Neoconned?

WBAL AM Radio 1090 Baltimore ^ | Posted: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 | Ron Smith

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Ron Smith's "Something to Say" Commentary
WBAL AM Radio 1090 Baltimore

Neoconned?
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Ron Smith

The neoconned conservatives are feeling angry these days, not at the neocons for conning them into backing the invasion of Iraq, but at any who point out that the situation over there is not only not what the war enthusiasts promised – cheers and flowers from an enthused Iraqi population thrilled that we removed the tyrant Hussein – but one that is deteriorating more each day.

Rush Limbaugh said yesterday on his program that one couldn’t support our troops while being opposed to our involvement in the war. He said, if I recall correctly, that he would no longer read the New York Times or watch dissident generals on TV as they made public their disagreements with Bush Administration policy.

The popular talk radio host has also famously commented on the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib, saying they were nothing more than some of our young soldiers blowing off steam, “having some fun,” and indulging in nothing more serious than fraternity pranks.

Some Rush wannabes (as liberals like to describe any of us who talk on the radio for a living) go a lot farther in exhorting the faithful. Michael Savage, the hardcore host of a syndicated talk show, is known for his abrasiveness. Lately, as the Iraq torture scandal made headlines, he’s called for the U.S. to kill “thousands” of Iraqi prisoners and “nuke” an Arab capital. He’s still on the air, though it’s hard to imagine he would be if he had called for the slaughter of members of any other racial or ethnic group.

Similarly, a Boston talk show host named Jay Severin suggested that the proper solution to our knotty Middle East problems would be to kill all Muslims. As was the case with Savage, his show continues to be aired.

I get email from listeners who buy into the above-mentioned “solution” to the sticky situation we find ourselves in as a nation. It’s chilling when such messages are sent by people who are otherwise normal, patriotic Americans, no doubt kind to their friends and families, but totally persuaded that the answer to the stalemate in Iraq is a massive slaughter of people who object to our occupation of their land and our rule over their lives.

They refuse to admit that no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq, even though their champions in Washington, the President and his advisers have made no claim to the contrary. When reputable, high-level, officials go public with their reservations about what has been done and why, they heartily agree with the predictable denigration of these apostates.

In my own case, after nearly 20 years of spouting off as a conservative radio host, I have been transformed in the eyes of some longtime listeners into a “liberal,” as though support for this war is a litmus test for conservatism. There is precious little that is “liberal” in my views.

I believe in a Constitutional Republic, in limited government, and in my right to speak my mind on anything at all. I don’t conflate the country I love with any particular administration or set of leaders. I reserve the right to disagree with their decisions. And Political Correctness is abhorrent to me whether leftist nannies or rightist ninnies impose it.

THIS commentary at WBAL

[datura]

How many times have the discoveries of WMD been posted in this forum? Have you read any of those? How about any of the material that has been posted by individuals (actually boots on the ground in Iraq) whose accounts of current events differ from the lamestream media so greatly that these events are unrecognizable?

Of course, the author of this article evidently only gets his news from the network talking heads. But for anyone with access to more realistic news to fall for the same crap is indefensible. The majority of Iraqis are grateful for our presence as well as their liberation, and do not want us to leave until their nation is secure. The WMDs have indeed been found. So much for the liberal arguments.

[ovrtaxt]

I want we AMERICANS to get together and pull together for the sake of our nation. We are at war.

Agreed. So let's stop spraying our money all over the planet for PC bullcrap, like AIDS in Africa and about 90% of our foreign aid budget, not to mention the continual increase in outdated, ineffective domestic programs, like the presription drug thing, and concentrate on winning it.

[snooker]

When the city they live in blows up, they will 'get it'.

[MEG33]

I fear that will not stop, some things may be curtailed. The never enacted energy bill has billions of pork in it I heard yesterday ..We can't even get a clean energy bill.

Al Gore cut government ...They are called "battalions"..

Homeland defense measures get padded and things needed are not properly funded...sigh.

[Remember_Salamis]

Sometimes I think anti-war PaleoCons are more dangerous than Libs because they say these stupid things in our name.

When Pat Buchannan attacks the war effort, endorses protectionism (a left-wind concept, by the way), and questions the loyalty of jews in the Pentagon, it is in our name.

The news says "conservative Pat Buchannan..."

