How can Neo-cons rationalize themselves as conservitives?

Question

to get elected the "conservitive gov" in the USA promised to

be fiscaly conservitive by balancing the budget and paying off debt
not have an interventionist foriegn policy
reduce gov interferance in the private life of citizens

These things all sound like a real conservitive gov so what have they done

created the largest deficit in the entire history of the world with no plan to get out of it

Interviened in numerous countries, going to war "premeptively", kidnapped, then transported kidnapies to 3rd party contries for torture

Decided illegaly (as was determined by an american court) to wiretap it's own population without first gaining permission from a judge

How can a real conservitive contiune to support this? I understand being fooled once, but.....

Investor are you trying to say that the present gov never cloked themselves in the traditional conservitive adgenda, then when elected threw it all out the window...... Get off the fence, if you asked bush right now if he was a conservitive what do you think he would say (if he could speak properly I mean). I appreaciate the libertarian point of view, but I'dd settle for a real conservitive.

Sam are you saluting, or covering your eyes? Clintons messes consisted of a stain on a dress, Bushes messes include at a minium the world record deficit, 300,000 dead in iraq, most civilians according to every independant report (bush doesn't keep track so he can't say (not that he could say anyway given his inability to form a sentance coherently)

Artic Chic do you realy think doing what you think is right is good enough for the leader of the worlds largest military? Don't you think that he should also be willing to consider that he has taken a wrong turn, and listen to the american people?

yupchee what are you thinking, lets see Dick, Wolfnowitz, and on and on, they all follow "the grand chessboard waco, who interestingly has now abandoned them since they are losers.. Come on now post something with meat....

Susi your argument " a conservitive is a conservitive" leaves me speechless with it's well thought rational, you answer the question best, now go back to the spoon feeding on CNN, you might have to enter your bunker

Euk,,,, your wit is sumptin what can i say,
if only neocons were just like liberals "except that they tax the crap out of people" iraq wouldn't have 300,000 dead people, and america would have 3000 more brave, live soldiers.....

Billy thanks for your thought out post, I don't agree, but it is good to see someone who is willing to think about some of the issues involved.

I agree that their are hypocrits on both sides, but one side is calling the shots, and they don't seem to be willing to check their rear view mirror.
In my recollection the leadership of the USA made statements like "a mushroom cloud" imininet threat, attempted to link 911 and iraq all disingenuously, they new they were lying. That is unacceptable in a gov, misleading your citizens into a war. Just wrong...

As far as a President needing to illegaly wiretap, (and remember via the FISA court he could have done it legaly, but he refused) to protect the USA , my understanding is that a president swears to protect the consitution, because in the end isn't that what made the USA the unique world power what it is?

Answer 1

they go to church, bow their heads, and try to look serious.

then they say gay people shouldn't have equal rights. you see, they've kind of changed the definition of "conservative".


and you're right, that extraordinary rendition stuff is going to really come back to bite us on the ***

Answer 2

You're right about some of the things you stated and wrong about others.

Yes, to intervene in the internal affairs of a foreign nation partly to alleviate the pain and suffering that a brutal regime places on its people can hardly be considered the conservative position. In fact, it has historically been the liberals and progressives who have encouraged the cause of spreading democracy. The Social Democrat Party of the USA officially endorsed the Iraq war for this very reason. John Kerry, while running for President, said "why are we building fire stations in Iraq when we could be building them in America"; most definitively not the liberal position to take, but instead the conservative one. It’s simply another fallacy of American populism, that if you supported the war, you're conservative, but if you opposed it you're liberal. The current political landscape makes this so, but fundamentally, this is an incorrect statement of the case. So the Iraq war has produced hypocrites on both sides of the political spectrum.

Why not talk about the hypocrites on the other side of the political spectrum that call for a UN role at the center of all international affairs, but then complain when someone actually enforces its resolutions. The Presidents of France Russia and Germany all said that they never intended to sacrifice the sovereignty of their own foreign policy decisions to the supranational force of the UN Security Council. Seems to me that THEY, not Bush and Blair, were the ones who relegated the UN into a dust bin like status.

