"I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America, with all its might, should be willing to offer help to those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators."
I take it then that our policy should be to go into the Sudan in force tomorrow to save the large number of starving people who endure slavery, genocide and civil war and raise taxes to pay for it? That action would mean far more than the words we say. After that we need to mount a new Bay-of-Pigs expedition into Cuba? We will stand by you. If not, why not? Maybe we do so, the point is are people expecting our actions to match our rhetoric, and if not do we lose credibility and seriousness? I know you and I are both ready to sign up tomorrow, but Buckley is saying as I understand him that with finite resources heart-rending choices have to be made and losing credibility is a dangerous political precedent.
GWB made no carte blanche offer of troops, money, weapons, or anything close to that for people who want to be free.
"Help" can come in many forms. Verbal. Economic. Technology. Diplomacy. Medical. UN nudging.
People like Buckley (and other FR on this board) who claim we are biting off more than we can chew are simply projecting false thoughts that we will soon be sending troops and ammunition.