They are not "fighting to" spread righteousness around the world in the first place. They are trying to improve our national security. So they say. And you said you didn't doubt their sincerity (remember?). The fact, or possibility, or assertion, that in the process of trying to improve our national security righteousness ends up being spread around the world doesn't mean spreading righteousness around the world per se is their goal. I think you're more than smart enough to understand this.
The fact remains, it's a highly different approach to the matter
Different approach? Sure. They're strategizing more "long term", and all that. But so what? They're hawks, you're a hawk, they have a different way of going about "hawk"ing than you on certain matters (perhaps, I don't know much about your approach on anything, and it's not that important). Again, you're arguing about strategy, not motives. Can't you argue against policy proposal X on its own terms, without making reference to confusing, ill-understood political labels?
The difference is analogous to a cop who makes arrests based on the overall character of the arrestee, and one who makes arrests based on probable cause.
I'll have to take your word for it. I don't really know who you're talking about, or what view; and similarly I don't know what your alternative view is. Is this Iraq you're talking about? I just can't tell, it's a little fuzzy.
Personally I think you're engaging in a pointless semantic game.
That makes two of us. ;-)
It bears emphasizing, however, that we are engaging in a discussion underneath an article entitled "'Neocon' Becomes a Confusing Code Word". In this context semantics certainly is not irrelevant. And if nothing else, I think that the thesis of the article has been substantiated.
I'm sure there are still people who think of themselves as "neocons", and I'm sure there are (perhaps other) people who have ideas influenced by or similar to the original "neocons" and therefore can be called accurately by the term. I just have no real idea who these people are, apart from the few obvious ones (mostly they have a name of the format XXXXXXXXtz, far as I can tell). Neither, for that matter, do 99% of the people who use the term "neocon". Take a look at this article, which was posted on FR. It's a kind of pseudo film review in which some leftist writer onanistically derives comforting political lessons from the action movie X-Men 2. It contains the following sentences:
It’s just that the stunningly quick defeat of the Iraqi regime has amplified the neoconservative voice and made the protestors seem congenitally weak. [..] In a country where people deplete Home Depot of duct tape for fragile Homeland Security, the neocon call for war has struck a more resonant note as a form of patriotism than the liberal call for peace.
Those are the only two occurrences of "neoconservative" or "neocon" in the whole thing, and there is no background, context, or explanation about what a "neocon" is. Now please, in all honesty, can you really tell me with a straight face that this usage of "neocon" is correct? What does the guy even mean by it? Is it at all clear what is meant? Does he mean anything different from "conservative hawk"? And, what percentage of the MSNBC.COM readership is likely to read the word with the understanding that you have of it (or, think you have)? Conversely, what percentage is likely to read the term as "conservative hawk" (or, in many cases, "Bad Sinister Scary People")?
I remember a time, about ten years ago, when it was far more common to see the phrase "arch-conservative". How, exactly, the sequence of letters "arch" was supposed to modify "conservative", I could never figure out. All I knew was that Robert Bork or Ronald Reagan or Pat Buchanan or whoever was an "arch-conservative". Not just a conservative mind you but an "arch-conservative"! It soon became obvious to me that leftists put that "arch" in there for no other reason than that it sounds scarier. After all, we have "arch-villains", and those are scary, so "arch-conservatives" must be scary too, right? ;-) Well, nowadays, as other posters have pointed out, there are "neo-Nazis", so "neo-conservatives" must be something in the same vein.
Admit it: that will be the connotation for most people, and that's the intent of many who use the term.
"Neo-conservative" has become little more than the new "arch-conservative", for many. Your understanding may be stellar and clear as crystal (though I still don't get why you don't think Clinton's a "neocon", by your terms), but it does not contribute positively to everyday political debate.
Which is what the article points out and explains quite well.
Like I said, most people don't even see the term. It doesn't show up on CNN, or NBC Nightly News, or the New York Times front page. To the extent that it's used by liberals at all, it's pretty much only used by trendy liberals as a code word among themselves, which may or may not have a different meaning than what's understood by conservatives.
The reason it's unlikely that most people even will see the term, is that by using it in the way that you say they're using it - that is, to create the impression of a sinister strain of conservatism - they'd be implying that there's a such a thing as respectable conservatism, which I'm sure they don't want to do. Personally, it sounds to me like nothing more than an expression of sour grapes on the part of frustrated liberals. Let 'em indulge in it. It'll only make them look more foolish.
As for "arch-conservative", though it may be a somewhat childish term, it has a very clear meaning: someone who's considerably more conservative than those in the mainstream of American politics, and who usually lets the world know it. "Neoconservative" isn't likely to replace it.
And in any case, neither liberals nor conservatives are mistaking Bill Clinton for a neocon, so the objection you raised on that score is still as specious as it ever was.