Basically, it can be summed up in this fashion.
The Neocons are essentially like Mustafa Kemal (aka Ataturk) without any of the redeeming qualities.
All this anonymity can cause some confusion here. I mean, I call myself "Attaturk" (note the extra "t", cute no?). There are a few qualities about the original closely named Ataturk that are positives. His emphasis on the "secular" society was good and needed, even if it went too far and was as much influenced by western fascism as it was a desire to reform a decrepit and corrupt theocratic society.
His determination to bring Turkey into a more european outlook was overall a positive, and his military leadership at Galipoli was extraordinary, though the same service is negated by his neglect over the Armenian Genocide (and that is being generous, for he was certainly deliberate in covering the matter up).
In short, Ataturk was a complicated character, with pluses and deep, deep, minuses.
The problem is the neo-cons do not seem to notice the deficiencies (and they are deep) at all, nor do they notice that a good Kemalist would look at the right-wing theocrats that form the core of Bush supporters with disdain.
...but then again, maybe their love of Ataturk can be reflected in one of his statements which at its heart is fascist to the core...and one which reflects their thinking on Iraq today, and quite likely toward the american electorate as well...
“For the people, despite the people”