I received several comments to this post expressing disagreement with my definition of a Neocon. I find it amusing that those on the political left throw the word Neocon around without having even an iota of a clue what one is. I know -- as does most of the country -- what a Liberal is and use it accordingly when describing those that subscribe to that once-proud tenet. That word to has been bastardized and forces one to clarify it with Paleo-Liberal as it applies to folks like Christopher Hitchens, who seems astounded at times what has happened to the ideology that he espoused. The Neo-Liberals are those who believe in the ideology of Kos, MyDD and others on the left side of the blogosphere who have changed the ideals through a perverse pretzel logic. They've taken the liberalism of Truman, FDR and Kennedy and made it the anti-American, anti-military and pro-despotic belief system we see represented by the aforementioned on a daily basis. To prove my point, read this vomit-inducing, puppy dog love letter written to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at DKos penned by a "lesbian Jew" who admits that the Iranian leadership would probably "have her killed" but hey, he's better than George W. Bush (in case Kos actually gets some sense and deletes it, it's available here).

Anyway, what is a Neocon? A Neocon is someone who once believed in liberalism and were in fact themselves Liberals. They saw what happened to the liberal movement and went to the right realizing that the liberal mindset they once believed was replaced by the anti's I described above. Neocon see theocracy and despotism and believe that American might and will should crush it. When homosexuals are stoned to death or raped women are sentenced to death by Shariah courts, the greatest country in the world should step in. We also believe that democracy is in fact paramount when it comes to social and religious freedom. Anyone who has read me on any type of regular basis knows that I am a centrist on many social issues. They further know that I am not an "Evangelical" or even a practicing Christian, although I am a Christian. For a great example of what Neoconservatism is not, here's a highly simplistic, inane description that was written by someone with less than a grammar school education.

Let's explode one or two myths about Neocon thinking, shall we?

Once again, the Uniters, those comic book hero characters in their own minds, have done it again. They've united the generals against a war with Iran. It seems fairly common now that a general retires and soon after starts speaking out against the Iraq debacle or the pending Iran fiasco. This time it's Gen. John Abizaid who most recently was the Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years. He said:

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He went on to say there is basis for hope in dealing diplomatically with Iran and that Iran recognizes that it cannot compete with the US's arsenal. He took a shot at the White House and reminded his audience that war is only a very last resort. Even while Cheney is trying to goad the Iranians into war, it's becoming clear there is little stomach for yet another war at the Pentagon. There will always be those who fear any other nation who might, possibly, some day in the future, threaten our vaunted superiority but it isn't Iran. Their attempt to build a bomb may well be a self defense mechanism. Our nation has been undercut but not by them or North Korea but by the Uniters.

Our military is hurt and way overextended. They squandered every resource and world opinion is we are allowing ourselves to be led by incompetents. The definition of kakistocracy is : Government by the least able and most unprincipled. That's what we have all right. Thank you General for joining many recent retired military in speaking the truth.

There has been much speculation regarding the rather abrupt departure of Karl Rove. Most centers around the possibility of his indictment because he was involved in the CIA leak. Or the dismissal of the U.S. Attorney Generals. Or spying on Americans. Or rigging elections or (I could go on a bit, you know)

But there may be another reason. For starters, the stated reason (to spend more time with family) when his son is going away to college is an obvious red flag. But could there be a more altruistic reason? Could it be that Rove has lost the internal battle with Dick Cheney and chose not to stay?

According to VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) Cheney may be directing a military attack on Iran. The reason? His belief that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in a few months. The truth? Not even likely. According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate Iran will not have capability for several years at best but the current version

The latest National Intelligence Estimate regarding if and when Iran is likely to have the bomb has been ready since February. It has been sent back four times -- no doubt because its conclusions do not support what Cheney and Woolsey are telling the president and, through the domesticated press, telling the rest of us as well.

With American forces at a very low state of readiness wouldn't it be insane to attack Iran? Sure, but that hasn't stopped Cheney/Bush before has it? Wouldn't the American public and Congress deny the Bush administration the authority? Wouldn't the public outcry be overwhelming? Once again, history may repeat itself. Follow on the flip...

From CNN.com: First Sen. Patrick Leahy told the Cheney team that they had until July 18 to produce documents. Team Cheney requested and was granted an extension to August 1. Then another extension to August 20.

The White House contends it never said senators could have the documents by then.

And now they're offering to have talks about what documents Leahy might get sometime after labor day. Anyone else get the idea that the Cheney team is playing games with Patrick Leahy and not taking this seriously?

