Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

You don't know what a "neoconservative" is.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 09:48 PM
Original message
You don't know what a "neoconservative" is.
Or, at least, the vast majority of you don't. I thought I'd post to let you know what your error is.

The Bushes, Ronald Reagan, the religious right, big business CEOs, socially conservative activists, Antonin Scalia, and the Republican base are NOT neoconservatives.

Neoconservatives are a tiny group of influential thinkers who want the US to exercise its military muscle to effect democratic change in other countries, and to protect Israel. They helped author the war in Iraq for this end. That MORANS guy is NOT a neoconservative. People with yellow ribbons on their cars are NOT neoconservatives.

Neoconservatives generally don't give a rat's ass about social policy or even fiscal policy, unless it affects military spending. Neoconservatives care most about foreign policy, which is why they've gotten so much press during Bush's presidency.

NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008 is a neoconservative. Not one.

Read this excellent report on Neoconservatism in the Christian Science Monitor, because many of you are embarrassing yourselves by using the word and having no idea what it means. Bill Buckley is NOT a neoconservative. As Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ahhh, but it is not who is running, it is to whom those are running
are "indebted". Scratch that scab and you will find neocons hiding beneath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. I don't know about that
They're pretty solidly discredited these days, and I'm not sure what up-and-comer wants Doug Feith writing policy papers for him about the glories of invading the Middle East.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. They were "discredited" during the Nixon years as well yet
here they are again. They don't die, they just go underground until the conditions are ripe for their re-emergence. One possible gain is that some of them are getting too old to 're-emerge' but I have no doubt there are younger ones just waiting in the wings, trained in such esteemed institutions as Regent University et al.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. How were they discredited during the Nixon years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
56. They were directly and indirectly part of the Nixon administration
Administration and Cabinet
The Nixon Administration comprised an impressive array of talent both in the cabinet and in the White House staff. Among the many people who came to Washington to serve in the administration were one future President (George H. W. Bush); a future Vice President (Dick Cheney); six future secretaries of state (Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell); five future secretaries of defense (James Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Casper Weinberger, Frank Carlucci and Cheney again); a future chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (Powell again), two future secretaries of the treasury (William Simon and Baker again); a future secretary of energy (Schlesinger again); and three future chiefs of staff (Rumsfeld, Cheney and Baker again). Indeed a member of the Nixon Administration has held a cabinet post or been a senior advisor within the subsequent six presidential administrations. That so many key figures of the Ford, Reagan, George H. W. Bush (41) and Bush (43) Administrations first entered government service in the Nixon White House is arguably the most profound and long-lasting legacy of Richard Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon


The Nixon Years
Rumsfeld served in Nixon's cabinet off an on for about four years. While director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Rumsfeld hired Cheney. Rumsfeld was safely out of town in his assignment as ambassador to NATO when Nixon resigned. He must have known all about quagmires, but he appears to have forgotten.

http://zfacts.com/p/298.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #56
70. None of those are neocons
with the arguable exception of Don Rumsfeld, to whom I'm not inclined to give the label. The neocons were too busy writing books during the Nixon years to be in government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #70
80. It is interesting you seem to feel you can decide who "fits"
and who doesn't based on exactly what? If you are limiting your membership to those who were/are part of the public membership of such organizations as PNAC, the AEI, etc,or who are listed as founding members you are foolish, imo.

It is not unlike someone saying the only true "Christians" are Jesus and the 12 apostles and all that comes afterward cannot be defined as such.


One is a neocon if they espouse the philosophy of US hegemony, US retaining the "sole superpower" capability. The article you use in your OP re-enforces that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. The problem
is that neoconservatism barely existed in the 1970s, and even then only in the minds of the philosophy's founders. So while Rumsfeld would later find common cause with the neocons, that was still 30 years off. Which means that there were no neocons in the Nixon administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #83
90. Again, you are limiting your thinking to the founders, a grave
mistake. You need to re-read the article you posted regarding neocon philosophy:

snip

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.

End of snip

For you to assume there are none but the founders who believe the above is ludicrous, imo. You seem to think that a neocon must be named and listed on some original document in order for them to be according the designation while the only criteria that needs to be filled to be labeled a neocon is for one to believe in the above cited philosophy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #90
92. I don't see anyone in Nixon's admin
who believed all of that. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #92
146. Cheney, Rumsfeld, James Baker, Eagleberger were all part of
the Nixon administration:

snip

The Nixon Administration comprised an impressive array of talent both in the cabinet and in the White House staff. Among the many people who came to Washington to serve in the administration were one future President (George H. W. Bush); a future Vice President (Dick Cheney); six future secretaries of state (Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell); five future secretaries of defense (James Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Casper Weinberger, Frank Carlucci and Cheney again); a future chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (Powell again), two future secretaries of the treasury (William Simon and Baker again); a future secretary of energy (Schlesinger again); and three future chiefs of staff (Rumsfeld, Cheney and Baker again). Indeed a member of the Nixon Administration has held a cabinet post or been a senior advisor within the subsequent six presidential administrations. That so many key figures of the Ford, Reagan, George H. W. Bush (41) and Bush (43) Administrations first entered government service in the Nixon White House is arguably the most profound and long-lasting legacy of Richard Nixon.

End of snip

http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-nixon


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. They're not neoconservatives!
Baker and Eagleburger are as far from neoconservative as you can get. Cheney and Rumsfeld later adopted views of neoconservatives, but not for decades after they served in Nixon's administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #148
152. I suggest you read H20 Man's thread, it might help broaden
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #70
123. Wolfowitz entered his first job in the Nixon administration in 1973.
I think it was Richard Perle who first entered the political scene, though --when he took a staff job with Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, working with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- in '69 or so.

Then, Wolfowitz entered his first job in the Nixon administration in 1973 in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, indirectly with the help of Scoop Jackson. He can be viewed as one of the first neocons who 'graduated' from academia (where the neocons studied Straussian philosophy and the like) to the US government and politics. I think they were all Democrats, even though Wolfowitz had worked in the Nixon administration -- he had been recruited by Fred Ikle' -- according to James Mann, author of Rise of the Vulcans (a must read, IMHO):

... Ikle' was a Rand strategist who had worked alongside Wohlstetter and other hawks, as the new head of the arms control agency ... One of his new recruits was Wolfowitz ... "Wohlstetter recommended him to me," recalled Ikle' many years later ...

... Wolfowitz differed radically from his friend Perle, whose combative style was more suited to work in Congress than inside the executive branch of government. In his job as a Senate staff member Perle enjoyed the freedom to oppose the Nixon-Kissinger arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. In contrast, Wolfowitz was a member of the Nixon administration and therefore obligated to support the president's policies. Nevertheless, from his position on the inside, Wolfowitz was in a position to influence the administration's decisions before they became final; he could seek to narrow the scope of government actions or challenge the rationale underlying them.

Officially Perle and Wolfowitz were often on opposite sides of many of the arms control debates in the Nixon administration, yet in practice their views were similar. In fact, their talents were complementary. Perle's style was to challenge his opponents' motives and virtue through broadsides in the press and in Congress. Wolfowitz, by contrast, attacked his opponents' logic by writing carefully argued policy papers inside the U.S. government.

This team of Wolfowitz on the inside and Perle on the outside emerged on other occasions over the next three decades...
Rise of the Vulcans, The History of Bush's War Cabinet, James Mann, pp.34-35
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #70
129. Dick Cheney's not a neocon?
Kissinger's not a neocon?

Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #129
133. Kissinger is definitely not
He's a pragmatist - he'll work with anyone to keep the USA on top in international power, and has no illusions, or claims, about 'spreading democracy', or defeating real or imagined 'big enemies'. Cheney does have many links with neocons, but it's questionable whether he is himself - profit seems to be his overriding principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #133
134. OK. I can see Kissinger not one
I think his view toward Israel makes him look like one sometimes. Cheney we'll have to disagree on though. He may be a greedhead, but he's powering that with Neocon philosophy, which makes him a Neocon IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #70
151. Rumsfeld and Cheney are MIC, usurping Neocon "mask" to capitalize on the latter's global intentions.
Norquist is Neocon...enjoying the exploitation of 9/11 to spread chaos to Iraq, having his victories in "perpetual war" and a never-ending drain on the US Treasury, which -- along with annual tax cuts -- deprives the US government of revenues, reducing spending for government programs and efficiency in government operations; he "loses" when "peace breaks out" (but not after the "old economic and social order" has been ravaged).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. The neoconservatives used them for its host.
Edited on Wed May-16-07 09:53 PM by mmonk
They haven't shaken the ideology of world domination and hegemony they ascribe to. As long as that is the case and their goals advanced through any of the other republicans if they take office, they will still be in our government and in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I said this an another related thread, but they're really not after
hegemony, in terms of dominating someone else's culture. In truth, they don't care about the Iraqis, or Muslims in general, or they would have done a MUCH better job of nation-building and political reconciliation in Iraq. We only want to dominate/influence Iraq in terms of the oil deal and keeping our troops there to fend off Iran. That's it--we don't care if they become westernized as a culture. We don't care if the people live in a happy democracy, or a happy anything, as long as our narrow interests are safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Misleading. Just because George W. Bush didn't sign PNAC (Jeb did)
does not mean that he doesn't subscribe to the neocon philosophy. Anyone who believes that Iraq is a just cause and that we are in a world war against Islamofascism has bought wholesale the neoconservative spiel, whether they realize it or not--that includes ALL GOP candidates. The philosophy, if not so much the actual "members", has hijacked the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
61. Bush isn't smart enough to be a neocon.
There is no overarching philosophy behind his policies, beyond "sell to the highest bidder" and "I'm ithe commander guy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
79. True--he's the hapless frontman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
142. Not really
You can believe in a war against Islamic fascism (many, if not most, do, if using different language), and believe or have believed that invading Iraq was a good idea, and not be a neocon. As I pointed out, this would include Hillary and John Kerry before their presidential races.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. No fucking shit (though you're not entirely right).
Buckley isn't a NeoCon, neither was Reagan, nor are a lot of old time "PaleoCons".

But with regard to the Morans guy, and a lot of others, though they may never have started out as NeoCons, and while they may never be able to articulate NeoCon ideology, they have bought up enough of it that it's polluted the Conservative pool.

Furthermore your article is ENTIRELY too kind to the NeoCons by making them simply out to promote democracy in the middle east and to make the US immune to threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. that CSM article almost quailifies as a puff piece.
neo-con really have no alliegence to the US except as a vehicle to power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. True. After I posted I reflected on how bogus the article was --- NeoCons hate democracy - there's
no way they WANT to promote it in the middle east, or anywhere else.

:barf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wolfowitz, Perl, Kristol, Hadley & a whole mess of others
are neocons. Dick Cheney finds it convenient to act as if he were a neocon, although he's mostly only a greedhead. Junior Bush, Karl Rove, and that whole bunch are opportunistic psychopathic politicians. And when I use the word "psychopath," I mean something very specific. They are amoral, incapable of empathy, use aggressive behavior instrumentally to get what they want, enjoy the suffering of their victims, and--on a neurological level--probably display a classic vagal suppression response in which parasympathetic autonomic responses kick in & suppress their heart rate, GSR & other peripheral arousal mechanisms, thereby producing an inward calm while they outwardly appear to be raging and out of control.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Okay, just who than IS a neoconservative? Since it is only a tiny group of thinkers
...it should be easy to list them all right in your post. Name them please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. The founders were
Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. They defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality." The next generation includes Eliot Abrams, Wolfowitz, and Doug Feith. The CSM article tells more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
48. The CSM article is crap. It fails to accurately describe the NeoCons, and is rather flattering.
FYI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Here's our DU library >
reposted in July 2003 after the old DU was archived - I don't remember when we started collecting articles but it was well before the invasion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cults4Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #52
144. The PNAC group was a damn good resource as well.
Shame that it wasnt popular enough to stay. Stay tireless Stephanie you continue to amaze. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. Pay close attention to me. We know well and good who is and who isn't
a dyed in the wool neocon and who isn't...

Here is their website
http://www.newamericancentury.org /

The front page is authored by William Kristol, a particularly nasty specimen. Dick Cheney, Little Dougie Feith, Richard Perle, most of the nastiest and most treasonous slugs associated with the bush** adminsitration are neocons. They picked little georgie to front for them because they understood how desperate he was to get the reputation of being pResident of the United States, a war pResident, and not the failure dirtbag that he naturally is.

Neocon philosophy has been discussed here for years. Since day 1.

We are not embarrassing ourselves. But you arrogant lecture just made you look pretty bad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Kristol's dad, Irving, was one of the founders of the neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
59. He coined the term
He wrote the book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. I actually think the OP is not without merit. I often see the term "neocon" used here referring to
Bible thumping Christian fundamentalists, rich money grubbing CEOs etc. without a real understanding of the term.

The post perhaps might come off as condescending but I understand the reasons for it and don't disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Thanks, dogg.
I don't mean to insult people who generally know what they're talking about, as most on this thread seem to. But if you call Jerry Falwell a neocon, you're going to sound like an idiot, and you ought to be corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
135. It's because of the "BFEE" conspiracy theory nonsense...
That DUers have come to use the term "neo-con" as a term of abuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. Thanks...you saved me some typing time.
You are absolutely right. The majority of DU'ers know what's up when it comes to the neo-cons. We don't need a fucking lecture about "who's who" in the neo-con world. I have a feeling that 99.999% of us have read the PNAC website and we know who signed their doctrine.

Why did the OP feel the need to "straighten us out"?

Was it something we said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Yeah
I strongly disagree with your estimate of how many people here know what a neocon is. After reading about Jerry Falwell's posthumous membership in the club I thought I'd try to set the record straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
29. You're on the right track
But that puts you in a minority. Those PNAC signatories are not all neoconservatives, though PNAC's goals surely are in line with the tenets of neoconservatism. (Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, and Steve Forbes are not neoconservatives. Cheney and Rumsfeld have adopted neoconservative principles, but they aren't true neoconservatives either.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. I have known what they are for years and it amuses me to see the name used on everything
But, also alarms me. It cannot be used as the way the gop uses slurs. It cannot be applied to anything republican.
Why? Because neocons are dangerous and delussional and to tag just anyone would lessen the alarm bells.
for someone to be a neocon means they are sly, sneaky, and dangerous. Many started as vulcans before latching onto the neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. Bush wasn't a neocon in 1999
And there are still doubts that he is one now.

But he sure surrendered the country's policies to the true neocons once he took power.

That's the real danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. I have never considered Bush to be a neocon.
The neocon's bitch boy, yes....but a neocon? Nope.

IMG]

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. But he sure appointed one for his VP
(love your graphic, BTW)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. Cheney is not a neocon. (hint- he's not smart enough)
Cheney is an oilman/corporate profiteer who threw his lot in with the neocons to pursue their mutual goal of domination of the Middle East and beyond. The neocons are "intellectuals" - Cheney is a robber baron. They're in bed together but they're different species.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #47
54. He was a PNAC signatory
That's all I need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. He signed on to the PNAC agenda, but he's not really a neocon.
He stuffed the administration full of neocons, but he's not actually one himself. Like Bush, he's not smart enough. The pragmatists (Cheney, James Baker) threw themselves in with the neocons to facilitate their imperialistic visions. Cheney signed on with PNAC, but he's not a neocon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #58
71. I concede to your wisdom
Cheney really isn't a thinker. He's a pure opportunist.

With a bit of prescience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #58
85. I consider Cheney part of the MIC
Military Industrial Complex.

But, whether the neocons used (or are using) the MIC folks or whether the MIC folks used (or are using) the neocons or whether they are on equal footing remains a mystery to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #85
91. To quote Seger,
I used her, she used me
But neither one cared
We were gettin our share
Working on our night moves.

Christ, I hate Bob Seger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #58
130. Perhaps, but...
I think this is an issue of definition. You say he's not a neocon because he doesn't generate neocon thought. I say he is because he follows neocon thought, at least in part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. You're right
See how well it's worked out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Useful idiots have always been employed by powerful interests
Bush is just the latest in a long line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #44
65. In fact Strauss advocates that the "elites" lie to the "king" if necessary.
The "elites" are allowed to do whatever it takes to further the agenda, per Strauss. Trouble is the elites are self-appointed and over-rated (by themselves).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
132. * was predisposed to liking the neocons...
* and the neocons were one of those "perfect storm" situations:

He didn't know much and wanted everything boiled down to one-page memos;
they thought they knew "the real deal" and had all the answers -- answers that included finishing a job that dear old Poppy had left undone (and then repeatedly one-upping him by doing it again all over the Middle East).

They were music to each other's ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. the neo-cons public face masks true aims. that artical is basically a puff-piece.
Edited on Wed May-16-07 10:13 PM by KG
for instance, i don't think neo-con are really interested in 'democratic change' in other countries they aren't even that interested in it in the US. they don't want to see citizens deciding what best for themselves, they see 'democracy' as an impediment to their grab for total power.

neo-conservatism is a truley monsterous and dangerous mind-set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. DU PNAC Links Archive - a library of the neocons
Edited on Wed May-16-07 10:12 PM by Stephanie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

WOLFOWTIZ is a neocon.
PERLE is a neocon.
CHALABI is a neocon.
RUMSFELD is a neocon.
WILLIAM KRISTOL is a neocon.
DAVID BROOKS is a neocon.
CHENEY is NOT a neocon, but he went along with the neocons to increase profits for his corporate sponsors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. I think Holy Joe is a neocon
Can anyone prove me wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Holy Joe is a neo-con adjunct.
He's a member of the CLC, the Committee to Liberate Iraq. He's a tag-along neo-con, in Democrat's clothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. He was probably the Neocon's failsafe candidate in 2000
No idea why Gore fell for it, he's smarter than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
17. I think if you attach yourself to the neoconservative movement,
for whatever reason, you are in effect a neocon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. No.
It's a specific group of people. They studied at Univ. of Chicago, they follow Leo Strauss, they imagine themselves to be the intellectual elite who have an inherent right to orchestrate the future on behalf of all of us inferior beings. They give themselves leave to LIE about all of it based on Strauss's teachings (the elite must lie to the proles to protect them from themselves).

Someone who supports the war, or the domino theory, for whatever reason, is not really a neocon. It's an exclusive club of delusional, self-aggrandizing losers. The ultimate losers. Gambled big, lost bigger. Their names will go down in infamy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Strauss taught them that lying, cheating, killing
were all acceptable as long as it advanced their goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Because they were the elite (self-defined), they were ENTITLED to lie, cheat & steal
Strauss taught them it was their DUTY to deceive the ignorant masses, who don't know what's best for themselves. The only problem was, the neocons themselves are so damn stupid, all of their plans were doomed to fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. You're describing the original neocons. But I'd say anyone who supports their ends - even if
they don't understand them - are NeoCons too, though only 2nd generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. it's just not true
The neocons are a specific group - Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Feith, Rumsfeld, Kristol, quite a few more, check the PNAC website. The rest are just following the gameplan. That doesn't make them neocons. That's the point of the OP. There's a misconception here about the defintion of neocon. It doesn't mean Bush conservatives. It means this cabal that infiltrated the DOD, stovepiped the intelligence, and orchestrated the Iraq invasion. It's a little club of puny intellects who imagined themselves very powerful and were, for a time, until everything went FUBAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. No, we simply disagree. You exclude all but the originals - I include those who
align themselves with the originals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. Sorry, but you're wrong. Just because someone is a fan of the Beatles doesn't make him a Beatle.
It's a very specific group of people, period.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. that's right
nice analogy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. On the nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
64. I hear you.
I get your frustration. I started posting on these guys well before the invasion. It was a group effort at DU to educate each other on PNAC and the neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #64
84. Rock on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
19. Leo Strauss
Never forget that name. He is the fucking founding father of this band of despicable human waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #19
136. Nothing but a shit ass retread of psychopath sycophant Niccolo Machiavelli
Like he "invented" the ends justify the means mindset of
these howlingly mad assholes.

INHUMAN NUT-CASES ALL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
35. Perhaps you haven't been following the Repub candidates closely:

"America is not about defeat; America is about victory," {Giuliani} said in a Citadel graduation speech May 5. "The only good defense is a strong offense. Those who counsel defeat, those who advocate that we share with our enemy a timetable of our troop withdrawal, don't lack patriotism or love of this country. What they lack is a clear vision of what we're facing to keep us safe."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ir...

This article is particularly interestingnot so much for what Mayor Giuliani said, but more so because of the irony of where he said it. Back during the 2000 campaign, then-Governor Bush used that same locationthe Citadelto rail against the U.S. participating in nation building, peacekeeping, stabilization operations, etc. A mere eight years later, a major candidate to be his successor, from his own party, is not only advocating U.S. participation in such endeavors, but advocating increasing force structure to accommodate the special requirements inherent to such ops, and even talking about establishing unique forces possessed of specialized skills to conduct HA/DR and nation building operations.
http://pcrproject.com/blog/2007/05/08/nation-building-a... /

Maybe we have to start thinking about some kind of hybrid organization of our military and our civilian agencies of the government. Theres a lot here that the Justice Department can bring to bear in places like Iraq and if we have to do another Iraq in the future. Theres a lot of skills that the Commerce Department can bring to bear, the Treasury Department, and a lot of our private businesses. This nation needs to get started again. Maybe we didnt see that because this idea of nation-building is not one you want to undertake lightly. But whether we wanted to or not, its now our responsibility. Weve got to get it done right.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120070.html

What is it that makes Rudy Giuliani unquestionably the leading candidate of The Israel Factor?

Why do our panelists keep giving him the highest marks, 8.75 this month - his highest mark since the first survey? Why would they choose him over any candidate we pit against him? He scored 3 against Clinton's 2.5 and 4.12 to Edwards' 3.

And, most impressively, why is it that when we ask the panelists to choose the three "best" candidates and the three "worst" candidates from an Israeli perspective, there is only one candidate on which they all agree: Giuliani. The former New York mayor got eight votes out of eight for one of the best, and no votes for one of the worst. The panel is in complete agreement on this.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?ite...


Rudy Giuliani ... Memorable quotes:

# "Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table. How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?" (Republican Party Convention, August 2004)

# "Israel is the only outpost of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and the only absolutely reliable friend of the United States." (August 2002)

# "In the 1990s, the terrorists told us what they were going to do and we ignored it. We glorified Yasser Arafat when he was training terrorists in Palestine." (January 2002)

# "The people of Jerusalem and the people of New York City are shoulder-to-shoulder; and the people of America and the people of Israel are shoulder-to-shoulder in the fight against terrorism." (Jerusalem, December 2001)

Other information:

# In 1995, Giuliani had late Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat ejected from a concert at the Lincoln Center in New York

# Returned a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after 9/11 after his comments on Israel and the Palestinians

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=7...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Giuliani is not a neocon
and there's nothing that you posted that suggests that he is, aside from affection for Israel and a pro-war stance. If those are the criteria, then Hillary Clinton and John Kerry used to be neocons before they ran for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. Wrong. The passion for nation building, the unrealistic goal of rebuilding Iraq in our own image,
the desire to build the US military into the one unchallengeable war machine to spread our neo-"manifest destiny" across the globe, the use of Israel as a model for the US -- that's neoconservatism and that's Giuliani.

Here's Giuliani talking about freedom and authority back in 1994, and know that this is the vision of America Giuliani wishes to use when rebuilding the world in our image:

'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9...

Take this view of American authority global and add in Giuliani's love for nation building and you have a quintessential neocon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Wrong. Giuliani is a fascist asshole, but he is not a neocon.
He probably wishes he was one, but he's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #55
67. Agreed.. fascism and neoconism is not mutually exclusive
but are inclusive on some of their major political beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #55
73. If you re-define neoconservatism so it doesn't include (1) support for building the US military into
the one military force so powerful it cannot be challenged, (2) support for destroying foreign powers and rebuilding those countries in the image of America, and (3) defending Israel both as a strategic ally and as a model for domination through overwhelming military superiority, then you have defined "neoconservatism" so it doesn't include all of the signatories on the PNAC Statement of Principles:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples...

If you define neoconservatism so that it doesn't include PNAC, you misunderstand the movement.

Giuliani is totally on board for the PNAC agenda. If you doubt it, read up on Giuliani's views on what America should be doing in the world. If you doubt the link between PNAC and Giuliani, just read up on how hard William Kristol is pushing Giuliani's candidacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. In fact not all of the PNAC signatories are neocons.
This article is a classic.


http://www.counterpunch.org/frachon06022003.html

June 2, 2003

The Strategist and the Philosopher
Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter
By ALAIN FRACHON and DANIEL VERNET

Translated for CounterPunch by Norman Madarasz.

Who are the neoconservatives playing a vital role in the US president's choices by the side of Christian fundamentalists? And who were their master thinkers, Albert Wohlstetter and Leo Strauss?

It was said in the tone of sincere praise: "You are some of our country's best brains". So good, added George W. Bush, "that my government employs around twenty of you." The president was addressing the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC on February 23 (quote from an article published in Le Monde, March 20, 2003). He was paying homage to a think tank that is one of the bastions of the American neoconservative movement. He was saluting a school of thought that has marked his presidency, avowing everything he owes to an intellectual stream whose influence is now predominant. He was also acknowledging the fact of being surrounded by neoconservatives, and giving them credit for the vital role they play in his political choices.

At the outset of the 1960s, John F. Kennedy recruited professors from the center-left, from Harvard University especially. They were chosen among the "best and the brightest", in the words of the essayist David Halberstam who coined the phrase. As for President George W. Bush, he would go on to govern with precisely those who, since the Sixties, began to rebel against the then-dominant center consensus colored as it was with a hue of social democracy.

Who are they and what is their history? Who were their master thinkers? Where do the intellectual origins of Bushian neoconservatism lie?

The neoconservatives must not be confused with Christian fundamentalists who are also found in George W. Bush's entourage. They have nothing to do with the renaissance of protestant fundamentalism begun in the southern Bible Belt states, which is one of the rising powers in today's Republican Party. Neoconservatism is from the East Coast, and a little Californian as well. Those who have inspired them have an 'intellectual' profile. Often they are New Yorkers, often Jewish, having their beginnings 'on the Left'. Some still call themselves Democrats. They have their hands on literary or political reviews, not the Bible. They wear tweed blazers, not the navy blue double-breasted suits of Southern TV-evangelists. Most of the time, they profess liberal ideas on questions related to society and social trends. Their objective is neither to prohibit abortion nor to make school prayer obligatory. Their ambition lies elsewhere.

The peculiarity of the Bush administration, as Pierre Hassner explains, is to have ensured the junction of these two streams. George W. Bush has brought the neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalists to co-exist. The latter are represented in government by a man like John Ashcroft, the Attorney General. The former have one of their stars in the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. George W. Bush, who led his campaign on the center-right without any very specific political anchorage, has performed a stunning and explosive ideological cocktail. It weds Wolfowitz and Ashcroft, neoconservatives and born-again Christians, planets diametrically opposed.

Ashcroft has taught at Bob Jones University in South Carolina, an academically unknown college though a stronghold of Protestant fundamentalism. The kind of talk one overhears there brushes on anti-Semitism. Jewish and from a family of teachers, Wolfowitz is for his part a brilliant product of East Coast universities. He has studied with two of the most eminent professors of the 1960s. Allan Bloom, the discipline of the German-Jewish philosopher, Leo Strauss, and Albert Wohlstetter, professor of mathematics and a specialist in military strategy. These two names would end up counting. The neoconservatives have placed themselves under the tutelary shadow of the strategist and the philosopher.

'Neoconservative' is a misnomer. They have nothing in common with those striving to guarantee the established order. They reject just about all the attributes of political conservatism as it is understood in Europe. One of them, Francis Fukuyama, who became famous from his book on The End of History, insists: "In no way do the neoconservatives want to defend the order of things such as they are, i.e. founded on hierarchy, tradition and a pessimistic view of human nature" (Wall Street Journal, December 24, 2002).

As idealist-optimists convinced of the universal value of the American democratic model, they want to bring the status quo and soft consensus to an end. They believe in the power of politics to change things. On the domestic front, they have worked out the critique of the welfare state created by Democratic and Republican presidencies (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, respectively), which has belabored to resolve social problems. On foreign policy, they denounced 1970s Dtente, which, they claimed, had benefited the USSR more than the West. As critics of the Sixties' balance sheet who are opposed to Henry Kissinger's diplomatic realism, they are anti-establishment. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, the founders of Commentary and two of neoconservatism's New-York godfathers, come from the Left. And it was from the Left that they formulated their condemnation of Soviet communism.

In Ni Marx, ni Jesus (Neither Marx nor Jesus) (Robert Laffont, 1970), Jean-Franois Revel described the USA plunged in the turmoil of the 1960s social revolution. More recently, he has explained neoconservatism as a backlash, above all on the domestic front. The neoconservatives criticize the cultural and moral relativism of the Sixties in the wake of Leo Strauss. In their view, relativism culminated in the 'politically correct' movement of the 1980s.

Another high-ranking intellectual wages the battle at this point. Allan Bloom from the University of Chicago was depicted by his friend Saul Bellow in the novel Ravelstein (Which Books, 2000). In 1987 in The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom assails the university community for having given everything equal merit: "Everything has become culture", he wrote. "Drug culture, Rock culture, Street Gang culture and so on without the least discrimination. The failure of culture has become culture."

For Bloom, who was an important interpreter of the classic works of literature, very much in the image of his mentor Strauss, a part of the legacy of the 1960s "ends up as contempt of Western civilization for itself," explains Jean-Franois Revel. "In the name of political correctness, all cultures are of equal merit. Bloom questioned the students and professors who were perfectly disposed to accept non-European cultures that often stood against liberty, while at the same time protesting with extreme harshness against Western culture to such a point as to refuse any acknowledgement of it as superior in any respect."

While political correctness gave the impression of holding the high ground, neoconservatives were making headway. Bloom's book was a major best-seller. Within US foreign policy, a true neoconservative school was taking shape. Networks were set up. In the 1970s, the Democratic Senator from Washington State, Henry Jackson (d. 1983) criticized the major treaties on nuclear disarmament. He helped shape a generation of young lions keenly interested in strategy, in which one comes across Richard Perle and William Kristol. The latter had attended Allan Bloom's lectures.

From within the administration and from without, Richard Perle would meet up with Paul Wolfowitz when they both worked for Kenneth Adelman, another contrarian of Dtente policies, or Charles Fairbanks, Under-Secretary of State. In strategic matters, their guru was Albert Wohlstetter. A researcher at the RAND Corporation, Pentagon advisor and a gastronomy connoisseur nevertheless, Wohlstetter (d. 1997) was one of the fathers of the American nuclear doctrine.

More precisely, he engaged in the early attempts to reformulate the traditional doctrine that had been the basis for nuclear deterrence: the so-called MAD or "Mutual-Assured Destruction". According to that theory, as both blocs had the capacity to inflict irreparable damage onto each other, their leaders would think twice before unleashing a nuclear attack. For Wohlstetter and his students, MAD was both immoral--due to the destruction it would inflict on civilian populations--and ineffective: it would end up in a mutual neutralization of nuclear arsenals. No sane head of state, or at any rate no American president, would decide on "reciprocal suicide". To the contrary, Wohlstetter proposed "staggered deterrence", i.e. accepting limited wars that would eventually use tactical nuclear weapons with high-precision "smart" bombs capable of striking at the enemy's military apparatus.

He criticized the joint nuclear weapons control policy with Moscow. According to him, it amounted to bridling US technological creativity in order to maintain an artificial balance with the USSR.

Ronald Reagan heard him out, and launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), baptized "Star Wars". It is the ancestor of the Antimissile Defense System pursued by Wohlstetter's students. They would be the partisans warmest to the idea of a unilateral renunciation of the ABM Treaty, which in their view prevented the US from developing other defense systems. And they managed to convince George W. Bush.

In Perle and Wolfowitz's tracks, one meets Elliott Abrams, these days in charge of the Middle-East at the National Security Council, and Douglas Feith, an Under-Secretary of Defense. They all share unconditional support for the policies of the State of Israel, whatever government sits in Jerusalem. This unwavering support explains how they have stoically sided with Ariel Sharon. President Ronald Reagan's two mandates (1981 and 1985) gave many of them the opportunity to exercise their first responsibilities in government.

In Washington DC, the neoconservatives have woven their web. Creativity is on their side. Throughout the years, they have marginalized intellectuals from the Democratic center and centre-left to hold a preponderant place where the ideas that dominate the political scene are forged. Among their fora are reviews such as the National Review, Commentary, the New Republic, headed for a time by the young 'Straussian' Andrew Sullivan; the Weekly Standard, once under the ownership of the Murdoch group, whose Fox News television network takes care of broadcasting the vulgarized version of neoconservative thought. Under Robert Bartley's charge, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal have also fallen into neoconservatist activism without qualms. Their hunting grounds are also the research institutes and think tanks such as the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute. Families play a role as well: Irving Kristol's son, the very urbane William Kristol runs the Weekly Standard; one of Norman Podhoretz's sons worked for the Reagan administration; the son of Richard Pipes--a Polish Jew who emigrated to the US in 1939 to become a Harvard University professor and one of the major critics of Soviet communism--Daniel Pipes has denounced Islamism as a new totalitarianism threatening the West.

These men are not isolationists, on the contrary. They are usually very well-educated, having vast knowledge of foreign countries whose languages they have often mastered. They share nothing with Patrick Buchanan's reactionary populism, which espouses a US retreat to deal with its domestic problems.

The neoconservatives are internationalists, partisans of a resolute US activism in the world. Their ways do not resemble those of the GRAND Old Republican party (Nixon, George Bush Sr.), trusting in the merits of a Realpolitik and caring little about the nature of the regimes with which the US was doing business to defend their interests. Someone like Kissinger, for example, is an anti-model for them. Yet they are not internationalists in the Wilsonian democratic tradition (in reference to president Woodrow Wilson, the unfortunate father of the League of Nations), that of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. The latter are deemed naive or angelic for counting on international institutions to spread democracy.

After the strategist, introducing the philosopher. There are no direct links existing between Albert Wohlstetter and Leo Strauss (d. 1973) prior to the official emergence of neoconservatism. But within the neoconservative network, some of them have spawned bridges between the teachings of these two men, despite the fundamental difference separating their fields of research.

Either by filiation or capillary action (Allan Bloom, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and so on), Strauss's philosophy has served as neoconservatism's theoretical substratum. Strauss hardly ever wrote on current political affairs or international relations. He was read and recognized for his immense erudition of the classical Greek texts and Christian, Jewish and Islamic scriptures. He was feted for the power of his interpretive method. "He grafted classical philosophy to German profundity in a country lacking a great philosophical tradition", explains Jean-Claude Casanova who was sent to study in the US by his mentor, Raymond Aron. Aron admired Strauss greatly, whom he had met in Berlin before the war. He advised many of his students, like Pierre Hassner or Pierre Manent a few years later, to turn toward him.

Leo Strauss was born in Kirchain, Hesse, in 1899 and left Germany on the eve of Hitler's rise to power. After a short stint in Paris and then in England, he left for New York where he taught at the New School for Social Research before founding the Committee on Social Thought in Chicago, which would become the 'Straussian' crucible.

It would be simplistic and reductive to trace back to Strauss's teaching a few principles from which the neoconservatives in George W. Bush's entourage may have drawn. After all, neoconservatism plunges its roots in traditions other than the Straussian school. But the reference to Strauss forms a pertinent background to the neoconservatism currently at work in Washington. It allows one to understand how neoconservatism is not the simple caprice of a few Hawks. It leans on theoretical bases that are perhaps debatable, though hardly mediocre. Neoconservatism sits at the crossroads of two thoughts present in Strauss' thinking.

The first is linked to his personal experience. As a young man, Strauss lived through the decay of the Weimar Republic under the converging thrusts of Communists and Nazis. From this experience, he concluded that democracy had no chance of being imposed were it to remain weak, even if that meant refusing to bolster itself against tyranny. Expansionist by nature, tyranny might have to be confronted by resorting to the use of force: "The Weimar Republic was weak. It had only one moment of strength if not greatness: its violent reaction to the assassination of the Jewish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Walther Rathenau, in 1922, " wrote Strauss in a foreword to Spinoza's Critique of Religion (1966, trans. 1980). "All in all, Weimar showed the spectacle of justice without force, or of a justice incapable of resorting to force."

The second thought results from his frequentation of the ancients. What is most fundamental for them, as it is for ourselves, is the kind of political regime that ends up shaping the character of people. Why had the 20th century engendered two totalitarian regimes, which Strauss preferred to call "tyrannies" in reference to Aristotle's terminology? To this question that has not ceased provoking contemporary intellectuals, Strauss answered: for modernity caused a rejection of moral values, of the virtue that is the basis for democracies, and a rejection of the European values of Reason and Civilization.

Strauss argued that this rejection had its roots in the Enlightenment. The latter produced historicism and relativism as quasi-necessities, which means as a refusal to admit the existence of a Higher Good reflected in concrete, immediate and contingent goods, but irreducible to them. This Good was an unattainable Good that is the measure for real goods.

Translated into the terms of political philosophy, the extreme consequence of this relativism was the USA-USSR convergence theory, very much in vogue during the 1960s and 1970s. It amounted to eventually acknowledging a moral equivalence between American democracy and Soviet communism. Admittedly for Leo Strauss, there exist good and bad regimes. Political thought must not be deprived of casting value judgments. Good regimes have the right--even duty--to defend themselves against evil ones. It would be simplistic to immediately transpose this idea with the "axis of Evil" denounced by George W. Bush. But it is very clear, indeed, that it proceeds from the same source.

