The author paints Clinton's installation of Aristide as a "neo-con" thing, and sets up the straw man of "the neo-cons' thesis ... that history and culture simply don't matter" to knock down.
What the heck is he talking about? He just wants to bad-mouth "neo-cons", correct?
What the heck is he talking about? He has a pathological need to rip on the current administration.
He should seek professional help.
94 posted on
03/02/2004 3:31:13 PM PST by
HitmanLV
(I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)