What is the difference between a neocon and a RINO?

[muh_roads]

Someone asked the other day and I couldn't answer confidently.

[Kludge]

Idunno.

What does Republican stand for this year?

[FrankRep]

What is a Neoconservative? Here's some articles I've found...


William F. Buckley Jr.: the Establishment’s “House Conservative” (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457-william-f-buckley-jr-the-establishments-house-conservative)


Warren Mass | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 March 2008


The New York Times noted in observing Buckley's passing: "Mr. Buckley's greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal postwar America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Mr. Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Mr. Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office." (Emphasis added.)

As one of the leading organs of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, the Times unquestionably played a key role in granting Buckley the keys to the kingdom of "respectability" (whatever that means in contemporary society) by which he might possess the power to admit (or deny) an entire political spectrum passage through the pearly gates guarded by alumni of Ivy League universities and members of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

In so doing, however, it can be documented that rather than fit the traditional conservative square peg into the round hole of establishment "respectability," Buckley whittled away at traditional, "square" conservatism until it was divested of any resemblance of its former self. Buckley very competently performed the task assigned to him by his mentors (most notably his Trotskyite socialist Yale Professor Willmoore Kendall, a veteran of the OSS, which later became the CIA), of slicing from the conservative timber anyone who persisted in espousing traditional "Old Right" conservative values. These conservatives "excommunicated" (or simply repulsed) by Buckley included: Professor Medford Evans, who appeared on Buckley's National Review magazine's inaugural masthead; Henry Paolucci, a leader of the Conservative Party of New York State; economist Murray Rothbard, who was an early National Review contributor; Ralph de Toledano, an early National Review editor; and Daniel Oliver, a National Review executive editor.

But dwarfing all of these slights was Buckley's unprovoked and uncivil attack on the man who had done more than any other individual in the 1950s to marshal confused and leaderless conservatives around a singular standard — Robert Welch, the founder of The John Birch Society.

That this schism among conservatives was completely instigated by Buckley is indicated by Welch's high praise for Buckley's magazine at the 1958 founding meeting of The John Birch Society, when Welch told his associates: "I think that National Review especially, because it is aimed so professionally at the academic mind, should be in every college library in the United States…." And in the JBS membership Bulletin for May 1960, Welch encouraged members to write to Captain Edward Rickenbacker, then Chairman of Eastern Airlines, urging that both Human Events and National Review be placed on the airline's planes.

Despite Welch's longtime support of Buckley and his magazine, however, in early 1962 Buckley gathered his editorial staff to plan an attack on America's leading conservative, anti-communist leader. Starting with a six-page editorial entitled "The Question of Robert Welch," Buckley was unrelenting in his attack on The John Birch Society for the remainder of his life.

An excerpt from Buckley's forthcoming book, Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, entitled, "Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248)" was published in the March 2008 issue of Commentary magazine, which openly calls itself "the flagship of neoconservatism."

The article is a candid description of Buckley's meeting with members of Senator Barry Goldwater's pre-presidential exploratory campaign team in 1962, and of National Review staffer Russell Kirk's attempts to get Goldwater to renounce The John Birch Society. The very liberal New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller had urged Goldwater to do the same, and, for his efforts, was almost drowned out at the podium at the 1964 Republican Convention by a hearty chorus of boos coming from the galleries! To his credit, Senator Goldwater delivered his famous "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" speech, largely as a rebuke to Rockefeller.

Though the Times now credits Buckley for the conditions making Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential nomination possible, it was Robert Welch and The John Birch Society that did the spadework that made that happen, and Senator Goldwater knew it. Buckley talked like a conservative, but his neocon philsophy was much closer to Rockefeller's than to Goldwater's.

Neoconservatism Explained

It is impossible to understand William F. Buckley without understanding what neoconservatism is. Those laboring with that handicap were apt to be taken in, as this writer once was, by Buckley's charm, wit, and ability to crush liberal opponents in debates. A case in point is an article headlined "Buckley's Catholic Legacy," in the National Catholic Register of March 9.

The Register is a newspaper I read faithfully, and, I rarely have reason to disagree with its generally conservative Catholic reporting. However, the author of this article, Father Raymond J. De Souza, stopped only a little short of proclaiming Buckley as the greatest American Catholic since Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the sole Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. It is entirely possible that Father De Souza, a Canadian, simply does not fully understand U.S. politics, and the difference between historic American conservatism and neoconservatism. (Very likely, 98 percent of Americans do not understand the difference!) Much is explained, however, as De Souza describes in a sidebar ("My Encounter With Mr. Buckley") how the late journalist, in appreciation for the priest-writer's favorable review of Buckley's autobiography, Nearer, My God, once treated him to lunch at Paone's, an Italian restaurant located near National Review’s Manhattan offices.

Having been subjected at such close range to the legendary Buckley charm, it is perhaps understandable that Father De Souza failed — as have so many others — to see through the late journalist's façade and realize that the man was an imposter as a conservative, and a poor representative of his professed faith, as well. Explaining the latter point first, during his career Buckley submitted to interviews with Playboy magazine, and allowed excerpts from his works to be published in both Playboy and Penthouse; he allowed National Review to publish several articles defending "gay rights," and as early as March 1966, several years before Roe v Wade, he wrote that "the Catholic Church should reconsider its position" on laws prohibiting abortion. In a footnote in Nearer, My God that Father De Souza must have overlooked in rendering his favorable review of the book, Buckley wrote, in a tone far too flippant for such a critical subject: "The demand to baptize abortion is very rare, the general position among Catholic dissenters being that those who abort, or collude in bringing about an abortion, are yes sinners, but so is your old man."

De Souza misses this point completely by describing Buckley as "staunchly pro-life," when, in reality, the man was as wishy-washy on the matter of life as is John McCain.

As far as Buckley's well-touted "conservatism" goes, De Souza accepts at face value what all those who have not fully investigated the man accept, and parrots the establishment's designation of Buckley as the "father of the modern conservative movement." His most egregious misstatement, perhaps, is his claim:



In founding his magazine, National Review, in 1955, he fashioned a new conservative movement, "excommunicating" the isolationists and nativists and extremists (he broke with Joe McCarthy) that had previously dominated American conservative thought.


The fact of the matter is that Buckley, far from being the father of anything resembling true conservatism (as best exemplified by Senator Robert Taft, who was denied the Republican nomination in 1952 by Buckley's philosophical brethren), was merely a very capable quarterback for a team of neoconservatives (neocons) who had graduated from the World War II-era OSS into the CIA, bringing their anti-Stalinist, but definitely Trotskyite (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html), ideas with them. The repackaging of this anti-American philosophy as "neoconservatism" rivaled any campaign Madison Avenue ever concocted for a "new" detergent that would get your clothes whiter and brighter.

The original OSS/CIA neocons, including the aforementioned Willmoore Kendall, spotted young Bill Buckley when he was on the staff of the Yale Daily News, and tagged him as a likely rising star of their movement. (Buckley, of course, was also tapped to join the secretive Skull and Bones society while at Yale, as had both presidents Bush and Senator John Kerry.) At Kendall's urging, Buckley joined the CIA after graduating from Yale. Through Kendall, Buckley became acquainted with James Burnham, another OSS/CIA veteran who would become a prominent figure at National Review. So strong was the CIA connection that the brilliant economist and former contributor to Buckley's magazine, Murray Rothbard, said in 1981: "I'm convinced that the whole National Review is a CIA operation."

There is much more that must be considered to fully comprehend William F. Buckley, the star quarterback of the neoconservative movement. Those who are interested in learning "the rest of the story" are encouraged to read William F. Buckley, Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064), by John F. McManus.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457-william-f-buckley-jr-the-establishments-house-conservative

[FrankRep]

Pragmatists? Neoconservatives? What’s the Difference? (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/744-pragmatists-neoconservatives-whats-the-difference)


Warren Mass | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 April 2008


According to the April 10 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), "one component of the fractious Republican Party foreign policy establishment — the so-called pragmatists, some of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as a mistake — is expressing concern that Mr. McCain might be coming under increased influence from a competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush's first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war." A book could be written about this fascinating Times article with its revelation of an alleged major policy schism within the Republican Party between two factions described as "pragmatists" and "neoconservatives" — often called "neocons," for short.