This central notion of regime as political philosophy's matrix was developed by the Straussians who developed an interest in the Constitutional history of the United States. Strauss himself--also an admirer of the British Empire and Winston Churchill as an example of the will-driven statesman--was inclined to think that American democracy was the least-worst case of political systems. Nothing better had been found for the flourishing of mankind, even were there a tendency for special interests to replace virtue as the regime's foundations.

His students, Walter Bens, Hearvey Mansfield or Harry Jaffa, were especially the ones to fill the ranks of the American Constitutionalist school. In the institutions of the United-States they saw much more than merely the application of the thought of the US' Founding Fathers. They saw the living performance of higher principles, or indeed, for a man like Harry Jaffa, of Biblical teachings. In any case, religion, eventually civil religion, must serve as the cement to bind institutions and society. This call to religion was not foreign to Strauss. But the atheist Jew "enjoyed covering his tracks", in Georges Balandier's words. He considered religion as useful to upkeep illusions for the many, without which order could not be maintained. By contrast, the philosopher must conserve a critical spirit to address the few in a coded language as matter to be interpreted and intelligible only to a meritocracy founded on virtue.

Advocating a return to the ancients against the trappings of modernity and illusions of progress, Strauss nonetheless defended liberal democracy as the Enlightenment's daughter--and American democracy as its quintessence. A contradiction? Doubtless, but a contradiction he tackles in the tradition of other thinkers on liberalism (Montesquieu, Tocqueville). For the critique of liberalism, which runs the risk of losing itself in relativism schematically speaking: the search for Truth loses value is indispensable for its survival. For Strauss, the relativism of the Good results in an inability to react against tyranny.

This active defense of democracy and liberalism reappears in the political vulgate as one of the neoconservative's favorite themes. The nature of political regimes is much more important than all of the institutions and international arrangements to maintain world peace. The greatest threat comes from States that do not share the values of (American) democracy. Changing these regimes and working for the progress of democratic values are the surest ways to reinforcing security (of the US) and peace.

The importance of political regimes, praise for militant democracy, quasi-religious exaltation of American values and firm opposition to tyranny: any number of these themes, which are the stock and trade of the neoconservatives populating the Bush administration, may be drawn from Strauss's teachings. At times, they are reviewed and corrected by second-generation 'Straussians'. Yet one thing separates them from their putative mentor: the Messianic-tainted optimism the neoconservatives unfold to bring freedoms to the world (to the Middle East tomorrow, to Germany and Japan yesterday), as though political voluntarism could change human nature. This is yet another illusion that is perhaps good enough to spread to the masses, but by which the philosopher must not be fooled.

Still, a riddle remains: How does 'Straussism', which was first founded on an oral transmission largely tributary of the master thinker's charisma and expressed in austere books, texts on texts, come to seat its influence in a presidential administration? Pierre Manent, who directs the Raymond-Aron Research Center in Paris, puts forward the idea that the ostracism to which Leo Strauss's pupils were subject in the American university milieu propelled them toward public service, think tanks and the press. They are relatively over-represented in all of these domains.

Another--complementary--explanation holds to the intellectual void that followed the Cold War which the 'Straussians', and in their wake the neoconservatives, seemed best prepared to fill. The fall of the Berlin Wall showed they were right insofar as Reagan's strong-armed policies with respect to the USSR triggered its downfall. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks confirmed their thesis on the vulnerability of democracies faced with tyranny's diverse forms. From the war on Iraq, the neocons will be tempted to draw the conclusion that toppling "evil" regimes is possible and desirable. Faced with this temptation, calls to international law may claim moral legitimacy. What is lacking, as things stand today, are the powers of conviction and constraint.


Article originally published in Le Monde, April 16, 2003.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #81
98. We'll have to agree to disagree. When you say Cheney isn't a neocon, we are using incompatible terms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. You're making stuff up.
Giuliani's "love for nation building?" Where are you getting that from? In that speech, Giuliani was talking about equipping the army to aid in infrastructure projects after it blows shit up. That's common sense, not a desire to conquer the world. Every elected politician in America would agree with that stance.

And your citation of Giuliani's law 'n' order speech means absolutely nothing. He was talking about cleaning up a dirty city, not imposing the US' will around the world, as you dishonestly suggest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. Giuliani is on board with the neocon philosophy. They wouldn't
let him NEAR the nom with his crazy pro-choice anti-gun shit if the Republican party was just the Republican party of olden days. But the neocon mindset MUST be adhered to. Rudy will stay in Iraq under the guise of fighting terror, and will sabre-rattle at Iran, and eventually plan to strike them, just like all the other GOPer candidates would--anything to keep the wars going, keep the oil deals solvent, drum up continual fear and loathing of our ME enemies to keep us compliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. I'm not convinced of that
I think that the last thing the GOP candidates want to do is start more wars. The last two didn't go so well, and they were peculiarly Bushian, with the help of the neocons. I maintain that the neocons are not particularly well-liked in Washington right now. Neither is Bush, in case you hadn't noticed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #87
97. "Mr. Giuliani is now calling on the US to create a viable military option against Iran"
Supporting Giuliani in Hebrew

By Susan Rosenbluth, Editor
The Jewish Voice and Opinion

May 2007

Mordechai Twersky, a former communal leader from the Bronx who once ran for the New York State Assembly, now lives in Israel. Its a sure bet, however, that he will vote by absentee ballot in the New York Republican Presidential primary next year. Mr. Twersky is the founder of Giuliani Supporters in Israel, a grass-roots effort to mobilize support for the former NYC mayor from Israelis with US citizenship.

If Mr. Twersky, 43, has his way, every Israeli citizen or resident with the right to vote in the US, will "get off the TV sofa and use the means at his or her disposal to ensure that the next President of the US will not only support Israel, but will have a strong enough character and personality to express that support in unequivocal terms."

"As far as I am concerned, there is only one candidate who meets this criterion: Rudolph W. Giuliani," said Mr. Twersky.

The Standard

"Rudolph Giuliani has set the standard for leadership," said Mr. Twersky, ticking off such issues as crime, terrorism, and friendship with the Jewish community and the State of Israel.

"He has backed up his statements with concrete action. Who can forget his reaction to the Crown Heights riots and the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum in 1991? Or how he evicted Yasir Arafat from a concert at Lincoln Center in 1995?" said Mr. Twersky.

He noted that, as mayor of New York, Mr. Giuliani rushed to Israel to show solidarity with the Jewish state during some of the most brutal Palestinian terror attacks. When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, offered Mr. Giuliani a check for $10 million in relief aid along with the suggestion that the US "re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause," Mr. Giuliani promptlyand very publiclytore up the check.

Mr. Giuliani is now calling on the US to create a viable military option against Iran in order to make American economic sanctions stronger.

"For all these and reasons and more, I believe Giuliani is best suited to lead the US in the battle against the threats facing it and its lone Middle East ally, Israel," said Mr. Twersky. "Giuliani is a leader. He is a role model, the perfect example of a man who dared to fight crimeand won. He was thereliterallywhen the World Trade Center fell. He took to his heart the terrorists blow to the strength and security of America. With his own unique blend of stubbornness, sensitivity, and zero-tolerance, he truly understands the need and the obligation for a determined, unremitting fight against terrorism. Mr. Giuliani is the perfect example of a true leader, with executive capabilities and vast experience in coping with the kind of pressure and crises which overcome even the best of us."

http://jewishvoiceandopinion.com/a/jvo200705e.html


Here's another glimpse into how Giuliani would view another Middle East war:

"Asked by one diner how he would approach President Ahmadinejad of Iran, Mr. Giuliani called the Persian Gulf nation a threat to Israel, adding that he feared Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists.

