And you find the same ridiculous rants from Cheney today in his claims about Al-qaeda and Iraq. It isn’t conspiracy simply because these folks have come to believe their own lies – not an uncommon occurance among power elites…

But then I haven’t read the ol’ “Communist Manifesto” since high school, so, again, I use term pretty loosely….

But then you could say the same thing about capitalism and the current U.S programs…

“They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn’t know about, that the CIA didn’t know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with.” (Hartmann, 2006)

One might also, with more than a fair degree of legitimacy, claim that the notion of exaggerating a threat to mobilize public support for an aggressive foreign policy is not unique to neoconservatism – while being one of it’s central doctrines today…

For me at this moment, left means socialist, and far left means communist.

However, I’m in the process of working out more appropriate terms, so I’m actually trying not to use the traditional left/right, etc., terms right now. Anyway, just curious.

As for the neocons, they recognized that diplomatic alternatives, which were the only other ones offered, had been tried since 1945 and had consistently failed. They failed not through any fault of our own, but because a number of those in power in the Arab / Persian world would not negotiate in good faith, and key UNSC nations like France, Russia, and China consistently pursued their own national interests rather than what was best for the international community. I like Bill Clinton, but his presidency showed us that relying on the UN failed miserably (although I think he had to try). So, in terms of US Middle East policy, the neocons DID do something new.

I agree! That ‘someone who will commit to engage’ is highly elusive, though.

Neo-Con= Proponent of a new conservative view.

The neocons aren’t ‘new’.

If the neo-cons aren’t new, why then are the Leftists proponents of leftist ideology?

You need better definitions.

My view is that we don’t have to decend into becoming semiotics police before we engage in discussion. Rather, engage those who for us use undefined/misdefined terms to get to the fundamentals (including to the extent possible base assumptions) of what they are trying to say. There is an element of deconstruction required.

Once we get to common meaning (which may include intent), the dialogue is underway.

It can be difficult, and sometimes impossible to come to such a state. We sometimes see a strong defense of weakly defined(or one sided) terms because it limits the scope of thought – and that limitation may be to the advantage of a particular perspective. Committing to dialogue does require a certain passion and desire. In my mind there is a truly patriotic (Romantic??) element to making a commitment to engage in this way.

When you find someone with a passionate, informed, divergent opinion who can commit to engage at this level, it can be one of the finest opportunities. It just takes a bit more time to define terms.