Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
But with the very greatest respect, Harmon, prior to 9/11 the US had absolutely no problem funding terrorism itself. Need I remind you that in 1986 the USA was convicted in the International Court of Justice of sponsoring acts of terrorism in Nicaragua? Mr. Bush's subsequent position of it being permissable to attack states which "sponsor terrorism" was wholly inconsistent with the US's own previous actions. Pretty much every western nation funds "freedom fighters" (ie "terrorists") when it deems it expedient to do so.
|
Sorry, Harry, I'm not one of those who think that the IJC is a real court, nor do I conflate freedom fighters, rebels, whatever you want to call them with terrorists. No doubt there is overlap.
If what you mean to say is that the US was interventionist before 9/11, that's certainly true.
The point I intended to make was that Bush's actions were entirely consistent with what used to be understood as a liberal approach to foreign policy. In fact, from the perspective of my sixty year old self, I am able to see what so many younger people do not, which is that Bush is not a true conservative, but rather, primarily a liberal - Wilsonian in foreign policy, and what used to be known as a Rockefeller - i.e. - liberal Republican on economic matters. This is camouflaged by his being a lukewarm member of the religious right on most cultural issues.