Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ex-snook
Robert Kuttner is top honcho at the mad-dog-leftist The American Prospect.

It is most instructive to see a self-styled conservative like you making common cause with the loony left.

Perhaps the paleo-cons really aren't quite so conservative after all.

3 posted on 09/14/2003 12:39:48 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: quidnunc
You think spending several hundred billion on re-building Iraq is good conservative policy? The isolationism of the paleo-cons is looking better all the time.
5 posted on 09/14/2003 12:48:15 PM PDT by zacyak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: quidnunc
It is most instructive to see a self-styled conservative like you making common cause with the loony left.

Are you shocked by their common cause? I'm not.

Perhaps the paleo-cons really aren't quite so conservative after all.

They're not. When did they start? 1986 or so, right?


6 posted on 09/14/2003 12:49:01 PM PDT by rdb3 (Which is more powerful: The story or the warrior?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: quidnunc
When Bush ran for office did you support him because you believed he would lead the military into action all over the world? Or did you support him because you thought he would avoid meddling in world affairs? Did you think he would ask the nation to create an enormous deficit so we could “rebuild” foreign nations?

Please don’t say we are there because of 9/11 or because Saddam gassed his own people. Saddam used the gas on his own people in the 1980s and we rewarded him for that with an extra billion in agricultural assistance. Whatever evidence there is linking Saddam to 9/11 is weak at very best and unsupported at very least.

It is time to start talking about what neoconservativism is and whether this new foreign policy initiative is one which we can support. Pretending that it isn’t an issue is foolishness plain and simple.
13 posted on 09/14/2003 1:03:58 PM PDT by Theyknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: quidnunc
Which administration was James Rubin a part of, again?

France was never going to approve of using force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Rubin evidently thinks Chirac was acting in good faith, rather than to protect France's $50 billion worth of contracts with the Saddam regime, and to do whatever he could to undercut the American role in world affairs.

The same people who attack Bush for acting too quickly in March would be attacking him if he had waited till the fall, because now the Presidential election campaign is starting...they would be claiming he was launching the war to ensure his re-election.

14 posted on 09/14/2003 1:08:22 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: quidnunc
Where are the parts about the Bilderbergers and an International Banking Conspiracy?
26 posted on 09/14/2003 1:27:34 PM PDT by Ukiapah Heep (Shoes for Industry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: quidnunc
"Perhaps the paleo-cons really aren't quite so conservative after all."

The paleo-cons and the looney left are united on one point, they both hate to be proved wrong by Bush.
103 posted on 09/14/2003 7:36:08 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson