When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rumsfeld IS a neo-conservative

NO, he isn't. Rumsfeld is clearly a realist.

You really need to read some of the stuff that these neo-conservatives write man. Read some of the stuff by Cheney written in the 90's. Total Realpolitk. Read some of the other neo-conservative intellectuals like Brzezinski.

Cheney, a neo-con? Brzezinski?!! BRZEZINSKI? You are off the deep end now. Hey, why not take the biggest realist in American policy and call him a neoconservative!

That's the problem with you guys. You take people, call them neoconservative and then say, SEE, look what these neoconservatives are saying! It's like claiming Stalin was actually true communism!

Yes, and I can say I'm correct with some authority, especially seeing as I consider myself a neoconservative and have for a good while.

[Agathon]

I don't think Brzezinski is a neoconservative. They might like the consequences of his view, but the most overlooked point in his book is its prophecy of imminent American decline relative to Europe, and the need to ensure a smooth transition from a US dominated world.

No neocon would ever believe that (although they might say it for effect). They want US primacy to continue forever, or more accurately the primacy of certain sections of US society to continue forever.

A good example of a neocon is Frank Gaffney. He is the biggest idiot I've ever seen on television. At least with Ann Coulter you get the idea that she is just trying to wind people up. Gaffney is like a sober version of her. I've seen him pwned a dozen times on Canadian TV and he just keeps repeating the claim as if he hadn't heard the objection.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if you consider Bush a neoconservative president (which I surely do not). It's easier to sell Bush on turning Saddam's Iraq into a democracy, because Bush, obviously, didn't like Saddam. Neoconservatives are telling the administration to go into Sudan to fix that mess. I don't really see any oil there.

Psst. Sudan exports oil. Don't tell anyone.

[Agathon]

I don't think that Rumsfeld is a neocon because at heart he seems to be a decent man. He's just a bit crazy.

[Agathon]

Psst. Sudan exports oil. Don't tell anyone.

Plus they are muslims, which makes them the enemies of Israel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here, I'll give you guys an article that may show you the light. Frankly I'm shocked at these opinions, but I guess the ignorance of what neoconservatism is has been spread by the best in liberal propaganda:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2005/0502ally.php

Liberal Hawks Ally with
Project for the New American Century:

Neocons and Liberals Together, Again
By Tom Barry | February 3, 2005

The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government’s national security strategy with a new public letter stating that the “U.S. military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume.” Rather than reining in the imperial scope of U.S. national security strategy as set forth by the first Bush administration, PNAC and the letter’s signatories call for increasing the size of America’s global fighting machine.

The January 28th PNAC letter advocates that House and Senate leaders take the necessary steps “to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps.”

Joining the neocons in the letter to congressional leaders were a group of prominent liberals—giving some credence to PNAC’s claim that the “call to act” to increase the total number of U.S. ground forces counts on bipartisan support.

After an initial spate of public pronouncements after September 11th and during the onset of the Iraq occupation, the Project for the New American Century is again positioning itself as the policy institute that will set the second Bush administration’s security agenda. Although PNAC’s 1997 statement of principles included only prominent right-wing figures—many of whom later joined the first Bush administration—the neocon policy institute has repeatedly reached out to liberals to give its public letters to the Congress and the president the gloss of bipartisanship.

Its new call for congressional leaders to increase overall U.S. troop levels includes endorsement of key liberal analysts. Among the signatories are the leading foreign policy analysts at the Brookings Institution and the Progressive Policy Institute, which are closely associated with the Democratic Party. The endorsees of the letter are largely neoconservatives who are principals in such neocon-led institutes as PNAC, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and the Center for Security Policy. However, this call for a larger expeditionary force was also signed by prominent liberal hawks, including Michael O’Hanlon, Ivo Daalder, James Steinberg, and Will Marshall—all of whom have signed previous PNAC letters and policy statements.


Support for a “Generational Commitment” in Middle East

PNAC’s “Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces” endorses Secretary of State Rice’s assessment that U.S. military engagement in the Middle East is a “generational commitment.” To meet that commitment, the PNAC signatories call on Congress to fulfill its constitutional obligation to raise and support military forces—which they say means increasing the number of ground forces by at least 25,000 troops annually over the next several years.

PNAC, which has repeatedly called for increases in the military budget and for military-backed “regime change” around the world, is concerned that the “United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume.” The neoconservative policy institute, which produced the blueprint for the national security strategy of the first Bush administration, echoes the recent assertion by the chief of the Army Reserve that the “overuse” of U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could be result in a “broken force.”

Given that the military’s reenlistment rates are declining and recruitment goals are not being met, PNAC’s call for Congress to increase troop levels implies either reintroducing the draft or dramatically increasing the pay for volunteer enlistees. The latter option would in effect create a global mercenary force deployed to meet the new responsibilities of preventive war, regime change, and political restructuring of the Middle East.


Liberal Hawks Fly with the Neocons

The recent PNAC letter to Congress was not the first time that PNAC or its associated front groups, such as the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, have included hawkish Democrats.

Two PNAC letters in March 2003 played to those Democrats who believed that the invasion was justified at least as much by humanitarian concerns as it was by the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. PNAC and the neocon camp had managed to translate their military agenda of preemptive and preventive strikes into national security policy. With the invasion underway, they sought to preempt those hardliners and military officials who opted for a quick exit strategy in Iraq. In their March 19th letter, PNAC stated that Washington should plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul: “Everyone—those who have joined the coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors—must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes.”

Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC’s first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton’s National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton’s ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton’s top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton’s deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings’ foreign policy scholar, Michael O’Hanlon.

In late 2002 PNAC’s Bruce Jackson formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq that brought together such Democrats as Senator Joseph Lieberman; former Senator Robert Kerrey, the president of the New School University who now serves on the 9/11 Commission; PPI’s Will Marshall; and former U.S. Representative Steve Solarz. The neocons also reached out to Democrats through a sign-on letter to the president organized by the Social Democrats/USA, a neocon institute that has played a critical role in shaping the National Endowment for Democracy in the early 1980s and in mobilizing labor support for an interventionist foreign policy.

The liberal hawks not only joined with the neocons to support the war and the post-war restructuring but have published their own statements in favor of what is now widely regarded as a morally bankrupt policy agenda. Perhaps the clearest articulation of the liberal hawk position on foreign and military policy is found in an October 2003 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is a think tank closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The report, entitled Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, endorsed the invasion of Iraq, “because the previous policy of containment was failing,” and Saddam Hussein’s government was “undermining both collective security and international law.”

PPI President Will Marshall said that the progressive internationalism strategy draws “a sharp distinction between this mainstream Democratic strategy for national security and the far left’s vision of America’s role in the world. In this document we take issue with those who begrudge the kind of defense spending that we think is necessary to meet our needs, both at home and abroad; with folks who seem to reflexively oppose the use of force; and who seem incapable of taking America’s side in international disputes.” Among the other liberal hawks who contributed to the Progressive Internationalism report were Bob Kerrey; Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution and the National Endowment for Democracy; and Michael McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The repeated willingness of influential liberal leaders and foreign policy analysts, such as Marshall, O’Hanlon, and Daalder, to join forces with the neoconservative camp has bolstered PNAC’s claim that its foreign policy agenda is neither militarist nor imperialist but one that is based on a deep respect for human rights, democracy, and universal moral values. Other liberal hawks signing the recent PNAC letter include New Republic editor Peter Beinart; Steven Nider, director of security studies at the Progressive Policy Institute; James Steinberg, director of Brooking’s foreign policy studies program and former director of the State Department’s Policy Planning office during the Clinton administration; Craig Kennedy, president of the German Marshall Fund and former program officer at the Joyce Foundation; and Michelle Flournoy, a self-described “pro-defense Democrat” who is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group and served in the Clinton administration in the DOD’s strategy secretariat. Having Yale historian Paul Kennedy, the author of The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, sign the new letter was a major coup for PNAC.

Not surprising is the list of neocons signing PNAC’s new letter. In addition to PNAC’s founders William Kristol and Robert Kagan, other PNAC principals included as signatories were its deputy director Daniel McKivergan, executive director Gary Schmitt, military strategist Thomas Donnelly, Middle East associate Reuel Marc Gerecht; and board members Bruce Jackson and Randy Scheunemann. Signatories from the closely associated American Enterprise Institute include Daniel Blumenthal, Joshua Muravchik, Danielle Pletka, and Elliot Cohen. Other neocon luminaries among the 34 signatories include pundit Max Boot; Clifford May, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; and Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy.

One striking difference marking the new PNAC letter was its inclusion of several high-ranking retired military officers, including Gen. Barry McCaffrey, former SouthCom commander and Drug Czar and Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson, who directed air strategy during the Gulf War.


Mugging and Hugging

Irving Kristol, known as the “godfather of neoconservatism,” famously defined neoconservatives as “liberals who have been mugged by reality.” That political mugging occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the rise of the counterculture, the anti-war movement, and progressive New Politics of the Democratic Party.

Former Trotskyite militants and Cold War liberals like Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Midge Decter switched their loyalties to the Republican Party. The “reality” that mugged the neocons was the progressive turn in the Democratic Party led by such figures as Jesse Jackson, Bella Abzug, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter. In contrast, the neoconservatives found the militant anticommunism and social conservatism of the Ronald Reagan faction in the Republican Party invigorating. In the neocon lexicon, liberalism became synonymous with secularism, women’s liberation, anti-Americanism, and appeasement.

Over the past quarter century, the neocons have sought, with increasing success, to rid the Republican Party of its isolationists, its anti-imperialists, and its realists. The younger neocons, such as William Kristol (son of Irving) and Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter), have promoted a new right-wing internationalism that holds that America should be both a global cop and a global missionary for freedom.

