Article

2004-08-22 Home Front: WoT

Discord in neocon ranks emerges over Iraq War

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 6:32:47 AM|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Unfortunately for the Neocons, they made the typical mistake of inviting anyone in who agreed with them. In this case, Fukuyama is a crackpot. As you might recall, he was the man who proposed the "end of history", with the fall of the Soviet Union--again to much hoo-hah in the media.
I keep hearing him described as "brilliant", but I suspect this "brilliance" was made in much the same way as liberal "intellectuals" make theirs: through the clever use of public relations and telling people at cocktail parties what they want to hear.
In any event, expect this single dissent in a movement to be trumpeted as *proof* that the entire movement was wrong, is wrong, is falling apart and must be destroyed. This would be based on some pretty ridiculous axioms.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-08-22 10:32:43 AM|| 2004-08-22 10:32:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 It's occured to me that the word "neocon" has become simply another smear tactic, devoid of meaning; it's generally used to describe, negatively, those who supported the war, but the attributes attached to it don't seem to match up very well with the people who actually support it.

Take, for instance, myself; I have no idea whatsoever who Irving Kirstol or whatever his name is is... I'm a semi-libertarian conservative and aside from a more libertarian period in the early 90's have been conservative all my life.

I've never been a liberal...

I've never been in a think tank.

Heck, I'd never _heard_ Fukuyama described as a "neocon" until I started reading articles like this one; I basically only knew of him as that guy from the early 90's who said history was over, and there wasn't any need for the watchers at the walls anymore... which even then bothered me as being hopelessly naive, and doesn't sound like the sort of philosophy that would support the war.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-08-22 10:41:03 AM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-08-22 10:41:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I've only got 3 words for this post:
NYTimes. Fukuyama. rex.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-22 10:41:37 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-22 10:41:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Phil, "neocon" to these people means "Jew."

And rex, old boy, you'd do yourself a service to read the Podhoretz piece cited on "World War IV."
Every time the author talks about "realists," he means people just like you!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-22 10:44:22 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-22 10:44:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Finally, some people are coming to their senses.

Posted by Anonymous6139 2004-08-22 10:45:59 AM|| 2004-08-22 10:45:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#6
Re #3 (GreatestJeneration): I've only got 3 words for this post: NYTimes.

Nothing at all in this article has anything at all to do with the New York Times in any way at all.

Please try to make sense.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-08-22 10:52:14 AM|| 2004-08-22 10:52:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Irving Kirstol or whatever his name is is

It's the Jooooooooooooos!

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-22 11:20:30 AM|| 2004-08-22 11:20:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Uh, Mike S., the article the post is about is from the NYSlimes.
Make sense now, your highness?

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-22 11:37:56 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-22 11:37:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Nothing at all in this article has anything at all to do with the New York Times in any way at all.

Except for where it's published.

Try to make sense, Mike. I know it's hard, but, geeze.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-22 11:40:11 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-22 11:40:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 BTW, the only people who love to talk about "neocons" and "paleocons" in my experience have been drooling, deranged Dimocrats like Chris Matthews on BSDNC's "Whiffleball."

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-22 11:41:10 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-22 11:41:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 This is a good thing, Whatever one thinks about Fukuyama, this breaks up the group think. And, it helps to clarify the message and keeps out in public. Mericans need to hear it again and again, hammer it home relentlessly and Krauthammer and Podhoretz make two very effective mallets.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-08-22 12:20:09 PM|| 2004-08-22 12:20:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 That's why he's named Kraut Hammer.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-22 12:28:08 PM|| 2004-08-22 12:28:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Friends just call him "The Hammer".

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2004-08-22 1:50:32 PM|| 2004-08-22 1:50:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 It is always remarkable to read liberal MSM portray fissues amongst groups it knows nothing about. That is, other than that they don't agree with them. I thought the LLL were in favor of diversity, including thought?

Posted by Capt America 2004-08-22 1:57:25 PM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-22 1:57:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Everyone here knows, right, that "neocons" are all Jews? Just for your information.

Posted by gromky 2004-08-22 2:28:12 PM|| 2004-08-22 2:28:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Fukuyama is the moron who came out with the idea of the End of History - the idea that western liberalism (in the classical, not the 1960's sense) would inexorably take over the world - . And now the NYT is trotting out the guy who came up with this load of horsedung as someone credible. NYT has been writing articles that treat conservatives as mental patients for a while now. This BS about neo-conservatism is profoundly ahistorical. Conservatives have always wielded the big stick when it was in the national interest. There is nothing neo (or new) about the invasion of Iraq, other than the fact that it occurred recently. Reagan invaded Grenada, intervened in Lebanon, sank Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf, financed the Afghan resistance against the Soviets and supported the contras against the Sandinistas. Lyndon Johnson invaded the Dominican Republic and intervened in Vietnam. The reality is that the US, like every other power in the world, will act in its interests when this is desirable. George HW Bush's New World Order, where so-called "allies" get a veto over actions that are in America's interests, is exactly what GWB is working to repudiate. It is GWB's father's policies that were neo-conservative, not GWB's policies, which are assertive in the traditional American way.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 2:38:32 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 2:38:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Ah yes, I knew this article would bring out the usual ego-wounded suspects with their tired knee jerk responses.
a)there's the professional "victim" shipman who continually reworks the same old same old phrase as a rebuttal to any debate because playing the victim is comfortable like wearing an old shoe
information if the ideas are uttered by anyone other than herself, herself, and herself. Well, sometimes political geniuses like Zayhed or his brother are considered peers to Jen.

