[FoRK] The importance of being precise about who the neocons are...
jbone at place.org
Thu Aug 28 18:42:15 PDT 2008
Mostly for Luis:
One key reason for not using duck typing to identify who is or is not
a neocon is this... let's say, Luis, that you were charged with
building a case for war crimes and / or crimes against humanity with
respect to America's conduct in the Iraq war. Who would you indict?
The neocons are *the* conspiracy; Iraq is one of their major
operations, but only a small part of their big picture, which is even
more dire than what we've actually seen --- turns out they were big
planners but not particularly good ones. But they *are* the
architects behind it, and it is a finite and identifiable group of
people. There are some folks that are often lumped into that group
who, really, were only pawns or witting or unwitting allies: Bush,
for example, was merely a useful and easily manipulated idiot. Rice,
for example, belongs to a completely different faction, let's call
them "Statists." Cheney oddly is both a quintessential neocon *and* a
Statist, though predominantly a kleptocrat --- he's been able to hedge
often completely polar interests across a 30 year career, a unique
chimera in the zoology of American politics.
The neocons would be the people you indict. And the evidence is out
there. The conspiracy can be named, and is not more than a couple-
More information about the FoRK