Posted on 04/26/2004 6:19:08 PM PDT by bob808
"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William Kristol has told the New York Times.
The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.
Alluding to his father Irving's definition of a neoconservative as a liberal who has been mugged by reality, Kristol describes a neoliberal as a "neoconservative who has been mugged by reality in Iraq."
Ranking his political preferences, Kristol added, "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan ... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."
Yes, it does. But as John Kerry backs partial-birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy, how can Kristol prefer him to other conservatives? Answer: War and Israel.
Like Kristol, Kerry wants more U.S. troops sent to Iraq where they can advance the neocons' project for empire. And at a fund-raiser in Juno Beach, Fla., Kerry declared eternal fealty to Israel: "I have a 100 percent record – not a 99, a 100 percent record – of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel."
Kristol's warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.
The day after Kristol said he preferred Kerry to conservatives skeptical of committing more troops to Iraq, this item appeared in the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Kristol thinks Mr. Bush should use the revelations [from the Woodward book] to shake up his war cabinet by firing Mr. Powell ... along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has pushed for smaller deployments of U.S. forces than some critics, including Mr. Kristol, think wise."
Set aside the suicidal folly of Bush dynamiting his war cabinet in an election year by firing its most famous members, and consider the ingratitude, the rootlessness and the cynicism on display here.
When it was launched in 1995, the Weekly Standard called on Colin Powell to run for president and offered its endorsement. Purpose: Hook up with the most popular man in the GOP who could restore the neocons and Kristols to pre-eminence and power. Powell rebuffed the offer. Ever since, he has been a target of abuse for having repelled the boarding party.
As for Rumsfeld, he has been a hero of neoconservatives for two decades. He co-signed the neocons' 1998 open letter to Clinton urging war on Iraq. He brought Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith into his Pentagon in the No. 2 and 3 slots. He put Richard Perle in charge of the Defense Review Board. After 9-11, according to Richard Clarke, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were making the case for attacking Iraq immediately, even before Bush had ousted the Taliban enablers of al-Qaida and bin Laden.
Agree or disagree with the defense secretary, Rumsfeld has been a lion in the neocon cause. To see the Weekly Standard snake on him like this brings to mind that wretched crowd in Yankee Stadium that took to booing Joe DiMaggio at the end of his career.
With Iraq turning into the Mesopotamian morass some of us warned it would become, the neo-Jacobins have decided they are not going to be the ones to ride the tumbrels.
In times like this, character comes through. By turning on the men they persuaded to go to war, by fabricating alibis and inventing excuses to absolve themselves of culpability for what they labored to create, they have revealed themselves for what they are: hustlers and opportunists devoid of principle, driven by an ideology of power and a passionate attachment to a nation not their own.
The Old Right curmudgeons who warned us against giving these vagabonds food, shelter and a warm place by the fire were right. We should have put them back out on the street.
President Bush should have listened to his father, who kept the neocons at some remove, and he had best beware, because they have a major card yet to play. That card is escalation.
With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, the neocon agenda is to widen the war into Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, and convert it into "World War IV," the war of their dreams, a war of civilizations, an Armageddon, with America and Israel on one side and Islam on the other.
Exiting Iraq with honor and avoiding the wider war for which the neocons are even now scheming is the first duty of patriots.
I think you've somewhat missed the point, which was that we've been somewhat suckered into spilling the blood of our young men and spending our treasure to fight someone else's war.
Then I think you've somewhat misunderstood Kristol. He's not complaining to get out, he wants us to send more in. If it was up to him, we'd be in the middle of a war with Syria and Iran now (and whoever else Sharon has on his enemy list) too.
Baloney
I think you have missed the point, Bill Kristol has no influence on policy in this country, We here about Richard Pearle and where is he right now?
These boogie men Pat Buchanan is so afraid of, are toothless warriors in a war that is raging in the media and has little or no effect on reality on the ground in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein used to be the strong man in the middle east and he openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews, if Saddam wasn't an enemy that needed war waged upon him, that you have no respect for those who died in the Gulf War in 1992
One can only wonder at the respect shown to those men by those who started that war.
Those "boogie men" were, to a large degree, responsible for funneling bad/overblown intel to the President, and he made a decision to wage war based on that. They had the greatest effect of all, which was getting our troops there on the ground in the first place.
"Saddam Hussein... openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews..."
Yes, he sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. But when did he ever "openly brag" about supporting terrorism against us?
Again we go back to the point of the article. No one is arguing that Saddam was a good guy. But who was he the biggest threat to? Were we not fed bad info? Who was feeding us that bad info and why?
We were manipulated into fighting someone else's war, my friend.
If you think for a second that the Neocons at "Think Tanks" like "Project for a New American Century" is where the CIA and the DIA gather their Intel for putting together the National Threat Assessment, then your watching way too many TV Pundits or smoking some really good stuff, because real Intel gathering people laugh at fools like Pat Buchanan and Bill Kristol.
Richard Pearle, and others like him, are simply Policy advisor's who submit their views. Intel is an entirely different beast. We are in this war because it was inevitable. How long should we have maintained the No Fly Zones as the U.N. was skimming off the Oil for Food Program?
Like I said before, Pat and Bill need to get a room, their drooling over each other is a bit much
He generally does. Why do you think he is so hated so much.
This entire piece sounds like some SNL skit script!
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.