliation) who actually believe - and I mean really believe it - that Democracy can be "delivered" to a people like a pizza order dropped from a B-3

Tell me these people do not exist / I am in a state of complete disbelief

I get that there are something like 100 million Americans who believe that old chestnut
but you're telling me ELECTED OFFICIALS with knowledge of the world beyond Cobb County (or wherever) actually buy into that patriotic jingo????

Say it isn't true

I know you're laying it on pretty thick here Cleetzang

but really- you can be more subtle with me

we aren't ALL klam and klean

[CID1990]

dropped from a B-3

btw I missed this gem the first time around


dude you are my favorite commie pinko pacific northwesterner

[Chizzang]

I don't want to interfere with you and kalms dizzying interpretations of the finer points... but help a brother out here for a minute. Are you suggesting that there are elected officials (regardless of affiliation) who actually believe - and I mean really believe it - that Democracy can be "delivered" to a people like a pizza order dropped from a B-3

Tell me these people do not exist / I am in a state of complete disbelief

I get that there are something like 100 million Americans who believe that old chestnut
but you're telling me ELECTED OFFICIALS with knowledge of the world beyond Cobb County (or wherever) actually buy into that patriotic jingo????

Say it isn't true

We have elected officials who believe that overpopulation will tip over an island. We have others that believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. We have others still that believe they can actually be outraged at possible Russian subversion of a Ukrainian government while, at the same time, telling people we are supposed to help violent Muslins, the same ones attacking us in Afghanistan, and the ones that killed thousands in the Twin Towers, tear down the Syrian government in the name of freedom.

We send in the clowns, and the wolves among sheep, every couple years.

Well then... ^ That about sums it up doesn't it



(You really know how to hurt a guy Cluck)

[kalm]

Okee Dokee. They weren't neocons, they were a different brand of conservatives who believed in intervention. Are you tired yet from all the mental gymnastics?

No, Im tired of you trying to play thoughtful middle of the road intellectual when in reality you're just a Koz parrot

neoconservative = Republican

how quaint

Neoconservative=many in the Republican Party including most of the foreign policy wonks in the Bush administration.

It's ok to admit you're wrong sometimes. In fact , it can be quite liberating.

[CID1990]

No, Im tired of you trying to play thoughtful middle of the road intellectual when in reality you're just a Koz parrot

neoconservative = Republican

how quaint

Neoconservative=many in the Republican Party including most of the foreign policy wonks in the Bush administration.

It's ok to admit you're wrong sometimes. In fact , it can be quite liberating.

nice to see you reduced it to "many" instead of "half", but you are still incorrect

"Most" of the foreign policy wonks in the Bush administration would include a significant number of State Dept people- most decidedly NOT neocons. Even Condi Rice isnt a neocon so youre pretty much a swing and a miss there

Cant you think for yourself?

[JohnStOnge]

Of all the Republican contenders they're talking about now I favor Paul. But he has no shot. Nobody who wants to do something close to the right things has a shot right now because the American People do not want to do the right things.

[kalm]

Neoconservative=many in the Republican Party including most of the foreign policy wonks in the Bush administration.

It's ok to admit you're wrong sometimes. In fact , it can be quite liberating.

nice to see you reduced it to "many" instead of "half", but you are still incorrect

"Most" of the foreign policy wonks in the Bush administration would include a significant number of State Dept people- most decidedly NOT neocons. Even Condi Rice isnt a neocon so youre pretty much a swing and a miss there

Cant you think for yourself?

Name me a Bush administration cabinet member or advisor that has questioned Iraq other than Richard Clark. But I get it, Wolfowitz bamboozled them all into the PNAC line of thinking. Dick Cheney…not a neocon!

Since you didn't like my link to the American Conservative, here's a left leaning one for you to chew on. If Romney would have won, the non-existent neocons would have secretly and miraculously still been involved.

Bolton is one of eight Romney advisers who signed letters drafted by the Project for a New American Century, an influential neoconservative advocacy group founded in the 1990s, urging the Clinton and Bush administrations to attack Iraq. PNAC founding member Paula Dobriansky, leading advocate of Bush’s ill-fated “freedom agenda” as an official in the State Department, recently joined the Romney campaign full time. Another PNAC founder, Eliot Cohen, counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2007 to 2009, wrote the foreword to the Romney campaign’s foreign policy white paper, which was titled, perhaps not coincidentally, “An American Century.” Cohen was a tutor to Bush administration neocons. Following 9/11, he dubbed the war on terror “World War IV,” arguing that Iraq, being an “obvious candidate, having not only helped Al Qaeda, but…developed weapons of mass destruction,” should be its center. In 2009 Cohen urged the Obama administration to “actively seek the overthrow” of Iran’s government.

The Romney campaign released the white paper and its initial roster of foreign policy advisers in October, to coincide with a major address at The Citadel. The cornerstone of Romney’s speech was a gauzy defense of American exceptionalism, a theme the candidate adopted from another PNAC founder and Romney adviser, Robert Kagan. The speech and white paper were long on distortions—claiming that Obama believed “there is nothing unique about the United States” and “issued apologies for America” abroad—and short on policy proposals. The few substantive ideas were costly and bellicose: increasing the number of warships the Navy builds per year from nine to fifteen (five more than the service requested in its 2012 budget), boosting the size of the military by 100,000 troops, placing a missile defense system in Europe and stationing two aircraft carriers near Iran. “What he articulated in the Citadel speech was one of the most inchoate, disorganized, cliché-filled foreign policy speeches that any serious candidate has ever given,” says Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

Romney’s team is notable for including Bush aides tarnished by the Iraq fiasco: Robert Joseph, the National Security Council official who inserted the infamous “sixteen words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union message claiming that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger; Dan Senor, former spokesman for the hapless Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer in Iraq; and Eric Edelman, a top official at the Pentagon under Bush. “I can’t name a single Romney foreign policy adviser who believes the Iraq War was a mistake,” says Cato’s Preble. “Two-thirds of the American people do believe the Iraq War was a mistake. So he has willingly chosen to align himself with that one-third of the population right out of the gate.”

Shortly after McCain’s 2008 defeat, Kagan, Edelman, Senor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol launched the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neocon successor to PNAC. FPI’s mission has been to keep the Bush doctrine alive in the Obama era—supporting a troop increase in Afghanistan and opposing a 2014 withdrawal; advocating a 20,000-troop residual force in Iraq; backing a military strike and/or regime change in Iran; promoting military intervention in Syria; urging a more confrontational posture toward Russia; and opposing cuts in military spending. Three of FPI’s four board members are advising Romney.

Edelman, having worked for Dick Cheney in both Bush administrations, is Romney’s link to Cheneyworld. (Edelman suggested to Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, the idea of leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to undermine former ambassador Joe Wilson for his New York Times op-ed detailing the Bush administration’s falsified Iraq-Niger connection.) As ambassador to Turkey in 2003, Edelman failed to persuade Ankara to support the Iraq War. Turkish columnist Ibrahim Karagul called him “probably the least-liked and trusted American ambassador in Turkish history.” Edelman later moved to the Defense Department, where in 2007 he became infamous for scolding Hillary Clinton when she asked how the Pentagon was planning its withdrawal from Iraq. He’s one of nearly a dozen of Romney advisers who have urged that the United States consider an attack Iran.

Senor is best known for his disastrous stint in Iraq under Bremer, when the United States disbanded the Iraqi Army and tried to privatize the economy. In his book on Iraq, Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post wrote of Senor, “His efforts to spin failures into successes sometimes reached the point of absurdity.” Senor is particularly close to the Israeli right, co-writing the 2009 book Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, which reads like an extended investment brochure. He now serves as a conduit between Romney and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “Mitt-Bibi will be the new Reagan-Thatcher,” Senor tweeted after the New York Times ran a story about the close friendship of the two men, which dates to the late 1970s.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683 ... ar-cabinet#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

nice to see you reduced it to "many" instead of "half", but you are still incorrect





Name me a Bush administration cabinet member or advisor that has questioned Iraq other than Richard Clark. But I get it, Wolfowitz bamboozled them all into the PNAC line of thinking. Dick Cheney…not a neocon!

