Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPJ; Pharmboy; reformed_democrat; RatherBiased.com; nopardons; Tamsey; Miss Marple; SwatTeam; ...
BBC Media Shenanigans/Anti-Semitism Alert! Search for the paragraph above that begins with "Perhaps the most dramatic effort to expose..."
4 posted on 09/28/2003 5:24:55 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Timesink; JohnGalt; sheltonmac; Burkeman1
Who makes up this potent faction? Within the administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is usually identified as the key actor, together with Richard Perle, a member and until recently the chairman of the Defense Advisory Board. A handful of other high-level Bush appointees are often named as adherents of the neocon faith, including Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, National Security Council staff member Elliott Abrams, and Vice Presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI, where I work), the Weekly Standard magazine, and William Kristol's Project for a New American Century--all three rent offices in the same building--are often described as constituting the movement's Washington command center.

Bump

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan--Irving Kristol

Sorry but I'm not part of any group that considers FDR a hero. Never mind the 'foreign policy', if that's what you want to call the current actions by the Bush administration

26 posted on 09/28/2003 5:55:30 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Timesink
MURAVCHIK ON NEOCONS [Jonah Goldberg]

I've only now finished Josh Muravchik's dissection of the neocon conspiracy buffoonery that overcame so many otherwise intelligent people in recent times. It's on the web at Commentary's web site, but for a fee.

It is an amazingly well done piece, much better than my own three part opus on the subject, I hate to say, though mine gave more historical background. Here's something I didn't know. The 1996 "paper" allegedly prepared by influential neocons which advocated the toppling of Iraq for Israel's sake, was not a paper at all. Rather, it was merely little more than the collected minutes from a conference. From Murachik's piece, discussing how the BBC misused the "report":

The BBC claimed to have found a smoking gun one that others have pounced on as well. Bradshaw "In 1996, a group of neocons wrote a report intended as advice for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benny [sic] Netanyahu. It called for … removing Saddam Hussein from power, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." Perle and Douglas Feith, the latter now a high official in Bush's Defense Department, were among those who had "contributed" to this paper.

Yet even if the BBC had characterized the document accurately, it would not imply what the BBC (and not the BBC alone) suggested it did. The Americans whose names appeared on the paper had long sought Saddam's ouster, an objective that was already, in 1996, the declared policy of the Clinton administration. It would thus make more sense to say that, in preparing a paper for Netanyahu, they were trying to influence Israeli policy on behalf of American interests than the other way around. Indeed, most Israeli officials at that time viewed Iran, the sponsor of Hizballah and Hamas, as a more pressing threat to their country than Iraq, and (then as later) would have preferred that it be given priority in any campaign against terrorism.

To make matters worse, the BBC fundamentally misrepresented the nature of the document. Contrary to Bradshaw's claim, no "group of neocons" had written it. Rather, it was the work of a rapporteur summarizing the deliberations of a conference, and was clearly identified as such. The names affixed to it were listed as attendees and not as endorsers, much less authors.

Posted at 10:21 AM

('The Corner' in National Review, September 28, 2003)
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

66 posted on 09/28/2003 6:24:07 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Timesink
Thanks for the ping...
224 posted on 09/28/2003 10:05:33 PM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson