The Smoke Is Gone...............

By Thomas Kelley

Our family visited the University of Pittsburgh for the last time in attempt to end our college selection process. As we entered Alumni Hall on the main campus, current students, very willing to share their Pitt experiences, greeted us.

After attending an English sample class, we decided to go on the city bus tour. As we loaded onto the bus, our escort welcomed us. He was a senior at Pitt. He was very articulate and carried his voice throughout the bus, informing us all about the great city. Presumptively, we were traveling along the usual route and, after ten minutes, we crossed the Monongahela River to view the city from high above. No doubt that the city of Pittsburgh has been made beautiful and highly modernized. The weather was nice, a tad chilly but sunny.

We arrived at the lookout point and we were amazed at the beauty of the city from this vantage point. Our student guide talked to us about the city and some of the firsts that it had achieved. I was mesmerized by the number of bridges, and especially the dazzling, yellow bridge, which brought us to the south side of the river. Then, somebody made a comment about the clear skies. He mentioned how great it was that the smog was gone and today you can see for miles and miles. Then our guide replied , “We are glad that the smoke is gone and that the city is clean”. I chuckled inside as I looked at the very bridge that led us over the river, a big, beautiful, colorful bridge made of steel. Then, I scanned over all the bridges and observed that almost all of them were made of steel.

Driving back home, as my wife and son were sleeping, I had a great amount of time to think about that statement. Andrew Carnegie is memorialized throughout the campus and the city of Pittsburgh. There is a tribute to Henry Bessemer, near the river in front of Station Square. He developed the first process for mass-producing steel inexpensively. As I drove eastward for many miles, I began to recount my days working as a steel worker west of Philadelphia.

The Alan Wood Steel plant was located along the Schuylkill River near Bridgeport. It was a major source of jobs for the entire area. Employment at Alan Wood was a family tradition. Just as young men and women head off to college today, the young men of the Bridgeport area preceded to the mills for a career as a steel worker. It was a way of life. There were five of my family members already present when I was hired. It was long, hard work, dangerous and foul smelling. Shift work was a routine that never became customary. Make no mistake, the money was great, a tribute to the men before us who had to strike for better wages and safer working conditions so that their sons might have a better working environment. Still, injury and death always showed its ugly head. Working for an environmental company many years later, I had the opportunity once again to experience the taste of a steel mill. While doing some work at the blast furnace in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, I howled at my co-workers as they ran out of the furnace gasping for air as the lava-like steel was poured with its stench and brutal heat was discharged into the air.

In retrospect, I know what bothered me about this young man’s statement. It demonstrated what he and many others did not seem to understand, the value of Pittsburgh’s history…the way in which philanthropist Andrew Carnegie accumulated all his wealth and the way in which the steel mills benefited both the students and the residents of contemporary Pittsburgh. The many steel bridges of Pittsburgh remain as one of the few links to the past. They are monuments without plaques. Millions of people will use these bridges without the slightest clue of that which they represent. Sadly, I never contemplated this greatly myself. Not once on the trip there did I consider the status of Pittsburgh without the men of the steel mills and yes…the smoke and smog that came along with the construction of America.

Author James Parton once described Pittsburgh as “hell with the lid off”. Steel plants in Pittsburgh, along with those across the nation, continuously supplied steel and iron for the bridges and buildings, as well as the ships and tanks that aided the war effort. Smoke and smog were the price that Americans had to pay in order to make this wonderful nation as it exists today. A tribute should be made to the men of Pittsburgh, who worked the mills and breathed the nasty vapors, the workers who were maimed and killed to produce this important product.

Just as the brutal volcano, which spewed out its deadly gases and killer lava, led to the stunning islands of Hawaii, the city of Pittsburgh, with its tall building and fine institutes of learning, was born through the hard work of the steel workers. It is something worth noting when one looks out and sees that spectacular view - now that the smoke is gone...............

Journalistic Code of Ethics - BullShuster

In the aftermath of the David Shuster’s remark about Chelsea Clinton, it is time to look at the Journalistic Code of Ethics. It is amazing that our MSM bashes the lawyers of this country on a regular basis. They are on the hit list of many politicians and the press, even though almost all of the politicians are lawyers themselves.

