Neocons want someone else blamed for their Iraqi war

www.krtdirect.com ^ | Jan. 02, 2005 | JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY

[RonPaulLives]

There's that word again. What the HE11 does that mean? WTF is a "neocon?"

Hey there, upchuck! I think the mainstream press misunderstands and/or misinterprets what a neocon is, to mean (in their opinions) anyone who is conservative and for the war. Conservatives have been using "liberal" as an insult, so the left decided to take a harsh-sounding word that most people don't understand and try to use it to insult the right. But it's been so misused that it's basically lost all meaning and I believe many people think of it as being synonymous with "conservative".
However here are links to some better explanations:

"The New Conservative Divide: Paleocons versus Neocons"

"What the heck is a Neocon?"

[Giant Conservative]

Neo-cons are fervent supporters of the War on Iraq but are also very liberal on social issues.

[TheDon]

Failures in Iraq? Is Saddam still in power? Have they cancelled the elections? Is Iraq's infrastructure and oil industry not being restored? Are terrorists in Iraq not being killed and captured?

I must be missing something!

[TheDon]

Neocon = neo (new) con (criminal) = new criminal :^)

[truth_seeker]

I'm all for NeoCons, if fighting muslims is what they want us to do.

Cuz 9/11/2001 shoulda taught us muslims want to fight.

From what I've seen, Rumsfeld and the neocons agree on the need to fight muslims.

The details come down to which ones, where and when. We've been plodding along on that.

The entire political left, and the anti-war right can bring no light, for they mistakenly believe muslims don't need fighting.

Or that they have a superior insight into the question of which ones, where, and when.

That is it for me, in a nutshell. Between Rumsfeld or Buchanan, I'll take Rumsfeld.

Kristol and Buchanan have a lot in common. They've earned livings their entire adult lives, by stirring up controversy to write and talk about.

Rumsfeld has NEVER been in that category, which elevates him immensely.

[Captain Kirk]

Sure, terrorists are being killed, and even more new ones are emerging who previously did not exist. Success? I don't think so.

[Captain Kirk]

I thought the "Muslims" you want to fight were our "allies" in Iraq (over 90 percent Muslim).

[Billthedrill]

You wouldn't be alone. The word "neocon" has been expropriated by media dullards to mean something quite unlike its original meaning, which was a description of someone who had come to conservatism after some defining event which tended to move forward as people got older. For some such people as Sidney Hook and Whitaker Chambers were "neocons" in their day; for others it was anyone after William Buckley's "God And Man At Yale," for others still it was anyone coming to a conservative viewpoint after Barry Goldwater.

How it came to be applied to such as William Kristol is more a thing of amusement than curiosity. The term today has lost all descriptive value and is used exclusively as a pejorative. It might as well be "poopoo-head," it's just about that deep. All IMHO, naturally - anyone who prefers this sort of catchphrase is welcome to it.

[calex59]

Sure, terrorists are being killed, and even more new ones are emerging who previously did not exist. Success? I don't think so.

And your proof of this statement is where? Show me the facts that support new terrorists cropping up. We are winning this and it is easy to see. If you don't see it then I am sorry for you . Read the real news that comes from Iraq not just the left wing defeatists specials that come out every day.

[mainepatsfan]

A fun drinking game is watching "Hardball" and taking a shot everytime Matthews says "neocon".

[Honestfreedom]

Actually that is largely BS. The idea of a monolithic Israel based group of Jews who run American policy for Israel's benefit is just old fashioned Jew baiting. It is as original as Hitler's or Stalin's Jew hating.

[Soul Seeker]

Why is Rumsfeld being stabbed in the back by those he trusted the most to back his play?

Somehow...I just don't think Rummy's most trusted supporters were Bill Kristol & his friends.

Rummy's base consists of the same core support that supports this President. Unlike kristol, or McCain, or Hagel or any of the other civilian Generals WE, the American people, are the strength behind the war on terrorism including the removal of Saddam Hussein. The others have been consistently critical, except when we have a really good week they want to share credit for.

And I reject the labeling of this as anybody's war. It is not "Bush's war", "Rumsfeld's war", or the "neo-cons war. It is a world wide war against terrorism being led by the United states of America at the blessing of the majority of the population with the intent to protect this nation, with establishment of freedom in oppressed nations being a positive consequence. It is not Vietnam, it is not a failure. So long as Liberals or isolationalists continue to designate it as such they were continually lose favor with the American populace.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

They believed Chalabi and the INC's predictions that American troops would be welcomed with showers of rose petals and there would be no need for an American occupation.

That has got to be a .. well, stupid argument.

Surely no one expected that to occur.

Primarily because of Saddam himself. Who knew for sure that he would not (won't?) be ba-a-a-a-k,

What of our encouragement to revolt against Saddam after the Gulf War? What happened to those who took our words seriously? They're finding them a few hundred at a time where Saddam left them.

[Chi-townChief]

From what I've heard, "neocon" is generally used as a code word for Jewish conservative.

[Billthedrill]

Egad - I'd be under the table in 10 minutes...

[hotsteppa]

They just seem to pull words out of the air and form sentences, and state them as fact. I am amazed how we here on freerepublic has allowed the constant failure argument to permeate our own conversations and act as if this is all fact, when in fact it is not so.

Terrorist will always be terrorist and remain evil in their intentions, are we to now to move the goal post and say that as long as they are people who will kill innocents to advance their own point of view and we cant all and every stop shadow plans, that we are failing in Iraq? That is a preposterous argument and is riddled with simple conclusions.

We are fighting a WAR ON TERRORISM, started on September 11th, 2001 and Iraq is central to that war. It was never gonna be quick and clean, it was always gonna be long and messy, and we better suck it in and know that there are gonna be good times and bad times, that is the nature of War.

People need to think about the illegitimacy that the election later this month will shine on the terrorists(not insurgents or rebels) cause. They will in essence be outlaws in Iraq and definitely in my opinion, on the wrong side of history. History my friends will be the judge and not editorial writers and newspaper columnists.

Thank you

[Pelham]

That's the formerly conservative National Review.

[No Longer Free State]

Galloway is no longer a "War Correspondent". He's not reporting anymore. Now he's just another out-of-touch fogey commentating from a cushy stateside office.

[TheDon]

Huh? You must be listening to the alphabet channels. And a Freeper too.

[Uncle Miltie]

Blamed? Heck, I'm still proud!