Jake, I'm sorry, but you're pulling out straws now. And I was wrong about Rumsfeld's role in Iraq. He was a Special Envoy, and no, he did not make policy, he carried it out. And no, the Reagan administration was not a neoconservative one. For that matter, neither was Bush's until 9/11. There are no documents, papers, or associations of Rumsfeld that could assign him to the Neocon camp before 9/11. For much of the time between 1980 and 2000, he was an excutive with a pharmaceutical company, although he might have come back to serve the Bush I administration.

And no, Reagan was not courting Saddam in the attempt to democratize Iraq, which is a duh, in anyone's book. And if you don't know why that is relevant, you don't understand the Neocons, and their foreign policy project, or why they hit on Iraq years later (even though it was done for Israel's sake).

And finally, who the hell ever said that Neoconservatism developed with the Bush administration? And no, there is no credible evidence that Rumsfeld was a neocon in the 70s or 80s, and no, there was no Neocon angle to the Iraq-Iran war such that the neocons gave Saddam chemical weapons. You made that up yourself, me thinks, because Rumsfeld took a Neoconservative course in the Defense Department. Once a Neocon, you had to be one forever, right?

Is this the think tank you were talking about?