What did the Bar Association do when the prosecutor in the Duke rape case was accused of withholding evidence? What did it do when Bill Clinton lied before a grand jury? It disbarred both of them, living up to its rules. No one is exempt from this code. This is one organization that takes its pledge seriously.

The journalists have a code of conduct that is really a waste of paper. Without some type of reprimand or punishment from society, what is the point of having the group at all? What penalty will Shuster, Matthews or Judith Miller get for violating this code? Can anyone point out an instance when the Society of Professional Journalists has condemned any of the reporters or pundits?

There is more than sufficient evidence that they were lap dogs for the White House and George Bush in the run up to war in Iraq. When the prosecutor of the Duke case violated his code of ethics, he was disbarred. Yet the journalists, who covered the same case, condemned the young men of Duke and declared that they were guilty. Not one of them has been called out by their own profession.

Maybe we should look at the Journalistic Code of Ethics. Keep track of the journalists that have faithfully executed this code. The number will be very low.

Society of Professional Journalists

- Seek Truth and Report It. Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

- Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

- Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

- Never distort the content of news photos or video Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

- Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.

- Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story— Never plagiarize.

- Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.

- Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.

- Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

- Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

- Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

- Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

It is very difficult to find many in this profession that live up to its policy. Self-criticism among colleagues seems to be out of the question. It is time to applaud the Bar Association and remind this "do nothing" Society of Professional Journalists that it is not enforcing its own ethics.

"Sorry, Charlie"

Years ago, there was a commercial about a tuna that looked good, but did not taste good. He wanted to be caught by StarKist because he “looked good.” Charlie, the tuna, was always rejected with a note attached to the hook that said, “Sorry, Charlie.” StarKist was not seeking a tuna with good looks, but rather for tuna that tasted good. Does America want a President that looks good, speaks well, or someone who will get the job done?

Forget about race in the Democratic primary. The press wants the American people to believe that the Clintons are trashing Obama and sending the subliminal message to not elect an African-American. No attentive person can claim that the Clintons have been negligent to the race movement in America. After all, Bill Clinton was called “the first Black president” by Nobel prize-winning author Toni Morrison.

The real battle is neither race nor experience nor gender. The question is who will fight the hardest to get the Presidency back and, once that happens, put America back on stable ground. On the one hand, Barack Obama is the candidate with the vision of uniting America with his great oratory gift intending to bring the parties together with bipartisanship. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has been described as the “divisive” candidate, the one who will use her bully pulpit and political skill to get her way. The act of crossing the aisle seems very appealing in this well-divided country. Almost all Americans want this to happen.

Presently in Congress, the Democratic Party has leaders in both Houses; Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Fighters? Not even close. They have been in charge for a little bit more than one year now and have attempted the painstaking task of bringing bipartisanship to Capitol Hill. Have United States forces left Iraq? Have Americans gained rights to communicate without government ease dropping? Have big oil companies received heat for the high cost of fuel? The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO! When Bill Clinton the fighter left office the price of gas was $1.45.

When Bill Clinton was President, the Republican majority attacked him from every angle. He was a fighter. He managed to move the country in the right direction by balancing the budget, reforming the welfare system, paying off national debt, creating jobs, and stopping the genocide in Bosnia. He saved many lives without the great loss of life to American soldiers.

Was Al Gore a fighter? How about John Kerry? Mike Dukakis? There has been one Democratic fighter in the last twenty-five years. Guess who won and had one of the greatest presidencies in this era. So, to whom can Barack Obama reach out in his stab at bipartisanship? Will it be Senator Orrin Hatch who called global warming "science fiction". Or maybe he can reach out to Congressman J.D. Hayworth who said Bill Clinton was "bankrolled by trial lawyers, radical homosexual rights groups, environmental extremists ... along with almost every other left-wing wacko group you can think of." Maybe he will be able to have some agreement with Kathleen Harris who hired Choice Point to purge black votes off the voting rolls before the 2000 election. Maybe he can get Conrad Burns to take one of his constituents to task when he asked Burns "Conrad, how can you live back there with all those niggers?". He surely can work with Senator Jim Imoff who in a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper compared environmentalists to Nazis. This horrific list can continue with famous quotes from our right-wing friends.

