Skip to comments.
Bill Buckley, you and I know the war was a mistake
The Hill ^
| June 28, 04
| Josh Marshall
Posted on 06/29/2004 7:00:20 PM PDT by churchillbuff
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 901-910 next last
To: A. Pole
Saddam wasn't stupid. He knew he couldn't have his fingerprints on this.
But I stand by my analysis, because I have a good track record.
I predicted Saddam would invade Kuwait.
I predicted in 1992 that terrorists, within 10 years, with Saddam's help, would bomb New York and D.C. and possibly Los Angeles.
My husband added the refinement that the target in NYC would be the World Trade Center.
We predicted 2 years ago that the Democrat candidate would be Kerry and running mate most likely would be Edwards, although Baye would be a better choice, Edwards speaks magnolia so well, he'd be the toughest choice to beat.
We're good at reading between the lines and we understand evil.
To: churchillbuff
William Buckley wrote: With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasnt the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.
Churchillbuff wrote: "I'm posting this because those freepers who call me some kind of traitor for opposing the invasion of Iraq are now going to have to add Buckley (along with Tom Clancy and a number of military brass) to the list."
Churchillbuff, I'm not familiar with your beef, but Buckley's " minute hindsight," reflections of "one year ago" decisions, and Buckley's stating "If I knew then what I know now" do not paint Buckley into the same corner of those opposing the war a year ago, when the original decisions were made.
There is a distinct difference.
82
posted on
06/29/2004 7:31:32 PM PDT
by
bd476
To: churchillbuff
If Castro was continuing to engage in slaughtering folks in the way Saddam was, he most certainly should be taken out, effective immediately.
83
posted on
06/29/2004 7:31:37 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: churchillbuff
It was an easy question. Why didn't you answer it?
Here I'll repeat it.
What should be American policy toward despots who give santuary to those who murder American citizens?
Give it an honest shot.
84
posted on
06/29/2004 7:31:51 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: Texasforever
That's not an idiotic rationalization, since that was EXACTLY my rationalization for opposing the war long before George Will ever came to grips with reality.
You see, the first time I heard the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" cross the President's lips I recognized it for exactly what it was: a catch phrase to secure political support from the same dopey soccer moms who had supported Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s. He used that silly phrase to arouse fears among those morons whenever he felt a need to look manly and important to suburban women -- with IQs of about room temperature -- whose biggest fear in life was anything that threatened their kids, their homes, their trips to the nail salon, etc.
85
posted on
06/29/2004 7:31:53 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
To: churchillbuff
Retire Bill Buckley. Take your last marble and go home, because you have lost the rest of them. Your self-importance has diminished in your mirror of mortality. It's never been about you. It's about life. Every innocent life that has ever been taken. Go now. Share some peas and applesauce with Andy Rooney.
86
posted on
06/29/2004 7:32:16 PM PDT
by
PGalt
To: Pikamax
Buckley also is in favor of Marijuana. It is common knowledge in Washington that he has been over indulging in adult beverages for decades,and it obviously damaged his gray matter. George Will is a pompous ass that stays on a show with a girlie man host that disrespects him every chance he gets just for his little crumb of face time. Alcoholics gets very maudlin later in life if they survive to old age,and there is no comparison between the courageous young Bill Buckley,and the shadow of himself he has become. He waited too long to exit the stage while he was still coherent. Such a shame,he was a pioneer. It also happened to Goldwater,and John McLaughlin. Age has taken it's toll. It is time for young pups to take their place.
87
posted on
06/29/2004 7:32:28 PM PDT
by
samantha
(Don't panic, the adults are in charge)
Comment #88 Removed by Moderator
To: nopardons
Seems like every forum has a troll that always manages to avoid getting the boot.
To: churchillbuff
It's in Dinesh D'Souza's book, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. D'Souza quotes Will on his impression of Reagan as a lightweight.
90
posted on
06/29/2004 7:33:41 PM PDT
by
Timmy
To: don-o
Conservatism as I knew it came to an end the first time I ever saw people here on FreeRepublic using "United Nations decrees" to rationalize their support for this war.
This was as true in 2003 as it was in 1990, BTW.
You have got to be kidding me.
91
posted on
06/29/2004 7:33:43 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
To: Alberta's Child
>"I supported this war when the subject first came up in >2002, and I supported it throughout its execution in 2003. >But if I knew then what I know now, I would have adamantly >opposed it."
In regards to my previous marraige: I supported this marraige in 1994, and I supported it throughout it's arrangement in 95-99. But if I knew then what I know now, I would have adamantly opposed it.
Hindsight would be great for all of us, baby.
(Even though I supported the war then and I support the war now)
92
posted on
06/29/2004 7:33:43 PM PDT
by
sandbar
To: Torie
The problems with Bill Buckley are twofold: (1) he is closely associated with the Eastern liberal academic establishment, many people like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., are his close friends. As he mellows with age, he is less concerned with ideas and more concerned with being thought of well by his friends. (2) Buckley is a very plugged-in Catholic with the hierarchy, and is influenced by the virulent anti-war sentiment in the Vatican, perhaps even by the anti-semitism and anti-Americanism.
Sad. I once respected him. No longer.
93
posted on
06/29/2004 7:34:08 PM PDT
by
CatoRenasci
(Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
To: Deb
For some unknown reason, the great anti-Communists like Buckley, Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan and John Mclaughlin are against the war When it comes to conservative commentators it is a matter of exposure. They do better when liberals are in charge. When it comes to PJB it is just insanity.
94
posted on
06/29/2004 7:34:13 PM PDT
by
Texasforever
(When Kerry was asked what kind of tree he would like to be he answered…. Al Gore.)
To: churchillbuff
It is very sad to see Republicans self-destruct. The papers are full of stories about Republicans who hate Bush, who don't approve of the war, who think he's too liberal, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Everyone bend over and smile because you are all about to get it from Kerry this November.
Buckley's self-indulgent and self-centered pronouncements are self-agrandizing at the expense of the country. Not at all helpful. He's a narcissistic, self-important pedagogue who values his own fame more than the future of our nation.
Yeah, I'm not happy with 100% of what Bush has done, but if we let Kerry get in, and appoint more Supreme Court justices, we'll be in deep trouble. So if I don't like all of what Bush is doing, I keep it to myself in an election year.
What, did you all wake up one day and say "Hey, I got a good idea! Lets trash the president during a war, in an election year, because he's too liberal or we are antiwar, so we won't support him and maybe even not vote and feel so good when ultraliberal Kerry walks away with the election??"
If you're against the war or don't think we should have done it, fine - but if you want to trade George for Kerry and the Heinz woman (to be followed by Hillary), then just keep up the self-destructive blather about how wrong it was to liberate the Iraqis. Otherwise you'd be well advised to tone it down and learn some pragmatism.
Either we all hang together or we'll all be taxed to death separately.
To: Alberta's Child
96
posted on
06/29/2004 7:35:00 PM PDT
by
Texasforever
(When Kerry was asked what kind of tree he would like to be he answered…. Al Gore.)
To: jwalsh07
I answered it. We can't invade every tyrant in the world, and not doing so doesn't make one pro-tyrant. Reagan didn't invade USSR even after thay shot down KAL 007. But he still beat them in the end. (Reagan was blasted as an appeaser by neocons for not invading more countries, like Lebanon; I'm a Reaganite -- so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people of that mindset call me an appeaser too); ;;; MY OTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS INVASION IS IT'S GIVING BIG-GOV'T ADVOCATES EXCUSE TO CALL FOR MORE SPENDING AND TAXES. WARS ALWAYS DO.
To: churchillbuff
>Unlike me -- a bona fide conservative who thought this >invasion was a mistake from the first, and I wasn't afraid >to say so (at the risk of being vilified by freepers).
Whadda ya want? A medal?
98
posted on
06/29/2004 7:35:41 PM PDT
by
sandbar
To: churchillbuff
I haven't seen you call for an invasion of CubaI wish we would. The beaches there are wonderful and the chicas are CALIENTE
(Ask this question in Miami).
99
posted on
06/29/2004 7:35:45 PM PDT
by
Captiva
(DVC)
To: sandbar
100
posted on
06/29/2004 7:35:55 PM PDT
by
Texasforever
(When Kerry was asked what kind of tree he would like to be he answered…. Al Gore.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 901-910 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson