Precisely what part of neoconservatism holds that “basic principles can always be sacrificed for the sake of a usually deluded view of the American national interest”?

Seriously, is this meant as a defence of liberal inaction or a condemnation of the presumptive neoconservative claim on a moral position the liberals thought–inaccurately–belonged to them alone? Reflexive idiocy is still idiocy, and hardly advances the writer’s point.

I mean really, how hard would it be in this case to argue flippantly that in the worst tradition of English empiricism even the left-wing Guardian now seems willing to sacrifice basic principles for the sake of a deluded view of English national interest?

But I guess it’s nuance when the left does it. Either that, or it’s always and entirely a matter of reading with correctly coloured glasses.