• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A Tough Time for 'Neocons'

conjur

No Lifer
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-neocons10jun10,1,2805682.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WASHINGTON ? As U.S. tanks surrounded Baghdad 14 months ago, an ardent group of war supporters in Washington toasted the success of an invasion they had done much to inspire, as commentators spoke of their virtual takeover of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Today, that same group, the neoconservatives, is itself under siege.

Many fellow conservatives have joined liberals in criticizing their case for the war. Rivals in the State Department and the Pentagon have taken charge of the U.S. effort in Iraq. And in a grave threat to their reputation, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime favorite of neoconservatives, is enmeshed in an FBI investigation of alleged intelligence leaks that supplied secrets to Iran.

"As these events have come one after the other, they've been feeling more and more embattled," said a Republican Senate aide.

"Neocons" ? best known for advocating aggressive foreign and military policies ? are in the painful zone between distinction and disfavor in Washington. They are losing battles on Capitol Hill. Their principles have stopped appearing in new U.S. policies. And where neoconservatives were once seen as having a future in Republican administrations, the setbacks in Iraq could make it difficult for the group's leading members to win Senate confirmation for top posts in the future.

Fourteen months ago, Kenneth Adelman was one of the prominent neoconservatives who took part in a now-storied victory celebration at the home of Vice President Dick Cheney that was described in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."

Since then, Adelman acknowledged, the group's influence has declined, because "Iraq didn't turn out to be as promising as it was billed."

Adelman, a former Reagan administration official, said that although he supported the rationale for the war, he was torn about what had happened since. "I still have to sort it all out. I'm just not settled yet," he said.

Other neocons worry that the real trouble for them could begin if President Bush is not reelected and, among conservatives, the finger-pointing begins ? in their direction.

"Bush could end up looking like the worst president since Jimmy Carter because of Iraq, and people are going to say, 'You got us into this mess,' " said one Washington source who considered himself a neoconservative and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's going to be nasty and bitter and brutal."

While definitions vary, "neoconservative" generally refers to formerly moderate policy advocates who favor a hawkish and assertive foreign policy to implant democracy and American values abroad.

Neocons contrast with more traditional conservatives who are willing to deal with undemocratic regimes without necessarily changing them.

Neoconservatives have been especially focused on the Middle East, and they have argued that building democracy in the heart of the Arab world could foster reform throughout a troubled region.

Although Bush campaigned in 2000 on a platform that opposed nonessential nation-building missions, he moved sharply toward the neocon view after the Sept. 11 attacks. His administration includes a number of officials considered neocons, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy; and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

Cheney shares many views with the neocons, but many analysts argue that because of his background and views, he is a traditional conservative.

Neoconservatives had been pushing the United States to oust Saddam Hussein for years, and they exulted in his fall. But they grew concerned when officials in charge of the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq took steps the neocons did not favor.

One group of neoconservatives, including onetime Reagan Defense official Richard Perle, was unhappy that the White House didn't move more quickly to turn sovereignty over to Iraqis and put the country in control of dissidents such as Chalabi.

Other neocons, including William Kristol, former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and editor of the journal Weekly Standard, contended that the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had allowed security problems to spread by deploying too few troops.

In general, neocons felt as if "they had created a brilliant screenplay, and it had fallen into the hands of the wrong director," said one self-described neoconservative, borrowing a line from political satirist Bill Maher.

As the postwar problems deepened, many neocons found themselves in the strange position of criticizing the White House, while being blamed in various quarters around the world for provoking the war. An antiwar group in Brussels created a shadow international tribunal that convicted the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank founded by Kristol, for war crimes.

"It's not fun to be accused of war crimes," said Gary Schmitt, the center's executive director.

Some neoconservatives see an element of anti-Semitism among their critics, because many prominent adherents are Jewish. Neocons also discount views that they are a "cabal" that wields improper influence over the administration.

"It's very popular in Washington to believe that the president's mind is an empty vessel that's been filled by an unholy cabal," said Danielle Pletka, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank associated with neoconservatism.

But problems in Iraq have made administration neocons lightning rods for criticism. Without significant improvements in U.S. efforts there, many of them would be unlikely to remain for a second Bush term, neoconservatives and congressional Republicans said.

Last year, Wolfowitz, a former senior State Department official, was frequently mentioned as a leading candidate to replace Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in a second Bush term. Now, congressional officials and neoconservatives agree there is little chance that Wolfowitz, seen as a primary advocate of the war, could survive a Senate confirmation.

"No way," said a senior Republican congressional aide.