You’re quit wrong about Iraq being a preemptive war. It can be viewed as a reactionary war, and at the same time, a preventative war. A preemptive war is when a country constitutes a threat against you that is deemed imminent; “sir there are Japan has just severed diplomatic ties with us and a reconnaissance plane has just spotted ten Japanese carriers fifteen miles out from Pearl Harbor; do we sink them”. That is preemptive. This is how the Bush administration tried to sell it. However, the threat from Iraq, while real, was not imminent and therefore would be considered preventative; totally illegal against any other country but Iraq. It was also reactionary in the respect that Saddam was in a constant state of material breach of the UN since 1992, and violated the UN cease fire several times.

As far as the wire tapping goes, a President swears to protect the country and the best measure western democracies can take towards this is by scanning the sea of information they have available to themselves. It also couldn’t be considered illegal when Bush did this because it took a judge to rule that it was.

If conservatives are not conservatives then liberals are not liberals either.

Answer 3

Well, I've never been a liberal, so I'm certainly not a neo-con.

I agree about the spending - this administration has spent like liberals. I disagree about the foreign policy - I think Carter and Clintoon were totally inept at foreign policy and that's a lot of why we're in this position.

I have not noticed *any* interference into my personal life. Have you? What?

I don't feel the war was "preemptive" because I think Clintoon should have handled it when Iraq violated the cease-fire that was signed after the Gulf War. As to the torture, I'm not thrilled about it, but if they get information that can save lives, I'm not going to complain, either. These people that we're fighting against are savage brutes - we need to meet them on their own terms.

As to the wiretaps, if you're talking to someone in Hamas or al Qaeda, you are a threat to my country and the security of my fellow Americans and you shouldn't *expect* any privacy. Besides, privacy is merely an illusion these days. Remember when Gingrich's wireless phone calls were intercepted - by just average citizens?

I don't support everything Bush has done. But I *do* think that he is honestly doing what he thinks is right.

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

$$$ and fame in Israel

By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency

"...Jerusalem----April 2.....The American Jewish Congress today congratulated Paul Wolfowitz on his election as the president of the World Bank.

In Israel, The Jerusalem Post had selected Paul Wolfowitz as its Man of the Year for 2002. The Post stated: "On September 15, 2001, at a meeting in Camp David, Wolfowitz advised President George W. Bush to skip Kabul and train American guns on Baghdad. In March 2003, he got his wish.

"When President Bush says, "America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons" -- that's Wolfowitz talking.

Israel has long waited for an administration that understands that the principal problem in the Middle East is not the unsettled status of our borders. It is the unsettling nature of Arab regimes -- and of the bellicosity, fanaticism, and resentments to which they give rise. Israel has also long waited for an administration that understands..."

Answer 5

Oh, i wager it really is why liberals are calling all conservative nazi's , fascist Even the Speaker of the residing house, is calling absolutely everyone who questions the favor for the residing house wellbeing care reform bill, a nazi. I in simple terms don;t get it, liberals were protesting for years, staging protest at conservative events, Interrupting conservatives speaking at city hall conferences or at universities. They not at all observed a difficulty with doing so. yet now, for the first time, conservatives are utilizing an similar strategies and now liberals are all outraged ? Makes you wanna ask, are they outraged over the protest or are they outraged that the conservatives stole thier strategies and they look operating for them.

Answer 6

The entire conservative mindset is totally f'ed in the a. The premise is smaller government, the reality is mind-blowing corporate ties and an overpowering Orwellian government that has it's golden thumb on the proletariat. In truth, the democratic party is just the other side of the same coin. Go libertarian.

Answer 7

Cleaning up William Jefferson Clinton's messes and the resulting war got in the way of balancing the budget. You can't re-build the military, fight a war and cut spending at the same time.

Answer 8

Name 1 Neocon responsible for the federal budget. I'll save you the time. There aren't any. You would appear far more intelligent if you learned what a Neocon is before posting about Neocons.

Answer 9

"Neo-conservatives" are Democrats who are strong on national defense. They are not necessarily conservative on other issues.

If they were conservative on most issues they would simply be c called "conservatives."

The things you seem to value -- isolationism in foreign policy, etc. -- sound more like libertarian points of view. Check out the libertarian party. You may feel at home there.

Answer 10

You're right. Aside from taxing the crap out of people and appeasing the enemy, neocons are just like liberals.