Posted on 08/16/2006 8:36:15 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
Neoconservatism is hard to pin down as discrete political theory; Mr. Podhoretz [prefers] "tendency." In any case, as a practical matter, it denotes the mentality of those who moved from somewhere on the political left to somewhere on the right, primarily during the late '70s. It had "two ruling passions," according to Mr. Podhoretz. On the one hand, the neocons were repulsed by the countercultural '60s radicalism that came to dominate the American liberal establishment. On the other, they argued for a more assertive, muscular foreign policy (at the time in response to Soviet expansionism). ...
The "war on terror," he argues, ought to be rightly understood as "World War IV," demanding a new set of policies and ideas that will allow the U.S. to cope under drastically altered conditions.
The point of his voluminous WWIV essays ... is to limn the ways in which George Bush has done precisely that. "The military face of the strategy is pre-emption and the political face is democratization," he says. "The stakes are nothing less than the survival of Western civilization, to the extent that Western civilization still exists, because half of it seems to be committing suicide." ...
Does the president understand? ... Hasn't the administration, on the more intractable questions of Syria and Iran, shown by and large the same weakening of resolve? Mr. Podhoretz winces. The question seems to set his teeth on edge. "There are people who ask George Bush to do everything at once," he declares, "instead of picking his shots and moving at a politically viable pace. It's nice as an intellectual exercise, but what is the point of demanding things that no democratic political leader, not even George Bush, could conceivably do at this time? To my mind it's a kind of right-wing utopianism."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Beautiful!
Excellent list and there's more...
Any failures? I think a few.
Yup, I know what you mean. And there are those on the right, who ought to be with us, who are the "conservative utopians" who think the president must do everything precisely when they would like, regardless of the organizational problems that have to be overcome.
You again? Once again, the real number is closer to 80%, not 10.
If you have the numbers, please post a link.
The only one jew-baiting here is you, stinky.
But then you have never been a stickler for observing the prohibition against bearing false witness- is that a special dispensation you get from being a "deacon"?
Anything in particular that makes you think that is the case? I'm interested in your thinking.
I've been inclined to think they tend towards supply-side economic principles, which is far removed from socialism. Any specifics you can think of?
This article is mostly on the different types of guns and weaponry used in combat, but it ends with an analysis on the overall situation. A very long read, but worth it:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/133585.php
It's a little dated, but the numbers have been verified for me by everyone I know who's actually in Iraq right now.
We've been through this before.
No false witness here. Just stopped you from embarrassing yourself.
Yes, we are not done, and what has been done is not enough. There are still forces and entities in the world that would like to see us destroyed, and as soon as the liberals gain power (and I truly hope they never do) those entities will attack.
To the contrary. David Horowitz is no one's definition of RINO.
Yep, still much to be done.
Lol. Seeing your indifference to broadening your knowledge, I'd say you would be wiser if you didn't listen to such flattery.
Kristol is the 'godfather' of the movement and Paul Gottfried one of neoconservatism's more perceptive critics- contra sinkspur who obviously believes neocon = Jew, which would be news to the good Mr Gottfried.
I have heard the opposite is true. That most of the insurgents are foreigners and less than half are Iraqis. Even if it isn't, the fact remains that of the foreigners many either are Saudi or come from there. And the fact about Pakistani support of the Taliban remains.
Crtics of neoconservatism come in many flavors, and from many different backgrounds, as do its supporters. The Jew thing is a red herring, as to faciliatating any productive discussion. It is a distraction.
Interesting. Sounds much like conservatism to me, although not the moderate type (at least in regard to national security).
That's not a very nice thing to say.
I love to broaden my knowledge. I enjoy reading different things people have to say. I'm just careful WHO that comes from, because there are too many jerks like you out there who just want to insult people and talk about how great they are.
Well, I haven't been there since last October, I could be wrong.
Anyway, this breaks it down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html
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.