Asian-American
New member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That all you got? Pat Buchanan's say-so?Asian-American said:March ... Regards.
An opinion piece from the Harvard Israel Review rebuts:After removing the super-rat, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Libby and their fellow hawk Richard Perle can turn his country into a laboratory for democracy in the Arab world — creating a domino effect to give Israel more security. Once they have planted Athenian democracy on Mesopotamian soil, they envision orchestrating more freedom throughout the Middle East — as long as the region plays ball with the new sheriff. They'll put pressure on Syria and Iran to abandon their support for terrorism. And then, with an American spigot, the oil will flow free — except to the French, who will pay dearly.
It's hyperbole indeed.These insinuations should bother any fair-minded person. Not only do their proponents avoid discussing the actual merits of the war, they use the debate about Iraq to simply blame Israel and Jews more generally. Their choice of argument is particularly bizarre because there are in fact many more convincing anti-war arguments based not on hateful Jewish stereotypes but on legitimate political and moral positions. More important, the vast majority of the 65 percent of Americans who support the war have not been convinced by arguments pointing to the war’s possible benefits to Israel. In fact, none of the administration’s arguments for this war rely on the narrowly defined national interest of Israel. Assertions that the administration is acting on Israel’s behalf fail to address any of the real arguments for war, appealing instead to vague and absurd claims of a Zionist conspiracy to control America. That these theories are gaining popularity among mainstream critics of the war is frightening evidence that the racist assumptions underlying them are spreading too.
(The President) will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.
Simon W. Moon said:That all you got? Pat Buchanan's say-so?
Squawker said:the Bush family, they are honest, decent people.
I can't for the life of me figure out where Patrick J. Buchanan is coming from.
He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon.
or making a play for their votes.
shuamort said:Buchanan has always been a closed-border-isolationist. He'd be happy pulling all of the troops back in and kicking the UN out. Those policies aren't really either dem or rep.
How do you figure? Would you provide some examples to help explain your point? I know he's not in favor of a controlling nanny-state like some "Big Government Conservatives" of Team Bush.Squawker said:He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon.
Not that I doubt you, but I've not seen this fawning. Could you share some with the board?Squawker said:He speaks out against GW Bush and the left fawns all over him.
He's not running for office.Squawker said:I can't decide if he is playing the left for fools, or making a play for their votes.
When Pat left the Republican party, he stated that the party had left him. Much like Reagan said of the Democrats. People with strong ideology don’t budge. Both parties have shifted, and moved to the left in the last twenty years. As the right moved left, the left moved further left to distinguish itself. People like Pat, Reagan, and Zell Miller were without a party they believed in. Reagan joined the Republicans who were more like the “Kennedy Democrats” at that time, as did thousands of others who became known as Reagan Democrats. The Neo-Cons were also former Democrats who joined the Republicans, because the Democrats took the anti-war position, and wouldn’t support Israel. Pat knew it was over when he didn’t win the Republican nomination for President. He did have some die hard supporters who voted for him, which gave the election to Clinton. He tried to make his mark as an Independent, but the only time people listened to him, was when he was bashing the Bush Administration.How do you figure? Would you provide some examples to help explain your point? I know he's not in favor of a controlling nanny-state like some "Big Government Conservatives" of Team Bush.
It is acquired from reading liberal/democrat political forums who hate Bush. Because Pat was a Republican/Conservative they love to use him as evidence that the current crop of Republican/Conservatives are wrong. I really think the Liberal mouth pieces have made people believe Republicans are still back in the 1950’s. When Pat speaks out against Bush the Liberals gush –“Look -- See? Bucannan says.” The liberals just want confirmation that Bush is bad. Pat must be laughing all the way to the bank.Not that I doubt you, but I've not seen this fawning. Could you share some with the board?
Opposition to the invasion of Iraq is partisan politics, pure and simple. When Clinton changed the policy of the US from containment of Saddam to removal in 1998, he was praised for it. When he bombed after Saddam violated the no fly zone, he was praised for it. When he said Saddam had WMD’s the left said, AMEN, BROTHER! It is a political p*ssing contest. I voted for Clinton once, and although I believe now that he was one of the worst Presidents we have had, I will never believe a President of the USA would deliberately lead us into war for political or personal gain.He's not running for office.
Perhaps he, along with conservative Realists such as myself, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, honestly view the invasion of Iraq as worse than a crime- a blunder.
It's tempting to conclude that you equate opposition to the invasion of Iraq with being liberal. Before I reach this conclusion, I'd like to ask if this is indeed what you're doing.
I gathered that this what you meant by your comments; however, regardless of your say-so, I have not seen such gushing w/ my own peepers. Such fawning and gushing must exist only in rarified places. I cordially invite you to share some of this with the rest of the board. When you get a chance of course.Squawker said:When Pat speaks out against Bush the Liberals gush –“Look -- See? Bucannan says.” The liberals just want confirmation that Bush is bad. Pat must be laughing all the way to the bank.
I have to give a big shout out to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on this one.Squawker said:Opposition to the invasion of Iraq is partisan politics, pure and simple.
I was giving you my vision from the broad sources available to me. Since it is impossible for me to speak specifically to each person, and how you or anyone else view the world, I guess ya got me. If you are a Buchanan supporter, Clinton supporter, or Bush supporter, you are partisan. It is human nature to take sides and take a stand. One who doesn’t is in limbo and unsure of himself. The reason for taking a side is what is questionable.I've been a Republican since some of the posters here were still wetting the bed. You'll have to work very long and very hard to convince me that I opposed the invasion of Iraq for partisan reasons.
You have a hard row to hoe cut out for you. Have at it.
I'll patiently await your attempts to explain my own positions to me.
Squawker said:If you are a Buchanan supporter, Clinton supporter, or Bush supporter, you are partisan. It is human nature to take sides and take a stand. One who doesn’t is in limbo and unsure of himself. The reason for taking a side is what is questionable.
Surely you jest? I think Pat sucks! He's an ultra-conservative right winger! To suggest that Pat is a liberal icon is to suggest that Sen. Clinton is a Republican icon! Ridiculous!Squawker said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawker
He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon.
Huh? Are you saying that the people who voted for Pat were the direct cause of Clinton's victory, the deciding factor? :roflSquawker said:Pat knew it was over when he didn’t win the Republican nomination for President. He did have some die hard supporters who voted for him, which gave the election to Clinton.
You mean like you did in this very post about Zell Miller? Seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Pat's fawned over by "the left" but Zell Miller was "without a party." Man, what a crock! Is it possible for you to have any objectivity or is everything you write subjective?Squawker said:He speaks out against GW Bush and the left fawns all over him.
You mean like Zell Miller's new position on the very same network, MSNBC? Your post, to me, seems chock full of hypocrisy!Squawker said:When Pat speaks out against Bush the Liberals gush –“Look -- See? Bucannan says.” The liberals just want confirmation that Bush is bad. Pat must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Uhmmm......have you been in a coma these last 4 years? Bush is the hero of the military industrial complex & energy companies. His partisan politics has lined the pockets of so many of his rich supporters, all in the name of IMMINENT THREAT DUE TO WMDs....oh wait! I mean all in the name of Democracy!Squawker said:I voted for Clinton once, and although I believe now that he was one of the worst Presidents we have had, I will never believe a President of the USA would deliberately lead us into war for political or personal gain.
You can't be serious? PROVE IT! How you can write such BS and expect people to believe you is bizarre. People of all parties and faiths oppose the Iraq War! Only someone who IS PARTISAN would write the BS you just wrote.Squawker said:Opposition to the invasion of Iraq is partisan politics, pure and simple.
You are extremely insulting to everyone who posts something you do not agree with. Please keep your remarks limited to the content of the post, and not how you feel about the individual poster. Consider this a warning.At Debate Politics we see freedom of speech as the right to communicate ideas. With this right comes the responsibility to choose your words carefully and respect the rights of others. Common sense dicates the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive. If you are focused on contributing to the community, you will not have to be concerned with being a disruption. Disruptive behavior is not tolorated and could result in being banned.
I personally think it was a combination of things. Presidents do not enter into war on a whim.I see no reason to doubt that Mr. Buchanan genuinely thinks it's a bad idea.
I am open to changing my mind provided I come across good reason to do so. Is there any evidence that demonstrates Mr. Buchanan's sentiments are the result of mere partisanship? If so, would you be up to presenting it? Possibly it should have its own thread as it's only tangentially related to the influence that Israel's interests have on the US foreign policy under the Bush Admin.
I suppose this is how some people do it. However, I suspect that I'm not alone in the "reality-based community" which examines facts and then reaches conclusions.Squawker said:You can take your pick of what you want to believe. It depends on what your ideology is.
Pat isn't a liar, so I am sure he believes what he said. Does he have an axe to grind? Yes. Does it cloud his thinking? Yes. Does that make him wrong? No. Just put what he says into perspective and recognize he may have prejudices and motives that we don't know about.Is there any evidence that demonstrates Mr. Buchanan's sentiments are the result of mere partisanship?
If Mr. Buchanan's right, how does one tell that his thinking's clouded?Squawker said:Does it cloud his thinking? Yes.
Yes, but is he wrong, albeit for other reasons?Squawker said:Does that make him wrong? No.
Not to be too obtuse, but isn't this sort of like multiplying both sides of the equation by zero?Squawker said:Just put what he says into perspective and recognize he may have prejudices and motives that we don't know about.
Ahhh. An excellent question. Allow me to debunk the myth of sheeple and introduce you to The Greatest Threat To Our Republic- rational ignorance.Repub05 said:If the war was not in most Americans best interest, then how come in the first election GWB lost the popular votes and one the electoral votes, then in '04 during the middle of the war 'out of America's interests' he won the popular votes? If most Americans wanted out of the war, they could have just easily voted for the Kerry fairy.
Also note that Kerry wouldn't've gotten us "out of the war." He specifically said as much more than once.Repub05 said:If most Americans wanted out of the war, they could have just easily voted for the Kerry fairy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?