> I don't think Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld are neo-cons.
Rumsfeld has been leading the charge again Iran since the first week of the war against Iraq. Afaict, his desire to invade is almost palpable.
I think you're right that he's and Cheney are not neocons, but wrong to think that makes them pragmatists. Afaict, they're crazier and worse. They're the kind of guys who think we could have won Vietnam if we'd only used more force. And who want to prove it now. And who think fear is really all you need to get populations and terrorists to kowtow to you. Their disdain for nation building doesn't mean they don't want to invade. It means they want to invade, set up a puppet, and leave. They're against nation building because it slows them down.
BTW, you speak of Bush as if he were an independent originator of policy aims. Is that the Beltway common wisdom? I thought when people said Bush it was accepted they meant the policy-making junta for which he was figurehead. My impression was that he personally has never been the origin of policy, not even when he was governor.
Michael