My fellow Americans, let's listen to Mr. Jim Robinson of Free Republic.
Posted on 07/24/2003 11:10:24 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
My fellow Americans, let's listen to Mr. Jim Robinson of Free Republic.
Pat challenged the order. Fatal flaw. Ya can't insinuate that Poppy, ED, and Jr. were establishment bums.
To quote the Thomas More character in MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
You would see it. God would see it. Not a bad audience, that.
------------------------------------------------------
Sinkspur, I've read thousands of comments posted by you over the years and probably only ever found five at the tops that I agreed with. It's now up to six. This was my favorite so far. Good show.
cordially,
2003: "The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and 'militant Islam.'
"Cui bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
"Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The principal draftsman is Richard Perle....In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," for Prime Minister Netanyahu....In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel's enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish 'the principle of preemption,' has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservative allies inside his own Big Tent."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives' agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect."
-- "Whose War? The Loudest Clique Behind the President's Policy," The American Conservative, March 24, 2003.
2003: "Sharon was first elected on a pledge to ditch the Camp David and Barak plans. His new cabinet contains militant Zionists who consider the West Bank sacred Jewish land. They will not give it up. They will not permit Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state even if Bush, triumphant in Iraq, tells them it must be done. They will fight him as they fought his father. And they will have the War Party in their corner....
"Where will...President Bush go after Baghdad? If he seeks to pressure Israel into what the Israeli Right and the War Party think are premature and foolish negotiations, he will court a savage backlash in an election year, and fail. If he embraces the Sharon Doctrine and puts military pressure on Syria and Iran, he will do so without Tony Blair, without NATO and without U.N. backing, and he will be seen world wide as the leader of a rogue superpower."
--"After Baghdad, where do we go?" townhall.com, March 3, 2003.
2003: "Israel, recipient of $100 billion in U.S. aid, is demanding another $15 billion to hold our coat as we fight her war against Iraq."
--"With friends like these," townhall.com, February 24, 2003.
1999: "After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders."
- A Republic, Not an Empire. P. 336.
1999: "I know the power of the Israeli lobby and the other lobbies, but we need a foreign policy that puts our own country first."
- Meet the Press Interview. September 12, 1999.
1991: "Even if his veto of the (loan) guarantees is overridden, he will have won high marks for his courage, and exposed congress for what it has become, a Parliament of Whores incapable of standing up for U.S. national interests, if AIPAC is on the other end of the line."
- Syndicated column, December 18, 1991
1990: In an August 25,1990, column, Buchanan criticized commentators urging military intervention in Iraq, naming Abe Rosenthal, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthamer and Henry Kissinger. On August 29th, he wrote the following:
"’The civilized world must win this fight,’ the editors thunder. But, if it comes to war, it will not be the ‘civilized world’ humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown."
- Washington Times, August 29, 1990
1990: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."
- The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990
1990: "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
- McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990
1990: "That the United States would sit still for anything was brought home to the Israelis, long ago, on the third day of the Six-Day War, when Lyndon Johnson ordered a coverup of an Israeli rocket-and-machine gun attack on the U.S. intelligence ship Liberty off the Sinai, an attack costing the lives of 37 brave American soldiers.
When it suits them, our Israeli allies launch air strikes on Tunis, Baghdad or Beirut; they invade Lebanon; they even enlist U.S. traitors, like the Pollards, to loot the secrets of a nation that has manifested toward them an extraordinary indulgence."
- January, 1990
1999: "Senator Joseph McCarthy, in his career fighting communists, did nothing to their collaborators, sympathizers, and defenders to compare with what was done to the patriots of America First. But the acolytes of FDR won the great debate as decisively as America won the war. To this day, any who oppose U.S. commitments to fight wars in Europe or Asia, or new global entanglements, must first answer to the intimidating charge that they are nothing but ‘isolationists.’"
- A Republic, Not an Empire, P. 250
1990: "The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
- NY Post, March 17, 1990 (from a column about the trial of accused Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk)
1990: "Whatever Rudolph did during World War II, his quarter century of service to the United States entitles the old man to a public hearing before he goes to his grave."
- NY Post, July 14, 1990, on Arthur Rudolph, Nazi rocket scientist investigated by OSI who aided the American space program
1983: "Perhaps this endless search for Nazi war criminals, these endless re-enactments, on stage and screen, of Hitler’s concentration camps are good for the soul. To what end, however, all this wallowing in the atrocities of a dead regime when there is scarcely a peep of protest over the prison camps, the labor camps, the concentration camps operating now in China and Siberia, in Cuba and Vietnam."
