{"id":103,"date":"2006-07-19T08:47:17","date_gmt":"2006-07-19T12:47:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=103"},"modified":"2007-02-27T22:20:32","modified_gmt":"2007-02-28T03:20:32","slug":"neocon-anger-at-bush","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=103","title":{"rendered":"NeoCon Anger at Bush?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I try to make sense of the news, but this one I just don’t get:<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/em> has published a front-page Michael Abromowitz article today entitled, “Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush’s Foreign Policy<\/a>.”\u00c2\u00a0 The lead quote in the article goes to Danielle Pletka<\/strong>, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

“It is Topic A of every single conversation…<\/p>\n

I don’t have a friend in the administration<\/strong>, on Capitol Hill<\/strong> or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment<\/strong> who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration<\/strong>.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To be more specific, Abromowitz is talking about alleged neoconservative fury:<\/p>\n

In fact, it has been Bush’s willingness to respond to criticism from the foreign policy establishment<\/strong> — which has long urged him to do more to pursue a more “multilateral” diplomacy in concert with allies — that has led to distress among<\/strong> many conservatives outside Congress, particularly the band of aggressive “neoconservatives”<\/strong> who four years ago were most enthusiastic about the Iraq war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, whence the fury at the administration?\u00c2\u00a0 What are we talking about here?<\/p>\n

Conservative intellectuals and commentators<\/strong> who once lauded Bush for what they saw as a willingness to aggressively confront threats and advance U.S. interests said in interviews<\/strong> that they perceive timidity and confusion<\/strong> about<\/strong> long-standing problems including Iran and North Korea<\/strong>, as well as urgent new ones such as the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Iran and North Korea.\u00c2\u00a0 Ok.\u00c2\u00a0 I can see that.\u00c2\u00a0 There are examples of that fury coming from AEI folks like Michael Rubin<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 From June<\/em>.\u00c2\u00a0 An old story.\u00c2\u00a0 It makes this Abromowitz article something like an overdue profile of neoconservative (i.e., Right Zionist) anger at the Bush administration decision to make diplomatic overtures to Iran. \u00c2\u00a0 Like a neoconservative lamentation for Time’s<\/em> declaration of the end of “Cowboy” foreign policy.<\/p>\n

But did the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute actually express “fury” or perceive unwarranted “timidity” or “confusion” about the “urgent new” problem–“the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah”?\u00c2\u00a0 No way.\u00c2\u00a0 Not a chance.<\/p>\n

When did Abromowitz conduct the “interviews”?\u00c2\u00a0 Did the Post<\/em> dig up this story from the June files?<\/p>\n

Is Abromowitz trying to makes it seem like neocons think Bush’s refusal to engage<\/em> or take action<\/em> in Lebanon reflects timidity and\/or confusion?\u00c2\u00a0 If so, he is playing a game and will surely be corrected in short order by the Right Zionists.<\/p>\n

Current Bush administration inactivity–delay in sending an envoy, refusal to call for a ceasefire, refusal to back Kofi Annan’s efforts to cobble together an international force–is not timidity but bold–if implicit–support for an extraordinarily aggressive Israeli <\/em>policy in Lebanon.<\/p>\n

Bush’s reaction to Israel’s move to destroy Hezbollah will earn him eternal plaudits from neocon pundits.\u00c2\u00a0 Abromowitz is blowing smoke.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I try to make sense of the news, but this one I just don’t get: The Washington Post has published a front-page Michael Abromowitz article today entitled, “Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush’s Foreign Policy.”\u00c2\u00a0 The lead quote in the article goes to Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6,9,12,11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}