Dan wrote:
He is not a neocon; he's a compassionate conservative. Wolfowitz is the
highest rank neo-con in the administration, I think.
(I just read Gautam's most recent post and I have to disagree with both of
you. If it looks like a duck etc. etc.)
Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush's brother are founding members of PNAC, the
infamous neoconservative think tank.
A profile of Neoconservatism from the Christian Science Monitor:
Neoconservatives…
* Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
* Share unwavering support for Israel
* Support American unilateral action
* Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
* Promote the development of an American empire
* Equate American power with the potential for world peace
* Seek to democratize the Arab world
* Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan
Bush may not call himself one, but he fits the bill.
It's not intellectually dishonest....it has to do with the history of
that claim. Neo-con was a term coined to refer to a group of
intellectuals
(mostly Jewish) who became conservative. It was a group/movement that
was fairly well defined. During this time, the claim that they were not
really patriotic Americans surfaced. Their real loyalty was to Israel,
not the US.
You see that claim in writings of folks like Pat Bucannan, I think. Since
then, the term has been used by some in a much broader context. But, the
claim that the neo-cons are really loyal to Israel is one that clearly
dates back to the time when the neo-con had a distinctly Jewish nature.
Furthermore, isn't it not only possible but highly likely that the goals
of the Neocons are intended to be beneficial to both Israel _and_ the
U.S.?
Sure, that's all right. I don't have any objection with that. One
important question is why Zimmy, who differs with many policies put forth
by the neo-cons, still is very offended by the statement. If the Jewish
nature of neo-con wasn't important, why would criticism of conservatives
stick in his craw so? Let's assume, for argument sake, that his,
Gautam's, and my anti-Semitic radar is too sensitive and we'd overstate
things. Why would Zimmy, in particular, see a comment about Jews when
the comment had nothing to do with Jews? What's more likely, a liberal
Jew is aware of a conservative Jewish movement; or a liberal Jew wrongly
thinks
that lots of conservative Christians are really Jewish.
I don't know and I don't really understand Bob's viewpoint - I wish he'd
clarify. PNAC and the neoconservative movement look to me to be the
foundation of the current administration so when I hear the term Neocon, I
think of the President. I don't even recall hearing the term until either
shortly before the 2000 election or even afterwards.
In conclusion; while neo-con has been used as a much broader
category....the accusation that we are referring had its origin at a time
when the Jewishness of the neo-cons was part of the perceived problem.
It did? When was the accusation dated? What makes Sheehan's words (if
indeed she said what you have quoted) specifically reference the
historical Neocon movement and not the present administration?
Can I also ask what the source of the quote you posted was?
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
