No problem with that at all. I was just objecting to equating 'unbiased' with 'disagreeing with democrats much of the time', as if agreeing with democrats means you're biased.
Your wanting to point out that you can't be called a Democrat - no problem. I might have misunderstood what you were trying to say in the first post.
We had people very different than Neocons holding office in 1965 - yet we pursued their agenda even more harmfully than the Iraq War, with Vietnam.
However, the same underlying interests were there - and their influence can be inferred from the private calls of LBJ saying he did not want to get into a quagmire. But he did.
Sometimes it's not easy to recognize that. For an analogy, if the king comes and takes your son and a big tax to pay for his war, you might say you are against his war policy. But maybe you should be against that king, because if it weren't that war, it'd be some other bad policy. But maybe you should be against the monarchy, because the very system of concentrated power without democracy will tend to lead to such policies whoever the king is. And then you have the global political situation pushing ANY government to war.
See what I mean now? That's why I say things like the global political arrangements are an issue - and the specific people like the Necons, who have largely turned on one another and crawled under rocks now anyway, not as much. Ironically, I think many of the neocons are the dangerous types who actually think they're for a good cause - things like freedom and liberty and opposed ot tyranny - and are simply misguided, but unable to recognize that, and when you add power, they can do great harm.
In case you're curious, I think the model Neocon, who most completely embodies what's wrong with them, is probably Robert Kagan. He's a master at writing in a convincing manner about how altruistic and benevolent and essential his policies are, to justify global violence and empire - he seems to be a 'true believer'. It's easy not to to trust a Kissinger (who is actually a partial opponent of the Neocons), less so a Kagan, to the unwary reader.
That's the nature of these things, though - I think there are few 'evil' people who don't fit the description that they think they're doing the right thing in some way. The maniacs in the JFK era in senrion Pentagon positions who liked the idea of a first nuclear strike generally thought they were defending the freedom of the US and the world from an indefinite dark age of tyranny, if the communists achieved their supposed aims of world domination. They were very wrong about the USSR - but thought they were doing good.
So you don't misunderstand, I'm not disagreeing with the concern you have about the Neocons - I'm rather encouraging you not to get too narrow about them and not pay attention to the problems that would bring the next Neocons, if the Neocons were gone tomorrow. I think we're agreeing, though.
Facebook
Twitter