Feith, the No. 3 Pentagon official, has been struggling to put to rest what he regards as unfair charges that he was trying to create a separate intelligence network in the Pentagon to guide administration decisions, and that he was an "intimate" of Chalabi. Feith met with Chalabi fewer than 10 times, said a spokesman.

Feith also has drawn criticism for shortcomings in the postwar planning. A spokesman said there was no truth to persistent rumors that Feith planned to leave government.

The allegations against Chalabi most threaten the reputation of neoconservatives, coming after the former financier was accused of putting forward defectors who offered phony evidence before the war on Hussein's alleged arsenals of banned weapons.

But the allegations have also exposed a deep rift between the neoconservatives and others in the administration.

Perle and others have charged that "wildly implausible" allegations against Chalabi were part of an effort by the CIA to try to discredit a longtime foe. "This is completely clumsy," Perle said of the alleged CIA effort in an interview. The CIA has not publicly commented on the leak investigation.

Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute, said "the intended aim of this entire operation" against Chalabi was to reduce the neocons' influence.

No matter how the allegations turn out, the influence of the neoconservatives is likely to continue to wane.

James Mann, author of "Rise of the Vulcans," which describes the long personal ties between members of Bush's war Cabinet, said that the neocons' influence had been greatest on Iraq policy, but that it had declined steadily over the last year as the problems in Iraq deepened.

"Some people have assumed that they're running the administration," Mann said. "That's never been true."

In fact, Mann said the Bush administration had not followed neocon recommendations regarding Russia, North Korea, China or even Iraq's neighbors of Syria and Iran. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz vaguely threatened force against Syria last year, but they had not done so lately. "Nobody's talking about force any more," Mann said.

Despite the gloom of recent weeks for neocons, many of them see signs of a turnaround that could help restore the reputation of the U.S. effort ? and theirs. A new interim government in Baghdad could help do so by earning Iraqi public support and beefing up security.

In addition, many note that Bush has emphasized his commitment to the neocon goal of building democracy. Schmitt, of the Project for a New American Century, was encouraged by Bush's words.

"His speeches are no less neocon than ever," said Schmitt.


Bush is stuck on following the failed vision of the PNAC. If he continues on that tack, Kerry will slay him in November just by being Kerry!
 
"A Tough Time for 'Neocons'
Topic Summary: Once, they exulted in the Iraq war. Now, with the setbacks in the region and the Chalabi spy probe, neocons beseiged"

A simple scan of P&N from a year ago to now would spell out the picture perfectly.

A 180 degree turnabout. People are donning Tin Foil Hats en mass and rejecting those waves from Rush, Hannity & Co.
 
Never would have guess the LA times would report something like this.

Bush is stuck on following the failed vision of the PNAC. If he continues on that tack, Kerry will slay him in November just by being Kerry!

Not sure what is scarier. John Kerry winning or John Kerry winning being the slimeball he is.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Never would have guess the LA times would report something like this.

Bush is stuck on following the failed vision of the PNAC. If he continues on that tack, Kerry will slay him in November just by being Kerry!

Not sure what is scarier. John Kerry winning or John Kerry winning being the slimeball he is.
Hey we've survived Slimeballs before, take Richard Nixon and our current President for example!

Sure would be nice if we had men we could be proud of running for the office!
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Genx87
Never would have guess the LA times would report something like this.

Bush is stuck on following the failed vision of the PNAC. If he continues on that tack, Kerry will slay him in November just by being Kerry!

Not sure what is scarier. John Kerry winning or John Kerry winning being the slimeball he is.
Hey we've survived Slimeballs before, take Richard Nixon and our current President for example!

Sure would be nice if we had men we could be proud of running for the office!

At least Edwards wasn't too sleazy.
 
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they become a failed experiment in American history.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they are remembered as a failed experiment in American history.

We get the message, you dont have to quote yourself.
 
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they are remembered as a failed experiment in American history.

We get the message, you dont have to quote yourself.


Wrong account again?
 
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they are remembered as a failed experiment in American history.

We get the message, you dont have to quote yourself.


Wrong account again?

Weren't you warned by the mods before about that sort of crap?

How about sticking to the topic instead of posting your BS?
 
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they are remembered as a failed experiment in American history.

We get the message, you dont have to quote yourself.


Wrong account again?

Are you suggesting that I'm Infohawk now? Be careful. A compulsive neurotic that bites himself in the ass can run in circles for years. I hear they melt and turn into butter.
--------------------
Conjur, Bush punched the tar baby and is in the
white House basement screaming "Get me out of Iraq."
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they are remembered as a failed experiment in American history.

We get the message, you dont have to quote yourself.


Wrong account again?

Are you suggesting that I'm Infohawk now? Be careful. A compulsive neurotic that bites himself in the ass can run in circles for years. I hear they melt and turn into butter.
--------------------
Conjur, Bush punched the tar baby and is in the
white House basement screaming "Get me out of Iraq."

Why moonie, whatever gave you that idea? Did you see your name mentioned at all in my previous post? You think too highly of yourself, why must you always be the center of attention?
 
How Reagan Beat the Neocons

Almost everywhere in the press one reads that President Bush sounds an awful lot like Ronald Reagan. Commentators and politicians alike have drawn the comparison between Mr. Bush's "muscular" foreign policy and the Reagan doctrine. However macho and aggressive Mr. Bush's foreign policy may be, when it came to the Soviet Union, Mr. Reagan's was anything but.

In 1985, Mr. Reagan sent a long handwritten letter to Mikhail Gorbachev assuring him that he was prepared "to cooperate in any reasonable way to facilitate such a withdrawal" of the Soviets from Afghanistan. "Neither of us," he added, "wants to see offensive weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, deployed in space." Mr. Reagan eagerly sought to work with Mr. Gorbachev to rid the world of such weapons and to help the Soviet Union effect peaceful change in Eastern Europe.

This offer was far from the position taken by the neoconservative advisers who now serve under Mr. Bush. Twenty years ago in the Reagan White House, they saw no possibility for such change, and indeed many of them subscribed to the theory of "totalitarianism" as unchangeable and irreversible. Mr. Reagan was also informed that the Soviet Union was preparing for a possible pre-emptive attack on the United States. This alarmist position was taken by Team B, formed in response to the more prudently analytical position of the C.I.A. and then composed of several members of the present Bush administration. The team was headed by Richard Pipes, the Russian historian at Harvard, whose stance was summed up in the title of one of his articles: "Why the Soviet Union Thinks It Could Fight and Win a Nuclear War."

Not only did the neocons oppose Mr. Reagan's efforts at rapprochement, they also argued against engaging in personal diplomacy with Soviet leaders. Advisers like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, now steering our foreign policy, held that America must escalate to achieve "nuclear dominance" and that we could only deal from a "strategy of strength." Mr. Reagan believed in a strong military, but to reassure the Soviet Union that America had no aggressive intentions, he reminded Leonid Brezhnev of just the opposite. From 1945 to 1949, the United States was the sole possessor of the atomic bomb, and yet, Mr. Reagan emphasized to Mr. Brezhnev, no threat was made to use the bomb to win concessions from the Soviet Union.

The Star Wars missile defense system advocated by Mr. Reagan is often regarded as the final nail in the coffin of communism, as a military system that the Soviets could not afford and only fear. The first assumption was right, the second dubious. Margaret Thatcher, who urged Mr. Reagan to regard Mr. Gorbachev as "a man we can work with," also gave him more blunt advice on Star Wars: "I'm a chemist; I know it won't work." Like Mrs. Thatcher, Soviet scientists regarded it as a fantasy, and thus they were hardly impressed with Mr. Reagan's offer to share it with them once it was perfected. (It still hasn't been, nearly two decades later.)

Those advisers in the Bush administration who regard themselves as Reaganites ought to remember that Mr. Reagan ceased heeding their advice. According to George Shultz's memoir, "Turmoil and Triumph," Mr. Reagan would become uneasy when his hawkish advisers entered the Oval Office. In his own memoir, "An American Life," Mr. Reagan ridiculed the "macabre jargon" of warheads, I.C.B.M.'s, kill ratios and "throw weights," the payload capacity of long-range missiles. The president thought their figures sounded like "baseball scores" and dismissed his pesky advisers. Mr. Reagan rejected the neocons; George W. Bush stands by them no matter what.

The difference between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush's militant brain staff is that he believed in negotiation and they in escalation. They wanted to win the cold war; he sought to end it. To do so, it was necessary not to strike fear in the Soviet Union but to win the confidence of its leaders. Once the Soviet Union could count on Mr. Reagan, Mr. Gorbachev not only was free to embark on his domestic reforms, to convince his military to go along with budget cuts, to reassure his people that they no longer needed to worry about the old bogey of "capitalist encirclement," but, most important, he was also ready to announce to the Soviet Union's satellite countries that henceforth they were on their own, that no longer would tanks of the Red Army be sent to put down uprisings. The cold war ended in an act of faith and trust, not fear and trembling.

