The American Spectator : Israel's Reagan

Karibou Kid| 9.29.09 @ 6:51AM

The USA - and hence the World - is in big trouble given the current crop of lightweights who have somehow been proclaimed our "Leaders". BHO and his minions seem to believe that showing weakness and meekness to the tyrants of the world is a sign of strength. What we need are leaders with the moral clarity, vision, and fortitude of Reagan and Netahyahu. What we have is an alleged "community organizer". This will not end well.

Ryan| 9.29.09 @ 8:53AM

Pull the word "meekness" from the above - you don't seem to understand what it means.

Strength under control. Meek men are not weak men. They are restrained until their strength is necessary.

LQQKY| 9.29.09 @ 10:41AM

WOW! Try telling that to Chamberlin after his "peace in our time" announcement.

megapotamus | 9.29.09 @ 1:36PM

Slander not Chamberlain with comparison to Obama. Churchill would not sit still for any insult to Chamberlain his life long. Like the rest of his generation, Chamberlain had witnessed a meat-grinder of a war that resulted in conditions for Germany nearly universally seen as excessive. Hitler's appeals for a Greater Germany, while they proved pretextual, were appealing to a war weary world and Chamberlain saw his nation's best interest there. The comparison of Chamberlain, an accomplished and polished statesman, to Obama, the Marxist Chicago "community organizer" could not be more stark. The foundation for the Obama philosophy in foreign affairs is simple: the US is at fault and needs to act contrite. And this is the most charitable analysis the statements and actions of the Obama Administration can support. Another perhaps more plausible explanation for this perverse activity is that Obama is actually an ideological enemy of the US. Is that so mad? Don't self proclaimed enemies of the US proliferate in our universities? Doesn't Bill Ayers have Barack on speed dial?

Of course they could just be idiots.

PCISBS | 9.30.09 @ 6:05AM

I agree Mega, Chamberlain was misguided and naive. However, Obama is delusional and either dangerously naive or on quest to destroy Western Civilization. The way Obama began his latest fantasy land speech in front of the UN, was quite telling, "I know the world expects much from me…..." or was it, "The world has great expectations for me….?" Which every megalomaniacal verbiage he used was a disgrace to our Country and our allies around the World. Much worse than was the case with Chamberlain, who misinterpreted the lessons of history; Obama simply disregards history and considers it negligible. "Hi Ahmadinejad, I know you bang your head on the floor 5 times a day, praying to kill Jews & Americans and have spent your entire life subscribing to a sect of Islam, which even whack job Ayatollah Khomeini banished from his revolutionary council due to its radicalism- but I when to Harvard and blackmailed politicians as a community organizer, so let me tell you why you actually like Israel and the USA."
Not only is our way of life in jeopardy, but also the World as we know it.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 2:54PM

Ryan,
True. Moses was called meek by God.
Numbers 12:3
"Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth."
~Not exactly a weakling!

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 3:11PM

~I think the better word would be timidity rather than meekness. There are Dictionary definitions. And then there are Biblical definitions. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with your post, Karibou Kid.
~with this part of Reagan's speech being true today with the Obama Nation~
"...a one-world Socialist or Communist state… Now, as long as they do that and as long as they, at the same time, have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that, that that is moral, not immoral"
~Under the guise of "The New Conservatism", which is Socialism in disguise, along with our very President we are quickly losing what we have always been fighting for since the beginning of the Republic. How can we win when our own President is on the side of the enemy?!

SarahMac| 9.29.09 @ 11:28PM

You & Ryan are right. In a French translation of Matthew 5:5 , "Blessed are the meek..." is translated "Happy are the debonair..." .

Obviously not the "90 lb. weakling" meekness of the old Charles Atlas ads, but the gentle & peaceable demeanor arising from the awareness of unassailable strength.

Bruce | 9.29.09 @ 5:15PM

That's an interesting take on the definition.
meek
1. humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others.
2. overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.

Exactly where do you see any allusion to "restrained until their strength is necessary"?

Daisy| 9.30.09 @ 3:29PM

Ryan, you're right: Meek men are truly strong because they've been graced with humility: Weak men, such as Obama aren't; they are arrogant.

Obama reminds me of Icarus; I only pray that his hubris doesn't destroy us all.

Jim O'Brien| 9.29.09 @ 7:09AM

SUPERB SPEECH:

"Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. [Wednesday] the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie. ... To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. Dead wrong. ... I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time. In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come."

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:37PM

"If I were an Arab leader , I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

- David Ben-Gurion
1st Prime Minister of Israel

Pat Spooner| 9.29.09 @ 7:27AM

This is a great contrast between the follies and false ideals of our experienceless, commonsenseless and backboneless Obama and real men such as Ronald Reagan and Benjamin Netanyahu, yes they were and are real leaders. Obama belivees by speaking nicely to and coddling these thugs he can change the history of the planet and convince those hellbent on the destruction Israel and the United States that they should lay down their swords and sit around the campfire with him while dining on caviar, lobster and fine champaign (no doubt at taxpayer expense) and thus become loving comrades and brothers. Thank goodness that Benjamin Netanyahu like Ronald Reagon before him, has the backbone, experience and commonsense to call it like it is - and you can bet he will deal with the leaders of Iran is like manner. Remember, strength brings peace because our enemies respect no other.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 7:46AM

"If I were an Arab leader , I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

- David Ben-Gurion
1st Prime Minister of Israel

Bohred| 9.29.09 @ 9:33AM

Ah, S.L. you are so right.

So let's kill all the Jews in "Palistine", erase their cities, bulldoze the rubble into the sea. Is that what you want? Will that satisfy you?

The hard cold reality is the Jewish state of Israel is the only modern democratic state in the area. The only state that is even remotely free, remotely fair. Yes, of course they have their fanatics, as we have ours. But surely even you can see that Israel, even for it's Arab citizens, is a much better place to live in than any of the surrounding countries.

But you are not interested in freedom or fairness, only in your ideology. There just isn't any possible way a rational person can compare thuggish gangs like Hamas and the PLO to a free state like Israel.

Son Of Sam | 9.29.09 @ 11:05AM

If I were an Arab leader, the first thing I would do after imposing sharia law on America would be to behead useful dumbasses like you, R.E. Toddard. You will have served your purpose as a Jew hater and America basher, and your usefulness will be at an end.

stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 1:22PM

anyone who praises Chomsky and comes to AS is suspect.
I'll keep writing it:
if one of us here went to TNR and wrote, "I admire David Duke, what would you expect the response to be?
Toddard, you are like Chomsky, you don't know WHAT you are.

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 1:27PM

Toddard,
You did in fact write that you admire many things about Chomsky; we can go to the archive and prove it.
So if one of us went to a liberal blog, and wrote "I like George Wallace", wouldn't the lib bloggers tell the troll to get lost?

A. Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 2:31PM

And here's the key:
'So if one of us went to a liberal blog, and wrote "I like George Wallace", wouldn't the lib bloggers tell the troll to get lost? '

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:46PM

Are you aware that it's possible to agree with someone on some things but not on other things?

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 2:29PM

Sure, that's why I wrote 'You did in fact write that you admire many things about Chomsky; we can go to the archive and prove it.'
So we can agree with Pol Pot on the need to visit the countryside! of course.

So what remains is the question of why you would want to blog at AS.
To pick our brains?

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:16PM

And your noses!

Bruce | 9.29.09 @ 5:21PM

Surely the most idiotic and immature response I have ever seen. Your place on the list of all time trolls is firmly established.

Begone, troll...Daily Kos awaits your triumphant return to the Land of Odd.

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 8:06PM

I had thought Toddard was about 35, now it appears he's more like 15.
And he wrote, "Are you aware that it's possible to agree with someone on some things but not on other things?"
Well golly gee--DUH!

We can agree with Hitler that humane treatment of animals is correct.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 10:58AM

"We can agree with Hitler that humane treatment of animals is correct."

Anyone who praises Hitler and then comes to AS is suspect. What are you doing at a conservative website when you admire Hitler?

Summer| 9.30.09 @ 4:04PM

Picking his nose is one of Toddard's favorite past times; pretending he's a conservative and hating the Jewish people are two others .

Hope you wash your hands, you demented, miserable old poop.

Sickening bigot.

CB| 9.29.09 @ 7:57AM

Ah, good ole S. L., who commands "an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea".....

Mary Louise| 9.29.09 @ 8:20AM

What a great quote from CB.

Bibi's Speech at the 92nd Street Y is worth listening to in full full.

He's a warrior and a leader, and most of all a protector of women and children.

God bless him and all those he loves with good health and long life.

He's my man, and I do mean man.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 9:13AM

"He's a warrior and a leader, and most of all a protector of women and children."

Not including, of course, the women and children among the 1,100 Arabs killed and over 5,000 wounded in the Gaza "War" (13 Israelis were also killed). Those women and children who had their arms, legs and heads blown off - they don't count, because they are sub-human Arabs who deserved it.

To sum up:

Israel is Good

The Palestinians are Evil (or, at best, people who *could* be good but are misled by wily Evil Islamists)

When Israel slaughters Palestinians it is in justified retaliation for Palestinians slaughtering Israelis

When Palestinians slaughter Israelis, it is NEVER in justified retaliation for Israel killing Palestinians, it is because they are Evil Terrorists

Every Israel attack has been in essence an act of self defense

No Palestinian attack can be justified as self defense - they are all by definition Evil Terrorist Attacks

In the Gaza War, in which 13 Israelis were killed, Israel was the victim

In the Gaza War, in which 1,100 Palestinians were killed and over 5,000 wounded, Palestinians were the Evil Terrorist Agressors who Deserved It

Israelis, who forced Arabs from their homes at gunpoint, occupied their land, confined them to an open-air prison for four decades, deny them freedom of movement or access to medical supplies for their children, deserve our support because they are The Victims, they are Good and are Surrounded by Enemies

Palestinians, who were driven from their homes at gunpoint by Israelis, had their land occupied, have been confined to an open-air prison for four decades, are denied freedom of movement or access to medical supplies and live under humiliating conditions imposed by the Israelis do NOT deserve our support or sympathy because they deserved ALL of it and it is ALL justified because they are Evil Terrorists.

Every act of Israeli violence is legally and morally justified

Every act of Palestinian violence is morally unjustified and never in retaliation for anything, but merely the acts of anti-semitic, Nazi-like Evil Terrorist Jew-Haters who wish to extinguish the Jewish People.

Bohred| 9.29.09 @ 9:37AM

What a load of garbage. And you know it. The Palestinian camp could have been dealt with in 1948, if the surrounding Arab countries had done the decent thing and allowed the refugees they created to settle in their lands.
The Israeli's themselves questions their own motives in fighting the PLO and Hamas, when have you ever heard the Arabs do the same?

Le Cracquere| 9.29.09 @ 11:56AM

In a way, you have to hand it to the "Palestinians": I don't know of too many people who could take the sting out of Toddard's attempt at satire simply by making it so close to the truth. If Toddy were describing any other people's behaviour and values, it would be self-evidently parodic, but not so here; it's simply not DISTANT enough from the simple facts. Good going, Palestinians.

Esther S.| 9.30.09 @ 1:39PM

Have you ever been to Israel? Have you seen Israeli children playing as kids in sand, with cars, with clay and all sorts of normal toys?
Do you know what Palestinian kids play with? Wooden guns. They learn attach tactics, they live and breathe a war-like environment. They are thought to kill. They have no idea that a healthy childhood IS to play with normal toys.
The Palestinian population receives public services such as lightning in their homes and sewage. They have hospitals and receive their childhood immunization vaccines, which other Arab children in other Arabic countries don't get.
Israelis want to have their children playing as normal children, didn't you want your children to play normally? Would you want your child to be killed, G'd forbid during his lunch hour by a missile?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 4:13PM

"Do you know what Palestinian kids play with? Wooden guns."

Wow! Just like us American when we were kids! My favorite was a toy M-16 that made a whirring noise when you pulled the trigger. It was cheap but quite fun.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 4:14PM

"Would you want your child to be killed, G'd forbid during his lunch hour by a missile?"

An Israeli missle, you mean?

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 8:59PM

Esther,
Don't worry, what you said we know is true. Only the Communist loving trolls in here, such as Toddard could say such horrible things in response to your post. He is here for the sole purpose of attacking anyone with a genuine heart such as yours. Israel is in our prayers. Most of our prayers, anyway.

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 5:26PM

Marge - Harry S Truman emphatically supported the creation of the UN, he pushed his own version of the by-definition ultra-liberal “New Deal” called the “Fair Deal” (Lyndon Johnson cited the Fair Deal as his inspiration for the Great Society), he pushed for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, Marge, he dumped billions into massive federal social programs, housing projects, public housing and urban renewal (see his Housing Act for more). Those are the actions of a LIBERAL.

Now, aren't you going to enlighten us all by describing how this proponent of universal healthcare who loved the UN was really a conservative? I'm sure you're very knowledgeable about the subject, as you are in general.

Please elucidate. We all await the light of your wisdom.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 3:21PM

Mary Louise,
I second that emotion.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 5:48PM

re:Toddard
"Lying increases the creative faculties, expands the ego, and lessens the frictions of social contacts."
~Clare Luce Booth

Mattled| 9.29.09 @ 8:13AM

I would have liked to see a speech by Netyanahu describing his country only to at the end realize he was talking abut the U.S. and its greatness.

THAT would have been a speech. A nice swipe at Obambi indeed.

As for the folks on here with ITPD (Internet Troll Personality Disorder) --*yawn*.

Same Shiite--different day (and post).

http://encyclopediadramatica.c.....y_disorder

Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 8:15AM

Israel’s Reagan | Republican Party of Door County links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…betrayal of our past, the squandering of freedom." Today there is one nation, at least, that has a leader who understands this. That leader would be Benjamin Netanyahu.Read more: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/29/israels-reagan/ Related posts: Judge not. . . For one thing, Netanyahu witnessed first-hand Obama’s botched effort at... Thank You, Barack Obama As a 64-year-old, lifelong fiscal conservative…

Amdog| 9.29.09 @ 8:24AM

This is a brilliant piece. Intermingling of remarks that are linked by logic and unhinged from fear. Thank you.

KyMouse| 9.29.09 @ 8:28AM

Mr. Toddard left out something else that Ben-Gurion reportedly said in his 1956 conversation with Nahum Goldman: "We have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army." History has proven Ben-Gurion right; as has often been said, if the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be no more war. However, if Israel laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.

My comment on the TAS article "Camp David Syndrome" (Sept. 25) includes the following information from the Jewish Virtual Library:

"Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.

"The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. 'In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.'

"By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As’ad elShuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews."

Mary Louise| 9.29.09 @ 8:32AM

This thread could be a great thread, so I beg you, don't feed the Trolls. Ignore them unless they write something worthy of a response.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 8:50AM

Yes - a chance to glorify both Reagan and Israel. Don't mess this one up, guys - it could be a gas!

KyMouse| 9.29.09 @ 8:54AM

Mr. Toddard, please tell us what you think of Bibi's speech. And is it your hope that Israel will be defeated by their enemies?

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 9:06AM

Not a fan. And I hope Israel exists in peaceful perpetuity. Of course, the idea that Israel could ever be "defeated by their enemes" is unthinkable - a literal impossibility. They have a nuclear arsenal and the best man-for-man military in the entire world.

That being said, though I wish Israel the best I do not believe I should be forced to contribute to Israel's wars and land-theft. As a conservative I object to confiscatory taxation and wealth redistribution, especially when the money I earn is confiscated and redistributed to foreigners on the other side of the globe, with whom I share no common interest and with whom America shares no vital interest. If only other "conservatives" were so consistent in their opposition to wealth redistribution. They oppose redistributing wealth to help the American poor - their own countrymen, but demand that other people's money be sent to fund Israel's military - because they value Israel's welfare over America's. There's a word for that - when one puts the interest of a foreign nation before one's own. I forget what it is...

Bohred| 9.29.09 @ 9:47AM

It's called Liberal.

You're right, Israel does ok on it's own. But if we allow Iran to acquire Nukes, so they can "wipe Israel off the map" the world will suffer greatly. It's not about rights, or fairness or anything other than our self interest. But still, I would rather raise my children in Israel than any of the Arab countries. Even with Iran's threat of death hanging over my head.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 10:50AM

"But if we allow Iran to acquire Nukes, so they can "wipe Israel off the map"

If Iran were to do that, Iran itself would be "wiped off the map" by both Israel and, in all likelihood, the U.S. There is absolutely no base for that fear, Iran's impotent sabre-rattling aside. The Iranians instinct toward self-preservation is no less than that of any other people - to attack Israel would be calamitous, and would *end* the existence of the Persians, a people whose roots stretch as far back into antiquity as those of the Israelis.

Bram| 9.29.09 @ 1:04PM

You really think Obama would retaliate against Iran for a nuclear strike against Israel?

I doubt he would even react against an attack on American soil, much less use nukes to protect Israel.

Israel is on their own for the next 3 years.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:08PM

"I doubt he would even react against an attack on American soil, much less use nukes to protect Israel."

Right, but that's because you are blinded by partisan zealotry and have a world view that is completely divorced from reality.

Bram| 9.29.09 @ 1:38PM

Was I blind when I watched President Carter do nothing as our embassy was attacked by Iranians (American soil)? Did partisan zealotry Carter look so patheticly weak as 53 Americans were held hostage?

The sad thing is Obama makes Jimmy Carter look tough by comparison.

You are sure that Obama would respond to a nuclear attack against the U.S. or Israel in kind? I've never heard him say it (unlike Nicolas Sarkozy who came out a said France would retaliate with nukes).

Jeremiah| 9.30.09 @ 4:45PM

Good comment, Bram. Notice how Turddard sneaks off when he's been trounced? Nothing like a partisan liberal zealot posing as a conservative. Gutless weasel.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 3:18PM

Here we see Toddard mocking us. Now if Toddard, the intellectual know-it-all calls himself a conservative, why would he be mocking? Hmm Toddard?

Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 9:19AM

Reagan Turned Upside Down « LewRockwell.com Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Turned Upside Down Posted by Christopher Manion on September 29, 2009 07:19 AM … or maybe he’s just rolling over in his grave, now that one of his Manichaean (note: I did not say maniacal) former staffers has bestowed the Reagan mantle on the Bellicose Bibi. That’s right, Reagan, who won the Cold War without firing a shot, is just like Netanyahu, who wants to bomb “evil” Iran into the Stone Age and drag the United States…

Louis Jenkins| 9.29.09 @ 9:24AM

SL:

I never thought I would agree with you, but isn't the word 'Treason'? It is a problem. Take away their weapons and the Jews and Arabs will throw sticks and stones at each other. The US rides a tiger, trying to befriend both Arab and Jew. Catch 22. Or by funding Israel's military is the US keeping Muslim attention on that part of the world? Islam's purpose will not rest until we all kneel before Allah. Name your poison.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 9:38AM

"Take away their weapons and the Jews and Arabs will throw sticks and stones at each other"

I'm not proposing disarming Israel, just leaving them to arm themselves. We have done our part to establish them as the preeminent force in the Middle East, a nuclear-armed "economic powerhouse" (to quote a recent AmSpec piece) with a military unmatched in the Middle East. We have no reason to continue to meddle over there, and plenty of reasons not to.

Old Soldier| 9.29.09 @ 1:08PM

1. The Russians and Chinese are more than happy to arm the enemies of Israel at discount prices.

2. Our mistake has been the "peace-process" and artificially stopping wars too soon. Germans aren't throwing rocks at Russians living in Prussia because they conclusively lost the last war.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:24PM

"The Russians and Chinese are more than happy to arm the enemies of Israel at discount prices."

Serious question: do you think, if Israel was suddenly in the market for non-U.S. weapons, that either (or both) of these countries would shun that business and the resulting profits? Also, I'm not necessarily saying I'm opposed to selling Israel (or any other county) weapons on the free market. My argument here is that we should not be redistributing American wealth to Israel. Wealth redistribution is a conservative no-no, generally.

"Our mistake has been the "peace-process" and artificially stopping wars too soon."

That's really a meaningless statement. Our recent mistakes were starting wars that needn't be fought (Iraq) and prolonging wars long after we needed (Afghanistan).

Anthony| 9.29.09 @ 9:26AM

The great Ronald Reagan was prescient and always knew the danger that existed from the feckless elites. He defeated one of the biggest, Jimmy Carter. But of course, for a man like Reagan, it was easy. He knew his history and the motivations of men, especially those with malevolent designs, something Carter is still hopelessly clueless about. And now, Netanyahu is, as has been observed by others, the defacto leader of the free world.
Obama and his fellow Ivy League elites have dreams of a New World Order; unfortunately for America and the world, Obama's dream will be our nightmare. History tells us so, but Obama and friends are blinded by their own brilliance.

guido| 9.29.09 @ 9:26AM

Jesus Christ is the hope of mankind not the United Nations. Jeremiah 17:5..."Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD." Romans 11:26... And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."

Tim| 9.29.09 @ 9:54AM

"Where is President Obama? Where is the President of the United States as the "fanatical brains" of Iran go merrily along their path of endlessly sweet-talking the UN and the world ..."

Actually Mr. Lord they really aren't even bothering to sweeten the talk anymore.

Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 10:16AM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Israel's Reagan [spectator.org] on T links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…philipaklein Philip Klein amspec American Spectator 111 Show more Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/3ffP info http://tinyurl.com/yhqqjep 2 tweets Tweet The American Spectator : Israel's Reagan spectator.org/archives/2009/09/29/israels-reagan – view page – cached "But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and…

G.S.P.| 9.29.09 @ 10:23AM

Crap. Just when you think Lord is the smartest, brightest light on the right, he goes and praises a man like Netanyahu, an outright criminal and leader of a gang worse than any mafia-here and abroad.

Steve| 9.29.09 @ 10:24AM

Being a Chicago political thug, Obama is used to being the goon in the room, picking on the fecklessly law-abiding. He has not a clue how to react in the face of genuine tough-mindedness (or fanaticism) It is a recipe for disaster and has been apparent always; obvious to anyone not under the spell of the MSM.

To those who voted for Obama the daily exercise is this: peer into a mirror and repeat: "I am a naive and foolish person. I am a contemptible moron. Knowing my stupidity, I will never cast a ballot again......."

William R| 9.29.09 @ 10:33AM

Reagan’s wisdom on the Middle East: Leave

http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/?s=Reagan's+wisdom

William R| 9.29.09 @ 10:43AM

Reagan Turned Upside Down

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....37558.html

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 10:56AM

"Reagan Turned Upside Down

… or maybe he’s just rolling over in his grave, now that one of his Manichaean (note: I did not say maniacal) former staffers has bestowed the Reagan mantle on the Bellicose Bibi. That’s right, Reagan, who won the Cold War without firing a shot, is just like Netanyahu, who wants to bomb “evil” Iran into the Stone Age and drag the United States into yet another Middle East conflagration. Whether it’s kicking and screaming or it’s meekly waddling into war, Netanyahu expects the U.S. to deliver. After all, didn’t both Admiral Mullen and Hillary Clinton go to Israel just last year and swear that the U.S. would stand by our ally (ahem – without a treaty of alliance) for “a thousand years” and “forever,” respectively?

As they used to say in the Reagan Justice Department, “Down is Up.” But, more to the point, money talks. And there’s more money in war than in peace for the Beltway phalanx of defense industry lobbyists and their bipartisan ideological allies. To them, Dick Cheney’s (and Vladimir Lenin’s) “permanent war” is nothing but a bountiful, endless stimulus package.

In the 2008 GOP primaries, there were a lot of counterfeit Reagans running around, trying to win the presidential nomination by pleasing the dispensationalist evangelicals and their desire for Armageddon, the necessary preamble for the Second Coming. I’ve always marveled that they would hoist the Prince of Peace on their battle standards. But the Manichees constantly have to keep looking for new devils in order for their mangled metaphysics to survive, and these days, I’m-A-Dinner-Jacket apparently qualifies for their Hitler-Of-The-Month Club.

There is one comforting sign in the midst of the crescendo of war propaganda that engulfs us: they’re desperate. Why else would they roll out Reagan as the Mad Bomber? For the neocons and their dialectic, down is always up — and the check is in the mail."

Bob Miller| 9.29.09 @ 10:49AM

Toddard and others should check this out:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de.....arab-world

Kuentzel provides ample info in this and other papers and articles on this topic.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 10:52AM

Nazi comparisons immediately discredit whoever uses them.

John II| 9.29.09 @ 12:35PM

"The Iranians [sic] instinct toward self-preservation is no less than that of any other people - to attack Israel would be calamitous, and would *end* the existence of the Persians, a people whose roots stretch as far back into antiquity as those of the Israelis."

Toddard! How's the Greek coming? Have you got to the consonant declension yet? It's a bit of a bear, and I shall be glad to answer any questions.

Anyhow, I wanted to discredit myself with a Nazi comparison. In June 1940, Hitler turned the Wehrmacht against Russia, which some historians adduce as proof of insanity. But that wasn't all. Eighteen months later and a week after Pearl Harbor, he declared war against the United States when he had already bitten off more than he could swallow with the Russkies. I mean, the sensible thing in December 1941 would have been to let the US get bogged down with a Pacific War--his alliance with the Japanese Imperialists notwithstanding. The declaration of war was unnecessary--and if you'll allow me just a tiny twitch of chauvinism, NO-body declares war against the US of A, by God!

But Schikelgruber was a nut-case, know-what-I-mean? And if you will at least allow the possibility that the current Iranian leadership is packed with millenarian Islamic fanatics who care no more for Persia than the demented Adolph cared for Germany--why then, you must perforce entertain the possibility that what you said some time back in the quote above is perhaps a tad rash--and, dare I say, a somewhat vagrant instance of cultural projection.

In short, get back to those declensions and conjugations, Toddard. The study of Greek is a marvel of mental calisthenics, wiping the brain-stem free of cobwebs.

And now back to Abbott and Costello. Last night I saw "The Time of Their Lives," which bears some favorable comparison to "Meet Frankenstein," albeit not of the same persistently superior caliber.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:04PM

"Toddard! How's the Greek coming?"

Swimmingly! I watched My Big Fat Greek Wedding. If there's anything else to this Greek business please let me know.

Also, some times I don't know what your motive is with your arguments. I know that you know why that scenario is not analogous (i.e. mutual destruction was not assured in the same way it would be with a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran) so why would you pretend it was? I mean, why bother saying that, and then having me respond with something you already know? I'm not using the term now, but that's what I meant before when I said "farting around", and that's why my answers were so brief for a time. I didn't see the point.

Anyhow, a much better analogy (in my opinion) would be the nuclear stalemate between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (leaders of which had also sworn to wipe the U.S. off the map, more or less), though even that is problematic.

John II| 9.29.09 @ 1:34PM

No, I think my analogy is better. The Soviets were wicked and calculating, but not nuts. I simply take the mullahs at their word when they say they don't care a whit about Persia or any other nation-state in their grand vision of the returning imam and the rest of it.

In fact, it's only in the last few years that my sense of history (I'm thinking of Roman history during most of the third century AD, in which the Empire was pretty much under the serial thumbs of nut-cases, and the breath-taking destruction such narcissists are capable of) allows me to be truly concerned about nuclear weaponry.

So long as it was just a stand-off between the US and the USSR, I actually was rather glad about the existence of those weapons. I don't have quite the number of fingers I'd need to count off the international crises, from 1950 until about 1979, that would ordinarily have precipitated a shooting Third World War--a war which, given the rapid advances in the destructive capabilities of so-called conventional weaponry, would have made the colossally destructive World War II look like a skirmish with water-pistols. Nuclear weapons in the hands of non-suicidal principals kept that horrifying prospect (another conventional war on the scale of WWII) from materializing.

But now the nukes are shortly to be in the hands of the fanatical and the suicidal, since there is no sensible prospect for decadent Obama-like blathering and dithering to prevent the horror.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Toddard. You go your way with your flawed analogy, and I'll go my way with my near-perfect analogy, the consequence of a more limber brain-stem accorded me by the study of Greek.

Tonight: "Abbott and Costello Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff." A bit moronic, as I recall, but it has some nice scenes. Rather like our conversation, Toddard.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:48PM

Haha. You're good.

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 3:11PM

He sure kicked your butt SLT. Make sure you avoid him in the future because he made you look like the idiot you are. Only a complete tool like yourself thinks there is nothing to be alarmed about with Iran getting nuclear weapons. I think you are being disingenuous though, a Jew-hater like yourself likes the thought of Iran nuking Israel.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:23PM

Is there an argument in there somewhere? Oh, no - there isn't. Woops.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 3:33PM

Spoken like a true liar.

So says YOU! And why is that, Toddard? Why does it, according to YOU immediately discredit someone?

Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.

It's the spirit of a man that makes the man. What spirit are you partaking in?

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:35PM

"Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism."

Pffffffhaaaaahahahahahahahaha

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 4:47PM

I notice you didn't answer the question.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 3:47PM

"Nazi comparisons immediately discredit whoever uses them."

~So says Toddard. The fact is, he cannot bear the comparison, because it is true. It exposes his true ideology. So do not stop with the true comparisons!

Etiquette Man| 9.29.09 @ 11:12AM

God bless Bibi. Would that we could have a President with the same strength of character, fearlessness, and moral clarity.

In re Toddard, I think everyone who reads TAS has figured out that he's a Soros-sponsored goon, so why do you guys keep engaging him?

He is one of little Georgie Soros' better trolls-for-hire, I must admit. He's almost as good as at pretending to be a conservative as THE ONE is at pretending to love this country.

Please, though, don't make it easy for him. Make him come up with some new, innovative screen name, like "Real Conservative" or "Reagan Was a Commie."

If you MUST talk to trolls, at least make them work for it . . .

EM

John II| 9.29.09 @ 1:06PM

"In re Toddard, I think everyone who reads TAS has figured out that he's a Soros-sponsored goon, so why do you guys keep engaging him? "

Because it's fun. Besides, my Abbott and Costello collection isn't large enough to keep me distracted with more elevated fare. So I'm left with the thankless chore of converting Toddard to a study of the classics. But I don't think he's listening. Do you think I could convert Soros?

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:13PM

Oh I'm listening. Believe me, of all the arguments you've made on this site, your advocating for the Classics are the most invulnerable and iron-clad. You are a better man than I in that regard. I am at a severe disadvantage, and what's worse I envy you for it. I don't think I've made any secret of that.

John II| 9.29.09 @ 1:46PM

As I've sensed intermittently during our exchanges, you're a kind man, Toddard, when you're not being bull-headed. But cool it with the envy. Envy is the only sin forbidden twice in the Decalogue, and one suspects Yahweh is a pretty good psychologist, intimately privy to the weaknesses of His bull-headed creatures.

Myself, I envy no one. My favorite sin is gluttony. I am especially partial to a three-layer bacon-lettuce-and-tomato sandwich with gobs of coronary-inducing mayo. Good company with an Abbott and Costello flick, but I'm sure I'll pay for it in the end. And at my age, the reckoning is nigh.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:54PM

Yes, well, we've all got our flaws. I'm also unfairly handsome, ostentatiously brilliant, and too modest by half. It's our duty as Christians to recognize and overcome these shortcomings.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 4:03PM

"It's our duty as Christians"
~"Not every one that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Mt. 7:21"

Truman Republican| 9.29.09 @ 11:25AM

Someone else has recently called evil by its right name, and he undertook to eradicate a little of it against odds much longer than those faced by Reagan. Let us not remember this man as his many enemies pictured him: George W. Bush.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 12:23PM

What a revealing username. And such honesty. You know, TR, most people at AmSpec bend over backwards to deny that they are Liberals like Harry Truman was. You're more honest than they are.

Bravo!

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 4:10PM

Lie! Harry Truman was not a Liberal. You are a Liberal, Toddard.

Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 5:55PM

What was "conservative" about Harry S Truman, Marge.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 7:23PM

I believe you know the answer to that question full well. Why don't you pontificate on all you know about Harry S. Truman, since I'm sure with your knowledge you could fill several pages with everything you know as to why YOU think he was a Liberal. Go for it!

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 7:24PM

..Besides.. you never answered my question to you.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:53PM

everyone's still waiting for you to answer the question, Slo Todd.

Victor| 9.29.09 @ 10:19PM

Yes, Todd, let's hear all YOU know about Harry S Truman, shall we?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 11:00AM

So nothing, Marge? You can't name anything about Liberal Democrat Harry S Truman, arch-liberal FDR's vice president, that would make any sane person consider him a "conservative"?

