Neo-Cons, Answer Me This...

[JakeStarkey]

Your second paragraph Rozman described Bush's presidency.

 

[Sinatra]

+

+

They are not even aware Kristol voted for Hubert Humphrey for president, are they?

Yes, the left wing Democrat candidate for president in 1968 and the founder of the Minnesota Farmer Labor Party.

Humphrey had a tradition of wishing to expand federal power and influence both at home and abroad, and so Kristol favored his leanings as they conformed to the already established neoconservative movement that continued to permeate both political parties.

The neocons tend to travel where the power resides, and then influence it from within - regardless of party affilition.

Nixon had neocons, as did Carter. So too did Reagan, though they later professed upset over Reagan's smaller government bent and lukewarm internationalism. Bush Sr. was more in line with neoconservatism, as was Clinton. The Bush administration gave much safe harbor to the neocon influence, and now so too does the Obama administration.

Please expand you too limited understanding of this important socio-political philosopy that has permeated our nation's politics for decades - long before Kristol's public declarations of what neoconservatism was in the 1970's.

Perhaps the single most "neocon" president in our history was none other than FDR...

 

[MarcATL]

If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?

Wouldn't that be like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something?

The mother of all self-conflicting interests if you will.

Because this is the system that we have!!!!
At least with the GOP the hope is and for the most part it's true that the government will allow people to build businesses so they prosper and realize the American dream.

With the Democrats they will do anything and everything to limit the freedom and will do what they can to control what the people want to do with their lives.

The Republicans when things work like they should encourage business.
The Democrats discourage business and will do all that they can to not have companies
grow and thrive,they want government to grow not companies because they feel that capitalism is evil and the only thing that should be allowed is big government.

The bolded is where you completely ran off the tracks.

Partisan hackery at its best.

Come back when you have a bit more sane of a response.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sinatra is about power not objectivity and the safety of America. All neo-cons are similar in that thinking.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra is about power not objectivity and the safety of America. All neo-cons are similar in that thinking.

You cannot apply the term neocon when you fail to even understand it! But - I like your willingness to continue learning.

And you best look to Obama for a more definitive example of neocon...


CHANGE: Obama Keeps Key Patriot Act Provisions


Lefties are weeping in their steaming mugs of Earl Grey tonight as the hope and change they were promised in the War on Terror continues to be proven another false Obama campaign promise.

Over the objection of some of the more America-hating liberals in the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee has quietly moved forward on retaining some Patriot Act provisions that the left absolutely hates at the urging of Barack Obama.

...But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.


CHANGE: Obama Keeps Key Patriot Act Provisions | Bucks Right

 

[MarcATL]

Some people boy...I tell ya.

LOL!!!

 

[Sinatra]

True enough - you started a thread about neocons while actually knowing nothing about said topic.

It is ignorance such as yours that has allowed the neocon movment to become so influential over the course of the last half century.

I would suggest you attempt to come up with a working definition of neocon philosophy - and then apply that philosophy to the Obama White House. If you do so honestly, you will see the two fit together quite easily.

President Obama is a neocon.
___


Barack Obama, Neocon

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 6, 2008

It’s too bad more Americans didn’t listen to the neocon wunderkind, Bill Kristol, before going to the polling places and voting for Barack Obama. Back in June, Kristol told the audience at an AIPAC conference there is little difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to Iran and the potential for conflict. “Obama’s not for cutting the defense budget,” said Kristol. “Obama’s not for pulling troops back from our forward positions around the world, with the exception of Iraq. Obama and McCain don’t actually differ, at least on paper, even on Iran, where they’re arguing about whether they would talk to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or not — and I think that’s an important dispute. Still, at the end of the day, Obama doesn’t say he would rule out the use of force.



Barack Obama, Neocon

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Sinatra, it doesn't. Now I think you are deliberately falsifying, and that's not nice.

 

[Sinatra]

Still waiting for a working definition of neocon and then apply it to the Obama White House and see if it fits...

True enough - you started a thread about neocons while actually knowing nothing about said topic.

It is ignorance such as yours that has allowed the neocon movment to become so influential over the course of the last half century.

I would suggest you attempt to come up with a working definition of neocon philosophy - and then apply that philosophy to the Obama White House. If you do so honestly, you will see the two fit together quite easily.

President Obama is a neocon.
___


Barack Obama, Neocon

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 6, 2008

It’s too bad more Americans didn’t listen to the neocon wunderkind, Bill Kristol, before going to the polling places and voting for Barack Obama. Back in June, Kristol told the audience at an AIPAC conference there is little difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to Iran and the potential for conflict. “Obama’s not for cutting the defense budget,” said Kristol. “Obama’s not for pulling troops back from our forward positions around the world, with the exception of Iraq. Obama and McCain don’t actually differ, at least on paper, even on Iran, where they’re arguing about whether they would talk to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or not — and I think that’s an important dispute. Still, at the end of the day, Obama doesn’t say he would rule out the use of force.



Barack Obama, Neocon

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have been given plenty of definitions, but you don't like them, so take a hike.

You are wrong but not bright enough to be successfully deceptive.

Obama's administration as preventive interventionist neo-con: how droll.

 

[Sinatra]

You have been given plenty of definitions, but you don't like them, so take a hike.

You are wrong but not bright enough to be successfully deceptive.

Obama's administration as preventive interventionist neo-con: how droll.

____

NO - there has been no working definition. You have given the oft-repeated little Kristol quote which was not a working definition by a rather sly misconception meant to reduce neoconservatism to a harmless little montage of intellectuals, when in fact it was always far more than that - and Kristol knew it.

You continue to run from the simple request - give a working definition of neocon and then apply it to the Obama administration and see if it fits.


Perhaps a place to start enhancing your currently limited understanding would be the Democrat Leadership Council.

You have much to learn - so I suggest you get started - and good luck!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Kristol quote is definitive.

Your arguments are not only not accurate, they are downright silly, and deserve the scoffery they have received.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Soggy in NOLA is correct, imho. Government is necessary. The question is just how much is necessary. Outsourcing the war to Halliburton et al is far more costly that letting the military mess hall or construction or security types do their jobs. This is the end result of "privitazation": the raping of the US Treasury by private business where the tax payers can't get at them as they can the elected officials. This was one of the reason my party was thrown out of office: the electorate could get at our representatives and senators and president, and, boy, did they.

your a Conservative Jake?.....if so how come i never see you defending any right leaning thoughts on this forum?.....you defend every leftist policy being debated,you seem to argue with every "RIGHTY" .....what gives?...

 

[Sinatra]

The Kristol quote is definitive.

Your arguments are not only not accurate, they are downright silly, and deserve the scoffery they have received.

The Kristol quote is definitive eh? It appears you are unable to formulate your own thoughts on the subject - thus your ignorance wins out yet again to the detriment of even basic understanding of the applicable subject.

Simply explain what the quote means to you and how it applies to a specific political platform - ie, what are the tenants of "neoconservatism" ?

You continue to run from the very simple request, but I remain optimistic!

Again - you may wish to start at the DCL - Democrat Leadership Council to assist you in your own education of neoconism.

Here is a bit of help to get you going on your journey to increased awareness of the ongoing neocon influence in the Democrat Party...

_____

Liberals and Neocons: Together Again

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.”

...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 postwar 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.

...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.

...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.


Full article here:

Liberals and Neocons: Together Again by Tom Barry -- Antiwar.com

 

[Rinata]

During President Bush's reelection campaign, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the leading voices for invading Iraq, virtually disappeared from public view.

But on Thursday, Bush proclaimed in his inaugural address that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" -- a key neoconservative goal. Suddenly, the neocons were ascendant again.

"This is real neoconservatism," said Robert Kagan, a foreign policy scholar who has been a leading exponent of neocon thinking -- and who sometimes has criticized the administration for not being neocon enough. "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."

On the other side of the Republican foreign policy divide, a leading "realist" -- an exponent of the view that promoting democracy is nice, but not the central goal of U.S. foreign policy -- agreed.

"If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it ... [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."

A senior Bush aide who met with reporters Friday to explain the meaning of the speech waved away a question about its endorsement of neoconservative ideas. "I've never understood what that neoconservative label means, anyway," he said, refusing to be identified by name because, he said: "We should be focusing on the president's words, not mine."

Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows - Los Angeles Times

First of all, what I get out of this is that neo-cons wanted us to keep going to war with other countries if they did not embrace democracy.

But more importantly, the Republican party seemed so divided over this neo-con thing. I still am not sure where Bush stood. Why did they hide during the campaign???