- Washington Times, August 24, 1983
1977: "Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature…Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
- St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977
1990: "In the late 1940’s and 1950’s…race was never a preoccupation with us, we rarely thought about it….There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘Negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
- Right From the Beginning
1983: "Rail as they will against ‘discrimination,’ women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism…The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is."
- Washington Times. November 18, 1983
1991: "David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft."
- Manchester, NH Union Leader, December 15, 1991
1990: "Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country? Because that is our destiny if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores…..
"The Negroes of the ‘50s became the blacks of the ‘60’s; now, the ‘African-Americans’ of the 90’s demand racial quotas and set-asides, as the Democrats eagerly assent and a pandering GOP prepares to go along.
"Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the U.S.A.? …Is it not time to take America back?"
- NY Post, June 20, 1990
1991: "I think God made all people good. But if we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them in Virginia, which group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?"
- This Week With David Brinkley, December 8, 1991
"The Democratic Party is ``saying to millions in its progressive wing: 'Take it or leave it, we're not as bad as the Republicans and besides, you've got nowhere to go,''' Nader said. ``Once people know they have somewhere to go, the Democrats will either shape up or shrink down.'' (Ralph Nader, "Nader: Democrats to blame for losses", Yahoo! News (AP), 8/4/00.)
Substitute "Republican" for "Democratic" and "conservative" for "progressive." You're seeing it on this thread.
The paleos are saying that if the Republican Party doesn't conform to their ideology, remaking the GOP into their image, they're going to take their toys and leave. Fact is, the paleos left the party long ago. They moved to the Reform Party when Buchanan took over; they moved to the Libertarian Party and to the Constitution Party. They may flirt with the Republicans from time to time, but they'll never be a driving force in the GOP.
I can't believe it either - those anti-everything people! Especially those anti-Ashcroft types. There's a WAR going on, he's doing everything possible to make Americans safe, to protect their liberties and all they can do is howl about the Constitution. It's a question of our very existence, not some ancient abstract principles.
I'll see your sarcasm and raise you one satirical article.
That's exactly what black leaders said to their followers for years regarding their support of the Dems. And it got them diddly squat from the party. I have no desire to vote 3rd party. But I'm also not going to let the GOP believe they can count on my automatic vote, because they will therefore think that I am in their pocket and nothing they do to co-opt the Dems will affect how I vote.
Once again, I see nothing wrong with your basic strategic directive. But I think part of your tactics are wrong, that conservatives should not voice strong dissent when necessary and that we should not hold out for the option of not voting GOP if they go too far left in search of swing voters. After all, we've said all along that this country needs more conservative values - but what does it say about US if we're willing to sell out those values to gain a stronger hold on power?
One sentence from the second column is critical: "The Republican party cannot hold its current majority without this increasingly powerful caucus. The party can continue to adapt and prevail, or splinter and lose."Even the most basic electoral math makes it clear. A disaffected "South Park Republican" irked at the party enough to not vote for it is far more likely to vote for a Dumocrat than an aggravated "cultural conservative". If he does, that's a two vote swing instead of merely one vote.
I have friends who voted less than enthusiastically for Bush in 2000. They don't have the same visceral disgust I do at the thought of voting for a Dim, some even voted for :spit: Sinky.
-Eric
2) Again, where's the crime in "cashing in" on writing a book about the Bush White House? Someone had to write the first book. Bill Sammon wrote the first book about the White House response to terror, and his pre-dated Frum's. But Frum's book was better, more insightful. I have no idea what W. thinks of Frum's book, but he should be pleased. It casts George W. Bush in a positive light.
3) I'm not implying Hagel isn't a good American (and his service in Vietnam is greatly respected). Perhaps my point about him being an American by the "accident of birth" should have been applied to great faceless mass of Americans who go through their lives never thinking about anything much beyond what's on TV that evening, and who have no realization how great a country this is. My point was that Frum chose to become an American, and people who make a conscious choice to come here often have a better appreciation of what this country means in terms of its system of government, its freedoms, and its role as a light and hope to the rest of the world. To contrast Hagel and Frum on this point wasn't fair. My point is that his opinions cannot be denegrated because he comes from Canada.
Which proves my point, not yours -- he's an opportunist, taking positions so as to give him a "maverick" reputation, without regard to ideology.
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.