[dighton]

IMHO, the title badly serves the article, which is not anti-neoconservative. The same goes for Perhaps the most dramatic effort to expose the hidden Jewish interest underlying neocon ideas, which should be read as "purported hidden Jewish interest," "alleged ~," or the like.

No neoconservative was elevated in office after September 11, as Churchill had been to prime minister after the collapse of the Munich agreement, but policies espoused by neoconservatives were embraced by the Bush administration. Was this because Bush learned them from the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle? Or did he and his top advisers--none of them known as a neocon--reach similar conclusions on their own? We may have to await the President's memoirs to learn the answer to that narrow question, but every American has reason to be grateful for the result.

[William McKinley]

Perhaps he should have put quoters around the 'hidden Jewish interest', but given that in the previous paragraph, less than 20 words before, he had used the terms egregious and explicit, the author probably felt it was unnecessary. As would have I.

As for the title, I guess it loses something in the context. The website I got it from is a hotbed of neoconservatism; there it would be taken as ironic or sarcastic. Here, where there is a contingent that is highly antagonistic, it may not have been the best title; but then they chose the title for their website, not this one.

[zacyak]

IMHO, the title badly serves the article, which is not anti-neoconservative.

I guess that you're one of the few who actually read this long piece; most of the others replying to it don't seem to have a clue as to what the author of it is really saying. Like Pavlov's dog, they see the word "Jew" in an article they don't understand (or haven't read) and start in with their spastic accusations of anti-semitism. Good thing they banned the Onion from this forum, I have a feeling the same people misinterpret the articles from there too.