RE: Condi and the isolationists
Pat is really an enigma. When he's right, he is so very right, but when he goes off in the weeds, he steps in so far you can't even see the top of his head any more.
I have to backtrack on at least part of my earlier comments on Rice's visit. I can't get anyone else to confirm the bit about her being dragged to Greensboro, so I expect that may not have been the case. I also got from an attendee that her speech was very, very political. I still stand by my remarks that she is no different than Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, or especially Jimmy Carter in her use of the church as a political tool.
That being said, Pat is dead on in his remarks about Bush using the SBC to keep the religious right in line. And Rice, in her speech to the convention, absolutely made Iraq out to be a dichotomy of stay and fight or cut and run.
Where Pat goes wrong is in his remarks on Israel. Buchanan has a nasty streak of anti-semitism that intrudes on his writing and speaking from time to time. It is ugly and it is beneath him. To characterize the Palestinians as "aid dependent" victims is laughable and undercuts the validity of his whole thesis. The Palestinians are vicious vermin who honor the barbaric behavior of Hamas and who hold the intifada in high regard.
As much as the neo-cons would like to create a false dichotomy in the case of the Iraq war, they just as dearly seek to create the false dichotomy that those who oppose the adventurism in which we are engaged are nothing but isolationists. They constantly seek to invoke World War II and the Cold War as reasons for us to invade sovereign nations and depose sovereign governments. This is a lie and a dishonest polemic. In both cases, our military action was to stop the spread of totalitarian, socialist regimes that had the will and the ability to execute their aims of world dominance. In the case of Iraq, we attacked and invaded a country that had little or no ability to withstand us and most certainly posed no immediate threat to US soil. Whether the motive was to protect the interests of the Saudi Royal Family or to get payback for the temerity of a tinpot dictator who thought he could take out an American President is unimportant. We very much went abroad "seeking monsters to destroy."
Unfortunately, there is no effective opposition. The left has wallowed their way into a mudhole of personal hatred for George Bush and his administration and have diverted the entire question away from the exposure of the neo-con agenda as nothing more than Wilsonian. They have made this about Bush and the so-called "conservatives," seeking to push an agenda of division through simple jingoism and propaganda. If the immigration issue cools before November, the GOP may have a very good chance of holding on to the House of Representatives. I believe they have already lost the Senate, but we'll see. The Democrats, mired in their trite tactic of class and race warfare, do not provide an attractive alternative and the only gains they will make are in areas where anti-incumbent fever runs high. People who put Democrats in office will actually be doing so to put the Republicans out of office. Those who do not understand the distinction are part of the problem.
I have to backtrack on at least part of my earlier comments on Rice's visit. I can't get anyone else to confirm the bit about her being dragged to Greensboro, so I expect that may not have been the case. I also got from an attendee that her speech was very, very political. I still stand by my remarks that she is no different than Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, or especially Jimmy Carter in her use of the church as a political tool.
That being said, Pat is dead on in his remarks about Bush using the SBC to keep the religious right in line. And Rice, in her speech to the convention, absolutely made Iraq out to be a dichotomy of stay and fight or cut and run.
Where Pat goes wrong is in his remarks on Israel. Buchanan has a nasty streak of anti-semitism that intrudes on his writing and speaking from time to time. It is ugly and it is beneath him. To characterize the Palestinians as "aid dependent" victims is laughable and undercuts the validity of his whole thesis. The Palestinians are vicious vermin who honor the barbaric behavior of Hamas and who hold the intifada in high regard.
As much as the neo-cons would like to create a false dichotomy in the case of the Iraq war, they just as dearly seek to create the false dichotomy that those who oppose the adventurism in which we are engaged are nothing but isolationists. They constantly seek to invoke World War II and the Cold War as reasons for us to invade sovereign nations and depose sovereign governments. This is a lie and a dishonest polemic. In both cases, our military action was to stop the spread of totalitarian, socialist regimes that had the will and the ability to execute their aims of world dominance. In the case of Iraq, we attacked and invaded a country that had little or no ability to withstand us and most certainly posed no immediate threat to US soil. Whether the motive was to protect the interests of the Saudi Royal Family or to get payback for the temerity of a tinpot dictator who thought he could take out an American President is unimportant. We very much went abroad "seeking monsters to destroy."
Unfortunately, there is no effective opposition. The left has wallowed their way into a mudhole of personal hatred for George Bush and his administration and have diverted the entire question away from the exposure of the neo-con agenda as nothing more than Wilsonian. They have made this about Bush and the so-called "conservatives," seeking to push an agenda of division through simple jingoism and propaganda. If the immigration issue cools before November, the GOP may have a very good chance of holding on to the House of Representatives. I believe they have already lost the Senate, but we'll see. The Democrats, mired in their trite tactic of class and race warfare, do not provide an attractive alternative and the only gains they will make are in areas where anti-incumbent fever runs high. People who put Democrats in office will actually be doing so to put the Republicans out of office. Those who do not understand the distinction are part of the problem.
posted by Anonymous | 9:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home