Posted on 07/31/2007 12:51:59 PM PDT by traviskicks
Bob Novak stopped by the Heritage Foundation today for a lunchtime discussion with conservative bloggers about his new professional autobiography, The Prince of Darkness. While he lamented the practice of reporters acting as opinion drivers and news analysts, Novak wasn't shy about offering a few opinions of his own. When asked to rate the current field of Republican presidential candidates, Novak didn't have any kind words for the current top-tier field of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at video1.washingtontimes.com ...
BTW, how well did that all work out in the end? That Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and Pearl Harbor thing, you know.
It sure does since it title "Project Freedom". /sarc
Actually you have it in reverse. If you want to extend, not reduce "external commerce," then you should support Ron Paul who consistently opposes trade embargoes and is a tiger for free trade. Compared to a free trader like Paul, the defenders of the current world policing policy are rabid economic isolationists.
The trouble is that you never define what you mean. Agree or disagree, the Paulists do. Their position is also based on the idea of enhancing national security. The difference between them and you is that they spell it out. You may think they are wrong but at least try, as they to, to clarify exactly what you want. Otherwise debate is impossible.
False dilemna plus a bit of the strawman argument. There is no all or nothing decision to be made. The decision is whether to choose partnerships based on principles, and what principles. If the mob offered you a lower price on some commodity than an honest businessman, for instance, what principles would come into play? We live in a world of greater and lesser evils. And how we go about "interacting" is of course sufficiently vague in your analysis.
I see you are a good study of history. Most posters who claim to be good Republicans don't realize the "original" Republicans dislike war and government involvement at all stages.
No thanks. Too smart for that. I don't just latch on to every liberal idea that comes along, especially ones that are already proven failures.
My definition is no more vague than “policing the world”, which was in your original question. That means little to me, so yes, it’s hard to debate.
Well....then I’ll concede I was wrong in characterizing your position. Now....what exactly is your position? Let’s take it as a given that you support “national security.” Can you go beyond that? For example, do you think our support of the Jihadists in Afghanistan and Saddamists in Iraq during the 1980s was a proper policy or that it led to blowback? Do you think our installation of the Shah was a good thing or that it led to blowback? Do you believe our massive aid to Israel and Eqypt since the Camp David Policy was a good thing? Let’s get specific. Deal?
If only that was true. Presidents regularly abrogate treaties. See Jimmy Carter and the US - Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty and the Panama Canal Treaty.
Yeah, that internet sucks doesn’t it...
You're right, I don't know who was a more determined pacifist, Fremont or Lincoln.
Lincoln was clearly a proponent of a small, non-intrusive government.
Student of history or not, I'm thinking you might be confusing the first Republicans with the Vallandigham/McClellan Democrats.
That's OK, it's been a long time.
OK now we are mixing foreign aid & CIA ops with military campaigns, but they are indeed specific, so I’ll play.
Jihadists in Afganistan against the USSR invasion? Absolutely. The USSR was a superpower that deserved maximum effort to stop its expansionist policy. When we went to Afgahinistan in 2001, we had many friends there to aid us against the taliban and terrorists, BTW.
Saddam we only tepidly “supported” as a bulwark against the ayatollah. We were quite happy to see them fight each other. I was fine with that.
Shah of Iran? Yep. He was preferable to what preceeded and far preferable to what followed. I know a gaggle of Iranians that fled after Jimmuh Carter’s Iranian revloution. You won’t find a more patiotic bunch of Americans. Did it lead to blowback? Perhaps. all actions have counteractions.
Foreign aid? For Israel, yes, but I would want to wean them off of it, but perhaps have a formal military alliance.
Egypt? no. Most foreign aid? No, unless it is vital to our strategic interests.
Assasinating Allende in Chile. Yes. Assasinate Chavez and Castro? yes.
Mistakes, but the process strikes me as kind of what the Constitution calls for.
Am I to presume that President Ron Paul, as arbiter of the "true Constitution", doesn't recognize these actions?
Like the Constitution Party, his moonbat pals also, Panama being sovereign US territory, it should be reclaimed.
Do we invade Panama?
No, unless a large war breaks out. We will need to own the Panama canal again.
The real question is, has paul apologized yet for blaming America for 9-11?
Babies come from sex, not marriage. And in any event, it’s nothing the fedral government needs to meddle with. It belongs to the churches.
We dragged ourselves in. The world has changed so much because we forced it to change to suit us. Now we're crabbing because we've encountered resistance?
He plans to do that after he apologizes for not answering when asked whether he planned to stop beating his wife.
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.