Why I Am Not a Neo-Conservative

When George Bush launched the military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein and enforce Security Council resolution 1441 and sixteen other Security Council resolutions he had defied, I was for it. I would be for it today. It was a necessary war and a just war. By toppling a monster who had defied international order and was an obvious threat, Bush did the right thing. When he named the campaign Operation Iraqi Freedom, I was also an enthusiast. It put the Democratic Party, which soon betrayed the war, and the political left, which instinctively  supports America’s enemies, on the defensive. When he said he was going to establish democracy in Iraq, I almost believed him. And that seemed to put me in the camp of the neo-conservatives for whom democracy in Iraq was not only a wish but an agenda. In any case, people labeled me that not least because I am a Jew and “neo-conservative” functions for the ominously expanding anti-Semitic Left as a code for self-serving Jews who want to sacrifice American lives for Israel.

But whatever I wrote about the war in support of the democracy agenda, inside I was never a 100% believer in the idea that democracy could be so easily implanted in so hostile a soil. I wanted to see Saddam toppled and a non-terrorist supporting government in its place. I would have settled for that and a large U.S. military base as well. But I allowed myself to get swept up in the Bush-led enthusiasm for a democratic revolution in the Middle East. I remained on board until the Beirut spring began to wither and got off when election results in Gaza came in and put a Nazi party into power. That spelled the end of my neo-conservative illusions.

It looks like we are headed for the same result in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to win the September elections. The reality is that a totalitarian Islam is the vibrant and increasingly dominant movement in the Arab world. Any elections likely to take place will be on the order of one man, one vote, one time. Neo-conservatives are now cheering on the Obama administration’s reckless intervention in Libya, as though the past ten years have taught them nothing. The nation building effort in Iraq led to a squandering of American resources and a weakening of American power. Putting a man who is hostile to American power in the White House is not the least aspect of this American decline. Because of these nation-building delusions we are still mired in Afghanistan — now the longest war in American history. And now we have been plunged into the Middle Eastern maelstrom with no clear agenda or objective.

The Obama Administration, in my view, is the most dangerous administration in American history, and conservatives need to be very clear about the limits and objectives of American power so that they can lead the battle to restore our government to health. To accomplish this, neo-conservatives need to admit they were wrong, and return to the drawing board. They should give up the “neo” and become conservatives again.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    The Obama Administration IS the most dangerous administration in American history. Looking for ANYTHING in its action which benefits America is naive by itself, because America is now ruled by a socialist/internationalist junta.

    The Iraq war too was a late, misplaced, mismanaged and inadequate reaction. Yashiko Sagamori wrote this already in 2004:


    • Guest

      More dangerous than Buchanan? Get a sense of perspective, please.

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        You mean Pat Buchanan, I guess. He exemplifies the policy of an extreme isolationism and disengagement from any exterior activity of America.

        However what he really means is to cut relations with Israel and promote the relations with the Islamic world. This is the old doctrine of the State Department and a few other "schools" of political thought, which rejected and fight against the Judeo-Christian identity of America. The lefts, progressives, liberasts are the great part of these forces.

        The administration of the impostor Hussein Soetoro became a realized and implemented dream of all such forces. How more dangerous can it be?!

  • Brian

    I likewise had high hopes for Iraq and Afghanistan. Alas I'm disillusioned.

  • http://sheikyermami.com/ sheik yer'mami

    The Obama Administration, in my view, is the most dangerous administration in American history,

    "in my view" sounds like an apology.

    The Obama regime is the enemy within.

    • flaedo

      sheik yermami youre doin' a great job down there in Oz btw

    • sheik yer bouti

      no you are

    • conservative4ever

      Amen to that

  • Nick_54

    Is it not incredibly ironic? By foolishly intervening in Libya,Obama is aiding the very forces that are trying to establish a Muslim caliphate and probably will succeed – at least in the Middle East…

    • Scott in PA

      It may not be "ironic". It is probably by design.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    I too was guilty of believing in the "democracy project." But one thing I NEVER believed was George W Bush's insistence that "[Muslims want the same thing for their children as we want for ours…education, jobs, a better life]". This is an extension of the myopic relativism that permeates our universities.

    Muslims may indeed want these things for their children, but they also want other things…things that compel them to do the unimaginable, such as kill their daughters (and occasionally, sons) when they have strayed too far from Islamic orthodoxy; such as mutilating the sexual organ of their daughters to conform to Islamic custom; such as teaching their youth a level of hatred and disdain for the "other" that even a semblance of objectivity in their world-view becomes impossible; such as living under the stultifying restrictions of Sharia.

    Sorry Mr Bush….Muslims DO NOT want the same things for their children as we want for ours. Grasping such a simple truth is essential to a proper understanding of the Islamic world.

    • Dannawally

      Another word for it is anthropomorphism.

    • Liberty Clinger

      Like the Marxists, Muslims do not believe that all men (or women) are created with equal rights to life, liberty and the fruit of labor in pursuit of happiness. Under both Marxism and Islam some are always "more equal than others." Via "survival of the fittest" the not-to-be-equalized Marxist equalizers become secular "Priests of Power" – their animal "will to power" renders them an animal "right" to be masters of an atheist collective – superior in rights – superior before law – superior in property. Under Islam the Caliphs and Imams have no need for "equality" rhetoric – by "divine right" they become masters of a religious collective – superior in rights – superior before law – superior in property. Both Marxism and Islam are based on collectivization of the people's property – one an atheist Borg – the other a religious Borg. Collect the people's property and all the rest follows as a matter of course – the Borg is then empowered to collectivize guns – collectivize information – collectivize thought and feelings – collectivize minds.

