…An older post that I hadn’t seen before but which…

You could try to redeem yourself by backing up your absurd claim that Ron Paul has any neo-Nazi leanings or supporting your inference that he believes our fedgov had any complicity in the 9-11 attacks. I doubt you have the integrity to even try, and I know you don’t have any facts if you do.

As it stands, you align yourself with the wingnuts on the fringes of both political parties, the left wingers who would make the same neo-Nazi assertion about Ron Paul because a David Duke might endorse him and the right wingers who claim Obama is a socialist because the Marxists support him. The former is a demonstrably baseless slur; the latter is demonstrably true. But the fact that Marxists embrace Oabama does not convict him of the charge – his socialist statements and policies do. I can make the accusation against Obama and back it up; you cannot say the same for the defecation you post.

You claim that you “can go further” if I like but “suspect that will only inflame” me. If my passionate, articulate, detailed demolition of your ignorant, offhand, indefensible statement about Ron Paul is “inflamed” then I thank you for the compliment, for it is “inflamed” with the same fire that burned in the breasts of the Founding Fathers. I’ve already told you that “I’m open to anyone arguing to justify our (covert military) actions, questioning the sources or accuracy of my perspective, or elaborating on missing or alternate explanations.”

If that isn’t an invitation to “go further” than I do not know what is. As I told Alice, “You can chose to back up your interventionist views with sound intellectual fodder… or you can continue to stay in the shallow end of the pool.”

If you have something of merit for the readers of this discussion to consider, by all means serve it up and I will weigh it with an open mind. But so far, you choose to splashing around in the kiddy pool with Alice.

Well, I would agree with you. But that is not a very commonly held belief. Bush is widely seen as a conservative, as is Huckabee. Both are perhaps religious conservatives, but not constitutional conservatives. I think that constitutional conservatism is the higher imperative, preserving that which the country was founded on, and what binds the republican party.

My republican role models are Reagan and Goldwater, both far more in line with my thinking than either Bush. And both would be ostracized by the religious right today in their attempt to impose a religious credo on the republican party.

Brian: “Robert, some heavy hitters in the neocon circles such as Dinesh d’Souza and Larry Abraham agree with your view on foreign policy while strongly disagreeing with your unsupportable slur against Ron Paul.”

What was my “slur” Brian? I said “Ron Paul, who has proven that he has no understanding whatsoever of the threat of world terrorism. He too is an anachronism better suited to America of 100 years ago than today.” and I stand by that comment.

I can go further if you like, but I suspect that will only inflame you further. Bottom line is while some of Pauls’ positions are positions I strongly support, he is the wrong person to be leading any sort of a credible movement.

Your vote counts every bit as much as mine – you have every right to join the dominant mainstream republican crowd and proclaim “Muslims hate us because we are not them. Period.” My experience has shown that most people who hold your view simply drape the flag over themselves and never ask the questions we must ask – they have no clue about our many decades of meddling.

You can debate my view, you can justify the actions themselves, or you can continue to just shut your eyes and cast your vote. It’s your call. To be clear though, I never came close to implying we should appease anyone – I am stating, vehemently, that due diligence demands we examine our actions to see if we were justified in stirring up the hornets nest the way we did. For stir them up we did, your ignorance of the facts notwithstanding.

I was not aware that anyone still finds the term “neocon” derogatory, though I certainly despise the shallow, emotional sales pitch the mainstream candidates used to sell their foreign policy to the general public, especially since intellectuals like d’Souza, Abraham, and others have a valid perspective. (They take the intellectual and moral high road in the debate with Ron Paul, refusing to even try to justify our decades of foreign policy debacles, instead acknowledging them and building the case that we have to work with the past we were handed.) The first to embrace the term and wear the mantle “neocon,” was Irving Kristol, who said the purpose of the movement was “to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” Unless I’m wrong about the connotation of the word, I suggest that if you embrace the neocon view on foreign policy, you should wear the label proudly.

You association of Ron Paul supporters with Father Coughlin or isolationism is both morally and intellectually bankrupt; I defy you to back up either slur. Unlike the question of the term neocon, there is obviously no legitimacy the Coughlin connection (the Marxists wore out that “guilt by association” trick a long time ago); “isolationist” is absurd on its face whether applied to George Washington, Charles Lindbergh, or Ron Paul – none ever suggested isolating America from the world. Travel and trade and the exchange of ideas with other countries is generally invaluable by any standard.

You can chose to back up your interventionist views with sound intellectual fodder (your own or suggestions on where I can learn more on my own), or you can continue to stay in the shallow end of the pool. It’s your choice.