'I would make it clear to him that he is not going to have nuclear weapons,' he said. 'That's not an option.'"


Here's one more glimpse:

"The reality is the use of military force against Iran would be dangerous, it would be very provocative. The only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power," Giuliani said.

"It's the worst nightmare of the Cold War, isn't it? Nuclear weapons in the hands of an irrational person, an irrational force. Ahmadinejad is clearly irrational," he said.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #66
89. You are reading Giuliani's Heritage Club and Citadel speeches differently than their audiences
Rudy Talks to Heritage
In hindsight, the so-called "peace dividend" of the 1990s was a big mistake, he said, and noted that even with the Bush defense buildup, the U.S. is only spending 4.1 percent of its GDP on defense, which compares to 6.2 percent during the height of the Reagan era. Giuliani called for a much larger military, an additional 10 combat brigades more than President Bush proposed.

He dismissed critics who would argue that it would be too difficult to recruit that many soldiers in the wake of the Iraq War. "The war is controversial on CNN, the war is controversial on MSNBC," Giuliani declared. "The war is not controversial at the Citadel."

In a proposal that is sure to be met with skepticism among non-interventionist conservatives, Giuliani called for establishing a "hybrid" military/civilian force that would deal with the nation building aspect of modern conflicts, saying one of the lessons from the Iraq War was that our military is trained for combat and we don't have a force to deal with redevelopment.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11406

If you don't see Giuliani as the candidate most passionate about nation building, try searching for the candidates' views on nation building and see which candidate stands out from all the others.

If you don't see the link, rest assured that the freepers do (and they are more Giuliani's audience than you are): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1830014/posts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #89
93. He may be the closest of the lot
But he hasn't said anything that makes me believe that he wants to invade Iran and Syria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. Then you haven't done enough research. Giuliani's said he's definitely open to attacking Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #40
63. Sorry this may be off-topic, but
Doesn't Giuliani remind you of Peter Boyle in "Young Frankenstein"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
38. I don't care what they 'are.' I care about what they DO. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
42. NEOCON PERP WALK >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
43. As someone who has been on DU since 2001, I'd say your "vast majority" remark is just plain wrong.
There have always been some DUers who misuse the term and apply it incorrectly, but they are not by any stretch a "vast majority".

Other than that, your post is mostly okay -- but I think you overstate the "democratic change" part of the neocon motivation. "Democratic change" is merely their code-speak for building pliable client states who will serve the interests of the U.S. and Israel.

And if a state is not sufficiently pliable, they will do what they can to throw it into internal disarray so that it becomes incapable of being a threat to U.S. and Israel interests.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Agreed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
45. NEOCON 101 >
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

Neocon 101

Some basic questions answered.

What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power forcefully if necessary to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored dtente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
57. If they are not NeoCons--Why are they so wedded
to the Iraq Policy Interventionists, Internationalists and
Preemption?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. The Seious Candidates will pass muster
with Neocons.

That tiny Group you mention---American Enterprise Instiute????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. Because we're already in Iraq
and they believe that to withdraw would equal defeat. Republicans aren't about to admit defeat in a very Republican war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
62. LOL.....Where do we start with your crap?
Did you watch the debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
75. I did not
But I know enough about politics to know that none of the men on that stage are neocons.

You apparently don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #75
86. Thank you my child for informing the IChing
I am at awe at your political acumen within the
consciousness of your awarness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #86
94. Yeah
Edited on Thu May-17-07 12:10 AM by Bronyraurus
Read the thread and the articles linked. You're just the sort of person I posted this for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
68. Come on... the pretzeldent's brother is a neocon and the AWOL chimp is not??
"many of you are embarrassing yourselves by using the word"

I, for one, am absolutely not feeling embarrassed at all when I speak the truth using the word.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Please save these accusations for those who still support these PNAC & Co gangsters.

Thanks.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #68
76. No, neither are
No Bush is a neocon. Your lack of comprehension explains your lack of embarrassment.

You're welcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #76
102. Jeb Bush is a signer of the PNAC charter--that makes him a neocon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
69. Who gives a rats ass what label is used?
:grr: They're all fuckheads to me!!



As long as they're muzzeled in '08, and gone, I don't care what they're called!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. I do. It will make things easier when we hold the war tribunals.
When they're marched off to life in prison I want them grouped correctly by teams:

Deluded Self-Aggrandizing Idiotic Neocons - Ward 1

Money Grubbing Power Grabbing Oil Guzzling Corporate Profiteers - Ward 2

Sociopathic Drunken Chimps - Ward 3

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #72
88. LOL!
Edited on Thu May-17-07 12:08 AM by Breeze54
:rofl:

On Edit: Wards?? That's to good for them!!

Guantanamo...or better yet, Uzbekistan!

Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive

From Amnesty International's 2000 report on Uzbekistan:

The five members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir were reportedly tortured in order to force them to "confess".
The methods included near-suffocation with a plastic bag, being hung upside down, having needles
stuck under finger- and toe-nails, having their hands and feet burned and having electric shocks
administered via a device fitted to the head ("electric cap").


BTW? Great links that you posted!! Thank You!!

I was just exploring some old links I have.

http://www.oilempire.us

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #69
82. Head on.
Neocons R as "smart" as the Nazis were... See where being "smart" like that got them?

Neocons R sick delusional idiots who want to dominate the world at the expense of the rest of the world, and that includes 99% of We The People.

DRAG 'EM TO THE HAGUE (where "luxury" cells await for them all, I'm sure!)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #82
96. Nix on the luxury.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #96
103. Hey! We are good progressive and caring liberal people here! ;^)
I would not be offended if they'd be "treated" in a manner that would be the opposite of how these gangsters have plans to treat any of us (eventually...).

Just as long as they'd get the verdicts that they deserved (or even just as long as we'd GET them all THERE, ASAP) would be fine witn me... and a lot of us here, I think! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-16-07 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
78. Well their policies do not convey an opposite meaning
of the term. In large part, they "The Bushes, Ronald Reagan, the religious right, big business CEOs, socially conservative activists, Antonin Scalia, and the Republican base" do have a neoconcervative agenda. Therefore, they can be tagged as such and among other things like Dominist and Imperillist. Thecocratic Dominist run rampant in that party as well and their desired use of the military is a NeoConservative one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #78
95. No
Wars aren't fundamentally neoconservative, Jeffrey. A few of those groups have found common cause with neoconservatives, but their motivations are all different. And neoconservatism is, after all, a philosophy.

So they can't be tagged as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #95
100. Ok, give us your terms....Listen up people.......the dinosaur will define terms.
?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #100
104. Yo
Most politicians who supported the war in Iraq did so because they believed that Iraq had WMDs. The neocons wanted war to start a broad revolution in the ME for the US' benefit. Both groups agreed upon the outcome, but their philosophical motivations were different. Because of that disparity of intentions, you cannot call the congressional Democrats "neocons" even though they supported a war that neocons also supported.

Read Stephanie's posts in this thread if you don't grok what I'm saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #104
107. Wrong.......I know Stephanie's philosopy and what she said
You babysit philosophies and can''t say the difference between
libertarian, neo-con, fascist and republican philosophies.

Were is Rudy?
Were is Reagan? etc. etc.

Just tell me where they sit in your
stomach of philosophy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #107
111. My stomach of philosophies?
I babysit philosophies? What the hell?

I'll try to decipher your post as best as I can... Rudy is an authoritarian-leaning fiscal conservative and social liberal. Reagan is a fairly classic modern conservative. Neither are particularly libertarian. Rudy talks some neocon talk as an above poster pointed out- who knows if he'll walk the walk? Both are/were members of the Republican Party.