Heh. If there weren't serious stakes involved the Leahy subpoenas would be a farce. Oh wait, this is about whether listening and spying on terrorists is constitutional. Yep, it's a farce.

Stumbled across a video by someone who foresaw with great accuracy what would likely happen if we were to invade Iraq:

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off -- part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it eastern Iraq the Iranian would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

In other words, we'll have a mess on our hands, a quagmire, and that's what we've got (and then some). A darn pity then that Dick Cheney ignored his own advice. Gosh, if we'd only known then what we know now. They knew exactly what they were doing when they invaded. That's what makes Cheney more than wrong. When will more people realize that we, the people, have been lied to (repeatedly). When is enough enough? How many more dead and maimed Americans is this war worth? Now he wants to go to war with Iran. I'm so disgusted and angry with these so-called leaders, I'm not going to write more. They make me sick.

It would seem things are starting to fall into place (but don't expect traditional media to get there in time to catch the train). First, it's relevant to understand how things unfold in D.C. and Congress. As you know, there has been a fair amount of attention directed at the meeting which took place in former Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room. Who visited? What was said, and what they were trying to get him to approve? Congress asked FBI Director Mueller what he knew of the matter, and boy did he ever respond.

Read what he sent Congress. It's important to follow the sequence of events and understand that the VP has been involved in this from the beginning, and that there is more news to come. Former Acting AG Comey and FBI Director Mueller could well end up as the people willing to stand up and tell the truth. Importantly, Mueller did not have to reveal the other meetings not involving Comey or Ashcroft, and to have done so here generates many more questions than it answers.

Will Congress follow the trail Mueller has left? One would hope so. They have a constitutional duty to fulfill. This whole administration boils down to 'Take Us at Our Word' and 'If You Question Our Story, You are Unpatriotic'. Congress is supposed to question, supposed to provide oversight and accountability to the process. It's their job, it's why we have the 'balance of powers.' For the first six years of George Bush's rule there was only a rubber stamp Congress. The American people deserve the truth. Has the Constitution been compromised? Is there a vast eavesdropping, wiretapping, data mining program that is being used to spy on political opponents and activists? Do we understand that an unfettered, free to do whatever they dream of Administration is not how a democracy works?

Do President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney deserve impeachment? Is their direction of the Iraq war mere bungling, or something more sinister, and does it warrant action by Congress? Susannah and Bob discuss in the latest episode of "Running Gags"!

No one should be surprised that Pakistan's Foreign Minister criticized Barack Obama for his threat to take action against his country should they continue to harbor those who struck the United States on 9/11. That's just the schizophrenic nature of politics in Pakistan, where co-operation with the United States is a double-edged sword:

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Kusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

One can't help but be reminded of the hot water that John McCain found himself in after singing his Beach Boys parody, "Bomb, bomb Iran," at a campaign stop. Back then it was mostly people on the left, weary of saber-rattling diplomacy, who were up in arms at the irresponsible nature of the comments. Indeed, I include myself among them. Now, however, it is primarily people on the right who decry the "rookie mistakes" or "lack of judgment" that Barack Obama has shown in singling out Pakistan.

While I agree that quiet, or even covert diplomacy is indeed required in places like Iran and Pakistan, I think it is worth taking a look at the passage of Obama's speech that has everyone up in arms. In fact, it boils down to the following three lines:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are blotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharaf will not act, we will."

...who tell them. This edition? Vice President Dick Cheney. In an interview with Larry King, the man trotted out the old, "I don't recall" defense to the question of whether he was the person who personally dispensed Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card to John Ashcroft's hospital bed in order to pressure him to sign off on the spying of Americans.

More amusing is his assertion that such a decision is the kind of thing that he would remember considering that he was such a big supporter of the wiretapping of American phones, but, hey, he's drawing a blank on the specifics. Perhaps now that his pacemaker battery has been replaced, the docs should think about a memory upgrade.

Folks, we really need to cross our fingers that the mad mullahs in Iran see reason sometime soon. If they keep up with their attempt to get a nuke it's going to go very badly for us and them. Apparently Vice President Dick Cheney is not at all happy with the progress of talks with Iran and the ineffectiveness of the sanctions currently in place. He's pushing for taking care of the problem before the Bush administration runs out of time:

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Israel can't sit around and do nothing. They're sitting in a country the size of a postage stamp. One nuke in Tel Aviv and they are done. Even the threat of a nuclear attack may lead to mass emigration. But the risks of attacking Iran are great as well, their people may rise up and support their government, the government may be angling for this attack so they have an excuse for retaliatory attacks of their own all across the globe and including in our own country. This is one of those situations where all the choices are bad. We may be forced to choose the least worst option.

