Would neo-con pundit wager on Bush success?

I agree. Bush will be considered a winner. And by winner I actually mean dismal failure:

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

This is a very thoughtful criticism of Kristol, who makes a living on smug, banal, stuffy commentary. A lot like William F. Buckley, Remember him? He speaks and you listen thinking you're going to hear something fresh and illuminating, but end up getting bored to death. But that is the lot of conservatives, especially the New England Hahvad ones. I always wonder what they had in common with Jesse Helms and the rednecks of the world. Can they sit down and break bread together? Kristol, like other neocons, loves war. I think the reason is they can sit back and pontificate, and tell opponents of the war who are horrified at the thought that 30 young American lives is a fair price to pay for the grand illusions of a warped mind. "You know we can still win this thing" is his attitude . Win what? Win what? He assumes that if the war is won by the end of Bush's term then Bush will have had a successful presidency. How dry. But that is what you expect from conservative wisdom.

You would think that these neo-con pundits would get tired of being wrong. Go take a look back at some of this goofs prior columns, when was the last time he was right about anything Iraq related?

This goofball neonut, Bill Kristol, is another one of the Republican chickenhawks who along with W., Cheney, Rummy, Rove, Wolfie etc, should be facing war crimes trails right about now.

Bubba,

Interesting graph. If you eliminate the long uptick in the wake of 9/11, you can see that Mr. Bush's popularity trajectory would have likely been a more linear progression from the 55% appproval post-election to a 42-45% around election time. Of course that is just conjecture, but its a pretty fair bet that no 9/11= no Bush reelection.

Frank, nice ending there. Kristol is typical of the same type of conservative arrogance that runs the White House. He is kind in taking the time to explain to the rabble why he is right and we are wrong. He headlines his column on the basis of the importance of being a "winner". Who loses then? we should ask him. The dead US soldiers? The dead Iraqi civilians? "The terrorists" (bet that last one he would agree with)? Guys like him ARE NOT HELPING. Could be wrong, but I bet he has the same amount of combat experience as Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.

Bill Kristol is engaging in a self-fulling prophesy.

His words are ridicuable because they are riduculous.

As is the miserable failure commonally known as the Bush 43 presidency.

P.S. Got Osama? Apply directly to your RNC credibility. Apply directly to your credibilty.

I have a much better wager for Frank James: a wager that as long as he's writing for the Tribune, the Tribune's circulation will decline.

Any money on that, Frank?

The proceeds can be paid into a fund to benefit laid-off reporters.

RNC Bruce,

I'll pay into retiring tired old redundent RNC talking points.

The 'ol gray RNC talking points ain't what they used to be, ain't what they used to be, ain't what they used to be.

Neocons, all neocons, should definitely be tried for war crimes against humanity. Failing the political will of the US Congress, a foredrawn conclusion, let's round them all up and set them free in the middle of a neighborhood in Iraq and see how loved they are by the people the "liberated." Stoning is probably too good for them though.

Doesn't anyone in America remember that it was Bush 41 under prez Ronnie RayGun along with all his pals like Caspar Wineberger, Oliver North, dumdum Rumsfeld, Satancheney, appaling Wolfowitz, et. al who cemented Hussein into power in the first place by giving him "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to use in his war with Iran? Well, when Bush 41 double-crossed him in 1991, he used them to finish killing more of the Kurds. He couldn't have been in that position with Little Billie Crystal's pals putting him there. Little brain Billy has conveniently forgotten that - and is own articles at the time saying how grand and glorious those choices were.

Where are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Where ARE they? Probably hatching up new lies about all the Dems instead of looking for any truth in what the Cheneybush disministration does while little Billie keeps prattling on.

Mr. James, a commendable column. However, the problem isn't really money, it's the enormous soapbox the MSM give ilk like him.

At the Trib, we are forced to see column after column by Jonah Goldberg, Dennis Byrne, John Kass, Kathleen Parker, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson and other wingnuts virtually every, single day. These people together have not been correct about anything for years, yet they still have a megaphone here at the Trib. WHY? A better solution would be to stop giving Kristol and his ilk a column after a certain number of factually inaccurate stories.

In other words, when you're batting .100, why aren't you on the bench?

"Will probably be a successful one"

Real strong there. he sounds real confident.

"Will possibly probably maybe be a kinda successful one (?)"

I bet when this man-ape was helping sell the war five years ago, he was whispering in Bush's ear that, if he put on his codpiece and led us to glorious battle in Iraq, he'd be the Greaterest Presidential Commander-Guy ever!

Now he's "probably successful"-ing Bush. Next it'll be "maybe kinda unsuccessful", as this idiot works his way to the realization that "unmitigated disaster" is the correct description.

