Special Report
Foreign Policy Takes a Vacation
The Reaganite ingredient missing from this year’s CPAC debates.
“He brings to the presidency a belief in multilateralism unequaled since Woodrow Wilson.” So said former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton in his speech Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Bolton was talking about Barack Obama, and he did not mean it as a compliment. Bolton noted that Obama was echoing Wilson’s declaration that “the interests of all nations are also our own” when he went before the UN General Assembly and said “the interests of nations and peoples are shared,” that “power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.” (Bolton cites the same quotations in this article, where he covers much of the same ground he did in his speech.)
The Wilsonian tradition is one of four strains in American foreign policy identified by Walter Russell Mead in his influential book Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, and Bolton’s implicit premise that it has no value is not strictly correct. The faith in international institutions like the UN and the willingness to sacrifice American sovereignty and hegemony is indeed a deep weakness of Wilsonianism, but the belief that our interests are intimately tied to the interests of foreigners is not entirely wrong, so long as we don’t confuse the interests of people with the interests of their government.
Increasing the freedom and well-being of people around the world does indeed improve our security. This is something that most conservatives understand, because Ronald Reagan understood it, which is why he succinctly stated his approach to the Cold War as “We win, they lose.” The “they” in that statement was the Communist regimes, and there can be no doubt that the fall of those regimes and the rise of Eastern European democracy has improved American security as it has improved the lives of the people in those nations.
Bolton’s critique comes, more or less, from the Jacksonian tradition, which, as Mead put it in an interview, holds to a simple principle: “Don’t bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can… when somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death.” To judge from the discussions of foreign policy at CPAC, Jacksonianism is currently the dominant foreign policy orientation within the conservative movement.
Liz Cheney is usually thought of as a neoconservative. But in the sense that the term came to be used in the past decade, when what had previously described an approach to domestic policy came to refer almost exclusively to an approach to foreign policy (Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan’s more apt label “neo-Reaganism” never really caught on), neoconservatism is supposed to combine the Jacksonian and Wilsonian traditions. Neocons believing in fighting for America’s national interest as hard as necessary, and are unwilling to be hamstrung by appeals to the opinions of the “international community” — but also believe that the spread of democracy and freedom is an essential part of that national interest. So it was striking that when Cheney spoke at CPAC on Thursday, her critique of Barack Obama was purely Jacksonian: she attacked the President for weak counterterrorism policies, but said nothing about his weak support for dissidents and democrats.
The only mention of the protests in Iran that I heard in three days of CPAC was a single line in the introduction to a panel called “What Is a Conservative Foreign Policy?” in which moderator Van Hipp said that the Obama administration has been “AWOL” while “hundreds of thousands in Iran, yearning for freedom, try to rise up against the Ahmadinejad regime.” This is true, but the impression one got from CPAC is that conservatives are AWOL on that subject, too. The only speaker on that panel — and indeed at the whole conference — to discuss at length the link between improving our national security and improving the lives of foreigners was Joanne Herring, the former Pakistani Ambassador at Large (and the conservative activist who was portrayed by Julia Roberts in Charlie Wilson’s War), who discussed the need for aid to non-government organizations in Afghanistan.
The largest rival to undiluted Jacksonianism at CPAC was not neoconservatism but Jeffersonianism, the orientation that views involvement with foreigners as a threat not primarily to safety but to liberty, and is thus reflexively anti-war. This was mainly a function of the large presence of the Campaign for Liberty, the successor organization to the Ron Paul for President campaign. Campaign for Liberty’s presence was so large, in fact, that Paul, whose appeal for his supporters came primarily from his anti-war message, came in first in the CPAC presidential straw poll, winning 31% of the vote.
A little bit of Jeffersonianism is a good thing, even an essential one; to run a foreign policy without being mindful of the threat to our civil liberties that is inherent in war-making is to court disaster. The question of how to strike a balance between liberty and security is always difficult, and the debate on the topic, which featured a fairly broad spectrum of views, represented CPAC at its best.
But Jeffersonianism in the pure form that Ron Paul and his supporters espouse is so unworkable that no American President has ever quite embraced it — not even Jefferson, who sent the Navy to the Mediterranean Sea to fight the First Barbary War. Campaign for Liberty sponsored a panel called “You’ve Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives Are Against The War On Terror,” where panelist argued that we shouldn’t treat terrorist attacks as acts of war at all, merely as a criminal matter. But radical Islamists are at war with the United States today just as just as surely as the Pasha of Tripoli was in 1802, and there could hardly be a better illustration of the fundamental unseriousness of the more-Jeffersonian-than-Jefferson mindset than the spectacle of adults wishing away a reality that their worldview is unequipped to handle.
Jacksonianism, in some iterations, can be nearly as unserious. A panel called “Jihad: The Political Third Rail,” sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s newly formed Freedom Defense Initiative, neatly illustrated the limits of the Jacksonian mindset. The project of this panel was an important one: Understanding the ideology of America’s enemies. It included an excellent presentation by Pentagon analyst Steve Coughlin on how radical Islamists understand the Koran, and several visitors from abroad who explained how conflicts with Muslim groups are playing out in their countries. But there was no talk of how non-violent Muslims understand their religion, or how they can be persuaded not to support the radicals. In fact, it was clear that several of these speakers believe that there is no such thing as a non-radical Muslim — “Islam is the problem,” as one panelist put it. If the Muslim world were as unreformable as they think, though, there would be terrorist attacks every day.
Both the Jacksonian mindset and the Jeffersonian mindset, because they begin with a reluctance to engage in the world, can provide fertile ground for a suspicion of foreigners that can lapse into bigotry. It’s not too much of a surprise that one of the speakers on Campaign for Liberty’s panel, Philip Giraldi, seems to have roughly the same view of Jews that some of the FDI panelists have of Muslims.
The Obama administration offers up fairly undiluted Wilsonianism, sometimes coupled with some Jeffersonian tendencies (and also a dash of Mead’s fourth strain, Hamiltonianism, which is driven by economic interests — the newly strengthened G-20 is an institution meant to serve Hamiltonian ends). The conservative critique of this approach should aim to do better than a grumpy alliance of Jeffersonians and Jacksonians.
Neocon-bashing has become awfully fashionable in recent years, thanks mainly to the Bush administration’s tactical failures (never mind that it was the neocons who crafted the tactical correction that saved Bush’s foreign policy from total disaster, namely the troop surge that led to new hope in Iraq). But the Jacksonian-Wilsonian synthesis that seeks to reform the countries where our enemies are bred without hesitating to pursue those enemies aggressively and maintain American hegemony — tempered with a pinch of Jeffersonian concern for the civil liberties of Americans — remains the most coherent and effective approach to the world we live in. That approach doesn’t seem to have a place on the left these days; if it loses it’s place on the right as well, we are in for some dark days indeed.
About the Author
John Tabin is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator online.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (126) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by John Tabin
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/23/foreign-policy-takes-a-vacatio
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Weiner and Women
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- A World Turned Right Side Up
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pete| 2.23.10 @ 7:00AM
Conservatives always ahve and always will be Jacksonian. We are not citizens of the world.
Alan Brooks| 2.23.10 @ 2:40PM
The Iranian govt. is almost as Hitler's was in that they are willing to risk all in showing off to the world, like a medieval warrior with a sword.
I don't hate the Iranian govt as I hate National Socialists, the Iranian govt. consists of rather silly 17th century-type backwater Persian-potentates; but they have to change their attitudes, or be surgically removed from power-- which can IMO be done by taking out Iranian generals and bombing locatable barracks to remove many of their personnel, etc.
blackwatch| 2.23.10 @ 8:12PM
they have Hezbollah their proxy at war with Israel---lets us that against them. A campaign waged against the mullahs should be easily financed and readily accessible as there is deep discontent in that nation. I wouldn't mess with their military below the rank of Major. The republican guard is another story. They are responsible for a lot of the IED's in Iraq. There leadership and facilities ( not their troops barracks) should get a pasting.
JimH| 2.23.10 @ 7:31AM
I did not catch Ron Paul's speech. But his foreign policy is pretty clear and goes back to George Washington - MYOB.
S.L. Toddard| 2.23.10 @ 8:42AM
"Increasing the freedom and well-being of people around the world does indeed improve our security. This is something that most conservatives understand, because Ronald Reagan understood it, which is why he succinctly stated his approach to the Cold War as "We win, they lose."
Except, of course, Reagan had a very real existential threat on his hands in the form of the USSR - "the freedom and well-being of people around the world" Reagan was primarily concerned with was the freedom of those under Soviet and communist domination: bringing democracy to those benighted peoples meant shrinking the Soviet sphere of influence and lessening a real existential threat. It goes without saying that the relatively (to the USSR) insignificant threat posed by terrorists is not even remotely analogous.
"But Jeffersonianism in the pure form that Ron Paul and his supporters espouse is so unworkable that no American President has ever quite embraced it -- not even Jefferson, who sent the Navy to the Mediterranean Sea to fight the First Barbary War."
Wrong. The Barbary actions were waged in defense of US shipping, against piracy, which no "Jeffersonian" opposes on principle.
"Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan's more apt label "neo-Reaganism" never really caught on"
Note here that the author implies that Ronald Reagan was a neoconservative.
"It's not too much of a surprise that one of the speakers on Campaign for Liberty's panel, Philip Giraldi, seems to have roughly the same view of Jews that some of the FDI panelists have of Muslims."
*Seems to have* - if one takes the word of Commentary, which sees anti-semites lurking in every anti-war shadow and behind every criticism of Israel.
loulou| 2.23.10 @ 12:42PM
Idiot. You're taking up too much space.
Ryan| 2.23.10 @ 2:00PM
As harsh a critic as I am of SL Toddard's views on what SHOULD be done (and maybe scale of what he stated above), he's dead on with his facts here.
Militant Islamic terrorism is NOT going to undo the United States, at least not before we undo ourselves.
So if he's wrong, you have to point out where and why.
Radegunda| 2.24.10 @ 2:09AM
Maybe not terrorism per se, but the constant threat of terrorism and mayhem in combination with constant lawsuits and complaints and demands, all accommodated by the multicultis, and a growing fear even to speak of Islamic violence, and then a criminalization of speaking about it, etc. Look what's happening to Europe.
Rick| 2.26.10 @ 10:30AM
No doubt we are undoing ourselves at a high rate of speed, but as a precaution, when Granny is on the fly, have her wear a Burka to avoid the underwear scan.
Derek Leaberry| 2.23.10 @ 9:03AM
Reagan's mindset regarding foreign policy was formed by first, the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, two threats which had to be defeated in combat, and, second, the rise of the communist threat, chiefly the USSR. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the USSR no longer exist. One can not know what sort of foreign policy Reagan would endorse today because he is dead. The world in which Reagan lived is dead too. However, Jeanne Kirkpatrick noted in the early 1990s that the USA, with the demise of the USSR, could once again adopt what she called a "normal foreign policy." As Reagan absorbed much of Mrs. Kirkpatrick's thinking and even hired her as UN Ambassador, I would guess that Reagan would have come around to Mrs. Kirkpatrick's views once the USSR fell.
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 9:09AM
That foreign policy is falling off the radar screen is a sign that non-interventionism is on the rise. People are becoming more and more aware that America is not responsible to police the world and spread democracy. And they realize there are no existential threats to the US despite all the fear mongering from the neocons.
Derek Leaberry| 2.23.10 @ 9:43AM
How can a country that perpetually runs vast amounts of red ink engage in perpetual war? America is broke but the neo-conservatives do not comprehend. Conservatives ought to turn their backs on the neo-conservatives. They offer a dead end road.
JP| 2.23.10 @ 1:33PM
All it takes is for Iran to send a few gunboats out to the Strait of Hormuz; watch oil prices soar to $100 a barrel. If any shots are fired, oil will go to $150 a barrel. Wait until Iran is confirmed to have nukes, and oil will go to $100 overnight.
Of course, these aren't facts, just Neocon drivel.
S.L. Toddard| 2.23.10 @ 6:14PM
Doesn't that suggest that we should launch a pre-emptive strike on all of Iran's boats?
blackwatch| 2.23.10 @ 8:18PM
what and kill a bunch of conscripts and seamen first classes? Go after their politcal leadership not their military grunts. The Persian people are not our adversaries here. Militant Islamists with a huge amount of Petro Euro's are the problem.
victor| 2.23.10 @ 9:16PM
Once again, you are equating the war on terrorists and oil. Just like your brethren the Progressives.
We have 300 years worth of oil in our own backyard, but refuse to drill for it.
Doing so would strangle the Arabs in their sleep.
We can pick off the jihadists without worrying about any oil whatsoever.
Derek Leaberry| 2.24.10 @ 3:23PM
Keeping an aircraft carrier group around the Persian Gulf permanently would be prudent. Engaging in a perpetual war to bring democracy to the Arab world is not worth while for a country hemoraging red ink like America.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.23.10 @ 10:00AM
Partially a copy paste from yesterday, in case some of you missed it. I have added some stuff I think is valid.
I am fighting a mistake in thinking. The problem between SL’s thinking and mine is ONLY WHERE we “draw the line in the sand”.
As a sixth generation “Texican” my forebears lived in peace at the invitation of the Mexican government, until the dictator Santa Anna came along. He wanted to change all the rules and my ancestors said “Nope”.
The “line in the sand” was drawn with a sword in the courtyard of the Alamo…. Literally!
Every man there was killed…
I suppose that is why we Texicans respect the Israelis so much… surrounded by six gazilliann muslims, they have drawn another “line in the sand”.
We Texicans understand sacrifice, in our hearts and bowels. We are part of the “Great American Pax”.
Our “empire” is a non empire. “Nation-building” has become a curse word to wrong thinking persons. In our bumbling way, we Americans have tried to spread peace and “family security” to millions of people and their families. I am very proud of our successes, and saddened by the costs… on our part… and the families we could not save due to “collateral damage”.
I continually hear the old saw… “oil for blood”. The dumbshits who utter it don’t even understand that “oil” (fuel) saves millions of lives every year. DDT would save millions more …but there you go.
Then I get pisthed off at the inflated numbers of “collateral death” in our efforts. Those “number liars” should be simply shot. Their lives are no more important than the lives they cost… are they?
***
If one is going to live in a “city” under the rule of law, and a city with a minimum of crime, one needs two things.
1. Personal firearms at the tips of one’s fingers at all times to “deter at the point of attack”.
2. A trained and screened for integrity law enforcement department for backup and support.
It seems to me we live in a “city-sized” world in the 21st century. Think about it for a moment. “”FIVE HOURS””
In the horse and buggy age, five hours was the magic number. Almost everyone lived within “five hours” of the nearest town center, (commerce center). One could get from the farm to town and back to the farm in one day.
SO…
The only question in my mind is WHO is going to provide the “law enforcement department” in our city sized, (county sized?), world?
Personally, I would prefer to elect the “sheriff” myself, rather than have someone else impose him on me. I would elect a guy with ethics, and who would be proud to ask me to lock and load to join the posse when necessary.
There described is my foreign “policy” in a nutshell. I love Pax-Americana.
S.L. Toddard| 2.23.10 @ 10:25AM
So, to sum up: Mr. Bean and I disagree because he is an awesome, super-tough Texan who knows what's what, and I'm not.
"The only question in my mind is WHO is going to provide the “law enforcement department” in our city sized, (county sized?), world?"
In *our* world (America), *our* government does. That will not change regardless of whether American Big Government polices the world.
"Personally, I would prefer to elect the “sheriff” myself, rather than have someone else impose him on me"
Me too. Again, if America were to enact a Washingtonian foreign policy of neutrality it would remain impossible for any other people to "impose" a "sheriff" upon us.
Romano| 2.23.10 @ 6:50PM
I love it too. My only concern is that the sheriff will be the subject of a non-elected super bureaucracy called the U.N. or NATO. I read today that the Netherlands is pulling their troops out of Afghanistan. If we have any troops in the Netherlands under NATO we should pull out as they are not living up to the charter that says" attack on one member is an attack on all"
Al Adab| 2.23.10 @ 10:40AM
Morning guys. Don't let old habits lead you into arguments just for their own sake.
The U. S. foreign policy role, in current days, should be limited to freedom and safety of the seas, read international trade and order. Prevention of terrorist activities, in concert with others, for the sake of stability and trade. The prevention of "rogue regimes" becoming more of a threat to others than to themselves. As well as a continuing strong relationship among the western, include Japan, and anglophone nations. That about covers it.
It does not include "nation building" , policing Somalia or Sudan tragic as those are nor the ongoing funding of the UN. That organization has a positive role inclusive of WHO and the security council along with a few other operations. However, the overlarge and all inclusive General Assembly is just a platform for demagogues.
Obviously this is not a comprehensive white paper on policy, but it can serve as a starting point for debate and better definition of the future policies of the US. Friends are friends and enemies are enemies.
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 10:46AM
Relax in Spa City With Hot Springs Arkansas Vacation Rental … | Travel Affection links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 10:51AM
The American Spectator : Foreign Policy Takes a Vacation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 10:51AM
The American Spectator : Foreign Policy Takes a Vacation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 10:54AM
The American Spectator : Foreign Policy Takes a Vacation « Mob le Host links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Interested Conservative| 2.23.10 @ 10:59AM
This is an interesting line:
"If the Muslim world were as unreformable as they think, though, there would be terrorist attacks every day."
A couple of comments:
There are attacks every day, but perhaps a different standard might be useful. Still, the gist of the issue is if, how, and why a "reformation" could arise. Rome, Christianity, and the "West" more generally, all have experience and history in such reformations - the Orient less so. But all offer clues as to what a muslim reformation could entail.
Unfortunately, there's less material to work with the closer you get to the center of the issue.
Ryan| 2.23.10 @ 11:16AM
I agree - Islam needs to have that internal conflict of militants vs. non-militants, but it's pretty much too focused on its external enemies to do anything about it.
JP| 2.23.10 @ 1:36PM
Islam did have its Reformation. Wannahbists, and the Shiites are today's Lutherans, and Calvanists.
Ryan| 2.23.10 @ 2:03PM
Not one that was a resulted in a peace with each other, which Christianity had (and the advent of democracy greatly aided).
Roy| 2.23.10 @ 6:51PM
When most people say Islam needs a "Reformation" what they mean is Islam needs an "Enlightenment". A "Reformation" where Islam spawns a hundred squabbling sects has obviously already happened. What they mean is they think Muslims need to become "moderate" (=unserious) Muslims and ultimately become self-indulgists like us.
I think that's going to happen but unclear if we can do anything to help it along.
Also, I'm not sure if it will really make a difference. Even in most self-indulgist places in America people have moments where they try to live as devout Christians - do lots of work for the poor, clean up their act, etc. Suppose that what people thought being "really" devout meant was to suicide bomb infidels. Ouch.
L. Ross | 2.23.10 @ 1:58PM
Go to The Religion of Peace for a partial listing of muslim terror attacks, death toll, etc.
S.L. Toddard| 2.23.10 @ 6:16PM
Do the death tolls exceed those of America's war on the Iraqis?
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 8:08PM
Toddard~have you ever thought about joining Al-Queda?
victor| 2.23.10 @ 9:18PM
Of course they do, you just have to do the arithmetic, but in your case, you may have to take off your shoes to do higher math.
S.L. Toddard| 2.24.10 @ 8:00AM
That's fascinating, Victor. Numbers, please.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.23.10 @ 11:10AM
Re column - "Is our Children Learning?"
To American Spectator:
Appears I strike Liberal/Leftist nerves.
Do you or do you not validate email addresses
with posts?
You let an asshole - pardon the shorthand -
speak as if he were me.
Get your AS act together!
Do you have hacker firewalls - at all?
If not - moving on!
AS Webmaster - what's up with this compromise?
GW| 2.23.10 @ 11:47AM
Pat Buchanan has an article saying much of the things Ron Paul has argued. I wish I could agree. Look at Iraq. We've spent over 5 years and billions of dollars liberating them from Saddam, yet we've gotten nothing but a shoe thrown at our president. Iraq is an oil-rich country with a surplus yet we're still the ones paying for the war. How do we win in Afghanistan? The costs will outweigh the benefits in doing so. It will require an ongoing presence of our military that has already been asked to do so much for a people unwilling to stand up against the radicals themselves. The fact is, we've done our fair share policing the world.
Where I think Bush is hardly a military genius, the fact of the matter is the world is a much different place than it was at the inception of this country. 19 terrorists killed nearly 3000 civilians in the span of 2 hours one day, something the USSR never did. By taking the fight to the enemy and pursuing an aggressive foreign policy approach, who's to say we haven't prevented similar attacks?
I think much of security can be done by sealing the border, which has been a failure by all presidents. But letting Iran get nukes would be a complete game-changer. Even if they didn't use them in fear of retribution, events change. With the turmoil in the country, a new regime could be ushered in---one more radical and unafraid to use the weapons.
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 11:52AM
Nascar Sprint Cup Series Shelby American – 2 Tickets - - By One Online links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 11:53AM
Nascar Sprint Cup Series Shelby American – 2 Tickets - - By One Online links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.23.10 @ 11:58AM
To continue the analogy, SL those "farmers" and "miners" and "oil producing guys" way out on the edge of the country need a deputy at least. (smile)
Again, think that "one day" away and back being still in our world sized "county" .
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 1:23PM
The American Spectator : Foreign Policy Takes a Vacation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 1:23PM
The American Spectator : Foreign Policy Takes a Vacation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Freedman| 2.23.10 @ 2:44PM
Ron Paul really is not running on George Washington's programs. For one thing, George Washington did not, albeit a slaveholder, promote secession in order to elevate slaveholding at the expense of democracy. And for another, he had very nice things to say about the American Jewish community and the Israelite contribution to American ideals while Ron Paul views foreign policy from the prism of Judeophobia, disgust with American exceptionalism (viewed as corrupt imperialism), and a not so sneaking respect for today's "freedom fighters"--this generations Barbery legions, the soldiers of Al Qaeda.
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 3:11PM
Amen to your comments, and thank you. You speak the truth. No matter how the Leftist anti-Semitic Ron Paulites try to paint themselves otherwise.
They are liars. And thankfully, it is the EXACT and PRECISE reason that they and Ron Paul will NEVER truly succeed, and Mr. Paul can NEVER become President.
Ryan| 2.23.10 @ 4:27PM
I'm going to continually attempt to point out that you're wrong in trying to paint Paulites as any sort of leftists.
They're PALEOCONSERVATIVES. If you don't understand the term, look it up.
If I'm wrong, prove me so.
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 4:56PM
Knock yourself out, Ryan.
A con artist is a con artist is a con artist.
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 5:17PM
Margie, the Wiki entry on paleoconservatism, last I checked, was pretty sound. Seriously take a look at it, because as it is you don't get it. You are out of your depth.
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 7:27PM
Yes I must be out of my depth because I cannot fathom it.
It's just too deep for me. Therefore I must contemplate something a little closer to shore.
Thank you for your attempt to save me from the deep but I am rejecting your life preserver.
Thank you for your in-depth anti-American views but you are right. I prefer the simple way of life. On dry land. Away from the deep sea monsters of blame America Firsters. Away from anti-semites and Fortress America hippies who drowned long ago but still attempt to rise up to the surface every now and again.
No thanks, I'll stay right where I am.
You just keep on, though. Lotsa luck matey!
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 9:31PM
Margie, what is a paleoconservative? Do you even have the slightest idea?
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 9:31PM
Margie, what is a paleoconservative? Do you even have the slightest idea?
aware| 2.23.10 @ 5:27PM
I admit I'm still at a complete loss trying to understand how anybody could even remotely believe that Ron Paul is a leftist.
It is not Ron Paul you should be worrying about, it is a pro liberty movement that is growing. Think of Paul as Goldwater, though he lost, and likely won't be president, he will have an enormous impact on political direction of both parties, especially the Republican. Paul did not start it but he speaks to it, and there will be others in the future. Goldwater conservatism lasted from 1964 till 2008, it is time to close the book on it. It won the Cold War which is all it is suited for.
There are many of us who have fought against the Leviathan for 20 or more years under the banner of "conservatism". One of the central promises is limited government, and this it has clearly failed to deliver. And now after all that time, we have a big problem in the District of Corruption.
If you are serious about small government and the Constitution, you must understand that war is cause par excellence for explosive growth in government and the extermination of personal liberties.
Everything government does is now in question, no givens. It makes a mess of everything it does, so why would you give them a pass on the military part of the military-industrial-governmental complex? To have small government we must have smaller armies, this means we must have less obligations and entanglements(Washington's word).
If we don't get serious about lawful, limited, and localized government, we shall all be slaves sooner or later. The political momentum has been in the direction of State primacy and the obliteration of the individual for quite some time now and it is getting real late.
Liberty is an old word that is coming back into vogue. It's been out of use for so long it scares some people. Only statists need be concerned. And they need to be REAL concerned.
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 5:15PM
Paul Freeman looks to be campaigning to be the new Paul hater-in-chief on Am Spec. Margie would get the title but she is too ill spoken and simple-minded.
Paul, once again, secession was a legitimate option understood as such by the majority of the Founders. Washington, as one of the more nationalistic of the Founders (misnamed Federalist), was less keen on the idea than some, but he never, as far as I know, denied it's legitimacy, and his state specifically reserved the right to secede in their ratification document.
If you want to speak against secession then back it up with some evidence from the Founders. I'll pile my evidence in favor of a right to secession up against your evidence against it any day of the week.
aware| 2.23.10 @ 5:29PM
Amen!
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 5:49PM
"Dr." Red Phillips is a liar.
What I hate are America blaming, Israel hating Leftist liars who like snakes crawl out from under rocks every day to promote their cult leader of like mind.
Got that, creep?
Please vote for the man of your fantasy utopian hippie world. You still live in the land of the free thanks to the brave.
Cowards like you have no real ability to do anything anyway. Your cult leader will never win.
Your vote will be for Obama II. Mine and intellectually honest Americans will be against him.
S.L. Toddard| 2.23.10 @ 6:19PM
Hahahaha
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 8:06PM
There's one now.
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 9:27PM
"Cowards like you have"
You ever been in the military Margie? I have. Please try to make an argument, instead of calling names. Your mom should wash your mouth out with soap.
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 10:40PM
That's right pipsqeak. Your a coward. Now go hunker in your bunker with your friends and complain about how America is responsible for terrorism.
You served in the Military? So did the traitor Murtha. You're no better.
What an asinine question, have I served? What is it exactly you would have me do in the military you dope?
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 11:01PM
"What is it exactly you would have me do in the military you dope?"
Well not much to be honest. As a Christian and an authentic conservative who believes in traditional gender roles, I don't think women in general belong in the military. But of course I'm really a liberal hippie in disguise.
"Now go hunker in your bunker with your friends"
You're the one who is fretting about every third world upstart and tin pot dictator, not me.
S.L. Toddard| 2.24.10 @ 8:29AM
I don't see any reason to engage Marge. I am not exaggerating when I say that I suspect she is either mentally retarded or a young child pretending to be an adult - just look at any string of her posts. They are invariably characterized by childish simplicity, extreme ignorance and profoundly un-Christian hatefulness. She has literally never made a single argument on this board - it's all hate, spite, childish name-calling and temper tantrums. Her brain is soft and her heart is rotten and she has nothing to say, so ignore her and let her grow up, or get help, or find Christ, or something.
Red Phillips | 2.24.10 @ 8:43AM
I'm just waiting to get called a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal reactionary for endorsing gender roles. When calling us leftists doesn't stick, the next move is to claim we are TOOOOO... (scary) conservative.
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 12:41PM
"Dr." Phillips~so which is it? Tou endorse women in the Military, or you don't? You are quite the contradictory person.
And by the way, Christians don't despise Israel. True Christians, that is. And they don't hate America as you and Toddard do, and their purpose isn't to live to blame Her for terrorism.
And also don't hate their brothers and sisters in the Lord.
You are a liar, as your hateful lying friend is, and are no Christians!
As I've said before, and will gladly continue to say~
You haters and your perverted leader will NEVER succeed!
Red Phillips | 2.24.10 @ 8:43AM
I'm just waiting to get called a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal reactionary for endorsing gender roles. When calling us leftists doesn't stick, the next move is to claim we are TOOOOO... (scary) conservative.
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 12:18PM
Thus says the terrorist loving Toddard who whenever he speaks does nothing but denounce America and blame Her for the terrorists being terrorists. Anyone who confronts him is treated thusly. Too bad little man. You are a liar, and are obviously intending on going to your grave a liar. You are a disgusting man.
S.L. Toddard| 2.24.10 @ 2:24PM
Hahaha she's doing it again!
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 4:59PM
"You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking the truth." Ps. 52:3.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right! Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom go up like dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.Is. 5:20-24.
William R| 2.23.10 @ 6:13PM
Reagan's wisdom on the Middle East: LEAVE
http://orangepunch.freedomblog.....leave/619/
GW| 2.23.10 @ 7:08PM
Reagan's wisdom on illegal immigration: AMNESTY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....ct_of_1986
William R| 2.23.10 @ 8:15PM
He got snookered. Enforcement that never came!
victor| 2.23.10 @ 9:19PM
Do you think Reagan would take a stand against Islamo fascists or would he just be “neutral” about their threat? Let’s just bring all of our troops home from around the globe and pretend it is 1939. Stupid.
Eisenhower| 2.24.10 @ 7:16PM
Um, how does having our troops all over the globe prevent terrorist attacks?
9/11
93 Word Trade Center Bombing
Madrid
etc., etc.
I'm no non-interventionist, but the idea that our global presence some how makes us safer utter nonsense. Especially, considering the fact that our enemy, (unlike the Soviets), is primarily decentralized. You're right Reagan definitely wouldn't have been neutral. However, I doubt he would treat this like the Cold War, or treat Al-Qaeda like they're second coming of the Soviets.
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 3:29PM
The American Spectator : Foreign Policy Takes a Vacation Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 3:50PM
Conservative Donnybrook » Blog Archive » A Voice of Reason links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
William R| 2.23.10 @ 6:05PM
Bonkers Bolton is the ultimate NeoCon. As for Reagan lets see what he said about the Middle East in his memoirs.
Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.
" In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
Republicans and conservatives should follow Cato Institute founder Ed Crane's advice and purge the NeoCons!!
LEVI| 2.23.10 @ 6:33PM
ron paul is like hitler ....... hes popular because he promises americans he will take back america from jewish interests who force our representatives to support israel and fight and die invading countries that are only enemies of israel. and americans know 9-11 was caused by our forced support for israel so they want a leader who will end jewish influence and become a great country again by putting america first. but he will never get elected because the media will destroy him SO HAHA
William R| 2.23.10 @ 6:43PM
It's obvious your bonkers!
GW| 2.23.10 @ 7:00PM
It's obvious 'your' a great speller!
William R| 2.23.10 @ 8:14PM
Thanks!!!! :>)
victor| 2.23.10 @ 9:21PM
Will-I-Am:
"It's obvious your bonkers."
Finish your sentence.
It's obvious your bonkers are what?
What is it that your bonkers are doing?
GW| 2.24.10 @ 1:01AM
Thus my sarcastic response... :)
WinnT | 2.23.10 @ 6:59PM
I haven`t forgot international policy on my blog. I grew up with Reagan and the mantra peace through strength still rings true today. America is a country at grave risk in a dangerous world.
victor| 2.23.10 @ 9:24PM
Pray for Peace, but Prepare for War!
Thom| 2.23.10 @ 7:21PM
While I understand the allure of the world as it existed prior to the 20th century and what some people hold to as “principles”, by whatever name you call isolationism or passivism started to lose its merit when the Germans started dropping bombs on England during the first war of the last century. By the end of the second war of last century major portions of large cities could be taken out with 1000 plane bomb runs several times a week with conventional explosives or a single crude atomic weapon. By the time we got relatively reliable ballistic missiles on line that could carry simple fission weapons we already had hundreds of long range bombers capable of carrying multiple fusion weapons, each capable of taking out very large cities. Today, a single cruise type weapon launched from offshore hidden in a container ship could kill more people than this entire Nation’s war dead combined. We aren’t the only ones that can make the 1970’s technology found in our cruise or land/sea based ballistic missiles. As clearly evidenced by the millions of people that sneak into our country over the years (about 500,000 a year successfully make it) you don’t really need the fancy and expensive launch mechanisms to get one into this country.
I also understand this view that we should just let the Jews and Arabs/Persians kill each other but again, the immediate downside of that is no oil from that Middle East and life on this planet as we know it would end in about 6 weeks time or less. Should the exchange go “nuclear” than there will be some pretty ugly long term consequences too if you overlook a worldwide depression from the loss of 30% of petroleum supplies. Those that think there is a simplistic solution to all this are just a bit immature in their thinking.
I also understand this belief that we can be like the Swiss, who haven’t been in a war in over 400 years located in a place dominated by wars but neither has West Virginia since its inception and before. They share a common problem where as warfare is concerned and nobody has rationalized a reason to fight their way through either Switzerland or West Virginia to get to someone else. Of course it doesn’t hurt that 10% of the Swiss population has automatic weapons in their homes by law and is the world’s bankers including those that make trouble for so much of the world presently. No one wants to blow up their money given generous Swiss returns. The Swiss haven’t freed a single person from tyranny either. People from West Virginia have many times.
I also understand this naive belief that if left alone no one would want to attack us….. That doesn’t square too well with history. The Japanese attacked us within 6 months after we cut off trade with them, particularly fuel to keep their war machine running. Apparently we should have kept supplying them with raw materials and fuel for their war machine and they would have left us alone I guess? Both Japan and Germany were working on atomic bombs also. While the Japanese had no reasonable expectation of producing one before their collapse the Germans on the other hand were a different story and had produced a single bomber capable of carrying such a weapon and reaching New York specifically. Would Hitler have used it? We would have dropped three in August of 1945 alone had the Japanese high command not seen the “light” and that crazy Hitler would have rationalized not to use it against us? If we had stayed out the war in Europe does anyone really think that would have turned out for the better for us? We diverted a lot of German resources away from the Russian Front and supplied a noticeable percentage of war material to Russia when it mattered.
I can also understand how our efforts in Korea and Vietnam were kind of in vain to differing degrees, the latter particularly but by some accounts similar efforts at “force makes right” were practiced in the 1860 in this country. How did that turn out? Not too well from where I sit since it set in motion the very thing the Constitution was structured to prevent, the centralization of power in the hands of a few.
Like I said, I understand these views but the 19th century world and before is gone and never coming back. Many of us would like it to be otherwise but there is only this world and it is what it is. It took two industrial nations with combined populations greater than the US at the time to construct a war machine and kill ultimately over 50 million people in half a decade. That will be possible by backwaters like Iran, North Korea, or worse in the blink of an eye. The best this isolation or passive foreign policy will do for us is get many of us killed last in the scheme of things. The nature of mankind has not and will not change if left to its own devices. The only thing that has changed is the nature of weapons and that is the part the isolationists and pacifists have never been able to come to grips with. The Germans and Japanese both would have developed nuclear weapons if we had not prevented them from doing so. By the standards of most Hitler was insane but by the standards of some today he was quiet rational by comparison. To believe what some believe today you have to ignore the bulk of historical record and believe that two large oceans protect us from harm as it did for the most part in the 16th century. Prior to the 20th century you had to invade to destroy a country; today you can FedEx it to them. Wishful thinking is not foreign policy and no policy is timeless in nature. Things change and have for the worse and sticking our collective heads in the sand isn’t going to protect us.
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 7:36PM
Why Thom, you're just soooo.... simple minded. You just can't fathom it all.
Red Phillips | 2.23.10 @ 10:07PM
"when the Germans started dropping bombs on England during the first war of the last century"
So WWI started when the Germans just up and started dropping bombs on England?
You can always count on interventionists to bring up WWII as an all purpose justification for any and every intervention since.
Of course none of what you wrote in that dissertation above has anything to do with how us bombing far off Muslim countries helps prevent terrorism. Mind explaining that to me?
The way to prevent terrorism at home is to restrict immigration and disengage from the Middle East.
robert kelso sr| 2.26.10 @ 11:34AM
For the record: in WWII Germany dropped no bombs on England before England first bombed civilian targets in a German city.
prehist51| 2.23.10 @ 8:39PM
Paulites in control of our government would be as dangerous as one under control of the Obamites. Difference being, Obama will destroy the US from within, Paulites will let our foreign enemies destroy us since they don't believe we have any.
harold| 2.23.10 @ 9:20PM
foreign countries only want to destroy jews and israel and rightfully so, paulites want the world to know we are not part of these scum and we frankly believe its time the get what they deserve. jews/israel are not compatable with 21st century civilization
Margie| 2.23.10 @ 10:43PM
This is what "Dr." Red and Toddard & friends attracts. Great job guys.
Aren't you proud?
Francis kern| 2.23.10 @ 11:15PM
MARGIE maybe you would feel more comfortable at some zionist site like commentary, you obviously have a problem being exposed to non jewish american opinion and rightfully so , your interest is jewish/israeli ours is america and frankly most of us wouldnt lose sleep if israel was nuked tommorow DEAL WITH IT ! the times they are changin
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 12:22PM
Looks like you've come to the right place, Francis. Welcome to the Anti-Semitic crowd. Toddard and friends are glad to have you, I'm sure!
Pingback| 2.24.10 @ 12:29AM
Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.24.10 @ 1:33AM
Fiscal madness and mayhem in Philadelphia. #TitleONE #nocontrol … | Educational Delaw links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 1:01PM
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, My friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are My servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off"; fear not, for I am with you, be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with My victorious right hand. Behold, all who are incensed against you shall be put to shame and confounded; those who strive against you shall be as nothing and shall perish. You shall seek those who contend with you, but you shall not find them; those who war against you shall be as nothing at all." Is 41:8-12.
Red Phillips | 2.24.10 @ 2:17PM
Margie, as I have explained to you before, not all sincere, Bible-believing Christians accept dispensational pre-millennialism which I am pretty certain is what motivates your support of Israel. Many Christians do not accept that the modern largely secular ethno-state of Israel has any relationship to the Israel of the Old Testament in the prophetic sense that you and your theologically like-minded brethren do. In fact, your system of belief is a newcomer on the theological scene. It is only about 150 years old. It is not what the Church Fathers believed. It is not what Luther and Calvin believed.
Now it would be nice if before you dash off a hasty reply telling me I’m a hateful, cowardly, anti-Semitic liberal in disguise that you at least look into the eschatological alternatives to dispensational pre-millennialism.
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 5:06PM
"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to His words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar. Prov. 30:5&6.
Red Phillips | 2.24.10 @ 6:11PM
So Margie, were Luther and Calvin and the Church Fathers guilty of violating Prov. 30: 5&6 because they didn't believe a theology that didn't even exist yet?
Do me a favor. Read some books.
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 7:07PM
Stop being so arrogant, like your friend, and assigning to me a belief system you think I follow, that makes you a liar. Do you truly want to be found by Him that way?
I suggest you read some too. Especially the Bible itself. If you did you'd know that it isn't wise to trust man. In fact if you read the most important book in this world, the Bible, you'd know that God says "Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, whose heart turns away from the LORD." Jer. 17:5.
Is that you? Do you trust in man and what man says is truth rather than what God says?
You can't serve two Masters. There is no neutral. Who do you trust?
Red Phillips | 2.24.10 @ 7:17PM
Your replies are not germane. So you tell me. What do you think the relationship is between the modern nation of Israel and the Israel of the Old Testament regarding prophesy?
Margie| 2.24.10 @ 7:33PM
My above post already answered your dishonest question. Is. 41:8-12 says it all. What is not "germane" to you is the honored and loved Truth spoken by God, to me.
I choose to no longer cast my pearls before swine.
Jon B| 3.5.10 @ 8:27PM
Reading these posts makes me depressed. Proverbs 31: 6&7 says I should drink beer or wine until "I remember my misery no more" when I'm sad. I think I'll spread the word of God tonight.
Pingback| 2.24.10 @ 1:20PM
Vacation Rentals – Undiscovered Travel Retreats | Travel Affection links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.24.10 @ 4:07PM
Red,
What you miss-spelled was "heil Hitler".
hey, idiot, Jesus was Jewish...heh, at least on his father's side, and if you can't catch that joke, you are meaningless and ignorant.
Pingback| 2.24.10 @ 4:58PM
OpenSecrets | Bipartisan Support for the Jobs Bill, Credit Card … | Credit Finance Wi links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Red Phillips | 2.24.10 @ 6:17PM
That's right Ken, because Hitler, just like me, was always babbling on about following the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. As well, that Hitler was a real non-interventionist. NOT!
Of course Jesus was Jewish. No Christian would deny that. But that doesn't make dispensational pre-millennialism correct theology.
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 9:45AM
How Can I Receive Additional Bookings for My Vacation Rental? | Travel Affection links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob S| 2.26.10 @ 2:01PM
Zionism is not Judaism. The Jews were exiled the first time in the Old Test. AND the second time at Christ's coming for the disobedience of unbelief. Further, any OT prophecy of restoration such as that quoted from Isaiah above, typologically refers to an obedient/believing Israel, much more to obedient/believing Gentiles.
IOW one of the many fundamental errors of dispensational premill fundamentalism is that it overlooks Romans 2:28,29. Being a Jew is not outward, external and ethnic. It has to do with the heart. To believe in Christ is to really become Jewish. Paul, Jew of Jews, in Phil.3 counts his whole ethnic heritage dung when compared to knowing Christ.
That means essentially that zionism is judaizing, and Paul doesn’t have a good word for that in Galatians.
Unfortunately Armageddon and the endtime views of disp. premillenialism in the short run, also agree with the zionist neo-con view and policy toward the MidEast. Hence the avid defense of the same by the first of the last.
Yet regardless if one thinks one is doing the work of the Lord in defending disp. premill zionism, the nasty ad hominems are uncalled for.
Margie| 2.27.10 @ 11:49AM
My goodness. Quote a scripture from Isaiah and people assume all kinds of things about the person who quoted it.
Red Phillips is a liar and lies when he said what I believe. He wrongly assigned a belief system to me that I do not follow.
For the record,
I believe what the ENTIRE Bible says, not parts of it.
Apparently, Mr. Phillips, the liar enjoys wrongly assigning things to people because they suit his high and lofty self.
I believe the entire Bible and do not pick and choose things to play games with. When it says: "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first;then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words." 1 Thess. 4:13-18.
I suggest you all comfort one another with those words.
The Scripture in Isaiah and indeed all throughout it tells of God's promise concerning Israel. That there will be a remnant saved in the end, as well as many are saved now because of Christ's sacrifice, and that God will always love Her. Salvation is from the Jews as well, as the Bible says as well. If it weren't for their rebellion the Gentiles could not be saved. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and that includes the Jews.
The anti-Semites Toddard, Red Phillips and others who are obsessed with all things Israel~ well I enjoy quoting Scripture to them concerning God's own statements.
They abhor me for my belief. They will continue their hatred but will claim I am the hater. It's what Lying Leftists live to do.
Chumanist| 3.1.10 @ 1:59AM
The author's juxtaposition regarding the Wilsonian/ Jeffersonian concepts of American values aside,the very fact advocates the truth that has also been touched by the writer in his concluding paragraph is that America's moral survival seems to be of the first and foremost concern for the Obama administration's foreign policy managers than to having an obsession with America's quest for strategic in-depth( the fixed objective of the US former administrations and that of the present one).
Tenn Slim| 3.1.10 @ 10:38AM
Opine
bt
It is a bit of hard reality, but the USA exists in the 21st century, not the Jefferson/Jackson 19th century. Reality today is far different than the days of sail. Information, yep, this post, and yours go around the world at the speed of light. Opines, change by the nano second.
It is good to debate the Founders Basics. We all need to constantly review and understand the basics. Application of same is the problem.
Try to explain Wilonsian Philosophy to a IPOD or IPAD distracted teenager and you get the notion.
I give a lot of credit to the Mrs Hillary Clintons of this world. She has a tough way to hoe. Running the Foggy Bottom Club is d... hard. Probably off the subject here, but she definetly is at the FP Spear Tip.
bt
We, you and I, and our Rural Cohorts are learning. We have a 60 year history of mis education and experince to overcome. BUT
WE WILL PREVAIL USING COMMON SENSE.
end
Semper FI
Jon B| 3.4.10 @ 11:57AM
...and to think that the war in Afghanistan/war against terror could've been taken care of 6 years ago if Cheney hadn't created the OSP, the office that created the propaganda to invade Iraq, gave Powell lies to present to the UN, coerced George Tenet to lie to Congress in support of a war with Iraq (Tenet admitted to this during the 2006 Congressional investigation). Had we taken care of al Qaeda then, our hands would not still be tied leaving them free to deal more effectively, and more credibly, with Iran now. But here we are with multiple problems/issues, and as many have noted, a lot of "Red Ink."
Andreea| 5.14.10 @ 12:31PM
I really like the sarcasm in the title - if it weren't for it I don't think I would've followed it from google.