Also interesting is the plethora of members of the elite, internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) referenced in the article — as if they are expert witnesses — including Robert Kagan, John R. Bolton, Lawrence Eagleburger, Colin L. Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Henry A, Kissinger, George P. Shultz, Joseph I. Lieberman, Philip D. Zelikow, Condoleezza Rice, and, lest we forget, John McCain, himself.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that the Times and the CFR have shared many helmsmen over the years (e.g., CFR President Emeritus Leslie Gelb was a former Times columnist and a number of Times editors, including the late C. L. Sulzberger of the Sulzberger family which has owned the newspaper for generations, have been CFR members), the writers did not think it significant enough to mention that 11 people cited in the article as key U.S. foreign policy experts all share membership in an organization that has only about 4,300 members.

The CFR matter aside, it is interesting that the two sides in the foreign policy debate among Republicans are labeled "pragmatists" (also called "realists") and "neoconservatives." The former camp includes former secretaries of state Eagleburger,* Powell,* Kissinger,* and Shultz,* former deputy secretary of state Armitage, and national security advisor to the first President Bush, Brent Scowcroft*. Listed among the latter (neocons) are McCain speechwriter Robert Kagan*, security analyst Max Boot, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton*, and McCain’s chief foreign policy aide, Randy Scheunemann. (CFR members are designated by asterisks.)

The thrust of the article is that those individuals identified as "pragmatists" or "realists" (a common definition of the two terms suggests that these individuals are concerned with observable practical consequences) are concerned that those labeled "neoconservatives" (more about that in a minute) will have undue influence on John McCain's future policies, particularly his willingness to hold the line on the Bush Administration's stance on the war in Iraq. The Times noted: "As an unwavering supporter of the Iraq war, [McCain] is closely associated with the issue that is most clearly identified with the neoconservatives, even though he often criticized Mr. Bush's execution of the war."

The first point to consider is whether there really are two opposing philosophical views among the Republican Party's most influential figures, or — as is more likely — the debate is not about if a President McCain should continue current U.S. policy in Iraq, but how. For example, the Times noted "While Mr. Powell and Mr. Armitage supported Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq while they were in office, they have become critics of the management of the war."

Another interesting quote, from identified neoconservative Robert Kagan — who, in addition to sharing McCain's CFR membership is a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — seemed to dismiss the major GOP schism implied by the Times' writers:



I would say [McCain's] world view is so established that there is not a real battle going on. A struggle over individual policies I could imagine, but the broad view, no. People would agree on what McCain thinks. This is not one of those situations like Bush all over again, with some titanic struggle going on between different factions.


We figured as much.

The second matter to think about is: Since all of the heavy hitters in the Republican Party are on the same team, and their main differences seem to be over when to bunt and when to swing for the fences, what about all these terms being bandied about: terms like pragmatist, realist, and neoconservative?

If we stick to basic dictionary definitions of the first two terms, we learn that a pragmatist is distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences, and that a realist is a person concerned with real things and practical matters rather than those that are imaginary or visionary (which would make the person an idealist). And yet, Kagan (who is counted among the neocons, remember?) helped write McCain's foreign policy speech, in which the Arizona senator described himself as "a realistic idealist." (Is that anything like a "compassionate conservative," one wonders?)

As for neoconservatism, it would take a book to trace the history of that movement, and fortunately, an excellent book tracing not only the neocon movement, but its most prominent spokesman for over five decades, was written by The John Birch Society's current president, John F. McManus. It is titled: William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064).

However, to summarize what neoconservatism is and what it is not, it is not traditional conservatism wrapped up in a slick new package (stamped "New and Improved") for marketing purposes. Instead, it has more in common with the 1982 Tylenol product-tampering incident, in which seven people in the Chicago died after ingesting Extra Strength Tylenol medicine capsules which had been laced with potassium cyanide poison. To the observer, the packaging looked the same, but the product had been tampered with, delivering a pernicious dose.