Doug you wait we'll win Congress and the Presidency in 08 your Dem friends and the driveby media have invested in America's defeat the sad tales coming from MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Michael Moore, Golbal Warming Gore are wearing real America out-- we are optimists in the GOP. Bill Kristol is right we will win in Iraq and that's why Jim Webb went aerial on Meet the Press Sunday--they are starting to worry what happens with you Jackasses when we are successful in Iraq that's why Reid and Durbin are screaming to draw down the troops because they want to kiil the surge before it succeeds. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Posted by: Jerry White | July 16, 2007 2:11 PM

Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too?

Ah, more of the usual from the Looniest mankind has to offer: the Left.

I love weinerdog: The Tribune should stop publishing any conservative columnist.

Bill Kristol, a neocon!!!!! Funny, until recently Bill Kristol was never called a neocon, just a conservative.

Frank, please explain what a neocon is? Doug, what is a neocon? Little, unemployed Johhnny E., what is a neocon?

Mark Silva, what is and what isn't a poisonous post? Is the statement that all neconcons should be tried for war crimes, poisonois or not poisonous? Please answer and please explain.

Or, what about this general who says a pullout would be bad and to give the surge until spring and by then we will see positive results?

And this is from the NY Times!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/world/middleeast/16commander.html?ei=5065&en=15503e23ff4ea637&ex=1185249600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Yo Tribune Washington bureau at DNC headquarters, where is the Swamp item on this? And where is the Swamp item on the Queen B and Breck Girl wanting to get rid and shut up the lower tier Dumbocrat candidates?

The war on terrorism not withstanding, the Bush presidency has been very successful. He has moved the conservative agenda forward in ways never before imagined. If you are a conservative, George W. Bush is your man. No matter what goes down in Iraq.

Jerry White,

Where have I heard these predictions before? Oh yeah '06.

But you know what Jerry, I wish you had half a chance of being right, because if you were, there'd be a lot less fighting and dieing.

By the way I don't know if you have a "dog in this fight" but I do he's my nephew and Jim Webb's son is in Iraq too. This isn't some esoteric moot court crap tough guy.

See you at the '08 ballot box.

He has moved the conservative agenda forward in ways never before imagined. If you are a conservative, George W. Bush is your man. No matter what goes down in Iraq.

Posted by: San Miguel | July 16, 2007 2:25 PM

I take it that you are really just a hard core neocon, because if you really believed in conservatism, you would realize that Bush has been far from conservative thinking. Immigration , just to mention one. Spending---not, limiting Government size---not.

The war on terrorism not withstanding, the Bush presidency has been very successful. He has moved the conservative agenda forward in ways never before imagined. If you are a conservative, George W. Bush is your man. No matter what goes down in Iraq.

Posted by: San Miguel | July 16, 2007 2:25 PM

But if you identify yourself as an "American" first and not a "Conservative" first, well then your screwed. Sorry.

Or, what about this general who says a pullout would be bad and to give the surge until spring and by then we will see positive results?

Posted by: John D | July 16, 2007 2:20 PM

There's a shocker... John D. found a middle-manager in the military that thinks we should make more war, not less.

Amazing. (note: read with dripping sarcasm)

So then John D, you see the solution in Iraq as being purely military? Is that your point? What happens after the military moves out of the area that is secured? The insurgents/terrorists/militia comes back. That's how they fight. Its a big waiting game for them and they have nothing but time. Of course the Iraqi people don't want roadside bombs near there homes. They want electricity and a job. How are those things coming along after 4.5 years? As Borat might say, "not so much". How is that new Iraqi government coming? Maybe you and Bill Kristol can visit the proceedings in August. Oh wait, I heard they'll be on vacation.

To me a neocon is a highly educated &%@*%# bag that has never done anything for their country except pontificate about what the rest of us should do, think or feel. They are usually macho men (or women). I'll bet money that none of them have served in the armed forces nor have any of their college Republican children. Which is dandy but then they should knock off the saber rattling. They question the patriotism of peple that disagree with their ideology, but they would probably sell arms to to terrorists in a heartbeat if the price were right because financial gain is their real focus. Also, they have been dead wrong about every aspect of the run up to war and its execution. William Kristol's position is so goofy, it's worthy of a skit on Mad TV. He's nuts and anyone who goes along with him is an idiot. How's that?
John you can name call and split hairs over vocabualry until the cows come home but your buddies have created the FU of all time.

Ah, more of the usual from the Looniest mankind has to offer: the Left.

Posted by: John D | July 16, 2007 2:20 PM

More mindless word drool from the defender of corrupt administrations and bankrupt ideas, John D. Stay off the crack!!!

Bruce do you or do you not work for the RNC??? Why do you refuse to answer??? Must suck having to post comments for a party that has been highjacked by neo-con swindlers. Republicans take back your party.

snalg: good points

You forget to mention that it was Reagan who provided arms and training to AlQuaeda and the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. OOPS!!!

The neo-cons can't get anything right. What makes anyone (except for the wing-nuts like Cristol) think they ever will?

Johnny Doofus, you misread my post. All those 'pundits' I have listed were (are) big supporters of the Iraqi adventure, yet they continue to get valuable space on the page. Why do they print people because they are consistently wrong? Answer: because they're all CONSERVATIVES.