Since you didn't like my link to the American Conservative, here's a left leaning one for you to chew on. If Romney would have won, the non-existent neocons would have secretly and miraculously still been involved.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683 ... ar-cabinet#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

youre flailing now

So not protesting the Bush march to war = neocon now. got it

I dont know what your fixation on John Bolton is but I did not say he wasn't of the the neocon ilk- although his hawkishness is more in wanting to punish American enemies than anything else

[kalm]

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683 ... ar-cabinet#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

youre flailing now

So not protesting the Bush march to war = neocon now. got it

I dont know what your fixation on John Bolton is but I did not say he wasn't of the the neocon ilk- although his hawkishness is more in wanting to punish American enemies than anything else

Stubborn ain't ya?

Wiki's list of PNAC members in the Bush administration:

Associations with Bush administration
After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, some of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration:

Name Position(s) held
Elliott Abrams Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)
John R. Bolton Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005–2006)
Dick Cheney Vice President (2001–2009)
Eliot A. Cohen Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007–2009)[63]
Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
Paula Dobriansky Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)
Aaron Friedberg Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President (2003–2005)
Francis Fukuyama Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007–2009)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (2001–2005)
Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001–2003)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (2001–2006)
Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001–2005) 10th President of the World Bank (2005-2007)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (2001–2004)
Robert B. Zoellick Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005–2006), 11th President of the World Bank (2007–2012)

And yes, you can argue that Cheney was originally against invading Iraq just like the article I posted did, but he was signatory of PNAC's statement of principles, and actions speak louder than words.

I suppose you'll tell me that PNAC was not a neocon organization and remind me that once upon a time some of it's members like Donald Kagan were liberals.

As for Bolton, I could have sworn you and I had discussion a while ago where you cheerleaded for him, but I searched and couldn't find it. So I apologize for pinning that on you.

[CID1990]

Yep that sure looks like most of the Bush admin and half of the GOP

Heck, lets dont forget that first Who's Who of neocons you posted. Only see a couple of them in there now.

The neocons found a sympathetic home in the Bush admin but it was a marriage of convenience- and several of your signatories there were not and are not neocons. Youre making a fallacious argument along the lines of Republicans who voted for no child left behind must actually be liberals.

which brings me back to my original beef- that labels have meaning and if you are going to label people then you should at least have an understanding of what you are calling people. Republicans do not equal neocons. I dont know why it is so popular with liberals to invent new blanket epithets so frequently but at least make an effort to make them fit. The neocons are a very focused, specific ideological group who have found a home in the GOP but they are nowhere close to as numerous as you have asserted, and nothing you have posted supports it, either.

[kalm]

Yep that sure looks like most of the Bush admin and half of the GOP

Heck, lets dont forget that first Who's Who of neocons you posted. Only see a couple of them in there now.

The neocons found a sympathetic home in the Bush admin but it was a marriage of convenience- and several of your signatories there were not and are not neocons. Youre making a fallacious argument along the lines of Republicans who voted for no child left behind must actually be liberals.

which brings me back to my original beef- that labels have meaning and if you are going to label people then you should at least have an understanding of what you are calling people. Republicans do not equal neocons. I dont know why it is so popular with liberals to invent new blanket epithets so frequently but at least make an effort to make them fit. The neocons are a very focused, specific ideological group who have found a home in the GOP but they are nowhere close to as numerous as you have asserted, and nothing you have posted supports it, either.

Speaking of original beefs, you're taking my use of the label WAY too seriously. I used it flippantly in the thread title. Go back and read the opening post where I asked a couple of more sober strategy questions basically addressing the very point you're trying to make without using the term neocon.

You sent us down this path, trying to make it out as though only Wolfowitz fit the description of neocon in the Bush administration, Cheney is not a neocon, etc. Neocons dominated foreign policy for a decade and there are still neocon like actors currently in power (McCain, Graham),and remember, Romney's foreign policy advisors included a several neocons. Then there are the conks I read on here, Facebook, and in the news who still defend Iraq, believe we should intervene abroad, want to bomb the muslims back to the stone age, criticize Obama for not being tougher regarding Ukraine and the list goes on. But none of them are neocons. In fact neocon thinking barely ever existed at all and has ceased to exist entirely today. Phew!

Obama is probably a liberal too since he's definitely a neocon.