On this one, he is indeed.
Posted on 02/17/2011 6:28:44 AM PST by Stepan12
The night they drove old Hosni down — and all the neo-cons were singing. Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol was the kapellmeister.
Prior to the exit of Beast Mubarak, Kristol (in yet another of his Olympian pronouncements), thundered: “The United States must support the Egyptian awakening, and has a paramount moral and strategic interest in real democracy in Egypt and freedom for the Egyptian people. The question is how the U.S. government can do its best to help the awakening turn out well.”
How do we know neo-cons aren’t really conservatives? Conservatives are realists. They confront reality without ideological blinders. They do their best to perceive the world as it is, not as they wish it was.
Neo-cons think democracy is the magic elixir — good for what ails the downtrodden, regardless of their benightedness and barbarism. The neo-cons’ touching faith in the universalism of democratic longings is like the liberals’ faith in economic interventionism.
In the case of the Egyptian masses (better they should go back to sleep), popular sovereignty would mean amputating the limbs of shoplifters, killing Christian converts on the spot, a Cairo-Tehran alliance (possibly with Iranian missiles in the Sinai), abrogating Egypt’s 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel, the merger of mosque and state — and, please welcome the Muslim Brotherhood.
Kristol is incensed — incensed I tell you — over Glenn Beck’s warning that the “Egyptian awakening” may be a milestone on the road to a caliphate.
(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...
Not the ones who want to police the world. This strikes me as a family squabble between two feuding factions of conservatives who believe in international social engineering by the U.S. They only disagree on which side "we" should massively support with our tax dollars.
I don’t read articles with misspellings in the title.
Kristol was always false coin. He probably always will be.
Neocon ping!
I find this split of foriegn policy interesting..the Glenn Becks vs the Bill Kristols. Kristol is taking the MSNBC position of Matthews and Maddow on this. He believes supporting the revolutions (against dictators loyal to us) will make them like us, On the otherhand Beck believes there are certain people (having dangerous world views) that it is not in the rest of the World's best interest that they vote. He also points out that both the Marxists and the unions are promoting this uprising, no-one I would march with.
Post Bush-Cheney Republican split on Muslim uprisings.
Maybe Obama/Bernake are leading their revolution by starving them with high food and energy prices via QE1,2+3, without firing a shot LOL. (Warning :This might not work on Iran!)
The original article has the correct “discreet”
Wrong word, wrong usage.
Feder has a marvelous take down for swishy Kristol at the end of his article;
‘There’s a reason William Kristol is a popular talking-head. He’s a liberal’s conservative — pompous, toothless, embracing many of the left’s favorite clichés and always willing to attack authentic conservatives’.
I think Dr. Krauthammer is something of the same, except Dr. Krauthammer is more intelligent.
=================================
REFERENCE The Neocons’ Egypt Dilemma Why are the pukeneos, who criticized Obama’s 2009 failure to support pro-democracy forces in Iran, now advocating going slow in Egypt?
On the surface, the situation in Egypt seems tailor-made for knee-jerk neocon approval: a Mideast country (smackdab in the neo-neighborhood) that is chafing under the rule of a repressive and entrenched leader, its people eager for more democracy, and protesting in the streets on their own behalf.
THOSE WHO KNOW THE SELF-SERVING WAYS OF THE NEOCON, KNOW THE ANSWER As is their wont, Me-First Neocons are in a spin----striving to keep the money flowing, so that war profiteer Dickie Perle's Mideast oil company plans come to fruition. Probably Mubarak is in on the deal.
This is an EXCELLENT article.
For the record, Beck is right on the money, brother...
That was the first thing I noticed, too. First, the headline writer had to use a long-outdated buzz phrase which wasn’t very clever to start with, and then he couldn’t choose the correct homophone.
And if I never see another column headlined, “The Audacity of (Something)” or “The (Whichever) of Hope,” it will be too soon. (/irrelevant rant)
It was only yesterday (before the conservative-defining 2010 Midterms) that Billy Kristol was humming the neocon theme song that he himself penned, called: "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism."
The “art of government,” wrote Kristol (Fox talking head), is to translate the “liberal or radical impulse into enduring institutions,” which in a constitutional republic means that neocons want socialist ends to be achieved with conservative means.
As Billy's deceased daddy once wrote:.....the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. Irving Kristol August 25, 2003 issue Weekly Standard.
Now here's the neocon methodology in brief: neocon advice to the Republican Party is to compromise and accept the moral ends of liberal-socialism, but with the caveat that conservatives can do a better job of doling out the goods and services.
Note well who neocons demand compromise from: Conservatives are being asked to compromise THEIR principles. Liberals are being asked ONLY to compromise the manner in which welfare is delivered.
N/C'S SECRET AGENDA? Neoeons' moral appeasement serves to embolden the Left........a lesson conservatives need to learn posthaste. Conservatives need to grasp that compromising one principle inevitably leads to hundreds of compromises.
In the neocon-driven conservative relationship, liberalism will always have the upper hand and will always dictate the future. Having abandoned principles, neoconservatives can offer no principled opposition to the creation of new welfare programs in the future. Of course, they would see this as a problem only if they opposed welfare programs, which they do not.
In addition to progressives----Teddy and FDR------neocons add Bismarck to their list of statesman-like heroes. According to arch-neocon William Kristol, the “idea of a welfare state is in itself perfectly consistent with a conservative political philosophy—as Bismarck knew, a hundred years ago.”
The neocons’ squat in the Republican Party to restore not a Jeffersonian model of government, but rather the Prussian welfare state. This, according to the neocons, this is what it means to be “in the ‘American grain.’” This is their contribution to what they consider is Republicanism, “the stupid party” as they call it.........and to the American way of life.
=====================================
BTW, there is a reward out for anyone who can determine what Billy Kristol and the rest of the pukeneos actually do for a living. None of the pukeneos have any visible means of support, unless you count:
(1) media prostitution,
(2) editing stupid magazines subsidized by offshore wire transfers,
(3) infiltratng the US government,
(4) endless think-tank pontificating on how nice it is to goad the US military into invading foreign countries of the pukes choosing,
(5) cheerleading amnesty, National Greatness, America as Empire, endless war, and John McCain,
(6) squatting in the Repub Party, hoping to destroy it from within,
(7) religious cleansing of the Repub Party, and,
(8) kicking so/con Repubs to the curb.
Kristol and his ilk are perhaps the main reason why conservatism is so misunderstood. They short circuit our message. They either don’t grasp Conservatism, or they disagree with it ardently. Either way the message of Conservatism isn’t conveyed, and is all too often dismissed or put down.
This plays right into the hands of the Left. “See, even Kristol thinks these people are nuts.” And indeed, all too often he does.
For years I have advocated Kristol and others stand down so “actual”
Conservatives could address important matters of the day, so the public could hear truth and decide for themselves.
On this one, he is indeed.
If that is the case, then why is Kristol so wrongheaded about Egypt? Is the Muslim Brotherhood okay as long as it is the choice of enough people?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.