Post by Moses on Jan 23, 2005 19:45:31 GMT -5
Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005 10:22 a.m. EST
Neocons See Bush Speech As Victory
President Bush's Inaugural address may have bothered traditional conservatives but it brought joy to the hearts of the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Described by the Los Angeles Times as "that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East," the neocons couldn't have been more enthusiastic about the policy enunciated by the President.
In one dramatic gesture, the President speech revived what had been seen as the sagging fortunes of the neocons who had virtually disappeared from the political scene during the presidential campaign as a result of continuing problems with the U.S. role in Iraq - a role frequently blamed on the neocons.
As noted by the Times, for at least a year now the neocons have kept low profiles and toned down their rhetoric. During the campaign, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the leading and most coherent voices for invading Iraq and a prominent neocon, virtually disappeared from public view. He has reemerged with the announcement that he will keep his top Defense Department post.
So also with other well known neocons gathered around the President who had been rumored to be disillusioned with the group. Once Bush proclaimed in his inaugural address that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" - a key neoconservative goal, the Times reported that "suddenly, the neocons were ascendant again."
"This is real neoconservatism," Robert Kagan told the Times. Kagan, a foreign policy expert and a leading exponent of neocon thinking, had sometimes criticized the administration for not being neocon enough. Now he says "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."
Not everybody saw it that way. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," Dimitri Simes told the Times. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that espouses the more pragmatic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it[and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."
A top administration insider who met with reporters Friday to explain the meaning of the speech sidestepped a question whether it represented endorsement of neoconservative ideas. "I've never understood what that neoconservative label means, anyway," he said, refusing to be identified by name because, he said: "We should be focusing on the president's words, not mine."
He added that Bush's words making democratization of other countries the center of his foreign policy was the administration's job one. "It is a top priority for his second term," the aide said. "He's raised the emphasis. He's raised the profile. He's made it clear that he's going to turn up the pressure a bit. He's going to try to accelerate the process."
Another senior administration official and prominent neoconservative told the Times Bush's theme reflected several "lessons learned" in the last 30 years. Chief among them, he said, was an argument that neoconservatives often made about the Soviet Union and, more recently, Iraq: that a central goal of the United States should be "systemic change" - changing hostile states' regimes, not merely their policies.
But he also warned, "A policy promoting democracy also has to be a realistic policy. We have to consider what are the risks of overly rapid change? What's the downside?"
According to the Times Irving Kristol, considered by many to be one of the grandfathers of the neoconservative movement, defined the movement as "forward-looking, not nostalgic. cheerful, not grim." In domestic affairs, he wrote, neocons tend to accept the need for a strong federal government, not a weak one.
In foreign policy, he insisted they believe in a broad definition of the national interest, not a narrow one; they are more willing than most traditional conservatives to commit American power, including military power, to such causes as democracy and human rights. [sic-- this is Newsmax]
"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces," Kristol wrote in 2003. "No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary."
Last year The Christian Science Monitor defined neoconservatives as those who "envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon."
In this capacity, the U.S. would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of 'failed states' or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the U.S. or its interests. [with the concommitant economic & political control and military bases and equipment]
{b]In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized[/b] [sic] in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the U.S., it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong U.S. leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants." [uh--- which tyrant has been disrespecting treaties at the behest of the neocons? -- oh, yeah the neocons are the ones who disrespect treaties]
Giving more credence to the idea that the Inaugural address was essentially a restatement of neocon policy, there were echoes of much of the above, except for the inherent bellicosity, in the President's speech.
Among the other signs of a neocon resurgence, the Times cited a two-hour pre-speech seminar assembled by White House political aide Karl Rove and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson that included several leading neocons - newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University and Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Another sign of the administration's bent cited by the Times: the departure of several of the leading realists of the first term, notably Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his closest aides while leading neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz, are staying. And at least one, National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams, is said to be in line for a more prominent job at the State Department or NSC.
Neocons See Bush Speech As Victory
President Bush's Inaugural address may have bothered traditional conservatives but it brought joy to the hearts of the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Described by the Los Angeles Times as "that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East," the neocons couldn't have been more enthusiastic about the policy enunciated by the President.
In one dramatic gesture, the President speech revived what had been seen as the sagging fortunes of the neocons who had virtually disappeared from the political scene during the presidential campaign as a result of continuing problems with the U.S. role in Iraq - a role frequently blamed on the neocons.
As noted by the Times, for at least a year now the neocons have kept low profiles and toned down their rhetoric. During the campaign, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the leading and most coherent voices for invading Iraq and a prominent neocon, virtually disappeared from public view. He has reemerged with the announcement that he will keep his top Defense Department post.
So also with other well known neocons gathered around the President who had been rumored to be disillusioned with the group. Once Bush proclaimed in his inaugural address that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" - a key neoconservative goal, the Times reported that "suddenly, the neocons were ascendant again."
"This is real neoconservatism," Robert Kagan told the Times. Kagan, a foreign policy expert and a leading exponent of neocon thinking, had sometimes criticized the administration for not being neocon enough. Now he says "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."
Not everybody saw it that way. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," Dimitri Simes told the Times. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that espouses the more pragmatic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it[and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."
A top administration insider who met with reporters Friday to explain the meaning of the speech sidestepped a question whether it represented endorsement of neoconservative ideas. "I've never understood what that neoconservative label means, anyway," he said, refusing to be identified by name because, he said: "We should be focusing on the president's words, not mine."
He added that Bush's words making democratization of other countries the center of his foreign policy was the administration's job one. "It is a top priority for his second term," the aide said. "He's raised the emphasis. He's raised the profile. He's made it clear that he's going to turn up the pressure a bit. He's going to try to accelerate the process."
Another senior administration official and prominent neoconservative told the Times Bush's theme reflected several "lessons learned" in the last 30 years. Chief among them, he said, was an argument that neoconservatives often made about the Soviet Union and, more recently, Iraq: that a central goal of the United States should be "systemic change" - changing hostile states' regimes, not merely their policies.
But he also warned, "A policy promoting democracy also has to be a realistic policy. We have to consider what are the risks of overly rapid change? What's the downside?"
According to the Times Irving Kristol, considered by many to be one of the grandfathers of the neoconservative movement, defined the movement as "forward-looking, not nostalgic. cheerful, not grim." In domestic affairs, he wrote, neocons tend to accept the need for a strong federal government, not a weak one.
In foreign policy, he insisted they believe in a broad definition of the national interest, not a narrow one; they are more willing than most traditional conservatives to commit American power, including military power, to such causes as democracy and human rights. [sic-- this is Newsmax]
"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces," Kristol wrote in 2003. "No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary."
Last year The Christian Science Monitor defined neoconservatives as those who "envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon."
In this capacity, the U.S. would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of 'failed states' or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the U.S. or its interests. [with the concommitant economic & political control and military bases and equipment]
{b]In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized[/b] [sic] in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the U.S., it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong U.S. leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants." [uh--- which tyrant has been disrespecting treaties at the behest of the neocons? -- oh, yeah the neocons are the ones who disrespect treaties]
Giving more credence to the idea that the Inaugural address was essentially a restatement of neocon policy, there were echoes of much of the above, except for the inherent bellicosity, in the President's speech.
Among the other signs of a neocon resurgence, the Times cited a two-hour pre-speech seminar assembled by White House political aide Karl Rove and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson that included several leading neocons - newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University and Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Another sign of the administration's bent cited by the Times: the departure of several of the leading realists of the first term, notably Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his closest aides while leading neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz, are staying. And at least one, National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams, is said to be in line for a more prominent job at the State Department or NSC.