    • Liberty Clinger

      “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we're doing… Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of power is power… Always there will be the intoxication of power… We are the Priests of Power… Power is power over human beings, over the body; but above all over the mind." George Orwell – 1984

      The American Declaration of Independence remains the single greatest threat to all forms of collectivist tyranny – because it is pro-individual – because it is anti-Collective – because it is a Borg-Killer. Under our Declaration of Independence all individuals – because they are made in the image of God – naturally possess equal rights to life, liberty and fruit of labor in pursuit of happiness.

  • Anthony

    Mr. Horowitz paints a sad tale of being raised into the cult of the left, having an epiphany, being snookered like many of us by the “democracy builders TM”, and finally having to endure the torture of witnessing the colla

  • bob maram

    a very good and thoughtful article by mr. horowitz. i still however remain somewhat of a neo-conservative and i am uncomfortable with the traditional positions of the paleo conservatives especially if we eb end up with a ""tea party"" presidential candidate in 2012. i do believe that wouldinsure president obama receiving a majority of votes. it could be an ironic replay of the take-over of the democratic party in the late sixties and seventies which in effect elected and reelected a richard nixon and changed the leadership of the democratic party from responsible people like hubert humphrey and henry jackson to leftist apologists like george mcgovern and jimmy carter. bob maram

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I can tell you if another neo-conservative like John McCain wins the Republican Party nomination like the last time, I’m not voting. I didn’t vote in the last election because a neo-conservative won the Republican Party nomination, and I won’t vote again if another neo-conservative wins. Further, I don’t consider myself a paleo-conservative either. I consider myself to be a mainstream conservative and, as for as I’m concerned, neo-conservative is just another way for spelling liberal, because that’s what they really are.

      • Chezwick_Mac


        I'm still waiting for a response from your assertion on the 'Conversation with Rumsfeld' thread.

  • Alex Kovnat

    I agree there are limits to what we can accomplish in the middle east with military force. All we're going to accomplish in Libya by overthrowing Ghadaffi, will be to get ourselves bitten again when an Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama Bin Laden-like personality takes over.

    If a Pol Pot like personality were to take over in Libya or any other country, maybe then we ought to intervene. But I see no evidence Ghadaffi is THAT bad.

  • Anthony

    Mr. Horowitz paints a sad tale of being raised into the cult of the left, becomming one of its legendary advocates, having an epiphany, being snookered like many of us by the “democracy builders TM”, and finally having to endure the torture of witnessing the collapse of America which his former fellow travelers are to blind to see. Of course some see and desire enslavement over what we once took for granted. But many of us on the outside of this distorted bunch of maniacs On the hard left are baffled by the seeming contradiction between their self proclaimed hatred for any kind of traditional morality and societal standards, and their sympathy for all forms af disguised tyranny. One point Mr Horowitz fails to discuss adequately, is the results of liberal social engineering which in my experience ha created a generation lost to all common decency and spirit of civic responsibility. Go for a walk on the streets of NYC to see just how far gone in general the standards of excellence have diminished. Literally, our streets bear witness to the tragedy of the Left’s desire to transform from what was once a Pelops with traditional values that worked to contribute to society, to a nation of unintelligent, impulse driven individuals who seem to lack critical thinhind and sound judgement. This, is the Left’s great victory, the collapse of the Judeo-Christian values which built our civilization.

  • WildJew

    I voted for G. W. Bush in 2000, hoping he would be different from his father. I did not oppose removing Saddam Hussein. He was a supporter of international terrorism. Only Bush was less than honest with the public. Iraq was not closely affiliated with Al Qaeda. Bush's good friends, the Saudis were / are. Saudi charities fund Al Qaeda. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi. Osama bin Laden is Saudi. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" might have put Bush's political enemies on the defensive but again it was dishonest. The U.S. should – in this case – go to war in the first instance to protect her security; not to "liberate" peoples with questionable loyalties. Christian minorities are viciously persecuted in Iraq post Saddam Hussein. More importantly, like Chezwick points out above, Bush brazenly lied about Islam. Nonetheless, these so-called neo-conservatives, and yes David (I take at his word he is not among them), stood by Bush even as he enunciated his "vision" for undermining America's only reliable ally in the region, Israel. Bush did this at the behest of his Saudi 'Wahhabi' friends who pressured him to do so.

  • WildJew

    Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rightly inferred (or implied that) Bush was an appeaser like Neville Chamberlain – Bush sought to appease the Muslim and Muslim-Arab world at Israel's expense; then he (Sharon) caved to WH pressure. Bush committed his administration to the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel's heartland. Bush made the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel a "formal goal of U.S. policy." At that point (only days after the 9/11 attacks) early October 2001, Bush lost my support. Why did he NOT at this point, lose the support of erstwhile "friends" and supporters of Israel, conservative Jews and Christians alike? I agree with David's conclusions. Bush's policies are largely responsible for the rise of America's worst nightmare, Barack Hussein Obama.

  • Morty62

    Obama's mistake is that he is making the same mistake that George Bush made, expecting democracy in the Middle East to produce Western-style constitutional republics that respect minority and human rights. If Obama is so "hostile to American power," I can't tell. He just ordered our military into Libya without consulting Congress. Even George went to Congress for the authority to invade Iraq. Sounds like Obama is more than comfortable with exercising American power. Whether he is exercising it wisely is another question. My vote is "no" for the reasons Mr. Horowitz elucidated above.

    • John Jordan

      I believe the ONLY reason Barack Obama does anything, anywhere, anytime is to diminish the stature and power of the United States of America. Mr. Obama is working hand-in-glove with Richard Trumka's Big Labor Thug Consortium. Obama is using Libya to sap blood and treasure while hoping the lies and violence being perpetrated by Trumka's thugs will break our Spirit here at home. Obama and Trumka are Communists who have wormed their way into positions of power. They hate us and want to enslave us. Libya is a distraction to cover Big Thug Labor's criminal enterprise here at home. Remove Richard Trumka from the White House in 2012.

    • WildJew

      If Obama supports governments that respect minority and human rights, why didn't he support Iran's protest movement (Green Revolution) following the 2009 Iranian elections, rather than extend his support to Iran's genocidal Mullahs? Obama is more comfortable bashing our ally Israel than anything else. He is more concerned that a Jew might build an apartment in Jerusalem than he is Muslims possessing weapons of mass destruction. If Obama supports respect for minority and human rights, why is he giving place to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood which has no respect for non-Muslims? Who are the Libyan rebels Obama is supporting? What is their brand of Islam?

    • intrcptr2

      "without consulting Congress"

      What does that tell us about the difference between the "fascist" Bush and the populist Obama? And the President is not required to "consult" with Congress. Except in cases of national defense, he is to wait for Congress to declare war. Admittedly this is a quaint notion which holds no water these days. But that is what the Constitution says, Presidential war powers acts notwithstanding.

  • Brett_McS

    Purely through incompetence, Obama is following, fairly closely, the policy the US should be implementing in these Islamist infested hell holes: Support one side, then the other, then switch, back and forth .. until both sides are either spent or dead. Let's get back to the good old days of the Iran/Iraq wars.

    • truthin

      You're hilarious

  • Elder Zion

    Islam and Democracy seem to be incompatible, and Islam and anti-Western attitudes seem to go together, and therefore we can't expect friends from any war we wage in that region. Nonetheless, we had to do something after 9/11, and George W did ask the Taliban to hand over Osama, which they refused to do, and when we invaded Afghanistan we found training camps with maps of American cities.
    Gaddafi is a man who has said (if my memory is correct) that blood would flow in the streets of NYC.
    Saddam had a jet plane that terrorists used for training on. I don't know if he was a threat to us though – certainly he showered missiles on Israel, but as far the USA, I don't know.
    If neo-cons feel that we are bringing pro-Western democracies to these countries, then they are mistaken.

  • Andres de Alamaya

    To simplify things it seems to me that America in its foreign policy should have first and foremost in mind economic considerations. Any theocracy is a curse on its own people and a danger to the rest of the world. Bush's thought that all folks want the same for themselves and their families is correct up to age four or five before their brains are messed up beyond repair in a theocracy and particularly if it is ruled by Islam. Given a type of Democracy but ruled and enforced by a dictatorship could in one and a half generations repair the most corrupted, lunatic society but it will never happen because it is economically impossible. Therefore, we need to deal with the outside world on a basis of "what's in it for us." If they have oil and conditions in that country endanger their supply of oil to us, then we must act appropriately to secure that oil. If an oil producing country exports terrorism then we must destroy its government and take possession of it. We are not our cousin's keepers. We can't bring rule of law and civilization to the whole world. Hell, we can't even achieve it in our own country. And the most important and significant statement that David made in this piece is that the Obama administration is the most dangerous in America's history. We should be focusing on this problem more than on any other because they are already preparing for 2012 and I see no credible candidates in the opposition being prepared for the final fight. While Obama may have turned off many whites from ever considering a vote for another black man, there is one black man who happens to be the only man of any color who seems to have both feet on the ground and his head clear and decisive. Also, he knows the enemy. He is Representative Allen West.

  • Cyclops

    How sad that for so many in the West democracy has become an end in itself, whereas it's only a means. Have you forgotten history?

    One thing the author doesn't seem to know: neo-conservatives can't shed the 'neo' and "go back" to being just conservative. Before being neo-con they were lefty liberals, famously mugged by reality – that's why they're "neo".

    And yes, America. The whole of humanity needs a moral, free, vital and strong America. Come to your senses! Return to your roots! For your own sake, and also for ours in the Third World, throw off the Obamaniac and his running dogs.

  • al Kidya

    After Russia's failed war in Afghanistan I knew America was battling uphill and getting itself into another "Vietnam or worse".
    While realizing Saddam Hussein was a tyrant I also realized that it would be an impossibility to enforce democracy in a country divided by Shia and Sunni Muslims.

    My greatest hope is that we get the heck out of Islamic affairs and concentrate on preserving Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East.
    Our defensive posture should be placed squarely on Israel. They have been and will continue to be our only friends and allies in the ME.

  • ETKron

    Sorry David, the neo-cons were defectors form the Democratic party after the McGovernites won control: they were Scoop Jackson Democrats; they were never really conservatives.

  • flaedo

    l dunno what a neo conservative is. l didnt have a misguided notion about what could be achieved in lraq or anywhere else. Buddying up to muslims and socialists is a drag.
    l am a RADICAL CONSERVATIVE. l believe in giving back everything the muslims and socialists put out – plus some. l like Western civilisation and Western culture. l have read a lot of Western history. ln terms of every kind of achievement no culture or civilisation comes anywhere near Western culture. Right now we need RADICAL CONSERVATIVES.

  • Tyke

    My frustration with this whole situation is the failure of our leaders in the west to face up to the fact that Muslims and Islam hate us and our democratic values. I find it frightening that the media and the politicians all assume that we are witnessing the start of a 'democratic revolution' in the Arab world. The 'rebels' in Egypt and Libya I see on my TV all shout 'Allah u Akbar' and wear Muslim clothes. They hate Mubarak and Gaddafi because they are not Islamic enough and have ties with the west. Under Sharia law, the people can rise up and topple their rulers if they are deemed un-Islamic. This is what we are witnessing.
    My theory is that we have to get involved in the UK, as we have sold Gaddafi 10s of millions of pounds worth of arms and it would be irresponsible to watch him use them on his own people. Also the UK and France (who buy 70% of their oil from Libya) need to secure future business with whom ever is the winner, and as it looks like it won't be Gaddafi, if we help the other team, they are likely to do business with us – or so we think.

    • marat1

      You are brighter than the vast majority of Media and the general population. These people saw signs for "democracy" and "human rights" and got so caught up in the buzz of the adrenaline of the thousands in the streets, that they ignored the reality of the vast majority of Egyptians. In point of fact, Democracy is doomed in Egypt. Consider: this past year, a poll of Egyptians indicated that more than 80% of Egyptians support the execution of homosexuals, adulterers and ANYONE who converts to another religion. Also, not terribly long ago, the Courts of Egypt sentenced a man and his ENTIRE family to death for the crime of "converting to Christianity." It would take more than decades and decades for Egypt to build any foundation or fertile soil for democracy. I stake MY money that they will be wishing for Mubarek to come back pretty quickly. Totalitarianism will be the rule. The MAIN enemy of democracy, sad to say, is ISLAM ITSELF, which is a theo-political ideology more than a "religion" as Westerners understand the notion. NO? Sharia law is embedded in Islam. Under Sharia, you can be executed if a "cleric" deems you to be "an Enemy of Islam." Imagine if this "right" were granted to Ministers, Priests, Rabbis in the West.
      Converting to another religion will also bring you death under Sharia, or merely even deciding to LEAVE Islam (in which case you are branded "an apostate"). But democracy?? Fuggeddaboutit……..

  • jbtrevor

    I somewhat agree with David however where I depart is on the implementation of war strategy. It was the innane rules of engagement that has and continues to mire us in both Afghanistan & Iraq.
    When America goes to war…go to war for crying out loud.

  • Consider

    I always wondered how, in the socio political context, normal people don’t find it repulsive to be regarded as conservatives, and even more, to consider themselves conservatives. For, there is little worth conserving as it actually is in the real world. It is useless to say that conservatives try to care for only ‘good’ things, things worth preserving. Even the cherished concepts like freedom, democracy, prosperity, rule of law are nowhere in reality so perfect that they could not be further improved. Conservativism in the political context means an a priory attitude to preserve things as they are, to arrest change, to hang on the existing state of affairs (or better, to some glorious past) on the excuse that human history is a history of corruption and decay. Historically, conservatives always supported positions that would hardly be considered ‘good’ even by people who nowadays call themselves conservatives. They supported aristocracy against democracy, monarchy against republicanism, slavery against freedom, privilege against equality, clericalism against secularism, obscurantism against knowledge, etc.
    Most of your contributors (but not all) seem to endorse views that are exactly the opposite of conservativism. One wonders why they accept to be associated with an outlook with so ugly connotations.

  • tanstaafl

    The natural governance for Muslims is a ruthless despot. Mohammed was the first ruler of Islam and the pattern of his tyranny has been unbroken for the past 1400 years.

  • Lisa_H

    Mosab Yousef (who wrote Son of Hamas) thinks it is the beginning of the end of Islam: In an interview two years ago he said, "I believe Islam is collapsing already. It looks from the outside like it’s growing. But from the inside, it’s completely collapsing. It’s not giving answers to the people. It’s not improving their lives. It’s not helping them at all. Within ten years, that’s it, Islam’s going to be over."

    I really really would like to believe that. It's hard to believe but I hope his assessment is right. It could take a couple of generations. Perhaps there are a significant number of Muslims in the ME who are fed up with being ruled by corrupt tyrants and feel suffocated by their religion. Over time the numbers could grow and they would fight the hardcore Islamists. Now that is an endeavour I would support.

    • Herb

      I too would like to be optimistic like Son of Hamas, that Islam is rotting from within. But the real question is who has the bombs and the guns and the will to use both. It's the orthodox Muslims (don't call them extremists; Al Qaeda is very mainstream Islam), that's who. It's like saying communism in China is dead with all their exports and embrace of capitalist methods. But the red star and hammer & sickle are its symbols, the Chinese Communist Party is its ruling class, and there is no political freedom. Neither violent Islam (excuse me, orthodox Islam) or Chinese communist dictatorship are going away anytime soon. Each in its own way is a danger to Western style liberty.

  • Michael

    Maybe doing nothing in all these engagements is the right response. But if we choose that path it simply means the rapid expansion of totalitarianism until it's knocking at our door. There's no ignoring this stuff, but I agree it's folly to think that they'll reform their nations under the Federalist Papers. Maybe we just wait until the totalitarianism sufficiently threatens us, and then we nuke their every city. Seriously.

  • Amused

    So David , you had your "first epiphany " sometime in the late 80's ? You then cast your lot in with the Republicans , and went along until post Bush . We simply didn't coin the word back then as Neo-Cons . Disillusionment again in the late 90's ..again ,after the Bush folly in Iraq became undeniable . Now the "new neo-cons " . Funny , all of us [so-called ] "pinkos " of that time KNEW that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was phony [which McNamara finally admitted in his 80 's ], we served , we supported Afghanistan [at least in principle ] but Bush blew that one too , but absolutely , saw no logic in Iraq .[ WMD's = Gulf of Tonkin ].Obama simply reflects Bush policy , and now Libya …MORE folly . Most Vietnam Vets REMEMBER , that it was BOTH Democrat and Republican , that got us into that , and kept us there for way too long . History repeats itself , leopards change their spots , but I remain the same .I have remained NPA since I was able to vote .

