William Kristol, a trotskyite and neocon. First, he’s not old enough. neocons were libs, dems or socialists that became conservatives in the early 60′s. That would have put Kristol in at age 8 or 9.

Podhoretz, old enough, but no ref on google to him ever having been a fruitcake, I mean lib, dem or socialist prior to early 60′s. Not saying he wasn’t just not found on google.

Don’t forget the definition:
Wikipedia seems to define neocon as a person that was a liberal, democrat or socialist that is new to conservatism in the early ’60s.

Buchanan’s list:
Richard Perle, only problem here is he was a dem at least until 1980. neocons became neocons in early 60′s, not late 80′s that would put him in the latter day cons. not neo.

David Brooks, he wasn’t even born til after the neocons were already in existence. So it’s not likely he was a Fruitcake(syn for lib, dem or socialist) prior to that time.

Ken, you should do a little basic research. Calling a jewish conservative a neocon is like calling them a nasty name, it is like calling Black people the N word, so I think to avoid racism or bigotry, you should avoid it.

And yes, I’m saying that to be a neocon as you seem to imply it is would mean you became a conservative in the early ’60s at the time of the “movement” joining in later doesn’t count. Doesn’t fit the definition. That would be like saying you were a WWII vet if you joined the Army in 1948 or later. You might be a vet, but not a wwii one. You might be a Conservative, but not a neocon.

Quit mixing apples and oranges. Just like calling you an American doesn’t make you one.

Buchanan provides relevant neocon names here.

Wikipedia seems to define neocon as a person that was a liberal, democrat or socialist that is new to conservatism.

If you think that is anything close to what it means, then
Which of those persons you named above fit that category?
I don’t think any fit the category as “new” to conservatism. Not withing the last 20 years or so anyhow.

It is also defined as a derogatory term used by liberals, democrats and socialists, primarily to define the people that no longer believe in hating America as they themselves still do.

So I guess if I used the term S**thead to describe you, it would be about the equivalent.

http://www.neoconned.com

here provide two explanantions of “neocon” in depth.

Cheney, Wolfowitz,Perle, Feith and Rumsfeld are all on pre-war record predicting a short war and stabilization of Iraq within a span of months. USA Today collected the embarrasing public quotes in a column last year.

I wouldn’t expect you to know that as you seem to know little other than Israel is bad and America is worse.

If you think you know what a neocon is, give us a definition.
Didn”t see your military resume’ yet either, chickenhawk

So I might be going out on a limb by saying I’ll send you a ten dollar donation if you can provide me one instance of pre-war public
commentary on your part going against the grain of the neocons who assured us of easy victory.

Unlike you I expected it to be much worse. But then I live in reality while you have some wierd TV Land thing going on. The goal is correct the progress vector is in the right direction. Wishing it would go faster is just naive.

“We all know what the war record is in Iraq.” You don’t, or you
wouldn’t have a years long history of portraying the on-ground
reality in overly optimistic terminology having scant
resemblance to the bleak truth.

For the record, I agree. That little “I’m sorry you didn’t get what I was saying” missive, written and posted by God knows who, doesn’t qualify as an apology, never mind a sincere one. No, a sincere apology would be Kerry saying in person something like “I insulted our military by saying what I did, and I’m sorry.” I don’t expect that Kerry will do that, though. If history is any precedent, Kerry will respond to a question with something defiant, like “I posted my apology already, so back off.”

“[W]here, I would ask, is the evidence that Kerry is better at admitting mistakes than Bush? This is a guy who brought all sorts of political grief to himself by stubbornly refusing for three decades to admit that he was wrong to repeat false charges, under oath and on national televison, that smeared his comrades in Vietnam as guilty of pervasive war crimes. Has Kerry admitted he was wrong to oppose nearly every aspect of the foreign policy strategy that President Reagan pursused to great effect in the closing and victorious chapter of the Cold War? Has he admitted he was wrong to oppose the use of force to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991? Maybe I missed something, but I don’t even recall him admitting he was wrong for trying to slash the intelligence budget in the mid-1990s following the first World Trade Center bombing. Indeed, one of the most common threads throughout Kerry’s behavior in this campaign has been his unwillingness to take any personal responsibility for mistakes, from blaming his speechwriters for things that come out of Kerry’s own mouth to picayune things like blaming the Secret Service when he falls down on the slopes. As Jonah Goldberg notes, Kerry’s “liberal hawk” backers may argue that the decades of bad judgment in Kerry’s past are rendered inoperative by September 11, but Kerry’s stubborn insistence that he hasn’t changed in response to September 11, and that he had the right answers all along even when he wrote a book in 1997 that barely mentioned Islamic terrorism, gives the lie to the notion that Kerry is a model of self-reflection. Even the man’s own supporters can’t seriously defend the proposition – on which many of them heaped well-deserved scorn during the primary season – that Kerry has been consistent from the start on whether Saddam was a serious threat that justified a military response. Yet there Kerry stands, insisting to all the world what nobody believes, that he hasn’t changed his position. Preferring Kerry to Bush because Bush won’t admit mistakes is like preferring fresh water to salt water because salt water is wet.”

http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2006/11/politics_the_fi_1.php