| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |
| ||Wednesday, March 19, 2003 |
| ||NRO TAKES ON LRC, FINALLY! Hip Hip Hooray! David Frum and Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online have taken the battle to the utopian nihilists at LewRockwell.com. It was May of 2002 when I wrote LewRockwell.com and the Annoying Paleos. Glad to see everyone is catching up ;) |
The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable. There is more than one way to wage the war on terror, and thoughtful people will naturally disagree about how best to do it, whether to focus on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah or on states like Iraq and Iran; and if states, then which state first?
But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.
With a sophomoric joy one usually finds with skinhead wannabes just smart enough to be dangerous, they call National Review, "Goldberg's Review" -- something they would never do were my last name O'Mally but my politics the same. They talk about preserving the genetic stock of America, they blame their shabby careers on Jews they've never met, they compare Lincoln to Hitler and America to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. And the misguided few who don't write such things, have no problem associating themselves with those who do. They've made their bed as far as I'm concerned.
| || |
| ||Wednesday, March 12, 2003 |
| ||Call the Vote! Excellent meaty article from Charles Krauthammer urging Bush to get on with it and stop getting screwed over by the French and Germans. Money quote: |
I understand that the wobble is not yours but a secondary, sympathetic wobble to Tony Blair's. Blair is courageous but opposed by a large part of his party and in need of some diplomatic cover.
But, Mr. President, he's not going to get it. Even if you marshal the nine votes on the Security Council by watering down the resolution, delaying the invasion, establishing criteria Hans Blix is sure to muddy and Mohamed ElBaradei is sure to say Saddam Hussein has met, France and Russia will still exercise the veto. You may call it a moral victory. The British left, which is what this little exercise is about, will not. It will not care what you call it but what Kofi Annan calls it, and he has already told us: a failed resolution rendering a war that follows illegitimate.
This, of course, is the rankest hypocrisy. The United Nations did not sanction the Kosovo war, surely a just war, and that did not in any way make it illegitimate. Of the scores of armed conflicts since 1945, exactly two have received Security Council sanction: the Korean War (purely an accident, the Soviets having walked out over another issue) and the Gulf War. The Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, whose terms everybody agrees Hussein has violated. You could very well have gone to war under the original Security Council resolutions of 1991 and been justified.
| || |
| ||A Critical Letter to Pat: Since I'm talking about Buchanan . . . Lawrence Auster, co-editor of View from the Right, is no Buchanan basher but he is critical of Pat's anti-Israel stand. Auster wrote his piece in April of last year, but it is still relevant given the crusade that Pat has launched against Israel (see No Pat No! below). Here's a snip from Auster's column that appeared in FrontPageMagazine.com: |
My worries were crystallized by your April 3 column at TownHall.com, in which you wrote: "[T]he Israeli repression has radicalized the Palestinians ..."
In order for you to write that sentence, Pat, you had to have forgotten an awful lot of awfully recent history. Namely you had to have forgotten the entire Oslo process, culminating in Barak's offer to the Palestinians of their own state on over 90 percent of the West Bank, an offer the Palestinians responded to not with a counter-offer but with a terror war. To any mind not blinded by its own hopes or resentments, this second Intifada proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Palestinians' participation in the "peace process" has been a fraud from the start—a part of their long-term campaign to destroy the Jewish state.
Yet you, sounding like a liberal who believes that "Communism is caused by poverty" or that "black crime is caused by white racism," assert that the Palestinians have been "radicalized" by Israeli "repression." The truth is that they have been radicalized—or, to speak more accurately, their blood lust has been excited—by their Islamist ideology of hate and by their renewed hopes of eliminating Israel, hopes that have been stirred in them not by Israeli repression but by Israel's suicidal concessions to them over these past eight years.
| || |