The one ray of hope is within Iran. It's not a single entity dictatorship, it's an oligarchy, ruled by a religious elite. They can crack, they can be split, they can fight each other. We can only hope that they back down or can be forced to back down by an uprising of their own people.

Wow. Some new numbers from the American Research Group show just how pissed the country is at this administration. A majority of Americans want the U.S. House to begin proceedings to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. The numbers for President Bush aren't far behind, with the public split 45-46 on the question.

Now -- I just recently joined the group of folks who think it is time for impeachment to be on the table. But by on the table, I don't mean that we should necessarily use it. It's just now become clear that there is enough "smoke" indicating a "fire" of Constitution-violating malfeasance to justify Congressional inquiries that could end with impeachment proceedings.

Brave New Films has launched ImpeachCheney.org, a project in the works well before the polling came out. Meanwhile, MoveOn.org is demanding that Congress get the Veep to respond to subpoenas -- or turn to their Constitutional authority to oust executives who believe they're above the law.

All of this is very bad news for the vice president run amok.

The President said he was not pardoning Libby but commuting a portion of the sentence. Why? Supposedly because what Libby did was wrong but not that wrong, not worthy of jail time. Conservatives are saying Libby should have been pardoned and liberals are saying this shows Bush is thumbing his nose at the law and the American people. Some commentators are saying it shows Bush is in the middle. So, what does a lawyer say? (from an email)

by giving him commutation rather than a pardon it maintains his ability to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, which could also protect Bush and Cheney. If given a full pardon, he would not face any penalty and would be compelled to testify in any future hearings. With commutation, he is still on probation and subject to fine, so he can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. I'm sure Cheney and Bush were not aware of the difference and it had nothing to do with their actions!

That would explain things wouldn't it? I can see Bush saying something like, 'There's got to be a way to get Libby out while keeping a full pardon till the end of my term'. Cheney assigned someone to get an answer and then told Bush, 'Here's your best option'. If this Administration has shown us anything it's that we better be more careful about who we, the voters, elect to office.

And from Keith Olbermann

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush-and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal-the average citizen understands that, Sir. It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one-and it stinks. And they know it.

Here's a little thread to track the reactions to the president's commutation of Scooter Libby. While W. applauds the hard work of the jury, he found that the punishment that the judge (who Bush himself appointed, mind you) handed down was much too excessive. Never mind that the conservative Supreme Court most certainly does not agree, having recently upheld an even longer sentence in a nearly identical case. So here's the partisan rub. Repubs (those who are talking, anyway) are happy as clams. Dems, on the other hand, are fighting mad. Here then, a sampling:

Barack Obama:
"This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."

Rudy Giuliani:
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct."

President Bush did what three Republican-appointed judges were unwilling to and gave I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby a commutation of his sentence today. The news comes after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to give Libby a pass.

While the far-right message machine (and a fair amount of the traditional media, like the Washington Post) in this country has tried its darndest to turn Libby into an aggrieved victim, the reality is that he was prosecuted by a Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney, sentenced by a Republican-appointed federal judge, and just had his sentencing order held up by a three judge panel with two Republican appointees. This wasn't a partisan witch hunt. It was justice -- until Bush intervened to save one of his lackies.

Worth noting, I believe -- the media establishment spent weeks spewing outrage that Paris Hilton's stint in jail and her complaining about it showed a lack of character. Today, we see a different portrait and it is this: if you spend years as a loyal helper of the politically connected, you've got a Get Out of Jail free card. The rule of law applies to those of us outside the establishment. For those inside, we're a nation of men, not of laws.

It's not a pardon but it's the next best thing. President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. He won't have to go to jail.

You knew he was going to do it. How could President Bush allow Cheney's top aide go to prison?

Bush has been loyal to his friends. Libby was guilty of acting in support of the President.

Libby will have to pay the $250,000 fine and will be on two years probation. However, I am sure the Republican Party will take care of the fine.

Fred Thompson was a strong supporter of Libby. In a June 7 article, Thompson described the prosecution of Libby as a shocking injustice.

It will be interesting to see how this commutation and the Thompson involvement plays out in the primaries.