Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   14 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

What Exactly Is the Neoconservative Movement?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 6/27/12

Those only vaguely familiar with the neoconservative movement may wonder isn't this ancient history? Weren't the neoconservatives a part of the Bush administration, and, as such, aren't they now past tense? The answer to both questions is an unequivocal no. Than there those who are clueless and are busy scratching their heads wondering what I am talking about. Is this another one of those conspiracy theories? No, it is definitely not. 

This movement is as strong today as it has ever been, the only difference being they do not control the White House as they did during the Bush era. Far more important, there is an imminent threat they will once again control the White House beginning in Jan. 2013. This is not simply a matter of history and curiosity.

Years of research into the neoconservative phenomenon are the basis for this report. It is hoped everyone reads this carefully.   The issue is extremely important and may affect the very existence of our nation as we know it. You will see its vital importance after reading the entire article.

Speaking of history, there is a quote I have lived by for over a half century. Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it.

Then, of course, we have Republican partisans, like the members of the tea party, who wish only to forget the past. On the other hand, history is not their long suit. Then you have your typical Republican supporter who cannot remember what happened last week and chooses ignorance over learning the lessons of the past. Unfortunately, Republicans are not the only ones who have this fault.

Many informed Americans dread the return of the neocons to the White House. They engineered an attack on Afghanistan, a nation that did not attack us on 9/11, a criminal organization did. Today the Afghan war is an unmitigated disaster and victory is no longer a goal. It has become the longest war in our history, and we are not leaving until 2024. Next the neocons decided to attack Iraq, an illegal invasion based on invented causes. We lost that war, and the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world is now aligned with our dreaded enemy, Iran, the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world, because we eliminated Iran's greatest foe, the Hussein regime in Iraq. The ultimate cost of the two disastrous wars is estimated to be between three and five trillion dollars. Our National Debt has reached the stratosphere. The human costs and the devastation wrought on two nations who posed no national security risks to the U.S. are off the scale. No wonder informed Americans fear a return of a neocon sympathizer to the White House. Taking into account the last time that happened, such an occurrence would be unbelievable and totally irrational.



Notice I said informed Americans. Therein lies the problem. Despite the fact that the neocons controlled the White House during the Bush administration, were able to manipulate Congress from 2001 to 2007, and the Supreme Court became a conservative court due to two Bush appointees, the neocons went unnoticed by the mass media. This has been true largely throughout their existence. The mass media, scared to death of being labeled "liberal," a job killer for sure, failed miserably in revealing any details of this far right organization. Many can be excused for their total ignorance of this movement.

To the mass media's shame, that movement is no deep secret. It is not one of those shadowing organizations that are the subject of conspiracy novels. There are volumes of information about this movement. One just has to have the desire to look. How do think I know? I'm not making this up.

It is hard to say when the movement actually began. It actually sprang from American Jewish liberal roots with personalities like Irving Kristol, the godfather of the movement, and his son, William Kristol, also, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Bell, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and Nathan Glazer  It might have begun earnestly with Nixon's resignation as a consequence of the Watergate investigation. Devout far right conservatives vowed never again will a Republican President undergo such an indignity. They hijacked the conservative Jewish liberal movement, who seemed willing, and their goal became controlling the media, the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Pretty lofty goals, but neocons can never be accused of being meek.

Whenever it actually began, the movement grew in strength during the Reagan, Bush, the First, and Clinton administrations culminating in the creation of their charter formed from the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC. Those four letters will generate a sheer volume of information on any search engine. Let me save you from the search, but you are more than welcome to do so. Essentially, the PNAC stated that neoconservatives are attempting to build an American Empire, seen as successor to the British Empire, its aim being to perpetuate a Pax Americana. The PNAC clearly stated that, if necessary, the use of military force should be used to achieve their goals. The PNAC also embraced the unitary executive theory. It also stated that to launch their plans, what they needed was a Pearl Harbor style event.

