[color=red] Fact is though he isn't against the war he is against how it is being run, that is two different things. Anyways that how I have seen It I'm not expert on Buckley but he is far from against the war as far as its purpose like must liberals are, he is against the way the war is being run which IMO is a fair and good argument to make.

But that has nothing to due with it, to be honest the "neo" label is constantly abused by the left. It only means you are for a power and strong foreign policy. Larry Elder is sometimes called a "neo-con" yet he wants to cut 80 percent of the government with the exception of defense. Being a neo-con has nothing to do with domestic issues like the size and scoop of government. What does Limbaugh, Elder, and Hitchens have in common? Not much but they are all called Neo-cons because they all want a powerful foreign policy. Get out of foreign issues and Hitchens would find no common ground with Limbaugh or Elder.

Reagan was a neo-con, when it comes to foreign policy just like Bush JR. He wanted a aggressive foreign policy to stop the evil empire. The difference between the two comes down to domestic issues at which point Bush follows a very big government policy, and unlike Reagan has a Republican Congress that he could use to push a smaller government agenda through yet he hasn't he has grown government. His deal making with Ted Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind Act, was the first straw and everything has gone down hill from their. Bush is liked by most conservatives because of his foreign policy and tax cuts the rest annoys them and simply makes them shake their head. Plus most conservatives aren't going to go to the Democrats ever. If Bush really wanted to get the movement behind him 100 percent, he would start shrinking government, start defending states rights, start expanding freedom at home, and start cutting wasteful bureaucracies instead of growing it. He would be doing himself and the nation a favor.

Fact still remains though we defeated Three of the most evil empires, Japan almost single handedly. Now of course things are different that isn't being denied, but in this time the Armed Forces are the best trained forces on the face of the planet. Buckley would say we aren't being hard nose enough and we need to concentrate more on training the forces and giving them responsibility then we are. Its a point I don't disagree with, but I understand yours as well and I personally am somewhere in the middle.


Of course and thats Buckley argument, that we are doing it to slow and should be concentrating on it now more than anything else. That is his opinion.

I disagree with that, I think we will get a clean and clear outcome when the Iraqi's are able to take care of their own country with our financial and perhaps small military aid. That imo would be just a clear and clean outcome as the Surrender of Japan. The goal of this is creating a Democracy that can defend itself. The Goal of WWII was the Fall of Fascist, Nazis, and Imperial Japanese. The victory of WWII was when we concurred the above, the victory of today will be when the Iraqis take care of themselves, pretty clean and clear outcome to me. The difference is Buckley believes that we are moving to slow toward that goal and aren't concentrating enough on that outcome, thats his opinion and I see it as reasonable although I don't know if I agree with it 100 percent.

Not really, neo-con was brought back by the liberals in order to group all conservatives together who think the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are a just war. Makes it easier for them to attack us, fact is though conservatism is much more complicated.

The paleo/neo con divide only works when you are talking foreign policy. Besides that everyone is grabbing at straws, and the conservative movement can't be divided into two neatly divided camps. Lets look at two people who you would consider (although I don't consider Buckley one) "paleo" Pat Buchanan and William F Buckley. If you sat them down they would only agree on a few things. Buchanan is a isolationist, Buckley is for a strong foreign policy. Buchanan is protectionist, Buckley is one of the biggest capitalist alive. Buchanan is for the War on Drugs, Buckley is against the war on drugs. They agree on taxes, federalism, and abortion and a few other issues. Fact is though the only thing you can divided a neo and paleo on his foreign policy nothing more.

Sure I agree but neo paleo doesn't work at that its much more complicated then that. You have old whigs, libertines, the religious right, Burkean's, Kirkins, Stroussean's, Fusionist, traditionalist, neo-traditonalist, Birchers, anti-totaltiarins, Constitutionalist, Federalist and thats just off the top of my head. The only way neo and paleo work is if you are talking foreign policy, and that isn't even that good of a label but makes things easier for the left.

Which is my point exactly, the neo paleo divide only works on foreign policy. Bush's big spending is against conservatism, their aren't any conservatives who really defend it.

Of course but it really doesn't work unless you are talking about foreign policy, and even then its not perfect.

__________________
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. - F.A. Hayek

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

There is always hope, as long as one can think.