No Wonder America Has So Many Enemies (So says a conservative – a paleoconservative, that is)

The Toronto Sun ^ | September 28, 2003 | Eric Margolis

[quidnunc]

Quote:

No wonder so few Americans understand what is going on abroad, how the outside world really sees them, or why America has so many enemies overseas. Small wonder many Americans are turning for balanced news to the CBC, BBC and the Internet.

Citizens of the old Soviet Union suffered the same information isolation. Like Americans since 9/11, they were force-fed agitprop and patriotic pap disguised as news, and deprived of all knowledge of the real world around them.

Taliban Pat buchanan's foreign-policy guru casts his pearls of wisdom before swine.

[Slings and Arrows]

Eric Margolis is off his meds again. Strictly dog-bites-man.

[Asclepius]

The White House was left choking on its own grotesque lies.

No one would suspect that Buchanon has an axe to grind.

Paleoconservatives are the best conservatives. Oh, they may not be the brightest conservatives, or even the most hygeinic conservatives, but they are most definitely the best conservatives. Well, if by "best" you mean lack-witted, addle-pated, knuckle-draggers.

[TYVets]

Rummy ted kennedy knows what is best for us "little folk"

BS

[Sam Cree]

"America's most precious and proudest asset, its moral reputation, has been gravely damaged by the Bush White House."

This statement is wrong on 2 counts.

First, the Bush White House has restored our moral reputation, unless one agrees with Margolis that destroying an evil and oppressive monster (Saddam) is immoral.

Second, although many on the "religious right" may agree with Margolis that our moral reputation is our most valuable asset, they are wrong. America's most valuable asset is its tradition of individual freedom and personal liberty.

[Sam Cree]

However, I agree with Margolis that Bush was not straightforward about his reasons for leading us into Iraq.

[Osage Orange]

I quit reading after the first lie. Which..was in the first sentence.

Ping me..if I missed anything.

FRegards,

[rhombus]

Agreed, the first sentence based on a faulty premise. Never, let them set the agenda with a false premise.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"However, I agree with Margolis that Bush was not straightforward about his reasons for leading us into Iraq."

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

We all ought to go back and read...or re-read GWB's State of The Union Address.

FRegards,

[dighton]

[Dr. Thorne]

Let's see... this guy compares Bush to Mussolini, agrees with Teddy Kennedy and is concerned about the U.N.'s opinion.

He just handed in his Conservative credentials IMHO.

[CanadianLibertarian]

The author of this piece is Eric Margolis. The man is Canada's best-known anti-American anti-Semitic Muslim-lover. Has taken sides with Muslims against everyone else his entire sordid career.

[dighton]

Hellinahandcart, you may remember clonib.

[quidnunc]

CanadianLibertarian wrote: The author of this piece is Eric Margolis. The man is Canada's best-known anti-American anti-Semitic Muslim-lover. Has taken sides with Muslims against everyone else his entire sordid career.

Eric Margolis is an American.

[thoughtomator]

Another idiot, too stupid to figure out the obvious implications of 9/11. Is this tripe even worth refuting point-by-point?

[Sam Cree]

I've always assumed that Bush led us into Iraq as a direct response to 9/11. I am assuming that he regards cleaning up the entire Middle East as a necessary step in preserving Western and American civilization. Iraq is a plausible first step, IMO.

But Bush has seemingly used Saddam's WMD's as a primary reason for the invasion. I imagine that was a reason, but not his primary one. I've always felt that GWB thought it would be too controversial to say he was going to clean out the Middle East. That's why I don't think him to have been straightforward.

[quidnunc]

Sam Cree wrote: I've always assumed that Bush led us into Iraq as a direct response to 9/11. I am assuming that he regards cleaning up the entire Middle East as a necessary step in preserving Western and American civilization. Iraq is a plausible first step, IMO. But Bush has seemingly used Saddam's WMD's as a primary reason for the invasion. I imagine that was a reason, but not his primary one. I've always felt that GWB thought it would be too controversial to say he was going to clean out the Middle East. That's why I don't think him to have been straightforward.

Initially when his audience was primarily the American public Bush stressed the need for regime change in Iraq to begin to change the terror culture of the Mid East.

It was only when we went to the U.N., which was necessary to keep Tony Blair onboard, that WMD were cited as the main justification.

[Madame Dufarge]

Bush's blinkered core supporters in middle America simply don't understand or don't care what the rest of the world thinks of their nation, which, since 9/11, has wrapped itself in a cocoon of xenophobia and self-righteous rage.

I know I should care deeply what intellectual powerhouses Margolis and Chirac think, but somehow...

So, what's for supper?