But many neocons came to hate Mr. Reagan, saying he lost the cold war since he left office with communism still in place. Some even believed that the cold war would soon be resumed. Dick Cheney, as President George H. W. Bush's defense secretary, dismissed perestroika ("restructuring") as a sham and glasnost ("opening") as a ruse, he insisted that Mr. Gorbachev would be replaced by a belligerent militarist; and warned America to prepare for the re-emergence of an aggressive communist state.

Mr. Reagan gave us an enlightened foreign policy that achieved most of its diplomatic objectives peacefully and succeeded in firmly uniting our allies. Today those who claim to be Mr. Reagan's heirs give us "shock and awe" and a "muscular" foreign policy that has lost its way and undermined valued friendships throughout the world.
 
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they are remembered as a failed experiment in American history.

We get the message, you dont have to quote yourself.


Wrong account again?

Are you suggesting that I'm Infohawk now? Be careful. A compulsive neurotic that bites himself in the ass can run in circles for years. I hear they melt and turn into butter.
--------------------
Conjur, Bush punched the tar baby and is in the
white House basement screaming "Get me out of Iraq."

Why moonie, whatever gave you that idea? Did you see your name mentioned at all in my previous post? You think too highly of yourself, why must you always be the center of attention?

What gave me that idea was that you accused me of it over and over again even after you ware told that you were wrong and then mentioned it twice more including the reason that you are spreading unwarranted propaganda and now against Infohawk. As you could have noticed, perhaps, were you not so seemingly bitter, is that I asked, I didn't state. Also I don't think so highly of myself that I accuse others here of violating membership rules based on ridiculous assumptions, and if I did I hope I'd not think so highly of myself I couldn't apologize. Man I love it; me think highly of myself. I guess higher than you can possibly imagine...
 
etech, focus on the arguments, not on who's saying it. Attacking me and moonbeam does nothing for whatever argument you may or may not have.
 
Interesting Reagan article.

Margaret Thatcher, who urged Mr. Reagan to regard Mr. Gorbachev as "a man we can work with," also gave him more blunt advice on Star Wars: "I'm a chemist; I know it won't work."
This I don't understand. How would being a chemist qualify you to know a space military technology would not work?
 
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Interesting Reagan article.

Margaret Thatcher, who urged Mr. Reagan to regard Mr. Gorbachev as "a man we can work with," also gave him more blunt advice on Star Wars: "I'm a chemist; I know it won't work."
This I don't understand. How would being a chemist qualify you to know a space military technology would not work?
You would need to be a chemist to understand, no?
 
While definitions vary, "neoconservative" generally refers to formerly moderate policy advocates who favor a hawkish and assertive foreign policy to implant democracy and American values abroad.

Neocons contrast with more traditional conservatives who are willing to deal with undemocratic regimes without necessarily changing them.

Using this definition I am most certainly a traditionalist.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Infohawk
The neocons (and for those of you who don't know who that means, it's not the same as all conservatives) are a naive and hubris-filled lot. Let's hope they are remembered as a failed experiment in American history.

We get the message, you dont have to quote yourself.


Wrong account again?

Are you suggesting that I'm Infohawk now? Be careful. A compulsive neurotic that bites himself in the ass can run in circles for years. I hear they melt and turn into butter.
--------------------
Conjur, Bush punched the tar baby and is in the
white House basement screaming "Get me out of Iraq."

Why moonie, whatever gave you that idea? Did you see your name mentioned at all in my previous post? You think too highly of yourself, why must you always be the center of attention?

What gave me that idea was that you accused me of it over and over again even after you ware told that you were wrong and then mentioned it twice more including the reason that you are spreading unwarranted propaganda and now against Infohawk. As you could have noticed, perhaps, were you not so seemingly bitter, is that I asked, I didn't state. Also I don't think so highly of myself that I accuse others here of violating membership rules based on ridiculous assumptions, and if I did I hope I'd not think so highly of myself I couldn't apologize. Man I love it; me think highly of myself. I guess higher than you can possibly imagine...


Message received Moonie, your buds made it quite clear that you are not to be questioned in any way. I don't see any reason to continue have any sort of discussion with you under those terms. Feel free to say whatever you like and as many times as you like.
 
Etech:

If you are referring to my post in another thread I apologize for seeming ready to squelch any dissent against Moonbeam. I confess I may be one of Moonbeam's admirers, but I would never do so if I thought I was chilling your free speech. I was simply complaining about ONE post.

I hope we are both bigger than the tiny issue we were disagreeing over.

Please, feel free to blast away. 🙂

Peace, brother. 🙂

-Robert
 
Back
Top