[LibLieSlayer]

THIS attitude (in your post and in this article) is as dangerous to our nation as the terrorists that wish us ALL dead. You are free to think and speak as you wish. I have the right to speak my mind, and it tells me that:

1) Iraq is far more a success story than the media has educated you to believe. Most Iraqi's did greet us with adoration. This continues today. You can believe the Freepers that are in Iraq (and post here about how the Iraqi's invite them into their homes, and shower them with what little they have in appreciation for what we are doing for them), or you can believe Mike Wallace, Dan Blather, or Peta Jennings.

2) The PM of Iraq (in his first speech to his and our nation) thanked America for ALL of her sacrifices in securing freedom for Iraq.

3) To turn your back on the Republicans in this age is tantamount to voting kerry into office. The potential death of millions of Americans will be on the head of both the terrorists, and those that supported the party of DEFEAT (dim-o-Rat), if this comes to pass.

To ignore the fact that we are in a WORLD WAR against terror, and in aiding kerry to win office by not supporting the only man that has a chance to defeat him (and a sitting President that is doing all that he can within the constraints of reality on the ground), is putting politics ahead of our nations freedom and security.

Like it or not, this is the world that klintoon left us, and one in which bin laden and his bunch have taken advantage of past mistakes. kerry would repeat all of bubba's mistakes, and add a score of his own. We cannot survive this "alternate reality", and President Bush is the only choice for true victory and freedom.

A vote for anyone (or party) not remotely capable of winning the OFFICE is a vote for one of the two major parties. 100 votes for Nader in Florida are 100 votes that kerry will not receive. These are 100 votes Bush does not have to worry about. The end result is the same, and those that repel this logic are simply not recognizing reality when they see it.

LLS

[ovrtaxt]

Exactly. This is a two fron war. Not Atlantic and Pacific, but foreign and domestic. Islamofascists and Demofascists!

[Tamzee]

Exactly. This is a two fron war. Not Atlantic and Pacific, but foreign and domestic. Islamofascists and Demofascists!

Great way to sum it up, yes.

[MEG33]

Absolutely!

[moneyrunner]

This criticism is valid only if you get to rewrite history. Read Ann Coulter's column for what was said by Admin spokesmen before the war; not what the Liberals are SAYING they said. And, by the way, some Iraqis have greeted our troops with cheers and flowers. But of course they don't get front page treatment in the NY Slimes.

This Is History Calling – Quick, Get Me Rewrite!
June 3, 2004

The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions – hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences – have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.

Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war.

As I understand it, there would be no lunatics shouting "Bush lied, kids died!" if Paul Wolfowitz had admitted before the war that Saddam "probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program" – the one that was unilaterally blown up by the Israelis in 1981, thank God. What Wolfowitz should have said is that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the way you think about law enforcement, and I think we're much closer to being in a state of war than being in a judicial proceeding."

Liberals would be all sugar and sweetness if only – instead of blathering about nukes, nukes, nukes – Wolfowitz had forthrightly conceded back in 2002 that "there's an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot that we may never know, and we've got to think differently about standards of proof here."

Also, I assume we wouldn't be hearing that the administration is frustrated by its failure to instantly create a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq if Wolfowitz had said something like, "[W]ell, Japan isn't Jeffersonian democracy, either." If only Wolfowitz had lowered expectations by saying that "even if [Iraq] makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world."

Also, the media would have no grounds for complaint if Wolfowitz had said Iraqi democracy "is not the president's declared purpose of 'regime change' in Iraq, which is to get rid of a very bad man." If only he had mentioned that Saddam Hussein "has been known to have children tortured in front of their parents."

But guess what? That is exactly what Wolfowitz did say! All these quotes are from a Sept. 22, 2002, article in the New York Times magazine written by Bill Keller, now editor-in-chief at the seditious rag. The last paragraph about Saddam's torture of children are Keller's paraphrases of Wolfowitz; the rest are direct quotes from the wily neoconservative himself.

But you'd have to put liberals in Abu Ghraib to get them to tell the truth about what people were saying before the war – and then the problem would be that most liberals would enjoy those activities. (No torture has yet been devised that could get a liberal to mention the poor, beleaguered Kurds dancing in the streets because Saddam is gone.)

To refresh everyone's recollection, before the war began, the Democrats' argument was that Iraq was not an "imminent" threat to the United States. The Republicans' argument was: By the time the threat is imminent, Chicago will be gone. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address specifically responded to the Democrats' demand that we wait for nuclear and biological threats to be "imminent" before we act. But now, liberals want to have their Nigerian yellow cake and eat it, too.

In January 2003 – or three months after Sen. Tom Daschle voted for the Iraq war resolution hoping to fool the voters of South Dakota this November – he was horrified that Bush seemed to be actually contemplating war with Iraq! According to Daschle, Bush should have waited for Iraq to grow into a problem of crisis proportions before deciding to do anything – citing the Cuban missile crisis as a model to be emulated. "If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons," Daschle asked, "why doesn't [Bush] show that proof to the world as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba?"

The answer is and was: Because by the time Saddam had nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be able to do anything. That's why it's known as the "Cuban missile crisis," not the "Cuban missile triumph."

Before the war, Democrats were carping about the Bush administration's inability to predict the future and tell us everything that would happen in Iraq after the war. On MSNBC in September 2002, for example, Robert Menendez, D-N.J., was complaining that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "didn't have an answer for what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq." But now liberals are acting as if the Bush administration said they knew exactly what would happen after liberating a country from a 30-year barbaric dictatorship – and got it wrong.

The good news is: Liberals' anti-war hysteria seems to have run its course. I base this conclusion on Al Gore's lunatic anti-war speech last week. Gore always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. He's the stereotypical white guy always clapping on the wrong beat. Gore switched from being a pro-defense Democrat to a lefty peacenik – just before the 9-11 attack. He grew a beard – just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims. He endorsed Howard Dean – just as the orange-capped Deaniacs were punching themselves out. Gore even went out and got really fat – just before America officially gave up carbs. This guy is always leaping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts. Mark my words: Now that good old Al has come lunging in, the anti-war movement is dead.

[ovrtaxt]

[Algore] is always leaping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts.

There's just no way an average person could come up with that-- Ann is so cool!!

[Consort]

What drives me crazy is when I attack the current congress and administration for the recent upswing in (non defense) spending, other 'conservatives' get angry at me.

Maybe people come here to get away from the constant barrage of Bush bashing on the internet, in the newspapers, on network news, on Liberal talk radio, on C-SPAN and PBS, in academia, the bureaucracy, socialist Europe, etc.....and if they then have to deal with what they perceive to be a bunch of Bush-bashing whining, ideologically correct, purist "conservatives," it just might piss them off. Nothing personal.

[Captain Rabbit]

Maybe people come here to get away from the constant barrage of Bush bashing on the internet, in the newspapers, on network news, on Liberal talk radio, on C-SPAN and PBS, in academia, the bureaucracy, socialist Europe, etc.....and if they then have to deal with what they perceive to be a bunch of Bush-bashing whining, ideologically correct, purist "conservatives," it just might piss them off. Nothing personal.

It's much healthier to ignore the academics, Europeans, bureaucracies, C-SPAN analysts, and CNN Correspondents for their collective cluelessness and welcome debate from people who think a lot more like you. It's healthy. That's what I do.

: )

[Stepan12]

Talkshow host Jay Severins did not call for all Muslims to be killed. He is still on the air because he did not say that.

[Consort]

It's much healthier to ignore....

Maybe someday they will ignore it....but in the meantime....

[PersonalLiberties]

"I want we AMERICANS to get together and pull together for the sake of our nation. We are at war."

"Agreed. So let's stop spraying our money all over the planet for PC bullcrap, like AIDS in Africa and about 90% of our foreign aid budget, not to mention the continual increase in outdated, ineffective domestic programs, like the presription drug thing, and concentrate on winning it."

True, and tighten our borders.

[veronica]

The Jewhating paleocons who scream about neocons are the 5th column. Send them to GITMO.

[RebelBanker]

George,

Ron Smith is a Buchananite who flatly refuses to accept any information that contradicts his stand against the war in Iraq. I have told him that he should stop spouting DNC talking points from the mainstream media talking heads if he wants us to continue regarding him as a conservative rather than as a traitor to our cause. He hung up on me without putting me on the air.

Deo Vindice!
B. the Banker from Ehrlich Country

[Ham Hock]

ron smith used to be conservative, but he changed to moderate/liberal overnight.

His show runs opposite Shaun Hannity's show.

I think he could not compete against Shaun, was called into his bosses offices and told "we need you to be liberal now." and ron complied.

When the situation suits him, or his boss tells him, he will change his views again overnight.

How else do explain someone who changes their views like that?

[Tamzee]

Maybe people come here to get away from the constant barrage of Bush bashing on the internet, in the newspapers, on network news, on Liberal talk radio, on C-SPAN and PBS, in academia, the bureaucracy, socialist Europe, etc.....

Quite right.