It just so happens that it is 'conservatives' that are consistently wrong. So, yes, I think those people who are consistently wrong should be kicked off the page. Why do you read people who are wrong all the time?

Doug, what is a neocon? Little unemployed Johnnny E, what is a neocon?
Posted by John D July 16, 2007 2:20 PM

Zooky, have you noticed that Little Johnny Destructo uses the same "Dems are all unemployed" talking point that his hero, Rush Limpdong does, when refering to us PROGRESSIVES?

Little Johnny Goofball, selling Electrical Contracting Products from the trunk of your car makes you successful?

You work for me Johnny and I work for my beloved home state of Illinois.

John D., has 30 hours flown by already? It is not poisonous to say that all neocons should be held for war crimes against humanity. It was they, led by Satancheney, in the first place and still, who directly initiated the atrocities in Iraq: a country without significant weapons (much less WMD!) and virtually no friends in the region. When a group of Satancheney worshipers create situations where torture, murder, rape, starvation, mutilations, profligate spending and hatred run wild, AND, when they not only approve, but go so far as to defend and even praise such things, they are war criminals. I know it seems weird way over there on the Wingnut side to call things as they are, but facts are facts. They are not what the Cheneybush rigime says they are. If that was so, we'd all be basking in the glory of having been met with candy & chocolates by a population eager for peace and prosperity and living the democratic Texan dream. Is that whay you think is really happening?

Neocons are war criminals, period. To treat them otherwise would be very Republican.

Johnny Torture, why are you so excited to prove that the Secretary of Defense lied to the american people to sell the surge?

"Gates declined to give a date by which the deployments would end, saying that to do so would invite insurgents in Iraq to simply keep their powder dry until American forces leave.

He did suggest, though, that the "surge" is being viewed as one with a limited duration.

"I think most of us involved in this process assume that it will be months and not years," said Gates"

.....

"The timetable for the introduction of additional U.S. forces will provide ample opportunity early on, and before many of the additional U.S. troops actually arrive in Iraq, to evaluate the progress of this endeavor and whether the Iraqis are fulfilling their commitments to us," he said."

January 11, 2007

And then General Casey said...

"Speaking to reporters during a joint news conference, Casey discussed how long the "temporary" troop surge would be stationed in Iraq.

"I think it's probably going to be the summer, late summer, before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods," Gen. Casey said.

"You're going to see some progress gradually over the next 60 to 90 days," he added."

January 19, 2007.

When they were selling the "surge" not only would we see significant results by the end of summer, we would be able to judge the effectiveness of the surge while the troops were being committed. Then we were told that we can't begin to judge the progress of the surge until September. Now we're told we can't judge the surge until spring.

We should believe this latest timetable more than the others for what reason Johnny?

Kristol hits two of three points - no more terror attacks and a good economy. Iraq will depend on the President's successor. If the policy is abandonded, then it will look back as a failed policy. If we push thru to victory, he will be 3 for 3.

Bryan,

"Of course that is just conjecture, but its a pretty fair bet that no 9/11= no Bush reelection."

If there is no 9-11, there is no Iraq., All there is a humming economy - it would have been a landslide - Bush with 400+ electoral votes.

I love how the Neonuts talk about 9/11,none since.

What was 9/11,a mulligan for the Bush and little dick?

Humming economy,sure if you're making 300,000+.

Wm.Kristol should be eliminated.

If there is no 9-11, there is no Iraq., All there is a humming economy - it would have been a landslide - Bush with 400+ electoral votes.

Posted by: Terry | July 16, 2007 3:35 PM

/
VS.
/

The State of Public Opinion

Ruy Teixeira, The Century Foundation, 1/21/2004

Most Americans (51 percent to 43 percent) believe the result of the war with Iraq was not worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq (CBS News/New York Times poll, January 12–15, 2004).

Americans overwhelmingly (70 percent) disagree with the statement that "the threat of terrorism has been significantly reduced by the [Iraq] war" (Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, November 21–30, 2003).
By a wide margin (61 percent to 24 percent), Americans say that U.S. priorities should be to focus on finding Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members rather than focus on dealing with Saddam and Iraq (CBS News/New York Times poll, December 21-22, 2003).
The Economy and Taxes

By a substantial 57 percent to 39 percent margin, respondents say that they are uneasy, rather than confident, in Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the nation's economy (CBS News/New York Times poll, January 12–15, 2004).
The public overwhelmingly (85 percent) says that most Americans are not better off financially than they were in 2001. This includes 42 percent who say that most Americans are not as well off and 43 percent who say that they are in the same shape. Just 13 percent say that most Americans are better off (ABC News/Washington Post poll, January 15-18, 2004).
By three to one (54 percent to 18 percent), Americans say the country is financially worse off, rather than better off, than when Bush took office (Los Angeles Times poll, November 15–18, 2003).

LOL - typical delusional neocon.

Tony,

Nice. Success in Iraq will be up to the next president. Great how you absolve Bush of any responsibility after what will be almost 6 years of running a war of his choosing. So therefore you, Tony, would have to think "Mission Accomplished" and "the insurgency is in its last throes" (among others) were woefully shortsighted proclamations, given your expectance that it won't be over until Bush is well into his retirement. Would you agreee?

Wow, thanks Lefties, once again y'all prove you have no clue what you speak of, except for the moveon.org hilarity points you keep espousing. The U.S. trained Al Qaeda and the Taliban under Reagan?? No, folks, not the truth.
The U.S. did help the Afhans against the Soviet invasion (and here I thought you folks were against invasions of "sovereign" nations, no?). A FACTION of those fighting were the Taliban. We did not help the Taliban and we did not train the Taliban. Being for the Afghan people does not mean we were helping the Taliban. Oh and who started U.S. efforts of helping the Afghans? Would it not be the Left's hero, Peanutbrain Carter?

And now Maj. General Rick Lynch is a "middle manager in the military." Yes, a general who has 15,000 U.S. troops and 7,000 Iraqi troops under his wing is just a "middle manager." No, lamebrains, he is a a general on the ground in IRaq.

Tony,

Nice. Success in Iraq will be up to the next president. Great how you absolve Bush of any responsibility after what will be almost 6 years of running a war of his choosing. So therefore you, Tony, would have to think "Mission Accomplished" and "the insurgency is in its last throes" (among others) were woefully shortsighted proclamations, given your expectance that it won't be over until Bush is well into his retirement. Would you agree?

By the way John E., IF you do work for the state of Illinois, then that means you work for me. Who's your boss? Maybe us taxpayers should demand your firing as you clearly are a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

" Great how you absolve Bush of any responsibility after what will be almost 6 years of running a war of his choosing."

I'm not sure where you get that? I absolve Bush of nothing in terms of his gross mismanagement of everything involved with the war.

"So therefore you, Tony, would have to think "Mission Accomplished" and "the insurgency is in its last throes" (among others) were woefully shortsighted proclamations, given your expectance that it won't be over until Bush is well into his retirement. Would you agreee?

Posted by: kb | July 16, 2007 4:07 PM

Of course I would agree. This administration, and it's supporters have continually underestimated the costs, both finacially and militarily of this war, at the same time they have continually overestimated our degree of success in the war.

Can we leave the economy stuff out of it? The economy usually does fine by itself.

When it comes to the economy the President is like a coach of a sports team. He get's too much creit when its going well and too much blame when it goes bad.

The economy is cyclical, there is not much a president can really do.

Over the last 25 years, we have had a very strong economy most of the time. Reagan, Clinton and Bush II all benefited from a strong economy. The big crash of '87 and the post 9/11 down turn are 2 good examples that there is really not much a president can do.

But thank God for FDR, the '87 crash was "technically" worse than '29. But because of the safeguards FDR put in place, we didn't feel it as much.

Can John D EVER post a message WITHOUT calling people some type of name (i.e. John Edwards, Breck Girl). When I read his posts, he sounds like a fourth grader out on the playground stomping his feet and calling people names. Grow up, John!

Posted by: Janstress | July 16, 2007 3:50 PM

The answer is no.

John D.,

Yes, Ronnie RayGun & his merry band of conservatives did, in fact, support the Taliban against the Russians. There's even footage of, dare I say it, Dan Rather out there on the firing lines talking with the Taliban leaders about how they must keep the Russians out of Afghanistan so they can complete their mission of creating an Islamic country. Yes, the "conservatives" did, in fact know full well what they were doing. It's the same story for cementing Sadam Hussein into power. Their stated rationale was that keeping Hussein in power would serve two purposes: 1) as a hedge against Iran and 2) to keep order in a nation where the population would otherwise slip into civil war. The Sunni / Shiite hatred is very long and bitter. The USA didn't invent it: neither the looney left or the wingnuts. Your beloved "conservatives" are the ones who set this entire mess in motion. Don't try to blame hapless Jimmy Carter. His ineffectual time in office did nothing important in the middle east, ultimately, no matter how nice it seemed at the time. No, the REAL players are the Republicans: Eisenhower putting the Shah of Iran in power, Nixon keeping him there against the people's wishes and Reagan arming Hussein against Iran. From Nixon forward, blame Satancheney, Rumsfeld and the neocons.

Read your history before incorrectly correcting others.

GW:

Your comments are fine, except for your mistaken use of the words “conservative” and “conservatives” in sentences used to describe William Kristol and his affiliations. He is most certainly not a conservative. He is one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing, known as neo-conservatives (read pseudo-conservatives), who infiltrated the Republican party and infected it with their decidedly un-conservative philosophy. For a better understanding of the difference between true conservatives and neo-cons, read Congressman Ron Paul’s speech, entitled “Neo – CONNED !”, which he delivered on the floor of the House of Representatives on July 10, 2003. The full text can be found at:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

Ron Paul’s speech fairly characterizes the departure of the neo-con philosophy from traditional conservatism, although it’s not quite as thorough as I might have liked to see.

Even if one looks at Mr. Kristol’s article by itself, one sees a number of arguments that any decent conservative would never make. For example, Kristol make’s the strange argument that Bush’s administration will turn out to be “successful” because it is more likely that not that we will win the Iraq war. Aside from the issue of who might “win” the war, were that possible to accomplish through force, Kristol’s support for the decision to initiate that war ruins his conservative credentials. Only neo-cons subscribe to hard-core Wilsonianism – which is the philosophy of projecting American ideals abroad by force. Traditional conservatives have always viewed war as something to be used sparingly, and then only when needed to protect vital national interests. This is why, prior to the First Gulf War, one has to go all the way back to 1898 to find a Republican administration that led us into large scale military operations.

Similarly, Kristol touts Duh’bya’s tax cuts as somehow being worthy of value. Tax cuts are not consistent with conservative thinking unless, at the same time, there is a substantial increase in government efficiency and accountability and/or a corresponding reduction in the size of government and governmental spending. This is because the point of fiscal and institutional conservatism is to get government to do exactly what it is supposed to do, as efficiently and responsibly as possible – and then stop. There has been none of this during Duh’bya’s administration thus far. To the contrary, the federal government has grown in size and appetite, and is just as wasteful as ever. Duh’bya’s tax cuts in the face of increased spending – much of which he authorized – is nothing short of disastrous because it has required deficit spending to keep the ledger balanced.

Oddly enough, Kristol white-washes the deficit, claiming that employment is up, the economy is booming, and the deficit is now lower than it was in 2003 when the tax cuts were initiated. This is, at best, intentional nearsightedness and, at worst, a fraudulent misrepresentation. It may be true that the overall rate of deficit spending has slowed, and that revenues have been able to cover some of it. But this doesn’t change the fact the National Debt is now close to $8.9 trillion dollars as of July 13, 2007, which is an increase of about 2.5 trillion since January 1, 2003. See http://www.federalbudget.com/ and http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np , and do the math for yourself if you don’t believe me. Someone has to pay for all of this, and that someone will be the taxpaying public – since they pay for everything eventually anyway. Nor is it difficult to envision that the net, long term effect of deficit spending will be to depress the economy eventually because the money needed to pay down the debt will reduce public and governmental savings and, thus, become unavailable to increase production or create new or better jobs. Instead of whitewashing the deficit, Mr. Kristol has inadvertently given it a coat of clear lacquer.

There are many other instances in Kristol’s article worthy of similar criticism. Enough has been said, however, to show he has proven himself unworthy of the appellation “conservative” to the same degree Duh’bya has – for the reasons stated above (including Ron Paul’s speech.) This is why I do not subscribe to Kristol’s neo-con vision, and why I cannot stomach Duh’bya.

Many of the writers on this blog – Republicans and Democrats alike – erroneously lump Kristol, Duh’bya and their kind together with conservatives. This is because many have never taken the time to discover that not all Republicans are conservatives, and that they do not all belong to a single ideological bloc. Take time to consider that Ron Paul, a Republican, genuinely believes in fiscal and institutional conservatism, and he also opposes the Wilsonianism that led to the current Iraq war. That should speak volumes in terms of how far off base neo-cons are from Republican conservative traditions.

Next up: Why Democrats aren’t liberal.

Bill Kristol is not a neocon. He is conservative and there is a difference, though it seems few posters know what it is. Someone asked, "what is a neocon?"
Merriam-Webster defines neoconservative as " a former liberal espousing political conservatism." It is not an insult.

John D:

The Mujahideen we trained and equipped to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan were not all Afghanis. There were numerous foreign nationals among them, many of whom were Arabs. Regardless of whether we personally trained Osama Bin Laden, we most certainly equipped and trained numerous Afghani, Arab and other Muslim fighters who eventually became Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. We, of course, had no way of knowing they would eventually turn against us because we – unlike the Soviets – didn’t have foreign or non-Muslim troops stationed on Muslim soil at the time. Besides, they were happy to accept our help in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

If it is any consolation, those who seek to “blame” this on Ronald Reagan are not entirely correct. The policy of arming and training Mujahideen began during Jimmy Carter’s administration after the Soviets invaded in 1979. Ronald Reagan simply continued the policy until the Soviets left.

This is, however, an example of a foreign policy gaffe which has been practiced way too long by the U.S. That is, our leaders in the 20th century accepted, as true, the principle that any enemy of our enemies is our friend. Thus, we supported anyone who opposed fascism, then communism and, later, radical Islamic and terrorist movements. In the process, we propped up too many incredibly monstrous dictators, like Shah Reza Pahlavi, Samosa, Bautista, and even Saddam Hussein. These folks had support from both Democratic and Republican administrations, each in their time. One can only hope that the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan will cure us of this pernicious idea.