Can Obama change the normal pattern in Washington by attempting to unite America like Pelosi and Reid? One of the few politicians who was able to reach across and get a large number of Democrats and Independents was the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. He was the “kind man” who was able to move his Congress in his direction. The “fighters” in the Democratic Party moved aside and allowed Reagan to take our country to the right, take down labor unions, and run up the national debt more than any other president until George W. Bush. Reagan lost 241 servicemen at one time in Beirut, and not a word about his failure to find and punish the people who were responsible. He was not taken to task by his party for failing to bring the perpetrators to justice, however Clinton was crushed for not capturing Osama bin Laden after 2 years. Of course, the first terrorist group that bombed the Twin Towers during the Clinton years were captured, tried, and are currently serving multiple life terms.

Does this not reek of a double standard? W has not be able to capture bin Laden after 6 years; will he be held accountable? The same group of Republicans, many who are still in Congress today, attacked Clinton with everything possible and finally caught him lying about having sexual intercourse with Monica Lewinsky. Monica happened to be an adult at the age of twenty-one years. George Bush has sent many young men and women that are younger than twenty-one who haved died based on deception, incompetent intelligence, and utter carelessness.

How long will America be divided along the party lines? How long will America have politicians that would rather fight for their party than do the right thing? The answer, my friends, is when Conrad Burns and company are voted out of office by the voters of their respective states and replaced by some reasonable representatives. Until then we should keep our Big Gun, Hillary Clinton!

Pundits, Profits, and Predictions

Is it crazy to say that the Mainstream Media (MSM) has done a poor job in covering the 2008 election? Chris Matthews, an MSNBC pundit, is considered to be part of the mainstream coalition. Yet, after watching his show, the meaning of Mainstream Media needs to be reconsidered. The word mainstream can be defined as, “belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc” (Dictionary.com). So, if Matthews wants to be part of this “excellent” group of individuals, maybe he needs to cut the Hillary bashing and focus on the important issues of the race. After all, Hillary currently has won the last two primary elections in Nevada and New Hampshire. So, it seems as if her campaign is the widely accepted group over the last two weeks.

Poor Chris Matthews and his friends were certain of the Obama victory in New Hampshire. They proclaimed their high belief in the skewed polls by saying that Obama was leading by double-digit figures. Surely, New Hampshire voters did not want Iowa or the MSM to determine their desired candidate for the general election in November. Voters poured into the booths on January 8th and stung Matthews and fellow colleagues. Now, they have stopped their bold predictions and have concentrated solely on the Hillary bashing. Although they want to proclaim Obama as the South Carolina victor, they have learned their lesson.

So, what should a person of such expertise do after getting burnt so badly? Hardball’s prodigy first insured that he had a good stock of excuses to safeguard him from the “Dewey wins” syndrome. He has used many types of deception, from the Bradley effect to a fixed election. Can one MSM expert just admit that Hillary won because she received more votes than her competitors? A small group of pollster targets cannot proclaim the winner of a race with an electorate of 280,000 people. The media just came short of labeling the New Hampshire constituents as racists, just because the polls were inaccurate. The polls cannot be wrong; it has to be the people!

The South Carolina primary brings the nation to another showdown, which will surely bring the race card into play. If Hillary wins the primary, there will be an all out assault on the South Carolinians or the voting machines. The Clintons will be harassed for the Rezko comment in the recent debate. Bill Clinton will be bashed for the support of his wife and his “lying”. There will not be a shortage of reasons as to why the analysts got it wrong. The MSM will be back on the bandwagon if Obama wins this primary. They have very short memories. These specialists should strop dramatizing the hostility and focus on the issues that will set this country on the right path.

If Hillary wins in South Carolina, I will present Matthews and his colleagues with their first excuse, The Reverse-Bradley effect. Is it possible that African-American Hillary supporters will endorse Obama during polling, yet cast the Hillary vote in the booth? Who knows. People should stop trying to pick a winner by inspecting the polls and vote according to their special needs.

The winner of the South Carolina primary and the upcoming super Tuesday will be in the lead of the progressive party and needs both Democratic and Independent support. Our county needs a leader like Obama, Clinton, or Edwards. These competitors have little differences among them, yet they continue to argue. Do not be fooled by Matthews and his colleagues, however. They are not in the business to report news; they are in the busniess to make money. And, on a nightly basis, the act of bashing the Clintons fulfills their main goal in an attempt to increase their ratings. If not trying to make profits, the MSM is certainly doing a good job in promoting the election of the Republican candidate in November.

