Precisely the issue, along with the whiff of anti-semitism from the paleos.
Kudos to NR and David Frum for pointing out the obvious; Buchanan and his ilk are no longer distinguishable from either David Duke or ANSWER.
In his column of December 26, 2002, Robert Novak attacked Condoleezza Rice for citing Hezbollah, instead of al-Qaeda, as the world's most dangerous terrorist organization: "In truth, Hezbollah is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel's standpoint. While viciously anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. 'Outside this fight [against Israel], we have done nothing,' Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the organization's secretary-general, said in a recent New York Times interview." The sheik did not say, and Novak did not bother to add, that Hezbollah twice bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, murdering more than 60 people, and drove a suicide bomb into a Marine barracks in October 1983, killing 241 servicemen.
I think Novak was right on target for attacking Condoleeza Rice on this one. In fact, the Beirut incidents were one of the few cases in which the Reagan administration can rightly be criticized for its approach to a foreign policy matter.
I posted many concerns about the "war in Afghanistan" here on FreeRepublic, but not because I believed the U.S. efforts there would be futile. It simply made no sense to me (and still does not to this day) to have the U.S. wage war in a foreign nation after 9/11 without first (or simultaneously) sacking the bureaucrats throughout the U.S. government who utter incompetence made 9/11 possible in the first place.
Although he had denied any vital American interest in either Kuwait's oilfields or Iraq's oilfields or its aggression, in l991 he urged that the Sixth Fleet be sent to Dubrovnik to shield the Catholics of Croatia from Serbian attack. "Croatia is not some faraway desert emirate," he explained. "It is a 'piece of the continent, a part of the main,' a Western republic that belonged to the Habsburg empire and was for centuries the first line of defense of Christian Europe. For their ceaseless resistance to the Ottoman Turks, Croatia was proclaimed by Pope Leo X to be the 'Antemurale Christianitatis,' the bulwark of Christianity."
This passage itself is deceptive because it is incomplete. While it is true that Buchanan supported U.S. intervention on behalf of Croatia, his rationale was not limited to the religious babbling you see here. It was Buchanan (and nobody else, BTW) who pointed out that Dubrovnik at one time was part of a small city-state on the Adriatic Sea called Raguso, which happened to be one of the first countries in the world to officially recognize the Thirteen Colonies as an independent nation.
If a person (or a country) points a gun at you, you are within your rights to shoot them.
His is a reincarnation of the old isolationist conservatives of the 20s, 30s and 40s. The ones who would rather see America lose WW II than see Rooooosevelt win it.
He is AntiAmerican.
His blather on MSNBC recently about backing the President is too little and 12 years too late.
He is a Fascist and an anti-semite.
He is disgusting example of the Father Coughlin wannabe. He is something most of us thought thankfully was extinct.
So9
Irving Kristol, who sometimes seemed to be the only person in America willing to accept the "neoconservative" label
Now check out the site neoconservatism.com and tell me Kristol is the only one other than paleos to accept the neocon label. Neos coined the term themselves and proudly wave it but if one who is not a member of their group uses it then it is fabricated slander and is racist code word for Jew (which not directly stated by Frum here in so many words but has been widely stated by neocon defenders as any one who follows these debates is fully aware). In short Frum is a deceitful propagandist and a malicious one at that - any conservative who is not a neocon is a racist, nazi bigot!
Speaking of ideological debates check out this list from the neoconservatism.com site -
Rival Conservative Perspectives:
*Libertarianism
*Paleoconservatism
*Religious Right
How many social conservatives knew that they were considered a rival by the neocons and not a friendly branch of the same movement?
I see that they also categorize Libertarianism as conservative - which is good but will shock and dismay many freepers who somehow feel liberty is equivalent to socialism. So the defense of individual rights, championing limited government and strict interpretation of the constitution is a rival philosophy to neoconservatism. Some of us have been arguing that for a long time and took a lot of flak for it - nice to see the neocons say it in their own words. That should end a lot of needless bickering around here.
So there you have it. Huh? LOL!
Buchanana is AntiAmerican.
Yeah, I always thought Buchanan was some kinda unAmerican commie pinko....
The liberal-conservative hybrid types seem unaware of their increased propensity to display some of the more ignoble liberal traits.
His uncle Wolfgang fell from the guard tower at Dachau.
(sorry, folks -- I just couldn't resist that one.)
The trouble with Frum is that he thinks Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were conservatives.