To greatly condense the origins of the neocon movement, it began during World War II within the OSS (the wartime predecessor to the CIA), an agency that had admitted many Trotskyite socialists into its ranks. Several OSS/CIA veterans (including Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, who became a founder and senior editor of National Review) came to have great influence over William F. Buckley, who became the movement's mouthpiece for generations. As John McManus told a meeting of the Robert Welch Club on June 30, 2001, in Appleton, Wisconsin:



A major problem in America is that these neocons have taken over the conservative wing of the Republican party. And they have succeeded in doing so to the degree that the word “conservative” is now being applied to individuals and ideas that are, in fact, liberal (in the leftist sense), socialist, and totally undeserving of the conservative label. It pains me when someone describes himself to me as a conservative. It pains me even more when that label is applied to me. I’ve actually adopted a policy of asking that I at least be called a “constitutional conservative.” That separates me from the so-called conservatism of most leading Republicans — which has really become neoconservatism.


The debate between so-called pragmatist-realists and so-called neoconservatives is as phony as a professional wrestling match. While it is true that such individuals view the world "as it is," the world is in such a state only because these individuals and their CFR-connected predecessors in both major parties, who have dominated U.S. policy for least 70 years, have made it so.

In trying to identify any meaningful difference between the pragmatists and the neoconservatives, we cannot find any. The Republican Party leadership long ago abandoned the idealistic principles that guided presidents Abraham Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge. The Times writers also call the pragmatists "realists," but their realism is limited only to the sphere of political expediency. This discussion would be much more meaningful if we recognize that the so-called neoconservatives are really neopragmatists.

The true realist-idealists were our Founding Fathers, men like Jefferson, who were realistic enough to understand the dangers of giving too much power to government and idealistic enough to express ideas like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as part of a remedy to check the excesses of centralized government.

At one time, true conservatives existed — men like Rep. Charles Lindbergh, Sr., who fought against the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, and his courageous son, Charles Lindbergh, Jr., who tried in vain to stop the United States from entering World War II. Texas Representative Martin Dies, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, and Ohio Senator Robert Taft, were among the last of a dying breed that opposed totalitarianism in every form, and who also put America's best interests first.

Their influence died not of natural causes, however, but because the Fabian socialists in the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives (also socialists, though less honest about their objectives than their Democratic counterparts) in the Republican Party used every type of treachery to destroy them and what they stood for.

The philosophy espoused by the "old-time" conservatives still exists, but the name conservative has been sullied by the neocons. The most apt description for those who oppose big government and foreign interventionism today is "constitutionalist," a label only a very few politicians wear proudly.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/744-pragmatists-neoconservatives-whats-the-difference

[Bradley in DC]

(from a traditionalist Catholic perspective)

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1205-editorial

What Is a Neoconservative? -- & Does It Matter?

December 2005
By Dale Vree

We received a letter from Christian Crampton in Newport Beach, Calif., saying: "Regarding your September Editorial ('Your Voice of Orthodox Catholicism, Without Any Strings Attached'), it brought out a word which I would like you to define for me. I've seen it occasionally in the NOR, but you used it more than 10 times in the Editorial. The word is 'neoconservative' (neocon)." Before the September Editorial and especially since then, many people have asked us what a neocon is.

Your Editor has followed the neocons for over 35 years, and I have had dealings with many of them (but I should not have assumed that everyone knows what a neocon is). Given my background, I could have been an authentic neocon if I wanted to. But I didn't want to. Here is a thumbnail sketch; I could say more, but this is the essence of it.

Authentic neocons descend from the Communist and socialist movements, with the most prominent leaders being Trotskyites (that is, ultra-Left Communists). When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, the Trotskyites were severely persecuted, and ultimately Trotsky himself was assassinated in Mexico. Stalin was a gentile (indeed, an ex-seminarian) and Trotsky was a Jew, and the divide between the Stalinists and Trotskyites pretty much followed the same divide (with significant exceptions, especially in the early years of the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe, before many of the Jews in those satellite states were purged from the Party, even executed).

