An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush

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

[cake_crumb]

"So, I guess I could look at it as meaning a "new" type of conservative, or I could look at it as an offensive form or stating any conservative who thinks "abnormal" in the context of Conservativism, (neo-cons)."

No....you have it right. Also, I believe many Buchananites on this thread are indulging in a little transferrance at the expense of the majority in the enormous blue area of the 2000 election map. They're being rather transparent.

[cake_crumb]

"I'm not a neo-conservative, and I don't use the term disparagingly."

Since we're being accused of being Nazis and Trotskyite Socialists on this thread...I would hazard the guess that some on this thread are using it in a disparaging way.

[rogerthedodger]

Likewise.

[rogerthedodger]

If your detractors are of the mindset to confuse Nazism and Trotskyism and label you with both, then you have nothing to worry about.

[cake_crumb]

Sorry...I should have added to that : I'm not a "neo-con" either. I have never seen the term used in any BUT a disparaging way, by bot the far-right and the entire left....to describe mainstream America, which I am a part of.

Mainstream America does not take well to being accused of being that which our families fought against. That is why we take offense.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Buchannan is a wannabe, who has NO INSIDE INFORMATION that would give him the NEEDED INTELLIGENCE to make an informed decision.

Just like Sowcroft doesn't have that information, nor Baker, nor Scott Ridder for that matter.

Why in the world, do people assume that things remain the same in the almost 5 years since Scott Ridder left? Do you think he has recent intelligence on that region? The smarter person would admit that "they don't know". They can give an opinion based on PAST experience, but to state un-equivically that they KNOW is ignorance in its highest form. I mean that for all the above mentioned hawks.

In the military we were told the smartest answer when you don't know something, isn't to speak words as though you do.. but to state "I don't know, but I will find out". That always made a great amount of sense to me. Do you disagree with that analogy?

And, since we are discussing "idiots",.. (you asked me to comment on this article and it pertains to Buchannan, who in our estimate "is" one) why do YOU think any of his words hold any value regarding Iraq? What inside information HAS HE EVER HAD? What intelligence? When, Why, Where would he have ever gotten said intelligence?

I don't know what your "past" experience is/was. But if your screen name has any truth to it.. then you must see where I'm going with this. Do you?

[cake_crumb]

"Actually, after reading up on NEO,.. it would seem Buchannan is the Neo"

Agreed, 1000%.

As I said before, I have never read the term "neo-con" used in any BUT a disparaging way by either the far right or the entire left....therefore we can safely assume the term is, and is meant to be, an insult to put those who disagree on the defensive...thus giving the far-right and entire left a small tactical advantage over the statistical majority.

[rogerthedodger]

Well, I'm not sure how you define "neo-con." I always thought that I'm mainstream, and Idon't hold to much of the views of the neo-conservative movement. Am I out of the mainstream now because I don't agree with Richard Perle?

My family fought against a lot of things since we've been here--Purtians, Quakers, Indians, Kings (both British and Spanish), Hessians, Mexican dictators, Federal troops, Germans, Italians, etc. What fights are you talking about in particular?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

As I said before, I have never read the term "neo-con" used in any BUT a disparaging way by either the far right or the entire left....therefore we can safely assume the term is, and is meant to be, an insult to put those who disagree on the defensive...thus giving the far-right and entire left a small tactical advantage over the statistical majority.

Good points!! Thanks!

[Sid Rich]

So...when Irving Kristol write books such as "Reflections of a Neo-conservative" he's disparaging himself. (Irving Kristol is a prominent neoconservative).

[Phillip Augustus]

Fantastic interview with a true American statesman.

[rogerthedodger]

C'mon, Sid Rich, we were doing so well without evidence.

[Phillip Augustus]

If I relied exclusively on the opinions on this board; I would not believe that.

[cake_crumb]

Oh NO, don't misunderstand me:

My post was meant to CLARIFY, not confuse....so of course exactly the opposite happened. I mean the mainstream Alerica doesn't take to being accused of being the things their families fought against....in your reply to me you reacted exactly the way mainstream America does....the way all of us on this very thread, who are being accused...and I DO mean accused, of being 'neo-cons' are!

Sheesh...I have to make supper....have a good night, and don't let the venomous ones on this thread confuse you.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

As I said Sid, I'm still looking into this phrase. To be honest, I had never heard of the term until today. If there was indeed such a movement, then it escaped my cognitive process for input. What more can I say? I'm human.

Roger was extremely polite in directing me to a different view regarding it. I will look into it, and would even appreciate any information on this movement.

So I could not answer your statement "So...when Irving Kristol write books such as "Reflections of a Neo-conservative he's disparaging himself. (Irving Kristol is a prominent neoconservative)."

I will research it though, and save any final judgement until I have an "educated" opinion. Thanks! I truly appreciate you and Roger giving me friendly debate. Honestly!

[rogerthedodger]

Enjoy your supper. I'm staying on. Gotta have something to keep me awake at work.

[Sid Rich]

Same to you. I would suggest a google search on Irving Kristol.

[sixmil]

If that be so, how would Pat explain Arafat? IMO, Bush should have arrested Arafat months ago. If Sharon had his way, Arafat would be a just memory.

Exactly. Remember when Saddam launched scuds at Israel during the Gulf War and we got them not to retaliate? That shows me who is really running the show.

[sixmil]

Deterrence might work if Iraq itself were theatening to invade the US or neighboring states, but that's not what we're afraid of this time. We fear that Saddam is arming and sheltering al Qaeda. We need to define any Iraqi military facility that Saddam refuses to let us inspect as a facility that won't be there tomorrow morning.

How is that a threat if we do not let Al-Queda near our borders? I think the point is that we can do all this without putting any troops on the ground.

[sixmil]

The rest is right on target? Buchanan is a psychopath!! Good Lord, to think ANYONE supports his mindset, is frightening to say the least.

BOO!