"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

If you know anything about Pat Buchanan you would know this has
nothing to do with conservatives in general. Buchanan ran as a
third party candidate, remember? He is extremely protectionist,
and just about nothing would satisfy him.

Precisely, the policies of the Bush camp and of the neoconservatives
(is that the PC term?) are not representative of conservatives in
general. It isn't hard to find quite a few conservatives expressing
reservations toward or opposition to the war.

Are we to believe that all of these conservatives are just "putting
forth an extremely negative spin" that "must be sour grapes?"

"All these conservatives"? Politics 101 says that Repubs are strong
on defense, and Dems are weak on it. There's nothing "neo" about
taking action to defend ourselves even if it isn't PC with countries
that are either corrupt or have a different agenda from ours.

Stereotype. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam all under Democratic presidents.
Cuban Missile Crisis successfully managed by Democratic president.
Wanting to spend lots of money on big defense budgets (as Republicans
are wont to do) does not make a president strong on defense.

Yes, there is nothing neo about defending our country. Everyone, on
both sides, wants to defend our country. Conservatives don't get to
claim exclusivity on that score. There are just different approaches
for doing it most effectively. And it isn't necessary to be PC, but if
we are going to buck world opinion then our credibility and
respectability are enhanced if we are right.

Neoconservatives are quite different from traditional conservatives.
Traditional conservatives believed in fiscal moderation, small
government, and a strong defense but nonaggressive posture. Neocons
believe in the subordination of fiscal discipline to the ideology of tax
cuts and supply side economics. Neocons believe in growing/expanding
government as necessary and in diminishing the power of the states where
state law conflicts with social conservatism. And neocons believe in
the preemptive use of military force to spread American ideals.

Check out the Project for the New American Century.

Pick another example. Buchanan is off the far end of the spectrum
when it comes to protectionism.

Chuck Hagel. John McCain. Richard Lugar. Howard Coble (R-NC). Jim
Leach (R-IA). Brent Scowcroft. Darned near anything out of the Cato
Institute.

William F. Buckley Jr. (in the NY Times): "With the benefit of minute
hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace
that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what
I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have
opposed the war."

George Will: "Who lost his or her job because the president's 2003
State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud - the story of
Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger?" Will asks. "Or because the
primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war - weapons
of mass destruction - was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning,
from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient
force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of
choices for which no one seems accountable."

Tucker Carlson (in the New York Observer): "I think it’s a total
nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own
instincts in supporting it. It’s something I’ll never do again. Never.
I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I
shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged
by it, actually."

Other conservatives expressing opposition to the war from the start
included (in addition to Buchanan) Ron Paul, Bob Novak, and Don Devine.