 

[amrchaos]

If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?

Wouldn't that be like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something?

The mother of all self-conflicting interests if you will.

Excuse me, good sir--conservatives believe that Government is the problem only during two points in their political life!!

1)When Conservatives are bout to lose power

2)When non-conservatives have power!!

See,to a conservative, government is the problem whenever a Leftist gains or about to gain power. Understand now??

 

[MarcATL]

If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?

Wouldn't that be like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something?

The mother of all self-conflicting interests if you will.

Excuse me, good sir--conservatives believe that Government is the problem only during two points in their political life!!

1)When Conservatives are bout to lose power

2)When non-conservatives have power!!

See,to a conservative, government is the problem whenever a Leftist gains or about to gain power. Understand now??

Ahhh...yes, yes...I see.

Its quite elementary.

Essentially, whenever they fulfill the prophecy due to the self-conflicting interests.

To Neo-Cons: You do realize how dissengenous you come off when after 8 straight years of allowing, supporting and sitting quietly to a Republican-led government running roughshod through the economy to turn around and scream that government is the problem the INSTANT a Democrat is in office right? Even if you were correct about your definition of "neo-con" you do realize that...don't you?

 

[Sinatra]

If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?

Wouldn't that be like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something?

The mother of all self-conflicting interests if you will.

Excuse me, good sir--conservatives believe that Government is the problem only during two points in their political life!!

1)When Conservatives are bout to lose power

2)When non-conservatives have power!!

See,to a conservative, government is the problem whenever a Leftist gains or about to gain power. Understand now??

Ahhh...yes, yes...I see.

Its quite elementary.

Essentially, whenever they fulfill the prophecy due to the self-conflicting interests.

To Neo-Cons: You do realize how dissengenous you come off when after 8 straight years of allowing, supporting and sitting quietly to a Republican-led government running roughshod through the economy to turn around and scream that government is the problem the INSTANT a Democrat is in office right? Even if you were correct about your definition of "neo-con" you do realize that...don't you?

Conservative-Independents were responsible for removing the big government Republicans from office - as well as helping elect Obama. This is the same group that will prove most important in concluding the correction election of 2010.

We have been sounding the alarm regarding the growth of big government for years - and certainly during much of the Bush administration.

Again, you make claims that simply are based upon your own narrow view and incredibly limited understanding of the real world around you.

And you have yet to provide a working definition for "neocon" and its clear applicability to the Obama White House.

Have you given up already? I was hoping your intellectual curiosity would prove greater than that...

 

[Sinatra]

Democratic Leadership Council

From SourceWatch

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was co-founded in 1985 by Will Marshall, who served as its first Policy Director and who is the founder and President of DLC's think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute. DLC counts among its past chairs former President Bill Clinton, Congressman Richard Gephardt, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman. [1] Current chairman is Senator Harold Ford.


Democratic Leadership Council - SourceWatch


"You have to keep in mind that the center has shifted in our politics,"
Kucinich responded, smiling. "I'm really at the center, and all the
other candidates are to the right of me. And they're to the right of
the American people."

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from
the Republican Neoconservative agenda," he went on. "They want to
continue to stay in Iraq. They reject the idea of a not-for-profit
health care system. ... These analysts are ... trying to keep a
politics that really helps support a privileged few at the expense of
the many. So I'm the candidate of the people."


[NYTr] Kucnich: DLC Agenda Indistinguishable from Neocons'

 

[JakeStarkey]

Soggy in NOLA is correct, imho. Government is necessary. The question is just how much is necessary. Outsourcing the war to Halliburton et al is far more costly that letting the military mess hall or construction or security types do their jobs. This is the end result of "privitazation": the raping of the US Treasury by private business where the tax payers can't get at them as they can the elected officials. This was one of the reason my party was thrown out of office: the electorate could get at our representatives and senators and president, and, boy, did they.

your a Conservative Jake?.....if so how come i never see you defending any right leaning thoughts on this forum?.....you defend every leftist policy being debated,you seem to argue with every "RIGHTY" .....what gives?...

Not at all, Harry. I believe in a smaller government, smaller civil service, less taxes, no privitazation when government can provide the service better, etc. I would do oppose are the neo-cons, preventive intervention a la Iraq, privitazation a al Halliburton, non interventionism.