The article to which you link posits that neoconservatives "effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action." I think that's a trifle simplistic, and would take issue with a number of the claims in the piece - most importantly, its omission of any meaningful role for Democratic processes in accounting for our foreign policies.

But its essential point, I think, is correct. You'll note that it's not claiming these folks "are indifferent to America's interests," nor that are solely advancing Israel's interests. The key element is the co-identification of those interests - like you and me, and indeed like most other Americans, neocons tend to believe that the interests of the United States and Israel are generally congruent. Where we would part ways with the neoconservatives, I suspect, is in identifying the nature of those interests. They believed that regime change in the Middle East would benefit America, by supplanting the repressive governments in the region with vibrant democracies, thus undermining the appeal of Islamic radicalism and aligning the region with American interests - and, by extension, with those of our Israeli allies. They were wrong. Catastrophically wrong. And their continued inability or unwillingness to recognize the nature or extent of their mistakes is costing us every day.

But to disagree with the neoconservative vision for either Israel or America is not to presume that those who advocated it acted in bad faith. I don't think that Doug Feith ever tried to conceal his views - indeed, the Nation article is but one of many which avail themselves of the rich public record to chronicle his views in detail. Neocons exaggerated the evidence precisely because they were convinced of the ultimate rectitude of the war - so instead of debating if we should be fighting, they used evidence instrumentally to convince that public that we should fight.

I write this not to excuse their mistakes, but to hold them to account. It's too easy to say, "These folks don't care about America" or "they're all in thrall to Israel" or "It's all a Likudnik conspiracy." Then, the next time someone comes along and makes the case for war, the relevant test becomes their patriotism or even their religion, and not the content of their ideas. But the neocons do care deeply about their country - and the whole point is that patriotism is insufficient to guarantee sound policy. If, instead, we say, "These folks operated under fallacious premises, and tried to put in place a vision of the world fundamentally at odds with reality," then the next time the drumbeat for war is sounded, we ask "Does this view of the world square with the evidence before our eyes?"

I know that you write as you do from a deep and passionate commitment to America, to Israel, and to justice. But I urge you to consider that sometimes sincerity is more dangerous than duplicity. The problem with neocons is not dual-loyalty anymore than it is indifference. The problem is that the policies they advocate have demonstrably failed to achieve their aims, and indeed, have proven counterproductive. Demonizing them, accusing them of treason, of witch hunts, of callous indifference - all of this serves only to further embitter and estrange. It amounts to fighting a straw-man - the neocon who is indifferent to his country and its interests. Easy prey, but there's no victory in it. Taking on those whose well-intentioned policies have resulted in one of the greatest foreign-policy catastrophes in our history, and seriously wounded the prospects for peace; now that's a worthy project.