    • truthin

      You mean David's 2nd epiphany not in the late 90s, but post-Bush around 2010, right? In terms of the Gulf of Tonkin, the attack was not constructed by the military, but the fear of attack (our warships were there as BAIT) was used as a pretext for ground forces. The fact is, we were already at war with Vietnam. Too bad the US gov't didn't heed the advice of the original OSS officers on the ground in Vietnam after WWII, who rightly suggested we could work with Ho Chi Minh. Instead, we foolishly believed we could win a land war in Asia. LOL

  • Amused

    From a place some where in the middle , the only difference I see between the two parties [atleast in foreign policy ] is that the Democrats tend to see "the folly " somewhat sooner than the Republicans , who unfortunately , like Nixon , need to have their noses pushed down into it before recognizing it .

    • nina

      We are not Amused.

  • Amused

    In Libya however , there is hope … in that politicians are seeing the FOLLY , early on . But is it too late ? Time will tell .

  • trickyblain

    "The Obama Administration, in my view, is the most dangerous administration in American history, and conservatives need to be very clear about the limits and objectives of American power so that they can lead the battle to restore our government to health."

    I realize that this is a reflexive "truth" to many, but one wishes Horowitz acually explained "why." He brushes off his sycophantic Bush fervor (see: fawning interview with Rumsfeld) — where he spent years tarring those who opposed the idiotic, bank-branking wars of occupation as anti-American. Now he considers Obama "most dangerous" (people thought the same of Lincoln — they were wrong, as Horowitz is today).

    What has Obama done that explains this position? Please save the "he wants the US to fail" garbage." It's against human nature to "want" to fail at a job you've spent your enitre life working for. What real life policies would lead one to believe that he is "most dangerous"?

    • WildJew

      Some understand the implications of a lifetime of troubling adult associations, especially in politics. Obama drew spiritual nourishment from a racist / anti-Semitic pastor for better than twenty years. Obama ran with supremacist bigots, terrorists, Muslim jihadists and jihad sympathizers his entire adult life. Obama's pastor, commenting on Obama's feigned repudiation of his spiritual mentor said: "(Barack Obama is) a politician. I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he HAS to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do, he does what politicians do." This is indicative of a very dangerous man.

      • Amused

        No more dangerous than Bush , who I guess did a "better charade " as a "G_D fearing christian with acceptable views on abortion . People in this country , have never been known to vote with their heads , but rather by emotion . And brother , do these politicians know how to appeal to that . If you look at the actual human cost b[body count ] resulting from Presidenjtial decisions , with or without Congressional approval , you soon realize that only very few could be consider LESS than dangerous . Trickyblain and Wild Jew, your ideological rhetoric blinds you to a greater reality .

    • QSuzy

      Bush was very dangerous because he had no clue about Islam and got us into two wars based on lies that had nothing to do with self-defense. Obama is even more dangerous because he knows about Islam and still managed to get us into another ME war NOT based on self-defense. I'm not sure why we're in Libya but I hope we're out quickly, before the Libyan Islam takes over.

      What is chanted at Friday prayers all over the ME? "Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our Islamic laws, we will conquer you."

  • USMCSniper

    Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago, (1899-1973) is the father of neo-conservatism. He was born and grew up in Germany, spending half his life there. As a Jew he fled the Third Reich very late in its development, leaving only in 1938. He came to the United States and eventually taught at the University of Chicago. He is most famous for his study of Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince, calling him evil and admirable by turns. Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Defense Secretary and a major architect of President Bush’s foreign policy, was a Ph.D. student of his at the University of Chicago, as was Abram Shulsky, eventual director of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. Strauss is popular among many other Neocons: editor William Kristol; commentator John Podhoretz; Michael Ledeen of Iran-Contra infamy; Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (recently resigned); Richard Perle, director of the Project for the New American Century; and many others holding important positions in the White House and Defense Department. Post number 2 will outline Leo Strauss's neo-conservatism.

    • truthin

      This clearly outlines the fascist nature of Straussian politics, which must be stopped by any means necessary.

  • USMCSniper

    Post 2 of 3: Any teacher has his teachers. Leo Strauss was a student of the philosopher Martin Heidegger and of the legal scholar Carl Schmitt, both National Socialist (i.e. Nazi) Party members. Here are the main points of Strauss’s philosophy. Except for one quote of Strauss, as noted, all quotes are of Ms. Drury describing Strauss’s ideas. 1. There are the rulers and the ruled; “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior and this elite must perpetually deceive those they rule. 2. Religion “is the glue that holds society together.” Any religion will do. “Secular society … is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism. “You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty.”

  • USMCSniper

    Post 3 of 3:

    3. Also, a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, … if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.

    4. Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed … Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people.” (Leo Strauss)

    To sum up: Strauss advocated, as do the neo-cons of today, a benevolent aristocracy that keeps its citizens in line using religion, deceit, and in perpetual war or conflicts with real or manufathured enemies.

    • truthin

      In a curious way, you seem to agree with Chomsky and the 'manufacturing consent' thesis. LOL

  • QSuzy

    David Horowitz, you're apology is accepted. However, the term neo-conservative became a rallying cry for the anti-Semites on the right–Buchanan, Lew Rockwell and others, and was based on the Islamic lie that any US Jew who favored the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was doing so on behalf of Israel. Even though this was an outrageous lie because Israel did not benefit in any way, that lie gained steam.

    What worries me about you, David, is the way in this column of yours, that you so brazenly wrote how you got swept up with Bush's enthusiasm. This was the bigger error in your judgment. You should have known better from the moment you heard Bush describing Islam as the religion of peace. And if you didn't know better but you had doubts which you admit, then at least wait until your doubts are solidly answered because while you were celebrating the war, Islam among the 78 Islamic nations with 20 in the ME along with Islamic territories in Palestine and Kashmir simply got much, much stronger.

    I hope you're still wondering as I am, what happened to Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who's 6'5" and on a kidney machine.

