What if John McCain had been elected president in 2000?

[Alex_Dubinsky]

That’s not to say that McCain would have invaded Iraq either, just that McCain would have the same incentives to invade Iraq that Bush did.

Bush’s family made incredible money from the rise in the price of oil post-Iraq. Cheney and his friends made incredible money from the defense and rebuilding contracts from the war budget and drawn-out occupation. Not only did Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq, they PURPOSEFULLY fucked it up because that is the way they’d make the most money.

Which of those incentives would McCain have had?

Whatever McCain’s views and Bush’s views and the neocons’ views, the fact is that McCain would have tried to do what’s best for the country (whatever he would have thought that was), and Bush has acted only to destroy America to make his friends richer. Clearly, there’d have been a world of difference.

[BrainGlutton]

@Gangster Octopus

Would Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld been part of McCain’s administration?

Nothing here suggests any actual history or relationship between McCain and members of the neocon intellectual/academic/think-tank movement; which does not mean there has not been any.

At any rate, Rove would not have been part of it, and I doubt Cheney would have.

[rocking_chair]

heavens to betsy! i knew bush would go for iraq as soon as he threw his hat in the ring. he had it written all over him.

on the other hand, sen. mccain having actually been in vietnam and been a pow, he would have never handled the aftermath of 9/11 like bush did. as it is said those who don’t learn from history will repeat it. mccain would not repeat the mistakes made in vietnam nor would he tie the hands of the military. he would also not go along with water boarding or gitmo.

i also don’t think he would be captivated by the story of a goat while planes are crashing.

[foolsguinea]

@Irving Kristol

1. Taxes and Federal Budget: “Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth.” In Kristol’s view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: “One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.”[8]
2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. “Neocons do not feel … alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.”[8]
3. Traditional Moral Values: “The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives”. Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: “Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power.”[8]
4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: “Statesmen should … distinguish friends from enemies.” And according to Kristol, “with power come responsibilities … if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.”[8]
5. National Interest: “the United States of today, inevitably … [will] feel obliged to defend … a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces …that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II … that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today.”[8]

Wait, seriously? That’s strikingly proto-fascist. Aggressive foreign policy, superficially “strong”–but underfunded & thus actually weak–domestic government, good vs. evil, a world of defined “friends” & “enemies”–that explains a lot about why Bush’s group seem like crypto-fascists.

Dangerous premises.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

No, I meant what I said. Misrepresent what the neocons stand for all you want, but the fact that you’re cynical about their motivations doesn’t invalidate them.

Just going by what I’ve seen in Iraq. General Garner wanted to hold elections right away, and he didn’t last long. He was replaced by neocon ideologue Paul Bremer, who dissolved the Iraqi army, slashed taxes, abolished all tariffs and trade restrictions, privatized (often into the hands of foreign investors with no bidding process) practically all state-owned industry but the oil, suppressed organized labor, and put off elections as long as possible. Hegemony and capitalism, very important to neocons; democracy and human rights, not so much.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

General Garner wanted to hold elections right away, and he didn’t last long. He was replaced by neocon ideologue Paul Bremer, who. . .

Bremer was a career foreign service person in the 70s and 80s, and then after that went to work for Henry Kissinger, and then for Marsh & McLennan selling terrorism insurance. That’s not a neocon resume. In fact, if you work for Kissinger, that’s a pretty good sign you’re NOT a neocon.

[What_Exit]

@foolsguinea

Wait, seriously? That’s strikingly proto-fascist. Aggressive foreign policy, superficially “strong”–but underfunded & thus actually weak–domestic government, good vs. evil, a world of defined “friends” & “enemies”–that explains a lot about why Bush’s group seem like crypto-fascists.

Dangerous premises.

NeoCons and TheoCons, the unholy alliance.

Scary when you see how many of these Shrub surrounded himself with.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Mr. Moto

Here’s a news flash - Washington was under attack. I was at the Navy Yard there at the time, so I remember that well.

I went to the roof of our building and watched the smoke rise over the city.

If you were at the Navy Yard wouldn’t you have your back to the city when looking toward the pentagon?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Captain Amazing

I think it was, because I don’t think those 5 principles are really the five principles of neoconservativism, in spite of Kristol’s speech. Of those five principles you’ve cited, the core of neoconservativism is a combination of 4 and 5. Your points 1, 2, and 3 are distractions, minor points. And even on your points 1-3, it’s not like McCain is off the reservation on any of those. He likes small government, but he doesn’t make a fetish of it like Grover Norquest, and he’s been consistantly pro-life, for instance, for his political career.

So neoconservatism is little more than aggresive foreign policy (especially as it relates to advancing conservative Israeli interests)?

You seem to think that they adopted the reduce tax mantra (with no tought to the consequences) to buy political allies like Norquist and adopted “traditional values” to pander to the James Dobson’s of this country. Isn’t neoconservatism unholy union of the Grover Norquists with the James Dobsons with the Doug Feiths of the world?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Damuri Ajashi

So neoconservatism is little more than aggresive foreign policy (especially as it relates to advancing conservative Israeli interests)?

Well, to the extent that free markets, democracy, and human rights are “conservative Israeli interests”, I guess so

You seem to think that they adopted the reduce tax mantra (with no tought to the consequences) to buy political allies like Norquist and adopted “traditional values” to pander to the James Dobson’s of this country. Isn’t neoconservatism unholy union of the Grover Norquists with the James Dobsons with the Doug Feiths of the world?

No, that’s the “Republican party”. Of those threee people, only Feith is a neocon. Look, it’s not just pandering. Most neocons do think taxes are too high and government programs waste money, and most necons do think that it’s important to have a sense of shared morality and common values, but it’s a mistake to sort of think of them as a combination of everything you hate about the Republican party.

[Mr.Moto]

@Damuri Ajashi

If you were at the Navy Yard wouldn’t you have your back to the city when looking toward the pentagon?

Well, there was a good chunk of the city between the Navy Yard and the Pentagon, and I wasn’t on a high building.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

I think one of the early pointers made a great point that ‘neocon’ today has a new meaning: an evil bastard in cahoots with Bush. ‘Neocon’ also has its older sense, ie a [fairly general] set of views. But now you guys are playing a game of finding people who have those views, as if it’ll prove they’re evil. That’s a false syllogism.

Bush’s friends might be neocons because they’re evil. But they’re evil only because that’s what they are. They aren’t evil because they’re neocons.

So let’s cut it out with the whom we can label who.