I find it generally difficult to pin the new breed of progressives down on foreign policy specifics. So we don't want surgical strikes on Iran, but we also don't want house-to-house guerilla fighting as we're seeing in Iraq. Is isolation the way to go?

What moment in history makes them think that Liberalism is inherently non-violent, or even anti-militaristic? The 20th Century is a 100 year tale of Liberals entering wars and building global institutions. "Liberal Hawk" is an oxymoron, but it's a language game that true Liberals have already ceded to the extreme Left.

What would progressive diplomacy look like?

Just as aside, it was Tristero, not Digby who wrote that post. Don't know if you noticed, but he's been posting there for quite a while. Each post has a byline at the very beginning so you know who's post it is.

Now, for at least my perspective:

1) obviously not. But are you actually saying that there aren't liberal hawks who actually are neoconservatives? What about that famed radical lefty Christopher Hitchens. Is he a neoconservative or just something else who happens to be so closely aligned with them that it's quite hard to tease out the differences other than, perhaps, querying them about their feelings regarding Henry K. or Mother Theresa.

Seriously, this a rather silly misreading of Tristero's post - one might postulate it was actually a purposeful misreading so that you could make a point.

2) Why no link to Matt's response? Weird. In any event, it seems pretty clear Cohen is making the quite common attack which is to imply that the word "neocon" is a slur on jews. Matt's just using what you term as a bridge as the opportunity to comment on this quite common attack.

Again, I'm curious as to why this isn't obvious, but I guess it makes good blog fodder.

3) It seems pretty clear that, as Tristero points out, that it isn't Cohen's mindless babble that is upsetting. Annoying? Sure.

But in any event, this point of yours is quite clever as a debate tactic and I'm sure - as the first comment points out - quite effective for your right of center audience.

Ah, see you fixed the post with a link to Matt's response. Still, went clicking through the links you have as "examples" of this conflation, and hit the link to Atrios first. Quite odd that there isn't anything in the post you link to that even begins to support your assertion that Atrios has conflated Neocons and Liberal hawks. Seriously, Dan, WTF? I thought academics were far more careful with their support material.

Clicking through to the Greenwald link provides another classic Drezner WTF experience. Glenn clearly is saying things like "which is why the "liberal" Brookings Institutional "scholars" are so pro-war and work so cooperatively with the neoconservative AEI", but it's pretty darn clear he hasn't committed the cardinal sin of conflating the two groups. Seriously sloppy.

The second Greenwald link has him saying things like "Much of this effort to enforce imperialistic notions as a bi-partisan consensus comes from neoconservatives, who are highly respected in the Foreign Policy Community." but it's pretty darn clear he isn't - again - conflating neoconservatives with anyone. In fact, he quite clearly treats them as a group that is quite distinct from the groups you claim he's conflating them with.

Sloppy doesn't seem to be operative. It's almost like you have an agenda here.

The Tom Barry link is equally weird. It's pretty clear that Barry distinguishes between the two groups and simply says that "In addition to joining the neocons in support of the war and the post-war restructuring, the liberal hawks have also published their own statements in favor of what is now widely regarded as a morally bankrupt policy agenda."

Again, Dan, where's the conflation?

Yi. You seem to be getting as bad as Glenn Reynolds with the quality of your links that you use to support your positions.

Hal is spot on. Drezner's post is misleading, either through obtuseness or willful misrepresentation. As for Cohen, fundamentally he is whining that he is being criticized for having been wrong. His defense? His critics are anti-semites. Yes, that's a strong argument.