Posted on 02/02/2006 9:14:17 PM PST by boryeulb
"The road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline," railed President Bush in his State of the Union. Again and again, Bush returned to his theme.
"America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. ...
"Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. ...
"American leaders from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan rejected isolation and retreat."
Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.
But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism. Like all politicians in trouble, Bush knows that the best defense is a good offense.
Click here to read the full column at HumanEventsOnline.com.
It's getting so I click on a thread with an interesting headline, see it's an article written by Buchanan, and exclaim, "Oh, sh#t!" Once upon a time -- probably in another life -- I used to enjoy reading his columns. These days, just seeing his name evokes the same effect in me as nails on a blackboard.
Pat is pathetic.
Maybe his brain died, and the rest of his body missed the memo.
well, these 2 paragraphs are OK:
"With opposition also rising to his free-trade policy, Bush reverted to the same tactic: Caricature and castigate critics of his own failed policies. "Protectionists," said Bush, pretend "we can keep our high standards of living, while walling off our economy."
But it was protectionists from Lincoln to Coolidge who gave us the highest standard of living on earth. And the record of Bush's merry band of free-traders? The largest trade deficits in history, a $200 billion trade surplus for Beijing at our expense in 2005, and 3 million lost manufacturing jobs since Bush first took the oath."
Remember when Pat Buchanan used to be all about locking, loading, mounting up and riding to the sound of the guns? I miss that Pat. I liked him a lot better.
It's easy. Just remember, Robertson thinks anyone who doesn't coooperate with Israel is doomed. Buchanan thinks anyone who does cooperate with Israel is doomed.
Dims like Buchannan are all just tired statists.
"Ululululululululululululululululululululululululululu!"
We're hardly bogged down in Afghanistan...
I didn't bother to read past the name of the author.
That's rich!!
Ping
I think you summed it up nicely.
Correct. Where were Neocons when we needed them back then?
Pat Buchanan is a true conservative who remained unfaltering against decades of media bias and personal attacks, long before the internet and Fox News - from the Nixon presidency through the 1980s when "neoconservative" only referred to converted Reagan democrats.
His biggest critics today are those bandwagon republicans who only appeared when New Media took off in the wake of 9-11.
Conservatism has always been the singular, morally and logically correct political doctrine. Long before 2001, Pat Buchanan knew this - throughout an era when today's Neocons were still watching Dan Rather with an open mind.
Proud Reagan conservative since, well when did I turn 18? Oh yeah it was 1986!!
Pat Buchanan knew this - throughout an era when today's Neocons were still watching Dan Rather with an open mind.
Paddy Buchanan views for the past many years are the same
as Dan Rather's only probably more left.
Who is "Paddy"?
His praise for Hamas was unbelievable and he blatantly lived up to his anti-semetic reputation.
Pat is spot on, and he could have added that we need a lethal wall on the border as well, besides the wall we need to protect the out-sourcing of America in our so-called free trade and 'competitiveness.'
I part company with him in the article only on believing that we increased terrorism with our invasions; the war Islam is waging on the civilized world goes back a long time. It was liberal political correct weakness since Jimmy Carter, and especially in the Clinton years that invited 9-11. It's only a difference in tactics; we need to protect Israel and defeat this menace that does indeed threaten our security, but we just need to do it more effectively, and put the lives of our troops above the views of the UN, and above those of the hostile or indifferent Moslem street (collateral damage), and use every superior means we have to win; yes, that means using our overwhelming superior air and missle forces to bomb to oblivion and spare needless ground troop maiming and death fighting on their level.
(Yes,indicting Hillary would be a good thing, but if we had the spine and will to do that, we'd also be doing the above paragraph :)
bump
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.