Traditional conservatives and Republican Party realists say that the neocons’ foreign policy agenda is, respectively, neo-imperialist and unrealistic about the capacity of U.S. military power to remake the world. Apart from their militarist friends in the Pentagon and defense industries, the neocons are finding that their closest ideological allies are the internationalists in the liberal camp. Having recuperated from their mugging, the neocons are now reaching out to liberals who share their idealism about America’s global mission. To the delight of the neocons at PNAC and AEI, an influential group of liberal hawks share their vision of a U.S. grand strategy that will create a world order based on U.S. military supremacy and America’s presumed moral superiority.

(Tom Barry is policy director of the International Relations Center, online at http://www.irc-online.org, and author of numerous books on international relations.)

[monkspider]

[SIZE=1]

Yes, and I can say I'm correct with some authority, especially seeing as I consider myself a neoconservative and have for a good while.

Well, needless to say, you and I have come to some different conclusions about the nature of neo-conservatism.

[Agathon]

That can't really refute my view Imran, since I've claimed that they'll say anything.

And that at least seems to be borne out by events.

[Kidlicious]

Rebublicans don't lie Aggy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

since I've claimed that they'll say anything.

Then I can claim that your view really doesn't hold any merit . Somehow Neo-conservatism has become the buzz word for anything the Bush administration does... even extending into domestic policy. They want to pin everything on them. It is interesting that while Bush was trying his WMD approach, leading neoconservatives were pushing that Saddam was anti-humanitarian (back in 2002, as the article points out).

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Here, I'll give you guys an article that may show you the light. Frankly I'm shocked at these opinions, but I guess the ignorance of neoconservatism has been spread by the best in liberal propaganda:

[/i][/q]

I agree that Neo-Conservatism has a Wilsonian side to it, and there are some neo-conservatives who truly seem to have some idealist qualities like Wolfowitz, but I think you are concentrating on that side of it too much. It also has a realist side, as so many of the Bush Administration were part of the same PNAC organization that you have cited, including Cheney and Rumsfeld. People who espoused ideas that are very much in line with writers like Brzezinski.

I suppose Aggie may be right that because there is no real set in stone ideology for neo-conservatives, that may explain our differences in opinion. But I still think you greatly underestimate the realist side that of neo-conservative politics. It may be a "but Stalin wasn't REALLY a commie" situation, but, what can I say? Stalin *WASN'T* really a commie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think you are concentrating on that side of it too much.

No, I'm not, because that is the ONLY side of it. It doesn't have a realist side, since it is a reaction to realism!

o many of the Bush Administration were part of the same PNAC organization that you have cited, including Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Signing some sort of policy statement doesn't make you part of the group. Rumsfeld, for instance, has only signed off on 3 PNAC policy statements and two of them were on Iraq. He agreed with conclusions, and that was enough to put his pen to paper.

But I still think you greatly underestimate the realist side that of neo-conservative politics.

It simply doesn't exist. When you start a political philosophy as anti-realism, including realism into it isn't going to work. Those neoconservatives who went realist after the Cold War switched ideologies. They didn't stay neoconservatives, they changed ideologies (like Kirkpatrick). That can happen you know... it isn't like being Jewish (ie, once a Jew, always a Jew)

[Agathon]

Then I can claim that your view really doesn't hold any merit . Somehow Neo-conservatism has become the buzz word for anything the Bush administration does... even extending into domestic policy.

I don't believe that latter. I think that Shrub is basically a cretin who made it to the presidency and who has to manage a disparate group of advisers. Same as Reagan really, although Bush comes across looking smarter and more genuine (Only Americans actually believed Reagan was a serious politician, I think).

Among Bush's advisers are some neocons. They don't get their way as much as they would like, but their messianic approach resonates with Bush's base, so he goes along with some of it. He also shares their inability to admit that he's wrong.

The only major Bush adviser that could be described as sane was Powell, and he's gone.

[notyoueither]

Irving Kristol, known as the “godfather of neoconservatism,” famously defined neoconservatives as “liberals who have been mugged by reality.” That political mugging occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the rise of the counterculture, the anti-war movement, and progressive New Politics of the Democratic Party.

Former Trotskyite militants and Cold War liberals like Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Midge Decter switched their loyalties to the Republican Party. The “reality” that mugged the neocons was the progressive turn in the Democratic Party led by such figures as Jesse Jackson, Bella Abzug, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter. In contrast, the neoconservatives found the militant anticommunism and social conservatism of the Ronald Reagan faction in the Republican Party invigorating. In the neocon lexicon, liberalism became synonymous with secularism, women’s liberation, anti-Americanism, and appeasement.

Is that accurate, Imran?

Where does it say anything about realism?

Sounds more like a rebellion against the pointy headed dreamers of the left to me.

[Agathon]

It simply doesn't exist. When you start a political philosophy as anti-realism, including realism into it isn't going to work.

The anti-realism is a smokescreen. If they could be said to be anti-realist it would be in the sense that they don't believe in or respect the idea of an objective truth. It's all spin to them.