a Neo-Con is just liberal who's been mugged by reality...
Posted on 04/18/2005 6:29:47 AM PDT by Valin
The term "neoconservative" started out as an insult and is still used that way. When people say that the selection of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank marks the triumph of neocons in Bush administration foreign policy, they are generally not indicating pleasure. Cynics say they are indicating anti-Semitism: A neocon is a Jewish intellectual you disagree with. That's way too harsh. But what does neoconservative mean?
Writing in the current issue of the National Interest, Rich Lowry, a conservative of the non-neo variety, defines a neocon as someone with a "messianic vision" of using American power to spread democracy, an indifference to the crucial distinction between what would be nice and what is essential to national security, and excessive optimism that we can arrange things according to our own values in strange and faraway lands. Wow. It was not always thus.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No. It's not.
These idiots still don't remember that 9/11 happened. They're the ones that should have changed. That's why they keep losing.
Neo (new) and Con (conservative)....the new conservatives. Hmmm....I don't know what it has to do with religion, although you will find religion Juedo-Christianity in the ranks of the conservatives. I didn'tknow it was supposed to be an insult. okay, okay, I admit it! I are one.
Hogwash. Neo-cons seek to spread Democracy in the ME to "drain the swamp" of tryants who enable terrorists. Has WaPo been asleep since 9-11?
and excessive optimism that we can arrange things according to our own values in strange and faraway lands. Wow. It was not always thus.
Wow, it was indeed always thus. Read Lewis's take on the West's 50 years of enabling tyranny in the ME in exchange for the stability of oil markets:
"There is some justice in one charge that is frequently leveled against the United States, and more generally against the West: Middle Easterners frequently complain that the West judges them by different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans, both in what is expected of them and what they may expect, in terms of their economic well-being and their political freedom. They assert that Western spokesmen repeatedly overlook or even defend actions and support rulers that they would not tolerate in their own countries....there is nevertheless a widespread [Western] perception that there are significant differences between the advanced Western world and the rest, notably the peoples of Islam, and that these latter are in some ways different, with the tacit assumption that they are inferior. The most flagrant violations of civil rights, political freedom, and even human decency are disregarded or glossed over, and crimes against humanity, which in a European or American country would evoke a storm of outrage, are seen as normal and even acceptable.
...The underlying assumption in all this is that these people are incapable of running a democratic society and have neither concern nor capacity for human decency."
The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis, p104
Bush is changing that. We are overthrowing regimes that sponsor terror and liberating their populations. Wow. Its working too. Wow.
These idiots still don't remember that 9/11 happened. They're the ones that should have changed. That's why they keep losing.
======
The far-left will continue to deny reality; the are already irrelevant and useless in American government, and will most likely remain that way until they are dead and gone. Keep that idiot Dean talking -- he is speeding things up!!!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
...Is still the determinant of our foreign policy.
Actually, it's great that our security interests are now advanced by supporting republics instead of dictators.
Bush is changing that. We are overthrowing regimes that sponsor terror and liberating their populations.
Remember right after 9-11 the usual suspects got up on their hind legs and started telling ROOT CAUSES ROOT CAUSES ROOT CAUSES. Well IMO Thhat's exactly what President George Bush is trying to do. Weather or not we will be successful, only time will tell.
Of course by "root causes" they meant it's our fault as we are the cause of all the poverty and lack of freedom in the world.
Michael Kingsley is that limpwristed homo who NEVER looks anyone in the eye when talking to them, especially when he was insulting conservatives on CrossFire.
Hey Michael - here's a term nobody disagrees with - you are a D-CKHEAD.
As I recall, Reagan stopped the diddling and forced the calculus to change; not disproving Kirkpatrick but proving her - and Reagan and Thatcher. Besides, the fall of the Soviet Union didn't remove the communist threat, and the "easy spread of democracy" is still open to debate.
Michael Kingsley
a Neo-Con is just liberal who's been mugged by reality...
Except in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, etc.
"Desert One" finally did it for me. I remember asking myself when I first heard "Can't we do ANYTHING right anymore!"
bump
thankx for seeing the Light!!! 8^)
Those whom he dubs "Neo-Cons," during the 1980s, included many of a better sort. The movement today, without that better sort, is intellectually hopeless--might not even understand, one suspects, the switch of which he accuses them.
For more on the "Neo-Cons," out of the mouth of their own "God-Father:"
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.