Taxation Without Representation...Not Quite

The taxation argument in the United States has existed since the founding of our nation, being one of the main reasons for our independence. The brave revolutionaries of the United States proclaimed that the British were taxing the colonists without American representation in Parliament. This unjust taxation persisted in the United States prior to the Revolutionary War and the controversy culminated in the Boston Tea Party, the signal of rejection to taxation on tea imports. Two years later, without agreement between the two opponents, war broke out and lasted for eight years. The colonists were the victors and gained our freedom as a nation. The right to taxation was brought into the hands of the American government and still continues to be a main source of debate today.

American sentiment towards taxation has been very negative in recent time, as most people prefer low taxes and little government intervention. Once again, people proclaim that they want "the government off their backs" without considering the significance and benefits of taxation. Surely taxation can be burdensome to low-income families who need to insure the basic necessities of life, but that argument can be addressed in a more complex discussion of the method of American taxation. However, taxation can be looked upon in a positive light, that which benefits individuals and the society as whole.

First of all, taxation is defined as the act of charging "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc" (Dictionary.com). So, in other words, tax can be referred to as a fee paid by the people for some sort of benefit. Many people assume that they are not receiving anything in return when they look at their paycheck and see the money lost due to taxes. Now, let's consider the government a type of business. Ideally, this business will help the customer in providing goods/services such as Medicare, Social Security, public works, public education, assistance towards the environment, etc. However, this business is not attempting to make profit at any cost. The main goal of this business is to serve the people to the best of its ability in order to insure the well being of society. Thus, the American public benefits greatly from taxation when it is employed properly with good intention. Taxation should be increased to help Americans in more aspects of expensive consumerism such as health care, college tuition, and home necessities. Idealistically speaking, the government can decrease the cost of living and stimulate the economy from the bottom. Nevertheless, an ideal situation does not always occur and wasteful spending can cause great disruption.

In this new millennium, American tax dollars have been wasted upon a defense budget that promotes America as the police force of the world. Funding for the disastrous Iraq war has caused necessary tax dollars to go to an unnecessary war. Now, one can see the reason for the negativity towards taxation. However, one cannot make a generalization that all taxation is terrible due to a period of wastefulness and free spending. In the past, the conservatives have attacked the liberals for overspending. However, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have run the biggest deficits in American history leading to great national debt. Robert Freeman discusses the failure of the Reagan Administration by saying, "Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $994 billion. When Bush left office, it had reached $4.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment quadrupled it in the next 12 years." In the method of taxation via Supply Side economics, Reagan wasted the tax dollars on a military budget in attempt to defeat the very weak cause of communism throughout the world. George W. Bush has followed in Reagan's footsteps with a big military budget which has caused the inability to pursue domestic programs with American tax dollars.

In looking at the forecast for the 2008 election, the Democratic candidates are going to have a very hard time pursuing their goal of universal health care with the skyrocketing deficit. America will need to leave this war as soon as possible to reel in the wasteful spending of the Bush administration. However, it seems like universal health care will have to go on the backburner considering the approaching recession, the sub prime mortgage crisis, and the rising costs of food and energy. Nevertheless, before the presidential election in November, think about what type of "business" will provide you with the best goods at the cheapest prices. And please, don't say Wal-Mart!

Neonconservatism and The Politics of Fear

Over the past half-century, the constituency of the United States has grown distant from its government with the outlook of deception, detachment, and disagreement. People have lost respect for our leaders over the years due to scandal, greed, and a lack of consensus in decision making. The Watergate Scandal, The Monica Lewinsky Scandal, and the growing unpopularity for our present Commander-in-Chief have caused a rupture in the confidence of government and a movement to "get the government off our backs." However, American society has been deceived in a different way, which many have not detected. This corrupton has lurked in American government for approximately fifty years now, but the American people have constantly bought into this exploitation and voted accordingly. Politicians, having realized this schism, began employing the politics of fear, in order to once again curry favor among Americans and have power. The neoconservatives are the main culprits in this movement, having used it for nearly fifty years. Although very successful, this use of the politics of fear is contrary to the American values of freedom and integrity.

