Marshall describes how the neoconservatives, originally a group of mostly Democrats who thought libs didn't take the Soviet threat seriously enough, fooled themselves into believing the Soviet threat was stronger even than the high estimates coming out of U.S. intelligence. Of course, now we know that those estimates were in fact extremely inflated.
This willingness to deceive--both themselves and others--expanded as neocons grew more comfortable with power. Many spent the Reagan years orchestrating bloody wars against Soviet proxies in the Third World, portraying thugs like the Nicaraguan Contras and plain murderers like Jonas Savimbi of Angola as "freedom fighters." The nadir of this deceit was the Iran-Contra scandal, for which Podhoretz's son-in-law, Elliot Abrams, pled guilty to perjury. Abrams was later pardoned by Bush's father, and today, he runs Middle East policy in the Bush White House.
To encourage war advocates to click on over to this excellent article, let me say that Marshall goes on to describe some very sensible aims of the neoconservative hawks. It actually makes the plan sound pretty attractive.
I'd be interested in hearing the pro-war side spell out in some comments below exactly where you see this Middle East venture headed. What happens in Iraq? And then what do we do? As JFK says to Dean Acheson in 13 Days, "How does this all...play out?"
And, just as an aside, do you feel President Bush has been open and honest about what the overall plan is?