Well,I hope GWB has more sense than you stalwart soldiers of the neocon movement, because unless he boots out Wolfowitz et al out of the WH real soon, we will go through a long drought of not having a Republican in the Oval Office because Iraq will become the Republicans' albatross like the Democrats' Vietnam. Neocons are inflexible and arrogant and could care less about learning from errors in judgement and changing course as events dictate. Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy. At least Fukuyam has power of reflection and his ego is small enough to see the light of day. If you neocon-ists cannot see the similarity between Wolfowitz and McNamara, you are truly blind.

Postscript: If you worry NYT will "infect" you, Jen, or victimize Jews, shipman, here's another perhaps "safer" source. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,9981001,00.html
"Francis Fukuyama: Shattered illusions"
29jun04 The Australian
...Several neo-conservatives, such as Pulitzer prize-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer, have noted how wrong people were after World War II in asserting that Japan could not democratise. Krauthammer asks: "Where is it written that Arabs are incapable of democracy?" He is echoing an argument made most forthrightly by the eminent Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, who has at several junctures suggested that pessimism about the prospects for a democratic Iraq betrays lack of respect for Arabs.

It is, of course, nowhere written that Arabs are incapable of democracy, and it is certainly foolish for cynical Europeans to assert with great confidence that democracy is impossible in the Middle East. We have, indeed, been fooled before, not just in Japan but in Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism.

But possibility is not probability, and good policy is not made by staking everything on a throw of the dice. Culture is not destiny, but culture plays an important role in making possible certain kinds of institutions â something that is usually taken to be a conservative insight.
Though I, more than most people, am associated with the idea that history's arrow points to democracy, I have never believed that democracies can be created anywhere and everywhere through simple political will.
Prior to the Iraq war, there were many reasons for thinking that building a democratic Iraq was a task of a complexity that would be nearly unmanageable. Some reasons had to do with the nature of Iraqi society: the fact that it would be decompressing rapidly from totalitarianism, its ethnic divisions, the role of politicised religion, its tribal structure and the dominance of extended kin and patronage networks, and its susceptibility to influence from other parts of the Middle East that were passionately anti-American.

But other reasons had to do with America. The US has been involved in approximately 18 nation-building projects between its conquest of the Philippines in 1899 and the current occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the overall record is not a pretty one. The cases of unambiguous success â Germany, Japan and South Korea â were all cases where US forces came and then stayed indefinitely.

In the first two cases, we weren't nation-building at all, but only re-legitimating societies that had very powerful states. In all of the other cases, the US either left nothing behind in terms of self-sustaining institutions, or else made things worse by creating, as in the case of Nicaragua, a modern army and police but no lasting rule of law.

This gets to a fundamental point about unipolarity. True, there is vast disparity of power between the US and the rest of the world, vaster even than Rome's dominance at the height of its empire. But that dominance is clear-cut only along two dimensions of national power, the cultural realm and the ability to fight and win intensive conventional wars. Americans have no particular taste or facility for nation-building; we want exit strategies rather than empires.

So where does the domestic basis of support come for this unbelievably ambitious effort to politically transform one of the world's most troubled and hostile regions? And if the nation is really a commercial republic uncomfortable with empire, why should Americans be so eager to expand its domain? In Iraq, since the US invasion, we Americans have been our usual inept and disorganised selves in planning for and carrying out the reconstruction, something that should not have surprised anyone familiar with American history.
...The Bush administration went into Iraq with enormous illusions about how easy the post-war situation would be: it thought the reconstruction would be self-financing, that Americans could draw on a lasting well of gratitude for liberating Iraq, and that we could occupy the country with a small force structure and even draw US forces down significantly within a few months.

On the question of the threat posed by Iraq, everyone â Europeans and Americans â were evidently fooled into thinking that it possessed significant stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. But on this issue, the European bottom line proved to be closer to the truth than the administration's far more alarmist position.

The question of pre-war Iraq-al-Qa'ida links has become intensely politicised in the US since the war. My reading of the evidence is that these linkages existed but that their significance was limited. We have learned since September 11 that al-Qa'ida did not need the support of a state such as Iraq to do a tremendous amount of damage to the US, and that attacking Iraq was not the most direct way to get at al-Qa'ida.

The point here is not who is right, but rather that the prudential case was not nearly as open-and-shut as many neo-conservatives believed. They talk as if their (that is, the Bush administration's) judgment had been vindicated at every turn, and that any questioning of their judgment could only be the result of base or dishonest motives. If only this were true. The fact that Washington's judgment was flawed has created an enormous legitimacy problem for the US, one that will hurt American interests for a long time to come...Democracy promotion, through all of the available tools at America's disposal, should remain high on the agenda, particularly with regard to the Middle East. But the US needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social engineering projects in parts of the world it doesn't understand very well. Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and he has written 2 books...

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 2:39:17 PM|| 2004-08-22 2:39:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Everyone here knows, right, that "neocons" are all Jews
What's your point? That because Wolfowitz and Feith et al are Jews we should give them a pass when they are wrong?? Why don't you get a clue from what Bill Cosby told blacks about using victimology as a cover for stupidity.

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 2:45:51 PM|| 2004-08-22 2:45:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 rex: What's your point? That because Wolfowitz and Feith et al are Jews we should give them a pass when they are wrong??

The vast majority of Jews in the public eye are liberal, and they are trying to discredit Wolfowitz and Feith in both Jewish and Christian eyes by pointing to them as traitors to Judaism to Jews and by suggesting that they are Jewish interlopers to Christians. It's a pretty cynical approach, similar to liberal demonization of black conservatives. The liberal view is that Jews belong on the liberal reservation. The real Jewish cabal is liberal - look on the 527 list and you will discover that liberal Jews are way over-represented on the top 25 list of donors.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 3:06:03 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 3:06:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Rex: If you worry NYT will "infect" you, Jen, or victimize Jews, shipman, here's another perhaps "safer" source.

Rex needs to get out more often. Most papers outside the US, including the semi-conservative Telegraph, make the NYT look like a right-wing newspaper. Their mission in life hammering on Americans, whom they view as violent, illiterate and crude. I understand why they might need to think of themselves as superior by printing anti-American perspectives, but it's interesting that rex gets some kind of masochistic pleasure out of reading them. The Australian's problem isn't with neo-conservatives, it's with conservatives - and with American national interests asserting themselves. There's simply nothing new about America's recent actions - WWII was hailed as a great crusade to make the world safe for democracy - but the reality is that we ceded Central Europe to the Soviets, and acquiesced in the return of European rule to their colonies around the world. Rhetoric and actions are two different things.

Fukuyama: Though I, more than most people, am
associated with the idea that history's arrow points to democracy, I have never believed that democracies can be created anywhere and everywhere through simple political will.

This is the biggest load of horsedung ever. George HW Bush's New World Order ideas were based on Fukuyama's idea as expounded in his essay in National Interest, which was that liberal (in the classical, not 60's sense) democracy was the inevitable wave of the future. In a world where foreigners become more like Americans, it seemed prudent to give foreign countries a veto over American actions, which was what George HW Bush did when he organized a coalition composed of countries which in many cases were semi-hostile to America. Now that his thesis has been thoroughly debunked, he starts backing away from it, claiming that this wasn't what he meant in the first place. I used to think that this guy was a dope, back in the early 90's. Now I think he's lying, dishonorable dope.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 3:21:49 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 3:21:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 ZF: In a world where foreigners become more like Americans, it seemed prudent to give foreign countries a veto over American actions, which was what George HW Bush did when he organized a coalition composed of countries which in many cases were semi-hostile to America.

The reference here is to Desert Storm, and the use of the UN, which set an unfortunate precedent that all future actions in the American interest would somehow need to be submitted to the UN, whereas other countries fought their own wars without even paying lip service to the UN.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 3:25:51 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 3:25:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 ZF: The vast majority of Jews in the public eye are liberal, and they are trying to discredit Wolfowitz and Feith in both Jewish and Christian eyes by pointing to them as traitors to Judaism to Jews and by suggesting that they are Jewish interlopers to Christians.

Now this approach might work with Jews and with the main line liberal Christian denominations, but it won't work with the evangelical (i.e. right-wing) churches, who think that Jews are the chosen people. They would like to convert Jews to their religion, but don't have a problem with Jews remaining exactly as they are. Liberal Jews are literally playing with fire here - if Jews get demonized in the non-Jewish public's eyes, the damage won't be limited to Jewish conservatives.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 3:33:38 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 3:33:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Fukuyama: The Bush administration went into Iraq with enormous illusions about how easy the post-war situation would be: it thought the reconstruction would be self-financing, that Americans could draw on a lasting well of gratitude for liberating Iraq, and that we could occupy the country with a small force structure and even draw US forces down significantly within a few months.

Lying comes just as easily to Fukuyama as spinning implausible scenarios like the End of History. The reality is that we were figuring on years of protectorate status whereby Iraq would be ruled much like MacArthur ruled Japan. But what has actually happened is the restoration of Iraqi rule after just over a year. What Fukuyama was quoting is best-case scenarios put out to prod maximum effort out of the folks in charge of governing Iraq. We don't have the best case situation in Iraq, but we don't have the worst case either. Despite huge amounts of money available to the terrorists, and contiguous states that support jihad against America, we are losing men at the rate of two a day, far less than in Vietnam, where the national interest at stake was far less vital.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 3:52:49 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 3:52:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Neocons are people that believe everyone is capable of democracy if the hob-nailed boot can be taken off of their necks long enough.

Liberals are people that believe Arabs are incapable of running a democracy.

One view of human nature is optimistic, the other sounds patently racist. With all things being equal I'd prefer to gamble along with the optimists until we know 100% certain they are wrong because if they are right they will change the world for the better.

Posted by Yank 2004-08-22 3:55:31 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-08-22 3:55:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 This is the biggest load of horsedung ever
Neocons didn't think so at the time that Fukuyama first formulated the neocon theory with his fellow academic colleagues.

it's interesting that rex gets some kind of masochistic pleasure out of reading them
I have 2 college degrees and enjoy intellectual stimulation. I continue to like reading widely and broadly to exercise my mind. If you consider reading as "masochism" just continue warming the couch in front of the TV with the dial permanently imprinted to FOX News Channel or having your ear pasted to the radio to hear only Hannity and Rush.

Rex needs to get out more often. Most papers outside the US, including the semi-conservative Telegraph, make the NYT look like a right-wing newspaper
You miss my point, ZH. I was MOCKING shipman and Jen for their rigid inflexible mindets. So I said, hey if you are "scared" to read NYT, here's a another choice. Get it. It was supposed to pull their chain. Nevermind. No one has a sense of humor here.

Anywho...accusing The Australian of left wing bias is a mot point in this instance - the article was written ENTIRELY by Fukuyama. Fukuyama is a neoconservative/conservative and he wrote the article because he could not bear to hear the muzzle that his colleagues were putting on other conservatives to challenge or voice dissent. Because of his high profile in the neocon movement,he felt it was his responsibility to speak out. The article in The Australian is a shortened piece of what appears full text in the 6/30/04 issue of the National Interest, which requires a subscription, which I do not have.

The vast majority of Jews in the public eye are liberal, and they are trying to discredit Wolfowitz and Feith in both Jewish and Christian eyes by pointing to them as traitors to Judaism to Jews and by suggesting that they are Jewish interlopers to Christians. Liberal Jews are literally playing with fire here - if Jews get demonized in the non-Jewish public's eyes, the damage won't be limited to Jewish conservatives.
Time to move on to a new conspiracy theory, ZH. Jews are not being victimized in America, neither by Christians or Liberal Jews or pink polka dot and blue striped zulu monsters. Take off your pointy hat and stay on point.

a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?
b)Should the USA be using the military for nation building ventures?
c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?
d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?

These are some of the questions that Fukuyama brings up. What Bush 41 did or did not do in the Desert Storm venture or what Liberal Jews are doing to conservative Jews is not relevant to the article Kukuyama wrote in The Australian. Why go off on all these tangents? Please, just answer the man's questions that he poses or post an article that will generate discussion about the unrelated topics you bring into this thread.

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 4:08:50 PM|| 2004-08-22 4:08:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 "Democracy promotion, should remain high on the agenda, particularly with regard to the Middle East. But the US needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social engineering projects in parts of the world it doesn't understand very well."

From what I can tell Fukuyama is blowing a little smoke. He's all for democratization as long as it's done correctly. Well, here here ol chap, well said and very timely too!

That the overthrow of saddam, which has gone swimingly, to the messy attempt to keep the country of Iraq whole, should not have been, or done wrong, and on and on. It was done, is being done, is not finished, and is a side show to the bigger problem. Which are herded sheep like gentle.

Iraq will morph into a cauldren of crap while the power that be takes control. To not give democracy there a shot would be lame. If, on the other hand, islamic sense of thought and tribal pettiness can't be overcome, so be it, saddam is toast. I think the country will prolly splinter and we can help those who whis our help. But keep an eye on jihad. Being a fractured state is better than being a nation that has the destruction of the US as an ideal. (IRAN)

Posted by Lucky 2004-08-22 4:10:01 PM|| 2004-08-22 4:10:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Yank: Neocons are people that believe everyone is capable of democracy if the hob-nailed boot can be taken off of their necks long enough.

There is nothing new about this idea. American occupation troops enforced it in Japan and Germany with far fewer forces than we have in Iraq today. What is beyond Fukuyama's ken is the fact that the guerrilla war we are facing today is the direct consequence of not killing millions of Iraqi combatants in the major combat phase. But at the same time, if we had fought the Iraqi armies instead of letting most units disperse by themselves, we would have taken many more casualties ourselves - hence the 10,000 body bags readied for the campaign. The difficulties with the reconstruction has nothing to do with incompetence, unless the City of New York can be judged incompetent for not having broken ground on new Trade Center construction 3 years after 9/11. It's to do with Iraq's longstanding poverty, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure during the campaign and the fact that Fukuyama is a scribbler, not a doer - being someone who constructs castles in the sky - he doesn't actually have a good idea of how long something takes to get done. Note that Bosnia is a shambles, economically, after a decade of UN governance, and Kosovo is a disaster zone after 6 years of UN governance, and neither of them is encountering a major insurgency.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 4:11:41 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 4:11:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Like I said:
Finally, some people are coming to their senses.

Posted by Gentle 2004-08-22 4:12:47 PM|| 2004-08-22 4:12:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Rex: Neocons didn't think so at the time that Fukuyama first formulated the neocon theory with his fellow academic colleagues.

Fukuyama shares this view mostly with the New York Times. Conservatives don't generally think that democracy happens naturally. Force is typically how it's imposed. Some of them fail, but democracies in Third World countries all have their roots in centuries of colonial rule that followed despotic monarchies.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 4:21:17 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 4:21:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Rex, you accuse the proponents of the war of being closed-minded, getting their news only from Fox or Rush, and their leadership mainly from Feith or Wolfowitz... but you're being closed-minded yourself when you do this. You've constructed this massive straw-man argument of the opposition, the "dreaded arrogant neocons," but I don't believe the straw man itself is accurate.

The press wants to believe in the straw-man too, hence their promotion of Fukuyama as the spokesman-turned-rebel against the so-called movement.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-08-22 4:22:57 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-08-22 4:22:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 "Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy."

And your experience would be... what?

Posted by Dave D. 2004-08-22 4:25:41 PM|| 2004-08-22 4:25:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Rex: Fukuyama is a neoconservative/conservative and he wrote the article because he could not bear to hear the muzzle that his colleagues were putting on other conservatives to challenge or voice dissent. Because of his high profile in the neocon movement,he felt it was his responsibility to speak out.

Actually, Fukuyama is a lying, dishonorable dope of no particular distinction who is acting against American interests. Rex seems to think that conservatives rally to charismatic figures, just as the Nazis rallied to Hitler. Actually, that's not the case. Conservatives rally to bedrock ideas, and whomever carries the tune best is selected on the basis of his adherence to those ideas. Conservatives aren't "censoring" him - they're just saying that his ideas are not conservative ideas - which they probably aren't, if the New York Times and the Australian are giving them an airing. If Fukuyama wants to become a liberal, that is his choice. Conservatives support people who give voice to their ideas rather than worship them as the source of ideological truth.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 4:27:29 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 4:27:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Rex: Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy.

Dave D.: And your experience would be... what?

Actually rex is someone who opposes a draft because he fears he will be called upon to serve. He thinks old people and women should serve in the combat arms, because the young are too valuable to sacrifice in battle.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 4:29:36 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 4:29:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Rex: Time to move on to a new conspiracy theory, ZH. Jews are not being victimized in America, neither by Christians or Liberal Jews or pink polka dot and blue striped zulu monsters. Take off your pointy hat and stay on point.