The neoconservative movement began to flourish in the 1960s, at the same time of the rise of anti-Vietnam liberals. Neoconservatives were disgruntled liberals who needed a direction in their ideology. They were upset with the new liberal coalition and began to follow the beliefs of Leo Strauss, a professor at the University of Chicago. Leo Strauss opposed individual freedom, saying that it led to deterioration of the nation. He promoted the use of illusionary myths by politicians in order to invoke the minds of the people and bring order within society. These myths contained religious and national sentiments and were usually fictitious. The neoconservatives built their ideology upon his teaching and fabricated the epic battle between good and evil. This ideology has led to increased fear within the American public during recent wars and the ability of the neonconservatives to win over the society.

The first evil force in this epic battle was the Soviet Union. The neonconservatives in the Nixon administration exaggerated the danger of the USSR in respect to their arms. Donald Rumsfeld was one of the members of this administration. He was quoted as saying, “The Soviet Union has been busy” (The Power of Nightmares) in a speech referring to the arms production and war preparation of the Cold War opponent. Upon CIA investigation, the threat of the Soviet Union was minimal in comparison to the urgency of Secretary Rumsfeld. The neoconservatives fabricated a loophole, however, which announced that the weapon system in the Soviet Union was very complex and undetectable by United States espionage. The proclamation by Rumsfeld and the devious ploy of the neoconservative base are both examples of the fictitious deceit and use of fear during this period of time.

After the Carter Presidency, the neoconservative coalition found itself again in the Reagan administration with his large victory in the Election of 1980. The first obstacle in the promotion of neoconservative policy was the process of convincing Reagan to take a hard line against the communism in the Soviet Union. Reagan wanted to employ diplomacy with the Soviets, however the other members of his administration desired the use of aggressive force to conquer the evil on the other side of the globe. The neoconservatives accomplished the persuasion by enunciating the major threat of the Soviet Union in relation to a large terror network stemming from Moscow. Although considered a fantasy, the neoconservatives used their connections within the CIA and the analysis of a university professor to convince the President of Soviet danger and to persuade him to follow their instruction. Thus, a new foreign policy began to progress in America which essentially caused the development of a unilateral coalition with the intention of becoming the largest power in the world and combating evil via the promotion of democracy.

The final stage of twentieth century neoconservatism occurred in the collaboration with freedom fighters in Afghanistan against the supposed enemy known as the Soviet Union. The United States planned to support these fighters in order to combat the very unstable communistic nation and put an end to the Cold War opponent. During the Reagan administration, the United States sent money and weaponry to Afghanistan and the CIA instructed the freedom fighters concerning war techniques. In the Power of Nightmares, the narrator expresses American desire to combat the Soviet Union by saying, “CIA agents trained the mujaheddin in the techniques of assassination and terror, including car bombing. And they gave them satellite images of Russian troops to help in their attacks.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader of the time, realized the weakness of his nation and wanted to negotiate peace in order to maintain some stability. However, the neoconservatives in power desired to preserve the good versus evil epic battle and refused to give in to the discussion. Gorbachev also warned America of the rise of Islamic extremism if the war did not end quickly. Nevertheless, the course continued its path and the Soviet Union collapsed in the year of 1989. In this triumphant event, both the neoconservatives and the Islamic radicals celebrated victory in the downfall of the communist empire. Ronald Reagan was praised for his success in foreign policy and the radicals in Afghanistan felt an empowerment in conquering their aggressor. However, the Americans did not comprehend the severe state of the Soviet Union during this time. The collapse was inevitable and would have happened in most situations. However, the neoconservatives were unable to ride their triumph into the 1990s during the successful presidency of Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, the coalition reunited once again with the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and has used new tactics since then to move the emotions of the American public in their favor.

Prior to September 11th 2001, the neoconservatives were unable to employ their new strategy due to the lack of an evil force during the time. Nevertheless, as in the past, they discovered their most recent target in Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda coalition. As in the 1980s, the neoconservatives made an alliance with the president and his administration. Shortly after the horrific attacks, in an address to the nation, President Bush is quoted as saying, “Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods, and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror.” Now this quote may have seemed suitable at the present time, but President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have preached this idea incessantly since 2001. Shortly after the attacks, President Bush sent troops to Afghanistan to hunt down Osama and win the victory against terrorism throughout the world. The neoconservatives and the Bush Administration had great confidence in this new type of war and had the support of the American people.

After six years in the War on Terror, it has been perceived by many that the neoconservatives used exaggeration at the end of 2001 to hype the danger of Al-Qaeda and instill fear within Americans as during the Cold War. In analysis of Al-Qaeda, the narrator of The Power of Nightmares discussed their influence in the world by saying, “The terrible truth was that there was nothing there because Al Qaeda as an organization did not exist. The attacks on America had been planned by a small group that had come together around bin Laden in the late 90s.” The narrator goes on to explain the misinterpretation of the danger within this War on Terror. The Bush Administration had failed to realize that the real danger did not exist within Al-Qaeda but subsisted in “the way this idea could inspire groups and individuals around the world who had no relationship to each other” (The Power of Nightmares). Thus, the radicals within Al-Qaeda formed a small coalition in order to combat the perceived American selfishness via the September 11th attack and consequently fell apart at the same time of the American occupation of Afghanistan. Hence, American troops have had little success in this war in relation to the neoconservative hype and media outlook.

In correlation with the War on Terror, the Bush Administration, controlled greatly by the neoconservatives, has moved its attack toward the American people and the liberty that Americans enjoy each day. In a press conference shown in The Power of Nightmares, President Bush is quoted as saying, “We’ve thwarted terrorists in Buffalo and Seattle, Portland, Detroit, North Carolina, and Tampa, Florida. We’re determined to stop the enemy before he can strike our people.” The government has violated Americans through the Patriot Act and has made many unsuccessful arrests of so-called terrorists. In the act of observing numerical figures dealing with the infringement of American liberty, the narrator of The Power of Nightmares said, “Of the 664 people arrested under the Terrorism Act since September the 11th, none of them have been convicted of belonging to Al-Qaeda. Only 3 people have so far been convicted of having any association with any Islamist groups, and none of those convictions were for being involved in a terror plot.” Thus, President Bush was incorrect in his declaration of the infiltration of terrorists in the United States. In the documentary, many of the terrorist claims were very weak including a juvenile video of Disneyland, a video of teenagers in a hotel room, and a drawing of aircrafts. The media has also hyped this disgraceful manhunt by using headlines such as “America Under Attack” during its reports. Despite intense investigation within our country, there has been no terrorist attack on American soil since September 11th. This was another neoconservative technique in scaring the American public with no realistic threat of danger.

In the twenty-first century, neoconservatives have been further categorized in this quote, “Neoconservatives extol the virtues of American hegemony-and sometimes even the idea of an American empire-and they believe U.S. power should be used to encourage the spread of democracy and discourage potential rivals from even trying to compete with the United States” (Mearsheimer and Walt, 129). They also “Believe that military force is an extremely useful tool for shaping the world in ways that will benefit America” (Mearsheimer and Walt, 129). For these reasons, the Bush Administration, with great neoconservative influence, sent our troops to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Another twenty-first century neoconservative principle is the preservation of a strong alliance with Israel. Many of the contemporary neoconservatives in the United States government position themselves with Israel and its right-wing militarism. Neoconservatives, over the last couple decades, have looked to promote the well being of both the United States and Israel in foreign affairs. In 1996, eight American neoconservatives sent the incoming prime minister the “Clean Break” study which encouraged Israel to “abandon the Oslo peace process and use bold measures-including military force-to topple unfriendly Middle Eastern regimes and thereby “transcend” the Arab-Israel conflict” (Mearsheimer and Walt, 130). The neoconservative mindset can be clearly seen in their hawkish methods along with Israel. Thus, neoconservatism has been described as “a microcosm of the larger pro-Israel movement” (Mearsheimer and Walt, 132).

The neoconservatives have been able to effectively enter the administrations of recent Republican Presidents and use them to impose their hawkish policies. They have also been able to instill fear upon the Americans in order to rally support and deceive the public. Their main tactic in foreign policy is the selection of an enemy and the creation of a good versus evil epic battle. They exaggerate the power of these evil forces in order to receive consensus for the promotion of military combat. They also attempt to force the governments to have a democracy and follow American values. The Soviet Union and Al-Qaeda have been the two main enemies of the neoconservatives. A neoconservative-infested administration tends to form a strong alliance with Israel. These countries work together in developing a hawkish foreign policy, which attempt to spread democracy throughout the world. Although being very successful, neoconservatism rejects American liberty, contradicts the American value of integrity, and fails in promoting long-term peace, which should be the attitude of reasonable human beings.