how so? "anti-war" in context of some war discussion = opposed to the war
Most conservatives have developed amenesia, for example, about their strong antiwar stance on Kosovo
hm, you seem to have gotten the idea that conservatives who opposed the Kosovo war were saying to you "not just Kosovo, I'm opposed to all wars, ever!" How strange. where did you get that idea in the first place?
Most conservatives ... have highly placed allies in the state department, chiefly Wolfowitz.
uh... how's that?
you're saying that "most conservatives" have highly placed allies in the state department (that'd be great! i want allies, highly placed ones even better..the more the merrier).
But then for some reason you mention Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of .. Defense.
You've really lost me.
The key problem I have with article is that Fields implies that those who use the term imply a Jewish conspiracy.
Some do, that's just an observable fact.
Not all who use the term "neo-con" do, I'll grant. ok?
Most who use the term do not and instead refer to people associated with the Weekly Standard crowd, most of whom have supported a Wilsonian approach since the end of the Cold War.
Ok. can you explain why "the Weekly Standard crowd" are "neo-cons"? which ones, all of them? they all used to be Trotskyites and are now conservative hawks? Or just some of them. if just some of them, why lump them together? etc.. I'm just asking for a little more precise thought here.. you did say you were opposed to "smears", right?
There are plenty of Jews on both sides of this divide.
Indeed.. which makes it weird that so many people took special note of those Jews who were on the pro side of the Iraq war, huh?
In contrast to most conservatives who opposed the Kosovo war, for example, neo-cons supported it.
uh, what's this "in contrast to" stuff? One war was not like the other. Not all wars are alike. I supported ousting Saddam Hussein militarily, but I'd oppose ousting Canada's Jean Chretien militarily. One good, other bad, that's why there's a "contrast". why do you think there's some inconsistency here?
"In contrast to" my opposition to Clinton's tax hike, I supported Bush's tax cut. DUH!!!1 they were different things and I supported one but not the other because one was GOOD and the other BAD, IMHO. what's the contradiction?
Again you seem to have gotten this weird idea that anti-Kosovo-war folks were, therefore, required to oppose all wars ever, for some reason. bizarre
Kristol even threatened to bolt the GOP because of its "isolationism"
Uh, and..? so..?
what's Bill Kristol got to do with anything? I'm not even sure he's a "neo-con", was he ever a socialist? let me know....
Heck, I'm not against all wars. I fully supported the Afghan war on this thread. Believe it or not, not even Al Gore is against all wars! He was cheerleader for the Kosovo and Haiti intervention and voted for the Gulf War I. Hence, my point about the misuse of the word "antiwar."
Only a minority of antiwar folks on Gulf War II (left or right) are against all war, hence you are attacking a straw man as seems to be your wont. On the other hand, if you have any proof that a majority of folks who opposed Gulf War II were consistent pacists and agains "all wars" please provide it. I'm all ears.