The American Spectator

Clint| 12.13.11 @ 10:26AM

Dr. Ron Paul voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.

Dr.Ron Paul,
" I would ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary."

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

james wilson| 12.13.11 @ 10:40AM

You make Antle's point. The first neocon was the proud progressive Teddy Roosevelt, who carved out Panama from Columbia.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.13.11 @ 11:03AM

james wilson...

Not so...James Madison sent the Navy to Chile in 1813, Benjamin Harrison sent troops to Argentina in 1890...there examples aplenty long before Theodore Roosevelt was even born...much less in the White House.

Zack| 12.13.11 @ 12:08PM

And there's that whole Mexican-American war thing, plus Manifest Destiny and westward expansion. I agree with Mr. Lord that it's disingenuous to claim that the US was ever committed to anything like the Paul Doctrine.

Whether the Paul Doctrine is a good policy today, though, is obviously a different question. I think it's pretty naive, but I reached that conclusion independent of any consideration of what the Founding Fathers would have done.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 1:47PM

Oh.. you make this so easy Mr. Lord. Neither of the examples you cite have anything to do with spreading democracy. Care to try again?

"James Madison sent the Navy to Chile in 1813"
You mean during the declared war of 1812 in order to stop British shipping?

"Benjamin Harrison sent troops to Argentina in 1890"
You mean when he sent them to protect the US consulate?

Zack| 12.13.11 @ 2:59PM

You're changing the goalposts. Non-interventionalism doesn't only mean non-imposition of democracy. Under the Paul doctrine, both are examples of intervention (what business is it of ours?), but you're right that neither are intervention to impose democracy.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 4:27PM

Give me a break.

"what business is it of ours" when someone attacks our consulate or our declared enemy has ships in our hemisphere? No one is arguing that it isn't our business. This is simply national defense, not intervention for the sake of intervention.

Ron Paul obviously supports our right to defend America outside of our borders. He voted for the authority to get Bin Laden.

read hoover's papers| 12.15.11 @ 7:36PM

Jeffrey Lord is an obvious political hack no understanding of history. Loved your mislead on War of 1812 (-1815) Chile/British reference. So nice hatchet job on RP out shilling for Neocon Newt. American's constantly duped into foreign wars for the cause of special interests over the past 2 centuries. But the founder's? They'd be none to happy. Washington's farewell address. Jefferson's multiple warnings. How about this from John Adams in 1821:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

Dai Alanye| 12.13.11 @ 11:00AM

It sounds as if Mr Lord is hinting that Ron Paul is a hypocrite.

I'm shocked -- shocked!

GW| 12.13.11 @ 11:39AM

Or more than anything else, just wrong.

The idea that if we "leave everyone alone" the world will turn out rosy is bizarre. If anything, our foreign policy has been too idealistic in assuming Muslim cultures can be reformed, but to take on Paul's doctrine is to make the same assumption, only in reverse.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 3:18PM

Paul never says the "world will turn out rosy". He says the opposite.

He knows that wars and disagreements will always be around, so he is advising us to stay out of as many as possible.

If you think it's your job to always break up the fight in the yard, you'll come home with a black eye daily, and you'll gain far more enemies than friends along the way. This is just good common sense.

Clint| 12.13.11 @ 6:37PM

You're An Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Crybaby.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Ivan| 12.13.11 @ 1:00PM

Mr Lord obviously has some problems in understanding a simple conceptual difference between "making the world safe for democracy" or "introducing feminism in Afghanistan" (Wilson-Bush-Obama) and "preventing Great Britain and Spain from re-colonizing the Western Hemisphere" (Monroe). Or between the world-wide crusade to impose democracy and destroy evil on the one hand, and national defense on the other.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 1:50PM

Consult Robert Kagan who wrote Dangerous Nation for lots more...including pre Constituion when colonialist and famous thelogians like Jonathan Edwards worked with the British to invade both Canada against the French position and Cuba against the Spanish and multiple wars for land with Indians.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 1:57PM

The Monroe Doctrine expanded democracy from coast to coast.

Jeffersons famous empire of liberty speech advocated taking Cuba.

Jefferson Davis wanted a Tropical slave empire from Cuba to Nicaragua and out west and expansion of the slave trade which is another fun place you can take this. Many Paul supporters being neo confederates.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 1:59PM

Walter Russell Meads Special Providence is Mother must read. Wilsonian foreign policy did not start with Wilson...it view much much further back.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 2:01PM

I love it how Mr. Lord completely rejects the actual words of the founders. He makes no attempt to explain their direct warnings against intervention. Instead, he tries to find examples of where they may not have lived up to their ideals.

