The American Spectator : The Bush Doctrine Is Still Working

The Obama Watch

The Bush Doctrine Is Still Working

By Peter Ferrara on 7.8.09 @ 6:08AM

A central theme of President Bush's administration was to promote democracy in the Middle East. He argued that establishing a full fledged democracy in Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would have transforming effects throughout the Muslim World. Even though the promotion of human rights and democracy had been a central theme of liberal foreign policy for decades, the Left ridiculed Bush's policy as hopelessly naïve. Even some on the right echoed this criticism.

But recent trends throughout the Middle East show that this policy is now producing a growing, very powerful effect in countering Islamic extremism and terrorism, just as Bush originally envisioned. The most recent example of this is the elections in Lebanon, where the pro-Western coalition in power there was reelected last month with a slightly increased majority over the Islamic extremist Hezbollah coalition, despite Iranian funding estimated in the billions for Hezbollah.

When the pro-Western coalition was first elected in Lebanon in 2005, it soon chased the Syrian army out of the country, ending the occupation started over 20 years ago during the Lebanese civil war. That was a huge victory for America and the West for which Bush received no credit.

Another recent example comes from Kuwait, where the public mostly voted for secular parties, rejecting the Islamic extremists in even electing women to the legislature for the first time, contrary to extremist strictures. Elections in Pakistan have probably been the most important of all, with the public overwhelmingly choosing secular parties over Islamic extremists. In the 2002 election, the extremists were revealed as a fringe element with only about 11% of the vote. In the more recent election in 2008, they got only 2%, winning only 6 out of 270 seats. This was another big victory, revealing the lack of appeal by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that critical country.

In Iraq itself, we have seen the same results. The public votes for secular parties, not Islamic extremists. Indeed, despite all the talk from the Left about how Bush only alienated the Islamic street, we don't see anti-American candidates in Iraq even running let alone winning.

Another big turning point came in Morocco in 2007. The Islamist Justice and Development Party (PJD) was projected to win the parliamentary elections. But when the votes were counted, PJD had won only 14% of the vote, and a conservative party aligned with the traditional King had won. In municipal elections this past April, the PJD sunk to 7% of the vote. In Jordan in 2007, the Islamic Action Front won just 6 of the 22 seats it contested, down from 17 seats in the previous parliament.

Absent democracy, the roughly 10% of the public in Middle Eastern, Islamic countries willing to shoot their way into power in the name of Allah seems dominant. Actual elections reveal them to be fringe, extremist groups, greatly diminishing their power in favor of reasonable, secular leaders. As a result, the Bush doctrine of advancing democracy and human rights is now increasingly successful in combating terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Now we are seeing these same results in Iran. Where did the people of Iran get the idea that they were entitled to an honest election? They haven't had an honest election there in over 50 years. Maybe it comes from watching their Shiite brothers voting in honest, free elections in neighboring Iraq. And maybe it comes as well from watching the same in neighboring Afghanistan, which had formerly been seen as hopelessly backward for centuries.

Iran's recent sham election fiasco is the biggest victory of all for America and the West, again courtesy of the Bush doctrine of promoting democracy and human rights in the Middle East. All of a sudden, the Islamic theocracy in Iran has been discredited and exposed as illegitimate. Now that the ruling mullahs have had to turn to shooting their own people in the streets to stay in power, it is only a matter of time until their theocracy falls, and the popular will regains power. That result will be enormously beneficial for America, because Iran's theocratic regime is the central power in the Middle East supporting and spreading Islamic radicalism, terrorism, and continued war against Israel and the West. Once Iran's theocracy falls, and is replaced by a secular government, peace between Israel and the Palestinians will be possible and increasingly likely over time.

In this environment, the right policy for America would be to do what it can to promote regime change in Iran. Organizing an international gas embargo would greatly undermine the security forces by creating a shortage of fuel for their vehicles, as Iran has minimal refinery capacity and must import virtually all of its refined gasoline. International sanctions and isolation for the theocratic regime would also help. Covert financial and even military aid to the rebels may be desirable as well

But President Obama is committed to the opposite course. He is committed to still negotiating with the mullah dictators to get a deal to stop Iran's nuclear program. There is zero chance any such negotiations will succeed. The mullahs have already said they are not interested in the materialist incentives of aid and trade packages, or concerned about the materialist harm of sanctions. They are committed to their extremist religious views, which call for wiping Israel off the face of the earth, as they have put it (Holocaust 2.0). President Bush actually carried on diplomatic negotiations with Iran for years regarding its nuclear weapons program through a European coalition and in other forums, and all this did was enable the Iranians to buy time to develop their nuclear weapons.

All Obama's negotiations will achieve is provide legitimacy to the mullah dictators as the real government of Iran, which will delay their fall for years. This reveals the fundamental weakness of Obama's foreign policy. It is weak on the traditional liberal theme of democracy and human rights. Obama's foreign policy is more like Nixon's Realpolitik in its willingness to negotiate and deal with reigning dictators, from Iran to Russia to China to Venezuela, and around the world.

The Honduras Fiasco

Indeed, while Obama did not want to "meddle" in Iran for fear of offending the mullahs, whom he intends to sweet talk out of their nuclear weapons, he was quick to meddle in Honduras as soon as the people acted to defend their democracy from a rogue president, Manuel Zelaya, allied with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Despite what you have heard from the Democrat party-controlled press, there has been no military coup in Honduras. It is still ruled today by a civilian government, not the military, and free elections are still scheduled for November for a new president and government.

What really happened is that Zelaya refused to comply with the law limiting him to one term. Following a Chavez strategy, Zelaya called a national referendum to repeal the term limit, but the Honduran Supreme Court ruled he didn't have the authority to call such a referendum on his own. He nevertheless proclaimed he would proceed with the referendum, using ballots printed by Chavez in Venezuela. When the military seized and impounded the ballots on a military base following the Supreme Court ruling, Zelaya led a violent mob to storm the base and seize and distribute the ballots. The military then arrested Zelaya and deported him, again following the Supreme Court. The National Assembly voted in a replacement president until the elections this November.

Page: 1 2 >

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Iran, Russia, Nuclear Weapons, George W. Bush, Nuclear Deterrence, Hugo Chavez

Big J| 7.8.09 @ 7:36AM

The Bush Doctrine?

How about the Reagan Doctrine: "Peace through strength"?

A concept frighteningly foreign to Obama. He would rather drop trou, assume the position and take the rest of us down with him.

I cannot believe that any of this nonsense is unintentional.

He just cannot be this stupid.

drudge ette obama| 7.8.09 @ 7:41AM

Obama is stunningly proceeding forth against all historical teachings to push an anti-American agenda, both in his foreign relations policy (not Biden's, but Obama's) and in his fiscal suicide policy.

What we see unfolding is nothing other than insanity, cool and deliberate.

There is absolutely no explanation for his refusal to support the rule of law in Honduras. The American people should be embarrassed. I want the Hondurans to know that I support their rule of law. I disagree with Obama. He does not speak for me.

Crusader| 7.8.09 @ 7:53AM

You know, I was taking a tour of Williamsburg, VA recently and on the campus of W&M college there is a building (The Brafferton) that was built to teach and house Indian boys. It was built after an Indian uprising that saw around 350 Virginians slaughtered by the Indians. The guide said that the thinking was if they just educated the Indians then the Indians would not go around slaughtering the Virginia settlers.

While she was talking I thought to myself that this is exactly what we are doing in the Middle East today. We are trying to educate and change savages who have been savages for over 1400 years. We think with a little "democracy" and maybe a McDonald's or two folks are just going to wake up and go from an illiterate bloodthirsty muslim savage to Thomas Jefferson overnight.

How arrogant we are in the West, but we suffer our own arrogance as well. While there can be no argument that a Western-style republic is a better form of government that an islamic dictatorship, why we think the muslims in these countries WANT an American-style republic is beyond me. They have had 1400+ years to break the chains of islam and have not. We can not force "freedom" and (my least favorite word) "democracy" down their throats. We NEVER assume they might just like living how they live. We do assume however that they WANT "democracy" and if we could just get them to be "democratic" well everything would be better and we'd have peace and kittens and butterflies and all sing kumbaya around the campfire. Meanwhile, it is OUR tax dollars that pay for it and more importantly, OUR AMERICAN troops who suffer and die for~~~what exactly?????

Sometimes the best way to deal with savages is through utter brute force. Once they're all gone hey guess what? That peace and kittens and butterflies and singing kumbaya? We would probably have it.

1400 years folks. 1400 years and not once has there been even a shrug by a group of muslims to try and break free from the bondage of islam. Compare that to this. In 1763 the King of England starting imposing higher taxes on the Colonies. By 1791 we were a free and independent nation and were ratifying the 2nd greatest document on Earth, the US Constitution.

1400 years and nothing. 28 years to go from dependent colonies to independent nation.

But, keep telling yourself that the muslims really, really want "freedom and democracy."

Deborah D| 7.8.09 @ 7:58AM

Isn't he elected to defend the Constitution (and therefore the American people)? Just how is he doing that with any of these actions? My God, people, this man is either delusional or hates his country so much that he subconsciously wants it "taken down a peg" and doesn't care about the effects of his actions. Why would any president want to leave his own country defenseless. His daughters live in this country. Where does he think one of the first hits will happen? (D.C. comes to mind).

Robert Rosencrans| 7.8.09 @ 8:03AM

Here's an article, though long, which makes interesting reading. Obama looks like a parallel force to James Carter, former President.

Mr. Ferrara mentioned the payments to the Mullahs as proposed by Obama. Jimmy Carter cut off those payments and triggered the fall of the Shah of Iran leading to many of the problems we have today.

On another note, almost all of our problems with energy can be traced back to the evil and ignorant James Carter.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12132
Let’s remember Jimmy’s record in the White House.

As soon as Carter assumed the oath of office, the White House became peopled with characters out of Li’l Abner’s Dogpatch, including the family matriarch “Miz” Lillian, Jimmy’s Bible-toting sister Ruth, and his beer-guzzling brother Billy, who came to receive a mysterious payment of $2.5 million from the Libyan government.