This isn't a conspiracy theory any more than liberalism or conservatism is a conspiracy theory. Liberal Jews are demonizing conservative Jews by pointedly pointing to their religious faith as a means of discrediting them. They are also pointing to selected conservatives as religious Christians to discredit them. I wonder what would happen if conservatives started pointing out the obvious, and referring to many prominent liberals as Jews.

Rex: a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?

What Rex fails to realize is that conservatives aren't the Nazi or Communist parties. Conflicts and schism are natural. The Democrats dropped the KKK, started buying off black constituents with goodies and embraced the Communist Party on its way to the present. Republicans have repudiated the John Birch Society and taken on evangelicals as their constituencies.

Rex: b)Should the USA be using the military for nation building ventures?

Conservatives have always felt that nation-building is part of the national interest - when America's security interests are at stake. Kosovo and Bosnia were not in the American interest - Iraq and Afghanistan are.

Rex: c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?

Americans have always felt that inside every person was an American struggling to get out. When rex looks at non-white people, he sees mud people.

Rex: d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?

Actually, conservatives have taken on multi-decade foreign ventures throughout American history, when American interests were at stake. Fukuyama in trapped in the Vietnam quagmire mindset and his personal conversion to anti-American liberalism. Americans want whatever will make America more secure - and it is the job of conservatives to chart out a path that will ensure America's security by restoring the loss of deterrence that led to the 9/11 attacks.

Rex: These are some of the questions that Fukuyama brings up. What Bush 41 did or did not do in the Desert Storm venture or what Liberal Jews are doing to conservative Jews is not relevant to the article Kukuyama wrote in The Australian.

Actually, they are perfectly relevant in demonstrating that Fukuyama is a flake whose ideas are not to be taken seriously. He shades the truth in the anecdotes he uses, and leaves out context to make his arguments more persuasive. His essay and its proofs have about as much merit as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

Rex: Why go off on all these tangents? Please, just answer the man's questions that he poses or post an article that will generate discussion about the unrelated topics you bring into this thread.

These aren't really tangents - the article combines terminology - neo-this and neo-that that assumes foundational ideas that we should question before we even get to the meat of the article. The NYT's methodology is to distort reality by coming up with false things we can all agree about before launching into its polemical expositions. I am merely taking that apart before I smack the argument down.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 4:51:46 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 4:51:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Rex, you miss the boat on one very important item:

Of ALL the societies in the Middle East, Iraq was by far the most secular excepting possibly Jordan (moreso than Israel in fact).

As such, it was the logical tagert for "Democracy building". And again, I see a great deal of naysaing, but no hard, clear-eyed vision of what to do better. Basically, the kind of conservatism you espouse is simplemined isolationism at its core. And looking back at 9/11, that is simply no longer an acceptable policy, paleo- or neo- conservative alike.

"there were many reasons for thinking that building a democratic Iraq was a task of a complexity that would be nearly unmanageable."

Nice statemnt - but I do note that the article you post presents not one established hard enumberable fact, nor does it place forward ANY alternative to passivity and allowing the middle east to rot futher until far more American lives would be spent in changing things there.

Rex, you are not a conservative so much as you are an isolationist. Either that or you want Bush out of there. Both areas you seem to have a lot of animus toward the current administration, almost to the point of being a (politically) self-destructive fanatic purist.

Propose a solution. Otherwise you and your ilk are whiners who need to get out of the way of those of us who are trying to get things done.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-22 5:25:58 PM|| 2004-08-22 5:25:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#36
Neocons didn't think so at the time that Fukuyama first formulated the neocon theory with his fellow academic colleagues.

Odd. I've never heard anyone pointing to Fukuyama as being involved in formulating the "neocon theory".

Hell, I've never even heard of the "neocon theory". Perhaps rex is referring to the Wilsonian theory, that America is safest when dealing with democracies, and therefore it is America's interest to create democracies?

If so, then the idea predates the "neocons" by a few decades, at least.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-22 5:33:00 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-22 5:33:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Fukuyama is a lying, dishonorable dope of no particular distinction who is acting against American interests.
Kukuyama wrote 2 books and he has a PhD and he is a professor at John Hopkins. I think he earns the right to be heard and not to be dismissed as a "dope" by people who have 1/100 the academic credentials. I think Fukuyama is every bit as qualified or more than journalists like Krauthammer or Podhoretz, neither of whom have a PhD.

Rex seems to think that conservatives rally to charismatic figures, just as the Nazis rallied to Hitler.
Always the character assassination when one is too empty headed to debate. Victimology is old. Why not act like a grown up for a change?

Conservatives rally to bedrock ideas, and whomever carries the tune best is selected on the basis of his adherence to those ideas
Conservatives believe in principles that involve basic things like small gov't, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, national defense including protecting sovereignity. "Tunes" and "adherence" to tunes even if they are off the scale have nothing to do with conservatives.

If Fukuyama wants to become a liberal
It's the other way around. Most neocons like Fukuyama and Wolfowitz and Podhoertz and Krauthammer were liberals who changed to conservatives-ergo the term "neo"- when they saw the virtue of using the military to promote their airy fairy ideas. Why don't you do some reading about the history of how neoconservativism came to be instead of yapping about something you know nothing about?

Actually rex is someone who opposes a draft because he fears he will be called upon to serve
I oppose the draft because it is age and gender biased and it violates the constitution. I am not of draft age so thanks but no thanks I don't need anyone to interpret my political positions for me, least of all, an uninformed person like you. Go "channel" your pet dog or cat, if you think you are so good at it.

He thinks old people and women should serve in the combat arms, because the young are too valuable to sacrifice in battle.
No one or everyone should be draft-able, not just one age and gender of our society, where the majority make decisions over this small sector of "powerless" individuals that is their best interests and with no risk to them. It's called "tyranny" of the majority. I thought in our society every individual had equal rights and was not to be discriminated against. Forgive me, ZH, for the preposterous idea that our young are "valuable." Perish the thought. It would appear that you view young men as being totally expendable. Nice.

Rex said: Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy
#31 replies: And your experience would be... what?
Wakey, wakey, #31. You are missing my point. They are no more qualified than me and therefore and thusly NEITHER me nor they SHOULD BE THE ARCHITECTS, THE POINT MEN FOR PLANNING wars/military ventures. Get it???

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 5:38:04 PM|| 2004-08-22 5:38:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Rex: Fukuyama wrote 2 books and he has a PhD and he is a professor at John Hopkins. I think he earns the right to be heard and not to be dismissed as a "dope" by people who have 1/100 the academic credentials. I think Fukuyama is every bit as qualified or more than journalists like Krauthammer or Podhoretz, neither of whom have a PhD.

Political academics are people of no particular distinction. Liberals like rex might think that passing tests and writing papers that other academics read is a sign of great distinction. I put far greater stock in concrete achievements - a non-commissioned officer in the US military is better qualified than Fukuyama to lead the American people. Rex, like his liberal pals, thinks that a PhD is a sign of greatness.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 6:03:01 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 6:03:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Remember Rex means peace.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-22 6:05:18 PM|| 2004-08-22 6:05:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Rex: Always the character assassination when one is too empty headed to debate. Victimology is old. Why not act like a grown up for a change?

The basic point was that people don't look to figureheads to decide what they should think. They know what they think and look to like-minded public figures to help influence other people. Rex's reference to victimology makes no sense, like much of his other expositions.

Rex: No one or everyone should be draft-able, not just one age and gender of our society, where the majority make decisions over this small sector of "powerless" individuals that is their best interests and with no risk to them. It's called "tyranny" of the majority. I thought in our society every individual had equal rights and was not to be discriminated against. Forgive me, ZH, for the preposterous idea that our young are "valuable." Perish the thought. It would appear that you view young men as being totally expendable.

Rex dresses up his physical cowardice as moral strength. This is so laughable, it's like a parody. Conservatives believe in being young and of the masculine gender confers responsibility. Rex is clearly a new kind of conservative who believes that women and the elderly should serve before the young and masculine do. I'd call rex a neo-conservative, except there is nothing new about his views - it sounds a lot like traditional liberalism.

His moronic rants about "chest-thumping" "neo"-conservatives are just ludicrous. Conservatives believe in "chest-thumping" and have gone to war numerous times to prove their point. Deterrence comes from concrete damage visited upon the enemy, not from carrying a big stick. The will to use that big stick must be visible, and the only way to demonstrate that will is by going to war.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 6:14:00 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 6:14:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Remember Rex means peace.
And how is that non-sequiter comment relevant to the article and the discussion at hand. shipman? Oh well, at least you have dropped the Jewish victim guise. I should view this change as progress I guess. Who knows... twenty years from now perhaps you may be able to string a few sentences of sequential and coherent thoughts together.

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 6:18:35 PM|| 2004-08-22 6:18:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Rex: Wakey, wakey, #31. You are missing my point. They are no more qualified than me and therefore and thusly NEITHER me nor they SHOULD BE THE ARCHITECTS, THE POINT MEN FOR PLANNING wars/military ventures. Get it???

Tommy Franks planned the war. Period. And military campaigns have to be approved by political leaders who are not mere rubber stamps. Ultimately the political buck stops at the president's desk.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 6:19:08 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 6:19:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 I think Fukuyama is every bit as qualified or more than journalists like Krauthammer or Podhoretz, neither of whom have a PhD.

Krauthammer has an equivalent degree, an MD, from Harvard.

Not that it matters much, just correcting your mistake.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-22 6:30:58 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-22 6:30:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Oh well, at least you have dropped the Jewish victim guise. I should view this change as progress I guess
Unlikely.
But please do not mock me, it is hurtful.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-22 6:49:48 PM|| 2004-08-22 6:49:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 "I oppose the draft because it is age and gender biased"

Rex, thats very LIBERAL of you. "Gender Biased" - straight fromthe leftist lingusitics playbook.

Your mask is slipping, liberal.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-22 7:14:19 PM|| 2004-08-22 7:14:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 "Remember Rex means peace"

I was under the impression that Rex means "king" and Pax means "peace".

"Liberals are people that believe Arabs are incapable of running a democracy."

Any specific examples of a liberals claiming anything like that?

The only time I've heard something like that was when a conservative Rantburger (don't remember who) had said that if the USA fails in Iraq that'd be proof that the Arabs are incapable of running a democracy and so you won't need to bother trying it again in the future. Which had seemed to me a quite elegant transfer of blame, not to mention unaware revalation of the Messianic complex: "If belief in Jesus can't help save the sinners, noone can." changed to "If USA's actions can't produce democracy in Iraq then nothing can".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-22 7:37:14 PM|| 2004-08-22 7:37:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Language is flexable Aris. Cool at one time meant under the average temperature.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-22 7:53:47 PM|| 2004-08-22 7:53:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Rex, thats very LIBERAL of you. "Gender Biased" - straight fromthe leftist lingusitics playbook.Your mask is slipping, liberal.

No, dearie, you are getting hormonal again. Focus please: it's the language of "today."

