An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ^ | Wednesday, August 28, 2002 | BY BRIAN MITCHELL

[CWRWinger]

The president has subcontracted out our Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon, and I think that's a dreadful mistake.

If that be so, how would Pat explain Arafat? IMO, Bush should have arrested Arafat months ago. If Sharon had his way, Arafat would be a just memory.

[rogerthedodger]

Hmmmmm. Still don't get it.

Many of the neo-conservative movement's founders were, in fact, leftists and sometimes trotskyites early on. I don't think they still are, although they may have kept some of the underlying presumptions about the human condition or the way that society works that true leftists have.

[Sid Rich]

What does post 162 have to do with roger.t.d.'s question?

[rogerthedodger]

. . . . like the idealist notion that government can mold humanity to the plans and designs of the leaders of government. That is an authentic and distinguishing quality of the Left, but it also permeates the thinking and planning of the Neo-Conservative movement.

That being said, isn't this internecine warfare off the topic of the article?

[Zviadist]

they may have kept some of the underlying presumptions about the human condition or the way that society works that true leftists have.

Indeed. And therein lies the problem. Those presumptions are inimical to traditional notions of "conservatism" and "the Right." Ergo...

[cake_crumb]

"Where have I ever written that Americans should not be engaged abroad?"

I would like to point out that we cannot close our borders and remain engaged abroad.

As for war being engaged in self defense....you keep posting this stuff about Afghanistan, which is a war of self defense. Talibunnie leader of Afghanistan's army, bin Laden, set his thugs to attack us. They did. It was a success. We retaliated. The Talibunnies are broken. However, those weren't the questions.

I asked you if (in summation) 1: ) we never interacted with other countries, would we have had any reason to develop the technology we now enjoy, and 2:) would we never have had to engage in another foreign war after the Revolution?

[Sid Rich]

If they don't know what the prefix "neo" means...why would you expect them to understand "internecine?" I guess hope springs eternal...

[rdb3]

Yeah. How'd I miss that?

[cake_crumb]

"Unless NEO means "Never Engage Ostriches" in meaningful dialogue.. it is a ridiculous label, and an offensive one."

RAH HA (**just imagine Garfield the cat ouncing on a burger here) !!!

Thank you sooooooooooooo much for the apt description of those who would accuse us of being National Socialists or Trotskiites just because we don't agree that we ought to shave off 200 years of normal societal progression and burn it in the woodstove.

(Flamers don't try it with the woodstove thing. I heat with a wood furnace and have a wood cookstove for supplimentary heat which I cook on in the dead of winter, which generally lasts two months up here)

BUMP to you, VHW!!

[cake_crumb]

"If you believe this you have zero understanding of East Asian politics or geography."

LOL: no kiddin' : If you hadn't told me, I would never have guess you thought that.

[exmarine]

And to that I say, "Ooh-rah!" Normally I would say, "Hooah!" But I was not a jarhead. ;-)

For your good common sense, I will make you an honorary jarhead. By the way, Ooh-rah is USMC, and "Hooah" is Al Pacino. ;)

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

After consulting my friend Webster, I still think it is offensive. It may be excused as stating "new", as indeed in Websters it states a "new or recent form". But it goes on further to state in explanation 2) A recent formation, modification, or abnormal change

So, I guess I could look at it as meaning a "new" type of conservative, or I could look at it as an offensive form or stating any conservative who thinks "abnormal" in the context of Conservativism, (neo-cons).

If I'm reading this wrong, and being unduly offended, then excuse me for it. I will try to understand this more as I look into it. Thanks for pointing out the "new" part. I hope the reference is as simple as that when being used in reference to neo-cons(neo-conservatives). I'm happy to be corrected.

Just trying to figure this one out.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I like your style friend! Glad your are here to dispel ignorance.

FRegards!!

[rogerthedodger]

I'm not a neo-conservative, and I don't use the term disparagingly. Some people may use it that way, the way some of us may use "Democrat" in a disparaging way (even though "democrat" is really value-neutral).

[cake_crumb]

"IMO, Bush should have arrested Arafat months ago"

Uh....that would be great....IF he could do such a thing. However, he can't. Sharon could....in a perfect world, and without UN interference. Of course, in a perfect world, the UN wouldn't exist, either.

The PA territories are, technically (NOT in the language of twisted diplomacy) Israel. Therefore, Israel, a sovereign state, has jurisdiction. No offence to the efforts of the wonderfully didicated IDF....you go guys!....but Israel is surrounded by enemy states, nationals of which comprise over a third of the 'Palestinian' population. Unfortunately, Israel requires the aid of allies such as the US to fend off the traditionally anti-Semitic EUroweenies who give shelter and comfort to those who wish to conquer the world and rule planet Earth under the flag of Sharia law.

[exmarine]

--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican. --A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a neo-con. --A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a conservative.

I do not belong to any of your categories, so you better add another one: Christian Constitutionalist. In this category, moral principle is the guiding criteria (and don't ask me "whose moral principle" unless you are prepared to defend moral relativism).

[Sid Rich]

Thank you for dispelling ignorance.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thanks, I also found it an offensive phrase. I did go look up "Neo" in Websters..and still found it offensive when used in the context of neo-cons.

Actually, after reading up on NEO,.. it would seem Buchannan is the Neo, because of the "abnormal change" he has gone through in his demeanor and positions. We used to actually agree with him years ago. But he has gotten really strange. If that offends supporters of him, I'm sorry and it's too bad. It's the truth of how we feel.

FRegards!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I can see where it could be taken positive or negatively. Thanks for the pleasant exchange. Your initial reply did send me to my Websters. :o)

Which I should endeavor to do more often. :o)

Again, thanks for pointing out a different point of view. I appreciate it.