This is like rejecting all your doctor's advice regarding cancer because you found out that he possibly smoked a cigarette once while drunk. Solid logic.

Zack| 12.13.11 @ 3:01PM

Actions speak louder than words....

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 3:13PM

Romney and Gingrich sure are hoping they don't...

Zack| 12.13.11 @ 7:37PM

No argument.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 7:48PM

Do I really need to respond to an elementary idiom? Try replying with substance.

Zack| 12.14.11 @ 11:35AM

I meant I had no argument with your statement re: romney and gingrich.

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 12:33PM

Sorry - I'm the jerk.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 2:11PM

Last I checked Texas was safe for democracy.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 2:17PM

Excerpt from kagans book, dangerous Nation. Chapter title is "the first imperialist"
---

“The British also benefited, however, from the power of a colonial population cooperating “in the imperial enterprise with an enthusiasm and vigor unprecedented in their history.” The colonials had long aimed at destroying the French position in Canada and now with the full backing of the empire that threw themselves into the assault with contributions of men and resources. This was not a war that the colonist watched from a distance. “To a degree virtually unknown in the eighteenth century, every colony north of Virginia…..experienced the conflict as a people’s war.”

Massachusetts led the way in raising volunteers for the conquest of Canada, and militia from various northern colonies made up a substantial portion of the overall attacking force. Nor was colonial fighting limited to Canada. When the British attacked and subdued the Spanish port city of Havana in 1762, thus removing a main pillar of Spanish power in the Caribbean, North American colonist made up one-quarter of the force.

This “people’s war” affected every segment of colonial society. The colonial aristocracy led the battles, the taxpayers paid for the battles, and the plain fold fought the battles. Even the evangelical preachers of the Great Awakening did their part, rallying the faithful, warning against sin, and, most important, converting Indians in the hop of bringing them over to the British side. Jonathan Edwards himself had long been aware of the “immense strategic importance” of building good relations with the Mohawks, and the religious boarding school he established in Stockbridge for the education of Indian children was a deliberate weapon in the imperial struggle. “The only remaining means that divine providence hath left us to repair and secure these Indians in the British interest,” he declared, “is this very thing….of instructing them thoroughly in the Protestant religion, and educating their children.” He had no qualms about mixing the secular, imperial mission with his religious mission. He “never questioned the premise that God used Christian empires to bring the message to unevangelicalized peoples.”

jp| 12.13.11 @ 2:26PM

Jeff....don't forget amongst the noise that Pauls entire foreign policy is agaisnt interventionism....sokmething woods is now advocating for...in this hemisphere.

That is Rothbardian foreign policy....they apply it to all things. See.Paul on Marriage as he writes in his book liberty defined.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 2:46PM

Woods is not advocating intervention in the western hemisphere. Please provide a quote to back up your claim.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 2:49PM

If he is suporting any of the Monroe doctrine among other events in Americas rich FP history....he's advocating interventions.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 3:08PM

You should read the Monroe doctrine. It appears that you don't understand it.

It doesn't say anything about intervening into the internal affairs of other nations. It just says that if European powers try to take over parts of the Western Hemisphere, we'll oppose them.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 4:45PM

That is not what manifest destiny and the Monroe doctrine say. They were the 18-19th century version of nation building.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 4:54PM

Care to cite the text from the Monroe Doctrine to back this up? I'll be eagerly waiting.

JP| 12.13.11 @ 7:12PM

The term "Manifest Destiny," which American writer John L. O'Sullivan coined in 1845, describes what most 19th-Century Americans believed was their God-given mission to expand westward, occupy a continental nation, and extend U.S. constitutional government to unenlightened peoples. While the term sounds like it is strictly historical, it also more subtly applies to the tendency of U.S. foreign policy to push democratic nation-building around the globe.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 7:45PM

You said "that is not what manifest destiny and the Monroe doctrine say", so I asked you to cite it from the Monroe Doctrine. I'm still waiting.

Sorry, but I'm not concerned with a belief coined in 1845. Not at all relevant to my request.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.13.11 @ 5:58PM

Caleb..

You say of Monroe Doctrine:

"It just says that if European powers try to take over parts of the Western Hemisphere, we'll oppose them."

That, Caleb, is intervention in the affairs of others. What business is it of ours (under the Paul Doctrine) whether the British are in Chile or the Mexicans in California? Neither belonged to us in the day.....The entire premise underlying the Monroe Doctrine is the threat of force if X foreign country does something we don't like. Which is exactly what Bush was communicating to Saddam.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 6:39PM

Nice straw man, but you don't seem to get it.

Non-intervention doesn't mean you never fight wars beyond your borders. No one is arguing for that. It simply means you only fight when your security is threatened.

The Monroe Doctrine stated that if European powers tried to expand into our hemisphere, we would object and view it as a threat. The goal was to defend our nation, and not to spread democracy, the thesis of neoconservatism. Your argument is scattered and dishonest.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.13.11 @ 6:57PM

Caleb...

You say:

"It (the Monroe Doctrine) simply means you only fight when your security is threatened."

Sorry...this was the Bush rationale for Iraq, the Bush Sr rationale for Iraq and etc on back.

You, Caleb, are a NeoConservative. And we're on to you. It is simply not our business under the Paul Doctrine whether some country is trying to expand or not. Chile was not on the verge of attacking America in 1813. California was not going to attack America in the 1840's. These were not threats, period.

Who cares whether Spain had colonies in Latin America? It was none of our business. So the Brits were fiddling with Santiago during the War of 1812. So what? Irrelevant to the safety of Boston or New York. This is so much NeoCon mumbo jumbo - under the Paul Doctrine.

You, my friend, have carefully hoisted yourself - thanks to Ron Paul - on your own petard.

Ouch.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 8:02PM

Let me break this down for you as you clearly can't understand these simple concepts:

Non-intervention: only fighting wars when our security is threatened.

Monroe Doctrine: if European powers attempt to move into our hemisphere, we will interpret it as a threat.

Neoconservatism: it's our moral responsibility to spread democracy around the world by way of force.

As far as Bush goes, if you think he had no interest in spreading democracy and was only defending America, read his speech before we invaded Iraq. You aren't being honest.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.13.11 @ 9:33PM

"Neoconservatism: it's our moral responsibility to spread democracy around the world by way of force."

The reason California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Nevada are American states is explicitly because of the philosophy you have outlined above. So the point is obvious: we must give them back to end the blowback? James K. Polk - Neo Con.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 10:05PM

You seem confused. Your comparison makes no sense.

The goal of neoconservatism is land acquisition? Are you saying we invaded Iraq because of expansionism? We own it now? Wow, this is news to me.

Polk's stated goal was to expand westward by way of land acquisition. Far different from creating a world that is "safe for democracy".

Jeffrey Lord | 12.14.11 @ 7:57PM

Implicit in the taking of these 4 states was making the West safe for Democracy. Are you suggesting Santa Anna, the "Napoleon of the West" and ruler of Mexico for 22 years or so was a small "d" democrat? You mean the guy who extinuished the defenders of the Alamo was really all about Democracy?

If you say so....

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 9:05PM

I didn't say any of that.

I'm saying the goal was expansionism, not bringing democracy to a sovereign nation. Just give up already. You can't defend your position, so you're trying to change the subject.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.14.11 @ 9:15PM

Same thing.

Give it up. You're desperately avoiding the subject.

Merry Christmas, though.

Caleb Plain| 12.15.11 @ 4:26AM

Are you doing the 4 year old rebuttal now where you just repeat what I said back to me?

Merry Christmas to you too.

jp| 12.13.11 @ 4:42PM

Iraq or afhanistan were neither one to promote democracy. Read the war resolutions and 23 reasons cited for Iraq. None are to promote democracy. That was what do you do in aftermath.

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 5:00PM

Just ignore history, right?

President Discusses the Future of Iraq:
"The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder." - George W Bush, February 26, 2003, weeks before the invasion started.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse......26-11.html

JP| 12.13.11 @ 7:10PM

very good, you proved my point.

Now read the War Resolutions, and the 23 different reasons for the Iraq War. Not a one of them was to "Promote Democracy". We had Just cause to take down Saddam, and did.

http://husseinandterror.com

Caleb Plain| 12.13.11 @ 8:10PM

I never argued that one of the "23 reasons" in the resolution was to "promote democracy".

I'm arguing that our commander-in-chief stated the promotion of democracy as a justification, and implemented policy to promote democracy in Iraq thereafter.

