Skip to comments.
An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ^
| Wednesday, August 28, 2002
| BY BRIAN MITCHELL
Posted on 08/28/2002 9:16:46 AM PDT by sixmil
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 301-302 next last
To: jwalsh07
Pat is so clueless on foreign affairs he still thinks WW2 was a mistake on Roosevelts part. Even with the benefit of hindsight his brand of isolationism pulls the wool right over his eyes. I disagree with Pat that pulling the covers over you head and hoping the Husseins of the world go away before you wake up is a substitute for foreign policy. That difference is so profound I put Pat only a few notches ahead of Harry the Hat as far as getting my vote goes.
I don't know about that. I think you can make a good argument that we made Europe safe for Communists, who murdered even more people than the Nazis did. Couldn't we have just let them wipe each other out?
I hope you are not forgetting that we have no-fly zones over more than half of Iraq. What if we just made it over the entire country and stopped waiting to be fired on before returning fire? Sorry to take the wind out of your sails, but until they can arcurately count down to one vote, your vote doesn't mean much.
241
posted on
08/28/2002 3:20:19 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: sixmil
Buchanan:
I'm a believer in an open society, I'm a believer in a free society, and this is why I'm opposed to the idea of an empire. They say we need a Department of Homeland Security. I thought the Defense Department was in charge of homeland security. Apparently it's in charge of empire security. Giggle. You've gotta love his dry wit.
To: truth_seeker
Buchanan: Great writer and commentator. Very weak politician and candidate. His magazine will probably fail financially; reflecting the narrow appeal of his presidential run(s).
You may be right, but Crossfire was fairly successful, as were his books. Maybe that is his proper domain.
243
posted on
08/28/2002 3:21:59 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: sixmil
The real question is whether Pat has any base for his venture. I think there is one, but it needs a popular leader and a more impassioned political climate. Pat's America is very definitely still there and going strong, but right now it's going for Bush. That may change, though, if GWB fumbles or if the political situation grows more polarized.
244
posted on
08/28/2002 3:22:52 PM PDT
by
x
To: tm22721
Buchanan is wrong. There is absolutely nothing we can do here to prevent a nuke going off in front of the Capitol during a State of the Union address. Then why bother spending a trillion dollars trying?
245
posted on
08/28/2002 3:22:58 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: gcruse
It's the natural outcome of his antipathy towards Jews. Including his campaign manager?
246
posted on
08/28/2002 3:24:05 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: Zviadist
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. What you mean is that the Kurds are expected to become out allies once the war is over. Before we can form any alliance with the Kurds to get at any al-Qaeda in northern Iraq, we have to take the territory from Saddam.
To: Glenn
Just a future failure for Pat. Something he's used to. Is Steve Forbes a failure too in your book? Do you see the entire world in black and white, or just presidential candidates?
248
posted on
08/28/2002 3:30:01 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: exmarine
Except those who die for Allah and could care less about loss of life in any country. Buchanan is wrong on this. The best defense is a good offense. He may be conservative but he doesn't understand self-defense. A good offense? You mean like the air base we have in Saudi Arabia? Didn't seem to keep 15 Saudis from killing 3000 of us in one shot on our own turf with our own airplanes and pilot training. You missed the most important part of the article:
They say we need a Department of Homeland Security. I thought the Defense Department was in charge of homeland security. Apparently it's in charge of empire security.
249
posted on
08/28/2002 3:34:17 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: ravingnutter
You believe the remark that "The reason they were over here on 9-11 is that we are over there." is on target? I think not. I can only go by what the terrorists themselves say, which is that they do not want US forces on their so-called holy land. Do you have any reason to believe that they are lying about this?
250
posted on
08/28/2002 3:37:22 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: sixmil
A good offense? You mean like the air base we have in Saudi Arabia? Didn't seem to keep 15 Saudis from killing 3000 of us in one shot on our own turf with our own airplanes and pilot training. You missed the most important part of the article: No, and attacking Iraq it won't keep the next attack from happening either! We must destroy Mecca to do that. Destroy Mecca and radical islam dies. That simple. Buchanan hasn't a clue about islam.
To: BlueNgold
He might be a fine professor of conservative thinking, but he has very little grasp of the realities of day to day command and decision making. It is not wrong to dream of a conservative Utopia, or to even espouse such a dream, but leaders deal with actual situations containing actual problems. If Pat wants to put forth potential solutions and forward thinking ideas to better our country I might listen, but it seems that his greatest commodity is the ability to find fault in everyone else but himself. As for me - I'm not buying.
That's not far from the argument the dems put forward supporting Gore over Bush.
I'm glad someone is out there finding fault in this world of unaccountable collective guilt and innanimate objects that are always to blame.
252
posted on
08/28/2002 3:40:43 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: SunStar
Buchanan is a 1920's conservative, anti-Semitism and all. Considering the number of people slaughtered internationally since 1920, it doesn't seem like such a bad place to be. Certainly Americans were more independent and free back then.
253
posted on
08/28/2002 3:44:15 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: sixmil
It's the natural outcome of his antipathy towards Jews.Including his campaign manager?
I don't care if he was married to a Jew.
His published remarks show antipathy
towards Jews.
254
posted on
08/28/2002 3:46:00 PM PDT
by
gcruse
To: Under the Radar
Isn't it possible to recognize that Israel's interests are not necessarily our interests, without being "pro-Palestine"? Possibly, but you would still be labeled an isolationist unlike most of the founding fathers, even though they were. Do they not make kids read Monroe Doctrine anymore?
255
posted on
08/28/2002 3:46:30 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: ex-snook
A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Gosh, Noam Chomsky is a conservative! Who would have thunkit?!
To: exmarine
No, and attacking Iraq it won't keep the next attack from happening either! We must destroy Mecca to do that. Destroy Mecca and radical islam dies. That simple. Buchanan hasn't a clue about islam. I have to admit I agree completely.
257
posted on
08/28/2002 3:48:17 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: gcruse
I don't care if he was married to a Jew. His published remarks show antipathy towards Jews. Well congratulations, your opinion puts you in a group larger than the group that pulled the level for Buchanan, including accidental votes.
258
posted on
08/28/2002 3:55:31 PM PDT
by
sixmil
To: cake_crumb
....therefore we can safely assume the term is, and is meant to be, an insult to put those who disagree on the defensive...And you see that I turn this fastball right around and go on offense.
Piece of cake.
259
posted on
08/28/2002 3:59:33 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: Zviadist
Re #39. You are right. If Pat were in charge, our country would not be taken over by illegal aliens. He said he would close the borders. Bush is much too weak on this, and is ineffective as a leader to a problem that will eventually destroy our country.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 301-302 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson