If I had known the results would be so clear, I would I yelled louder: “Far be it that I would advocate foregoing the benefits of a national dialogue on national defense, but such a media circus would in the short-term benefit the Roh administration….

Of course Rummy and the boys thought the war in Iraq was in their interest. Unfortunately, they completely disregarded what their enemy(s) might do and ended up in the costly quagmire they are now in.

Every generation needs its Vietnam.

This idea that the US government only acts in the interests of big business is little more than a distortion. The government has many reasons for their actions in foreign affairs, only one of which is to support American corporations. In the past, the US government may have acted mainly in the interests of a corporate ‘friend’ (I read awhile back how they supported a large banana firm in a central American country-cant remember the names of company or country), but they do not and cannot act this way anymore. And I highly doubt that US support for the contras was mainly about helping multinationals. It had as much to do with geopolitical concerns, such as the rise of socialism and attempting to hold influence in the region. Your anti-corporate slant that the US acts mainly or only in the interests of multinationals just doesn’t hold water. There are far too many competing agendas in the government for that to happen.

Many conservatives believe that US support for US companies is part of US interests, and this belief is not limited to neo-cons. A wide range of conservatives supported Bush (I certainly don’t like everything he did-especially his out of control spending) and it has little to do with this idea of neo-cons.

And the idea that neo-cons export ‘democracy’ for the purpose of helping big business just doesn’t work.

Making the world safe for US multinationals democracy provided moral underpinning for US covert and overt military support to rebels seeking the overthrow of the elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua and right-wing paramilitary groups fighting leftist guerrillas elsewhere in the region back in the 80s. How is it in the best interests of the American people to defend the oligopolies of large landowners and US corporations? It’s not gonna break the budget of Americans to spend a few more pennies per pound on tropical fruit and sugar, and if Venezuela doesn’t want foreign investment, then Wal-Mart can source its clothing from Thailand, Pakistan, or two dozen other developing countries competing to offer the cheapest labor and least restrictive environmental regulations.

And the idea that neo-cons export ‘democracy’ for the purpose of helping big business just doesn’t work. Halliburtion got many contracts in Iraq, but it has not done well (they’ve lost money) and the fact is, they are one of the few corporations large and experienced enough to do this type of work (according to the Economist mag). Again, there are many reasons for actually attacking a country and being of benefit to US companies is only one of several, and it’s certainly not one of the most important ones (though helping American companies is in the best interests of the US anyway, as most conservatives would think so).

To turn the neo-cons into some big bad evil scapegoat is like blaming communists for all the ‘bad’ actions of the Democrats. The fact is, conservatives of all stripes have supported Bush’s actions.

> And Cheney and Rumsfeld are not neo-cons.

Wikipedia sez: “As of 2005, the most prominent supporters of the neoconservative stance inside the Administration are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.” (after naming GW Bush hisself).

Starting to dominate the House of Representatives in
the 1990s, with plenty of influence over budgeting and
policy; i would call that “in government” myself…

> And Cheney and Rumsfeld are not neo-cons.

Hmmmm, i think of them as leaders of the practical implementation of it.

> I highly doubt that they would support any kind of war other
> than one that they believe to be in America’s best interests.

I highly doubt whether ANY politician would — it all depends on how each one of them defines “America’s best interests”, doesn’t it?

> If anything, the idea of being a global cop comes from
> the left side of the fence

Originally, yes. This is why neo-cons are so radically different from traditional conservatives…

> The conservative side generally is only interested in action
> that is in US interests (or their own interests, not always
> exactly the same), not in being the ‘good guy’.

Things have changed. Our neo-conservatives are certainly not interested in being any sort of ‘good guys’, but they do think it’s a swell idea to export American-style friendliness to big corporations (called “democracy” in speeches to the public) at the point of the gun, with no-bid contracts for ALL the cronies.

The right-thinking Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Eisenhower would’ve puked all over these neo-imperialist jerks.

The so-called neo-con bogeymen don’t have nearly as much power in government as so many claim. If anything, the idea of being a global cop comes from the left side of the fence (back in the days when I was a socialist, this was definitely a strong idea, that the powers that be should step in and help people the world over). The conservative side generally is only interested in action that is in US interests (or their own interests, not always exactly the same), not in being the ‘good guy’.

Or are we using different definitions of “Neo-cons” here…?