Hypocrisy is not just for liberals anymore! It’s an implicit doctrine in the Neo Conservative platform. The marriage between the religious right and the neocon party is tenuous but necessary for the party’s survival. The modern day conservative’s devolution includes a turning-on-the-head of conventional constitutional wisdom, like separation of church and state, with secular Christian obsessions, like prayer in school. But in order to be everything to everyone, to subsume your opponent’s platform within your own (re: Clinton’s ascension thanks to Mr. Morris), you’re bound to incorporate plenty of contradictory positions. It’s the two party way.

My biggest pet peeve is with the neocon agenda of “American hegemony or bust” combined with a die-hard pro life stance. Human math is not only totally acceptable to these goons, it’s integral to the cause for neocons.

As many of us see it, the impetus for an Iraqi invasion in lieu of one into Iran or Syria was done precisely for the reason the Bush admin said, to fight the ongoing war on terror. For the Bushies, it was a link in the chain, or to use their parlance, part of the axis of evil. After 9/11, neocon hawks began reevaluating terrorist threats. The biggest threat? Radical Islamic terror, primarily that sponsored by Iran, but any which could easily attract an impoverished, dejected Muslim populace One nation which posed little, albeit significant, threat was Iraq. More importantly, it was in a strategic location, sandwiched between two terror-sponsoring states, Syria and Iran. Close to an ally, Israel, and buttressed against an often sympathetic government, Jordan.

Get into Iraq, have a quasi-legitimate reason(s), therefore get some allies, face a beleaguered, starved, unfunded, less-than-armed military, crush them, then set up shop to fight a war on terror. Launch offensives, but welcome attacks so that we can defend there. That way, we destroy another land and other innocents get lumped into the collateral damage category, rather than destroying the homeland and our own innocents.

Sympathetic though some may be to this position, it is easy to see the glaring platform contradiction. Scorch villages, destroy vital infrastructure, and pillage OVER THERE so we don’t have to face danger OVER HERE. Sure, that poor Iraqi child may be missing every appendage, but it COULD have happened over here, to one of our white, Christian, not impoverished children; the kind of person with whom we’d identify. And fuck that!

Is this treating others how we would be treated? Of course it isn’t; in fact, it’s precisely the opposite. Kill innocents abroad to avoid the risk here. Hurt others rather than hurt myself. WWJD? He’d face them on his own turf. He’d defend himself (and others, if they asked at it was just), but not launch offensives that killed innocents. A true hero would show bravery that our neocon politicians can’t stomach. A true hero wouldn’t sacrafice other innocents in pursuit of her own well-being. As the Pro-Lifer bumper sticker reminds us, it is real tragedy that innocent children “must die so that you may live as you wish”?

The deficit of the Neocon party, much like the modern Democratic Party, is its incorporation of not just contradictory beliefs, but FUNDAMENTALLY contradictory beliefs. Or, as those of us unaffiliated with any political parties call it, hypocrisy.