What, you may ask, is a "neo-con"?
Here are 2 definitions of "neo-conservative" from dictionary.com (emphasis mine):
1) moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists
2) an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s
Just wanted to give you a base for where Michael Kinsley lays the blame for the Iraq war in his most recent column for Time. The title and subtitle of the article together read: "When 'Oops' Isn't Enough: Would it really kill the neocons to apologize for the Iraq war?"
Read the article. How many people does Kinsley hold responsible?
TWO - Kenneth Adelman, for two articles he contributed to the Washington Post (here and here), and Richard Perle, for claims we could overtake Iraq with 40,000 troops.
Fair case to make, I suppose, especially when considering both men recently decided to play the blame game, typical in this post-election climate...
BUT...let's revisit the headline of the article...more specifically, the subtitle:
"Would it really kill the neocons to apologize for the Iraq war?"
hmmm...
Let's see who voted for the initial Iraq War resolution:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Looks like 77 - 23, in favor.
You think all those in favor of the war in '02 were "neo-cons"? Didn't think so...unless you want to call Harry Reid and John Kerry "neo-cons"...
Of course, these "neo-cons" fall right in line with Michael Kinsley now. Here are excerpts from David Limbaugh's Bankrupt, explaining the flip-flops of both Senators:
on John Kerry:
"Democrats continued wrongly to accuse Bush of lying about WMD throughout the 2004 presidential campaign. John Kerry stuck to that strategy but had to be careful that it didn't cause him to look too dovish, especially during wartime. Though he had been soft on defense throughout his political career, he tried to prop himself up as a pro-war candidate, highlighting his 'heroic' war record - which would later be obliterated by John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth....
"Caught between mainstream American opinion, which supported the war, and the antiwar base of the Democratic Party, John Kerry needed to bolster his justifications for voting for the Iraq war resolution or (Howard) Dean would continue to hammer him over his vote. So Kerry repeated the false charges that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and claimed a direct connection between Saddam and September 11. But Kerry also manufactured the story that he only voted for the resolution because President Bush promised he would not attack Iraq unless he built a broader multilateral coalition and further exhausted diplomatic avenues. This claim was convenient, but absolutely ludicrous. The resolution was unconditional. Moreover, the resolution was not just about WMD. As David Horowitz has pointed out, there were twenty-three 'whereas' clauses in the resolution 'articulating the rationale for the use of force,' only two of which mentioned WMD stockpiles. Twelve of them addressed Saddam's violation of UN resolutions.
"Kerry's lies about the conditionality of the war resolution, coupled with his refusal to support the $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill for our troops in Iraq (he voted for it before he voted against it), sufficiently mollified the base. But they were evidently not enough to convince the general electorate of his fitness for commander in chief, even with all the military hype he engineered at the Democratic Convention that culminated in his hokey salute-studded announcement: 'Reporting for Duty.'" (p. 21-22)
on Harry Reid:
"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, in a quintessentially cynical and highly unusual move, called for a closed-door meeting of the Senate to discuss the various claims against Bush concerning Iraq. Reid claimed - deceptively - that Majority Leader Bill Frist had reneged on his pledge to investigate thoroughly whether the administration hyped the prewar intelligence....Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts was outraged at Reid's maneuver, relating that just twenty-four hours before Reid called for the meeting, his staff had informed Democrats on the committee that they were moving toward closure on those issues. Referring to Reid's move, Roberts said, 'If that's not politics, I'm not standing here.' Significantly, the reason the Intelligence Committee's investigation was delayed - which is supposedly what led to the frustration giving rise to Reid's stunt - was the discovery of a secret memo of Senator Jay Rockefeller revealing the Democrats' plan to exploit the committee's findings for political gain. The memo, originally reported by FOX News's Sean Hannity, discussed the Democrats' plan to time the investigation of prewar Iraqi intelligence to maximize embarrassment to the Bush administration and thereby damage the president's re-election efforts." (p. 23 - 24)
Vote for the war before voting against it? Don't use Iraq as a political football? Blame the "neo-cons"???
Nice try Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kinsley. Blame lies on BOTH sides of the political aisle...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Chris darling, I would much rather read a blog that isn't 70% quotation.
The neo-conservative bashing is one that is happening not only within liberal leaning forums but also (and probably much more heatedly) in conservative backrooms. Heck forget the backrooms, just turn on MSNBC and listen to Dick Army. I think the greatest gift the Republican party can give to American Poltics is to turn away from this hard line neo-conservative strong hold that far right-wing policy makers have on the Republican party. If they did that even a liberal could not argue that there is not some coherent value in some traditional conservative values (controlled spending, thoughtful use of military force, et cetera), and I am sure they we would all benefit from an actual debate on those issues. The problem with neo-conservatives (and I do make the distinction beween "neo" and the actual "party of Lincoln") is that they seem to argue with some higher moral authority. As if there is no arguement to be made against them because...well just because in their view it would be un-patriotic to disagree? I wonder what the very conservative signers of the Declaration of Independance would have thought about attacks on free speach. The American people don't want goverment to be a father figure, a douting paternal protecter that tells us not to worry because they will fix the world accroding to their own infallable wisdom. Americans want accountability, transparency, proof of just cause. And if that just cause is just crap then we have the right to question, criticize, and vote. The evidence given to go to Iraq has since proved false. Whether is was fabricated or cherry picked or truly believed to be accurate, does not matter. It was wrong and now the people who provided that false justification have to make their pennance.
Anywho I would much rather hear you argue in your own words.
Can you do gay marriage next? I have tomorrow off so I am going to be bored.
lotta words man, lotta words. you too john. welcome to blogspot chris!
I feel it's important to quote - extensively. Too often, pundits on TV spout off the top of their heads liberal or conservative "talking points" (i.e., "Bush lied, kids died!" or "We need to stay the course in Iraq") without basis or merit. I think I can present an argument with much evidence without the evidence dictating my point of view - it's a fine line, but that is the goal.
On two of your points:
1) attacks on free speech?!?! Check out Tammy Bruce's "Thought Police" for an ASSAULT on those organizations who front as free-speech patrons, but subscribe to censorship, such as the ACLU and NOW.
2) I REALLY want to get into the "did Bush lie about WMD?" debate at some point, but it will take me a long time to formulate an argument. It's a favorite talking point of both sides and one I will address.
THANKS!
Quoting is a valuable tool. However you said you don't like it when pundits spout talking points. I feel like the quotes are just regurgitated talking points from some of the very pundits you just mentioned. I just think it would be more interesting to read your analysis and/or observations about one or two selected issues. The real power is not in our ability to find excerpts that coincide with our opinions, but rather to concisely and eloquently express what those opinions are in our own way. But of course it is your project so you can use whatever format you wish. I will still enjoy reading it.
i don't think i'm spouting talking points, but trying to show support for my argument (that "neo-cons" are not the only ones to blame for the failures of Iraq). When you hear a pundit yell "Bush lied - kids died!" as a reason to leave Iraq, it's infuriating. First off, the soldiers are not "kids", and the subject of "Bush lied" can be debated without hysterical ranting. Conversely, when you hear someone on the right say "We need to stay the course in Iraq", that statement is so devoid of meaning that you don't know what they're talking about - stay the course in what way? Same amount of troops? Same military strategy? Same leadership? It's wide open...
I'm trying not to find people WHO support my argument, but facts THAT support it. If that involves extensive quoting, it's for two reasons:
1) it exposes people to passages they may not be otherwise familiar with, and they may want to read more, and
2) it fully contextualizes the basis for my own argument
Again, this blog is a work in progress. Keep the feedback coming, I appreciate it! I welcome any suggestion to improve it.
thanks!
Post a Comment