Posted on 08/30/2004 2:45:59 PM PDT by SJackson
Buchanan and reality are two words that don't belong in the same sentence.
The Dakota people were chased out onto the Western prairie and into Canada. It took almost another 30 years till the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 to complete the many battles and actions.
Actually, from about 1650 till 1890 Europeans fought Native Americans for this continent. You can debate, if you wish, the rightness or wrongness of these conflicts, but the fact remains it took this long to subdue a primitive, dangerous enemy who possessed great courage and determination.
We, then, have a historical precedent for a long and bloody war. Like it or not we will have to prevail.
How did we let these unelected wonks and wierdos take control?
Pat Buchanan, Holocaust-admitter!
Actually, Ronald Reagan started it. Though GWB kept them on. Or are you one of the selected not elected freaks.
Why do you think they're in control? Are fold like George Bush, Richard Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld just a bunch of dumbass Christian's under the control of the eternal Jews?
A first.
More important that Buchanan and Republican are widely separated in peoples minds.
Can anyone figure out what Pat is saying we should be doing instead of what we're doing?
NRO's merciless spanking of Buchanan and his faux "more-conservative-than-thou" drivel is worth savoring in full. That was simply one of the many highlights, is all. :)
McNamara and his Whiz Kids had to take the fall for Vietnam.
They did? Funny, I must have missed that.
Me too, maybe it's in the book :>)
Close the Mexican border.
Get the Jews out of government.
Everything will be fine. The terrorists won't care about us once Israel is gone.
Besides, if they only kill 3,000 Americans every few years, what's the big deal?
I think the great flaw in Buchanan's argument here lies in his assumption that Muslims would leave us alone if we would just back out of the Middle East. Muslims have been quite consistent and explicit about their desire for jihad and world conquest. Buchanan's attempt to slide over this rather significant issue falls flat on its face. Like it or not, we are facing a war against our very civilization, of which Israel is a member.
Still, many of his criticisms of the neo-cons are quite valid, most notably their utter hypocrisy about Tony Judt's recommendation - a multiculturalist, open-borders, liberal policy for Israel that neocons have no problem with imposing upon every single Western nation.
The neocons are quite correct that Judt's recommendation would utterly destroy Israel as a nation if implemented. Yet, when it is suggested that mass immigration is likewise destroying the very fabric of the US and other Western nations and cultures, the neocons start spouting their "proposition nation" arguments (for the US) or warmed-over leftist pap that multiculturalism (flooding the continent with Muslims and other incompatibles) is beneficial to European countries.
Frum and his buddies insist on having it both ways: "diversity" is great for the US and the West, but it would destroy Israel. It's quite OK to reduce traditonal majority populations to minorities in their own countries - except in Israel. Either it is good for all or bad for all. By arguing out of both sides of their mouth, Frum and his pals have destroyed their credibility. Their loyalty to the US is indeed open to question.
Contrary to Buchanan's idea that we should abandon Israel, there are many perfectly valid and compelling arguments that helping Israel stand against the Jihad is very much in line with our national interests from a traditional conservative viewpoint.
Pat writes well.
Spare me the religious hyperbole. Foreign policy should be made at State and in the White House and not from the Pentagon or a think-tank with a tap into our intel and analytical stream.
And what makes you think it isn't? Sorry, I left Colin Powell off the list of dumbass Christians.
The fact of the matter is that ole Patrick conjures up theories of Zionist control of American foreign policy based on a handful of subcabinet level Jews in the first administration in decades without a Jew in a cabinet level position in decades. It's the stuff of bigotry, sorry you buy into it.
Followed the link. Date says March 1, 2004. What gives?
That's the date on the thread, apparently he hadn't been posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.