This was a valuable discussion. I have lately been using the term neocon rather generically because the finer distinctions are usually lost on people if they even know the term neocon at all to begin with. For instance, I've referred to Barack Obama as a neocon because for all practical purposes, he has been kowtowing to them to the extent that it thoroughly disgusts me and I wish for a President who would stand right up and denounce neoconservatism, Zionism (of which neoconservatism is a part), and the so-called liberal interventionists.
They are all so close to each other relative to the clear alternatives that they can rightly be viewed as global revolutionaries for a narrow spectrum they all refer to as American-style democracy (which is the heart and soul of neoconservatism).
Francis Boyle mentioned Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss and the others, all of whom I've written about on this site. The distinctions are not lost on me.
The most important part of the discussion was offered up by Boyle when he discussed Russia, the Jews, the pogroms, and Zbigniew Brzezinski as Russian-hating Pole.
Brzezinski is not a neocon in the finer sense of the term. For instance, he made clear that he would advocate that the US shoot down any Israeli planes sent in an unprovoked manner to attack Iran. That did not win him any friends amongst the Zionists.
George H. W. Bush is not, and was never, a neocon. He pressed the Zionists to do his bidding by taking it to the American people and raising the aspect of US monetary aid to Israel, which Bush put on the chopping block. The Zionists did not much support Bush-41 in his bid for reelection, which he lost without their support (something not lost on his son, George W. Bush, who won by appealing first to Christian fundamentalists and also to Zionists). Bush-42 attempted just once to lord it over the Zionists. He was savaged by them and never forgot for the rest of his terms in office to fear them.
That's what happens when we have Presidents who don't stand up and stay that way.See also: