There was/is a sequence that you have to recognize.
When the conflict in Libya arose, the NeoCons in the GOP immediately began criticizing Obama saying that he should intervene. The NeoCons felt safe doing this because the Realists have great influence over Obama's foreign policy and the Realists wouldn't allow Obama to intervene.
But, then, the Liberal Interventionists in the Dem party joined the NeoCons in the GOP and called for Obama to intervene. So Obama intervened.
Now the NeoCons have to walk it back. Change their position, for partisan reasons. They originally criticized Obama for not intervening and now they are criticizing him for intervening.
Sullivan's response to Horowitz's original piece was ridicule and Horowitz's second piece was an attempt to deflect the ridicule by claiming to be a Realist. And of course, Horowitz pulled the NeoCon whipping boy bogeyman, George Soros.
So, I should accept your assertion that Horowitz is a neo-con and not a realist based solely on your unspported claim to that effect, even though you go on to say he doesn’t support the neo-con position on this subject?
And as for Soros, are you saying he is not a powerful manipulator of political and even econimic events in this country and beyond? Are you saying he doesn’t bankroll powerful leftist organizations aimed at undermining the country and Israel? He’s a boy scout? Or what? You seem to be defending him.
It sounds to me like you just don’t like Horowitz. Is it because he Jewish? Soros hates Jews, too, or at least he hates Israel, Nazi collaborator that he was and all.
Interesting.