Shocker.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 1:04PM

Ha! You accused the late Harry Truman of being a Liberal. You ought to be able to prove it. Still waiting.
Is it because you won't do it because you know you will be lying before you even open your mouth?
We all know you are a conservative in your own mind only.. so let's hear it ~~ define how he was a Liberal.
I don't play by your rules. Besides, you never even answered my question to you. Why not? The question was, how does anyone who makes Nazi comparisons immediately discredit themselves?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 4:06PM

He emphatically supported the creation of the UN, he pushed his own version of the by-definition ultra-liberal “New Deal” called the “Fair Deal” (Lyndon Johnson cited the Fair Deal as his inspiration for the Great Society), he pushed for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, Marge, he dumped billions into massive federal social programs, housing projects, public housing and urban renewal (see his Housing Act for more).

Now Marge, what were you saying? Oh yeah – Truman wasn’t a liberal. Please back up that ridiculous, ahistorical claim.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:29PM

Has anyone seen ol' Marge? She seems to have disappeared for some reason. How very strange.

No Turddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:54PM

I think she just got tired of your Jew hating stench, nose picker.

Can't say I blame her.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 7:15PM

Marge? Oh Maaaarge!

Where did she go?

Yosemeti Sam| 9.29.09 @ 11:31AM

Cheers to Netanyahu.

Sadly, he was pitching human values
to the UN psychiatric ward.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 7:36PM

Yosemeti Sam,
Ha! You're a man of few words, and good ones at that. My husband just said when I read it to him, "actually it should be the psychiatric ward for the criminally insane."

Bud| 9.29.09 @ 11:23PM

Agreed, Sam. It has been said the recent U.N. General Assembly session was reminiscent of the bar scene in the movie "Star Wars". I personally think the movie bar scene depicted more rational beings than the majority of those at that benighted gaggle of tyrants.

For the time being, I will consider Mr. Netanyahu as the titular head of the Free World. He at least has the capacity and will to act on behalf of the survival and freedom of the people he serves. He actually said that the people he represents are worth defending - nice touch, which would be welcome on these shores.

Lord knows our guy isn't up to it, and his fantasy foreign policy is outright reckless.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.29.09 @ 11:51AM

"To sum up: Israel is Good. The Palestinians are Evil (or, at best, people who *could* be good but are misled by wily Evil Islamists)." Correct. Much like the "U.S. is good and Muslim extremists are evil" or "Americans are good, but Obama is bad."

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 12:21PM

Hey it's Mike Tomlinson! I have a question for you, Mike: The United States Constitution - which you pretend to revere - declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and the Convention Against Torture treaty - the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution - compels prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes. Torture crimes have been *alleged*.

So, Mike, should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?

You must have forgotten to respond in the other thread.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:18PM

Anyone seen Mike Tomlinson? He was here a minute ago...

Anthony| 9.29.09 @ 4:27PM

A nice straw dog argument Toddard, but it won't play here. We are not compelled under any treaty to subsume international dogma to American civil law or jurisprudence. If it's the left's favorite cant about waterboarding that bothers you, chappie, Congress has the authority under the Constitution to ban it. The feckless Democrats wanted the issue but not the responsibility for another 9/11, so like you Toddard, they blow smoke, but refuse to do the heavy lifting.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 6:02PM

"A nice straw dog argument Toddard, but it won't play here. We are not compelled under any treaty to subsume international dogma to American civil law or jurisprudence."

Sorry - the language is clear. When torture is alleged (and it has been) the Convention Against Torture - which Article 6 of the Constitution makes the "supreme law of the land" - *compels* us to "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution." It really couldn't be any more clear. That treaty is binding per Article 6, as are *all* treaties that do not conflict with the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it is your wish that America not abide by its own laws - that's fine. You're a totalitarian. But to pretend that the Convention Against Torture isn't binding, or that it doesn't compel prosecution is simply *lying*.

So Anthony, I'll ask you the question Tomlinson refuses to answer: should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama/Bush that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?

Anthony| 9.29.09 @ 6:37PM

I am following the Constitution, moron, and the Constitution does not compel America to bow to international edicts and mores that violate our customs and laws that flow from the body of American jurisprudence that flows from our Constitution.
So now perhaps you'll enlighten all of us and tell us how you're favorite international treaty defines torture. We're all on pins and needles, oops, sorry, that probably violates the treaty, which is precisely why you want America subserviant to it.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 6:57PM

"I am following the Constitution, moron, and the Constitution does not compel America to bow to international edicts"

Of course not. I agree. However, the United States Constitution (in Article 6) declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Do you not understand that passage? On top if that, the Convention Against Torture treaty (the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution) compels prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes. Torture crimes have been *alleged*.

So Anthony, I'll ask you again the question both you and Tomlinson refuse to answer: should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama/Bush that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?

Anthony| 9.29.09 @ 8:00PM

Toddard, You are a pedantic bore, pure and simple. I'm sorry I attempted to engage you in discussion. Your reputation for obnoxiousness is well deserved.
You might have heard, or read, in your learned travels that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We are not obliged to engage in behaviors that are harmful to our American way of life. We are not obliged to honor international attempts to circumvent our Constitution and our rule of law. Internationalists like you and Obama wish to accomplish just that; a backdoor attempt to render our Constitution subservient to some body of international law, conceived at the UN or the Hague, that does not have America's best interest at heart.
So here's the deal Toddard, if you submit to being waterboarded and survive, I'll give your precious treaty a looksee. How's that? Now I have better things to do.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 10:38AM

"We are not obliged to honor international attempts to circumvent our Constitution and our rule of law."

Indeed, we are not. And yet you insist that we circumvent our Constitution, Article 6 of which declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Convention Against Torture treaty (the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution) compels prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes. Torture crimes have been *alleged*.

So Anthony, I'll ask you again the question both you and Tomlinson refuse to answer: should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama/Bush that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 6:59PM

Also, just a heads-up: the Convention Against Torture treaty is not an "international edict". It was signed by President Ronald Reagan and ratified by Congress. And, as I pointed out above, "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Serge from Wellington| 9.29.09 @ 8:38PM

For once, I agree with SLT: those who partook in games with terrorists should be investigated and prosecuted. My deepest respect to the late President Reagan, but how about President Lincoln? He, too, signed a very important document, which I believe is still valid.

I quote:

“Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting… or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermittent return to their homes and avocation, or with occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers – such men, or squads of men, are no public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as [terrorists]”.

General Orders No.100 of the United Stated Federal Army, Promulgated by President Lincoln on 24 April 1863.

The word terrorists is in brackets because it's the only one I changed – it's “pirates” in the original; the word “terrorists” didn't exist yet in the middle of 19th century. However, Toddard is right: the gang from Gitmo shouldn't spent years at the Caribbean resort having physiotherapy called “waterboarding”, courtesy of American taxpayers. They should be treated summarily, as Old Abe bequathed.

Nick| 9.29.09 @ 10:27PM

Serge,

Excellent point, and thanks for the history.

Unfortunately, it is wasted on Toddard. I once tried to make a similar point about unlawful combatants to him, using the trial of Major Andre by General Washington as an example. He was oblivious.

I agree with you. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld should have tried all unlawful combatants by military tribunal, and those found guilty should have been publicly hanged. That would have stopped the terrorists.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 11:09PM

Awesome post. I suggest Toddard put that in his pipe and smoke it. Instead of what he is currently smoking.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 10:34AM

Whether or not Lincoln declared that captured pirates be treated summarily is entirely irrelevant as to whether America is compelled to investigate torture allegations. The United States Constitution (in Article 6) declares that "all Treaties made... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Convention Against Torture treaty (the "supreme Law of the Land" according to the Constitution) compels prosecution of *alleged* torture crimes. Torture crimes have been *alleged*.

So Serge, I'll ask you the question both Anthony and Tomlinson refuse to answer: should we follow the Constitution and proceed with investigations/prosecutions, or do you agree with Obama/Bush that the Constitution is a quaint relic to only be adhered to when politically convenient?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 10:44AM

Also, please note that the "supreme law of the land" by definition supersedes General Orders No.100 of the United Stated Federal Army. And as the Convention Against Torture treaty does not conflict with the Bill of Rights, and as we have not withdrawn from it, it is *binding*.

The funny thing is that even you numbskulls aren't dense enough to be incapable of understanding this. You understand it totally, but because you *wish* it weren't true, you will bend over backwards and contort all logic and reason and truth in a maniacal attempt to force yourself to believe your own distortions. It's quite in keeping with the tendency of the Fox News Right to base their politics on emotion rather than reason.

Nick| 9.29.09 @ 10:07PM

Mr. Toddard,

Congress doesn't ratify treaties, the senate does.

For someone who demands complete fealty to the Constitution, you sure don't know it's contents very well.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 10:30AM

Good god. "The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives."

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 10:39AM

Scratch that - I see what you are saying. Yes the Senate, not the entire congress, ratifies treaties. You are correct - I should have said "Senate", not "Congress".

Johnno| 9.30.09 @ 3:35PM

Pompous A-Hole.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:55PM

Yeah, let's go ahead and see what we find out, shall we, Slo Todd?
You do believe in the chips falling where they may, don't you?
Let's see how far back we can go, eh?

Think First| 9.29.09 @ 12:05PM

Aw come on! SLT is a perfect example of how twisting a few things just a little, stating as fact what is a proven lie with enough boldness to those uninformed can appear to be a credible challenge. It is precisely this kind of thinking Reagan was addressing and warning about.

Let them rant and feed them if you must but understand they see no opinion but their own and seek only to sow the seeds of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in those they feel are the weaker minded.

As usual, facts, truth and history mean nothing to those unwilling to face them and learn from them. And if have not armed yourself with them yourself, you will respond to them in exactly the way they intend, in anger.

Remember, anyone who doubts the intent of these "Arab" leaders has already forgotten 9/11, and most recently what the "rightfully" elected leader is still doing to his own people just as Saddam did to any who disagreed with him. Is there a common trait here?

Whether it be Hitler, Stalin or Ahmadinejad, the pattern is the same. And dare we say - Pelosi, Reid or Obama, disagree at your peril because theirs is the only opinion that matters. It matters not a whit that the Persian people themselves are a laid back community that detest their murderous thugs who now lead them and must wonder how Carter ever sleeps knowing how many lives have been lost because of his actions to put murderous dictators in office. The same thing Obama is trying to do in Honduras.

The Iranian people would love to throw the bums out yet Obama spits on them just as he spits on the lawful removal of a would be dictator in Honduras. Precisely what Reagan was warning against is what our own president is doing.

How can we as Americans not be ashamed of him
and still look ourselves in the mirror?

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 4:19PM

Bravo! to your post, Think First.
I noticed that the Troll did not respond. The liar says that "Nazi comparisons immediately discredit whoever uses them." I guess you fit the bill! No, what you say is the truth. God bless you.
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:56PM

Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism=Toddardism

Allen Hanson| 9.29.09 @ 12:18PM

Viva Bibi!

Is there any way we can get this guy elected to our Presidency? After all, he did live in the US for a while, just like our current 1600 Penn Occupant.

I just hope Netanyahu doesn't go soft like he did last time he was PM.

Anthony| 9.29.09 @ 12:39PM

And today we learn from the Wall St. Journal that Obama was urged by Sarkozy and Brown to use his appearance at the UN , as chair of the Security Council, to confront Iran as to its secret facility.
But no, this was all about Obama, not world peace. This guy is scary.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.29.09 @ 1:39PM

Mr. Lord
Thank you.
That was a splendid article.
One thought occurred to me reading BiBi's speech the first time. Was he laying the political foundation for an all out attack on Iran?

Then I got a chill. How might he define an "all out attack"?
I am not thinking nukes, but might he load some missles with HUGE bunker busters or drillers?

Where might he aim them...at the reportedly scattered nuke facilities, or the Mullahs themselves...or both???

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:48PM

"Then I got a chill. How might he define an "all out attack"?
I am not thinking nukes, but might he load some missles with HUGE bunker busters or drillers?"

Wouldn't that be exciting?! KICK BUTT, USA!

Also, remember when everyone here pretended to care oh-so-much about Iranians a few months ago, when it helped them discredit Obama? That went out the window pretty quick, eh? Now let's bomb those savages back to the stone age! THESE COLORS DON'T RUN!!!

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 1:56PM

Try to hide it behind your platitudes all you want SLT, you are nothing but a raving anti-Semite. Is that you that posts all that Jew hating garbage? I wouldn't be surprised. Your pathetic attempt to discredit historical fact as posted by Bob Miller is typical of you. Numerous Arab leaders (political and religious) were in bed with the Nazi's, that is a fact. You don't care about facts though if it doesn't conform to your beliefs and your Jew hatred.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 2:44PM

Is there an argument in there somewhere? Oh, no - there isn't. Woops.

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 3:00PM

Do you have an argument against the alliance of Nazi's and Arabs you pathetic Jew-hating troll?

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:12PM

Oh boy. The anti-semitism card. It's sad how often the neoconservative right employ the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Jimmy Carter grievance-card method of stifling debate. Not to mention ironic in the extreme, considering the manufactured outrage that Carter's grievance-card playing recently precipitated.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for the Liberal internationalists to be consistent.

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 3:34PM

When you ignore all the outrages against the Jews from the Arabs over the years, particularly during the Nazi regime, it is because you are anti-Semitic SLT. Speaking of anti-Semites, you listed a few with AL Sharpton and Jimmy Carter with whom you share the exact same view of Israel.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:39PM

Oh boy. The anti-semitism card. It's sad how often the neoconservative right employ the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Jimmy Carter grievance-card method of stifling debate. Not to mention ironic in the extreme, considering the manufactured outrage that Carter's grievance-card playing recently precipitated.

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 3:52PM

Just keep repeating your mantra SLT but everyone here knows what you are. How about getting a real job instead of posting your drivel here every freaking day.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 10:23PM

Just remember, every thing todd says is a lie, except when he say's he's lying, he's telling the truth, but when he says he's telling the truth, he is lying.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 10:25PM

I meant the dishonest Toddas in Toddard Todd.
Or as he is now being referred to SLT:
Slimy Lettuce and Tomato

victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:51PM

Slo Todd is a self-hating pathetic Jew-hating troll.

Mary Louise| 9.29.09 @ 1:58PM

In one of the Gospels, I don’t remember which one, Jesus says that he doesn’t judge because one doesn‘t know, he judges because one doesn’t love.

Israel is not an aggressor. It can defend itself admirably and no doubt mercilessly when it has to, but she is not an aggressor. She is not an Empire. She’s not a Colonial Power. Israelis live where their ancestors lived. See Bibi's signet ring.

When Israel has to defend itself she sends care packages as America did to Italy after the bombing stopped. My parents lived through WWII. They lived in lean-tos under the constant supervision of German troops. My grandmother cooked for them (very smart move!) and my grandfather chopped wood. My mother speaks well of them. When she saw Loren’s Two Women she thought it more Hollywood than true. And I’m inclined to my Mom’s take because of the Christmas Truce in the prior War, and what that implies of the make-up of soldiers at that time.

Many Italians died because of the Allied Bombing. It was the price that Mussolini brought crashing down upon their heads. He invited German occupation, and even if Emanuele and the Monarchy would have been overpowered by German aggression the only thing capable of repulsing the occupation was fire power.

American Soldiers, long gone but not forgotten, are the reason I’m here. My Naturalization Papers are a testament to their bravery and their selflessness.

No WWII Veteran ever has to defend the War because if ever there was a just War that was it. The singularity and hideousness of the Ovens can never be forgotten.

The Palestinians can’t send care packages to those who escape one of their shrapnel laden homicide-suicide packs. They’ve never been a Nation, so they have to attack a person eating a slice of pizza or getting on a bus. Their homicide-suicide packages display not only their desperation but their profound degradation.

I understand the West Bank has an economy growing at a rate 7%. If Palestine ever becomes a Nation it will have Israel to thank. Not Syria, Egypt or Lebanon, but Israel.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 2:58PM

“Israel is not an aggressor.”

Is America?

“Israelis live where their ancestors lived”

And where living Arabs once lived, and where *their* ancestors lived, and where the ancestors of gentile Europeans once lived. Somehow I doubt you believe that gives all these groups a right to that land.

“When Israel has to defend itself she sends care packages as America did to Italy after the bombing stopped”

That’s sweet. That way, when a Palestinian woman’s little boy has his head blown off in an Israeli attack, she can draw a smiley face on one and prop it on his neck and pretend he’s still alive. It must be a great comfort.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:50PM

You can pretend all you want about where your sympathies lie, but you cannot deny that God gave that land to Israel before there were any arabs.

Mary Louise| 9.29.09 @ 2:25PM

I didn’t vote for Reagan, and I’m not educated enough to know if fighting the Cold War was a necessity. But even if it wasn’t, it didn’t begin with Reagan. It began with Truman.

At the time, I found some of Reagan's speeches vapid. Not as vapid as President Obama; his are a positive froth of it. But as I began to read Reagan's speeches and writing before he became President, my opinion changed. I was both impressed and moved, and began to see his greatness.

I don’t think it’s arguable that a hegemon will be. And even if you don’t want to be the hegemon, you can’t allow the power vacuum to be filled by those who are antithetical to liberty, plurality and progress. Both Israel and America are lovers of all.

The RCC was a hegemon. Augustine began the grappling for hegemony. The gifts and fruits of that hegemony are numerous. But the evil and treachery is bountiful and there as well. And most of us do not want to return to the ‘dark abyss of predestination and insecure and clandestine grace.’ The failure of Christianity is that it turned the Event of Christ into a set of propositions, so that what you thought became as or more important than how you lived. Eventually it became inorganic so that in the early years, the cry 'see how those Christians love one another' devolved in Montaigne's observation that there was no hate like Christian hate.

It’s folly to think you can run from the ties of history. And this isn’t about a Chosen People. Anyone can convert to Judaism or Christianity. Deuteronomy was both the cause of the collapse of my Christianity, and the thread that won’t let me go. I love that book.

If I get a chance later on, I’ll post an excerpt from C.S. Lewis’ Reflections. Specifcially from a section that describes the thick and fibrous thread binding Hebrew and Christian. This bond being very much outside and from an antiquity impossible for the Greeks and Romans to compare and compete with.

Nick| 9.29.09 @ 2:51PM

*If you support *Israel*, you are a Neo-con. If you don't think the targeting and killing of Jewish civilians by *radical* Moslems is O.K., you are a Neo-con. If you think randomly launching lethal rockets into Jewish *neighborhoods* is evil, you are a Neo-con. If you don't agree that *Hamas* and *Hezzbollah* are *freedom fighters*, not *terrorists*, you are a Neo-con. If you *think* an *Israeli* *Apache* *taking out* a *Hamas leader* with a *Hellfire missle* is *self-defense*, you are a Neo-con.*

-S.L. Toddard
The Most *Conservative* Person in the World
and Grand Arbiter of Who Is and Is Not *Conservative*

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:01PM

“If you support *Israel*, you are a Neo-con.”

False.

“If you don't think the targeting and killing of Jewish civilians by *radical* Moslems is O.K., you are a Neo-con”

False.

“If you think randomly launching lethal rockets into Jewish *neighborhoods* is evil, you are a Neo-con”

False.

“If you don't agree that *Hamas* and *Hezzbollah* are *freedom fighters*, not *terrorists*, you are a Neo-con”

False.

“If you *think* an *Israeli* *Apache* *taking out* a *Hamas leader* with a *Hellfire missle* is *self-defense*, you are a Neo-con”

False.

Wow – 0 for 5. That’s bad, even for you.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:02PM

I will say the *asterisks* are a nice touch though.

Nick| 9.29.09 @ 5:19PM

You have no problem telling me, and others, what we believe (often erroneously), so why can't I do the same?

And while I admit my attempt was to be humorous, it is a fairly accurate summation of many of your postings. To be funny it has to have an element of truth.

Tim| 9.29.09 @ 3:23PM

The aftermath of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear war is terrible to contemplate. You can pretty much bet that we will be expected to clean up, rebuild and help the vicitims on both sides.
It would be a lot better to stop it from happening now, if only we knew how.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:34PM

Well, one side has opened their nuclear program to inspectors and signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and one hasn't. Should we place severe sanctions on this rogue nuclear-state at once?

victor| 9.29.09 @ 10:52PM

Yes, take out the Iranian nuke plants.

G.S.P.| 9.29.09 @ 3:37PM

uh, HEY!:

..."Crap. Just when you think Lord is the smartest, brightest light on the right, he goes and praises a man like Netanyahu, an outright criminal and leader of a gang worse than any mafia-here and abroad. ..."

I guess I shouldn't have left off the 'jr.'

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:43PM

"Iran has been a critical issue for the United States and Israel for a very long time. Seventeen years ago, in January 1992, the U.S. Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons.” That same month, Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb… (The nuclear threat) must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” In that same year, Robert Gates, then director of the CIA, asked, "Is [Iran’s nuclear program] a problem today?" He answered, "Probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem." Three years later, a senior Israeli official declared: "If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."

Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014—the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/b.....-war/full/

Tim| 9.29.09 @ 3:51PM

"Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly
He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids good-bye
He waited his whole damn life to take that flight
And as the plane crashed down he thought
'Well isn't this nice...'
And isn't it ironic ... don't you think ? "

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 3:57PM

So big reader of the Daily Beast are you SLT? How about posting something from the Huffington Post or Daily Kos why you are at it. Oh I forgot, you are a "real conservative". Loser troll

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 6:04PM

I'm sorry, Todd - which facts in that piece do you dispute?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 8:15AM

Hello?

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 4:39PM

Ha! The Daily Beast... another Lefist loony website recommended by Toddard. Surprise, surprise.

Liberalism=Socialsim=Communism=Satanism.

"You are from your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. fThat one was a manslayer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him." When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar and the father of it."
John 8:44.

Serge from Wellington| 9.29.09 @ 3:52PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 9:13AM:

In the Gaza War, in which 13 Israelis were killed, Israel was the victim

In the Gaza War, in which 1,100 Palestinians were killed and over 5,000 wounded, Palestinians were the Evil Terrorist Agressors who Deserved It

Toddard, how about many thousands of Israelis (women and children being the primary targets of 'defenceless Palestinians') who were blown up on buses, in discoteques and pizza parlors? Who lost their life, health, limbs and dreams not because IDF used them as human shields during a military operations iniciated by them, but just going after their everyday business, or having fun during night out, walking their kids, etc.?

Do you inclkude them in your morbid statistics?

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 4:04PM

"Do you inclkude them in your morbid statistics?"

Would you like me to include total casualties? You think that will look *better* for Israel?

ben| 9.29.09 @ 6:45PM

ReToddard
Your attempt at moral equivilance is farcical at best. The Pals have been attacking Isreal for decades trying to kill any Jew - man woman or child. Simply because their weoponry and strength is not equal to that of the Isrealis does not make their intent or actions less evil.
I'm 6'2" 240lbs. If some dwarf attacks me the chances of him actually harming me are slim. If he keeps attacking me over and over he may inflict a few bruises per 100 punches. If I retaliate to protect myself I could do much more damage to that dwarf with just one punch. Claiming that my breaking his jaw with 1 punch in retaliation is a worse action than his 100 punches and constant attacks simply because of the damage done is the same illogic you are trying to use to paint Isreal as the bad guy.
The number of casualties is insignificant - the actions of the parties is.
The pals have been attacking Isreal repeatedly for over 60 years - They've attacked Jews for much, much longer. The Jews retaliate every so often with force and have been able to inflict more damage than the pals. You are trying to take the results of actions and attribute them to the moral intent of those actions in order to create a moral equivilance between the two. This is the same stupidity we hear over and over from the UN and others on the brain-dead left when they argue against "disproportionate" force.
If a dwarf attacks me am I no longer allowed to defend myself simply because I'm full grown? If a man comes to kill me with a knife, should I not be allowed to defend myself with my gun?
When your opponent (enemy) strikes you, you strike them back ten-fold.
Your arguments are an attempt to make Isreal out as the bad guy simply because they're stronger than those attacking them. It's farcical.
You imply in your posts that you consider yourself smarter than that, yet you prove yourself wrong everytime.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 11:00PM

Just remenber that in 1947, the so-called palestinians were offered a two state solution, but Toddard's pals vetoed the whole deal and attacked Israel. Israel declared independence and was recognized by the United States and was attacked by the arabs the next day.

janet| 9.29.09 @ 5:04PM

Bibi has always been a favorite of mine. A man of strength with moral clarity. Something the SLToddards of the world would not understand.

Mary Louise| 9.29.09 @ 5:28PM

Care packages sure do make a difference. They tell us something about both America and Israel. As I said, when you're not a Nation defending itself against an aggressor and you are an aggressor, what you do is strap a homicide/suicide vest on your young men and women too (IIRC) and send them into pizzerias and bus stops. I can't imagine sitting down to a slice of pizza and seconds later finding shrapnel in my face, and neck, and arms, and legs, and breasts and abdomen. Such means are much more degraded than the means a Nation must use to defend itself against such attacks.

The US may be an aggressor in Iraq. She invaded. But the connection between 9/11 and Iraq may be positive and not fiction. It wasn't just GW who thought WMD were there. Long before 9/11, Gore, Clinton and Clinton’s Sec of Defense told us Iraq had stockpiles of Anthrax and who knows what else.

President Bush had a security council resolution he could use to advance the invasion. Congress saw the evidence that President Bush presented. Colin Powell told us of the yellow cake. Congress approved the invasion because the evidence must have been convincing enough to cause them to err on the side of caution. Tony Blair, hardly a Republican or a warlord, stood head to head with us. He must have been convinced Iraq presented a ‘grave and gathering threat.’ Our intelligence even before being proven wrong did not have great capacity to infiltrate cells where the language was Arabic and probably different dialects of that.

I’m thinking that Vietnam happened in no small measure because of SEATO, so it was different than Iraq. The invasion of Iraq changed America, and I often wonder if Reagan would have followed the same plan. But none of this would have taken place without the act of war that was 9/11. That no particular nation was the perpetrator doesn’t absolve a Nation from trying to protect its women and children.

I'm mindful of both the gift that we gave Iraq, i.e the removal of Hussein, and of the widows and orphans we've created. I hope that Iraqis will come to have a relationship with America like that of my family and me. My parents fled our bombs too. I hope the Iraqis come to have the same relationship with us that Kham does. Kham is an immigrant from Laos, who is just a couple of weeks older than I am He swam the Mekong in the dead of the night, and at 15 years of age, to escape NVA conscription. He swam to Thailand and eventually made it here.

Your Church took land that didn’t belong to it. It gave women internals to check for heresy. It tortured people. It roasted people alive. But it's still your Church and you don’t see a corrupted bride you see objectives and reasons and history and circumstances that mollify.

Your calls for consistency are laughable. But that’s okay because consistency really is the hobgoblin of small minds.

We’re not on the same side, and that’s okay too. But your view will not prevail because it’s the view of an aginner and a shut-in.

Bibi and his counterparts here in America will continue to move the world ahead. To progress, to “clean up the planet,” as he said. And, mark my words, Bibi will come to the defense of the United States if we need him to.

Disclaimer on the ’aginner’ piece. I don’t really see Rush as an ’aginner,’ but it’s an important piece for conservatives, in general, to read.

P.S. Correction on one of my prior posts: I don’t think people can be antithetical, it’s their philosophy that is.

Richard Baker| 9.29.09 @ 5:30PM

Netanyahu. A real man not to be confused with the shemales who infest these pages. Read also about his brother who was killed at Entebbe.

Serge from Wellington| 9.29.09 @ 6:06PM

SLT:Would you like me to include total casualties? You think that will look *better* for Israel?

No need for statistics to look better for Israel: the huge difference in numbers just shows that all Pallies' fingers are thumbs. What is important is the clear Arab intend to deliberately attack Israeli civilians and use their own as human shield. So just include killed and maimed Palestinian women and children together with Israeli ones into the Hamas, Hizbollah and PLO valliant achievments.

And here are some highlights of the SLT-style agitprop from someone in very different timezone:

SLT: I do not believe I should be forced to contribute to Israel's wars and land-theft.

Land-theft? This one is good – especially on the background of Israel's land purchase statistics just couple of posts above.

SLT:...the Persians, a people whose roots stretch as far back into antiquity as those of the Israelis.

Bravo, Mr Toddard – you recognize that Israelis existed as long ago as ancient Persians! Prey tell, what lands did they live on then? Presumably, they were far away from their contemporary abode stolen from “Palestinians”...

SLT: My argument here is that we should not be redistributing American wealth to Israel.

But you never argue against redistribution of American wealth to “Palestinians” and other Arabs, do you?

Ken (Old Texican):

I am not thinking nukes, but might he (Bibi Netanyahu) load some missles with HUGE bunker busters or drillers?

SLT:Wouldn't that be exciting?! KICK BUTT, USA!

Very typical S.L. Toddard – juggling opponent's words to achieve (unsuccessfully) his propaganda ends. The Old Texican spoke about possible means of Israeli, not American military action against Iran, but SLT needs to slur “Amerika, and the Joos”, so anything will do.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 6:33PM

I like how you refer to yourself in the third person. That's cool.

Serge from Wellington| 9.29.09 @ 8:53PM

Sure, I am cool. I hear this from quite a number of ladies. But it's for the first time in my life that I receive such a compliment from a male. Does your politically correct... orientation go that far to the left?

Sorry, but I can't reciprocate your feelings.

S L Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 11:02PM

I'm S L Toddard and you're not.

Serge from Wellington| 9.30.09 @ 12:43AM

Indeed, I'm not. Thank G-d.

jd| 9.29.09 @ 6:15PM

Iran, as well as many Palestinians themselves, have no desire to live in peace with Israel. Their stated goal of the total annilation of Israel and Israelis is the main reason why Israel has my sympathies. They have given Gaza to the Palestinians as an offer of peace and what did those damn Palestinians do but use it as a base to attack Israel. Many Arabs have no qualms about killing their own to advance their cause. Israel will always have my support and empathy. I'll save my derision for the Palestinians who believe they alone have rights to land, as well as for American Jews who continuallly support liberal Democrats who have little regard for the State of Israel.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 6:22PM

"Their stated goal of the total annilation of Israel and Israelis is the main reason why Israel has my sympathies"

Iran stated a goal of annihilating Israelis?

victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:46PM

Is being obtuse a profession with you?

Shyster| 9.30.09 @ 5:04AM

Really, Toddard|, are you this ignorant?
Add illiterate to the many valid criticisms voiced about you on this board.
Do you ever do any original research? Or do you just rely on the anti-semites on the Daily Kooks?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 8:08AM

Is that a "no" answer to my question?

Richard Baker| 9.29.09 @ 6:16PM

I would recommend that one and all listen to Netanyahu's recent UN speech. Clear and concise. The UN will go the way of the League of Nations and hopefully soon.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 6:31PM

"Land-theft? This one is good – especially on the background of Israel's land purchase statistics just couple of posts above."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964843.html

"Bravo, Mr Toddard – you recognize that Israelis existed as long ago as ancient Persians! Prey tell, what lands did they live on then?"

Mesopotamia, then Canaan, then Israel, Egypt, then all over the Roman world, then all over Europe and elsewhere. Not that that's relevant - it goes without saying that one doesn't have any legitimate claim to lands one's ancestors lived on thousands of years ago, obviously.

"But you never argue against redistribution of American wealth to “Palestinians” and other Arabs, do you?"

Yes, I do. We should cease redistributing our hard-earned money to any foreign people, whether they are Arab, Israeli, Mexican or Hottentot.

Serge from Wellington| 9.29.09 @ 8:58PM

SLT: ...it goes without saying that one doesn't have any legitimate claim to lands one's ancestors lived on thousands of years ago, obviously.

From how many years in the past one DOES have legitimate claim to such lands, and, even more important, who says so? Because nothing goes without saying, you know.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 8:09AM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964843.html

Shyster| 9.30.09 @ 5:18AM

Again, Toddard, you demonstrate your ignorance.
Canaan most accurately describes the land occupied by the Jews. Palestine was a creation of the Romans around 135 AD., as an insult to a recent uprising of the Jews to Roman occupation. Only the Jews have been constant residents of "Canaan" throughout the centuries, not so-called "palestinians". You also neglect to mention that the British allowed and encouraged arab migration to Israel during the first 40 years of the 20th century while banning Jewish immigration. Your ignorance of history is truly stunning! You also conveniently ignore the 6000 rockets lobbed at Israel every year prior to their attempt to end that bloodbath. I can only believe that you're stupid, lazy, bigoted or just an another member of the overly-educated, but stupid, class typified by the current lot of "brilliant" lights in the White House. The alternative conclusion is you're just a liar.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 1:13PM

Re: Toddard~
"Communism is the opiate of the intellectuals -- With no cure except as a guillotine might be called a cure for dandruff."

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 1:16PM

*above quote attrib. to Clare Booth Luce
Toddard loves swimming in with the true conservatives here just taking up space, probably getting by for it by his communist friends. What he thinks he is accomplishing is a mystery.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 1:17PM

*meant probably getting paid for it.

Red Phillips | 9.29.09 @ 6:42PM

Netanyahu can call "evil by its name" all he wants, just so long as he doesn't try to drag America into it. America should maintain strict neutrality in affairs that do not concern us just as George Washington wisely suggested.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 11:04PM

He never said "strict neutrality" he said that we should watch out for "entangling " alliances.

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.29.09 @ 7:17PM

I sincerely hope that President Palin and Prime Minister Netanyahu acknowledge the American Spectator when they dedicate the new Ronald Reagan Airport after it is completed just outside at the former city limits of the recently destroyed city of Tehran.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 7:26PM

But what about all those huddled Iranian masses, yearning to breathe free, that the Fox News Right so flamboyantly lavished with concern during the Iranian elections? Most of them lived in Tehran, remember?

Apparently now that pretending to care about Iranians and democracy and all of that is no longer politically expedient you've all dropped that charade. It never suited you anyhow, to be honest. Time to blow some Iranian families into bloody chunks with our Freedom Bombs.

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 7:21PM

I think I have found a piece we can all agree on - it is highly critical of both President Obama and the dreaded Mainstream ("Liberal") Media:

Does anyone remember all the lies that they were told by then-president Bush and the "mainstream media" about the grave threat to America from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? These lies were repeated endlessly in the print and TV media despite the reports from the weapons inspectors, who had been sent to Iraq, that no such weapons existed.

The weapons inspectors did an honest job in Iraq and told the truth, but the mainstream media did not emphasize their findings. Instead, the media served as a Ministry of Propaganda, beating the war drums for the U.S. government.

Now the whole process is repeating itself. This time the target is Iran.

As there is no real case against Iran, Obama took a script from Bush’s playbook and fabricated one.

First the facts: As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran’s nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which carefully monitors Iran’s nuclear energy program to make certain that no material is diverted to nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has monitored Iran’s nuclear energy program and has announced repeatedly that it has found no diversion of nuclear material to a weapons program. All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned interest in nuclear weapons years ago.

In keeping with the safeguards agreement that the IAEA be informed before an enrichment facility comes online, Iran informed the IAEA on Sept. 21 that it had a new nuclear facility under construction. By informing the IAEA, Iran fulfilled its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The IAEA will inspect the facility and monitor the nuclear material produced to make sure it is not diverted to a weapons program.

Despite these unequivocal facts, Obama announced on Sept. 25 that Iran has been caught with a "secret nuclear facility" with which to produce a bomb that would threaten the world.

The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation. Between the end of 2004 and early 2007, Iran voluntarily complied with an additional protocol (Code 3.1) that was never ratified and never became a legal part of the safeguards agreement. The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility. Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007, most likely because of the American and Israeli misrepresentations of Iran’s existing facilities and military threats against them.

By accusing Iran of having a secret "nuclear weapons program" and demanding that Iran "come clean" about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" to set up Iraq for invasion.

The U.S. media, even the "liberal" National Public Radio, quickly fell in with the Obama lie machine. Steven Thomma of the McClatchy Newspapers declared the non-operational facility under construction, which Iran reported to the IAEA, to be "a secret nuclear facility."

Thomma, reported incorrectly that the world didn’t learn of Iran’s "secret" facility, the one that Iran reported to the IAEA the previous Monday, until Obama announced it in a joint appearance in Pittsburgh the following Friday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Obviously, Thomma has no command over the facts, a routine inadequacy of "mainstream media" reporters. The new facility was revealed when Iran voluntarily reported the facility to the IAEA on Sept. 21.

Ali Akbar Dareini, an Associated Press writer, reported, incorrectly, over AP: "The presence of a second uranium-enrichment site that could potentially produce material for a nuclear weapon has provided one of the strongest indications yet that Iran has something to hide."

Dareini went on to write that "the existence of the secret site was first revealed by Western intelligence officials and diplomats on Friday." Dareini is mistaken. We learned of the facility when the IAEA announced that Iran had reported the facility the previous Monday in keeping with the safeguards agreement.

Dareini’s untruthful report of "a secret underground uranium enrichment facility whose existence has been hidden from international inspectors for years" helped to heighten the orchestrated alarm.

There you have it. The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best – lying through their teeth. The U.S. "mainstream media" repeats the lies as if they were facts. The U.S. "media" is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications. Apparently, the media’s main interest is to please the U.S. government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations.

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a rare man of principle who has not sold his integrity to the U.S. and Israeli governments, refuted in his report (Sept. 7, 2009) the baseless "accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran’s nuclear program. I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith."

As there is no legal basis for action against Iran, the Obama regime is creating another hoax, like the nonexistent "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." The hoax is that a facility, reported to the IAEA by Iran, is a secret facility for making nuclear weapons.

Just as the factual reports from the weapons inspectors in Iraq were ignored by the Bush regime, the factual reports from the IAEA are ignored by the Obama regime. Like the Bush regime, the Middle East policy of the Obama regime is based in lies and deception.

Who is the worse enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?

http://spectator.org/archives/.....els-reagan

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 7:28PM

Sorry - here's the correct link:

http://original.antiwar.com/ro.....the-works/

You should donate to that site, btw - it is a staunch opponent of both Obama and the MSM.

Serge from Wellington| 9.29.09 @ 9:07PM

You should post on bolshevik.org, Toddard, and donate to them a lion's share of your income.

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 10:57PM

Oh my oh my oh my! You men are discrediting yourselves using those terms. What SHALL we do?

Nick| 9.29.09 @ 9:39PM

Anti War.com?!!!

Ha-ha-ha-ha!

This is like Goebbels reporting on the atrocities of the Soviets.

Perhaps the mental giants at Anti War.com should read their own posts:

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/0.....a-rules-3/

JOHN HEILPRIN
AP News
Sept. 25, 2009 16:36 EST

"The International Atomic Energy Agency, however, has rejected Iran's contention it must notify the agency of new facilities only six months before operations. The agency says Iran is obliged to make such a notification when it begins design of such facilities."

And from Toddard's post above:
"The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation."

It's not just the "Obama regime's claim", the IAEA SAYS Iran must notify them at the design stage.

Who's lying, Mr. Toddard? The IAEA? Paul Craig Roberts? Or the AP's John Heilprin?

See how easy it is to cherry-pick quotes.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 9:04AM

"Who's lying, Mr. Toddard? The IAEA? Paul Craig Roberts? Or the AP's John Heilprin?"

I do not know that anyone is "lying". Mark Halperin could be correct that an IAEA rep said that Iran is obliged to make notification when it begins designing a nuclear facility. An IAEA rep may have said that. And the IAEA rep may have made that claim in good faith, fully believing it - I don't know. What I do know - or at least what I have read, and have found nothing to discredit it - is that Iran's legislation *never ratified* that provision, and is therefore not bound by it under international law.

If you have evidence that they indeed ratified that provision then by all means - bring it forward. I am entirely open to reconsidering should any contrary evidence or documentation be brought to my attention.

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 10:58AM

Mr. Toddard,

Ah, but you have read something to discredit it.

The IAEA, according to the AP, says Iran has to notify them.

Either the IAEA (the NPT watchdog) is right or Mr. Roberts (anti-war blogger) is right. They both can't be correct. Get back to me when you figure it out, OK?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 11:13AM

"The IAEA, according to the AP, says Iran has to notify them."

That does not demonstrate that Iran ratified that provision, I'm sorry to say.

"Either the IAEA (the NPT watchdog) is right or Mr. Roberts (anti-war blogger) is right."

Correct - since no one has demonstrated that Iran ratified that provision, the IAEA is wrong.

"They both can't be correct. Get back to me when you figure it out, OK?"

I already have. Iran's legislation *never ratified* that provision, and is therefore not bound by it under international law.

If you have evidence that they indeed ratified that provision then by all means - bring it forward. I am entirely open to reconsidering should any contrary evidence or documentation be brought to my attention.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 12:38PM

Nick - here's something to bolster your argument:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....chief.html

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 12:46PM

Actually that's not damaging at all to my argument. But THIS is:

Question: When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies that Iran broke the law regarding construction of the nuclear facility at Qom, what is the legal basis for his argument and does it hold water?

Deepti Choubey: Ahmadinejad is trying to argue that Iran is not bound by a modified Code 3.1 that Iran agreed to with the IAEA in February 2003. He is saying that Iran is bound to a previous Subsidiary Agreement where Iran would have to inform the IAEA of a new facility 180 days before fissile material is introduced to it. He is also asserting that the Majlis never ratified the modified Code 3.1. These arguments are false. The modified Code 3.1 does not require ratification. Instead, they are done through an exchange of letters. Iran tried to unilaterally break the agreement in 2007 and the IAEA said they could not do that.

The IAEA stated that both parties need to agree to terminate the agreement. A key issue for the upcoming inspection is whether the secret facility was constructed before Iran tried to terminate the modified 3.1 agreement. That would make it even more clear that Iran has violated its Subsidiary Agreement with the IAEA.

http://www.carnegieendowment.o.....;proj=znpp

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 1:10PM

How to Cherry-Pick 101:

"Correct - since no one has demonstrated that Iran ratified that provision, the IAEA is wrong."

"Iran's legislation *never ratified* that provision, and is therefore not bound by it under international law."

Do you read Farsi? Have you read "Iran's legislation" or this protocol? Somehow I doubt that you have.

Your only "proof" is a blog entry from an anti-war zealot.

When it is contradicted by the IAEA, on the same blog site, you believe the the blogger.

You have no basis to believe Iran, the IAEA, Mr. Roberts, the AP, or B.O.; because until you read all the pertinent treaty language for yourself, you have to trust what others say about it.

When you use only those quotes that agree with you, that is called cherry-picking, Mr. Toddard.

You are being very intellectually dishonest.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 1:18PM

Jesus. That's a typo - it should read "legislature".

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 1:19PM

I'm going to have to start "refreshing" before I post.

I retract the "intellectually dishonest" comment, as it pertains to this exchange. Nice qualifier, huh?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 1:29PM

I'm not really married to the idea that Iran is not bound by that provision because it was never ratified, as I said earlier - though I think it makes sense. That's not to say that I am convinced that they are bound by it, either. But Deepti Choubey's argument seems sound to me.

Also, Nick, do I need to spell out how you would react if you quoted a Victor David Hansen article (or something) and to refute it I quoted the United Nations? Because it happened before, and I believe you characterized it as a far-left organization whose claims were not to be trusted.

Talk about "pick and choose"!

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 2:01PM

Not exactly apples and apples, as far as it concerns this debate.

Now, if I made a point by quoting a report by VDH, and you quoted Mark Levin contradicting Mr. Hanson, and I arbitrarily said VDH was correct, you would have a good argument. That would be cherry-picking. I'm pretty sure I have never done that.

And I stand by my claim that the UN is a left-wing org.
I also seem to remember you also used Ramsey Clark to try to make your point. If you didn't know who Clark was, you could be forgiven.
But if you did know who he was, and used him anyway, you have no excuse.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 3:43PM

I think your confused. You asserted before that the UN is an unreliable source due to their being a Left Wing organization. You are now using that same, previously unreliable (according to you) source.

Now, let me say I don't think they are inherently unreliable, in this case or the other. But you consider them unreliable apparently according to whether or not they agree with you.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 3:44PM

Ugh! "You're".

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 4:42PM

No, again it is you who is confused.

It was you, through Mr. Roberts, that made the assertions condemning B.O.'s administration and the MSM, not I. Go back and read your original post.

I asserted nothing. I simply used YOUR source, i.e. anti-war.com, to show the discrepency between the IAEA's claims and Iran's.

You cite the IAEA all the time as a source to "prove" GWB "lied us into war." Now, in this particular instance, the IAEA can't be trusted. It is Iran's Holocaust Denier-in-Chief who is to be believed!

Since I made no assertion, it doesn't matter if I find the source credible or not. It was up to you to explain the logic of accepting Iran's claim and rejecting the claim of a often cited and trusted source, the IAEA.

You wrote it was because you hadn't read anything that contradicted Iran's assertion. That was, until you found two articles that did. Now you're undecided on who is correct, making your original post pointless. Don't you agree?

I have proved you are a cherry-picker of information. And when called on it, you backtrack. This puts you at a severe disadvantage.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:43PM

"I simply used YOUR source, i.e. anti-war.com, to show the discrepency between the IAEA's claims and Iran's."

And, in your opinion, neither of those sources are to be trusted?

"I have proved you are a cherry-picker of information."

I don't think you understand how that term is generally used. It's not 'cherrypicking' when two competing claims are made by two independent sources and you believe only one of them. If that were "cherrypicking", then everyone in the world is guilty of it, including you.

"And when called on it, you backtrack."

It's so telling that you can't even imagine changing a stance when new information is uncovered. I said "I am entirely open to reconsidering should any contrary evidence or documentation be brought to my attention" right from the start. It's called "being open-minded". I have nothing personally invested in whether or not Iran was bound by that provision.

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 6:50PM

"And, in your opinion, neither of those sources are to be trusted?"

Obviously.

"It's not 'cherrypicking' when two competing claims are made by two independent sources and you believe only one of them."

So, President Bush wasn't "cherry-picking" the intelligence when he chose to believe the analysts who said Saddam had mobile chemical weapons labs and the aluminium tubes could be used in centrofuges? Glad we cleared that up.

And before you try it, I don't think he did cherry-pick. It is just an example of how the phrase is used by the rest of the world, outside of Toddardland.

"I have nothing personally invested in whether or not Iran was bound by that provision."

Then why have you spent so much time trying to defend it?

Yes, you were open to new information. I wonder if Mr. Roberts is too.

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:19AM

Nick, what you are implying is that whenever there are two contrasting claims, to choose only one of them is "cherry picking". For instance, the Left claims Bush Lied People Died. The Fox News Right claims he believed his evidence. If you believe the FNR is correct, under your definition, you "cherry picked" that info. It's ridiculous and is simply not what people mean when they say
"cherry pick".

Seriously - do you want to continue this? Arguing about the definition of "cherry pick" and whether or not I am personally invested in whether Iran was bound by that provision? What a waste of time.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 8:28AM

It's not WHENEVER "there are two contrasting claims [...]", it is when someone CONSTANTLY does it that it becomes a problem.

Again, it was you who once used Ramsey Clark to try to bolster your argument.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 10:15PM

This from the guy who spent many keystrokes wrongly trying to argue that "compare" and "contrast" are not synonyms. Ha-Ha!

S.L. Toddard| 10.2.09 @ 9:54AM

Nick, if I am comparing the similarities of two objects, am I contrasting them?

A simple yes or no will do.

Nick| 10.2.09 @ 3:47PM

OK, I'll play agian.

Your argument is not with me, it is with Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition.

If you are contrasting two objects, are you not comparing them?

Get it now, Einstein? All comparisons are not contrasts, but all contrasts are comparisons. Making these two words synonymous. You were, and still are, WRONG.

victor| 9.29.09 @ 9:44PM

Yes, Todd and they are all anti-semites.
Birds of a feather, flock together?

The Long Scroll| 9.29.09 @ 7:30PM

Wow. I have a cramp in my scrolling finger.

Kurt| 9.29.09 @ 10:29PM

One can argue your points made and whether or not you believe the IAEA, or any other faction that 'governs' States-rouge or otherwise. As for the question, who is the worst enemy of the American people?-I fear Washington D.C. much more than I fear Iran or Osama Bin Laden.

Shyster| 9.30.09 @ 5:29AM

Toddard,

You can only describe Pres. Bush's statements about weapons of mass destruction as "lies", by redefining the centuries-old definition of the word.
Your argument falls apart simply because you rely on a definition of "lies" invented whole-cloth by relativists like yourself. If you can't even get something as simple as the definition of a "lie" straight, where on God's green earth do you merit any credibility for your other unsupported arguments? The depth of your ignorance continues to astound!

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 9:03PM

Do you realize just how crazy you are SLT? You expect us to believe that this is all a big hoax because Obama of all people wants us to go to war with Iran? The same Obama who got in front of the UN and debased America and will do about anything to talk with the crazies that run that terrorist state? You are insane and it is clearly a waste of time to discuss anything with you.

Bydand76| 9.29.09 @ 10:04PM

Mr SLT is a pedantic boor who is incapable of understanding a simple principle.
i.e. Israel's right to defend herself against nations/orgnizations who's stated purpose is to destroy every single Jew residing inside of Israel and out. Genocide.
Yet still, he will apologize for Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who target CIVILIANS.
I am sure he believes that 9/11 was a product of evil American imperialism and that Ward Churchill is an all right if misunderstood guy.
He is one of those types who says he supports the troops but is the first one at a peace rally calling them baby killers and oppresors of all non white people of the world.
He is a typical liberal, devoid of intelligent, factual, or historical based argument. At best a tepid shell of someone like Al Franken or worse Nancy Pelosi.
He is incapable of seeing the fallacy of his specious and moronic arguments.
In short..........he is a turd.
But then again, as the saying goes The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way."

Red Phillips | 9.29.09 @ 10:14PM

"against nations/organizations who's stated purpose is to destroy every single Jew residing inside of Israel and out."

Bydand76, so why does Iran allow Jews to practice their religion in Iran as we speak? Has there been a holocaust of Iranian Jews I haven't read about?

And btw, you are the fool. Toddard is not a liberal. It is so sad you don't realize that. See my post below. Particularly the part in parenthesis about reasoning not being the pro-war crowds’ strong suit.

Serge from Wellington| 9.30.09 @ 1:16AM

Red Phillips: Has there been a holocaust of Iranian Jews I haven't read about?

You haven't read about much more than this, which obviously doesn't prevent you from hollow and stupid runting.

At the time of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, there were approximately 100,000 Jews living in Iran. On the eve of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, 80,000 Jews still remained. In 2004 the Jewish population of Iran is estimated as ~25,000.

It's 75% decline. You'll feel unhappy, but they were not all murdered: just those of them who assisted Jews to emigrate - like the Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh who in May 1998 was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding.

Shyster| 9.30.09 @ 5:41AM

I can officially place you among the totally and willingly ignorant on this board such "Retard". Despite the official distinction between "Jews," "Zionists," and "Israel," the most common accusation the Jews encounter is that of maintaining contacts with Zionists. The Jewish community does enjoy a measure of religious freedom but is faced with constant suspicion of cooperating with the Zionist state and with "imperialistic America" — both such activities are punishable by death. Jews who apply for a passport to travel abroad must do so in a special bureau and are immediately put under surveillance. The government does not generally allow all members of a family to travel abroad at the same time to prevent Jewish emigration. Again, the Jews live under the status of dhimmi, with the restrictions im posed on religious minorities. Jewish leaders fear government reprisals if they draw attention to official mistreatment of their community.
At one time there were 80,000 Jews in Iran...there now are 20,000.
Before the revolution, there were some 20 Jewish schools functioning throughout the country. In recent years, most of these have been closed down. In the remaining schools, Jewish principals have been replaced by Muslims.
t least 13 Jews have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago, most of them for either religious reasons or their connection to Israel. For example, in May 1998, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding, apparently for assisting Jews to emigrate.
Red, ignorance is correctible. I'd suggest you spend some time researching your opinions before you bare your ignorance before the world here...

Red Phillips | 9.29.09 @ 10:05PM

SLT, the hard core interventionist mentality is almost impossible to penetrate. Every perceived threat is an existential threat to our existence. There are no minor or tolerable threats. Any response to a perceived threat other than bombs away is futile and a sign of weakness. Any posture other than reflexive, shoot first ask questions later bellicosity is suitable only for girlymen. These people can not be reasoned with. They know the foreign policy answer (Country X means to destroy us and must be bombed into oblivion) before the question is asked. They pathetically think their bellicosity is a sign of their manhood, but it really shows they are insecure little bed-wetters. “Ooh Mommy … the big mean international boogie man is out to get me.”

What is astounding about this so-called conservative position is how many of the people who hold it consider themselves Christians in good standing despite the fact that this dogma is startlingly un-Christian.

That said, you are not wasting your time as Todd suggests. The hard core interventionists are a dying breed. They are increasingly a band of bitter enders listening to no one other than themselves. The well-meaning patriots who supported our wars because that is what “patriotic people are supposed to do” are pealing off. While they may not be doctrinaire non-interventionists yet, they are certainly not shaking in their boots at every conjured up threat the way the fearful little chicken hawks are. They are increasingly willing to go about their lives little concerned about Iran or Russia or Israel.

And the pro-war jihadist know they are losing their audience. They see non-interventionism taking hold on the right. That is why they are growing increasingly shrill. Why they scream louder and fear monger even more implausibly. That is why they consider conservative non-interventionists as much the enemy as their fellow internationalist Obama. (Sad part is, many don’t realize Obama is a fellow internationalist and represents very little threat to the reigning internationalist status quo.) (And that also assumes they are subtle enough in their reasoning to understand the difference between a conservative non-interventionist and a liberal. Subtle reasoning, as you might imagine, is not their strong suit.)

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 10:45PM

Speaking of crazy, Red shows up on the scene to get SLT's back as a "real conservative". I was talking about us wasting our time and not SLT wasting his because he clearly has alot of time to waste, much more than any normal poster on this site has for sure.

margie| 9.29.09 @ 11:03PM

Just how many names can one person take here? Hmm, Toddard/Red?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 7:44AM

Note: Marge thinks there is only one paleoconservative on planet Earth, and that paleoconservatism is Liberal Satanism.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 1:57PM

Now Toddard, there you go making things up again. By the way, you laughed when I said this:
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.
why did you laugh?

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 2:04PM

By the way Toddard,
Paleoconservatism.. ie., the digging up of old Communists bones for use in present politicking?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:30PM

Why am I not at all surprised that you don't know what paleoconservatism is.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 7:44PM

Paleoconservatism=The digging up of old Communist's bones for use in present politicking.
~Read it at Wikipedia. Go there and learn something!

Nick| 9.29.09 @ 11:24PM

Mr. Phillips,

If I'm an interventionist, then the Founding Fathers were interventionists.

The U.S. Constitution was set up, in part, so the UNITED STATES could conduct trade with other nations more easily than under the Articles of Confederation.

When nations want to trade with each other, treaties are signed. These treaties spell out the obligations of the signatories. Among these, are the obligation to protect the citizens of the other country, and their property. If one nation doesn't protect the citizens of the other nation, the latter has every right to INTERVENE to provide that protection.

President Adams payed tribute to the Barbary pirates because he didn't have the navy to INTERVENE, so it was easier to buy them off. Also he had to deal with France, who we almost went to war with.

President Jefferson decided to INTERVENE and fight the pirates, because they didn't keep their word (big surprise) and kept demanding more.

As far as having a posture that is "[...] reflexive, shoot first ask questions later bellicosity [...]", are you aware that Operation Iraqi Freedom was 12 years in the making? That is only reflexive in Larry King years.

After 10 years of flaunting sanctions like oil-for-food, 9/11 happened. Saddam had to be dealt with and pressure brought to bear. We had U.N. resolutions (that Saddam agreed to after he capitulated in '91) to bring that pressure. Saddam, NOT President Bush, CHOSE to go to war rather than allow inspections.

Saddam chose wrong.
Here is an indisputable fact: Saddam Hussien, and his sons, will never attack and kill any American, anywhere, ever again. And that is a good thing.

Red Phillips | 9.29.09 @ 11:57PM

First of all Nick, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam did not have to be "dealt with." He could have been and should have been ignored as the petty pip-squeak that he was.

I know of no non-interventionist who faults Jefferson for the Barbary pirates, although some do think he should have sought a formal declaration of war. But that is neither here nor there. The Barbary war would only be a germane comparison if Saddam was, for example, blockading the Persian Gulf and demanding a tribute on every barrel of oil, but he wasn't doing any such thing. No non-interventionist would have begrudged a necessary military action in that case.

Also, you should be careful of citing Jefferson to justify modern rampant interventionism. Jefferson was hostile to both a standing army and navy and allowed the Navy to fall into disrepair. This is a plain matter of the historical record.

And I KNOW you as a conservative did not just cite UN resolutions as justification. How liberal of you. The only thing a conservative should think about the UN is how we ought to get out of it.

"If one nation doesn't protect the citizens of the other nation, the latter has every right to INTERVENE to provide that protection."

I really don't know what you are arguing here? Try to rephrase it?

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 1:09AM

Mr. Phillips,

I was making two distinct points.

The first was that the Founders believed in interacting with other nations and defending our rights in those nations, as well as on the high seas.

The second, SEPARATE, point was to refute your statement about being "reflexive", with the example of Saddam.

I never wrote, nor implied, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I have no idea if they did or didn't and neither do you. So, I don't claim that it was a justification for the war. I hope this is clear, I do not claim Iraq was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

After 9/11, it was incumbent on the president to identify which countries were most likely to use terrorist attacks against us and what we could do about it. Saddam had a history of trying to attack us, that is why he had to be dealt with.

Whether or not we should be a member of the U.N. is one question. NO, we should not. But we are. That is a fact.

Whether or not we should use U.N. resolutions to defend ourselves is a separate question. YES, we should.

I don't think there should be an I.R.S. or federal income tax. But there is. And I'm going to use the tax code to get every deduction I am allowed by law. I'm sure you do the same, Mr. Phillips. Or do you just file the short form with no deductions?

We had the RIGHT to hold Saddam accountable to the resolutions HE agreed to. When he CHOSE to refuse, we had the right to force him to comply.

To rephase: The United States of America have every right to INTERVENE to protect Americans, and their property, in another nation when that nation doesn't live up to its protection obligations, under the treaty we have with them.

Again, this has nothing to do with OIF. This pertains to the Founder's views on international law and trade. Hope that clears up everything.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 8:05AM

“The first was that the Founders believed in interacting with other nations and defending our rights in those nations, as well as on the high seas.”

Non-interventionists also believe in interacting with other nations. And what you mean by “defending our rights *in* those nations” I cannot guess.

“After 9/11, it was incumbent on the president to identify which countries were most likely to use terrorist attacks against us and what we could do about it. Saddam had a history of trying to attack us, that is why he had to be dealt with.”

Saddam posed no threat, and especially no clear and present danger at the time we invaded, ergo he did not “have to be dealt with”. In fact, he was being dealt with - successfully. There was simply no just cause for invasion.

“Whether or not we should use U.N. resolutions to defend ourselves is a separate question. YES, we should.”

We did not use UN resolutions to “defend ourselves”. We were not under any threat from Iraq, ergo there was nothing to “defend ourselves” from. On top of that, America needs no UN resolution to *defend* itself whatsoever – it is entirely free to do so.

“We had the RIGHT to hold Saddam accountable to the resolutions HE agreed to. When he CHOSE to refuse, we had the right to force him to comply.”

Except that when we invaded, he was complying. Weapons inspectors said repeatedly there was no evidence that he was hiding WMD. Regardless, UN resolutions did not *compel* us to attack Iraq, as they *compel* us to prosecute allegations of torture. Curious, isn’t it, how you pick and choose which treaties to honor.

“To rephase: The United States of America have every right to INTERVENE to protect Americans, and their property”

Of course. But since Iraq posed no threat, this is entirely irrelevant. To argue that the US was justified in invading Iraq, you have to make the argument that the United States has every right to conquer nations that pose no threat to us on the off chance that in some hypothetical, far-off future they *might* pose a threat. That Iraq ever would pose a threat is, of course, absurd, considering their military, economy, and level of technology when compared to ours.

“Again, this has nothing to do with OIF. This pertains to the Founder's views on international law and trade”

Not by a long shot.

Serge from Wellington| 9.30.09 @ 1:57AM

Nick:

President Adams payed tribute to the Barbary pirates because he didn't have the navy to INTERVENE...

President Jefferson decided to INTERVENE and fight the pirates.

Nick, now thank YOU for the history. What I have to add is, that the pirates Adams and Jefferson had to deal with, as well as most of the Jihadists of our day, are natives of roughly the same communities of the Eastern Mediterranean from which the worst enemies of the ancient Romans originated.

Methinks, the conclusion is obvious: CARTAGO DELENDA EST.

Shyster| 9.30.09 @ 5:45AM

No, Red. Your lack of mentality is impossible to penetrate...

Kurt| 9.29.09 @ 10:38PM

Well folks, we may be getting somewhere here. Left or Right, the self serving government WE, US citizens have put in place are certainly not public servents-at all.

Patriot of America| 9.30.09 @ 1:23AM

Kurt, go cry to someone else. You lost. We happen to like abortion just the way it is.

Live free or die. Or at least kill the fetus.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 3:56PM

You like abortion? You are no Patriot!

Bydand76| 9.29.09 @ 11:04PM

Red,
Right. The Iran/Jews/ living in Muslim countries argument. Red you are an idiot, Have you been to Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, No? I didnt think so because anyone who has been to the middle east where I currently am would know that this argument is about the biggest lie and Liberals ALWAYS fall for it. You have no CLUE, none what so ever, what you are talking about. Jews have NOT lived there peacfully for years you moron.

Read up on dhimmitude, Zionism and way that Jews are FORCED to live in predominately muslim countries. A good book would be Onward Muslim Soldiers Then come talk to me.
If Toddard isnt a liberal then what is he, hmmm?
I forgot a progressive intellectual right? Red? Red?,,,,,,, where did ya go?

Red Phillips | 9.30.09 @ 12:27AM

Bydand76, Toddard can speak for himself, but he is I believe some sort of non-interventionist conservative. I suspect he might identify himself as a paleoconservative, as I do, but I don't know that for sure. Liberals generally do not accuse neocon interventionists of Jacobin radicalism or cite Kirk and Burke.

Also, I have no delusions about the compatibility of Islam with the West, which is why paleocons have been arguing for years that the best way to fight terrorism at home is with IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS. Whatever the global designs of some Muslims may be, bombing them in far off lands is not going to help the problem. To what end? To just kill them all? Barbaric. To Westernize them at the point of a gun? Good luck. To just bomb them into submission with all the collateral damage that would entail? Again, barbaric and un-Christian. They lack by a long shot the ability to harm us by conventional military means even if they wanted to. This is why they resort to terrorism.

The key to fighting terrorism on our shores is not to bomb Muslims in far off countries but to keep them in far off countries. Our and Europe's suicidal immigration policies and failure to procreate at replacement rates are a much bigger problem than is any lack of military initiative.

But I guess I must still be a liberal even though I'm advocating an extremely illiberal immigration policy.

And to answer your question, I was deployed in support of the Iraq War, but not to the front itself. I did have the opportunity to work with Iraqis as part of this. Nice people but hardly would be Westerners yearning to be free.

Shyster| 9.30.09 @ 5:50AM

Red, please explain to us all how immigration restriction protects us from Iranian missiles?
Inquiring minds want to know...

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 7:40AM

Shyster, please explain to us what Iranian missles you're talking about, that can reach the United States from Iran. Good god - it really is Saddam's WMD all over again. Except this time you already know the weapons don't exist, yet you're still shivering in terror from them.

When did American men become such old women?

Shyster| 10.1.09 @ 4:10AM

Retard,

Please explain to me what part of missiles(not "missles") that can reach American troops you fail to comprehend? And what part of the "missile" tests Iran conducted this past weekend did you miss? You raise "dunderhead" to new levels! And, in case you missed this as well, those missiles can reach Israel. Your ignorance surpasses all standards except those shared by this ignorant lot in Washington.

Red Phillips | 9.30.09 @ 8:31AM

Iranian missile don't threaten us. Do they have ICBMs? Inquiring minds want to know why interventionists fear imagined threats. Even if they did have ICBMs, why on earth would they use them against us knowing they would be immediately turned to glass. I know. I know. They are crazy and totally irrational ... blah, blah, blah.

Shyster| 10.1.09 @ 4:13AM

Red,

As Retard's bastard sister, I can't possible imagine why a rational argument would have any effect on your position at all.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 7:38AM

"Bydand76, Toddard can speak for himself, but he is I believe some sort of non-interventionist conservative. I suspect he might identify himself as a paleoconservative, as I do"

I've been using the term "conservative constitutional republican", but paleoconservative works fine as well.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 3:06PM

Hey Toddard~~ why don't you just "name it and claim it?" You're a Communist. Toddard posts using many names, such as Red Phillips, etc., or at least these are his pals. Always the names with the hyperlinks underneath them, which all take you to Communist websites such as The Daily Beast, anti-war, etc. Toddard doesn't realize that real conservatives, especially ones here are impossible to "convert." You can call yourselves all the names you wish, trying to disguise your Communist beliefs, such as "Paleo-conservative", "Liberal conservative", or other numerous ridiculous similar sounding names but the ideology is Communist. Communism is evil and is of the Devil. Thus~ Liberalisim=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.
Have you ever read the book "Marx and Satan?" by Richard Wurmbrand?

Red Phillips | 9.30.09 @ 4:12PM

Margie, I assure you Toddard and I are not the same person. I "know" him virtually through these types of forums, but we don't set around coordinating our attacks.

And do you have even the slightest idea what a paleoconservative is? Last I checked the Wikipedia entry was pretty good. Take a look and educate yourself.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 4:35PM

I'm not interested in your form of "education." Nor is Wikipedia a place to educate one's self. I am not a fool. A Communist philosophy by another name is still Communist. I would suggest that you educate yourself but I know that is to no avail. Your Communist philosophy is your Religion, and you are the one who needs to repent of it and come to a true knowledge of Truth. Otherwise you will remain lost.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:37PM

"I am not a fool"

Come on Margie. You know you're a fool. You've never made - or even attempted to make - one single point in any discussion ever on this forum. I've never seen you do anything other than cheer when someone says something you want to be true, and use epithets you don't understand (like "communist") when they say something you don't understand.

Go to Wikipedia Marge, and look up "paleoconservatism". The look up "communism". Feel free to come back and tell us all how similar they are.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:46PM

Also, Marge - I'm waiting for your response above, detailing how Harry S. Truman was a conservative. Will you make your first logical argument ever, backing that claim up?

Nope.

No Turddard| 9.30.09 @ 6:00PM

Margie, Red and Turddard are two different posters; both jerks, but Red is not as much of an asshole as Turddard.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 7:28PM

Oh dear Toddard. Is there no hope for you? Will you never stop lying? I will not deal with you according to your folly. There is no "debating" with you. I think you're the only one that thinks there is such a thing as a real debate with you. Am I wrong?

~And do you REALLY get your education from Wikipedia? And suggest to others to do the same? I am shocked!
Now, explain to me why you laugh at this:
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 8:16PM

"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
but only in expressing his opinion."
-Prov. 18:2
Toddard, I'd be careful about who you call a fool.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 8:21PM

For those who don't know~ Toddard says (the high & lofty Toddard), to go to Wikipedia to look something up. That perhaps this "fool" as he calls me, would learn something. Well, in fact Wikipedia is a website where anyone, yes, even you, can go there and make up anything you wish to. In fact I could go there and create a page that is about Toddard. I could say that Toddard is the smartest wizard there is. You could then come in and you don't even have to register there to do so, and could delete my comments, and replace them with yours. So we see another disingenuous statement from Toddard. The Communist loving troll.

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:22AM

Still waiting, Marge, for your response above, detailing how Harry S. Truman was a conservative. Will you make your first logical argument ever, backing that claim up?

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 8:36PM

"I "know" him virtually through these types of forums, but we don't set around coordinating our attacks."

Indeed Mr RED. That is the sole purpose of your existence, isn't it, as you admit, to attack.

"From the abundance of the heart the mouth doth speak." Mt. 12:34.

-Proving once again that: "Every word of God proves true." Prov. 30:5.

Johnno| 9.30.09 @ 9:31PM

Red and Turddard often show up together to spew their hatred for the Jews. Both are anti-Semites; both are trapped in their own ugly bigotry.

Yawn.

Shyster| 10.1.09 @ 4:18AM

Red, you wouldn't know how to define any stripe of conservative, even if one bit you in the butt.

Clinical Researcher| 9.30.09 @ 1:19AM

Israel's Reagan?
He has the Alzheimer's too?

Shyster| 9.30.09 @ 5:52AM

No, CR.

Though you do raise doubts about yourself.

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 12:35PM

Mr. Toddard,

Please don't use God's name in vain.

"And what you mean by “defending our rights *in* those nations” I cannot guess."

Trade treaties enumerate rights U.S. citizens are entitled to in the foreign country. If the foreign gov. can't, or won't, enforce these rights (like protecting U.S. citizens from harm), the U.S. can INTERVENE to protect her citizens.

"In fact, he was being dealt with - successfully."

Yes, oil-for-food was a great success. So was, as Joe Wilson admitted, preventing Saddam from inquiring (not ACQUIRING) about yellow-cake purchases. No, he wouldn't hurt a flea.

"Except that when we invaded, he was complying. Weapons inspectors said [...]"

He was complying by keeping inspectors out of sites they wanted to inspect? How odd.
I never wrote that U.N. resolutions *compel[ed]* us to attack Iraq. He CHOSE not to let the inspectors inspect everywhere. They couldn't force him to, so we did. We even got a new resolution to do it, all nice and legal.

As far as the torture treaty goes, I do not condone torture. And the U.S., as a country, never has either. You keep saying "torture has been *alledged*." By who? Code Pink? From everything I've read, all serious allegations have been investigated, and the perpetrators prosecuted. Waterboarding is not torture, by the way.

“To rephase: The United States of America [...]"- Me
"But since Iraq posed no threat [...]" -You

For the third time, I was making a point about the Founders and trade treaties, not Iraq. Is this so hard to understand? You quoted my explaination right after this. Is you short term memory that bad?

But since you brought it up, go back and read what Iraq did between the end Operation Desert Storm and 9/11.
Nineteen Wahhabists, with a couple of hundred thousand dollars, killed 3,000 Americans in less than 2 hours. That is more than the Japanese, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, killed at Pearl Harbor, 60 years before.

The fact that you anti-war zealots can't comprehend how everything changed after 9/11 astounds me.
Iran uses Hamas and Hezzbollah to attack Israel. What was to stop Saddam from doing the same to us? He could have sent teams here to shoot up shopping malls at Christmas, and we never could have proved it was him or stopped him. Is that the kind of world you would like to live in?

Red Phillips | 9.30.09 @ 4:07PM

"What was to stop Saddam from doing the same to us? He could have sent teams here to shoot up shopping malls at Christmas"

Nick, you can not go to war and kill people based on a "could have." That is not even pre-emptive war. That is preventative war at best based on a far fetched hunch. That tramples all over Christian Just War doctrine. Read up on it. You might learn something.

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 5:04PM

Mr. Phillips,

You and Toddard keep moving the goal posts!

I used the hypothetical to show Saddam was a threat, not as a justification for the war. It is not far-fetched, because Iran has been doing it for years. After Al Qeada attacked, Saddam could attack us at will, and everyone would just assume it was AQ.

It was a Just War, because Saddam agreed to inspections and was not complying. The only way to make him comply was with an armed escort. It was neither a pre-emptive nor a preventative war.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:33PM

"I used the hypothetical to show Saddam was a threat"

Wrong. You used the hypothetical to show that Saddam might, some day, pose a hypothetical threat.

"It was a Just War, because Saddam agreed to inspections and was not complying"

That does not qualify as a "Just War" under Christian Just War theory. You don't know what that is.

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 7:29PM

"Wrong. You used the hypothetical to show that Saddam might, some day, pose a hypothetical threat."

True. The 12 previous years prove he had no qualms lying, cheating, and attacking the U.S., and was thus a threat. The hypothetical proved it would have been irresponsible to let Saddam continue to get away with his rogue behavior.

I guess it depends to which "Christian Just War theory" you are referring. I'm a Roman Catholic, so according to my catechism OIF meets all the criteria.

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 8:11PM

Oh, by the way, what does Christian Just War theory say about deliberately targeting civilians as a tactic in warfare?

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:51PM

"Oh, by the way, what does Christian Just War theory say about deliberately targeting civilians as a tactic in warfare?"

You mean as Lincoln did in the conquest of the Confederacy? Or as the United States did to Dresden in WWII? Or as Palestinian terrorists do to cafes in Jerusalem?

Acts of terrorism, such as these three mentioned above (although the last in that list is, obviously, the least destructive of the three) are expressly prohibited.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 9:08PM

The first two in your list are examples of total war. The last is terrorism. Although the first two were commited by lawful combatants.

"(although the last in that list is, obviously, the least destructive of the three)"

Unless you happen to be one of the people blown-up, that is.

You forgot the firebombings of Tokyo, Yokohama, et al., by the way.

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:45PM

"The 12 previous years prove he had no qualms lying, cheating, and attacking the U.S., and was thus a threat"

No they did not. By definition they could not have "proved" he was a threat, because he posed no threat when we invaded. You cannot "prove" a falsehood.

"I guess it depends to which "Christian Just War theory" you are referring. I'm a Roman Catholic, so according to my catechism OIF meets all the criteria."

You are simply wrong. There isn't even a debate to be had on the subject, really.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 10:09PM

Just because you declare that someone is wrong, doesn't make it so. Even though you would like it to.

You must give reasons to prove someone is wrong.

If you need examples, please reread my rebutals to your posts.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 10:39PM

That should be: "my REBUTTALS ..."

And one more thing, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309, the Iraq war met all the criteria and was totally justified.

S.L. Toddard| 10.2.09 @ 9:50AM

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration."

The Iraq War was not waged in "defense". Even without going further than this, you have been *proven* wrong. There is literally no need to continue on, but I will anyway for your benefit. The rest of the prerequisites enumerated below are prerequisites for a *defensive* war to be "just" in Just War theory.

"- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;"

No "lasting, grave and certain" damage was ever inflicted on America by Iraq.

"all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;"

As Iraq was deprived of WMD at the time of the invasion, "other means" were *proved* effective.

" the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated."

The American conquest of Iraq resulted in far more American deaths, far more destruction, and far more disorder (in the displacement of millions of Iraqis) than Saddam ever caused.

Why do you even bother? You believe in the doctrine of Preventive War. This was a Preventive War, which is prohibited in Just War theory.

Ever ask yourself why it is so important to you for Iraq to have been "right"? Why you are so emotionally invested in vindicating a political party? It's unhealthy.

Nick| 10.2.09 @ 7:47PM

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. [Coalition forces DEFENDED themselves.] The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

"- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; [It was.]

"- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; [It had.]

"- there must be serious prospects of success; [There was.]

"- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. [It did not.] The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. [Conventional weapons were used.]

"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine."

All elements were met during Operation Iraqi Freedom, thus it was a Just War.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 5:47PM

Red - even if the majority of the trumped-up "evidence" turned out to be 100% true, it still would have been a preventive war, no? Neither Bush nor Powell nor anyone else ever brought forth evidence that Iraq planned to attack us.

Nick| 9.30.09 @ 7:39PM

Again, the only way to make him comply was with an armed escort.

Saddam CHOSE to attack this armed escort, making him the aggressor. Thus, it was not a preventive war by President Bush, it was the enforcing U.N. resolutions.

Red Phillips | 9.30.09 @ 9:33PM

Again, "conservatives" babbling about UN resolutions. News flash Nick. Conservative want us to get out of the UN, not enforce their world policing resolutions.

Daisy| 9.30.09 @ 9:36PM

That's the main problem I have with you, Red; you don't live in the real world. It must get lonely in that Ivory Tower of yours.

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:53PM

"Again, "conservatives" babbling about UN resolution"

Nick is sporadically very, very supportive of the UN, and believes the United States should go to war to enforce its dictates, apparently.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 10:32PM

There you again, wrongly (perhaps on purpose) stating what I believe.

I have never supported the UN in my life, unlike yourself. I believe the U.S. should go to war to defend itself and use all appropriate means to do so.

Why must you spread falsehoods about me? Can't you have an honest debate?

Red Phillips | 9.30.09 @ 9:36PM

I agree. Same with Iran. Even if Iran had a nuke, we couldn't attack on those grounds alone. There would have to be actionable intel that they planned to use it against us.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 12:05AM

Mr. Phillips,

Then please explain to me why it was so wrong to impose our will on Iraq, but it was OK to do so on Afghanistan? The Taliban were not an "immediate threat" to the U.S.

Or do you believe we shouldn't have fought that war also? Should we have just let Usama Bin Laden have free reign to attack us? If not, how would you have stopped Al Qeada?

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:16AM

The entity that attacked us on 9/11 was being harbored and supported by the gov't of Afghanistan. To wage war in response to an attack is entirely justified. Nothing even remotely analogous can justify the Iraq conquest, as our invasion was in response to no attack and was not launched to preempt an imminent attack.

I can't speak for Dr. Phillips, but in my opinion we should have blitzkreiged Al Qaeda and the Taliban, done whatever we could to kill bin Laden and scatter the Taliban and then leave.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 8:46AM

Actually, AQ was supporting the Taliban by taking out rivals in the north.

Again, the Taliban did not attack us, was not an existential threat to the U.S., and never could mount an attack here. They did not control all of Afghanistan. So using your non-interventionist criteria, what justified us invading and killing Afghan civilians?

Mr. Phillips wrote that there would "have to be actionable intel" that Iran was going to nuke us before we could do anything. Was there proof the Taliban was about to attack?

From another post: What does Christian Just War theory say about deliberately targeting civilians as a tactic in warfare?

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 10:13AM

"So using your non-interventionist criteria, what justified us invading and killing Afghan civilians?"

The entity that attacked us on 9/11 was being harbored and supported by the gov't of Afghanistan. To wage war in response to an attack is entirely justified. Nothing even remotely analogous can justify the Iraq conquest, as our invasion was in response to no attack and was not launched to preempt an imminent attack.

"Mr. Phillips wrote that there would "have to be actionable intel" that Iran was going to nuke us before we could do anything. Was there proof the Taliban was about to attack?"

The entity that attacked us on 9/11 was being harbored and supported by the gov't of Afghanistan. To wage war in response to an attack is entirely justified. Nothing even remotely analogous can justify the Iraq conquest, as our invasion was in response to no attack and was not launched to preempt an imminent attack.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 7:30PM

Repeating yourself makes you sound like a mind-numbed robot.

WARNING! WARNING!
DANGER WILL ROBINSON!
DANGER!

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 7:37PM

I couldn't agree more. I found it odd that you asked the same question more or less three times, and twice after I answered it in full. I wasn't going to say anything, so I'm glad you recognize your own strange behavior.

Nick| 10.1.09 @ 10:42PM

Have you been drinking?

You should refrain from posting in such a condition.

Shyster| 10.1.09 @ 4:22AM

Sorry Red,

Since you are obviously illiterate, and merely reiterate talking points you hear, you're not qualified to lecture anyone on "reading".

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 2:50PM

Toddard claims he is a Christian (see post, earlier in conversation w/JohnII).

The question is: If Toddard says he is a Christian, why does he not mind using His name in vain? Is Toddard really a Christian? Does Toddard even believe in God?

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 3:21PM

Communists don't believe in God.
But Hitler called himself a Christian.

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 3:27PM

Toddard doesn't wish to be informed of the facts, the truth, reality. His Communist ideology is his Religion. He wants YOU to convert to it. That is his sole purpose. There is no debating him. Toddard needs true conversion to the true God. This is the only way he will change, and his eyes be opened. It has to come from within and it has to be by God. Pray for Toddard.

Bydand76| 9.30.09 @ 7:52PM

Ok

Red & SLT I have to say that you two sound a lot alike. I am not to sure what a "paleo-conservative is but whatever. I am not one to deny people their self serving labels to describe themselves, but I digress.

I fail to see how the proponent of an interventionist policy is appropriate to the subject that was being discussed here?
I am also not understanding how the immigration policy pertains to the subject either.
In the regards to the fact that you two seem to think that Israel is some evil state that willingly subjugates the Arab/Palestinian population is somewhat of a specious argument at best.
Mr. Toddard especially is good at making the argument that the Palestinians are well within their rights to to fight against Israel because of a perceived oppresion by the Israelis. This is pure Liberal pap. (maybe why I call a spade a spade is because it just might be a freakin spade Mr Phillips)
The stated goal of the regimes in Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Iraq( before the war) Egypt, and pretty much every other Muslim nation out there was the total and utter destruction of every single Jew who lived in the area. If one was to take history into the subject you would be able to see that this conflict has been raging for a long long time ( a understatement I know )
The idea that Jewish people living in Islamic nations are somehow conceived as equals in the eyes of their Muslim rulers is absurd to say the least. Not only is it silly to advocate this point of veiw but it reveals a serious lack of understanding on the part of the arguments proponent.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I suggest that Mr Phillips and Mr Toddard need to read up on some material and get their facts straight because the simple fact of the matter is that you two LIBERALS have no idea what you are talking about. I think that you are simply trying to argue against a point of view for the simple sake of argument because your logic underwear is showing and everyone is laughing at you. Please stop with the nonsensical argument and start being a little bit more honest with yourselves and everyone else here.

Mr Phillips? I may be a fool but at least I know enough to not make a fool out of myself.
One more thing, We may disagree sharply on a great many things and thats ok.
Thank You for your service Sir. It is greatly appreciated and honored! HOOAH!!!

Red Phillips | 9.30.09 @ 9:28PM

"I am not to sure what a "paleo-conservative is but whatever."

Then look it up. You might learn something.

"I am also not understanding how the immigration policy pertains to the subject either."

How many of the people who carried out 9/11 were native born US citizens? Think about it.

"In the regards to the fact that you two seem to think that Israel is some evil state"

I didn't say a thing about Israel except that their conflict with the Palestinians and other
Arabs/Muslims is none of our concern. Why do you choose to make it yours? Are you equally worried about the fate of Burkina Faso, for example?

"conceived as equals in the eyes of their Muslim rulers is absurd"

I didn't say they were "conceived as equals" whatever that means. I said it can't be true that Iran wants to kill all the Jews everywhere if they are allowing the ones in their own country to worship.

"the simple fact of the matter is that you two LIBERALS have no idea what you are talking about."

If you really think I am a liberal you definitely need to look up the word paleoconservative. The neocons have made a career of ridiculing us for being TOO conservative.

Thanks for the compliment.

Bydand76| 10.1.09 @ 2:54AM

Mr Phillips
Ok, maybe I am not being succinct enough here.
When I said that I am not to sure what a paleo-conservative is ( and thanks for taking what I wrote out of context) I was implying that the label of Peleo/Neo conservative is a redudant point at best. A "conservative" tag by which we have labeled ourselves is in my opinion enough. However, if we wish to mimic the democrats tradition by labeling everything and over classifying everything with in sight you can count me out, thank you very much. With that being said, I retract my earlier statment in which I called you a liberal and humbly submit my apology forthwith. Mr Toddard is still however a liberal and I think that if you read some of the drivel he posts on this forum you would agree.

I do not ( I say again) DO NOT disagree with you on your point in regards to immigration being a problem in this country. My point is that it does not relate to the question of Israeli/Palestinian relations and in the context of how you replied to my earlier post. Does it segue at some point. With out question. I do not believe that immigration policy is the root cause for the anti-Jewish sentiment that permeates the Islamic world. It is against Islamic law for Muslims to consider Jews, Christians, and anyone who doesn't subscribe to either Shia OR Sunni Islam to be considered an equal in the eyes of the Crescent moon. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to sell you something or has a dagger behind their proverbial back and is ready to stick it into your back. The terms of co-existence for a person of different beliefs in the Muslim world is a travesty in terms. No more ,no less.
I suggest you read Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer. It is a good book with insight into the Islamic belief system and how they relate to other people and religions.
Islamic borders have a long history of being violent and bloody. Read up on the Ottoman Empire and its conflict with Europe and Asia.
Irans version of Islam is just as bad and I know for a fact that Jews living there do not live in relative peace and serenity. They live under Dhimmitude. The current Jewish population of Iran is estimated by most sources to be 25,000, though estimates vary, as low as 11,000 and as high as 40,000. Notable population centers include Tehran, Isfahan (1,200)], and Shiraz. Historically, Jews maintained a presence in many more Iranian cities. Jews are protected in the Iranian constitution. Iran hosts the largest Jewish population of any Muslim-majority country. After Israel, it is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East.(Wikipedia)

Lastly, and I apologize for being long winded, I disagree strongly with your position on non-intervention. A policy of non intervention is exactly what our enemies would like to see. By using that ideology Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist China, Soviet Russia, and a myriad other despot evil regimes would have been succesful in their stated goals of world domination. It is asinine to say the least that we should not be involved with the rest of the world. We exist on this planet too and the last time I looked it was my understanding that one of the principal tenants of conservatism was that the federal goverment was solely responsible for keeping the populace safe from aggresion. It is a paradox to have to two policies co-exist. Would you disagree?

PRO LIBERTATE

Red Phillips | 10.1.09 @ 2:25PM

Bydand76, but the prefix does matter. Modern movement conservatism has been neoconized. The problem is that neoconservatism is not conservative philosophically or historically speaking. It calls itself conservative but that does not make it so. Many neocons are more than willing to admit this and consider it a badge of honor that they are not one of “those” throwback paleocons.

Don’t believe me. Then please read this. The author is a self-described moderate. I obviously don’t agree with the whole article but he is right about the philosophical and historical origins of neoconservatism. It is a movement from the left. This is not seriously disputed. Its internationalist impulse is leftist. Please read and then get back to me.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/f.....index.html

Regarding Israel, I wish them well. People complain about anti-Semitism when the subject of Israel is brought up, but actually excessive philo-Semitism is a much bigger problem than is anti-Semitism. I can see why Jews care about Israel. I would find it strange if they didn’t. I can see why dispensationalist pre-mil Christians care about Israel, although I think that theology is wrong or at least highly debatable. But just because certain groups in America care particularly about Israel, shouldn’t have anything to do with how America the Nation behaves diplomatically or militarily. A lot of Irish Catholics have strong opinions about Northern Ireland, but that doesn’t mean we should send in the troops to free Northern Ireland and reunify the island. These are the “passionate attachments” George Washington warned us about.

“So likewise a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils.—Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite Nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity:—gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, and the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.—“

If Washington wrote that today he would surely be accused of anti-Semitism because it so precisely describes our “special relationship” with Israel.

Shyster| 10.1.09 @ 4:30AM

Again you ignore the facts about Iran's persecution of Jews in Iran, Red. Decimating the Jewish population and engaging in overt discrimination against them apparently fit your definition of "allowing the Jews to worship".
Do you ever read anything other than the "daily kooks" or Retard's posts? It's doubtful.

Red Phillips | 10.1.09 @ 4:44PM

I'm not ignoring anything, Shyster. I do not think it is all lovey dovey for Jews in Iran. The point was to counter the hyperbolic nonsense that Iran stands poised to kill all the Jews. No it isn't as their own Jewish population demonstrates. But the larger point is what does Iran's treatment of Jews have to do with America. Read my post above.

Sheila| 9.30.09 @ 9:34PM

Red and Turddard are both arrogant numbnuts.

That's NOT a compliment, Red.

GW| 10.1.09 @ 1:25AM

The Palestianians receive little sympathy to me simply because they elected a terrorist group (Hamas) whose charter states: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

So to those on this board who find moral equivalence between a legitimate nation (Israel) and a government which has been labled by both the US and EU as a terrorist entity are beyond irrational. Simply put, the Israelis will never find peace with the Palestinians and should quit giving them land (as Bibi has done in the past).

The issue about providing financial aid to Israel is legitimate, but to make the leap from Israel receiving aid to Israel being evil by defending herself should astound even the dullest of AS readers.

Now Iran is a sticky situation. The people there (as demonstrated by the recent elections) are seemingly more liberal than in other Islamic Republics. That said, if their government has the capabilities for nuclear weapons Israel must lookout for her own people and disregard collateral damage in Iran. This is what Truman did when he lit up Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 1945 and it prevented millions of deaths of not only Americans but also Japanese if the war would have continued on.

Shyster| 10.1.09 @ 4:45AM

Amen, Sheila.

And never were arrogance and ignorance more proudly paraded for all to see.
The lack of any original thought shared by the two of them is quite telling. Neither have any grounding in rational thought, argument, history or research. Frankly, anyone who solely relies on "Wikipedia" for their research is both lazy and without basic research skills. Don't forget that they don't have any original thoughts...just those of other similarly challenged intellects...and I use that term VERY loosely!

Red Phillips | 10.1.09 @ 2:30PM

Shyster, I refered someone to "Wikipedia" because it is an easy reference. I do not rely "solely" or primarily on it.

I will put my knowledge of conservatism up against yours any time.

Richard Baker| 10.1.09 @ 5:36PM

I never hear the liberal mush heads express any regret for the deaths since 1948 of all the Israelis slaughtered by the idiot Arabs. I must have missed the condemnation and outrage, didn't I? All the Arabs have to do to stop any killing is STOP their lunatic games. The Israelis have tried many times to generate peace but the Koran and the murderous Islamic clergy want the killing and death. Let's just kill the imams and mullahs and the incitement will cease. Hope for change exists there.

Bydand76| 10.1.09 @ 8:42PM

Ok Mr. Phillips..
I agree and disagree with some of your points.
If a paleo-conservative is what you wish to be then fine, so be it. I am not denying your right to be an "Old Conservative". What I am trying to say is that I think we as a society get to ramped up over labels and classifications. I beleive it is a systemic problem with the left who want to identify everything under the sun with some type of label or class. It furthers their agenda and class warfare propoganda game the liberals love to play.
In my opinion ( humble as that may be) a conservative is a conservative. I am NOT syaing that there are no problems with the conservative lifestyle/movement , i.e. R.I.N.O's . But I would say that mainstream conservatism (Reagan conservatism) has more in line with what I believe than what somone like Ron Paul ( who I do think is very smart EXCEPT his non-interventionist leanings)has with the modern movement.
I would suggest that there are more issues that we would agree on than vice versa. NOW on to the "other" debate.....

G.W. said this and I paraphrase
"facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other"
Here is where your point of view falls short.
Our enemies hate us (and Israel to some extent, Judaism not withstanding) simply for our support of Israel. During the Bosnian conflict we rescued thousands of Muslims from certain destruction. Still they despise us for nothing more than our alliance with Israel AND being who we are. Therefore it would seem logical that a continued beneficial co- relationship with Israel would be a forgone conclusion. I try to tell people that even IF we did not support Israel and even IF we pulled out of the Saudi penninsula the Muslim would still be unified in its hatred for the United States. It is our way of life that makes them hate. It is the way the founders set up our society for the viceral, acerbic hatred the muslim world carries for us.
Do not forget that at one time, Islam ruled most of the known world. They are the founders of modern mathmatics among other things and there is a lot about there culture that strives for them to be back at the proverbial top of the food chain. Know this, if ever there comes a time for us to beg for mercy it will come at the point of a gun (or missile ). "Convert or Die" is the Muslim way. Do not convince yourselves otherwise for you are nothing more than an Infidel to them.

That is why non-intervention will never work Red. Sometimes you have to admit that there are people who just are not going to like you and are thinking up ways to do you great physical harm. (Think of Iran right now) Accepting a non-interventionist policy is tantamount to pointing the gun at your own head. Like it or not, Israel and the United States are in the fight for the long haul. It is a fight to the death! Make no mistake about the intentions of our enemies.
Here is some homework for you. Go to a mosque sometime and listen to what they have to say. it is freakin scary!

I will admit this however. I would agree with you in principal the we as a nation should not stick our holier than thou noses into other countries buisness as much as we do. I would agree that it does lead to some troubling problems that can be avoided.
I also have a question for you. If our relationship with Israel is so troubling for you? How do you view the US role with China?

Bydand76| 10.1.09 @ 8:50PM

Red?
This article is male bovine fecal matter warmed over on a hot Georgia road in the middle of summer and squished by a 2 ton truck.
I cannot believe that you gave any portion of it any serious consideration, c'mon man! You are better than that!
Mr Lind could not be further from the truth.
I smell a liberal rat in the offing in that article man.... ACH!!!
Animo non Asutia

Nick| 10.4.09 @ 12:13AM

Calling Mr. Fine, Mr. Toddard, Mr. Fine.

Mr. Toddard?

Trying to find a thesaurus?

Pingback| 11.18.09 @ 12:48AM

¤ Construction Pals Party Favors are Perfect for Destructive Little Boys ¤ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…favors that all budding builders will enjoy. You may also want to check out: Green Party Candidate Cynthia McKinney Raises 9/11 Questions … The Teenage Dating : Parents Hut The American Spectator : Israel's Reagan Global Warming, or not? : Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative … Top 25 Quotes of Harry Truman – Listverse Post a comment Click here to cancel reply. Name (required) Mail (will…

Pingback| 2.21.10 @ 4:34PM

Success Lessons From Wellington The Iron Duke links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…by other authors Ezine editors / Site owners Feel free to reprint this article in its entirety in your ezine or on your site but please include the resource box above. Related blog posts The American Spectator : Israel's Reagan

gfhgfh| 2.25.10 @ 4:17AM

Mac AVCHD Converter,
Blu-ray to AVCHD for Mac

www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 9:19PM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Israel’s Reagan

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (323) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Karibou Kid| 9.29.09 @ 6:51AM

Ryan| 9.29.09 @ 8:53AM

LQQKY| 9.29.09 @ 10:41AM

megapotamus | 9.29.09 @ 1:36PM

PCISBS | 9.30.09 @ 6:05AM

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 2:54PM

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 3:11PM

SarahMac| 9.29.09 @ 11:28PM

Bruce | 9.29.09 @ 5:15PM

Daisy| 9.30.09 @ 3:29PM

Jim O'Brien| 9.29.09 @ 7:09AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:37PM

Pat Spooner| 9.29.09 @ 7:27AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 7:46AM

Bohred| 9.29.09 @ 9:33AM

Son Of Sam | 9.29.09 @ 11:05AM

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 1:22PM

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 1:27PM

A. Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 2:31PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:46PM

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 2:29PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:16PM

Bruce | 9.29.09 @ 5:21PM

Alan Brooks| 9.29.09 @ 8:06PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 10:58AM

Summer| 9.30.09 @ 4:04PM

CB| 9.29.09 @ 7:57AM

Mary Louise| 9.29.09 @ 8:20AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 9:13AM

Bohred| 9.29.09 @ 9:37AM

Le Cracquere| 9.29.09 @ 11:56AM

Esther S.| 9.30.09 @ 1:39PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 4:13PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.09 @ 4:14PM

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 8:59PM

S.L. Toddard| 10.1.09 @ 5:26PM

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 3:21PM

Margie| 9.29.09 @ 5:48PM

Mattled| 9.29.09 @ 8:13AM

Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 8:15AM

Amdog| 9.29.09 @ 8:24AM

KyMouse| 9.29.09 @ 8:28AM

Mary Louise| 9.29.09 @ 8:32AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 8:50AM

KyMouse| 9.29.09 @ 8:54AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 9:06AM

Bohred| 9.29.09 @ 9:47AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 10:50AM

Bram| 9.29.09 @ 1:04PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:08PM

Bram| 9.29.09 @ 1:38PM

Jeremiah| 9.30.09 @ 4:45PM

Margie| 9.30.09 @ 3:18PM

Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 9:19AM

Louis Jenkins| 9.29.09 @ 9:24AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 9:38AM

Old Soldier| 9.29.09 @ 1:08PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:24PM

Anthony| 9.29.09 @ 9:26AM

guido| 9.29.09 @ 9:26AM

Tim| 9.29.09 @ 9:54AM

Pingback| 9.29.09 @ 10:16AM

G.S.P.| 9.29.09 @ 10:23AM

Steve| 9.29.09 @ 10:24AM

William R| 9.29.09 @ 10:33AM

William R| 9.29.09 @ 10:43AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 10:56AM

Bob Miller| 9.29.09 @ 10:49AM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 10:52AM

John II| 9.29.09 @ 12:35PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:04PM

John II| 9.29.09 @ 1:34PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 1:48PM

Todd| 9.29.09 @ 3:11PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.09 @ 3:23PM