    • USMCSniper

      David should have known better when Bush and the RINOs began to use the term "Compassionate Conservatism" which is the evaders way of saying they are for social justice through wealth redistribution byy the government.

    • WildJew

      "You should have known better from the moment you heard Bush describing Islam as the religion of peace."


      And when Bush called for the establishment of a 23rd Muslim (terror) state in the ME, that should have been definitive. Where are the principles, the ideals and the idealists in the conservative movement? Is everyone on the right a compromising pragmatist?

      "Bush is better than Gore! Would you rather have Al Gore as president?"

      "Bush is better than Kerry! Would you rather have John Kerry?"

      How often I was lectured in this way.

      Does the right have any principles? Any red lines?

  • To your Epiphany!

    Oh, so there are peoples that actually are different from other peoples. Hmmm. Might it be that peoples can be concretely different from each other? Certainly seems so or else why wouldn't the Arabs love freedom and democracy as much we do? Isn't loving freedom and democracy in your blood David. It's in mine.. But apparently it's not in theirs. Do you have the courage to explain to your children that peoples are concretely different from each other? Or would that be too risky? Might they austracize you for being too racialist?

  • socal

    I just love the infantile Leftists. They cry Bush did this and Bush did that and Bush did it too!! All to justify obamas massive incompetency. Seems to me if youre being led down a road full of crap and your shoes are getting dirty, if you get a chance to lead said group,you do not just run down that road faster in hopes that less crap will get on your shoes. You get off that road!! We are in serious trouble as a nation. Progressiveism is not an answer! Many nations and peoples have gone down that road and their shoes became so soiled that they could only throw them away and buy new. We need to heed the lessons of history and return to being a constitutional republic ruled by a LAW that is applied evenly and justly to all citizens regardless of their public standings.

  • Amused

    I do not trust any changes in ethos , especially " several changes " .The "bottom line " is so easily swayed , determined by which way the wind blows …hmmmm.

  • Rochmoninoff

    I recently discovered that "neocon" wasn't a desciption of a particular branch of the Republican party but actually a nasty enthnic slur (on Jews).
    While I went through the same steps of support and pulling back as David discribes in his post, I retained my naivete until the bitter end.

    Its ironic that the left is so racist. It's more ironic that I would fall for their trick of redifining good things to be bad, one more time.

    • truthin

      Not sure what you mean by racist. David likes to talk about attacks on Jews in this country. What an analysis would show is that we're talking about attacks from the Right. If you want to hear Racism, check out David's RANT at Brooklyn College (NO SEMBLANCE OF ACADEMIC DISCOURSE, JUST YELLING, IN CAPS).

  • Tom Kinney

    Part I
    I had the same experience. As a liberal turned conservative post 9/11, the "liberal interventionist" logic of the liberation of Iraq appealed greatly to me. As a hitchhiker who hitched entirely through Iraq twice on the way to Kuwait City and back in the mid-60s, I had also loved the people there and felt for their repression.

    But the recent rush to judgment about Karzai in Afghanistan, and the charge that he is corrupt in doing what Mideasterners do, i.e., siphoning monies to relatives, nepotism, etc., made me realize that we simply don't understand these cultures well enough to transform them. We call Karzai corrupt for doing things that his countrymen would consider him corrupt for not doing. And all the top folks in the Obamageddon administration have called him corrupt. This is a complete misread of the people of this area.

    • truthin

      No, people in the know ALWAYS called Karzai corrupt (the Left warned about this). Whatever happens in Iraq/Afghan, it's on Bush.

  • Tom Kinney

    Part II
    As much as I'd like to see humanitarian intervention in these infected areas, we must admit that nation-building is still beyond us. Instead, we must exercise the discipline to look on as unspeakable events transpire until the Mideast and North Africa find their own ways to their collective salvation.

    This is the Islamic reformation and while we in the west consider reformations to be good things, that's only in hindsight. When reformations are transpiring, their are ugly and violent and can spin any which way during their lengthy exhortations. We'd best watch from the sidelines until all this plays out, as painful as that may be.

    • Liberty Clinger

      The current and upcoming Islamic Reformation may be one of further degradation – a Reformation of unequal rights with further suppression of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – a Reformation in the downward direction of al Qaeda – not a Reformation in the upward direction of our Declaration of Independence. It appears to me that the Marxists are also enemies of the American Revolution, so they make natural allies.

  • truthin


  • jewdog

    Every day mountains of petrodollars flow to the coffers of the most retrograde and aggressive regimes on earth. This obscene wealth has spawned weapons procurement, international terrorism, barely-concealed bribery to colleges and politicians, worldwide funding of extremist mosques and madrassas as well as an attitude of Islamic triumphalism throughout the Mideast. It is endangering and degrading the world.
    Some day, we will realize that we are wasting our time and resources trying to reform the degenerate Mideast, or to be its friend, and we, or some other outside power, will take our troops and seize that oil, because that is the simplest way to nip this problem in the bud once and for all.

  • Amused

    Marxists ? Declaration of Independence ?? Man get your head in the game .This is islam , they are allied with NO ONE ,they are natural enemies to all that is non-muslim . Islam is anathema to Democracy . Period . Bush ignored that , and apparently so has Obama .

    • truthin

      Even the Neo-cons failed to recognize that toppling Saddam (an easy task), meant putting Iran in a stronger regional position.

    • not amused at all

      The Islamic revolutionaries and leftist revolutionaries temporarily ally with each other to overthrow the existing order, each believing they will be the final winner. That's how it happened in Iran.

  • vlparker

    Hind sight is 20/20. I also supported the Iraqi war, but unlike David I now think it was a mistake. It is normal for good people to want freedom for others and to want to take down the tyrants of the world. I was all for it. But I have learned my lesson. When you topple a dictator, you better have a good idea of who is going to fill the vaccuum and it had better be an improvement over the ousted dictator. I don't claim to be an expert on what is now going on in Iraq, but from all the reports I have seen Christians are fleeing the country in fear of their lives. Churches are being burned and Christians murdered. It doesn't sound like much of an improvement over Saddam Hussein to me.

    We supposedly went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. We haven't gotten him. Instead we are making a pact with a shady government in Pakistan, who themselves pose a threat to India and can be trusted about as far as I can spit, to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    • truthin

      It's not always hindsight. Right-minded people NEVER liked Saddam (remember, conservatives like Rumsfeld loved him, referring to him as OUR MAN IN BAGHDAD). And right-minded people NEVER bought into the WMD crap. All true intelligence reports said he had abandoned the program years ago. But the CIA and other govt departments were so busy building up the MORIARTY THEORY OF SADDAM (body doubles, secret escape routes, connections to Al-Qaeda) that it caught them by surprise to find that Saddam was holed up in … a hole.

  • vlparker

    Before we can do anything about radical Islam in the Middle East we have to stop its spread throughout the rest of the world. We have to stop its spread here in the US, throughout Europe and the parts of Africa that aren't yet dominated by Islam. We must protect Israel and India from the jihadists that surround them. Islam just keeps getting stronger and stronger while weak leaders in the free world have no clue how to deal with. Then maybe we can deal with it elsewhere.

    • truthin

      If you want to stop radical Islam, prove that your system can provide for the basic needs of the people. Stop supporting dictators in the Middle East. Stop promoting a system in which leaders and corporate cronies rake in Petro-dollars, while the mass of the population has nowhere else to turn…except radical fundamentalism. Fundamentalism sucks, whether it's the Westboro Baptist Church, or bin Laden zealots.

      • vlparker

        Well, since radical Islam has been going on for 1400 years and the US has been around for a little over 200 years I would say that whomever the US supports in the Middle East has nothing to do with radical Islam. If the US system is so rotten why has everyone around the world been trying to get here for the last 2 centuries? The reason there is no freedom in the Middle East is because of their tin pot dictators, warlords and monarchies, not because of the US.

  • umustbkidding

    Is it because we view ourselves "civilized" that we can not call our enemies out? That we unabashedly fight for total victory? Admit that we want to win and win HARD? I haven't been thinking along the lines of Mr. Horowitz and now that he says it I don't disagree. None the less I have come to the same place as he has.

    We are way to weak to be in another war. The only thing we have proven in the "conflicts" that we have taken on is that we have had money to spend. Now we are broke and the citizenry is kinda adrift. Everyone is doing some sort of self check these days with a fearful eye on our government.

    I've never been much of an isolationist but at this point if we don't take care of America, America will no longer be recognizable to us.

    At this point a presidental canadate like Ron Paul might be what America needs. One thing is for sure, any respect America once had is now gone, even among our allies. We send our "enemies" into full blown laughter.

    With the way Obama has done this maybe it's his hope that this will make the final chapter for us.

    • truthin

      I've been saying for years that Iraq, which sucked the lifeblood out of America, would be 'our last great war'. It wasn't really a great war (rather a stupid one), but it was the last war in which the sheep in America could pretend that it was a great war. As the U.S. continues its slide (primarily because corporations shipped out the industrial base years ago), all wars will now be fought with reference to the pocet book. And because the coffers are empty, everyone will increasingly be aware that the Emperor, in fact, has no clothes.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Either there is war to end totalitarianism, end creeds of domination and end
    evil despots and insure freedom and truth in public information or we are
    toast. War is on the way, we will meet it weak or strong and my guess is
    we will be so divided and undermined by leftists and the Obamanites we
    will have to rely on luck or and this is a big or, make me benevolent world
    dictator…………….it could be worse, so far we are p*****g up a rope……..William

  • QSuzy

    Good questions. I don't know the answers. Horowitz hasn't convinced me of anything since he still thinks our war in Iraq is a 'good' war. I think that if a Dem had gotten us into Iraq, he would have been against it from the beginning. That's the problem when one is more committed to their party than their country……as in the questions you asked.

  • http://www.fightinwords.us Walter Scott Hudson

    This is a comforting read.

    I think I contemporary neo-conservative is best described as a leftist who doesn't like to pay taxes. In a way, they're actually worse than overt leftists, because they want to spend without raising revenue and pretend to be against socialism while implementing it at home and abroad. The Bush administration was guilty of that. That's the real reason the Tea Party came into being, the reason Republicans lost in '06 and '08.

  • http://www.fightinwords.us Walter Scott Hudson

    There is no "definition" of neo-conservative. The meaning has shifted relentlessly over the years. You can look at it simplistically as a once-leftist who became conservative if you want. But I don't think that's particularly useful.

    The point in having a separate category ought to be to denote a separate worldview. There is a difference in my mind between neo-conservatism and conservatism. The former is an attempt at a "third way," a compromise between leftist ideals and conservative planks like fiscal restraint, pro-life, and traditional marriage. In effect, however, the leftist ideals overtake the rest, resulting in a slower move in the same socialist direction. In essence, neo-conservatism is the best concealed form of Fabian socialism.

  • Jim

    After WW ll the CIA seemed to do a good job in Europe in fouling up the Communists.
    But we do not have the CIA of old. It's time we rehabilitated the CIA and see if they can't work the forces of the middle east.
    Saddam was our toy for a while. We should never have let him attack Iran. We should have never let the Shah be over thrown.

  • Zivkov3000

    Wow, Horowitz attacks Obama for being a neo-conservative. I never thought id see the day.

  • Amused

    Gingrich March 7

    Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.

    Gingrich on the Today Show, March 23:

    GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. … The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

    Neo-cons ,make upo your minds .

    • QSuzy

      That's the problem when those like Gingrich are more loyal to their party than their country.

  • david

    I did not have high hopes because I am not a lover of democracy! Democracy is the tyranny of the majority! It always has been that way. What if 51% of the people vote to exterminate the other 49%? Oh duh? Yet that is democracy. Even worse it gives tyranny an air of legitimacy. Well gee, we’re just doing what the majority of people want. If you doubt what I say learn American history. Slavery, Jim Crow, today’s racism masquerading as “diversity” it is all a product of the Democrats and their philosophy of who cares what the Constitution says as long as we can get some majority somewhere to give our tyranny the legitimacy we need. And that is in the west! Who could honestly believe that a just system could be installed in some third world nation with a tribal based power structure?

  • truthin

    Thank you to Amused, for his frank recognition of the failure of Horowitzian politics, whatever they might be.

  • truthin

    Remember, Amused said both Republican and Democrat got us 'into' the war and 'kept us there' for too long. Actually, history tells us that the war included 5 presidents, including Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon. It was a broad-based, criminal, mis-guided enterprise that led nowhere fast. No, I was NOT with Bush when he said, 'You're with us or against us'. I KNEW WMD's were a lie (The only bright spot is that the CIA didn't bring some of our own chemical weapons to Iraq and plant them). In terms of the Middle East, we ALREADY have the military on the ground in ARABIA (hence, 9/11 as a result). Iraq was a 3rd rate military, we strafed Saddam's 'elite' forces who traveled in pickup trucks with rifles with our F-16s. Hardly a real war…

  • Anthony

    If Horowitz could make two big blunders in judgement, e.g., subscribing to the ideology of the left for years, and subscribing to “democracy building”, which he now sees in a new light, could it then be said hat Mr. Horowitz is not a person who sees things clearly, who lacks insight?

    • Frank

      Some people never make mistakes or change their minds, ever. That might be you, Anthony?

      Actually DH was born into leftism, so that can’t fairly count. People pick up their family’s politics.

      Re Iraq and bringing democracy he’s become skeptical only because it was so badly mishandled by both the American civilian and miltary authorities. Few have any idea how that should be handled and think it cannot be handled because they have see no examples of it being done, but the only people that have tried have had zero qualifications for the task.

      As far as the Iraq “lesson”,

  • conservative4ever

    Mr. Horowitz I have to disgree with you on Iraq. I did not believe for one minute Hussein had WMD's. Nor did I think it was necessary or just. Sure, the man was a monster. If we were going to do this why didn't we do it during Desert Sform?

    Are we to interject ourselves in every Middle Eastern country? Lately we've done that in yet more such as Egypt and now Libya. Maybe we should mind our own business more and get our own house in order.

  • Amused

    Then go live in chaos David . Democracy =majority rules .No not to exterminate the minority .Your argument is SIMPLISTIC , for to have a Democracy there must be a Constitution by which both majority and minority live by .And to ensure a fair Constitution a Bill of Rights .Democracy isn't perfect , but maybe you';d like to suggest , and go and live under another system .Any one either Democrat or Republican can propose anything they choose , however it must past muster before the Constitution …that's why we have a Supreme Court .Jim Crow and Slavery are gone , just like the corporal punishment by the Pilgrims , so too burning accused witches .Democracy only works with peoples who WANT it .You might know history , but you're lacking in common sense.

  • Amused

    The whole problem with "20/20 hindsight " and "learning your lesson "…is that people get killed , other people , during your learning process /.It didn't take rocket science to figure out that the Bush Admin. was making a run upto war in Iraq ., there was already enough proof that the CIA was incompetent and its info undependable on 9/11. So what was the "epiphany " that several here have allegedly experienced ?

    • vlparker

      The lesson I learned is that when you oust a tyrannical dictator, the people whom you have liberated should be somewhat grateful. I found out that they are not. Once you remove their tyrant you become their enemy. As far as WMDs are concerned British intelligence, French intelligence and German intelligence also said they were there as well as Hillary Clinton and many democrats on the Senate intelligence committee. And Georges Sadr, one of Saddam Husseins generals also said they had them but moved them to Syria. I guess all those Kurds just gassed themselves to make Saddam look bad.

  • Amused

    Saddam gassed the Kurds before the invasion of Kuwait , and before the Kurds Iraq used gas on the Iranians during the Iran Iraq War . So what happened we got a revelation ?

  • DickVanDyke

    SO lets look at this:
    "But whatever I wrote about the war in support of the democracy agenda, inside I was never a 100% believer in the idea that democracy could be so easily implanted in so hostile a soil."
    And on March 19th 2009 Horowitz wrote:
    "The surge that Bush launched and Democrats opposed has been successful and, as a result, Iraq has become a Middle Eastern democracy, an anti-terrorist regime, and an American ally."

    According to the Democracy Index Iraq scored the minimum score not be labeled a totalitarian regime (4.00 out of 10. Afghanistan failed to make even that.) Also both countries show up in the top 10 list of failed states. Horowitz seems to be indicating he will write things in to the degree that he does that are not very accurate predictions.
    So I guess to the degree he backed the war for democratic futures he was wrong in his predication and to the degree he know says he never believed it he is confessing to lying. Not sure why his opinion would be valuable going forward as it is likely to be either wrong if he is honest or he may later say he didn't really believe it.
    Or did I miss something?

  • vgf

    Just admit it: not a communist or a neoconservative or a conservative at all: just a jew loyal to Israel, like the rest.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michel.richy.7 Michel Richy

    Researchers have found that the mind can rearrange itself when encountered with new difficulties, even through maturity. Based on this research, Lumosity's workouts are designed to practice a range of intellectual features, from working memory to liquid intellect.

    fun for brain