That the draft only applies to one of two genders is better expressed how exactly, Ms.Spook Genius? Spit it out old wise one.

Sheesh. No wonder we had such a colossal failure of intelligence gathering re: the Iraq War with folks like you on the case.

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 8:03:35 PM|| 2004-08-22 8:03:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Conservatives believe in being young and of the masculine gender confers responsibility.
Stick to channeling what dogs and cats value. You are bit too spacey to speak to conservative values.

ZF said: Rex seems to think that conservatives rally to charismatic figures, just as the Nazis rallied to Hitler preceded by several paragraphs of non seqiter verbiose gush about Jews being victimized by liberals and Christians and the world
Rex replied:Always the character assassination when one is too empty headed to debate. Victimology is old. Why not act like a grown up for a change?
ZF:Rex's reference to victimology makes no sense, like much of his other expositions
???? Who is the one that goes off on 25 different directions? Can you focus on intellectual rebuttals instead of character assassination? Don't interpret what I think. What do you think and can you support your arguments? I asked you to respond to 4 points raised one of the articles and your responses are personal attacks on me or on Fukayuma, whom you don't know from Adam.

Examples of ZF's personal attack based responses, none of which have any documented support :
Rex's question a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?
ZF's response: What Rex fails to realize is that conservatives aren't the Nazi or Communist parties...Republicans have repudiated the John Birch Society and taken on evangelicals as their constituencies.

Rex's question c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?
ZF's response: Americans have always felt that inside every person was an American struggling to get out. When rex looks at non-white people, he sees mud people.

Rex's question d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?
ZF's response: Actually, conservatives have taken on multi-decade foreign ventures throughout American history, when American interests were at stake. Fukuyama in trapped in the Vietnam quagmire mindset and his personal conversion to anti-American liberalism.

Answering as you did in post #34 is self-revealing. ZF, you have "issues" and don't want to role play therapist-patient with you. Good luck.

Posted by rex 2004-08-22 8:42:55 PM|| 2004-08-22 8:42:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Rex: Who is the one that goes off on 25 different directions?

When I stomp on rex for making stupid statements and refer to historical precedents, he calls this going off in 25 different directions. I think rex believes that the proper way to address the issues is by looking at it from the standpoint of the likelihood of him getting drafted. I'm sorry, but national security has nothing to do with rex's personal safety.

rex: Can you focus on intellectual rebuttals instead of character assassination?

Can rex focus on intellectual rebuttals instead of denying that he has been rebutted?

rex: Don't interpret what I think.

I don't interpret what rex thinks. He tells it to me without requiring much interpretation on my part.

rex: What do you think and can you support your arguments? I asked you to respond to 4 points raised one of the articles and your responses are personal attacks on me or on Fukayuma, whom you don't know from Adam.

Rex can't defend his positions from attack, and declares victory without answering any of my objections. This is what defines a liberal. (For some reason, rex believes that getting the elderly and women to fight in his behalf is a conservative position. I don't know where he gets his definitions from, but it's certainly not what most people think of as conservatism - neo or otherwise). History doesn't matter to liberals, but it matters acutely to conservatives, and it's hard to see how rex gets off dismissing my references to history when he seems to know nothing about it, but still calls himself a conservative. Conservatism is about conserving the lessons of the past. And these lessons don't have to do with the inevitability of defeat, as rex and his liberal cohorts would seem to believe.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 9:04:01 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 9:04:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Rex: Examples of ZF's personal attack based responses, none of which have any documented support :
Rex's question a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?
ZF's response: What Rex fails to realize is that conservatives aren't the Nazi or Communist parties...Republicans have repudiated the John Birch Society and taken on evangelicals as their constituencies.

Rex is a champ at distorting arguments. My point here is that conservatives don't march in lockstep. Arguments do occur among conservatives. Only an intellectual of rex's caliber would see this as a personal attack.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 9:06:43 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 9:06:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 rex: Rex's question c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?
ZF's response: Americans have always felt that inside every person was an American struggling to get out. When rex looks at non-white people, he sees mud people.

This is well-documented in rex's comments - it's not a personal attack - he said that brown people throughout the world are united against America, so there's no point trying to do any good out there. If quoting his words back at him is a personal attack, rex is very thin-skinned indeed.

Note that I also pointed out that Americans have always felt that everyone can be an American, and that is reflected in our immigration policy. If everyone can be an American, then it also follows that American democracy is exportable abroad. Rex's skull is apparently too thick to draw the appropriate conclusions, leaving me no choice but to spell it out for him.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 9:11:12 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 9:11:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 rex: Rex's question d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?
ZF's response: Actually, conservatives have taken on multi-decade foreign ventures throughout American history, when American interests were at stake. Fukuyama in trapped in the Vietnam quagmire mindset and his personal conversion to anti-American liberalism.

I am merely stating the historical precedents for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are carried out, as in previous campaigns, in response to American interests. American troops have mounted punitive expeditions, wars for unconditional surrender, skirmishes, et al. Fukuyama is implying that Iraq and Afghanistan were embarked on without much thought or debate and I am saying that he is wrong. Other administrations have done as much or more than GWB. And yet rex appears to believe that precedent has no place in decisions about war. Regime change and invasions isn't a new thing to America's military - American administrations have pursued it since the founding of the Republic. People who call these policies new are either ignorant of American history or deliberately trying to hobble American credibility, which rests on a demonstrated willingness to destroy its enemies. And that cannot be accomplished short of war.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 9:18:36 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 9:18:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 As a very late addition to this fascinating "thread"....