Truckee:

William Kristol is most definitely a neo-con. Go read Ron Paul's speech. He explains why Kristol is part of the neo-con cadre. I gave the link in a previous post.

That post also explains why a number of views espoused by Kristol are entirely inconsistent with conservatism. Read it, and I invite you to defend your comment after you have done so.

John W., I disagree with some of your contentions about what makes a conservative. Ronald Reagan was a tax cutter, and there is no mistaking his conservatism. The conservative philosophy is that those working and making their money should keep more of it, not the government taking more of it from them.
While I do agree that traditional conservatism has been slow to get into war, if necessary then war takes place. Teddy Roosevelt, a great president and great conservative in many respects, also went to war.
Today, there is a worldwide problem of radical Islam. For decades the world in many ways tried to deal with an Arab problem, often the wrong way. The theory was if you can create freedom and democracy in two Arab countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and with some underpinnings of democracy developing on its own in Iran, then perhaps a new world can emerge in that troubled region. That belief will either be proven to be right or incorrect. Either way, something had to be done and something had to be tried.
Ignoring or catering to radical Islam will not work. That philosophy never has worked throughout history.

DavidK,

Either you can't read or can't follow a simple if/then stmt. Your Iraq stmts are irrelavent.

Your polls were all 11-12 months prior to the election. Look at the facts: Eight month Recession, which started 40 days after he took office, ended in Nov, 2001. Economy was humming for three years prior to the election.

Also, w/o 9-11 there is no double dip of the stock market, only the dip that was cause by the revelation of all the accounting schenaigans that had been going on for years. Without the war and homeland security spending, we wouldn't have the deficits that we currently do (although they are small).

John E - a state employee??? Which DMV office is it?

As far as the US supporting the Taliban, you can't always pick your ideal ally - just ask FDR.

Nice try John W., but John D., Bruce and their ilk would rather spend their time basing and shouting down other posters than actually make an argument to support or question the original posting. Their arguement will alway be "the only good * * is a dead * *!"

For anyone who cares for more of an actual description of a neo-con, go look up two things - "Project for the New American Century," and "The American Enterprise Institute"

For insight into the neo-con mindset:
"Leo Strauss, the celebrated philosopher-king of the neoconservatives forging America’s radical new foreign policy was a controversial philosophy professor at the University of Chicago. Leo Strauss, who died in 1973, was little known outside of academic and think-tank circles until this year, but the influence of his ideas has long been felt.

His ideas emerge from his life experience. Strauss fled Nazi Germany for the safety of America in 1937, and blamed not fascism but the Weimar Republic’s liberal democratic ideals for permitting the rise of Nazism. A classicist, he taught the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Hobbes, instructing his students to look for secret “codes” in the texts. Truth, he believed, was the preserve of an elite few who might have to tell “noble lies” – an idea he lifted from Plato – to the uncomprehending masses. Are political entities, asked the charismatic Strauss, “not compelled to use force and fraud . . . if they are to prosper?”

“‘Weapons of mass destruction’ would be a noble lie,” says Shadia Drury, a scholar who has written two books on Strauss, “because you’re convinced this [war on Iraq] is the right thing to do and you are the wise few, the elite, who are leading the stupid masses, and the stupid masses aren’t going to agree to sacrifice their lives for nothing – for the glory of the nation – unless their own survival is at stake.” So you tell them their own survival is at stake.

Strauss believed that democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped up on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression, and since most people were naturally self-absorbed and hedonistic, Strauss believed that the only way to transform them was to make them love their nation enough to die for it. Such nationalism requires an external threat – and if one cannot be found, it must be manufactured."

Kitty Clark, from the September/October 2003 issue of Adbusters Magazine.

Or try this:
" There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

Irving Kristol, conservative author, considered one of the key founders of the neo-conservative movement

How about this:
"Under Cheney's tenure, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries in offshore tax havens increased from 9 to 44. Meanwhile, Halliburton went from paying $302 million in company taxes in 1998 to getting an $85 million tax refund in 1999. As CEO of
Halliburton, , Dick Cheney lobbied to lift U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya, saying they hurt business and failed to stop terrorism. He also sat on the Board of Directors of Procter & Gamble, Union Pacific, and EDS.

In 1997, he, along with Donald Rumsfeld and others, founded the "Project for the New American Century," a think tank whose self-stated goal is to "promote American global leadership".
He was also part of the board of adviser of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) before becoming Vice President."

The main goal of the neo-cons, since before the first Gulf War, has always been to establish a solid, long-range American presence in the Mid-East in order to protect Israel. Period!

Gee, what would Ronnie say?:
The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression–to preserve freedom and peace.

--Ronald Reagan

Care to comment now, John D?

