Neoconservatism on Wikipedia
A backgrounder on a couple of the top neo-cons:
Bill Kristol Wikipedia entry
Liz Cheney Wikipedia
Why Afghan army fell Bulwark dot com
Wikipedia
The Bulwark is a re-launch of the failed publication The Weekly Standard, which is a Bill Kristol project. The site is anti-Trump, but also is described as "conservative".
There are a few valid points perhaps, but what does Trump have to do with it? Nothing in this information do I find a reason for the behavior of the neo-cons towards Trump.
If the neo-cons had trouble with Trump, why not hold that in confidence in their discussions with him? Instead of that, the neo-cons here joined with the Democrats to try to force Trump out. This made the Afghan failure all the more inevitable.
For example, there were claims that there was no training of the Afghans before leaving. If that is true, why not bring that up in private discussions while Trump was in office? Why not keep the party together, as opposed to making a weak point that could be exploited, and is being exploited to this very day?
Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have some explaining to do. But instead, there is nothing but blaming others, but never blaming themselves.
According to some of the information on Wikipedia, it looks like the Neo-cons are a bunch of loosely affiliated folks who migrate from Democrats to Republicans and back again. Not to be considered reliable, in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment