Iranians Shrug Off Obama - America Soon To Follow?

[DiveCon]

Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.

Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.

As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.

In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party. The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations. In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.

No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...

Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...

except Neocons are NOT extremists
they are moderate to liberal

 

[MaggieMae]

And you ruin every damn thread you're in. Your beginning to really stink up the board with your SHIT in all these threads.

But not Divecon, eh? Yeah, we get it. You people would just love to turn this entire board into an all right-wing membership, no dissention allowed, no profanity allowed except by YOU. Pretty soon you'd get so goddamned board high-fiving everything, you'd search out other boards where opinions vary, and then try to ruin those too.

you just dont like it that this board isn't totally a liberal wet dream

I enjoy civil discourse--until it starts getting goofy. We are ALL capable of trading barbs, but there are other websites that cater to and encourage just that. I continue to hope this one doesn't turn into one of them. When one is personally attacked by a barage of insults as the sole response, retaliation should be expected, however.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!

What a dance of denial we have today!

JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy. His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.

Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon. That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.

And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine. And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.

Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.

,,,

You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, far to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.

 

[DiveCon]

Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!

What a dance of denial we have today!

JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy. His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.

Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon. That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.

And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine. And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.

Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.

,,,

You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, far to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.

maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
they are moderate to LIBERAL




*oxymoron

 

[Soaring]

But not Divecon, eh? Yeah, we get it. You people would just love to turn this entire board into an all right-wing membership, no dissention allowed, no profanity allowed except by YOU. Pretty soon you'd get so goddamned board high-fiving everything, you'd search out other boards where opinions vary, and then try to ruin those too.

you just dont like it that this board isn't totally a liberal wet dream

I enjoy civil discourse--until it starts getting goofy. We are ALL capable of trading barbs, but there are other websites that cater to and encourage just that. I continue to hope this one doesn't turn into one of them. When one is personally attacked by a barage of insults as the sole response, retaliation should be expected, however.

I agree MaggieMae. I just left another political discussion site never to return because of this very thing. It doesn't take a very intelligent person to throw barbs at another poster, but it does take some intelligence to stick with the subject and give an opinion of the subject and not another poster's personality. Disagree with the opinion of the poster on the subject at hand and give reasons why you are disagreeing. Calling them names and attacking them personally is childish.

 

[MaggieMae]

liberal morons, they know so much that just isnt true

His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961

When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
John Kenneth Galbraith

maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is

I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:

 

[MaggieMae]

It has everything to do with the Huntington Post. The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies. they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement. So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference. Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)

Why does any woman who opposes your simplistic opinions need to be called a **** or a whore? What do those definitions have to do with politics?

Oh. Sorry, bitch.

An edit?

 

[DiveCon]

His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961

When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
John Kenneth Galbraith

maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is

I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:

yeah, THATS not childish

such a hypocrite

 

[MaggieMae]

Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.

Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.

As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.

In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party. The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations. In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.

So that's conceding that "neocons" did indeed morph from conservative Democrats to right-wing ideologues, like Richard Perle. That tells me that the movement no way resembled what it was in the 1960's. So what exactly are you debating here? There exists no Democrat today, with the exception of Joe Lieberman who is a war hawk but a liberal Democrat in every other sense, who can remotely be considered a "neocon." Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally conservative.

 

[Bfgrn]

Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.

Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.

As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.

In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party. The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations. In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.

No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...

Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...

except Neocons are NOT extremists
they are moderate to liberal

Trotskyists are NOT extremists?

Irving Kristol

Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
wiki

Washington Post

 

[DiveCon]

No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...

Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...

except Neocons are NOT extremists
they are moderate to liberal

Trotskyists are NOT extremists?

Irving Kristol

Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
wiki

Washington Post

which proves MY point, not yours

 

[DiveCon]

Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.

Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.

As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.

In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party. The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations. In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.

So that's conceding that "neocons" did indeed morph from conservative Democrats to right-wing ideologues, like Richard Perle. That tells me that the movement no way resembled what it was in the 1960's. So what exactly are you debating here? There exists no Democrat today, with the exception of Joe Lieberman who is a war hawk but a liberal Democrat in every other sense, who can remotely be considered a "neocon." Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally conservative.

NO, they changed parties

 

[Sinatra]

Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.

Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.

As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.

In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party. The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations. In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.

No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...

Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...

I suggest you go back and study the history of the 1960 presidential campaign. JFK ran right of Nixon on foreign relations. He was more a Hawk and interventionist than Nixon, deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union and communism in general. (And ironically, both Kennedy brothers were killed by extremist examples that the neocons hated most - a Marxist and a Muslim extremist. When JFK was killed, the neocons lost one of their own) Kennedy campaigned on the need to close the missile gap between America and the Soviets - instilling fear in the electorate that America was in danger of becoming the lesser of the two superpowers. This platform is a direct link to the neocon Democrat Scoop Jackson campaing in the 1970's - "Peace through Strength", which was later utilized by Republican Ronald Reagan - but originally forwared by John F Kennedy during a speech in 1956. and continued to utilize during his run for President.