Stalin became increasingly anti-Semitic, and the Jewish Trotskyites had another reason to hate Stalin. After World War II when Israel was established, the Soviet Union sided with the Arabs against Israel, and the Soviet Union basically did not allow Jews to emigrate to Israel. Another reason to hate Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Many Jewish Trotskyites -- and other Jewish Leftists (but not most of them) -- became increasingly and indeed vehemently anti-Communist. Many supported the Vietnam War and were extremely hostile to the détente policies pursued by Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter. These ex-Leftist Jews perceived the Left, even liberals (rightly or wrongly), as being pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. These ex-Leftist Jews evolved into what they themselves called "neoconservatives." As Benjamin Ginsberg said in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press), "One major factor that drew them [ex-Leftist Jewish neocons] inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel...."

The Jewish neocons' primary goal -- though not their exclusive goal -- has been to protect Israel (which, we suppose, is their right), and they see an American Empire as the best way to do that. Yes, we know you're not supposed to say that, but we have a bad habit of telling the naked truth.

So the neocons want an American Empire, and Jewish neocon Jonah Goldberg put their view at its most blunt when he said: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

It's interesting that Judge John Roberts was queried by the Senate Judiciary Committee as to his loyalty to his Catholic Faith (he resolutely denied it), but one cannot question Jewish neocons about their loyalty to Israel. This is a double standard pure and simple. If you think this is anti-Semitic, you're wrong. Catholics should be loyal to their Catholic Faith above their loyalty to their country (think of St. Thomas More and so many other martyrs) -- and it is not anti-Catholic to say that. Whether Jewish neocons should be loyal to Israel is not something we're qualified to comment on. However, we do wish to note that Murray Polner and Adam Simms, both Jewish, said: "Do the interests of Israel drive U.S. Middle East policy? It's a fair question, though anyone who poses it risks being wrongly accused of being anti-Semitic" (Commonweal, July 18, 2003; italics added). Nonetheless, neocon Richard John Neuhaus does just that. He said: "The 'Jewish lobby' has America in its hip pocket. So says Philip Weiss, a leftist columnist of the New York Observer.... Philip Weiss has a point, however unoriginal, about the influence of Jews in our country and its policy toward the Middle East.... So why is Philip Weiss flirting with...old-fashioned anti-Semites?" (First Things, Dec. 2002, pp. 90-91). Weiss has "a point, however unoriginal," but Neuhaus smears him for flirting with anti-Semitism. If what Weiss says is true, then to blacken his name for flirting with anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

On the other hand, at the risk of sounding philo-Semitic, the Jewish neocons were and are extremely energetic and very bright, and they have made big inroads into the conservative movement, often with willing gentiles. They are enormously influential and powerful in the George W. Bush Administration -- you could call them neocon apparatchiki. No, this is not a Jewish conspiracy, for it is out in the open, and most Jews are not neocons (probably because they believe America's imperialist policies are not good for Israel or the Jews). And there are neocons who are not Jewish -- most of them being Johnny-come-latelies, considering it "cool" to be a neocon. Some gentile neocons don't know they're being used, while others know full well, but don't care, because they see it as a ticket to influence and power. Other gentile conservatives and neocons think they're using the Jewish neocons because they believe protecting Israel is a great way to advance an American Empire and control much of the world's oil supplies.

One of the divides between the Stalinists and the Trotskyites was that Stalinists said you could have "socialism in one country" while Trotskyites demanded "worldwide socialist revolution" (which was true to what Marx thought). But since the Trotskyites soured on socialist revolution, they transferred their allegiance to "worldwide democratic revolution," hence their eagerness to export the democratic revolution everywhere and have the U.S. intervene militarily in the affairs of sovereign nations, which would make America a "rogue" nation (which is how many Europeans already see America). In Bush's Second Inaugural Address, he said: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." This sounds like it came right out of Trotsky's bottle: The survival of socialism in the Soviet Union increasingly depends on the success of socialism in other lands. Neocon Stephen Schwartz said that "those who are fighting for global democracy should view Leon Trotsky as a worthy forerunner." Schwartz, who unabashedly proclaims his Trotskyite roots, would prefer that "neocons" be called "Trotskycons."

