"Neo-Cons" Bush At War, Segment 1:

Jambo told me that this term & its origination wasn't something he was familiar with and I think its critical in understanding pieces, of many sure to come, like "Bush's War." The title of that PBS special and the first segment entitled "Hours After The Attack" set the groundwork for the emphasis behind their theme, their thesis statement, and understanding the context of the word"neo-con" is central to understanding that message.

Pat Buchanan, as I remember, was the genesis for that phrase and he came up with it in order to distinguish "older style" conservatives like himself from the "new" or "neo-conservatives." The main difference of course, as he would point out, is his isolationist preference and his real hesitancy to spread Democracy with US Marines. He refers to the Wolfiwitz's of the administration within the Rummy cabal when he uses this term.

Now, the PBS piece, by STARTING with the 9/11 attacks as a point of research and perspective on Iraq, immediately infers that the neo-cons (and they use that word and throw up a picture of Wolfiwitz) like Dr.Evil rubbing their hands together and boisterously laughing, were, from the moment the planes flew into the building conspiring to get us into Iraq and would "use" 9/11 as a pretext even if it meant misleading the public and padding the intel. That's what I walked away from as an impression after watching that first segment.

You have to keep in mind, from Chris Matthews on HardBall to Olberhman, to Air America et al that "neo-con manipulation of 9/11 theory" has become dogma, and I've heard it repeated at nauseam, so forgive me if I don't think PBS coincidentally put up a picture of Wolfiwitz, used the term neo-con and entitled the whole thing "hours after the attack." They believe this as if Christ himself spoke it and it goes as follows: 1.) neo-cons repeated the words 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentences in order to mislead the public into an association of guilt. 2.) Neo-cons "wanted" war with Saddam for their own personal policy goals despite its affect on America. 3.) They padded or flat out lied about WMD's 4.) (this is when they're really feeling froggy) Wolfiwitz is a shill for Israel.

Obviously this isn't what Buchanan thinks, they simply hijacked his term and as I said, this is the accepted version on how we entered Iraq on the ideological left. This piece, in its opening moments lays the groundwork for this theory and in my view makes it fatally flawed as a historical tool for insight. I could just as easily say that Wolfiwitz et al truly believed that Saddam was a threat (after all they didn't make him defy the resolutions) and the Rummy cabal believed that two birds with one stone could be hit - take out the Saddam threat while planting the seed of democracy in the region as the only long term vaccine to generations of Islamo-fascists, thus countering future Al Qeada's. That is a defensible and even noble take on it, but not one PBS chose to run with. I know there are further things Jambo would like to discuss about the piece, but I'm starting from the beginning is all, and "washing off the BS" as he would put it, step by step.