[jwalsh07]

If the party tilts farther toward an activist foreign policy, antiwar conservatives might begin searching for a new political home.

Well, I've got just the places for them:

Pacifists for Genocide and the Neville Chamberlain Institute for Conservatism.

[Pastnowfuturealpha]

Henry Hyde - is no friend of America. Not after what he did to hide everything but the sex charge against Clinton.

FBI files, Tech. to China, etc -

What these people are doing now is showing their "true" color - nothing more - and Americans should take note and remember -

in my opinion -

[americafirst]

"Once Again, America First"

I can't argue with that.

[MNJohnnie]

If the party tilts farther toward an activist foreign policy, antiwar conservatives might begin searching for a new political home

Isn't just amazing how Media "Conservatives" are so gung ho to help defeat Bush? I cannot believe how stupid these guys are. Here is a President who gives them 70% of what they want, and listen to them on the other 30% and they are busy trying to make sure a Kerry, who will give them 100% of what they LOATH gets elected. I guess they forgot Reagan's 11th Commandment

Thou shall speak NO ill of other Republicans.

[x]

Foer, associated with the liberal interventionist New Republic, has an interest in damning all conservative critics of administration policy as isolationists, but it doesn't seem like he's much concerned with getting hold of things right. He uses "isolationism" as a catch all term to condemn a wide variety of less-interventionist Republicans and conservatives, but neo- and paleo- intellectuals are probably a lot less significant than ordinary Middle Americans who will support interventions in foreign affairs when they seem necessary and likely to succeed and oppose more reckless or irresponsible or futile schemes to change things overseas.

Too narrow a focus on this or that clique of intellectuals can obscure the fact that most Americans don't trust any of these factions, including Foer's own. Too great a focus on intellectual bloodlines and genealogies can blind observers to the fact that most Americans make up their own minds based on what they see happening in the present.

[sully777]

Some consider Will, Buckley, and Buchanan the backbone of the movement, beatified conserva-saints and protectors of the sacred relics. Rush bows to his St. Buckley while Savage bows to his St. Buchanan.

I have favorite columnists and authors. But authors and columnists do not a movement make. Thinkers write great prose but make horrible leaders, just ask Havel.

Will, Buckley, and Buchanan are thinkers. Bush is a leader. Profound difference.

[MEG33]

Full court press for the victory of Kerry by "conservatives" today on FR.

[counterpunch]

Typical New York Times rubbish, amateurishly trying to foment unrest amongst the right by laughably invoking the likes of Pat Buchanan.

[MisterRepublican]

George Will is a conservative???

[rmlew]

Foer is an idiot if he thinks that Charles Beard was a conservative of George will is an isolationist.

[nathanbedford]

''With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extraterritorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.'' It is noteworthy that Buckley's departure from the right's flagship journal should be accompanied by such ambivalence and profound questions about the movement's first principles. Conservatives could soon find themselves retracing Buckley's steps, wrestling all over again with their isolationist instincts.

So all politics in 2004, from the election to the American conservative movement, are to be dominated by a fluke: No WMDs were found.

A profound philosophy should be able to satisfactorily answer at least these questions:

1. Judging from what we knew at the time, and what we should have known at the time, was the invasion of Iraq correct?

2. Did policy makers consider that their intelligence sources upon which they made their judgments could have been wrong?

3. If policy makers considered that their intelligence might be wrong, did they nevertheless rightly weigh the balance of the probabilities and the balance of the risks in going to war? Did they decide to err on the right side of the balance?

4. What implications for the conduct of the global war on terrorism rise from the reality that the intelligence was flat wrong?

5. Whatever implications for war making policy are properly to be drawn from the "fluke" of this intelligence failure, are these implications likely to be long-lived if terrorists accomplish another strike on the homeland, or even in Western Europe, on a scale which matches or exceeds 9/11?