That is, to make it appear as though military action in Iraq was an endeavour solely advocated by Bush along with his Republican cohorts and not, say, 80% of the Democrats who actually fully supported the Iraq offensive is merely one of any number of lies you and your leftist feinds would like the general public to believe.

Thank God for sources such as The Wall Street Journal, which have written extensively on how it was only after the debacle that had become of the Iraq War in subsequent years and how the Democrats wanted to refashion its image after the likes of Moveon.org in order to win public opinion and re-energize a then moribund Democrat platform, that it felt the need to withdraw what was originally unanimous Democrat support for the Iraq War and engage in outright revisionism, such as the kind you dare perpetrate yourself here!

If only your reading skills were as sharp as your ability for manufacturing strawmen as well as for evasion and insult, then we might be getting somewhere.

If we were to go back to what I originally wrote, I said:

If you recall the great isolationist/interventionist debate back then, there were a great number of key conservatives from both sides. Conservatives with an isolationist bent often resorted to Washington’s spiel about entangling foreign alliances whilst other conservatives went for Churchill.

To which you replied:

I still can’t believe there are people who cannot, or refuse to, distinguish between isolationism and non-intervention. Believing that our military forces should not be spread across the globe, that exposure to foreign conflicts further endangers our national security is hardly isolationist. If it is, then I’d like to promptly accuse the other side of ‘warmongering’ an equally as loaded word.

Your comment was as absurdly irrelevant as it was a rabid attack on a strawman!

Were you even aware just what isolationist/interventionist debate I was referring to then?

At any rate, I hardly think a person with such an ostensibly deficient cognitive ability as well as a penchant for deliberately manipulating the facts and creating strawmen such as the kind:

My gosh, you’re right! I should use your amazing logic in my own life. Since I might be murdered one day, I should just kill anyone that gives me dirty looks or disagrees with me or worse: owns a gun. They have it coming. Or since I might loose my possessions one day, I should just steal what I need. After all, because I am so virtuous, I am more likely to put it to good and moral uses! Most other people are just evil and hate me because I’m successful.

…actually worthy of any further discussion.

Additionally, government is a necessary thing for sinful man; however, just government comes only to moral and just people and I think most Americans still are moral and just, only fallen. Of course the quantity and audacity of Americans that are immoral and unjust has increased and is increasing – probably exponentially. May God have Mercy on us.

Blowback is real; however, just because it happens doesn’t mean that it had to or that the original mission that caused it was bad, perhaps just improperly executed.

The middle-east is, has been and will be a problem. Has America handled it well – not really, but that doesn’t mean ignoring it is the answer.

The Iraq invasion may or may not have needed to happen; however, it isn’t really a problem that we got rid of Sadam and bases in Iraq are a strategic advantage for an inevitable conflict with Iran, or China or Russia. I think Iraq failed as a matter of execution and there are lessons to be learned there for those that want to learn them. Nevertheless, we are in Iraq and we cannot leave a vacuum. I am not in favor of foreign adventurism, but we cannot cut and run either. At this point we need to ensure total victory and an enforced peace. Yes, we cannot force people to be free, but we can make sure we don’t leave them exposed to more tyrants now that we are there.

One thing to note about Arabs and Persians and those living in Muslim-controlled lands in general, I refer to leadership, not the man in the street, is that they will find any reason to hate the USA. Why, becuase we represent Dar al Harb, the House of War and either they are true beleivers in jihad or they are political animals that see a power-grab opportunity. Even if we weren’t directly involved in the middle-east, which is impossible with a petro-based industrial system, our interests and their’s would come into conflict somewhere at some time. Nature abhors a vacuum and we cannot create one. Despite all of our errors, we are the best chance for the world in occupying the space than anyone else.

Now for anyone that perceives Anthony’s post as an attack on ‘conservatism’, I doubt that it is and Anthony brings up many good points. We have to shake loose of this us vs. them mentality, we are supposed to be the UNITED states of America. Reasonable people can have a difference of opinion on somethings. The problem with the ‘right’ is that we are too Republican, too neo-con and despise anything the left is for. Sometimes there is a convergance of interests, but in the spirit of dis-unity, Satan pits us against each other – this is how you lose a country. We CANNOT allow that.

War is never good. War is always hell. War is sometime necessary.

BTW-Anthony, Congress gave Bush the authority, rightly or wrongly, to wage war. Was it declared? No. The USA has made no declaration of war since WWII back when we had a Department of War and no United Nations. Since we changed to the benign sounding Department of Defense we have been engaged in perpetual police-actions and the like. It is disingenuous and we should have a Department of War and try NOT to wage war, yet, when we must, and in the modern world, sometimes that may have to be pre-emptive (but that is a slippery slope – whole different discussion), it must be waged fast and guarnatee an overwhelming victory in order to save blood and treasure.

I’m going take your comments one at a time:

“First, you detested U.S. engagement in the Middle East and attempted to call foul on it by saying that such foreign conflicts only harm us.”

They do. It’s what the CIA calls ‘blowback’. But really its just common sense. If for decades the United States has been sticking its arm up a hornet’s nest (ie, Middle Eastern politics), then its not surprising that there will be reaction, even violent ones. If another country treated us in the same manner we too would be united in the effort to expel their influence from our territory.

“Then, you attempted to muster the argument that where Pearl Harbor is concerned, it was only right that we engaged in foreign conflict such as WWII because we were attacked.”

And that was wrong…how? Pearl Harbor was a violent act of war. Of course what I was also alluding to was that the government was well aware of, and in certain cases participating in, war-related events prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Rarely are these sorts of things genuine surprises. They may catch us off guard, but the drumbeats are there.

“Yet, your remarkable intelligence neglected to account for the fact that our engagement in the Middle East was actually DUE to our being attack on September 11!”

Oh e, how incorrect this statement is. History did not begin on September 11. Oh sure, the politicians might tell you that our involvement is only due to the terrorist attacks— but thats rather naive don’t you think? Our government has been actively involved in the Middle East for DECADES, especially post WWII. Whether it was messing with Iran’s politics in the 50s, the Soviets in Afghanistan or the first Gulf War— take your pick. We’ve been involved economically, politically and militarily long before the events on 9/11. Hell, we had a policy of ‘regime change’ as far back as the Clinton Administration.

But lets get a little more specific. 9/11 certainly would deserve a response, but not necessarily the one we gave. What began (and should have remained) as a mission limited in scope to destroying Al-Qaeda and bringing their leadership to justice became instead a mission of nation building. Ironically, this sort of policy President Bush deplored in the 2000 election. Had he held to his ideals (not that he really had any), they would have served him well in crafting a clear and pointed strategy in the Afghan conflict. Maybe he could have even gone the Constitutional route and formally declared war. The Congress certainly would have obliged him.

The war in Iraq is an entirely different story. This country did not participate at all in the 9/11 operation. She had run afoul of U.N. policies and for the most part was suffering under harsh and unproductive sanctions. True enough, Iraq had a foul history of using chemical weapons and an even fouler leadership, but U.S. long ago had missed out on a genuine rationale for invasion. Indeed, the nation of Iraq was no threat to the United States. This was a war of CHOICE, based on drummed up fear and political ambition. It was and continues to be an unjust war and occupation.

“Like the Lefties, you employ the double-standard, utilizing such arguments only when they would appear to advance your agenda. How very typical, indeed.”

No. Like libertarians and anyone else interested in thinking, I like to get to the essential truth of the matter and adjust policy accordingly in such a way that preserves American liberty, not to mention her soul. The agenda is to keep America free, not to spread ourselves across the globe for worthless causes or worse: thinking we can force the world to be free.

First, you detested U.S. engagement in the Middle East and attempted to call foul on it by saying that such foreign conflicts only harm us.

Then, you attempted to muster the argument that where Pearl Harbor is concerned, it was only right that we engaged in foreign conflict such as WWII because we were attacked.

Yet, your remarkable intelligence neglected to account for the fact that our engagement in the Middle East was actually DUE to our being attack on September 11!

Like the Lefties, you employ the double-standard, utilizing such arguments only when they would appear to advance your agenda. How very typical, indeed.