An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ^ | Wednesday, August 28, 2002 | BY BRIAN MITCHELL

[Zviadist]

Your guilt by association only works on those who don't know any better.

Absurd. You join a movement founded by a Nazi and you are a member of a Nazi movement. You join a movement founded by a pro-lifer you are pro-life. You join a movement founded by Trotskyites you are a leftist. It is pretty clear.

[Zviadist]

We fear that Saddam is arming and sheltering al Qaeda.

Read this very carefully: Rumsfeld mentioned the possible presence of al Qaeda in NORTH Iraq, i.e. the area controled by OUR allies the Kurds. Get a map.

[Zviadist]

I'd say you got that about right.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

To: Zviadist

LOL, I'd change the subject real quick too if I had been as wrong as you were in the pre invasion analysis of Afghanistan. What you said couldn't be done in years and without tens of thousands of dead Americans was done in months with 40 casualties, God bless'em.

Remember our debates back then Zviadist? Now who was full of crap?

Answer that honestly and we'll move on to post war Afghanistan.

160 posted on 8/28/02 1:01 PM Pacific by jwalsh07

Sadly, some people who post here, seem to forget that thier words are saved. BTW.. we agree with you. Our Troops have done an outstanding job. God Bless indeed those 40 casualties. They died for all of us. And, they died feeling they were doing a job our country required of them. Thank GOD for this President, in that they are serving under a Commander in Chief they respect and trust. That is so important!! (Pretty dang proud of Sec. of Def. Rumsfield too, I don't know of any other Sec. of Def. who has visited the troops this much, you can see he TRULY cares about them. Bout damn time!!).

Thanks for stating the truth so well jwalsh07!!

[cake_crumb]

I have a question for you. With a followup. Speaking in strictly broad geopolitical terms, without considering any particular country - except our own - and considering no particular culture, just human nature....

Do you think that if the US had never interacted with any other country upon Earth, that we would have had any reason to develope the technology we currently enjoy?

Do you think we would never have had another foreign war after the American Revolution?

[Zviadist]

TALIBAN IS GONE FROM POWER in Afghanistan.

Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did. And the only thing that happened to them is that they have been disbursed throughout south Asia and the Middle East where they can regroup to attack again. Some victory.

I speak to them often, and I can assure you, OUR GREAT FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN RESPECT AND LOVE THIS COMMANDER IN CHIEF!

You are really silly: By this "president" I am referring to HAMID KARZAI, not OUR president (we were talking about Afghanistan, have you forgotten?). I would have NO PROBLEM with our military protecting OUR president. Sheesh!

"UN-ELECTED President".. good GOD!!... You have GOT to be kidding? Next time put a </sarcasm so we know when you're done with the sarcasm and false innuendo's.

I AM TALKING ABOUT KARZAI!!!!! This is about Afghanistan!!! Can't you read??? OUR president IS elected. Karzai was appointed.

I am still waiting for a list of our wonderful achievements in Afghanistan. And please learn to read properly.

[Zviadist]

Sadly, some people who post here, seem to forget that thier words are saved. BTW..

What words saved? I saw no quote nor did I see a link to anything I had written. Once again you demonstrate an inability to read and comprehend.

[rdb3]

Absurd.

For the "ideology über alles" crowd, of course it's absurd!

[Zviadist]

Your questions are silly and irrelevant. Where have I ever written that Americans should not be engaged abroad? That is absurd. Or don't you see the difference between individual Americans engaged in travel and trade and the U.S. government bombing countries that have not attacked us?

As to war, it should be for self-defense. Only. It should be sufficiently fierce so as to discourage potential enemies. It should adhere to our values so as to demonstrate them to the world.

[skeeter]

Especially when being interviewed in person. On paper, he can "appear" rational. But in person.. or in a television interview.

Then he musta conducted his interviews with the Nixon and Reagan White Houses via mail. And faked it well enough to last umpteen years on two very popular talk shows.

You may not agree with him, you may suspect his motives. At times I do. But one thing Buchanan is not is wacko.

[ex-snook]

"You can classify me however you'd like. "

Hey my list is so people can classify themselves or anyone else.

--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a conservative.

Your Catholic and pro-gun can fall into any group. Pick your slot.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a neo-con.

--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a conservative.

Sorry buddy,.. but we are not "Neo-Cons" and I think that word is extremely offensive. It equates people who are conservatives to Nazi's.. period!! I would argue that it is people like you, who would silence free speach..and since you are one of the 1% that believe in Buchannans positions, perhaps you need to check out your own political ideologies and mental stability?

Pat Buchannan is a loose cannon. Pure and simple. The thoughts of him in ANY kind of leadership position is a frightening thought. We used to respect the man,.. but then we started to hear him talk more and more. And well, ... we were cognitive enough to realize the man is has a few lose screws.

Unless NEO means "Never Engage Ostriches" in meaningful dialogue.. it is a ridiculous label, and an offensive one.

[cake_crumb]

"Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did"

There is no distinction. You would know that by now if you had any real understanding of the region.

"I AM TALKING ABOUT KARZAI!!!!! This is about Afghanistan!!! Can't you read??? OUR president IS elected. Karzai was appointed."

So? Karzai was not appointed by the United States. He was appointed by a panel of Afghan delegates....we only made suggestions. We appointed neither Karzai nor the panel of delegates which appointed him.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

You need to "write" properly. Next time state who you are talking about. And, we are accomplishing our objectives in Afghanistan. (But then you would tell the dead soldiers that they died for nothing. That's Bull Sh*t!!)

That region has a history of extremely complex politics. Karzai was elected as the INTERIM President until an election is held. You cannot run a country with out a head of state. Pure and simple. With the rivalry's between tribes/warring factions, and a delicate sitution in that regard, Karzai was selected to lead as "Interim" President.

The old King is back, and considering what has been going on in that region, I'd say that disbanning the Taliban, who are advid supporters of bin laden and al quaida, is a pretty damn good start. Especially considering how short a period of time it all took, and how few casualties we took. Every single one of our men who died, deserve that much understanding for the sacrifice they gave. They did not die in vain, they're mission IS being accomplished. With as little as possible death to our troops, and WHEN IT IS OVER.. a more democratic society for Afghanistan.

Or, perhaps you think they were better off with the Taliban in charge of things? Or that the world was a safer place while the Taliban harbored terrorists??

[ex-snook]

So discuss the article.

[xJones]

For the "ideology über alles" crowd, of course it's absurd!

You're missing the point, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SCREAM TO MAKE YOUR POINT! :)

[Zviadist]

"Neo-Cons" and I think that word is extremely offensive. It equates people who are conservatives to Nazi's.. period!!

What on earth are you going on about? Who has claimed that neo-conservatism is equal to Nazism? I have never seen that.

[Zviadist]

There is no distinction.

If you believe this you have zero understanding of East Asian politics or geography.

[rogerthedodger]

Where does the equation of Neo-con to Nazi come in? Does this relate to the term "Neo-Nazi?" The "neo" simply means "new" as in, "these are the new conservatives," as distinguished from the old, or "paleo" conservatives (such as Robert Taft). I don't know who coined the phrase, but I'm guessing that a "neo-con" probably has used it to apply to himself, without meaning he was a Nazi. I don't think Old Conservatives mean to associate New Conservatives with Nazism.

[hchutch]

See post 162.