You see, while Irving Kristol defined the neocon philosophy in 1965, that philosophy was already a functioning political thread very much prospering during Kennedy's administration. In fact, while rejecting LBJ's Great Society welfare state - neocons were traditional supporters of FDR's New Deal government. (Shades of grey, eh?)

JFK was a neocon...

 

[MaggieMae]

,,,

You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, far to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.

maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
they are moderate to LIBERAL




*oxymoron

You need to stop digging a hole for yourself. Here are excerpts from Ron Paul's 2003 dissertation "NeoCONNED." Does any of this describe a "moderate" or a "liberal"?? Of course not. Perhaps you'll believe Ron Paul.

Neo-CONNED!


It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire.

Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

 

[MaggieMae]

maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is

I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:

yeah, THATS not childish

such a hypocrite

Woman...talking...to...brick...wall...
Woman=me...Wall=you...

Frustrating? Yes. Childish? No.

 

[DiveCon]

You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, far to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.

maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
they are moderate to LIBERAL




*oxymoron

You need to stop digging a hole for yourself. Here are excerpts from Ron Paul's 2003 dissertation "NeoCONNED." Does any of this describe a "moderate" or a "liberal"?? Of course not. Perhaps you'll believe Ron Paul.

Neo-CONNED!


It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire.

Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

yes, they are MODERATE to LIBERAL
sheeesh, what part of that is so fucking hard to understand'

 

[DiveCon]

I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:

yeah, THATS not childish

such a hypocrite

Woman...talking...to...brick...wall...
Woman=me...Wall=you...

Frustrating? Yes. Childish? No.

excepot YOU are the fucking brick wall bitch

 

[Soaring]

You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, far to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.

maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
they are moderate to LIBERAL




*oxymoron

You need to stop digging a hole for yourself. Here are excerpts from Ron Paul's 2003 dissertation "NeoCONNED." Does any of this describe a "moderate" or a "liberal"?? Of course not. Perhaps you'll believe Ron Paul.

Neo-CONNED!


It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire.

Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

If W is to be considered a neocon, then neocons are certainly middle to left swinging. Ron Paul is a far right conservative, so wouldn't know a neocon if it hit him in the ass.

 

[Bfgrn]

Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.

Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.

As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.

In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party. The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations. In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.

No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...

Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...

I suggest you go back and study the history of the 1960 presidential campaign. JFK ran right of Nixon on foreign relations. He was more a Hawk and interventionist than Nixon, deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union and communism in general. (And ironically, both Kennedy brothers were killed by extremist examples that the neocons hated most - a Marxist and a Muslim extremist. When JFK was killed, the neocons lost one of their own) Kennedy campaigned on the need to close the missile gap between America and the Soviets - instilling fear in the electorate that America was in danger of becoming the lesser of the two superpowers. This platform is a direct link to the neocon Democrat Scoop Jackson campaing in the 1970's - "Peace through Strength", which was later utilized by Republican Ronald Reagan - but originally forwared by John F Kennedy during a speech in 1956. and continued to utilize during his run for President.

You see, while Irving Kristol defined the neocon philosophy in 1965, that philosophy was already a functioning political thread very much prospering during Kennedy's administration. In fact, while rejecting LBJ's Great Society welfare state - neocons were traditional supporters of FDR's New Deal government. (Shades of grey, eh?)

JFK was a neocon...

Neocons want war, Kennedy wanted peace...JFK was not a neocon...

Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their father—to never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson—the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Working with the newly elected President at the Kennedy family's Palm Beach villa in early January 1961, speechwriter Theodore Sorensen struggled to interweave the two sides of J.F.K. as the two men crafted the President-elect's Inaugural speech. Looking back, says Sorensen today, the most important line of that ringing address wasn't, "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." It was, "For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." This peace-through-strength message "was the Kennedy policy in a nutshell," Sorensen observes.

But the Pentagon and CIA hard-liners who thrilled to the more robust strains of Kennedy's soaring Inaugural message wanted not only the massive arms buildup that the new President promised. They wanted also to employ this fearsome arsenal to push back communist advances around the world. And no enemy bastion was more nettlesome to these national-security officials than Castro's Cuba, less than 100 miles off U.S. shores.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634954-2,00.html

 

[Bfgrn]

except Neocons are NOT extremists
they are moderate to liberal

Trotskyists are NOT extremists?

Irving Kristol

Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
wiki

Washington Post

which proves MY point, not yours

So...Trotsykism is NOT extremist, thank you Dive, now we know what you consider moderate...

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.