- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,667
- 573
- 113
- 75
I see this word thrown around various post and hear it on TV and Radio ...
this thread...http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=382217
and the reply of Trench Fickler with the
peaked my interest enough to try to find exactly what the term means and refers to..
keep in mind..I am in NO WAY TAKING SIDES HERE...
just a curious look into this bantered around word..
I did find this entire read interesting..I realize it comes from combined sources and opinions..just not mine..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
this passage was particularly interesting..have no idea if it is true or not..but certainly eye opening ..
Some prominent defense and national security personalities have been quite critical of what they believed was Neoconservative influence in getting the United States to war with Iraq. Retired General William Odom, who had once served as NSA Chief under Ronald Reagan, was openly critical of Neoconservative influence in the decision to go to war, having said "It?s pretty hard to imagine us going into Iraq without the strong lobbying efforts from AIPAC and the neocons, who think they know what?s good for Israel more than Israel knows."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-37>[38]</SUP>
Nebraska Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush Administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology in his book America: Our Next Chapter, writes, "So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice ... They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil." [1]
[edit] Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States", published September 20, 2002. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-NSC_38-0>[39]</SUP> Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document bore a strong resemblance to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz under the first Bush administration.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-39>[40]</SUP>
The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Boot said he did, and that "I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can't sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman... But I also argue that we ought to go further."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-40>[41]</SUP> Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer William Kristol claimed: "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it... The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-41>[42]</SUP>
this thread...http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=382217
and the reply of Trench Fickler with the
peaked my interest enough to try to find exactly what the term means and refers to..
keep in mind..I am in NO WAY TAKING SIDES HERE...
just a curious look into this bantered around word..
I did find this entire read interesting..I realize it comes from combined sources and opinions..just not mine..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
this passage was particularly interesting..have no idea if it is true or not..but certainly eye opening ..
It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet ? that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world ? as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism.
Bush laid out his vision of the future in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The speech, written by neoconservative David Frum, named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger." Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-35>[36]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-36>[37]</SUP>Some prominent defense and national security personalities have been quite critical of what they believed was Neoconservative influence in getting the United States to war with Iraq. Retired General William Odom, who had once served as NSA Chief under Ronald Reagan, was openly critical of Neoconservative influence in the decision to go to war, having said "It?s pretty hard to imagine us going into Iraq without the strong lobbying efforts from AIPAC and the neocons, who think they know what?s good for Israel more than Israel knows."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-37>[38]</SUP>
Nebraska Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush Administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology in his book America: Our Next Chapter, writes, "So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice ... They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil." [1]
[edit] Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States", published September 20, 2002. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-NSC_38-0>[39]</SUP> Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document bore a strong resemblance to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz under the first Bush administration.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-39>[40]</SUP>
The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Boot said he did, and that "I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can't sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman... But I also argue that we ought to go further."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-40>[41]</SUP> Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer William Kristol claimed: "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it... The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-41>[42]</SUP>
