Out With the Neocons in Bush's Second Term (Paleocon dinosaur droppings)

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | October 9, 2004 | Thomas Roeser

[af_vet_1981]

Bush will go down in history as a decisive war president, in the same sense Harry Truman was with Korea.

Harry Truman did not achieve victory in Korea and so we are now facing a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them while the opposition in this country would have us armed with spitballs.

Thankfully President Bush nows how and when to fight.

[nosofar]

I think you are forgetting that Bush did not decide to invade Iraq on his own authority. He went to Congress and got its authorization, as the Constitution called for him to do.

That's one of the primary checks. Perhaps Lincoln was referring to instances where the President did not get this authorization.

I also find it difficult to imagine that any American would expect the President to allow a nuke to be detonated in America because it wouldn't be sporting to strike first.

There is no difference from a nuke detonated by a terrorist or an army invading from outside. They are both attacks against the nation. I don't think any distinction needs to be made as to whether to do something about it or not as far as Lincoln's statement is concerned.

[sauropod]

Neocon jock sniffer...

[quidnunc]

sauropod wrote: Neocon jock sniffer...

A less-polite person than I would respond "Paleocon feces fondler!"

But, of course I wouldn't even think of doing that.

[sauropod]

Your shtick is getting so old...

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

When did we start classifying conservatives according to an evolution chart?

[rmlew]

. New leadership following a limited foreign policy would prompt party philosophy hewn to the lines advocated by Sen. Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio).
You mean the guy who opposed any build-up of our military prior to Pearl Harbor and helped ratify the UN treaty?

That would mean the so-called neocons, former liberals all, would be supplanted. A shorthand history of the GOP in the latter half of the 20th century saw Dwight Eisenhower apply Taft's wise dictum, which avoided undue involvement in Vietnam, Richard Nixon's rapprochement with China and Ronald Reagan's victory over the U.S.S.R. without a shot being fired. What is this revisionist crap?
Eisenhower was hated by conservatives. Nixon's China policy was a betrayal of conservative policy. The USSR fell after many shots were fired in many small wars.

But after 2000, certain neocons came to believe the United States should be committed to imperial overstretch to inculcate democracy in lands that have never known it nor want it.
1. This is just sloppy writting. Neocons do not support overstretch. That is the result claimed by their enemies.
2. After 2000? They have been talkiong about this since the early 1990's.
3. How are we to know what the people in dictatorships or oligarchies think. They don't vote on it!

. But now there continues in certain circles drumbeats that indicate in the minds of some neocons, war and strife should be a constant condition. For that reason, our foreign policy must change.
The idea of wars for revolution is wrong. However, this twit seems to forget that the Islamists are at war with us.

[Hank Rearden]

I cringe every time I hear Bush rationalize the Iraq war by saying we needed to "remove a brutal dictator". Wrong answer, Georgie Boy!

We don't have a Dept. of Defense to tend to other countries' problems; there are lots of more-brutal dictators that need a shiv in the neck. Like that creepy Chia Pet in N. Korea for instance.

If it doesn't involve our national security, we don't go. Period. You got a brutal-dictator problem that doesn't threaten the United States? Call the UN.