Replies

Well as the author of this article suggests - a "neo con" is a very mixed bag and can't really be defined. Just as "paleo cons" don't really exist. They are labels used by each side to throw at each over this last war.

But there is a fiesty little group of conservatives from all over the map who question the foreign policy of this country since the end of the Cold War. And for "National Review" to attack them time again means they annoy them. And "Empire" is the goal. Heck - it has been admitted and written about in the pages of such journals- mostly "The Weekly Standard."

>>> ... there is a fiesty little group of conservatives from all over the map who question the foreign policy of this country since the end of the Cold War.

I don't believe they're from all over the map, as you say. But all conservatives have had good reason to question the foreign of the US. Eight of the last 12 years the US was lead by a lying, phony, scumbag and his lying/phony witch-bitch wife.

But again, there is no empire building under way by the Bush administartion. Some on the extremist rightwing, have a problem with the war on terrorism and for the life of me, I can't figure out why. After 9-11, any fair minded American should realize the dangers that Islamic fundamentalism and Arab radicalism present to the safety and the future of the US homeland and our interests abroad.

After all, we can't turn the clock back to 1776 and we aren't about to become an isolationist nation either. American's have always looked to the future with an optimistic outlook.