Determined to end dependency on foreign oil, Jimmy moved to regulate domestic oil prices. The result was the creation of a price-gouging OPEC cartel that sent oil prices soaring, created rampant inflation, and drove the U.S. economy into deep recession. The misery index, Carter’s own invention for determining the well-being of the American people, rose by 50% during his four years in office.

Jimmy went on to relinquish control of the Panama Canal, to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by pulling the U.S. team out of the Olympics, and by attempting to normalize relations with Cuba through the opening of “interest sections” in Washington and Havana. His Cuban policy resulted in the Mariel Boatlift whereby Fidel Castro sent 120,000 refugees - - including mental patients and hardened criminals - - to Miami, thereby transforming the resort city into the crime capital of the United States.

Space does not a permit a discussion of his Latin American policy that gave rise to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua of his ALT-2 agreement with the Soviet Union, which resulted in lobbyists gaining more power than the highest-ranking Pentagon officials.

Carter’s real legacy remains in Iran with the Islamic Revolution and the rise of the murderous mullahs.

Before Jimmy entered the White House, America’s closest friend and ally in the Muslim world was Iran’s Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ascended to the Peacock Throne as shah (the Persian word for king) in 1941.

The shah modernized Iran by launching the so-called “white revolution,” a massive attempt to Westernize the Persian country through the construction of roads, railways, airports, dams for power and irrigation, agribusiness, pipelines for the oil companies, steel and petrochemical plants, heavy metallurgy, and public health, education, and welfare programs. He bolstered the expansion of U.S. business and industry throughout Iran; shared he spoils of his country’s oil reserves with Britain and the United States; endorsed (at the request of President Eisenhower) the Baghdad Pact to ward off the spread of communism in the Middle East, and never voted against America in the United Nations.

By the 1960s, Iran’s back-alley bazaars became transformed into Fifth Avenue shops. Rock ‘n roll blared from the radio stations. Movie theaters showed the latest Hollywood flicks, and programs like Rawhide and I Love Lucy played on Iranian television. Restaurants served beer and hotdogs. Nightclubs and casinos catered to foreign tourists, foreign contractors, and foreign military advisers.

And let’s remember that the shah, unlike the fat Mid Eastern despots and dictators, never asked or received a dime in U.S. foreign aid.

But not all Iranians were pleased with the changes. The Shi’ite clerics viewed the democratic changes as diabolic. The straw that broke the camel’s back came with the shah’s democratic ruling that Iranian officials were free to take their oath of office on whatever holy scripture they preferred - - including the Christian Bible. The mullahs under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rose to condemn the shah in mosques and seminaries and to demand his removal from the throne.

Enter Jimmy Carter.

Instead of supporting America’s ally, Jimmy, true to his form as a turncoat, supported the Ayatollah as a “fellow man of religion.” Andrew Young, Carter’s ambassador to the UN, went so far as to call Khomeini, who sanctioned sex with cows and camels, a “misunderstood saint.”

When Khomeini launched his evil revolution, Carter refused to provide the shah with any kind of military assistance despite the pleading of the shah.

Instead, Jimmy demanded that he release from prison all the murderous mullahs and militant radicals who were bound and determined to overthrow the government and to impose an intransigent interpretation of shariah (Muslim law) on every Iranian.

The shah acquiesced to this demand and the rest in history.

The Ayatollah - - Carter’s misunderstood saint - - came to power and launched a bloodbath that resulted in the deaths of twenty-thousand pro-Western Iranians. Churches and synagogues were razed, cemeteries desecrated, and shrines vandalized and demolished. The judicially murdered included the 102 year-old Kurdish poet Allameh Vahidi and a 9 year-old girl convicted of “attacking revolutionary guards.” Women were reduced to servitude. They lost their rights to attend school, to initiate divorce, or to retain custody of their children. When they appeared in public, women were obliged to wear the hijab (the traditional Islamic head cover). All American music was outlawed. The movie theaters were shut down; the nightclubs closed. To top things off, the Muslim militants overran the U.S. embassy in Teheran and seized sixty Americans as hostages.

Good ole Jimmy responded by his infamous “malaise speech” of July 15, 1979 in which the former peanut former expressed his belief that America had lost its guts and remained in a state of near senility.

The shah was treated by the Carter White House as a pariah and died of cancer in Cairo on July 27, 1980.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran fanned the flames of jihad throughout the world and gave birth to al Qaeda and hundreds of other Muslim terror groups.

In recent years, the former peanut farmer has been cultivating friendships with such rabid anti-American dictators as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong-il.

And now Jimmy, ever true to form, is demanding that we embrace Hamas and Hezbollah as our friends - - just as he embraced the crazed Khomeini and the mad mullahs.

drudge ette obama| 7.8.09 @ 8:22AM

Crusader, eradication begets eradication. There is no possible way to annihilate the Muslim people and retain our security or buy peace. Your instinct to do so arises from your strong sense of surivival. Survival of yourself, your family and friends and your country. Personally, I could care a less if the Islamic countries withered away and became nonexistent. Their population is causing us all way too many serious problems.

I do not know what the Muslim people want. In this country, American Muslims (many whose names were Robinson but now are known as Abdul or Muhammed) seem to hate the white Christians. Even after 9/11, the few Muslims that I know didn't rise against the Muslim terrorists. They cheered. Some decried Bush, if you can understand that. One friend was sad that she knew some dead people in the World Trade Center, but limited her sadness to her personal loss alone.

Then you have the Black Muslim movement in this country, so full of hate and racism.

I believe that American Muslims want power at the expense of freedom and democracy. Hence the slow Sharia law infringement in the USA. (Fannie Mae has Sharia loans, Islamic investors prefer Caribou Cafe as a Shariah-friendly investment.) Otherwise, we would see more Muslims speaking out. They are controlled through their mosques which are scattered throughout our cities.

Finally, freedom of religion which is a tenet of this country's existence cannot exist side by side with
Islamic peoples because it threatens the power of the Islamic leaders. I know that Turkey has some semblance of a secular political power, but it is tenuous and always being challenged. Our founders knew that state-run religion was a danger to man's freedom and totalitarianistic by its nature. We are destroying the freedom of religion with our government policies and court rulings limiting primarily Christian religious expression but allowing Islamic religious practices. This opens the door for Islamic Shariah law.

I agree that history tells that if freedom and democracy were true goals in Islamic countries, then they would have happened already. Perhaps the cultural structures are so strong that the people are controlled beyond hope for change (sorry for the use of that word...)

Mattled| 7.8.09 @ 8:41AM

Rosencrans,

Spot on! Carter is cheering obama on to replace him as the worst president in modern history, or maybe all history. He's doing a bang up job!

With -3 in the polls (Rasmussen, the rest are worthless except for maybe Gallup) he is well on his way, a trend as a matter of fact, to dipping below an overall 50% approval and sit in his 40's for a year. I welcome the hope and change!

As for the Russians, they don't just lie, they like to make a point. They will in fact speed up their build-up of their arsenal and will eventually brag about it.

Obama has no idea how little they think of him. Obama thinks he can negotiate with Ahmadinejad and Chavez----the Russians have already cut a deal with them.

I don't think Obama is naive, I think he's delusional.

macdaddy| 7.8.09 @ 8:55AM

I am deeply concerned by the entire matter.

zelrik| 7.8.09 @ 9:41AM

Part of it is so wrong, both US and Russia have 40 000 warheads each. China : ~350 at most. Who is the biggest threat? I dont think China has any intention to fight anyone. They are just protecting what they think they should protect and only care about economy growth for now. Note that they made no comment on Iran's events. Note also that they are not really siding with N Korea either recently.

Pingback| 7.8.09 @ 9:50AM

Problems in China | Axis of Right links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…are to eclipse us as the next superpower. Frankly, Obama is nearly ensuring that our hegemonic days are numbered and that usurpation will take place sooner rather than later because of Obama’s foreign and domestic policies. Since 1979, China has moved 100 million people into the middle and upper class. Yet, that’s still less than 10% of their population. Most of the country are poor…

Ke Co| 7.8.09 @ 9:52AM

See for yourself- and please watch what really happened last week in Honduras the the media didn't want you to see: Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choluteca, and La Ceiba
---
http://www.youtube.com/user/SupportHonduras
---
Please show your friends what really happened in Honduras last week and overcome this media blackout. Honduras people are proud that their Constitution has overcome the attack of leftist Dictators. See them celebrate the rule of law triumph over despots, and recognize that their Constitution is what ensures their liberty and true Democracy.
---
Read the following to combat Lefitst lies that dispute legality:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m7d5-Will-Obama-blackmail-Honduras-into-installing-a-bullying-wouldbe-dictator

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 9:53AM

To connect the vote in Lebanon to our invasion of Iraq is absurd. If you had been reading Daniel Larison instead of know-nothing partisans in the US press, you would realize that the increase for the "pro-Western" coalition was largely the result of quirks in the Lebanese parliamentary system and not because of greater votes. In fact, the opposition party won an increased number of votes. The coalitions are a mish-mash of interests. The opposition that includes Hezbollah also includes the majority of Lebanese Christians and was lead by a Maronite.

Some liberals are also trying to credit these changes to the new Obama administration that is seen as less hostile. This is equally foolish. It is an illustration of myopic US arrogance that we believe any change must somehow be related to US policy.

We do not need the Bush Doctrine which is belligerence first interventionism. We do not need the Obama Doctrine which is kinder and gentler interventionism. We need the Washington/Adams Founder's Doctrine of minding our own business and quit meddling and trying to play world policeman. That would also happen to be the CONSERVATIVE doctrine and what ought to be gracing the website of a conservative publication.

John II| 7.8.09 @ 10:49AM

Robert: Thanks for the recapitulation. Carter's foreign policy vis-a-vis the Middle East was (and continues to be: the man is incapable of learning) perfectly articulated by his slightly more ridiculous brother Billy when the latter was being regaled by Libya: "There's a helluva lot mo' A-rabs in the world than there is Jews."

macdaddy| 7.8.09 @ 10:52AM

Uh, Red, can you point to any time in history when minding our own business was a successful policy for any significant length of time? No. There is no human social activity where minding your own business is an option for more than about 5 minutes. Not in school. Not at work. Not within your own family. We can certainly try, but history has shown that if you mind only your own business, eventually other people will try to mind your business. I'd like my government to make sure that other countries don't try to mind our business.

