Posted on 01/23/2004 10:40:16 AM PST by areafiftyone
I'm sincerely curious.
Thanks.
GW said something about allegiance to parties, but I can't recall.
It's clear from your post, which I try to answer as best I can below, that you tend to look at historical events in a vacuum, as if each event can be understood as occurring through no fault of your own country. Those are the traits of a nationalist ("my country is always right") where as I am a patriot, in that I love the land of my fathers and while I lean "my country right or wrong" while I know that my country's DC-government often behaves wrongly.
My politics are from the Old Right tradition; I derive my political philosophy from liberty traditionalists (I view liberty in the traditions of the founders) and I am a conservative (preservation of institutions as outlined by the Founders, the established Church; pagan and Cracker--Irish-Welsh-Scot traditions, separated powers).
Where as HLM traced his political theories on liberty to German and Prussian thinkers which led to a rather monarchist world view at times, I traced my concept of liberty back to my ethnic heritage Welsh-Irish, so on those grounds I differ from HL who was right about so much in his day.
As to your questions which you posed from a very biased position in favor of the gubmint, I have spit out some ideas below with an aim of peeling back the thin cover the gubmint education camps attempts to pull over such gubmint incompetence and outright corruption. I will note, I did not take the time to post a full set of links, but I am more than happy to provide more background on any points of interest:
...After I came into office, I would have told the country about the threat to passenger planes that the government was preparing for, "closed the borders", arrested the 300 names the FBI already had in their database but waited until after 9/11 to arrest, and stressed civil defense with an emphasis on a well-armed citizenry.
We know that as early as 2000 the Pentagon was running drills in the event of a plane crashing into the Pentagon. I am not sure what other info one would need to conclude the government knew about the threat, but the kicker is definitely the drill scheduled for 9/11.
Rather than have three planes full of folks just hoping it was 'just a hijacking' I suspect the American people that I know and love would have greeted the bastards like they did Richard Reid.
In the weeks after 9/11 we saw the FBI arrest 300 individuals and produce pictures of all the hijackers with in a matter of days; its clear the FBI knew in advance who the threats 'might be.'
I would have immediately ended support for the KLA (now dubbed the KFP) which put American materials in the hands of AQ operatives according to a Congressional Republican report from 1998.
I would have had the courage to explain to the American people that due to excessive debt spending and the floating of the currency in international markets, the United States would have to severely downsize its government so our economy would be able to withstand foreign influence and those who would do us harm through economic warfare. I am less that satisfied with the so-called Hawks seem to have no concept of national security as it relates to the international monetary situation.
Even as the dollar is still in free-fall for close to a year, Hawks still don't educate themselves on the issue.
Saddam: I would have told the world that the sanction regime of Bill Clinton was immoral, if effective, and apologized for the fact that the United States played a large role in putting Saddam in power in the first place. If I believed that removing Saddam was the moral thing to do in order to end the sanction regime, I would have pursued a case around that concept rather than recycle Clinton Era intelligence. If Saddam had to be dealt with as an inherited problem, I would have put forth an honest case not one designed to scare people. Assuredly, I'd have a better plan than 'build a democracy' in Iraq should it be determined the prudent thing to do was remove Saddam.
I think its clear the CIA needs to be dissolved, but I would give plenty of heads up so its agents could scurry back under the rocks they came out of overseas. After the mess they made in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Iraq (dating back to 1963) I think some pensions should be stripped and criminal prosecutions pursued.
WW2: I would not have let Stalinist spies shape policy, that much is for sure. How the most treasonous President in the history of the country obtained the stature FDR did and still holds is a tribute to the effectiveness of government schools.
I would not have pursued a policy of provoking an attack from the Japanese with naval blockades as FDR and Stimson planned for in early 1940. I would not have run as an anti-war candidate in 1940, the whole while I was condoning an illegal weapons trade with England. I would not have made allies with the world's most murderous regime.
I would have insisted that my ally in England accept phone calls from the German General Staff and support a coup; I would refuse to bomb civilian targets and fire any general for pursuing such a policy.
I could keep going with this on a point by point basis, but if you begin with far too many assumptions, especially for someone who quotes Mencken, to handle your questions as a serious historical discussion.
You ask why the hostility? and I can only say that I do my best to respond in the tone as I see it benefiting the assertion of my point; I do my best to display the passion of any good Irishman at the end of the bar sipping on a pint of stout. We are a salty, 'angry' bunch, but we are patriots and our political history is well rooted in the American Right.
At times I have pegged you as a true-believer, but you have a few doubts, I suppose that is why you like this exchange as a means of examining what it is you believe; that suggests that 'they hate us for our freedom' does not sit well in your stomach.
The Kelly thread the other day, you suggest I was cheering on his death as if he deserved it; that is itself, an interesting revelation on the belief system you have built up in your mind to filter the event of the present.
I do not come to FR to get my emotional needs meant; I come to respond to the news of the days in the voice of the Old Right, a consensus I draw from largely Chronicles and LewRockwell.com.
Too many of the pro-war hawks don't know anything about the history of the Right, and rely on simple White/Black, Republican/Democrat patriot/anti-American dichotomies to explain to secure self-esteem for themselves i.e. get emotional needs met. Some even regurgitate Marxist lines, and still others peddle 'foreign influence' with impunity.
And still others claim to be Christians as they call for ever more wars.
" Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief "
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.