John W., Yes, I will grant you that Wm. Kristol is a neocon. But Bush is most definitely a conservative of the extreme type. He is incompetent, but then again, gov't by conservatives is also shown to be demonstratively incompetent.

For example, every one of Shrub's appointments to the Supreme Court is 'conservative'. Not neocon. His gutting of regulatory authority of federal agencies is a conservative marker. But probably worst of all is the conservative obsession with abortion, 'moral values' and anti gay measures.

I fully realize that a real conservative like Hobbes would find virtually nothing in common with this batch of morons, but understand that the very word conservative connotates a resistance to change if you will. We can argue all day amongst ourselves as to the meaning of 'conservatives' and 'liberals', but to the public at large the current label bears no resemblance to their classical meaning.

Therefore, while you may truthfully argue that Bush and his gang are not 'true' conservatives, the general public neither knows, nor cares whether someone is a devotee to Hobbes or Locke. I submit that to the voting public, Bush is a conservative as much as Ted Kennedy is a liberal. I'm perfectly happy to demonize the 'conservative' brand by locking it by the neck to the current administration. We liberals have lived through 40 years of ridicule. We're not going to suddenly unilaterally disarm. These current Repukes are conservative and I'll do my darnedest to reinforce that meme as often as possible.

Ron Paul is a wannabe libertarian. Unfortunately, he's merely a less offensive conservative. Anyone who thinks that interfering with a woman's right to choose is a conservative, not a libertarian.

Nope, Republicans are 'conservative'. Sorry.

snalg:

You have overstated your position regarding “Ronnie RayGun & his merry band of conservatives” and their support for the Taliban.

First, Reagan supported the “Mujahideen” against the Soviets. Although a small number of Mujahideen later fought for the Taliban, they were not called, organized or led as the “Taliban” until sometime between 1992 and 1994; which is long after Reagan had left office. Also, Reagan didn’t start the policy of CIA funding and training of the Mujahideen. Jimmy Carter started it. Reagan merely continued that policy as a means of containing Soviet expansion.

Second, it is a distortion to characterize the Mujahideen’s goal as “keep the Russians out of Afghanistan so they can complete their mission of creating an Islamic country.” They wanted to eject the Soviets in order to restore Afghanistan to Muslim control. Afghanistan had been a Muslim nation ruled by Muslims, more or less, since 642 A.D., with the exception of intermittent British and Soviet imperialistic incursions during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Besides, the United States never had any particular opposition to Muslims governing traditionally Muslim countries. So, it really doesn’t matter if “the ‘conservatives’ did, in fact know full well what they were doing,” as you suggest. That was fine then, and it still is now.

Third, don’t expect anyone to buy the B.S. argument that “hapless” Carter and his “ineffectual time in office did nothing important in the middle east . . .” He sure did. When the Shah’s regime was on the verge of collapse, the Iranian military asked for Carter to support their coup. Carter refused, permitting the Ayatollah to take over. Then, the Iranians seized our Embassy and held our diplomatic corps hostage. Despite how justified it may have seen to the Iranian revolutionaries, it was an act of war. Carter’s total lack of spine in responding to this act of war, as shown by his unreasonable insistence on doing nothing but negotiating, emboldened our enemies in Iran to take more action against us. It’s because of his “hapless” leadership that Iran has been waging a continuous low level war against us since 1979.

Fourth, and finally, your penchant for blaming Republican leaders for all the gaffes in U.S. foreign policy is unfairly one sided. Kennedy also supported the Shah, as did Johnson, with the proviso that the Shah had to institute reforms. Even then, it was on Kennedy’s and Johnson’s watches when Khomeini denounced the Shah as an American Puppet, whereupon he was forced into exile. Even when Kennedy wasn’t pulling boners with his assassination attempts on Fidel Castro and the Bay of Pigs debacle, he, too, was racking up a string of dirt-bag dictators to carry out America’s anti-communist foreign policy. Ditto for Lyndon Johnson. Oh, and let’s not forget how the Democrats turned Vietnam into a real shooting war with the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Let us also not forget the numerous assassinations and successful coups against democratically elected leaders during the administrations of several Democrat Presidents. There’s plenty of dirt to fling about out there. Instead of blaming one party over the other, the truthful position would be to admit that they have all been dipped in blood and crap.

John W and Trukee, We've been hearing about the difference between "bigger government conservatives" and "less government conservatives" for a while in the press. "Lower government spending vs. more spending" conservatives. "Less Federal intrusion vs. more Federal intrusion" conservatives. The Republican conservatives have had their party gutted by a very liberal over-spending, morally controlling faction. I'm looking at Ron Paul as a very serious contender.

giraffe, are you on drugs? ALL Republicans are big spenders. It's called borrow and spend, and it is not sound fiscal management. There are no 'less federal intrusion conservatives' unless they are in your own mind.

John W.,

I agree: both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for leding the USA into trouble around the world. Eisenhower lead us into Viet Nam. Kennedy committed the first combat troups and Johnson made an unholy mess of it. Nixon & Kissenger mucked-about for years before the American people demanded an end. Johnson, of course, tried to have both guns and butter (Viet Nam & The Great Society) which ruined the economy for at least a decade. Carter was ineffectual, but people again came to believe they could trust that the Prez. could be honest - if inept. RayGun was a dolt, lead around by his minnions worse that Bush43. Bush41, a decent enough Prez., was so deeply involved in all those dictators being put into power, though, it's hard to cut him any slack. Clinton, well ... no one in America is capable of rationality when it comes to the Clinton presidency. Personally, I thought he did a great job. Still, the irrational haters never will, so I'll just skip that. Bush43, aka Cheneybush, lead by Satancheney (ok, I'm biased) has fallen under the spell of the Neocons, so well outlined above. It's his stubborn insistence on "his way" that has aliented the world. There's an excellent book, "Rise of the Vulcans," that I recommend anyone with an interest in recent hisotry read.

So, John W., yes - I admit I'm biased against the Cheneybush regime. They are murderers. I'm not biased against Republicans - just the idiot ones. Democrats, like Johnson & Carter can also be dumb. With the exception of Johnson, though, they don't seem mean-spirited and hateful like the Republicans since RayGun have been.

Most of the really hateful talk comes from political operatives like Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, James Carvel, Mary Matalan, etc. Oh ... and, of course, radio talk shows and Fox News.

John W., I disagree with some of your contentions about what makes a conservative.

Posted by: John D | July 16, 2007 8:22 PM

Go back to school.

John D:

I have the following to say in response to your last post:

1. I don't disagree with what you said about Ronald Reagan or the philosophy of allowing a man to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. But even Reagan was a realist. Yes, he started off by lowering taxes at a time it was economically feasible to do so. But he also insisted on slashing a large amount of spending from the budget to justify the tax reductions. Recall, also, that he turned around a year after his deepest tax cut and gave us a tax hike as he saw that it was needed. He raised taxes again the year after, and the year after. Also, unlike Duh’bya, he jettisoned supply side economics when he saw it wasn’t working. Even Daddy Duh’bya called it “voodoo economics.”

My point was that conservatism is not furthered by irresponsible monetary policies. But that is exactly what Duh’bya did when he lowered marginal tax rates without a corresponding reduction in government spending – like Reagan did. You are correct in suggesting the government isn’t doing its job when it needlessly deprives a man of the fruit of his labor. But that, again, is exactly what Duh’bya has been doing by forcing us into deficit spending. Deficit spending means we, the taxpayers, must pay back not only the money borrowed to balance the books, but also the interest. And just remember, Duh’bya found his veto pen only three or four times in his six years in office. Never once has he exercised his veto power to keep wasteful and/or unconstitutional spending out of the budget. Our National Debt has increased by 3.1 trillion dollars just since 9/11/01, largely because of his inability to restrain Congress’ (and his own) lust for spending money.

So, honestly, has Duh’bya really fulfilled the conservative ideal of letting the average Joe enjoy more of the fruits of his own labor? I am positive that he has not.

2. Teddy Roosevelt did not lead this country into war as President of the United States. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, he influenced McKinley to get us into a war with Spain and, having accomplished that task, took a commission and led a horseless cavalry unit into war. The only military action he took as President was to incite a revolution in Panama and then support it by dispatching the U.S.S. Nashville. We never fired a shot. Recall, also, that Roosevelt’s aggressiveness was limited to establishing U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, in which case it was just another version of the Monroe Doctrine.

3. I don’t mean to be overly technical, but Afghanistan is not an Arab country. They are Muslims to be sure, but not Arabs for the most part. Moreover, we went in Afghanistan for the explicit purpose of chasing down Al Qaeda and the terrorist State that supported it there. That something approaching a democracy emerged was not as intentional as it was merely a byproduct of the incursion.

4. Finally, regardless of whatever problems we may have had with “radical Islam,” the desire to grow democracy in a country has never been justification for an invasion. This is especially true if, as in the case of Iraq, there is no demonstrable connection between the country we invaded and the “radical Islam” we are fighting. The concept of a “just war” is that war is permitted only when there is some element of “self-defense” involved, either of one’s own country or another country. It’s hard enough trying to fit the Iraq war into that justification based on the notion that we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people (who show little interest in being liberated). It is impossible to fit that war into that justification if it was just to alter the political landscape to our liking.

I might add that it is not realistic to try to grow democracy there at the end of a bayonet. Muslim Arabs have way too many cultural and social hurdles to clear before they could ever accept democracy from the hand of invading infidels. Anyone who had bothered to examine their religion and the history of Iraq in the 20th century would have realized how truly bizarre it would be to suggest that Iraq was a good place to try to grow democracy. Iraqis revolted numerous times against Arabic princes largely because they were installed by the British after the British protectorate ended. And we expect the Iraqi people to take democracy from us? We can only hope and pray that they accept the democracy they already have as something of their own creation.