That contradiction exists only in the minds of liberal interventionists.

You presume people on the left are liberal interventionists.

In fact, the four spies were classic liberal interventionists.

But no, Friedman only trots out the tired old debate between the liberal Wilsonian interventionists and the hard-nosed Kissingerian realists.

Why are the liberal humanitarian interventionists, the supporters of this war, silent?

Robin has written a polemic against the "elites and their collaborators," the cold war intellectuals of yesterday and the liberal interventionists today.

What we are witnessing is a legacy of history and geography - factors often denied by both liberal and conservative interventionists - catching up with America.

The old cold-war conflict between hawk and dove was shuffled and re-formed, with liberal (and neoconservative) interventionists on one side and "realists" on the other.

He is also too airily dismissive of liberal interventionists, those who would like to see American power deployed to thwart genocide; in Chomsky's eyes, they are mere patsies for imperialism.

Many on the left argued that liberal interventionists, particularly in Congress and in the press, had given crucial cover to the Bush Administration during the run-up to the war.