----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 6:51 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Fruit
> And by the way, Gautam did not work for PNAC, he tried to get on with them > but found that they had no funding or some such. And he can pooh-pooh > them all he wants, it doesn't take away from the fact that they wrote down > their agenda years before 911. His point, and mine secondly, is the weakness of the word "associated." Rumsfeld and Cheney are pragmatists, not neocons. They have established track records as pragmatists. I think the most famous pragmatist would be Kissinger. He didn't worry about human rights, he was just worried about the strategic position of the United States. Neo-cons are "do-gooders." They want the US to use it's power to improve the conditions of people in the world. Their view is that we would benefit everyone by promoting representative governments throughout the world. When it is helpful, they believe that the military strength of the US can be used to facilitate this transition. Pragmatists believe that the US should simply look towards it's own interests. They do not worry about spreading democracy and have no problem cohabitating with ruthless dictatorships...as long as working with those dictatorships furthers the strategic interests of the US. A pragmatist would go to China to visit Mao. A neo-con wouldn't. A neo-con wouldn't want US companies trading with Iraq, no matter what. A pragmatist might very well argue for it...saying that all we are doing is hurting US business vis-a-vi European businesses. Cheney clearly is in the second camp. Now, a pragmatist might support neo-cons, particularly if they offer systematic attacks on the President of the other party. Thus, there was mild support by Cheney and Rumsfeld for the neo-con movement. In addition, there was the political benefits....breaking up the Jewish pro-Democratic block....by supporting Jews who attacked Democratic foreign policy. But, I would argue that one needs to look at the track record of people like Rumsfeld or Cheney to determine their foreign policy philosophy, not simply to see if they gave some support to a think tank. Now, if they had worked for the think tank, did significant fund raising for that think tank, wrote papers put out by the think tank, then the association would be stronger, and may reflect a change in their philosophy. But, I really have a hard time picturing Rumsfeld or Cheney as starry-eyed idealists. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
