There aren't any. Prove me wrong. (You know, by naming a couple.) The people you cite as "interventionists" aren't. Prove me wrong. (You know, by explaining why they are.)
to the point where they "honestly" can't understand why Bill Clinton isn't a conservative
Make fun of me if you want :) but don't misrepresent what I was saying. I can understand why he's not a conservative, but I honestly can't understand why he's not a "neoconservative" (as you (think you) understand it).
[how the "whys" don't matter since a leftist is as a leftist does] It's a similar principle with neoconservatives.
No it's not. You said neoconservatives want to do things not for nat'l defense but "to make things better in other countries", "because of how other governments treat their own people", "because we're our broter's keeper", and the like. The whys do matter, otherwise we're just talking about conservatives. Don't you even remember your own definition?
Clearly you don't, or are pretending not to, since you're shifting definitions. This is why I'm confused.
what's clear is that they have an interventionist political instinct in foreign affairs that's loosely analogous to the domestic liberal interventionist bent.
It's not "clear" because it's not "clear" that any such people exist. You haven't actually named any. The "examples" you gave, were not necessarily examples of "interventionism". Perhaps they were merely examples of hawkish self-defense in action - you haven't shown otherwise, anywhere on this thread. (This is the process I just described: you tend to say stuff like "well take those people, Them, who advocated Y." Thus conveniently forgetting the "for reason A" part of the argument.)
It's thus referred to as "neo"conservatism because it represents a new (relatively speaking) trend in conservatism,
Not if it doesn't exist, it doesn't. (You haven't shown otherwise.)
which traditionally has disdained interventionism
but traditionally has favored self-defense hawkishness. Which is what your "examples" are examples of. (You haven't shown otherwise.)
That's a distinction with no consequence, and this is indicative of your attitude on this entire thread. What makes him not neoconservative is precisely what makes him not conservative. It's not his foreign interventionism that makes the difference; it's his domestic interventionism. You may honestly not understand why this is, but I honestly can't understand how you can't see this.
You said neoconservatives want to do things not for nat'l defense
Wrong. Specifically wrong, as I've acknowledged to you that they may in fact entertain that notion.
but "to make things better in other countries", "because of how other governments treat their own people", "because we're our broter's keeper", and the like.
These things are the means to the end (national security), if they happen to believe that these means do in fact advance that end. Whether they do or not is not essential to the definition of neoconservative.
Your point seems to be that if two different people are pursuing the same end (in this case national security), the difference in their approach does not rise to the level of an ideological difference. But it most certainly can. An American conservative and a European fascist may both believe in law and order, but their approaches are very different, and most people would recognize it as an ideological difference. The latter would cross lines that the former, as a matter of principle, would not.