Neocon Christopher Hitchens, also a disciple of Trotsky, wants the U.S. to be "a revolutionary force" to fight fascism and religion, especially Islamofascism. "Religion," he says, is "that most toxic of foes.... the most base and contemptible of the forms assumed by human egotism and stupidity. Cold, steady hatred for this, especially in its loathsome jihad shape, has been as sustaining to me as any love." He says: "George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he -- and the US armed forces -- have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled." Smashing Islam paves the way for democracy, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc.

Jewish neocon Michael Ledeen said: "We tear down the old order.... Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be [and that would include Catholic tradition]).... We must destroy them to advance our historic mission," adding that "It is time once again to export the democratic revolution."

"Our historic mission"? Trotsky's god was History. In 1921 Trotsky wrote a book called The Defense of Terrorism. In 2002 (before the invasion of Iraq), Ledeen called for the "creative destruction" of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What exactly is the difference between terrorism and "creative destruction"?

In a just war, killing soldiers, and killing civilians who get in the way of military targets (collateral damage), is not murder, whereas killing civilians on purpose is murder. In an unjust war -- which is what the Catholic Church said the war on Iraq is -- killing soldiers, killing civilians who get in the way of military targets, and killing civilians on purpose are all murder. (And just what is the difference between terrorism and murder in warfare?) But even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one's heart should be troubled. After one-and-a-half years of war in Iraq, The Lancet (the British medical journal) estimated the Iraqi civilian death toll at 100,000. However, a more recent count after two years of war, produced by the London-based Iraqi Body Count -- which did not count civilian deaths that go unreported in the news media -- put the civilian death toll at 24,865 (with about 42,500 wounded). This sounds like a more reliable figure. Of those 24,865 dead civilians, 37.3 percent were due to the U.S. military, 35.9 percent were due to the crime wave that swept Iraq after the fall of Saddam, and 20.5 percent were due to insurgents or terrorists. Even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one must be alarmed that the U.S. military has killed almost twice the number of civilians as have the insurgents and terrorists. Whether one considers the civilian deaths caused by the U.S. military -- 9,270 (disproportionately children) -- to be murder or not murder, Trotsky would be proud, for he famously said: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

The neocons, mainly through the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), planned for a war against Iraq well before 9/11 (one big reason being because Saddam was a supporter of terrorism against Israel). The Bush Administration is peppered with people from PNAC, such as Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby (indicted on five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury), Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Richard Perle. These people tutored -- let's be honest -- an ignorant President Bush, who had no experience in foreign affairs, to launch it.

As we said in our September Editorial: "BeforeCrisis and First Things were even founded, the NOR was contacted by a neocon foundation -- right out of the blue. The foundation wanted to give us money -- 'free' money. A fellow flew out from the East Coast and asked me (the Editor) to meet him for drinks in a San Francisco restaurant -- on him. Sure! (We were desperate for money.) He told me he would fund us regularly -- if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic U.S. foreign policy." What I didn't say was that the fellow was a Jewish neocon with no interest in Christianity or Catholicism, and I suspected he was interested in getting us to promote Jewish neocon interests (which he had every right to do). As we said in the September Editorial, I said "no," and that was the end of that. But the neocon foundations didn't give up. Michael Novak (very pro-Israel) founded Crisis -- then called Catholicism in Crisis -- and Fr. Neuhaus (also very pro-Israel) founded First Things, both with huge financial support from neocon foundations. So the neocons found a way to get Catholic and Christian magazines to front for their largely Jewish neocon interests (which, again, is their right). Do we exaggerate? No we don't. When the Catholic Church denounced the war on Iraq -- calling it an unjust war, a war of aggression -- both Crisis and First Things supported it. A clear case of supporting Jewish neocon interests over Catholic Just War doctrine. For a synopsis of Fr. Neuhaus's support for the war on Iraq, based on his support for Israel, see our New Oxford Note, "What Does the Pope Know About World Affairs?" (Nov., pp. 13-14, 16-17). If you persist in seeing this as anti-Semitism, you're wrong again. In an editorial in The Forward, the oldest Jewish newspaper in the U.S., it was stated that: "Recently...reasonable people still could dismiss, as antisemitic conspiracy mongering, the claim that Israel's security was the real motive behind the invasion of Iraq. No longer.... Its advocates can no longer simply be shushed or dismissed as bigots. Those who disagree must now argue the case on the merits."

