Meet the 'neo-coms'

Thread starter #1

Howard Roark

Retired Moderator
Meet the 'neo-coms'
Posted: July 25, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Joseph Farah

I have come up with a new term for the changing political lexicon in America.

I've never been high on the standard political labels as they are generally used today.

I just don't see much difference between many of those who call themselves "conservative" and those who call themselves "liberal." As I've pointed out many times, those words mean different things to different people in different places at different times.

They mean almost nothing today in America. If George Bush is a "conservative," the word has lost any meaning whatsoever.

And because my views don't fit neatly into little boxes for my critics, I'm often caricatured and stereotyped in the most despicable ways.

Because I categorically reject the "conservative" label for a variety of reasons, it's amusing to me when some take it a step further – calling me a "neo-con."

"Neo-con" is the favorite epithet of people like Pat Buchanan and the anti-war crowd. These are the people who, for whatever reason, fail to recognize that America is at war. It's not a question of whether we want to be at war. It's simply the case that others have chosen to war with us. The new anti-warriors seem to think we can pretend we're not.

For many of them, this was not the way they saw the world during the Cold War. This was not the way they perceived the threat from the Soviet Union. They were anti-communists back then. Now they have changed the rules of engagement – but they accuse people like me of changing. Thus, the epithet "neo-con."

But since this group is the one who has changed the way they view real-world threats, real-world enemies, real-world totalitarians who want to kill Americans, kill Christians, kill Jews, kill infidels, I've decided it's the anti-war crowd that needs a new moniker.

So I have come up with a new term. Tell me what you think of my new name for those folks who suddenly define themselves and their worldview by their anti-war stance. I call them "neo-coms."

Here's my thinking. The left has not changed. They opposed U.S. military action throughout the Cold War because, to one extent or another, they disliked and distrusted the U.S. more than they disliked or distrusted the Communists.

True to form, the left today dislikes and distrusts the U.S. more than they dislike or distrust the Islamic jihadists. But now the left has been joined by this new element – people who understood the Communist threat back then but see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes time to the jihadists.

They have joined forces with the old-line commies – whose stripes have not changed. Therefore, the new anti-war zealots I hereby dub "neo-coms."

I'm sure they won't.

But is it accurate?

I mean, when Kofi Annan and Pat Buchanan look at the world and agree on what needs to be done, we're talking about a new political alignment taking place.

It isn't Kofi Annan who has changed. He's still dancing the same old jig. But Pat Buchanan has. He was a hard-line anti-Communist cold warrior. Now he thinks the U.S. is meddling when we fight those who hate us and want to destroy our way of life – an enemy, by the way, that is probably a more serious threat than the Soviet Union ever was.

You see, this struggle between the Judeo-Christian West and radical, expansionist, fundamentalist Islam has been going on for 1,400 years. The Soviet Union and Communism are, by comparison, a mere blip on the historical timeline. This "new" struggle is actually not new at all. It is the one that, more than any other, has defined modern history.

This new totalitarian movement and ideology is every bit as evil and threatening as the one that shaped the 20th century.

Yet, the "neo-coms" see it not.

Tell me where I'm going wrong.
 

SBG

Senior Member
Excellent article. Neo-com? Sounds accurate to me.
 
Tell me where I'm going wrong.

He is wrong to equate being anti-Iraq with being anti-war. People who do this simply refuse to acknowledge that nearly the whole country (90%, maybe) approved of the invasion of Afghanistan. That is not anti-war. Moreover, had Bush had a plan for securing Iraq he would still have most of the country with him. As it is, 60% or so disapprove of his handling of Iraq. To say these people are anti-war is silly. They are anti-Bush policy in fighting the war.

The conservatives enthusiastically embraced George Bush until everthing started falling apart. Now we see more and more they are trying to distance themselves so they can continue to believe that it's not conservatism that failed, rather George Bush failed the conservative movement. It would be quite amusing if innocent people weren't being blown to bits.

The base is never going to admit the reality staring them in the face. The conservative Republicans who do realize that Bush has royally screwed this country are simply going to refuse the lie in the bed they made.
 
Murtha proposed a solution and you see where it got him. The rabid right branded him a traitor. Those on the right who demand solutions aren't really interested in hearing them. They don't want a debate, they just want the Bush critics to shut up.
 
The country is now recognizing Bush's "steadfastness" for what it is, a stubborn refusal to admit a mistake.

How was Murtha wrong?
 
But Murtha did offer a proposal. And like you, the right found a way to dismiss it out of hand. So do you really believe they want a solution. Of course not, they won't admit there is anything wrong with the current course. For them there is no problem to resolve. It's just a rhetorical device to deflect criticism.

I certainly wish more Democrats had been more strongly against going into Iraq. But they won't get the blame for this mess. Again, most of the country has come around to the Democrat position.
 

SBG

Senior Member
Gaswamp said:
Your not listening or reading, brother. Please read slower. I never said that Murtha didnt offer a proposal. nor, did I dismiss it out of hand. I said that he lacks credibility because of his approach.

But, lets think about this for a moment. We can do that slow too.... please try... lets forget about what the Democrats and the Republicans have done in the past for the moment. What if the Demos came out tomorrow and un-abashingly supported total Iraq war effort (Murtha could even sponser a bill to officially declare war.) Could you imagine what would happen in Iraq in a manner of days if they (demos)totally supported the President.

Now, before you start typing; this doesn't mean that in the long run the Iraqi government will work. In my mind it won't (you see I have read a history book or two) Thats why I didn't support going to Iraq in the first place. But, there is no doubt in my mind if the Democrats were really totally (thats 100%) behind the war from the get-go, through thick and thin, come hail or high water, then the US would be out of Iraq in 2 years with a government in place. Now again before you start typing let me repeat, that don't mean that in the long run it would work.
But, if as Pres. Bush has stated that his goal {that is the plan you know} is for the Iraqi people to decide, then get behind and support the effort so we can leave honorably. [you are making me type entirely too much and I hate this (I'm a short statement kinda guy i.e. get in and get out)]

Do you in your heart of hearts (yes you have one even if the Clinton-bashers here don't think so) no matter what you think of Pres. Bush (remember I never voted for him) actually think he just wants us to stay in Iraq...that he is the second coming of Hitler....that he went to war for oil or high oil prices so Cheney could get richer......that He wants Amercan soldiers to die for nothing..... Has no plan no advisers no nothing (doesn't matter if you agree with the plans or advise, I for sure never did) If you do believe all the leftward drivel that is in the media then I have wasted my time. therefore, read nofurther. But, if you beleive that Pres. Bush went to war because he thought it was the right thing to do (I believe this even if I disagree with it) then , please, want it to succeed. For that to take place you have to have total committment.... No political correctness, no second guessing...no name calling...no this ....no that... (not right now, there is time for that later).

What I'm trying to teach you and others of the more leftward persuasion (not that there is anything wrong with it).....is that I never supported to war from the get go....long term in my mind it won't work..... However, I am able to put that aside and support the war effort (which means win at all costs so we can leave). Get an Iraqi government going...get an Iraqi police force going....get an Iraqi army going....then if down the road the ****es, and the Shias, and the Kurds want to fight to doomsday then so be it. we gave them a chance and you know what then you can second guess and point fingers and call names. But, at least there was the support when it truly mattered.

Please re-read so I don't have to answer anymore questions or make any more comments. I can't type this much again if its a wasted effort!
Very good post. Thanks Swamp!
 
Well Gaswamp, we agree on some specific points, and your post is well stated and reasoned.

I disagree with your analysis of Mr. Murtha, he of the "Withdraw to an "Over the Horizon" strategic position". That is merely and artful play on words that otherwise means "cut and run", which in these times is not an option. We must fight the enemy where we find them.

I do agree we are going about it all the wrong way. I prefer the old way of war, namely "Total War" where there are no innocents, you are either friend or foe, and if you are foe, you die. This would include so called "innocents" in countries that harbor, provide safe conduct, or ignore the presence of terrorists in their country.
 
