Replies

I can understand the sentiment.

The problem, as with other issues, is where does one draw the line? It's hard to get everyone to agree on what constitutes friend or foe, supporter or detractor. Must one agree 100% of the time or is 80% enough?

For example, I support Israel and most of what she does to protect Israel. I'm not Jewish but simply support Israel's position in the world. But, I am unwilling to put Israel's interests over my support for the USA. So, whether or not an Arab country recognizes Israel or not is not something that would influence my support or nonsupport. Yet, supporting Israel was used over and over to justify opposition to the DPW deal.

Another one. William Kristol and the neo-cons want more international relations for the US. Pat Buchanan and the paleo-cons are more isolationist and want to stop much of our international relationships. I can see valid reasons for both approaches but neither is totally correct from my perspective. Again, a line has to be drawn that I can live with and support.

But, with all that being said, the animosity from both sides was unfortunate.

I agree with you on Kristol, but am certain Buchanan does not represent all true conservatives. See, we don't agree 100%, but more than 50%. I'd say that's a realistic average.

But for some FReepers, it must be total agreement or you're my enemy. So, I'm glad that we can talk even when we are not eye to eye on everything.

Pat Buchanan is just too narrow for my tastes. A lot is changing in the world and the U.S. can help to shape it; that is the good, even brilliant, aspect of what this administration is doing. Too many were blindsided on the ports issue, which made it an awkward and messy spectacle. It's basically over now and we need to focus on our most deadly enemies, not our most annoying ones.