The Referendum on Neoconservatism (It's already over, and the neocons won)

The Weekly Standard ^ | November 1, 2004 | Tod Lindberg

[bayourod]

"He clearly favors working with our democratic allies not just because they are allies but because they are democratic and have a valuable contribution to make to our mutual deliberations."

What a moonbeam crock! Kerry's never needed anyone else to mutually deliberate with.

Kerry had to find some point on which to hang his attack on President Bush.

Kerry's foreign policy philosophy is whatever the polls haven't yet said isn't working. It's whatever pops up in his coke fuzzed mind at the time. There ain't no "mutual deliberation".

[Alberta's Child]

Retired Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton, whose seven years as a POW in Vietnam are chronicled in his famous autobiography, When Hell was in Session, despised Perle as far back as the mid-1980s, when Denton was a U.S. Senator from Alabama and Perle was being investigated for leaking classified information to an employee of the Israeli embassy in Washington. I'll take Jeremy Denton over Richard Perle any day of the week.

There was nothing wrong with Conyers' demand for an investigation of Perle. Even before he did this, a number of us right here on FreeRepublic wondered why the hell Perle was allowed within a mile of the U.S. Defense Department in the first place. His presence on the Defense Policy Board was very suspicious to me, particularly because the DPB didn't even exist until early 2001. In light of: A) Perle's track record in the Reagan administration, and B) the revelations of his lobbying career on behalf of a front company for the Red Chinese Army, I speculated that the Defense Policy Board was created specifically for one or both of the following reasons:

1. So people like Perle could serve in an advisory role at the Pentagon without obtaining the required security clearances, or

2. So people like Perle could serve in an advisory role at the Pentagon without giving up their lucrative lobbying careers -- even on behalf of Communist China.

At least I've been consistent about this kind of sh!t. I seem to remember a lot of justifiable outrage among conservatives when the players were Bernard Schwartz and Loral instead of Richard Perle and Global Crossing.

[bayourod]

"Well everything he calls "neoconservative" foreign policy is just old fashioned good sense "

There ain't nothing "neo" in neoconservatives. That's a term popularized by out of the loop and out of the mainstream has been jerkhead commentators.

[FreeReign]

Retired Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton, whose seven years as a POW in Vietnam are chronicled in his famous autobiography, When Hell was in Session, despised Perle...

I wasn't defending Perle and his lobbying controversies. I was criticizing your seeming effort to discredit this administration's foreign policy in the WOT and how it pertains to Iraq, based on the lobbying controversies of Perle.

Alberta's Child:I think this author has it all wrong. The so-called "neo-conservative" element of the Republican Party lost every shred of credibility over three defining events in the last 18 months: 1. Richard Perle's resignation as head of the Defense Policy Board...

The irony is, that the honorable Jeremiah Denton is a strong believer in the Bush foreign policy and the WOT and how it pertains to Iraq.

As I said, things really aren't that simple.

[NATIVEDAUGHTER]

The neo-cons are not conservative and have been a disaster for the American Right....this war is not over in Iraq and may lead to Bush's defeat because of anger over the way we got into it.The neo-cons are in love with Big Government and have worked to aggrandize it in the name of "The War on Terror".....The neo-cons have alot to apologize for....

[frannie]

Thanks free reign. Perhaps I see things differently because of my age. Not that I am wise, but wisdom does come with age. You can't get in school, you can't inherit it nor can you get it by luck.

Would like to say, one thing that makes my blood boil, it's worse then your skin crawling, is when either party, politician or citizen says " the government can or will do something for you".

Only we who pay INCOME TAXES can or will do for the citizens. Maybe we can tell the citizens who demand entitlements , we can all save money if you would just go up and down your street and tell those who have more than you, they will either have to pay taxes or give you some of what they have.

What do you think? Crazy thought,but it's true.

Another thought,

Frannie

[Alberta's Child]

I'll bet Jeremiah Denton would vote for John Kerry before he ever joined Richard Gere in criticizing the Russian government for its crackdown on Chechen terrorists.

The issue isn't the war on terror -- it's the "war on terror" as defined by the so-called "neo-conservatives." People like Richard Perle and William Kristol can't even render a credible position on this matter, since they were both such ardent supporters of the Clinton administration when it sided with Islamic radicals in Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic.

[FreeReign]

I'll bet Jeremiah Denton would vote for John Kerry before he ever joined Richard Gere in criticizing the Russian government for its crackdown on Chechen terrorists.

I doubt that Perle criticized Putin for going after the real Chechen terrorists. More likely he criticized Putin for slaughtering many thousands of Chechen's who weren't terrorists.

About Denton and the chances he would vote for Kerry, I'll let Denton's words speak for themselves;

Jeremiah Denton Mobile (Alabama) Register | March 10, 2004: To me, his remarks and behavior amounted to giving aid and comfort to our Vietnamese and Soviet enemies. So I was not surprised when his subsequent overall voting pattern in the Senate was consistently detrimental to our national security. Considering his demonstrated popularity during the Democratic primaries, I earnestly hope the American people will soberly consider Kerry's qualifications for the pres idency in light of his position and record on both our cultural war at home and on national security issues. To put it bluntly, John Kerry exemplifies the very reasons that I switched to the Republican Party.

...People like Richard Perle and William Kristol can't even render a credible position on this matter, since they were both such ardent supporters of the Clinton administration when it sided with Islamic radicals in Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic.

Perle was wrong about this.

[FreeReign]

Would like to say, one thing that makes my blood boil, it's worse then your skin crawling, is when either party, politician or citizen says " the government can or will do something for you".

You're on a roll frannie.

[Alberta's Child]

I doubt that Perle criticized Putin for going after the real Chechen terrorists. More likely he criticized Putin for slaughtering many thousands of Chechen's who weren't terrorists.

When this kind of thing happens in places like Serbia or Iraq, Perle would call it "collateral damage."

Perle was wrong about this.

Has he ackowledged this? I really doubt it, because he was only "wrong" if you look at it in the context of the so-called "war on terror." The whole point of my posts is that Perle has never been terribly concerned about waging this war on terror. He's got his own agenda here, and I suspect -- based on the seemingly contradictory positions he has taken on Kosovo, Iraq, and Chechnya -- that fighting terrorism isn't part of it.

If you really want a good indication of this, do a search on the terms "Richard Perle," "al-Qaeda," and/or "Osama bin Laden." You'd be hard-pressed to find too many documents or statements in which Perle mentions the latter two even in passing.

[FreeReign]

I doubt that Perle criticized Putin for going after the real Chechen terrorists. More likely he criticized Putin for slaughtering many thousands of Chechen's who weren't terrorists.

When this kind of thing happens in places like Serbia or Iraq, Perle would call it "collateral damage."

There is no comparison between our collateral damage in Iraq and Putin's collateral damage in Chechnya.

[Alberta's Child]

Says who?

[FreeReign]

The whole point of my posts is that Perle has never been terribly concerned about waging this war on terror. He's got his own agenda...

The exact same thing has been said about Putin.

[Valin]

Life is real simple, isn't it.


You mean it's not? And here all along I thought you could divide the world into 100% good and 100% evil with nothing in between.

[Mitchell]

Ping. Interesting article.

[FreeReign]

There is no comparison between our collateral damage in Iraq and Putin's collateral damage in Chechnya.

Says who?

You actually disagree with the above statement? It's late goodnight.

[Alberta's Child]

The exact same thing has been said about Putin.

Sure. The only problem is that he's the head of a foreign state -- and people like William Kristol and the Richards Gere and Perle have no standing in criticizing him for pursuing Russia's "war on terror" as he sees fit.

If I were Putin, I'd ask the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya what they think of Abraham Lincoln's methods of dealing with our Confederate separatists.

[Alberta's Child]

I didn't say I disagree with it. I'm wondering what objective legal or moral standard you are using to make that statement.

[nathanbedford]

This discussion is, alas, academic simply because no WMDs were found in Iraq. That, coupled with the fact that the war has degenerated into an increasingly unpopular guerrilla, means that America, regardless whether under a Bush or a Kerry administration, cannot again act in furtherance of the principles of the neoconservative doctrine against Iran or North Korea - absent another strike on the homeland, which is certainly predictable.

Sadly, the Bush doctrine is moldering on the shelf where it will remain until we sustain another strike on the homeland, God grant that it not be done with WMDs. If such a strike does not happen, the fate of the doctrine does not much matter because the doctrine will not have been needed. If it does happen, without WMDs, the doctrine will be revived and vigorously applied. If the strike is with WMDs, the debate will be a straight up affair between appeasement and making war. If the strike consists of multiple blows with WMDs, it is not at all clear that the appeasers will lose the debate.

Meanwhile, we can only hope that Bush is reelected and the next strike is not too terrible. Bush, not Kerry, can perhaps arrange with Israel to effectuate his doctrine, in the absence of a strike, with a knock out raid against Iran's nuclear program. Perhaps he can fashion some intervention by China against North Korea. Kerry will lack the will and the credibility to do either.

Sadly, the left has meanwhile left war with Iran and North Korea more likely by undercutting Bush's credibility to carry on with his doctrine and thus vitiating his power to negotiate.

God damn them for it.

[FreeReign]

If I were Putin, I'd ask the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya what they think of Abraham Lincoln's methods of dealing with our Confederate separatists.

Putin would be making no point if he did.

There is no comparison between a separationist Russian state and a separationist U.S. state during the time of Lincoln.

The people of Chechnya were forcibly conquered and incorporated into Russia. The people of the Southern States of the U.S. chose to become part of the U.S. Union.

The inhabitants of the U.S. have their right unalienable rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The inhabitants of Russia -- do not.