Crusader| 7.8.09 @ 11:11AM

Drudge ette obama,

I am not calling for the systematic eradication of muslim peoples (not yet anyway). What I think SHOULD have happened after 9/11 is as follows:

- Freeze immigration from muslim countries
- All federal law enforcement officers should have been engaged in tracking down muslim illegals and visa over-stayers
- Raid the islamic terror camps in America
- Answer the attacks by blowing away a few large muslim cities in the middle east. Cairo & Mecca would have been a good start. Warn further islamic terror attacks will be met with even deadlier responses. Tell them they can terrorize each other inside their own borders all they want, stone their rape victims, mutilate their little girls' genitals, whatever, but export their terror crap and another city will be wiped off the map.

This 1-for-1 "proportional" war or whatever it is we are supposedly fighting is not working. If you had a cockroach infestation in your house you would not just stomp on the ones you could see. You would get rid of ALL the roaches in your house.

Deborah D| 7.8.09 @ 11:18AM

This article is just proof that "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." I always thought that eventually these folks would grow up...not true, not true at all.

vc| 7.8.09 @ 11:20AM

And lo W. Bush, the one true messiah, delivered the unenlightened from darkness by his divine glory.

John II| 7.8.09 @ 11:30AM

macdaddy: My impression is that Red simply represents the strain of isolationism that's always been a part of the American character. Most of us don't have to look back more than three or four generations before we run into a family story of someone coming to America in order to get away from something ugly and imbecile. Americans by and large show little interest in foreign affairs because, I think, we are all descendants of people who, in one way or another, washed their hands of the rest of the world. Whence the strain of isolationism by which we're all tempted to one extent or another.

Of course, Red's comments are absurd in their selective attribution of causality, and the attribution of "arrogance" to American "meddling" is a double-canard whose plausibility immediately dissipates when one considers our actual relations with the rest of the world apart from, for example, the fuzzy Georgetown types who inhabit Foggy Bottom. (Nothing lends greater credence to Red's isolationist leanings than the frequently arrogant character of the twits who are drawn to careers in foreign service!)

Arrogance isn't the issue. The issue is national interest and survival in an astonishingly hostile world peppered with thugs who would like to see the whole American thing obliterated because it crimps their vicious style. Bottom line, so to speak.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 11:36AM

"Uh, Red, can you point to any time in history when minding our own business was a successful policy for any significant length of time?"

macdaddy, can you point me to a significant period of time where it was tried? There have always been imperialistic "American greatness" types eager to muck around in other countries affairs. What remains undeniable is that at the national level tending to one's own affairs is the innately CONSERVATIVE instinct. No one has ever suggested that parents not minding the affairs of their children in a family situation is good policy. You are conflating things. Parents have an INHERENT authority over their kids. America the nation state does not have inherent authority over other nation states as much as the crusading internationalists would like to believe that.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 12:07PM

John II, I was arguing against selective attribution of causality. The author says Lebanon is a result of the fact that the Bush Doctrine is still working. Liberal internationalist attribute it to the new administration's kinder and gentler approach. Who is correct? Ferrara? The liberal internationalists? Both? Neither? It is impossible to know especially given the complexity of Lebanese politics. One intimately familiar with the situation could formulate an educated guess, but partisan bickering among co-internationalists of different stripes does not lend itself to educated assessments. It lends itself to name calling, finger pointing, and highly uneducated attributions of causality, with no questioning of the fundamentally LIBERAL internationalist assumptions.

The arrogance is the assumption that all must naturally be directly related to American policy. It might be. It might not be. This calls for an educated assessment.

Beyond arrogance is the simplistic dichotomization. All is black and white and good and evil. Pro-West and anti-West. What silliness. The world does not work that way. I find it rather disturbing that many American Christians who have bought the simplistic formulizations have placed their co-religionists in Lebanon on the side of evil.

The world is a dangerous place. That is part of the non-interventionist point. Human are flawed and imperfectable. "Evil" cannot be stamped out at the point of a gun. The threat cannot be reduced to zero by even greater and greater belligerence. It is at least conceivable, silly me, that threats could be reduced by making nice and minding our own business instead of reflexive belligerence which heightens tensions.

Threats must be REALISTICALLY assessed, and responded to in a way that is consistent with constitutional governance and Christian Just War Doctrine. (Guess what. No pre-emptive or preventative war allowed.) Chicken Little like "Oh my! The Islamomeanies are out to get us!" fear mongering is not a realistic assessment of the threat.

Pingback| 7.8.09 @ 12:14PM

Obamarama in Russia! « Jim Blazsik links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Day by Ed Morrissey Document drop: Porkulus One is a failure, so let’s do it again! By Michelle Malkin Daily Gut: America Ranks 114th on the ‘Happy Planet Index’ by Greg Gutfeld The Bush Doctrine Is Still Working By Peter Ferrara Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Obamarama! Let’s enjoy Barack’s gaffes, mistakes, blunders and the othe… Obamarama happens! Let’s enjoy…

Think First| 7.8.09 @ 12:25PM

Does Hitler come to you mind at all Red? The US and Europe did it's best to mind it's own business before being dragged in to war. WWI still fresh in many people's minds, Congress and the Prez insisted on minding it's own business and not provoking Hitler. He's such a good boy and popular in the Elite circles, Universities and with Hollywood types.

Chamberlain was not alone in his feelings of live and let live. And Hitler suckered them all. No we can't be the world's enforcer, but like the fiercest pitched battles in Congress over attacking pirates in Tripoli who were attacking our trade ships, we learned long ago expecting to be left alone is foolish in the extreme and to deny history for the thousands of years we have records.

Constitutionally we prefer staying out of others affairs. Realistically we always knew defending freedom in those seeking it protects our own. And if you don't believe Islamo Fascists are out to get ANYONE not one of them you are naive in the extreme. That's a huge difference in the Persian empires belief which relished trade and openness. Iran was once a proud part of that as an article by Dr. Alex Benzer who lived there until 13 showed in an article in the Huffington Post no less.

Carter brought these idiots to power and as a reward they named us evil and declared war on us. We left them alone alright and that helped stop 9/11?

Wake up.

Michael Tomlinson| 7.8.09 @ 12:36PM

Bush was right and Obama is a neo-fascist and like all true Democrats a supporter of tyrants, despots and anti-American haters (not unlike a minority who read TAS and claim to be "conservatives").

Old Texican| 7.8.09 @ 12:40PM

Red
I can appreciate your "mind our own business" thoughts. I often have them too.
Nasty realities of history keep coming up though.

...Tripoli pirates. Should we have called all our merchant ships home?

.....Nazi Germany. Should we have waited on our own shores for them to come for us?
If Britain had been defeated...and it was a close run thing...without lend-lease and fuel, The battle of Britain could not have been won.

Germany might have beaten the Soviets, and gobbled them up too.

We could argue the merits demerits of all the above and many others all life long, but I would rather have pax Americana vs. Pax Germanica or Pax Internationale.
OK?

Robert...

Your analysis...Carter/Obama is as always rather brilliant and thouroughgoing. I have one problem however.
I honestly believe Mr. Carter was at heart, a patriot. He took himself in harm's way "up north" courageously...driving a nuke sub....for years. He was not always a peanut farmer.

I have said it a thousand times..."I would never hesitate to put my children in his Sunday school class, but he is frighteningly obtuse of truly evil men."
During his presidency...I went to (deep) east Texas and worked my butt off to build and stock a self-sufficient farm.

RE: Obama
I appreciated you key phrase,"parallel force to James Carter..."

In my heart of hearts, I believe Obama is coming from an entirely different place. I believe he despises "America" equally as much as Chavez, Che, Castro, et al.
One of the guys here used the phrase: "take America down a peg".
I honestly believe he wants to take us all the way down.
Say what you will about "Dubyah", I honestly believe he loves this country...warts and all, and would love for other peoples to have a scrap of the hope we have sometimes taken for "granted" ...(to us).

Old Texican| 7.8.09 @ 12:44PM

Think First
My goodness. I was busily typing my post above while you were typing yours. I had not seen yours, but our respones were so similar...brrrrr chill bumps.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 12:49PM

Think First, I have commented before on the tendency of liberal internationalist interventionists, whether of the "neocon" or traditional liberal variety, to go straight to Hitler and WWII as their all purpose trump card for any and every intervention. Even if you buy entirely the Good War court history, which I don't, it is purely emotive and unreasonable to trot that out as justification for every subsequent and future intervention. Needless to say, this does not contribute to the reasonable assessment I'm speaking of if every failure to act against some perceived present threat (meaning pretty much bombing somebody) means the next Hitler is forever lurking around the corner. This is irrational fear mongering.

John II| 7.8.09 @ 1:15PM

Hi Red. I think most of your points are at least arguable (for example, preemptive military strikes are not necessarily disallowed by "Just War Doctrine," which is not as tight or cut-and-dried as you seem to insist), so that the apodictic articulation of your points leaves me zero room for response. You're basically telling me that you're right and I'm a fool. Fine. I happen to believe that the isolationist impulse in the American character is a very useful and good braking mechanism against the obvious danger of runaway internationalism, so I'm happy to be considered a fool for not buying into the impulse.

But I'd like to respond to a few of your comments to macdaddy. Such as . . .

"macdaddy, can you point me to a significant period of time where [minding our own business] was tried?"

How about the 22 years between the disastrous Treaty of Versailles and Pearl Harbor? That's almost a generation, which I would take to be a significant period of time.

"There have always been imperialistic 'American greatness' types eager to muck around in other countries' affairs."

Not really. That impulse arose in the late 19th century, found expression in the Spanish-American War, and pretty much pooped out with the passing of the Bull Moose party. Since the end of World War II, when America was finally and irrevocably and (I'm happy to say) reluctantly saddled with the status of world power, the American stance abroad has been consistently anti-imperialist, arguably too much so, as in the Suez crisis.

"What remains undeniable is that at the national level tending to one's own affairs is the innately CONSERVATIVE instinct."

Not really, and certainly not undeniably. Churchill was hugely conservative, whatever one may think of Roosevelt.

" No one has ever suggested that parents not minding the affairs of their children in a family situation is good policy."

No one? Remember Dr. Spock? I am acquainted with many parents whose "policy" is hands-off. Another word for it is irresponsibility.

" You are conflating things. Parents have an INHERENT authority over their kids. America the nation state does not have inherent authority over other nation states as much as the crusading internationalists would like to believe that."

Analogy is never perfect, nor is it the same thing as conflation. I have never heard anyone, including those whom you call internationalists, suggest that America has "authority" over any other sovereign nation, and unlike yourself I can't presume to read their minds and interior motives. If they really believe such nonsense, one would expect them to blurt it out now and then; it's humanly implausible that they could all keep it a secret. I think you're distorting the analogy and thus setting up a straw man. Rather like your dismissive reference to "Chicken Little" in your response to me.

And I don't find it particularly "conservative" to express one's thoughts in such a slovenly manner.
But you're right and I'm a fool, so let's leave it there. I really AM grateful for the isolationist impulse, cantankerous and unreasoning though it may frequently be.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 1:16PM

Old Texican, the Barbary Pirates are an instructive example. It is perfectly reasonable for our Navy to protect our merchant ships when necessary. (Although there is a long and complicated history of merchant ships providing for their own security.) They were demanding tribute. Some in Congress wanted to pay it and avoid trouble for the fledgling nation. Thomas Jefferson did not. I know of no non-interventionists who would condemn that. While it could be argued that the First Barbary War was a "policing action" (to use modern terminology), I and many other non-interventionists do think there should have been a formal declaration of war, but again, I know of no non-interventionists who condemns the naval action per se.

Now let's apply that to Saddam. Had Saddam been demanding tribute on every barrel of oil flowing through the Persian Gulf, then I would have been all in favor of us taking whatever proportional action was required to rectify that situation. But that is not what was going on. Depending on what version you pick, we were either spreading democracy, responding to 9/11 which Iraq had nothing to do with, enforcing UN mandates, or whatever. Even if you grant the most charitable explanation which is we were afraid Saddam MIGHT have WMDs which he MIGHT use, that is still preventaive war and is un-Christian.

Apples and Oranges.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 2:01PM

"How about the 22 years between the disastrous Treaty of Versailles and Pearl Harbor? That's almost a generation, which I would take to be a significant period of time."

You are going to have to do better than that. We should not have intervened in WWI swinging the balance in what was a stalemate. WWII was a direct result of the punative Treaty of Versailles, a treaty that would not and could not have been so punative absent our intervention. And while the impulse of the American people, intrawar, was for non-intervention, the government was not persuing that course. FDR was deliberately trying to provoke the Japanese so he could back door us into the War in Europe. Some non-intervention.

""There have always been imperialistic 'American greatness' types eager to muck around in other countries' affairs."

Not really. That impulse arose in the late 19th century, found expression in the Spanish-American War, and pretty much pooped out with the passing of the Bull Moose party."

Some of us would attribute Lincoln's little invasion to such instincts, and I'm sure there are a few Indians whose ancestors were forced marched to scrub land who might disagree as well. Roosevelt and the Spanish American War were an overt expression of that sentiment, but it arguably arose with the Puritans and continues to this day in the guise of "American exceptionalism." Neoconservatism is an equally overt expression of this idea, but it doesn't cloak itself in the language of American self interest alone. It invokes universalists appeals and their benevolent expansion (at the point of a gun of course) for the betterment of all mankind. How this ever came to be associated with conservatism is beyond me.

Just War Doctrine does allow what might be called pre-emptive war in very limited circumstances. If someone is raring back to hit you, you don't have to wait to get hit to respond, but such requires an imminent actionable (to use more modern terminology) threat. Iraq did not rise anywhere close to that.

"the American stance abroad has been consistently anti-imperialist, arguably too much so, as in the Suez crisis."

Oh really? How many countries do we have troops stationed in?

"I have never heard anyone, including those whom you call internationalists, suggest that America has "authority" over any other sovereign nation"

Again, oh really? What is behind all the hand wringing about Iran's nuclear program other than an inherent assumption that we have the right to tell another sovereign nation what kind of weapons it can have? We have to have troops stationed in the Middle East to insure the free flow of oil we are told. Really, do other nations get to station troops here to insure the free flow of grain? Good Americans would take to the streets with pitch forks before they would allow such a thing, but the people in the Middle East are all supposed to think it is just peachy that we have our troops over there . It is inherent in the whole notion of "sole Superpower." The revolutionary wants his country to be a Superpower. The conservative wants his country to be normal.

Old Texican| 7.8.09 @ 2:01PM

OK Red
You have staked out your position pretty clearly.
Thank you.
Go tend to your farm and quit the hell "intervening" in the conversation about foreign policy.

Heck, guy, don't you see?
You yourself have gone to war..."of words" with fellow Americans who have lived overseas and in the third world.

No, Saddam was cooking to have a tribute on ALL Arab oil...duh "desert storm".

He got his butt kicked so decided to "delegate" through surrogates to accomplish the same thing.

WWII is NOT my trump card.

Pax Americana is my trump card. (see my post above) and may I add that pax Americana is better in my humble opinion than Pax Islam.
Best regards

Think First| 7.8.09 @ 2:28PM

Red,

Just because you deem WWII and Hitler as moot carries no weight with any rational argument. You may wish you could pick and choose but reality doesn't work that way. I clearly stated we are not the world's policeman nor should we expect to be the savior of every perceived injustice.

I won't even touch on Iraq because I for one thought Bush blew it by endlessly delaying action while telegraphing his intent. Absurd.

There are evil people in this world which will not come together and sing kumbaya no matter how much you may want to. As has been proven too many times hiding your head in the sand won't keep your a** from getting kicked very soundly. It just puts it in better position for the thrashing to come.

By your logic, Christ would never have driven the evil priests from the temple or told soldiers who fought for Ceasar to render Ceasar his due. When you take "Thou shalt not kill" and understand it was literally "Thou shalt not murder" as a follow on to using greed and jealousy as a justification to further your own base desires, it becomes clear.

Trying to use the Bible as a means to defend hiding in your shell is stating clearly you don't understand even the smallest part of it. Dig deeper and understand it's lessons.

Pingback| 7.8.09 @ 2:34PM

Now We’re Nazi’s links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…2009 statewide races. Let’s cap all the hot air from D.C. from WorldNetDaily Commentary Exclusive: Judge Roy Moore lashes Obama’s remaking of nation’s energy system The Bush Doctrine Is Still Working from The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog by Peter Ferrara Jenkins: Does Obama Want to Own the Airlines? from WSJ.com: Opinion Welcome to government for the benefit of government…

Old Texican| 7.8.09 @ 2:34PM

Red Phillips

I just had another chilling thought.

ARE YOU IN FACT A FELLOW AMERICAN...OR A "RED" FROM SOMEWHERE THE HELL IN THE EARTH?

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 3:04PM

Old Texican, I was born in Tennessee, raised in Georgia, and have lived in multiple areas of the good ol' US of A courtesy of the USAF. I am a former USAF officer and served three years overseas including one Gulf War related deployment to Hungary. Red is a reference to my hair color. Any other questions? Coming from a man who calls himself Old Texican but listed 1861 as a war when the US was fighting for freedom against the baddies (which would have included YOUR HOME STATE), I think I would be a bit careful about making implications about someone's patriotism from a screen name.

Serving overseas, I saw that the inhabitants, even in generally US friendly nations, do not see our actions as benevolent. They saw them as bullying. Although they are more than happy to take our money which made for a bit of an ambivalent relationship.

Think First, I really don't have the slightest idea what point you were trying to make. Using terms like "burying your head" is part of my point. Your justification is emotive formulaic sloganeering. It is not thoughtful policy analysis. Next you will tell me that "we got to fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here."

Rehabilitated Pharisee| 7.8.09 @ 3:29PM

Some of the posts and many of the points in this article are delusional and smack of the pompous, dogmatic and sanctimonious undertones that we are better than everyone else and we need only to smack them around a little until they realize our superiority. Now I see why the GOP is lost in the wilderness. Points like we will "only have 1500 nuclear missiles" (how many do we need) and one of the posters saying that the Muslims were hopeless savages (are you kidding me? Christians have killed many many many more people throughout history) This poster needs to read some basic history and not get his history lessons from Bible camp.

AntonioSosa| 7.8.09 @ 4:31PM

The U.S. should be supporting Hondurans and the rule of law, not Zelaya, a Chavez clone desperate to enslave Hondurans! It's despicable that, rather than defending the human rights of Hondurans and Latin Americans, Obama is siding with the Marxist thugs who are trampling on those human rights and working with drug cartels and Islamic terrorist to destroy the U.S!

I guess it was to be expected from Obama. As his parents, relatives, friends and mentors, Obama is a Marxist who hates the U.S. As such, he sides with Marxist dictators and would-be dictators who seek to enslave their countries and destroy the U.S.

Zelaya behaved illegally and the Honduras military acted under the orders of the country's Supreme Court to remove that president, and to elevate the person next in line under the Honduras Constitution. This is Constitutional Democracy in action combating illegal behavior by a sitting President. Is that why Obama does not like it?

Zelaya was implementing in Honduras the scheme devised by the enemies of freedom and implemented by Chavez and the rest of the Marxist thugs to gain absolute power. They would like Zelaya to be reinstated so he can continue with his plans to enslave Honduras while pretending to act democratically. Is that why Obama wants Zelaya reinstated?

Old Texican| 7.8.09 @ 5:02PM

Antonio!
Grreat post! Thank you.

Rehab patient:
Thank you. Get back in rehab....quickly.

Red
Thank you for your service to our country. God bless that service. I am going to take you at your word.
I did not live in this State at that time. DUH!
Nevertheless, "the war of Northern Aggression" has not escaped my notice.
If you want to argue...argue the merits of the case...not my foerbears' and your's in Tennessee.

I have NEVER said fight em there instead of here...but I should have...knumbskull!

I don't particularly care how "they" see our actions. Most of them where you lived...live under pax americana. The ones that do not... would give their left nut to,
bitch...(smile... I ended a sentence with a preposition and had to change it.)
Were you honorably discharged? or retire in honor?
How could you do that and at the same time believe you were doing wrong?

Are you simply expunging guilt here?

I'm the jerk that built the runways when you airforce pukes were not even there yet...got the shrapnel at every airport gate ...still...to prove it.

On behalf of the airforce you may say thank you now.
Look...it is pretty obvious that you do not read previous comments thoughtfully. You just jump in and grind your axe.
Fine!
So you like Obama turning and ducking and bowing to tyrants?

William R| 7.8.09 @ 5:05PM

Real Iranian Revolt
by Donald Devine
July 8, 2009

http://acuf.org/issues/issue135/090704news.asp

The past 8 years should be enough to convince any clear thinking person that the last thing we should do is listen to the NeoCons.

John II| 7.8.09 @ 5:16PM

"What is behind all the hand wringing about Iran's nuclear program other than an inherent assumption that we have the right to tell another sovereign nation what kind of weapons it can have?"

Hi Red. Figured you for a southern gentleman. At least I was right about SOMEthing. Otherwise, you're right, and I'm a fool.

But save that complex question I just tossed back at you. When you're in a less cocky humor, I'll try to answer it for you.

By the way, in the Army I was stationed in Kaiserslautern next door to Ramstein AFB--lo now, these 40 years past. There was a guy from Brown University--another conscript--with whom I used to get into the same kind of argument, but he never called the US "imperialistic." We both understood that we were in Germany to put the damper on the Russkies not to control Germany.

Here's one we can probably agree on: the stationing of American troops in various strategic parts of the world since the end of WWII, whether or not "imperialistic," has rendered various parts of the world--including Japan and South Korea and just about all of (Western) Europe--fat, lazy, and generally feckless to the point where they sometimes seem scarcely worth defending.

But I'll return to the Iran question when you're in a more civil mood. And by the way again, you Air Force guys are really shitty poker players!

Marc Jeric| 7.8.09 @ 5:43PM

Carter was and still is an intellectual moron. Abu Hussein from Kenya is worse - he thinks that he is a genius but in fact he is just another revolutionary marxist. America is resilient - Reagan wiped out the Carter's misdeeds in less than 3 years; we now need another Reagan.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 5:54PM

Yes I was honorably discharged. I separated when my commitment was up. I did not retire.

But you need to relax and take a few deep breaths.

"So you like Obama turning and ducking and bowing to tyrants?"

This is a perfect illustration of the problem. So many interventionists have personalized foreign policy as if it was some sort of schoolyard standoff with a bully. Foreign policy has become a macrocosm of the schoolyard microcosm. It's all about talking tough, and muscle flexing, and chest beating, and not taking it, and standing up to bullies, and not backing down, etc. etc. etc. So discussion of foreign policy sounds like a bunch of testosterone addled youths vying to become schoolyard alpha male. That is why it is so hard to get past the emotions, and get real policy beyond sloganeering boilerplate.

Negotiating with people that it is in our best interests to negotiate with is common sense. Not making unnecessary enemies by bully pulpit blathering is wise policy. Avoiding confrontation when possible instead of provoking it is prudent and Christian.

I am no fan of Obama’s liberal interventionism, but to characterize it as “turning and ducking and bowing to tyrants” is mindless emotional nonsense. What I would “like” is for Obama to start withdrawing our troops and following a conservative foreign policy of non-intervention with little mind to what “tyrants” are doing elsewhere, but I obviously ain’t going to get that. That given, I would rather have discretion and prudence than knee-jerk chest thumping and belligerence as first resort.

Mr. Sosa actually makes my point, and you fail to realize it. Obama condemned what happened in Honduras because liberals are democracy fetishists and reflexively decry anything that hints of a military “coup.” The impulse to decry what happened in Honduras is the same impulse that the spread democracy crowd here wanted him to display re. Iran. He was right to withhold significant comment in the latter case, and he should have exercised the same judgment and restraint in the former.

Don Casebolt| 7.8.09 @ 5:57PM

Bush cannot be said to have consistently supported democracy in the Middle East. Ferrara only selectively cites examples that support his thesis and ignores others, (the autocratic Saudis, the Egyptian regime with its president for life that keeps getting elected with Stalinian majorities of 98-99%, ad nauseum), undermining his believability because anyone who does not address the obvious counter-examples to his assertions must be suspected to be either ignorant or crudely partisan. As he graduated from Harvard, I will assume he is not the first. I suggest that if he does not want to engage in simplistic Obama bashing (i.e. preach to the Spectator choir), he sharper his skills a bit

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 6:17PM

Donald Devine is a wise man although he is sometimes hindered by his association with the ultra movement con ACU. His article that William linked to is excellent. A rational and reasoned consideration of the reality of the situation in Iran. Read it and learn. But I guess the "conservatives" here will determine that Devine must be some sort of liberal because he doesn't want Obama beating his chest on behalf of the demonstrators in Iran.

Jeff| 7.8.09 @ 7:04PM

HAHAHA The Bush Doctrine was hopelessly naieve. I think most people are not completely retarded agree. Invading Iraq was the stupidest motherfucking thing we could ever do.

Old Texican| 7.8.09 @ 8:00PM

Red
Your internal contradictions in your thinking are so apparent that it is embarrassing. Read your answer to me, knothead!
And you never did answer an honest question I raised...ie: would you rather hax "pax-anbodyelse"?
Answer that or drop out of honest discourse.

Old Texican| 7.8.09 @ 8:08PM

damit two typos!
"would you rather have "pax Americana...or pax-anybodyelse"?

John II| 7.8.09 @ 8:36PM

"Donald Devine is a wise man although he is sometimes hindered by his association with the ultra movement con ACU. His article that William linked to is excellent. A rational and reasoned consideration of the reality of the situation in Iran. Read it and learn."

Hi Red. Could I ask you what you mean by "the reality of the situation in Iran"? Perhaps my trouble with the expression would be clear if I backed off a bit from the fault-line and said that I was very impressed by an encyclopedic article explaining "the reality of the situation in Calgary, Alberta." How would you respond to a remark like that?

I'd already read the Devine piece, and it doesn't clarify anything, much less reveal something of such metaphysical grandeur as "the reality of the situation." The main point of the article seems to be that the governing structure of Iran is complex (so were those of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, to name a few complex organizations of the past), and the unsupported claim that the demonstrators merely represent factions who share a common hostility to the West is itself vaguely qualified--so vaguely that the "reality" you allude to disappears into a mist.

But of course, you're right, and I'm a fool. I'm not forgetting the rules of this game you're playing. Still, it must be extremely comforting to know that you have "reality" down pat. Myself, I've always thought "reality" rather a slippery thing, given St. Paul's passing remark that we can only see the world through a glass darkly.

Meanwhile, what fundamentally do you take to be different in substance from your posts so far and those of Jeff, just a few slots up?

As Napoleon Dynamite would say: Gosh!

Brian Kwik| 7.8.09 @ 8:48PM

It's always unfortunate when authors of popular (well, not that popular) conservative journals misunderstand even the basic concepts of international relations. Power doesn't bandwagon. It balances.

kilroywashere| 7.8.09 @ 8:53PM

you wrote:
'That result will be enormously beneficial for America, because Iran's theocratic regime is the central power in the Middle East supporting and spreading Islamic radicalism, terrorism, and continued war against Israel and the West.'
there is a huge omission: add to your article that Saudi Arabia has been doing (still does) the same, maybe the people there wake up to remove the oppressive Middle Ages style kingdom, that would make a difference, why everybody forget the saudis?

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 10:19PM

red is a commie puke and is probably lying about serving, like the " Ranger" the media loved. Who was your Senior Drill Instructor, red? Or did you forget?

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 10:21PM

brian kwik, wtf are you babbling about?

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 10:29PM

jeff, congrats! you made the moron of the day club. i bet your ass looks like 150 pounds of chewed bubble gum, pot head!

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 10:31PM

John II, the point is that Devine makes an effort to explain the complicating factors and forces of Iran's internal politics, something that most Americans who follow our media are totally unaware of, and cautions caution with our rhetoric. Compare this to a lot of the Ahmadinejad bad, Mousavi good, current regime evil, protesters virtuous and pro-western supporters of "reform," simplistic black and white dichotomization that has characterized most of the debate on the "right." The difference should be obvious. The same with the election in Lebanon. Compare the detailed and nuanced analysis of a Daniel Larison to the pro-western anti-western simplifications in this article.

Besides protesting that I think I am a know it all, I’m not sure exactly what you are advocating other than the same ol’ interventionism. What should be our policy and why?

Old Texican, your desire for a Pax Americana proves my point that John II argues died away that many interventionists assume some grand role (often presumed to be Divinely ordained) for the US in bringing about benevolent world hegemony by force if necessary all for the greater good of mankind of course. If this doesn't presume some special right to dictate to other sovereign nation states then I don't know what does. This stance is not only grossly hubristic, it is arguably blasphemous presuming as it does a role for America as redeemer nation that can only belong to God. It is also cartoonishly unconservative.

To answer your question, I want Pax. I do not want Pax Americana or Pax anybodyelsea. I want Pax mindourownbussinessa.

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 10:46PM

red, rolling over on your back will only get your belly slit. you wanna commit suicide? Go ahead. Good riddance to wus bags like you. Allah's warriors will cut through you like a hot knife through butter.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 10:49PM

"red is a commie puke and is probably lying about serving, like the " Ranger" the media loved. Who was your Senior Drill Instructor, red? Or did you forget?"

2Angelico, you are an ignorant puke. What I am advocating is profoundly more conservative than what the neocon interventionists advocate, and the leading lights of neoconservatism understand this. That is why they pat themselves on the back for their enlighten embrace of liberal democracy and deride us paleocons as evil reactionaries. While I take it John II doesn't agree with me, I am sure he understands that I am not a "commie puke." There isn't a left-wing bone in my body. Study some political philosophy 101 and then get back to me.

Secondly, I said I was an Air Force officer. Hence, I did not have a Senior Drill Instructor. I got an Air Force Health Profession Scholarship to pay my way through med school. I attended the Health Professions Officers Indoctrination Course at Medina Annex in San Antonio Texas. (It has since changed names and locations.) My instructor was a Captain, but I do not recall his name. If I was a less nice person I would tell you just where you could put your doubts about my service.

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 10:50PM

How was Pax Romana achieved???? By pussing out??? No, by kicking ass!!! This world is governed by the use of FORCE! Too bad you pussies can't hack it.

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 10:58PM

red, the only thing real about you is your monniker, red. That sums it up! Oh, and I am sick of trying to reason with anti American maggots like you. Go read your own droppings above. We are sick of you sellouts. And you don't RATE a SR DI. Punk!

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 10:59PM

I said:

"This is a perfect illustration of the problem. So many interventionists have personalized foreign policy as if it was some sort of schoolyard standoff with a bully. Foreign policy has become a macrocosm of the schoolyard microcosm. It's all about talking tough, and muscle flexing, and chest beating, and not taking it, and standing up to bullies, and not backing down, etc. etc. etc. So discussion of foreign policy sounds like a bunch of testosterone addled youths vying to become schoolyard alpha male. That is why it is so hard to get past the emotions, and get real policy beyond sloganeering boilerplate."

2angelico said:

"red, rolling over on your back will only get your belly slit. you wanna commit suicide? Go ahead. Good riddance to wus bags like you. Allah's warriors will cut through you like a hot knife through butter."

I shall call that exhibit A.

Red Phillips| 7.8.09 @ 11:04PM

And the two posts above will be exhibits B and C. "Pussing out." "Kicking ass." Now there is some serious foreign policy analysis.

I want to return to the system of the Founders, but I'm the anti-American. Hmmm....

John you need to shut these guys up because they discredit your cause.

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 11:07PM

red, i bet you can't even DEFINE neocon, can you? You use a lib term and try to pass yourself off as a conservative? BS, you are a liar. In 50 words or less, define neocon... bet you can't!!

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 11:12PM

You see, red, you can dish it out but you can't take it. I'm calling you out as a phoney. You are NOT a conservative. Your posts prove it. And then you act like a little sissy and ask for help from another poster cause you don't like being called names. Crybaby!

2Anglico| 7.8.09 @ 11:15PM

I see you cannot spell either, red..diaper doper baby.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 1:26AM

2angelico, you really are a complete idiot. You don't even know when to shut up and stop making a fool of yourself. You are the one who doesn't have the slightest clue. I could give you a dissertation on the meaning of neocon, but I don't have time for a long discussion now.

Very briefly, the neocons were ex-Democrats and ex-Social Democrats who drifted to the GOP due to their unease with the perceived pacifism, anti-Americanism, and sympathy for the Palestinians of the New Left. And while not always "family values" crusaders, they were uncomfortable with the moral libertinism of the counter-culture that they felt was infecting the Democrat party especially after the McGovern nomination. They, however, unlike real conservatives generally accepted as a good thing the New Deal and much of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. They saw a role for a social safety net and federal regulation of the economy.

What started out as a group of individuals eventually coalesced into a well circumscribed and easily identifiable philosophy heavily influences by Strauss. Neocons see America as a revolutionary nation, a fundamental break with the past. Hence, they see America as a "proposition" or "creedal" nation. (Unlike real conservatives who see America as fundamentally a continuation of the English society from which we sprang. See Kirk's the Roots of American Order.) And they place great emphasis on the Declaration of Independence as a statement of this revolutionary character. (Often at the expense of our governing document the Constitution.) (There is some disagreement between West Coast [Jaffa] and East Coast [Mansfield] Straussians on this, but most neoconservatism is recognizably Jaffaesque.) They see Lincoln as fulfilling the Declaration and not as a destroyer of the original Republic. They view secular, liberal democracy as the end of history, a product of "natural law" and right reason. (Strauss who is often mistakenly viewed as a conservative because of his reliance on ancient documents read modern post-Enlightenment liberalism into them but was openly scornful of tradition and history.) All men deserve and desire to live under such a system, except for a few intransigents who it has to be beaten into, namely Germans, Russians, Muslims and Southerners. As part of their view of the revolutionary character of the nation, they see America as "indispensable" and "exceptional" with a responsibility to bring liberal democratic hegemony to a backwards world. There is more, and I could go on, but I trust you at least accept, whether you admit it or not, that I do know a little something about neoconservatism.

What many will recognize is that what I am describing as neoconservative philosophy describes the beliefs (give or take) of the majority of interventionist movement conservative yahoos who don't think of themselves as neocons. The conservative movement has been neoconized.

Of course there are two big problems with the neoconservative philosophy. First, it is historically wrong on every account and second, it is profoundly unconservative on every account. It would be hard to formulate a doctrine more contrary to authentic conservatism if one intentionally set out to try.

Neoconservatism is a rationalistic, reductionistic, universalistic form of post-Enlightenment liberalism. As I said, the leading lights of neoconservatism accept this and think it is a grand thing and deride authentic paleocons as unenlightened throwbacks.

John II| 7.9.09 @ 1:37AM

"John you need to shut these guys up because they discredit your cause."

Yo Red. Sorry for the delay--I was watching a really cool murder mystery. What "cause" were you referring to? And what guys did you want me to silence? I'm a tad disoriented just now--still thinking about that movie.

I love murder mysteries because, as chic as they sometimes try to be, they always have to assume conventional morality as a sustaining ground for plot coherence. In other words, they speak the truth about the human condition. I'm neither a paleocon nor a neocon; I'm a Catholic--which is to say, a natural law freak.

Where was I? Oh yes--what cause were you alluding to?

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 2:26AM

Here is something I wrote a few years back defining paleoconservatism. While doing so, I also discuss neoconservatism. Read this and then tell me I don't know what a neocon is big mouth.

http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dphillips121306.htm

And perhaps you might want to take a look at these.

http://etherzone.com/2005/phil032405.shtml

http://etherzone.com/2006/phill082506.shtml

http://etherzone.com/2006/phill061506.shtml

http://etherzone.com/2006/phill062306.shtml

http://etherzone.com/2005/phill111605.shtml

http://etherzone.com/2005/phill110205.shtml

Here's my whole archive.

http://etherzone.com/cgi-bin/search/search.pl?Realm=&Match=0&Terms;="Red Phillips"&sort;-method=3&maxhits=25&Rank=1

But of course I'm not really a conservative, and I know nothing about neoconservatism.

ThinkTank| 7.9.09 @ 2:29AM

I'm not gonna let any of you forget that George Dubya was once your messiah.
Wear it.

drudge ette obama| 7.9.09 @ 6:08AM

ThinkTank, George Bush was no one's messiah. You are a moral equivalency type, aren't you.

Anything to the right of left does not have multiple messiahs. Have you ever had multiple messiahs? Have you ever had one messiah?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.9.09 @ 6:46AM

Bob by any other name remains the same.

John II| 7.9.09 @ 12:09PM

Red: A final word as I mosey into the sunset of this thread.

Nice survey of the history of paleocons. You may have missed your calling: you perhaps should have been a popular historian instead of a shrink. On the other hand, we all have to make a living.

Although you continue to be right and I continue to be a fool, I have a comment or two I'd like to pass along. I thought your survey was great, but the rest of your writings (the Ether stuff) seems to me to lack the buoyancy and self-irony of the survey.

A recurring motif among the contributors to the Ether site is the charge that the demonic neocons are ideologues who never let facts intrude on their grand, universalist schemes. Yet this very charge is itself an ideological pose. What the paleocons call "non-interventionism" (apparently without deliberate irony) has all the markings of ideology--i.e., a kind of screen through which one filters experience, so that one becomes tightly selective of factual details, ignoring some and embracing others. As a trained and practicing shrink, you must surely be intimately familiar with the notion of projection, and my instincts tell me that the paleocons doth protest "ideology" too much, know-what-I-mean? (Forgive my amateur dabbling, but I learned all my psychology from Scripture, Homer, the Greek tragedians, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, and the rest of that crowd.)

Whatever the Old Texican had in mind when he accused you of contradiction, this peculiar business of anti-ideological ideology is what I have in mind.

Most of what I read in Ether reads more like ideological ranting than like analysis; most of what I read in, say, The Weekly Standard, reads more like analysis than like ideology--and an awful lot of it has nothing much to do with politics and foreign policy and zip to do with Straussian political theory. And I don't have enough fingers on both hands to count the number of distortions that Ether recklessly blurts out about the great neocon menace.

I'm sorry, but it all feels rather more self-centered and crankish than serious. In an earlier posting, for example, you claim that "the neoconservative philosophy" is "profoundly unconservative on every account." But that's a weird distortion, not a statement of fact--and it's contradicted by your earlier survey, in which you acknowledge what you consider true-blue conservative traits among the otherwise benighted neoconservatives.

Amid this preposterous incoherence, you seem to me a tad too free and easy with the adverbial dodge "of course." You may recall Richard Weaver's insight (in "The Ethics of Rhetoric") that the WAY a man expresses his ideas is a truer index on his philosophy than the ideas he expresses. Your own expression is often that of an undisciplined college sophomore intoxicated with one BIG IDEA to which you've attached your primal allegiance. If you're as interested in philosophy as you claim in your survey, you might want to look into the ground of that allegiance. What the hell is it resting on? And why does it make you sound so petulant and disagreeable?

And now I've mounted my trusty horse, and I ride off into the sunset, whiling away the time with more murder mysteries. See you on another thread, perhaps.

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 12:23PM

John, I am really not entirely sure what you are up to. You haven't really expressed much of an agenda. You are mostly just criticizing mine. You say I declared myself right and you wrong, but at the same time you say you appreciate the "isolationist strain” in America, you really, really do, but imply that it is now time for the grownups to discuss a real workable foreign policy to secure our “survival in an astonishingly hostile world peppered with thugs who would like to see the whole American thing obliterated because it crimps their vicious style” without us pesky isolationists continuing to butt in. This amounts to a patronizing pat on the head. “Now run along you silly isolationist you and eat your cookies. Mommy and Daddy are going to talk to the neighbors now.”

The sort of hyperbolic language you use characterizing the threat is very characteristic of many interventionists. There is always an Enemy with a capital E that represents an existential threat that must be dealt with or else. Some of these clowns don’t know what to do with themselves when there is no ominous boogeyman to wring their hands about. Just as the Islamomeanies scare factor was decreasing, they conjure up resurging Russia or China or little ol’ broke North Korea. It will never end for them. They need an Enemy. It is how they define themselves. That is why the Chicken Little reference is not “slovenly” but very appropriate.

Here is my hunch of where you are coming from, based on this and a few other threads. You have some respect for traditionalist conservatism. You think that contrary to the warnings of traditionalist conservatives, non-interventionism has become a kind of dogma and ideology of its own. While you think the impulse is a good brake on crusading internationalism, you don’t think it is in its fullest form realistic or workable 0r desirable. You think it is dangerous and removes a positive force from the world. While you may shy away from the overt belligerence of some posters here, you think American asserting its influence (more or less forcefully) is necessary and good.

Close? Way off?

So your “cause” that knucklehead know-nothings like 2angelico taint with their macho talk masquerading as policy is the cause of rational interventionism.

So you are a Catholic. Was the previous Pope and the present Pope wrong to condemn in no uncertain terms the US invasion of Iraq as not meeting Just War standards?

And you are a “natural law freak.” Would that be natural law in the Straussian sense or the Aristotelian sense?

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 1:01PM

I swear I wrote the above before I saw your response.

Thanks for the critique anyway. (More patronizing head patting.) I have purposefully used the pseudonym for my more strident stuff, and my real name for my more “thoughtful” and restrained stuff.

A few points. I do recognize a tendency to dogmatize non-intervention among some. That is one reason, for example, I have been very hesitant about criticizing European countries for interventionism when they don’t have the luxury we have of being separated from hostiles by two big oceans. Heated conflict tends to cause polarization, and so non-intervention often gets expressed in extreme ways the same way interventionism does such as the spectacle of 2angelico trying to prove his manhood. That said, I think non-interventionism is the most rational, peace and security producing, sovereignty preserving, cheapest, and consistent with the Constitution and the intent of the Republic course. It should be the default conservative position with the burden of proof to vary from it resting on those who want to intervene. The justification for intervention spouted by many of its “conservative” defenders is outright Jacobinism. This really is not debatable.

Also, while I certainly agree with Kirk that systemic ideology is contrary to conservatism (libertarianism, Marxism) I do think this has been misapplied by many to mean something like a defense of political pragmatism vs. standing your ground. Thinking we should strictly follow the Constitution, for example, is not a systemic ideology. Conversely, thinking we are beyond a strict interpretation of the Constitution at this point and we need to move on is not the rejection of ideology. What you are picking up on is my criticism of political pragmatism.

2Anglico| 7.9.09 @ 1:43PM

red, all your fluffy talk is meaningless. You accuse America, the greatest cause for good in all world history, of being a bully, arrogant, blah, blah, blah, all of those whines have come out of the mouths of leftists since... well since 1800. You call everybody who disagrees with you names, and then cry like a stuck pig when you get called a name. Grow up.

John II| 7.9.09 @ 2:33PM

Well--I hadn't got very close to the sunset before I heard you calling, Red, so I galloped back. While my horse chomps on some oats, I'm leaning against the fencepost here, adjusting my holster, and chewing on a weed stalk, I reckon. You said:

"Here is my hunch of where you are coming from, based on this and a few other threads. You have some respect for traditionalist conservatism. You think that contrary to the warnings of traditionalist conservatives, non-interventionism has become a kind of dogma and ideology of its own. While you think the impulse is a good brake on crusading internationalism, you don’t think it is in its fullest form realistic or workable 0r desirable. You think it is dangerous and removes a positive force from the world. While you may shy away from the overt belligerence of some posters here, you think American asserting its influence (more or less forcefully) is necessary and good."

Pretty much, yes--for the time being. In other words, you really are reasonably sure what I'm up to, so I wasn't being as coy as you thought. I'm an hombre, and I speak my mind, while my horse gets fat on them oats. Here's more:

"So you are a Catholic. Was the previous Pope and the present Pope wrong to condemn in no uncertain terms the US invasion of Iraq as not meeting Just War standards?"

Whoa. Neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI "condemned in no uncertain terms" the Iraq venture. They strongly demurred for complicated geopolitical reasons having to do principally with the relative security of (mostly Catholic) Christians in Iraq. Roman Catholics are bound to the moral teachings of the Church's magisterium, not to the prudential political judgments of the Church's leaders, including the Vatican's intermittent stances as a sovereign state. As it happens, I'm inclined to agree with the great bulk of those judgments, and I take very seriously the few with which I disagree, but I am not bound to any of those which are strictly prudential. I'm a Roman Catholic hombre, and I would resent your Protestant insinuations if I didn't find them so charming and hilarious.

I'm a subtle hombre too--and my horse is making a pig out of himself; I think I'd better remove the oat-bag or the best I'll be able to manage is to waddle into the sunset . . . I'm a-headin' off now.
Good talkin' with you, Red.

John II| 7.9.09 @ 2:48PM

Whoa again, horse! Red, I almost forgot. I see little difference in the Straussian and Aristotelian notions of natural law, so I concur with both. The Christian sense, though, is my preferred version, partly because, in my view, it subsumes both Strauss and Aristotle, who came to their conclusions more or less without benefit of overt revelation. The Christian sense was, to my knowledge, first promulgated at the Council of Arles in 473--and the name given to natural law, with a nod to St. Paul's "law written on the heart," is "the first grace." I like that formulation best.
And now back to the sunset.

Giddup, horse--run them oats off!

Red Phillips| 7.9.09 @ 2:48PM

So 2Angelico, are you backing off your comment that I don't know nothing 'bout no neoconservatism?

2Angelico, you illustrate a common problem. Movements and the people who are a part of them tend to fixate at a certain point in time. The modern conservative movement (the New Right perhaps) largely came into its own around '68 and especially '72 with the nomination of McGovern just as the neocons were coming into the movement. The movement today remains a reflection of those times. By this formulation, good red-blooded American supported the Vietnam War, the soldiers, the military, the Cold War against Communism, etc. while it was long-haired, hippie, anti-Americans libs who were protesting wars and burning their draft cards. So many modern conservative cannot conceptualize of a conservative who protests a war. That is what liberal commie symps do. Us conservative red-blooded Americans support war because that is what we are supposed to do. The problem is this is historically myopic. Long before the silent majority was being repulsed by the counter-culture, conservative and populists in this country were arguing for us to stay out of foreign wars and it was liberal, internationalist, elitists who were agitating for intervention. It was called the Old Right. You should study up on it.

Tootsie| 7.9.09 @ 4:23PM

Red, looks like you've got a butt-kicker honing in on you. Too funny.

Old Texican| 7.9.09 @ 7:16PM

Red
You simply need more heads to shrink. ...for pay.

You spend WAY too much time here for no apparent purpose other than to shrink our heads...and believe me...I would not pay you.

I went to Baylor. In those days we had two psychology schools.
Clinical: give the rats meds and watch them.

Counseling: help real people get around tough corners. (logotherapy/Victor Frankl).
Red, you are in an existential sink drain. You swirl around a lot...but finally go in the sewer.

Sir, if you win.....you lose. I ain't going there.

Angel| 7.9.09 @ 8:44PM

I knew Red was an M.D. but I didn't know he was a shrink. If Red is in fact a shrink--it would explain a lot about his posts: That he is a nit-picker who over thinks the differences between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives.

I think Red is a big time navel gazer with a touch of paranoia, but he's not a hater.

John II| 7.9.09 @ 9:39PM

Damn. I still haven't reached the sunset, and my horse dropped under the weight of oats and the sun. I had to shoot him. Reckon I'll jest keep walkin' toward that sunset.

Listen, friends. I don't like all this ragging on Red. The boy's heart is in the right place, so far as I can tell. Hay-ell, he may even be righter than we realize. If I can be serious for one moment (that's about all I can sustain--I'm a family man, so I have a special perspective on what's important and what ain't), I think every damn variety of conservative has to cut out the factious crap and unite against a common foe: the emerging Obamanation! In the early seventies, we had the commies. In the early twenty-first century, we have the secular left regnant. I mean--damn! We can argue the details later, after we've put the liberal lights out. Over a smooth mint julep on the veranda, or a bacon-lettuce-and-tomato sandwich on the big-city balcony. Makes no difference to me. I'm a Catholic, and the term is from a Greek word (katolikos, transliterated) meaning "universal."
We can't let the liberal dip-shits take over. We need to reclaim our common heritage! We need to bury our internecine axes, so to speak. We can return to blood-letting among ourselves later.

That's my opinion. I think I can count on Angel, Tootsie, the Old Texican, and a few other hardcore commie-bashing, freedom-loving, Islamo-tweeking Americanos. Red--where the hell are you when we need your support?

Whoa. That walk to the sunset is going to be a long one. Wish I hadn't shot my horse.

Angel| 7.9.09 @ 10:26PM

Don't forget Marc Jeric: Now there's a seriously hardcore commie-bashing freedom loving Americano. Just my type!

Doug1943| 7.10.09 @ 11:58AM

If a new person can join in this fight:

In my opinion Red is correct on one big thing, and not so correct on something else.

He is right that a conservatism which is simply another word for blind belligerent American nationalism is not worth a damn. It is only conservatism by historical coincidence. If we distinguish who is a conservative, by who is most eager to see the United States enter a foreign war, then the most arden conservatives in the United States, from the 22nd of June to the 7th of December, 1941, were the Communist Party USA.

He is not correct in his -- as I understand him -- belief that a traditional "realist" approach to foreign policy is the only alternative to reflexive militaristic jingoism, still less that it is the best alternative. But that's an argument for a different thread.

Red Phillips| 7.10.09 @ 6:06PM

Doug, I am not really advocating foreign policy realism. I'm advocating principled non-intervention. Foreign policy realism, at least as it is expressed by its current proponents, still takes internationalism, American intervention, and an exaggerated role for America in world affairs for granted. It stresses diplomacy and multilateralism and focuses less on military options. Compared to bellicose interventionism it is surely an improvement and is more realistic when assessing threats and options but it does not fundamentally question the assumptions of the foreign policy community.

As for the "why can't we all just get along" issue, I'm going to have to pass. I just don't have it in me right now.

Flower Power| 7.10.09 @ 8:32PM

Red, you never did have it in you; you're absolutely intransigent. Kind of anti-social, too.

Red Phillips| 7.10.09 @ 10:45PM

"Kind of anti-social, too."

Wanting to pretty much indiscriminately bomb Muslims just to be on the safe side is the epitome of sociality then I guess? :-)

Flower Power| 7.11.09 @ 12:08AM

Yeah, you got me, Red: I'm your average bloodthirsty American mother of four, an animal lover who takes in strays and always the girl who would help just about anybody down on their luck.

I just live to see Muslim babies blown to bits. Hell, I was ecstatic to see the video of beautiful young Neda bleed to death right in front of my eyes.

Feel like a BIG MAN now; are you proud of your stupid hyperbolic hostility? You need to see a shrink.

Red Phillips| 7.11.09 @ 9:47AM

Relax FP. It was intended to be hyperbolic, which is why I put the smiley face. Nor was it necessarily directed at you. I just thought it was a bit ironic that I am anti-social when I am the one counseling restraint and against war.

And BTW, it has been reported, and I assume it is true that Neda was a Christian.

Doug1943| 7.11.09 @ 10:02AM

Red: Sorry to have mis-read your approach.

I actually think your approach -- principled non-interventionism -- is the traditional conservative approach. On this view, it is simply not our concern what form of government another country should have. If the Germans are unfortunate enough to end up with Hitler, it's too bad, perhaps, but not our problem.

If all nations were isolated from each other, and remained isolated from each other, except for minimal tourism and a bit of trade, this approach might have much to recommend it.

It has much to recommend it in any event: our knowledge of the world is very imperfect, especially our knowledge of the social world, and doubly-especially our knowledge of the social world of other countries and cultures. I take that to be one of the key insights of genuine conservatism, one which underpins our distaste for aggressive social engineering schemes aimed at radical improvements in human nature.

But ... the problem arises when we face states which do not show much inclination to remain isolated. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia are recent examples, but by no means the only ones. In fact, a study of the melancholy reality of human history shows that expansionist empires and the wars which accompany them are not at all uncommon. They seem to be the rule, in fact.

So if America withdraws its presence from the rest of the world ... pronounces its principled indifference to what kind of societies exist elsewhere ... the fear is that this vacuum will not remain unfilled. That, I take, is the rational core for the idea that the Americans should not retreat to Fortress America.

It would be useful, somewhere and sometime, to have an extended, civil, rational debate on this subject. I think it is the key question for conservatives -- at least one of the two or three key questions -- and we need to discuss it as much as possible. This is probably not the ideal place for such a discussion, however.

AntonioSosa| 7.11.09 @ 3:18PM

It’s despicable that Obama says "America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country," when he is trying to IMPOSE MARXISM on democratic Hondurans! When it becomes obvious that Zelaya was working with Chavez against Hondurans and the U.S., Clinton throws Chavez/Zelaya the perfect cover so they can continue their efforts to enslave Hondurans – asking Oscar Arias to “mediate” the conflict!

Oscar Arias is a great cover for Chavez/Zelaya to continue their evil work. As a “democratic” figure who has actually not helped democracy but has only PRETENDED to do it, Arias is a great front for Chavez to continue to lie, manipulate, intimidate and force Hondurans to submit to Marxism. We pray Hondurans are able to defend themselves from Chavez/Zelaya/Obama, intent in forcing them to get infected with the AIDS of Marxism.

AntonioSosa| 7.11.09 @ 3:20PM

Many of us from Latin America wish we could have done what Hondurans are doing before the Marxist thugs working for Castro and Chavez enslaved our countries.

Wiser than other Latin Americans, Hondurans have laws that defend them from the fraudulent scheme devised by Castro to impose Marxism with “democratic” elections and referendums. Hondurans have seen this strategy unfold in the countries being destroyed by the Marxist thugs headed by Castro/Chavez. They don’t want the tragedy of those countries repeated in Honduras. They would rather be isolated for a few years than enslaved for more than 50 like the Cubans!

Castro’s scheme, implemented by Chavez, Morales, Correa, Zelaya, etc. works along these lines:

1. Select a wannabe dictator -- a “charismatic” and depraved megalomaniac who is ready to sell out his country (like Chavez, Morales, Correa, Zelaya). Help him run for president of the country.

2. Invest millions in a “professional” campaign demonizing the opposition and promising CHANGE to help the poor, end corruption, improve schools… whatever people want to hear.

3. Commit as much fraud as possible to make sure the wannabe dictator wins.

4. Have “protectors of human rights” like Insulza (OAS) -- who have really been trampling on human rights by promoting communism for years -- declare that the elections were “legal and transparent.” Carter has also been used to do this dirty job.

5. Make sure that, once in power, the wannabe dictator takes over the Legislative and Judicial branches of power, destroys the country’s institutions, intimidates and controls the media, and demonizes, intimidates and even kills anyone trying to defend the country.

6. Have a referendum to approve a new constitution. Representatives of the people are supposed to write that constitution. In reality, people don’t even know what’s in the new constitution, which is written by Spaniards working for Castro/Chavez before the wannabe dictator even “runs” for office.

7. Have Insulza (OAS) and others who pretend to “protect human rights” declare that the referendum is perfectly “legal and transparent.” Carter are also does this dirty job, and so would Oscar Arias.

The goal of the new constitution is to help the wannabe dictator become a full-blown dictator for life (like Castro in Cuba), prevent people from defending themselves, and use the country to help drug cartels, Islamic terrorists, etc. to destroy the U.S. And all of it under the cloak of “democracy”!

Hondurans were able to save themselves from the clutches of Chavez because Zelaya had not yet been able to take control of the Legislative and Judicial branches of power.

Congratulations, Hondurans! Many of us wish we could have done what you are doing before the Marxist thugs working for Castro and Chavez enslaved our countries.

We hope Hondurans can defend yourselves from Chavez/Zelaya/Obama now working under the sheep's clothing of Oscar Arias.

AntonioSosa| 7.11.09 @ 3:27PM

The Brits seem to understand better than many Americans Obama's new kind of foreign policy: "But Obama has a soft spot for socialists, hence his insane cosying-up to the Bolivarian fruitcakes. He has invented a brand new kind of foreign policy: supporting regimes that are violently anti-American. Call it neo-masochism.

“Obama has reversed the Monroe Doctrine as well as the definition of “democracy”. In supporting the megalomaniac dictators who are trying to drag Latin America into the year 1917, he is mouthing the same claptrap as Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly and former lieutenant of Ortega in the Sandinista dictatorship, and Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and Fidel Castro’s champion...."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100002325/barack-fidel-che-obama-the-bolivarian-revolutions-useful-idiot-reverses-the-monroe-doctrine/

Flower Power| 7.11.09 @ 6:00PM

Nice feint, Red; but your response came right after my post. What's ironic is that you purport to be a peacenik but all you do is start fights on this blog.

I'm sick and tired of you demonizing us when you don't even know us. Not so neighborly, you know.

Thanks for the heads up on Neda, I guess it was okay to cry all those tears over her needless death.

John II| 7.12.09 @ 12:07AM

A final word--with near perfect (conservative) certainty that no one will hear me. Red: you didn't respond to the last several posts. They're good posts. I hope you're thinking about them.

Now where in the hay-ell is my horse? I hope he's still alive. Makes me feel bad that I shot him.

Flower Power| 7.12.09 @ 5:06PM

John II, Red always splits after he throws his verbal grenades--he never sticks around to clean up his mess.

I love animals, I feel bad that you shot your horse, too.

ed hardy clothes| 7.24.09 @ 3:35AM

i like

cheap handbags| 7.25.09 @ 7:07PM

We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.

george| 7.29.09 @ 2:42AM

a href="http://www.louisvuittonlive.com/categories/311-1.html">Louis Vuitton Damier Azur handbags , commonly referred to as

ouis Vuitton Damier Azur, or sometimes shortened to

Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas handbags has become one of the most

Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas luxury brands.

louis vuitton outlet storelove

luis vuitton outleti like

lv outletsgood

louis vuitton onlinenice

runescape accounts| 8.14.09 @ 9:16PM

For me I think it would be better to be able to

s| 8.20.09 @ 2:32AM

Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West Shoes Jordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force Ones Air Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike Dunks Nike Air Yeezy True Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes

dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 7:37AM

Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Harry Winston Watches
Replica Hermes Watches
Replica Hublot Watches
Replica Hugo Boss Watches
Replica IWC Watches
Replica Jacob & Co Watches
Replica Jaeger-LECoultre Watches
Replica Jaquet Droz Watches
Replica Longines Watches
Replica Louis Vuitton Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

replica jersey| 9.7.09 @ 5:42AM

Your blog has been an inspiration to myself and many others. Regardless the old or the young,men or women,Your articles have enrich our life and highlight the future of ours,so thank you for sharing and please welcome to browse ours too Ugg Shoes, air jordan shoesBest of luck with whatever comes next and wish you happy every day.

gfdklqgq| 10.16.09 @ 1:14AM

shanghai massage
turntable bearings

fsdf| 11.13.09 @ 4:00AM

beijing massage

The American Spectator

Comments