andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> I kinda agree with Krauthammer. I think they have no
> principles, or betrayed good ones they have. I don't
> think they're committed to a necon vision of US power
> imposed by military might as the salvation of the
> world. HRC is not Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Condi
> Rice, Donald Kagan, Wolfie, Cheney. I think she's an
> opportunist. Him too. This is based on watching and
> reading about the for many years.
No. I think Doug has it down pat. Of course they aren't "neocons" (a bit of slang that is becoming less and less useful). But they _are_ (a) neoliberals and (b) fulfilling the traditional role of the DP -- at least since the absorption of the Populist movement. They are not committed to a "vision of US power imposed [primarily or only] by military might," but they are committed to a vision of u.s. power imposed _by whatever means necessary." It was Albright who asked in irritation at the generals' hesitation, something like "What's the use of this fine army you're talking about if we can't use it?" And don't forget Clinton's really profligate use of bombing.
Carrol