A new article by Dr. John P. Hubert
The author has written elsewhere that neoconservatives are not conservative at all; that is, they do not wish to conserve anything including tradition (the Judeo-Christian ethic etc.) unless it happens to further their larger policy goal of promoting big government for the purpose of foreign domination and whatever is necessary economically to support it domestically.
2 comments:
Hubert writes:
"Neocon intellectuals and think tanks, certain neocon politicians, armament makers, the current President and Vice President, the big service companies like Bechtel, Halliburton and a few others are the only ones currently benefiting from the Iraq War."
While I'm no supporter of the war in Iraq, this statement is certainly debatable, if not downright false. Even if the war is unjust, Iraqis could still benefit from it, and the firsthand accounts of soldiers and clergy serving in Iraq seem to indicate that many Iraqis have benefited.
I'm also interested in knowing how neocon thinkthanks have benefited from the war.
Finally, I've seen the term neocon throw around fastly and loosely and applied to a variety of people, but to Hillary Clinton? I think that's a bit of a stretch. I'll bet Hillary Clinton being a neocon would certainly surprise the National Review and Weekly Standard - and probably Hillary too.
Best regards,
Justin Dziowgo
http://dziowgo.blogspot.com
Jack,
Christ is in our midst!
Hopefully the dialog about liberalism that Dr. Chris Burgwald and I have been leading is acceptable to you. There is more to follow.
I would also refer you to many of the Contemporary Thinkers (Schindler, Rowland, and the R.O. thinkers) on my left column who have seriously critiqued Novak and party in a number of different books, etc. For example, a couple of R.O. books that come to mind are D. Stephen Long's Divine Economy: Theology and the Market (Radical Orthodoxy) and Daniel Bell's Liberation Theology After the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering (Radical Orthodoxy).
Post a Comment