This article reminded me of the series of page one articles in the NY Times (in the summer preceding the invasion) that alleged discord among Republicans vis-a-vis the wisdom of the war. Of course, those allegations turned out to be mostly vapors of the Times' anti-admin imagination. The only reason these allegations will be harder to refute is because (as Kirkpatrick pointed out) there is no such thing as a Neocon Party you can be a card-carrying member of.

But note: the Times rests its entire case for a Neocon Revolt on one article by one guy the Times classifies as a "neocon".

As "journalism", pretty thin gruel, doncha think?

Posted by Wuzzalib 2004-08-22 10:10:41 PM|| 2004-08-22 10:10:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Rex, attack me personally all you want: it only shows how hollow and shallow youa re. You ahve yet to address the points I raised, and the facts of the situation damn you and your argument as being irrelevant at best, or disingenuous and dishonest intellectually if taken prima facia. Your "arguments" are rife with improperly drawn inferences, hyperbole, and liguaistic misuse that borders on the CLintonesque.

Rex, you've become a troll, and shot any credibility you had here - is that what you intended?

You certainly are no conservative - not near the likes of W.F. Buckely. That leads me to believe you are simply a leftist trying to argue like a conservative, but unable to completely unmoor yourself from "left wing" speech patterns and ideas. Either that or the "John Birch" type of far right lunatic.

But in either way, you have yet to prove a point or even offer up evidence that you have any plan outside of snide character attacks on the current administration.

Rex, you are a fraud.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-22 10:23:54 PM|| 2004-08-22 10:23:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 OS: That leads me to believe you are simply a leftist trying to argue like a conservative, but unable to completely unmoor yourself from "left wing" speech patterns and ideas. Either that or the "John Birch" type of far right lunatic.

I wouldn't be so quick to insult the John Birch Society by suggesting that rex might share their viewpoints. The John Birch Society was composed of patriots who had no problem fighting America's enemies. Rex is just a chicken who just wants to make sure he doesn't get drafted.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 10:35:21 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 10:35:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Okay..so neocons are actually liberals? Or...former Liberals? I've never been able to wrap my mind around them, because, either you are a conservative or you're not. I hear people throw around the label, but it's never made alot of sense. If they are former liberals wanting to use the military to ram their ideology down the throats of everyone, I don't see how any stretch of the imagination makes the conservative now.

Now, I am I freely admit, an Imperialist. I think we should conquor nations and convert them into states of the Union. It may take a few dozen centuries, but it worked well for Rome in the beginning.

I'll just assume Neocon means an agressive liberal.

Posted by Silentbrick 2004-08-22 10:37:50 PM|| 2004-08-22 10:37:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Either that or the "John Birch" type of far right lunatic.

I was thinking Buchananite.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-22 10:37:51 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-22 10:37:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Silentbrick -- historically, the term "neocon" was used (as an insult, actually) by liberals to describe a group who had once been on the left, but had second thoughts and became conservatives. Typically the cause of their change of heart was leftist perfidy during the Cold War.

They're "hawks" in the same sense as Reagan was a "hawk".

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-22 10:40:18 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-08-22 10:40:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 SB: If they are former liberals wanting to use the military to ram their ideology down the throats of everyone, I don't see how any stretch of the imagination makes the conservative now.

Calling Iraq and Afghanistan an effort to ram ideology down "everyone's" throats is a stretch. Afghanistan was a punitive expedition combined with an effort to install a friendly ruler. Iraq was a punitive expedition combined with an effort to install a friendly ruler in an oil-rich Muslim and Arab state. Afghanistan works on some levels, but Iraq works on so many levels it's not even funny. Afghanistan convinced Muslims that America would not shrink from difficult wars. Iraq is like Afghanistan squared - it convinced Muslims and Arabs that America would not hold back from attacking oil-producing states, even states containing Muslim holy cities. A sure sign that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea is complaints from Muslim states galore, and from our "allies" such as France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and China. Anti-American elements in some of our true allies are against the war, but most of these are the usual suspects - Arabists or leftists who are anti-American anyway.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-22 10:48:21 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-22 10:48:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Robert, I always thought Reagan _was_ a hawk.

(And totally undiscussed in all of this is the Democratic Party's lurch leftward after the 60's when it got recaptured by the Henry Wallace wing of the party. There was a time when the average Democrat was a lot more conservative than the modern examples.)

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-08-22 10:50:11 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-08-22 10:50:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 But in either way, you have yet to prove a point or even offer up evidence that you have any plan outside of snide character attacks on the current administration.
Pity, OS, you actually get paid to do research and sleuth when you cannot read. Listen up. I contribute more research to posts than you and your mindless emotionally unstrung shrieker pals put together.

A sure sign that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea is complaints from Muslim states galore, and from our "allies" such as France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and China.
What a clever observation. So if we do what other countries say is imprudent, we know it's right thing to do? You are basically recommending that America should pursue foreign policy like a defiant 2 year old. Hey if that sounds logical to you, I don't want to rain on your parade.

Posted by rex 2004-08-23 2:27:23 AM|| 2004-08-23 2:27:23 AM|| Front Page Top

03:54 619998 roasted a dacau
20:55 Frank G
20:16 Anonymous6552
20:14 Anonymous6552
06:55 Ghimire
23:22 Anonymous6319
15:11 jules 187
15:09 badanov
15:06 Anonymous6254
13:35 lex
13:31 Anonymous6248
13:21 Anonymous6248
11:41 Anonymous6247
11:26 Mrs. Davis
11:19 Anonymous6244
11:07 Anonymous6241
11:04 Anonymous6241
09:03 cs
04:08 Super Hose
03:41 Anonymous6233
01:24 .com
01:20 Anonymous6232
14:48 jules 187
14:41 IBQ