Did that answer your questions? How does that sit in your "stomach of philosophy?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #111
119. You get your philosophies from a refried bean
You still say that they have no commonalities and consistencies
and put these fuckers in a Ronald Reagan box of comparison.

To me they are fascist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #119
121. "Honey,
where did I put those fuckers?"

"I think they're in your Ronald Reagan box of comparison."

"Ah, yes, here they are."

This conversation is at an end, I'm afraid. I just can't boogie to your music, IChing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #121
122. So you think that crowd were not fuckers?
Just an obscure description of a conservative philosophy
that you obviously promote within your ambiguity of your philosophy. ......Do you like Ike?

What is within your box of philosophy my little Floridian?

They are Fascist or don't you agree with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #95
105. First off, YES and secondly who the hell is jeffery?
You can contest all you like, but you do not have to be a prick about it. I think your incorrect and your defense of this NeoCons is refutable. If you wish to resort to derogatory man calling you will lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #105
113. "Derogatory man calling?!"
I would never engage in "derogatory man calling," at least until I found out what it was. Have you and IChing been partying tonight?

Furthermore, I am not defending "this NeoCons." I just wanted to teach you party animals about a complex political issue.

And I thought you said your name was Jeffrey. Sue me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
101. Seriously go read about Leo Strauss
The article you have there from the CSM is rather lite on the subject.

Yes military action is part of the NeoCon process but at no time do you or the article you reference suggest why they seek military action. What their political/philosophical motivation is. Your argument presumes the worst about them and believe them to be only interested in naked power and world domination. But this is a foolish assumption even on the surface.

The key to understanding the NeoCons and any other political group is to understand their motivation. To reduce them to 2-dimensional cartoons blinds you to much of what they can or will do.

The key to understanding the NeoCons can be found in the teachings of Leo Strauss. His fear and concerns about Moral Relativity and Post Modern thinking are at the heart of the NeoCon mindset. It is because they fear the uncontrolled change of progressive societies that they feel they need to take action and assert their or any moral code before the people and find a way to make them adhere to it. This is the driving force behind the NeoCons. Power in order to maintain a fixed moral society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #101
106. I guess we've seen their kind of moral society "succeed" very well:
- corruption cases everywhere, even at the highest levels of "their" stolen government

- lying to start a war of choice at a time when all resources should have been concentrated to really defeat "terrarists"

- berate gays while being gay "behind-the-scenes" themselves, and being covered up at the same time...

The list of their "moral" society's successes is so exhaustive, I'll leave the rest to the reader's "knowledge" of each particular case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #101
108. I think the OP said it pretty well.
Their motivations are not hard to fathom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #108
109. No the OP didn't.
She said that the GoP candidates do not promote the neo=con agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. Well, yes and no.
Yes, I suppose that's the implication, but no, that's not what he actually says, which is this:

NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008 is a neoconservative. Not one.

What I get from that is that even though McCain at least is obviously promoting the Neocon war agenda, he's not actually a student of Leo Strauss or one of his acolytes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. There has not been a NeoCon president
It was during the Reagan Admin that the NeoCons came to power. But Reagan was not a NeoCon. But he brought the NeoCons to power because they brought the religious right in. They continued the be the background players during the Bush Admin but he was not a NeoCon either. Bush Sr is and has been primarily a Military Industrial stooge. There was common interest between his position and the NeoCon concerning the advancement of the US military. And finally W is not a NeoCon either. He is just a puppet with Cheney's hand up his rectum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #112
114. I don't buy the clown prince act.
He may be an idiot but he's an idiot fully aware of his own power and viciously jealous of everyone else's. Don't fall for the hype.

So is Junior a Neocon? I'd say yes, because he stuffed his admin full of Neocons and hitched his trailer to their wagon, if that isn't mixing a metaphor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #114
116. The semantics are just obligatory on this I'm not a Nazi denial
I was just working for the corporation
I didn't know about the torture or death camps crap.

but still they support them.
Bull shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #114
120. I am not presuming that Bush is as stupid as that
But by the same token I do not buy for a second that he is invested in enough philosophy to be aware of Strauss's theories or any other high order philosophies. I suspect his motivations to be much simpler and closer to a true believer's mindset or a pure profiteer's mindset. Both readily manipulated by those behind him. In fact the true believer mindset would make it all the more easy for Rove and Cheney to manipulate him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #120
124. I think you're making a Moses out of a Machiavelli.
My understanding of Strauss is that he preached a form of end- justifies- the- means political illusionism that had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with building an empire in the ME, exactly as the Neocons are trying to do, using the means they are trying to use -- deception and murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #124
127. The ends were what the means were for
And it was his rejection of progressive society that were at cause for this declaration. It is still very much Machiavellian but it just includes the reasons for his tactics.

Here is a link to a Documentary worth watching concerning Strauss's ideas and the current state of politics here in the US. http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/power_of_nightmares.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. No kidding. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #109
115. Put that jug down, it's late
Edited on Thu May-17-07 01:26 AM by Bronyraurus
That's not what I said. Read it again in the morning. And go to bed before you evacuate your "stomach of philosophy" all over the keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #115
117. I read your threads
You marginalize it
I do understand your premise on a strict dogmatic philosophy
but the boxes that your look at are still connected


A fanatic is one who cant change his mind and wont change the subject.

Bessie Braddock: Sir, you are drunk.
Churchill: Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #117
118. Just had to respond to your end quote
Lady Astor: If I were married to you, I'd put poison in your coffee.
Churchill: If I were married to you, I'd drink it.

Now there was a leader that could turn a phrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
125. Big buisness CEOs tend to be neo-conservative. Scalia is a neo-con.
The Bushes are the definition of neo-conservatives. Reagan, himself, might not have been but he wasn't really in control either, being a figurehead for Bush I.

The religious right are conservative, not neo-con. The Republican base is split between neo-cons and conservatives.

A neo-conservative is just a socially conservative sell-out to big-business, just like a neo-liberal is a socially liberal sell-out to big-business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #125
139. You don't know what a neoconservative is
You don't know the meaning of the word. Read the CSM article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #139
150. Oh, I know very very well what neo-cons are. I don't fall for whitewashes very well. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
126. but nearly all of them support Neoconservative policies per Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
131. Many of us are fully aware of the neoconservative grip on this country.
The core group may not be holding office in Washington and it doesn't really matter. Foreign policy decisions made since Bush took office have been at their direction; "the surge" plan was written by Kagan. They pretend they want to spread democracy to other countries (as if they care about the citizens) but in reality, all they care about is control, power. The end justifies the means to them no matter what the cost - they are cold, calculating warmongers. Those who have supported their plans and gone along with them have done it for their own reasons; it's been ego with Bush. They blow smoke up his ass promising him a golden legacy knowing full well he's delusional.

You're post contains some good information, but please don't preface it with the assumption the vast majority of us are clueless about neoconservatives. They've been my worst fear for the future of this country for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
137. The true neocons are distancing themselves from this admin and wil leech onto Dems in '09
provided Dems retake the White House.

All they want is to control foreign policy and keep funneling trillions to The Beast in order to further their insane and failed ideology.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #137
141. That's an interesting theory
But I doubt that they'll be able to leech onto the Dems, who are extremely wary of their aims at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #141
143. I think they already have and Hillary is their candidate
But we'll see
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #141
145. At this point, yeah. But at least one of the neocons (Kagan, I think) has warmed to Obama
merely because Barak is in favor of increasing the size of the military.

I think the PNAC/WINEP f*cks will branch into various candidates' camps and whoever comes up the likely winner will get increased support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
138. I Knew All That. So You're Wrong.
I do know what a neocon is.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
140. This thread ROCKS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
147. End.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bronyraurus Donating Member (871 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. End nothing! Keep it rockin'!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 17th 2017, 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC