Comments on: Iraqi Realities: Buckley vs. Limbaugh

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 01:59:44 +0000

As I read these comments, I think many people fail to recognize just how dangerous the world situation is. This radical islam is not new. It’s been growing for decades, we’ve been attacked by it many times. Our mistake was allowing it to grow stronger. Now we have the combined threat of radical islam and nuclear technology in that part of the world. Does everyone forget these radical groups have threatened and sought the overthrow of governments in that area including a nuclear pakistan? How foolish to think we can pull out of Iraq and avoid greater disaster in the future. I like the comments I read earlier: Iraq is not the breeding ground of terrorists, it’s the killing fields of terrorists.

By: Harry Flynn

Harry Flynn — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:56:33 +0000

re: posts 9-11 – please read current (May/June 2006) FOREIGN AFFAIRS, “Saddam’s Delusions:
The View From The Inside” by Woods, Lacey, & Murray, and we’ll have no more of the
petulant “Bush Lied” mantra.
HF

By: Dominic Cotasna

Dominic Cotasna — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:36:07 +0000

After reading the article I am once again struck by the fact that untill true Conservatives admit that the whole Iraq adventure is not only based on lies but is in fact a lie in itself we will not take the movement forward.

Add to this the fact that Bush is more of a Liberal in terms of spending etc. than Bill Clinton ever was and Conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) should be at the castle walls demanding the ouster of Bush and an imediate election of a true Conservative leader.

Lastly comparing Rush Limbaugh to Buckley is preposterous. Limbaugh is nothing more than a P.T. Barnem type figure whose drug addled mind is no where near the league of Buckley.

Dominic C.

By: Dominic Cotasna

Dominic Cotasna — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:35:46 +0000

Lastly comparing Rush Limbaugh to Buckley is preposterous. Limbaugh is nothing more than a P.T. Barnem type figure whose drug addled mind is no where near the league of Buckley.

T.D.

By: ibbleblibble

ibbleblibble — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:01:08 +0000

no wmd…no al queda link…as many iraqi civilians dying from civil unrest and violence as from hussein per year…a big lie and staged war…haliburton getting juicy no bid contracts from government run by its investors – taxpayer money to corporation via government…skyrocketting deficits…country stretched so thin it cannot effectively deal with natural disasters…

ah, “conservatism”

By: HF

HF — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:05:04 +0000

re: post 7 – “So…being a conservative means you support killing people you don’t agree with?” Caricature is not reasoned rebuttal. And killing those who would otherwise kill you is hardly a political pose. The NYC poll results are irrelevant and silly; we might as well ask if Hawaiians supported Dewey over FDR. Lastly, predicting the course of any war with certainty is beyond the grasp of history’s greatest strategists, let alone your hypothetical undergrad; but perhaps we all lack your omniscience.

By: Jumbo

Jumbo — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:58:44 +0000

So…being a conservative means you support killing people you don’t agree with? Some positions are so far to the left, they come back to the right. Guess what, New York City took the brunt of the attack, and didn’t vote to re-elect Bush by a large margin. If the people that lost the most didn’t agree with the president’s plan, I wonder what it is the rest of the country is so afraid of?

“Moreover, in a post 9/11 world the calculations that led Bush to pursue ousting Saddam and his regime were understandable” is a sentence that ignores the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What’s so understandable, the president of the United States can’t wait, say, one month before waging war against a country that hasn’t attacked us?

“…it is safe to say that he would not have pursued the war had he known, three years later, how close to the edge of civil war Iraq would find itself.” It is safe to say my 16 year old son wouldn’t have taken that turn so fast if he’d known he was going to wreck the family car, the president of the United States has to be smarter than that. A first year Political Science undergrad could have predicted the course of this war.

By: Harry Flynn

Harry Flynn — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:05:35 +0000

There is a way to reconcile these opposing arguments, which is to acknowledge the grander strategy that Iraq will serve as a platform for neutralizing Iran and Syria. The “democratization” is a nice collateral component that served (albeit poorly) the attempts by the administration to market the invasion plan, but the reality is that the flow of the insurgent “rat lines” will be reversed once the country is stabilized, and Iraq will serve as our “Channel crossing” for WWIII (which, by the way, this war on terror surely is). We can all agree that Bush didn’t sell the war well to the public, but he’s been crystal clear on his main point – that this is a global war that we will fight to victorious conclusion. One can argue tactically as to whether we should have started in North Africa during WWII and slugged it up the Italian peninsula, but not – among sensible people – whether we were right to destroy the Third Reich. “Carthago Delenda Est” – Islamo-fascism is going to be eradicated – by us – and having a democratic Iraq at our back will prove to have been a useful initial step.

By: Honker

Honker — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:06:20 +0000

Love the last line of your post Red. As a devout conservative, I couldn’t agree more. I would use our military in a much uglier and non-humane way for our enemies. Bomb the hell out of them. The tight-roping between friend and foe in Vietnam, and now in Iraq proves one thing, politcally correct equals unnecessary loss of U.S. Soldiers. We need to end this concept of saving the world one country at a time and start focusing on our own. In the immortal words of Elvis its time to “Clean up our own backyard.” Only Iraqies can win the war within their country. We can provide assistance, but only when those citizens have a common goal of democracy will freedom ever be obtained.

By: Red Phillips

Red Phillips — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:44:07 +0000

Mr. Carlson, if we are going to talk about people forgetting their history, perhaps we should talk about the fact that conservatives in America were historically against foreign intervention. Conservatives opposed the Spanish American War, our entry into WWI and our entry into WWII for example. The “conservative movement” abandoned this historic position during the Cold War as fighting Communism became the major issue. Remember it was muddleheaded liberals like Wilson who wanted to use the military to bring democracy to the world. Non-intervention and non-entanglement is the only policy consistent with small government conservatism. Interventionism is a form of Utopian liberalism no matter how much it tries to disguise itself as conservative.