Cheers,

Brownie and Gonzales are just part of the strict system of control that the neocons employ to their advantage. Appointing loyal lackeys to key positions ensures that their policies will be carried out without question.

Conspiratorial? Yes definitely. Conspiracy is the way all totalitarian regimes have operated. That doesn't make it any less real.

The fact that the Neocons are able to successfully hide within the Republican Party suits their purposes just fine. If the Republicans go down, as they surely will, and the Democrats rise to power, the Neocons will be right there in their midst also. You can bet on it.

And the general public will be none the wiser. See, even you and Conniff think this is a Republican problem that will all go away as soon as we have a Democrat for president. Which is exactly what they want you to believe.

As far as my responsibility goes, I am a Libertarian Conservative which is the polar opposite of a Neocon. I'm a Ron Paul Republican, NOT a George Bush Republican. And I'm a Lincoln Conservative NOT a John Hagee Conservative. So don't go pointing that finger of blame in my direction.

...and hence the most botched job of governance in the annals of modern American history.

Failure to govern well is not Neoconservative. Appointing Brownie to head FEMA is not Neo it's cronyism. Giving Alberto Gonzales the reigns at "Justice" is simply pathetic not neo.

Anyway Sue, you're entering some pretty "super secret handshake" territory laying everything off on Neos. It's a slippery slope.

To avoid much of that opposition in the first place, the Neocons have effectively taken control of the mainstream media, where they control the message. The eerily Orwellian term; “Liberal media” is a device invented by the Neocons not so much to convince conservatives that there is an unfair media bias, as to convince liberals they are getting the truth.

Since the goal of Neocons is imperialist global domination, which runs counter to the American ideal of liberty and justice, they endeavor constantly to reframe their movement into one of altruistic fostering of democracy and freedom throughout the world. This is more palatable to the American sensibility. They have also taken on the cloak of Christian Conservatism, in order to give their cause a righteous appeal. This is why so many Republicans and Conservatives have fallen under the spell of neoconservatism. Believing the Neocons are in alignment with their moral and ethical principles, they fiercely support and defend them.

But the truth is that the Neocons have no moral or ethical values. They care only for themselves, their warped sense of power, and most of all; MONEY. They have no concern whatsoever for other people, American or not. This explains their record on Katrina and the environment.

In my book the Neocons join Nazis, Zionists and Fascists as the most self-serving, violent, socially destructive movements in recent memory.

After giving it some thought, I take issue with your statement that all Neocons are Republicans. This is definitely not true, as evidenced by Charles Schumer, Marty Peretz, Joe Lieberman, and Ed Koch among others.

The Neocons arose from Leftist Democrat beginnings and only in the Reagan years, jumped ship to the Republican Party. Some Neocons remain Democrats, and it is a dangerous assumption that electing a Democrat in November will put the Neocon agenda to rest. It won’t.

The fact as you put it, that; “There is no Neocon Party,” is one of the more sinister aspects of neoconservatism because separating the Neocons from their influence on American policy is not as simple as just electing a Democrat.

No it isn’t an accident. It was a calculated move to co-opt the Republican Party to their purposes. Why the Republicans instead of the Democrats? As usual, follow the money. There is more money and vastly more power on the Republican side. The Republicans are also better organized and on the whole more cohesive, making it easier to pull together support for Neocon policies under the Republican umbrella. In this regard, your last statement is nearly correct. It wasn’t Republican principles that are more accommodating to Neocon ideas, but the structure of the party.

And as I said, this hasn’t prevented the Neocons from tampering with policy under Democratic leadership. Clinton’s military actions and assault on the poor through Welfare reform were orchestrated by Neocons. The mostly Jewish Neocons are also behind the pressuring of Barack Obama into voicing unconditional support for Israel despite his history of speaking up for the rights of Palestinians.

My point is, while all Neocons may be Republicans, not all Republicans are Neocons, neither are all Republicans Christian Conservatives, and in no way should Republican Party principles be equated with either group.

If as Conniff says; “Words matter,” then that should apply as well to himself and other Liberals when discussing policies that though associated with a supposedly conservative Republican administration are by no means Republican or conservative.

If your party has been co-opted as you say, it's evident that it's principles were de-facto more accommodating to Neocon ideas and hence co-option.