Hey, wait a minute, John! Just because I reported on “Losers for Peace” doesn’t automatically make me a peacenik. And merely quoting Bill Kauffman’s arguments shouldn’t be interpreted as my belated endorsement of the American First Committee.
But this “humanitarian” invasion idea is one of the looniest things I’ve ever heard of — hostile humanitarianism? armed compassion? militant charity? This is the same “meals on wheels” approach to the military that conservatives mocked when the Clinton administration did it. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but Emerson’s aphorism doesn’t justify veering wildly all over the place.
“Humanitarian intervention” either is or is not liberal nonsense. If it is nonsense, then its opponents are not to be confused with pacifists.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?