Enter 9/11. The neocons had their Pearl Harbor event. Very soon after 9/11 Bush announced his Bush Doctrine of preventive war. Already mentioned is a description of the disastrous results of the two wars he launched pursuant to that doctrine. So, what does the neoconservative movement have to do with all of this? Well, consider this, charter members or ardent sympathizers of that movement in the Bush White house include Donald Rumsfeld (SecDef), Paul Wolfowitz (deputy SecDef and architect of the Iraq war), Douglas Feith (undersecretary of defense and chief of the Office of Special Plans that provided the false intelligence for war), Condoleezza Rice (National Security Advisor and later SecState), Vice-President Dick Cheney and much of his staff " and President George W. Bush. That's only the tip of the iceberg. There were dozens in the Bush White House or advisors to the President who were charter members of the PNAC. We have seen the results of their efforts, and the question can be asked, do we want to see them again?

Ancient history, right, we are all sorry for what happened, but we cannot change the past. Very true, we can't change the past, but we can learn from the past, or we can condemn ourselves to re-living it.

Former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney will be facing off with President Obama in November. Romney has so far shied away from discussing foreign affairs in his campaign, stressing that the economy and jobs is the primary interest of Americans voters. He does have a point. But many are somewhat confused and wonder why he avoids foreign affairs since that is the one prerogative the President has with impunity, not needing the approval of Congress to act. This fact is even more apparent since the Bush era when Bush assumed many powers, some unconstitutional, and these have been passed on to the next President without a squeak from Congress. With this sort of latitude and potential power, why is Romney avoiding foreign affairs?

The answer might be that, Romney is not stupid. He is aware that some American voters may actually remember Bush's disastrous neocon policies. Moreover, he is not unaware that, if one searches "neo-conservatism" on the Internet, one gets 683,000 hits. All this combines with another problem Romney has. He is viewed by many in the GOP as not being conservative enough. That problem persists to this day.

So, Romney, not being stupid, came up with a solution to the latter problem. He surrounded himself with neocons and with their help wrote a white paper concerning foreign affairs on his vision of America's future in the 21st Century. Titled An American Century it is actually a tribute to the Project for the New American Century. It is a reincarnation of the Bush era of a neoconservative government. Aware of the disasters of the last such government, Romney, not being stupid, avoids the issue entirely. This begs a question, in view of the monumental failure of the last neocon White House, why does he support the movement. There are two answers. One, he desperately needs the support of the far right wing of his party.

Two, he believes in the dream of an American Empire and Pax Americana in our 21st Century.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

I am the author of two novels, "The Bode Testament" and "Impeachment." I am also a columnist who keeps a wary eye on other columnists and the failures of the MSM (mainstream media). I was born in Minnesota, and, to this day, I love the Vikings (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

America Divided

Classic military blunders

Expanded Presidential "War" Power: a Time-Bomb Threatening Our Democracy

What Exactly Is COIN?

War With Iran Imminent?

The Trilogy of Despair as Bin Laden Dances in His Cave

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 14 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
Is this the same movement that was behind NAZI Ger... by Anton Grambihler on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:25:40 PM
Of course not. Were you being sarcastic or serious... by Sandy Shanks on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:20:08 PM
Was Prescott Bush a Neoconservative?... by Anton Grambihler on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:18:09 AM
No, Anton, he was not, neither was George W. I see... by Sandy Shanks on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:21:34 PM
Neo cons as well as progressives are guilty of wan... by tincansailor on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:15:01 PM
"tincansailor" wrote:"Neo cons as well as progress... by Daniel Penisten on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:55:51 PM
And you are correct, Daniel. This from an unbiased... by Sandy Shanks on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:32:53 PM
There is an element of truth to what you say, but ... by Sandy Shanks on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:28:59 PM
"Neo-Conservatives" are "Conservatives" on steroid... by Daniel Penisten on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:52:34 PM
Daniel, you asked some good questions. In a way th... by Sandy Shanks on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:54:25 PM
Movement  presumes masses and philosophy.&nbs... by Mark Sashine on Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:06:32 PM
Your language could use some refinement. Using thi... by Sandy Shanks on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:30:28 PM
I don't know of anyone who has ever stood up and a... by Nick van Nes on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:42:01 AM
Nick, only two articles. You know your stuff. You ... by Sandy Shanks on Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:33:33 PM