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

Skip to comments.

Here We Go Again
WND.com ^ | 12-10-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

Posted on 12/10/2003 6:04:23 AM PST by Theodore R.

Here we go again

Posted: December 10, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

A close read of President Bush's November addresses at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington and at the Whitehall Palace in London leads a traditionalist almost to despair.

George Bush did not write this democratist drivel. This is the kind of messianic rhetoric he probably never heard before he became president. Who is putting these words in his mouth? For if George Bush truly intends to lead a "global democratic revolution," and convert not only Iraq but the whole Middle East to democracy, he has ceased to be a conservative and we are headed for endless conflicts, disappointments, disillusionment and tragedy.

At London, he called a "commitment to the global expansion of democracy" both "the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror" and "the third pillar of our security." But before he wagers our security on a crusade for democracy, Bush should ask the hard questions no one seems to have asked before he invaded Iraq.

Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments? Can he truly believe that by hectoring such autocracies as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, America is more secure? Who comes to power if Mubarak goes in Cairo, the Saudi monarchy falls or Musharaff is ousted in Pakistan? If memory serves, the last wave of popular revolutions in the region gave us Nasser, Khadafi, Saddam and the Ayatollah.

With $200 billion sunk into democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan, how many more wars does Bush think Americans will support before they decide to throw the interventionist Republicans out?

Where did he get the idea we are insecure because the Islamic world is not democratic? The Islamic world has never been democratic. Yet, before we intervened massively there, our last threat came from Barbary pirates. Lest we forget, Muhammad Atta and his comrades did not plot their atrocities in the Sunni Triangle, but in Hamburg and Delray Beach.

Surveys show that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel. Interventionism is not America's solution, it is America's problem.

It was our earlier intervention in the Gulf War and our huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that lead directly to 9-11. They were over here because we were over there.

If one-man, one-vote comes to Pakistan, what do we do if that nuclear nation supports a return of the Taliban? What do we do if the Iraqi regime that takes power after free elections tells us to pack up and get out, and declares the liberation of Kuwait and its return to the embrace of the motherland to be as vital to Baghdad as the return of Taiwan is to Beijing?

Freedom, the president said, "must be chosen and defended by those who choose it." Exactly. Why not then let these Islamic peoples choose it on their own timetable and defend it themselves?

It is "cultural condescension," says Bush, "to assume the Middle East cannot be converted to democracy. ... Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking."

But if 22 of 22 Arab states are non-democratic, this would seem to suggest that this soil is not particularly conducive to growing the kind of democracies we raise in upper New England. This may be mulish thinking to the progressives at NED, but it may also be common sense.

What support is there in history for the view that as we meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, we advance our security? How would we have responded in the 19th century if Britain had declared a policy of destabilizing the American Union until Andrew Jackson abolished slavery?

"Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity and the best hope for progress here on earth." Is it? Before democracy became our god, we used to believe that salvation was Heaven's plan for humanity, and Jesus Christ was the way, the truth and the life.

The neocons have made democracy a god, but why is George W. Bush falling down and worshiping their golden calf?

The last time we heard rhetoric like Bush's at NED and Whitehall Castle was the last time we were bogged down in a war. LBJ declared that America's goal was far loftier than saving South Vietnam. We were going to build a "Great Society on the Mekong."

Like Woodrow Wilson, Bush has been converted to the belief that democracy is the cure for mankind's ills. But our Founding Fathers did not even believe in democracy. They thought they were creating a republic – a republic that would be secure by remaining free of the wars of the blood-soaked continent their fathers had left behind. How wrong they were.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: bushii; democracy; foundingfathers; greatsociety; interventionism; iraq; lbj; liberty; mekong; muslims; neocons; pakistan; saudiarabia; security; terrorism; whitehallcastle; woodrowwilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 12/10/2003 6:04:23 AM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Pat Buchanan supports the Middle East status quo. I wonder why?

Prairie
2 posted on 12/10/2003 6:06:25 AM PST by prairiebreeze (President George W. Bush....most assuredly, MY President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
I can't believe anyone still publishes Buchanan. And, who funds him? The Dems?
3 posted on 12/10/2003 6:10:07 AM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
He raises excellent points, though.

The guy who said it best was the one who criticized the Clinton administration for engaging in nation-building all over the globe. But that wasn't the same George W. Bush who is being quoted here by Buchanan, now was it?

4 posted on 12/10/2003 6:10:34 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; Poohbah; section9; Dog; Catspaw; veronica; wimpycat; Grampa Dave; BOBTHENAILER
What would Pat have us do? Pretend the problem will go away? Abandon Israel to fend for itself (which will result in more dead people than Stalin and Hitler ever killed)? Act like some metrosexual when it comes to foreign policy?

We got hit with an unprovoked sneak attack. The last one was Pearl Harbor, and we went in an imposed democracy on Germany and Japan. Why should we act any differently now?
5 posted on 12/10/2003 6:11:19 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Why does ANYBODY care what this man says? He agrees more often with liberal Bill Press than he does with any Republican. He can kiss my butt.
6 posted on 12/10/2003 6:12:58 AM PST by Wait4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Pat Buchanan is a joke. And irrelevant to boot. He should go back to kissing Lenora Fulani's rear end.
7 posted on 12/10/2003 6:15:50 AM PST by veronica (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1036919/post-Screenwriting Contest thread/ATTN:FR writers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Pat Buchanan supports the Middle East status quo. I wonder why?

He and Grover Norquist have been drinking from the same bottle again.

8 posted on 12/10/2003 6:15:56 AM PST by niteowl77 (Time Magazine: legitimizing attacks on American and Coalition troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Amen to that. :)
9 posted on 12/10/2003 6:24:35 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I question how anyone campaigning against nation-building, smaller government, conservative issues, etc. could be changed so completely by unanticipated events. In other words, I am convinced that Bush misled the conservative base during the campaign. It would be hard for a thinking person to believe otherwise. If he didn't, then an eagle eye has to be cast at the cabinet officials and/or advisers that surround him and influence him. The GW that campaigned on conservative issues is definitely not the GW that has occupied the White House.
10 posted on 12/10/2003 6:25:19 AM PST by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; aculeus; general_re; BlueLancer; Poohbah; hellinahandcart; Catspaw
George Bush did not write this democratist drivel. This is the kind of messianic rhetoric he probably never heard before he became president. Who is putting these words in his mouth?

Crafty evil neocons, pulling the strings of poor dumb trusting George.

Hey Pat, it's REALLY stale.

11 posted on 12/10/2003 6:25:35 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
This is the honest dissent that International ANSWER couldn't find the intellectual candlepower to make.

I would suggest to Pat that it's not cricket to nuke a nation for the transgressions of it's maniacal dictator. But a democracy you can hold liable for their misdeeds. As long as the ME is in the stranglehold of strongmen and crackpots, it just wouldn't be right to blast the bejeezus out of innocent folks.

That's a counter argument to Pat's position.

12 posted on 12/10/2003 6:28:17 AM PST by big gray tabby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton; sauropod
I never thought I would find question marks more wearying than exclamation points.

But I'm there now. And Pat's the one who brought me there.
13 posted on 12/10/2003 6:30:28 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments?

IIRC, the President has the Constitutional power to decide and conduct foreign policy. He is also made CinC by the same authority.

It's OK to disagree with how the president conducts foreign policy, but only an idiot questions his authority to do so.

Shalom.

14 posted on 12/10/2003 6:34:33 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
I don't supposed the unprovoked sneak attack on 9/11/01 would have had anything to do with it.
15 posted on 12/10/2003 6:34:55 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
What would Pat have us do? Pretend the problem will go away? Abandon Israel to fend for itself (which will result in more dead people than Stalin and Hitler ever killed)? Act like some metrosexual when it comes to foreign policy?

All of the above.

16 posted on 12/10/2003 6:36:58 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: meenie
I question how anyone campaigning against nation-building, smaller government, conservative issues, etc. could be changed so completely by unanticipated events.

In the vernacular it's known as a "wake up call."

We believed we could live and let live.

We found out that the rest of the world believes in live and let die.

We decided it was in our best interests to change the minds of the rest of the world.

The advancement of freedom and democracy is a different thing entirely from the amorphous "nation building." You may still disagree with it, but you should not pretend it is the same thing.

A truly valid question is how asking Taiwan to "back off its attempt to become free" from the world's most oppressive regieme is considered the advancement of freedom and democracy. If you want to call W.'s stand there hypocritical, I would have a hard time arguing with you.

Shalom.

17 posted on 12/10/2003 6:37:38 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I don't supposed the unprovoked sneak attack on 9/11/01 would have had anything to do with it.

That might explain why the United States would engage in military action against a country like Afghanistan, but not against Iraq.

And even if Iraq were known to have been directly involved in 9/11, this idiotic talk about "spreading democracy" is the wrong way to go about it. In fact, by the time this is all over we are going to learn that the United States really has no interest in democratic Middle Eastern governments -- because we're going to decide that ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein are preferable to the kind of freely-elected leaders most of these nations are going to produce.

18 posted on 12/10/2003 6:39:42 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
What do we do if the Iraqi regime that takes power after free elections tells us to pack up and get out, and declares the liberation of Kuwait and its return to the embrace of the motherland to be as vital to Baghdad as the return of Taiwan is to Beijing?

LOL....Nice to see someone wondering aloud whether the "liberation game" is one that only America is allowed to play on the global gameboard.

Pat gets bonus points for asking that mischievous question.
19 posted on 12/10/2003 6:41:15 AM PST by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Oh, Jesus. Here's Pat again! Going on about the "neo-cons". C'mon, Pat! Out with it!

Aren't you really talking about

The Joooooz!

Someone tell Pat that Father Coughlin is on the radio.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

20 posted on 12/10/2003 6:42:16 AM PST by section9 (Major Kusanagi says, "Click on my pic and read my blog, or eat lead!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Are you deliberately ignoring the detailed information indicating neary a decade of contacts between Osama bin Laden and Saddam's regime, or are you merely unaware of it?

I've read the articles. If half of the stuff in that memo was true, then Iraq was as much a sponsor of al-Qaeda as the Taliban regime was.
21 posted on 12/10/2003 6:42:48 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Where has it been apprised that the actions of the United States government are unConstitutional? All I see are actions which provide for the common defense.

22 posted on 12/10/2003 6:45:56 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Al-Qaeda did not need any help from Iraq to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Those 19 terrorists received their flight training right here in the U.S., they planned the attacks right here in the U.S., and to carry out these attacks they really didn't need much more than a few thousand dollars in cash along with maps of New York City and Washington, D.C.

On the other hand, my second point was directed at the scenario you described (i.e., Iraq was fully complicit in 9/11 to the extent you described). How the hell does "promoting democracy" in the Middle East prevent another 19 Islamic radicals from doing the exact same thing on September 11, 2005?

23 posted on 12/10/2003 6:50:14 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Whether they needed it or not, they apparently got it.

As for the democracy aspect of it, I fail to see how it can hurt. The status quo is unacceptable to the United States of America.
24 posted on 12/10/2003 6:54:56 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
How the hell does "promoting democracy" in the Middle East prevent another 19 Islamic radicals from doing the exact same thing on September 11, 2005?

It doesn't. But perhaps it makes it less likely on September 11, 2035.

25 posted on 12/10/2003 6:57:01 AM PST by general_re (Knife goes in, guts come out! That's what Osaka Food Concern is all about!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
How the hell does "promoting democracy" in the Middle East prevent another 19 Islamic radicals from doing the exact same thing on September 11, 2005?

Because by "promoting democracy", the terrorists are streaming into Iraq and we are killing them.

I don't suppose you have a better idea?

26 posted on 12/10/2003 6:58:49 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
As for the democracy aspect of it, I fail to see how it can hurt.

Of course it can hurt. That's exactly Buchanan's point -- over the last few decades, some of the most anti-American leaders in the Middle East have been put in place through in democratic elections.

I predict that the next step in this process is going to expose the United States as quite the hypocrite when it comes to "promoting democracy" around the world -- the U.S. is going to see to it that the "right" leaders (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) are elected in Iraq (regardless of what it takes -- including a subversion of democracy).

27 posted on 12/10/2003 7:00:30 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Surveys show that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel. Interventionism is not America's solution, it is America's problem.

Also Moslems who live in tolerant western states tend to take advantage of freedom afforded to them to subvert and convert that society to Islamic barbaric society. Stupid/tolerant/liberals may ignore that threat, and suffer the frog burning syndrome. The incremental tactics that are very obvious in the case of homosexual agenda infiltration of mainstream America is a good illustration of the future of stupid people under Islam. We already have seen some stupid teacher in California asking its students to fast in Ramadan, and to ear head cover!

28 posted on 12/10/2003 7:02:59 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Gee, Pat Buchanan sounding like Noam Chomsky.

If I didn't know betetr, I'd say David Frum's "Unpatriotic Conservatives" article was dead on target...
29 posted on 12/10/2003 7:03:51 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: general_re
But perhaps it makes it less likely on September 11, 2035.

Does it? Did the United States make Iran any less of a threat against the U.S. in 1979 when it helped topple Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953?

30 posted on 12/10/2003 7:04:54 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: meenie
In other words, I am convinced that Bush misled the conservative base during the 2000 campaign.

He didn't have the resources of the NSA, CIA and FBI during the campaign, so that his stump speeches could have been better vetted.

31 posted on 12/10/2003 7:06:29 AM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Your joy is your sorrow unmasked." --- GIBRAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Because by "promoting democracy", the terrorists are streaming into Iraq and we are killing them.

Now that's a naive outlook if I ever heard one. Some guy who might have considered flying a 737 into a building in New York City next year has decided instead to pack his bags and fight a holy war against U.S. troops in Iraq.

32 posted on 12/10/2003 7:07:08 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Because by "promoting democracy", the terrorists are streaming into Iraq and we are killing them.

Are you suggesting that their is a finite amount of terrorists?

Seems to me that at this point we can't be sure whether that's true, or whether we are creating an environment where they might be easily and endlessly manufactured (as per the Israeli model but on a much grander scale).
33 posted on 12/10/2003 7:08:22 AM PST by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
Also Moslems who live in tolerant western states tend to take advantage of freedom afforded to them to subvert and convert that society to Islamic barbaric society.

Fine. Then throw them the hell out. But don't go fight a "war on terror" in a place like Iraq while at the same time allowing unfettered access to this country by anti-American "barbarians" from all over the globe.

34 posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:43 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
Are you suggesting that their is a finite amount of terrorists?

No, but I am suggesting that there is a finite amount of will amongst the islamic people to support and tolerate terrorists. We are seeing that even now, as Al Qaeda continue to attack OTHER MUSLIMS, their support, both moral and financial is waning.

And you didn't give me your solution.

35 posted on 12/10/2003 7:15:11 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Now that's a naive outlook if I ever heard one. Some guy who might have considered flying a 737 into a building in New York City next year has decided instead to pack his bags and fight a holy war against U.S. troops in Iraq.

See post 35. The "killing them" was meant as a flippant comment, however the overall point stands. If they are spending their time and resources in a hopeless fight in Iraq, they are less likely to hit us.

And you, also, conveniently ignored the second part of my post, your solution.

36 posted on 12/10/2003 7:18:27 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dighton; hchutch; aculeus; BlueLancer; Poohbah; hellinahandcart; Catspaw
Identify the speaker of each selected passage. Five points each.

It was [the] earlier intervention in the Gulf War and [the] huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that lead directly to 9-11.

A) Yasser Arafat
B) Osama bin Laden
C) Ayatollah Khameini
D) Patrick J. Buchanan

Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments?

A) Dennis "Blind Date" Kucinich
B) Howard "Blind Rage" Dean
C) John "Blind Trust Fund" Kerry
D) Patrick J. "Blind Alley" Buchanan

Surveys show that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel.

A) John Zogby
B) CAIR
C) George Lincoln Rockwell
D) Patrick J. Buchanan

37 posted on 12/10/2003 7:20:25 AM PST by general_re (Knife goes in, guts come out! That's what Osaka Food Concern is all about!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Did the United States make Iran any less of a threat against the U.S. in 1979 when it helped topple Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953?

You rolls the dice and you takes your chances. But not playing is not an option.

38 posted on 12/10/2003 7:21:11 AM PST by general_re (Knife goes in, guts come out! That's what Osaka Food Concern is all about!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin

"...I would like to be clearly understood...we, the Soviet people, are for socialism.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy." Mikhail Gorbachev

"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the left is going to change that.... The words Economic Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement." Derek Shearer cited in Reason 1982

"How do you tell a Socialist:- It's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-Socialist someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Reagan

39 posted on 12/10/2003 7:21:38 AM PST by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
PJB for all three.

I'll take my points in thousand-dollar bills, please.

40 posted on 12/10/2003 7:22:38 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Oh, jeez - I think I made it too easy ;)
41 posted on 12/10/2003 7:25:38 AM PST by general_re (Knife goes in, guts come out! That's what Osaka Food Concern is all about!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Excellent points. I never have understood those that voted for this guy. My main gripe about him is his throw them to the wolves stance on Israel. I do believe in selective isolationism of the USofA, but not in any direction he supports.
42 posted on 12/10/2003 7:33:16 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dighton; hchutch; aculeus; general_re; BlueLancer; Poohbah; hellinahandcart; Catspaw
Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments?

Where in The Constitution does it say America must wait until some nuclear-armed fanatic manages to kill a few million of us?

43 posted on 12/10/2003 7:36:19 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Never cared for his foreign policy, and to be blunt, I don't care for much of anything the plaeos have pushed on the domestic front, either.

I'm with the neo-conservatives of foreign policy, and I think Grover Norquist's stance on taxes and domestic policy sound pretty good, too.

Of course, to some folks, that must make me a heretic.
44 posted on 12/10/2003 7:38:42 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I agree with you 100%
45 posted on 12/10/2003 7:38:52 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I'd say Mr. Buchanon is guilty of some "cultural condescension", to put it politely.
46 posted on 12/10/2003 7:41:10 AM PST by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Act like some metrosexual when it comes to foreign policy?

Can you say "metrosexual" on Free Republic?

47 posted on 12/10/2003 7:42:04 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Like you, I cannot define myself totally with neo's or paleo's. I feel that I take the best aspects of both branches.
48 posted on 12/10/2003 7:42:45 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Can you say "metrosexual" on Free Republic?

Yes, as long as you don't say "Jehova".

(ooooooops.)

49 posted on 12/10/2003 7:47:56 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Where in The Constitution does it say America must wait until some nuclear-armed fanatic manages to kill a few million of us?

All I want is for a paleo to give me specific ideas as to how they would secure the safety of this country from islamic terrorists.

And no, saying "close the borders" or "let the free market handle it" aren't serious ideas.

50 posted on 12/10/2003 7:50:36 AM PST by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

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.

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