You and Mr. Lord love straw man arguments. Honesty goes a long way, please use it in your next reply.

JP| 12.13.11 @ 7:10PM

“As early as 1832, the United States sent a fleet to the Falkland Islands to reduce an Argentine garrison that had harassed American shipping. The Mexican War was, of course, the greatest example of American intervention [in Latin America], but by the Civil War, American forces had seen action in Haiti (1799, 1800, 1817-21), Tripoli (1815), the Marquesas Islands (1913-14), Spanish Florida (1806-10, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1816-18, 1817), what is now the Dominican Republic (1800), Curacao (1800), the Galapagos Islands (1813), Cuba (1822), Puerto Rico (1824), Argentine (1833, 1852, 1853), and Peru (1835-36). Between the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, marines were sent to Cuba, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Haiti.”

- Walter Russell Mead, "Special Providence"

JP| 12.13.11 @ 8:00PM

“However our present interest may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws; nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”

- Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1801

Rob C| 12.14.11 @ 12:37AM

No, really, aggressive and extra-Congressional/extra-Constitutional intervention into nations that we had no business being in must be a good policy because Wilson, T. Roosevelt, McKinley, Hoover, B. Harrison, Bush 1, Bush 2, Kennedy, Johnson, Truman, Nixon, and (notwithstanding B. Goldwater & R. Taft's clearly stated criticisms of his policies) Eisenhower appear to have done so in certain cases. Why not just throw in Clinton and Obama? Because GOP primary voters should really get behind someone who shares the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson and LBJ...

The point. All of these administrations departed from the philosophy of Washington, Adams, Monroe, JQ Adams, and a legion of celebrated Conservative thinkers and statesman who have consistently opposed foreign intervention. You'll find that the persons you've mentioned have actually written extensive criticisms of most if not all the administrations you've cited.

Finally, Ivan makes an excellent point as to context: There is an obvious difference "between the world-wide crusade to impose democracy and destroy evil on the one hand, and national defense on the other." Your examples of, for instance, James Madison repelling the British (whom Congress had DECLARED war against at the beginning of his administration) don't exactly match up to our actions in Libya. The former, of course, is clearly endorsable under what you've dubbed the "Paul Doctrine." Let's not play games. Paul obviously never said all foreign military action = interventionism.

Either you've totally missed the point and unwittingly made the argument for your opponent, or you've at least accepted the Paul/Woods/Gutzman position that our aggressive push toward foreign Interventionism ramped up in about the 1890s and has gradually increased ever-since. It can't be both.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.14.11 @ 7:26PM

Rob C..

You say:

"All of these administrations departed from the philosophy of Washington, Adams, Monroe, JQ Adams, and a legion of celebrated Conservative thinkers and statesman who have consistently opposed foreign intervention."

So when Washington invaded Canada, Adams picked a war with the French, Jefferson sent the Marines to Africa, madison sent the Navy to Chile and Monroe roped off half the globe and threatened to intervene with any country who dared to disagree this was....non-intervention?

You are believing a joke. Wake up.

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 8:58PM

"Washington invaded Canada":
You mean when we invaded to fight the British during our declared war with them? Right.

"Adams picked a war with the French":
You mean when the French began to seize U.S. vessels? Right.

"Jefferson sent the Marines to Africa":
You mean to counter Tripoli's attacks? Right.

"Madison sent the Navy to Chile":
You mean during the declared war of 1812 in order to stop British shipping? Right.

Non-interventionism means only fighting wars when our security is threatened, and in all these cases, it was. Once again, you have no argument.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.14.11 @ 10:00PM

According to the Paul Doctrine we had no need to do any of these things....Iran can't touch America in 2011, whos cares what Britain and Chile are doing in 1813? Why were we in Tripoli in the first place? Under the Paul Doctrine our very presence provoked the attacks. Etc Etc Etc....

The fact is that you can't defend Ron Paul...because the positions are historically undefendable...as you have ably demonstrated above.

Rob C| 12.15.11 @ 2:34AM

Caleb, exactly. Mr. Lord has simply attempted redefine and recategorize all of America's foreign policy, such that 'everything we've ever done up til now' is arguably antipaulian intervention. It's not only based on an obvious mischaracterization of his opponents' not-so-hard to understand views, it's just intellectually lazy.

Dialogues like this are a lot more fruitful when we approach our opponents and their ideas with due respect, rather than intentionally misstating and misapplying those ideas. Some would rather plug their ears and have arguments with their own Straw Men.

Rob C| 12.15.11 @ 2:42AM

Caleb answered exactly as I would have. But is it your belief that GOP primary voters should be supporting the policies of T Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton and Obama? Most of these liberals, progressives and socialists are persons you used to support the argument that Paul's position is extreme.

If it is, you must not be a Conservative. And if you purport to be, I fail to see how it's Ron Paul whose position is unprecedented, at least inside the GOP. For I don't recall him holding up LBJ and other liberals, progressives and socialists as philosophical models when it comes to US foreign policy. This would be strange, indeed.

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 5:07PM

Now that we destroyed Mr. Lord's argument, he is going on the Hannity show to call Ron Paul a racist.

Straight out of the left's playbook, but this is where Lord gets most of his ideas anyways.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.14.11 @ 7:21PM

Hello?

I did not call Ron Paul a racist. I said the comments made were typical of leftists. Hmmmm......

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 8:32PM

Which comments of his are you talking about? You compared his views to the KKK and anti-semites. How were you not implying he is racist? You're being incredibly disingenuous.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.14.11 @ 10:56PM

I was referring to the comments made in those newsletters and read aloud on the air....I indeed said that the views expressed in those comments were leftist. I said that racism in this country has historically been leftist...it has, contrary to liberal PR...zero to do with being a conservative. I am also stating fact that it seems quite frequently that his supporters accuse his critics of being "Israel Firsters"...and that there appears to be a high degree of anti-Semitism among his supporters. I have criticized Gingrich, Romney, Huntsman and Perry, for example - and the responses from their supporters are never ever like that. Why is this? I find it disturbing and simply said he never addresses a problem that is so remarked on by others. I've met Ron Paul. He seems quite nice. We're talking policy here, not is he a good Dad etc.

So the puzzle. Why not discuss this? If we can talk Romney's religion, his flip-flopping, Newt's marriages/affairs, his statements or writings on this or that, if it's OK to go after Perry for his immigration policies or debate performance...why not Ron Paul? Your side complained he wasn't getting attention like the others - now he is. Sorry...but if these things aren't discussed now - when the liberal media focuses the eventual nominee will be shredded.

Caleb Plain| 12.15.11 @ 4:22AM

You're so dishonest. Point me to your posts praising Ron Paul. Explain how you are adored by the most ardent Paul haters. Provide me with links to other posts that accuse other candidates of racism, anti-semitisim, etc. How many times have you been on Hannity to bash Gingrich or Romney? Your bias is undeniable.

I'll leave you with the words of Sean Hannity before he went liberal on us when Bush got elected.

"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"

read hoover's papers| 12.16.11 @ 1:24AM

Caleb, you are exactly right and J. Lord admits as much himself:
Jeffrey Lord| 12.16.11 @ 12:41AM

Look Ron Paul is clearly the worst candidate for the GOP nomination. I will do whatever it takes to stop him from getting the nomination. I know his loyal band of followers are going to dig up a bunch of articles and every other piece of material to prove me wrong but that shows how crazy they are.

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 5:19PM

Hannity complains about all the other candidates getting "rectal exams" from the mainstream media daily, so now he turns around and gives one to Ron Paul.

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 5:36PM

Wow - Jeffrey Lord just said that America's "isolationist" foreign policy is what gave way to WWII.

He must be part of the hate America first crowd. How dare he blame America. We don't apologize for our greatness! USA USA USA.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.14.11 @ 7:22PM

Ahhhhhhhh...an FDR supporter, are you?

Caleb Plain| 12.14.11 @ 8:36PM

Not quite, but I find it interesting that you blame American foreign policy for causing WWII.

Ron Paul blamed American foreign policy as a cause for 9/11 and your friends called him anti-American.

But don't let consistency get in your way... you are a Gingrich apologist after all.

read hoover's papers| 12.16.11 @ 1:34AM

A new book: "Edited by historian George Nash, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war.

Yet the book is no polemic. The 50-page run-up to the war in the Pacific uses memoirs and documents from all sides to prove Hoover’s indictment. And perhaps the best way to show the power of this book is the way Hoover does it — chronologically, painstakingly, week by week. "

the summary here:

http://original.antiwar.com/bu.....rl-harbor/

"If you would know the history that made our world, spend a week with Mr. Hoover’s book."