[Shermy]

First, the Clinton administration justified its interventions as humanitarian necessities. In the war on terror, by contrast, Bush hasn't needed to appeal to altruism. He has employed the rhetoric of national interest--fulfilling the Buchananite criteria for intervention.

Take this one for example. The premise is that involvement in all "interventions" or "wars" are founded in the same events, and that one has to be a "Buchananite" to support a war against Osama et al. It's senseless drivel posing as knowledgable. Just another reason why left wing rags seem more irrelevant these days than right wing ones. They don't address facts, or detail what "rights" we are allegedly losing. They're not talking about anything except about themselves, and how they see themselves in the world.

[Torie]

You seemed to miss the main thrust of the article, which was that current events have sucked the oxygen out of Buchanism. Whether or not Buchanism is ultimately right and true over the long term, was not addressed in this article, nor did it purport to. I think Pat is all wet, and Justin ever wetter, both short term and long term, but that is another matter.