Aside from foreign policy, can orthodox Catholics find common cause with neocons in the culture wars? Perhaps. Perhaps not. As Irving Kristol, a Jewish ex-Trotskyite and the godfather of neoconservatism, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Those [culture] wars are over and the Left has won." . . .

[Brian4Liberty]

Good one, Bradley. Probably the best single article I've seen on the subject.

[erowe1]

I've always felt a little strange about the term RINO. It means Republican In Name Only. But truthfully, isn't we who stand for the Constitution and reducing the size of government who are actually Republicans in name only? The ones who believe in socialism are true blue Republicans through and through. They are the ones who comprise the leadership of the party. The Republican presidential nominee is almost always never for reducing government. And when a candidate does come around advocating that, he inevitably finds that he has to overcome a great deal of opposition from the party itself in order to steal the nomination from the liberal they are backing. Reagan campaigned on a genuine conservative platform and pulled off an upset against the party establishment, before capitulating once elected. Goldwater pulled it off as well, before going on to lose the general. Both of them were opposed by the GOP establishment. Robert Taft almost pulled it off a couple times, but didn't, also in the face of party establishment opposition. And before that we have to go back to Coolidge to find a time that the leader of the party opposed the constant increase in government power, and he didn't have to go through the nomination process, since he inherited the WH when Harding died. The truth is, the Republican party, since its inception, has been a party of big government and socialism. When marxists were exiled from continental Europe in the 19th century, they were welcomed into the GOP right off the bat.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm

Who's a RINO? I suppose I am, since I'm a constitutionalist who wants to reduce the size, cost, and power of the federal government, and in all those respects I am against the philosophy that drives, and always has driven, the Republican party.

[acptulsa]

RINOs want war because they love kicking ass. Neocons want war because they own stock in arms merchants.

[Bucjason]

Simple explanation:

Rino's are Liberals that call themselves republicans


Neocons are big government republicans who believe in policing the world, nation building , patriot Act , and things of that nature....

[kahless]

Both RINOs and Neocons seem to love big government in your life and interventionist global empire foreign policy.

[Galileo Galilei]

Someone asked the other day and I couldn't answer confidently.

All neocons are RINOs, but not all RINOs are neocons.

[paulitics]

Neocons are RINOS who take it a step further and want police state abroad and at home. RINOS are usually less principled in general, and will sell their ass to the highest bidder. They have no core convictions and always vote establishment. Think Arlen Spector.

Neocons are more destructive because they actually fool the majority into thinking wars of aggression are conservative. Their money has influenced TV, radio, and newspapers, and they hold positions of power at the highest levels. Rinos are their servants when they are in power. When the liberals need votes, they quickly become bipartisan.

[Todd]

All neocons are RINOs, but not all RINOs are neocons.

+1

Neocons, were also disgruntled liberal Trotsky disciples that decided the Democrat party wasn't viable to further their goals. So they infiltrated the Republican party using conservative American's natural inclination for love of country. They are all RINOs.

[Krugerrand]

Simple explanation:

Rino's are Liberals that call themselves republicans


Neocons are big government republicans who believe in policing the world, nation building , patriot Act , and things of that nature....

This is it exactly. Case in point:

Think of when PA had two GOP senators - Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter. They were very different. Santorum was a Neocon. Specter was a RINO.