Pat Buchanan is right!
Yes, that's a double entendre. But in this instance, both meanings are valid. In a column titled "Condi and the isolationists," Buchanan made the following uncharacteristically astute observations:
"To buttress crumbling support for his interventionist policy, President Bush played his ace of trumps, sending his most popular champion, Condi Rice, to the Southern Baptist Convention."
"Why, one wonders, do President Bush and Rice not tell us who these dreaded isolationists are and how they could conceivably seduce the Southern Baptists into questioning Bush policy? The truth: If Southern Baptists are peeling off from the Bush coalition for moral imperialism and democracy crusades, the reason may not be that they wish to flee the world, but that they see the Bush-Rice policy as failing. At a great cost in blood and treasure, we seem to be reaping a rising harvest of hatred."
"Did isolationists create such animosity toward America among our closest allies in the Muslim world? How? And who are they? Answer: No such beasts exist. The people who have produced such results for America are the decision-makers themselves – Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice – and their advisers, the neoconservatives."
"Was it isolationists who sent an army storming into Baghdad in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, resulting in tens of thousands of Iraqi army and civilian dead, three bloody years of "collateral damage" to Iraqi women and children, and the inevitable horrors of guerrilla war, such as Abu Ghraib and Haditha?"
"In Afghanistan, the Taliban are making a comeback. In Iraq, the new democratic government Bush celebrated in his surprise visit is considering amnesty for Sunni insurgents who only killed Americans."
"Why did Condi rip into isolationism at the Baptist convention? Because it is a less daunting task than defending the fruits of a foolish interventionism that are now lying right in front of us."
Although Buchanan sounds suspiciously like a liberal here, he's really just a disgruntled right-wing fundamentalist, finding fault with Bush and the neocons' so-called morals. Which makes him both right and, well, right.
(Thanks to Eric Dickey for the tip.)