Gaswamp said:
Your not listening or reading, brother. Please read slower. I never said that Murtha didnt offer a proposal. nor, did I dismiss it out of hand. I said that he lacks credibility because of his approach.

But, lets think about this for a moment. We can do that slow too.... please try... lets forget about what the Democrats and the Republicans have done in the past for the moment. What if the Demos came out tomorrow and un-abashingly supported total Iraq war effort (Murtha could even sponser a bill to officially declare war.) Could you imagine what would happen in Iraq in a manner of days if they (demos)totally supported the President.

Now, before you start typing; this doesn't mean that in the long run the Iraqi government will work. In my mind it won't (you see I have read a history book or two) Thats why I didn't support going to Iraq in the first place. But, there is no doubt in my mind if the Democrats were really totally (thats 100%) behind the war from the get-go, through thick and thin, come hail or high water, then the US would be out of Iraq in 2 years with a government in place. Now again before you start typing let me repeat, that don't mean that in the long run it would work.
But, if as Pres. Bush has stated that his goal {that is the plan you know} is for the Iraqi people to decide, then get behind and support the effort so we can leave honorably. [you are making me type entirely too much and I hate this (I'm a short statement kinda guy i.e. get in and get out)]

Do you in your heart of hearts (yes you have one even if the Clinton-bashers here don't think so) no matter what you think of Pres. Bush (remember I never voted for him) actually think he just wants us to stay in Iraq...that he is the second coming of Hitler....that he went to war for oil or high oil prices so Cheney could get richer......that He wants Amercan soldiers to die for nothing..... Has no plan no advisers no nothing (doesn't matter if you agree with the plans or advise, I for sure never did) If you do believe all the leftward drivel that is in the media then I have wasted my time. therefore, read nofurther. But, if you beleive that Pres. Bush went to war because he thought it was the right thing to do (I believe this even if I disagree with it) then , please, want it to succeed. For that to take place you have to have total committment.... No political correctness, no second guessing...no name calling...no this ....no that... (not right now, there is time for that later).

What I'm trying to teach you and others of the more leftward persuasion (not that there is anything wrong with it).....is that I never supported to war from the get go....long term in my mind it won't work..... However, I am able to put that aside and support the war effort (which means win at all costs so we can leave). Get an Iraqi government going...get an Iraqi police force going....get an Iraqi army going....then if down the road the ****es, and the Shias, and the Kurds want to fight to doomsday then so be it. we gave them a chance and you know what then you can second guess and point fingers and call names. But, at least there was the support when it truly mattered.

Please re-read so I don't have to answer anymore questions or make any more comments. I can't type this much again if its a wasted effort!

Why should the Democrats or anyone else support what they perceive to be a failed/failing policy that is resulting in death and destruction? You seem to be arguing from the point of view that oppostion to Iraq is strictly politically motivated. You don't have to hate Bush to oppose his policies.

And, no, I can't imagine what would be changed if the 60% of the country that disapproves of the war suddenly changed their minds. Support for the war early on by the Democrats and generally did not stop it from sliding into the mess we see today. The problem is not that Democrats hate Bush, the problem is the policy. And you acknowledge as much when you express doubts about the long term. So why waste another life and any more money in pursuit of an unreachable goal? I'm reminded of Kerry's question: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

I understand your point about Murtha. I just don't think a "better" approach would have made any difference to the elfiiis of the world. They would simply smear on the latest cut-and-paste talking point from the administration (cut and run in this case) and then demand a solution from the next critic who dares challenge dear leader.
 

dixie

Senior Member
I guess lin missed the part where murtha called Marines cold blooded murderers, or maybe I missed the trial held for them, little thing called due process, but I'm seeing more and more it doesn't apply to the enlightened ones as murtha.
 
You ought to change your name to strawman, dix.

Gaswamp, whats up with the deletions?
 
I thought we were making progress, as you put it.
 
Top