Posted on 11/08/2004 9:37:29 AM PST by tpaine
The Antiwar Right Is Ready to Rumble
NY TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07kirk.html? ex=1100877650&ei=1&en=1003a79efbe25be2
November 7, 2004 The Antiwar Right Is Ready to Rumble By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
ROUND 8 p.m. Tuesday, a gloomy mood was settling over the dozen conservative stalwarts gathered with martinis and glasses of red wine in an office in Arlington, Va., to watch the returns. Early exit polls showed President Bush trailing, and Richard Viguerie, dean of conservative direct mail, thought he knew who was to blame: the neoconservatives, the group associated with making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
"If he loses, they are going to have a bull's-eye on their back," Mr. Viguerie said.
Ronald Godwin, a top aide to Dr. Jerry Falwell, agreed. "I see a real battle for the Republican Party starting about Nov. 3," he said.
The euphoria of Mr. Bush's victory postponed the battle, but not for long. Now that Mr. Bush has secured re-election, some conservatives who say they held their tongues through the campaign season are speaking out against the neoconservatives, against the war and in favor of a speedy exit.
They argue that the war is a political liability to the Republican Party, but also that it runs counter to traditional conservatives' disdain for altruist interventions to make far-off parts of the world safe for American-style democracy. Their growing outspokenness recalls the dynamics of American politics before Vietnam, when Democrats first became identified as doves and Republicans hawks, suggesting to some the complicated political pressures facing the foreign policy of the second Bush administration.
"Clearly, the war in Iraq was a drag on votes, and it is threatening to the Bush coalition," said Grover Norquist president of Americans for Tax Reform and a strategist close to the administration who had not spoken up about the war's political costs before. He contended that the war reduced Mr. Bush's majority by 6 percentage points to 51 percent of the vote. Mr. Bush now has two years to "solve Iraq" to protect Republican candidates at the midterm elections, he said. His suggestions: withdrawing United States troops to safe citadels within Iraq or by "handing Falluja over to the Iraqis and saying, 'It's your headache.' "
On Thursday, Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, issued a call to conservatives for a serious debate about the administration's foreign policy. "The consequences of the neocons' adventure in Iraq are now all too clear," he said. "America is stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight. Our military is stretched too thin to respond to other threats. And our real enemies, nonstate organizations such as Al Qaeda, are benefiting from the Arab and Islamic backlash against our occupation of an Islamic country."
Proponents of the war, however, argued that Mr. Bush would not have won re-election without it because Americans did not want to change the commander in chief. "Bush's foreign policy decisions seem to have been exactly why he won this huge victory that he did," said the neoconservative David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He argued that candidates who opposed the war - Gov. Howard Dean the most, and Senator John Kerry to a lesser extent - suffered the biggest losses. IF the Democrats have silenced some of their loudest complaints about the war, however, some on the right said they were turning up the volume on their own previously muted objections.
"A lot of the antiwar conservatives had to hold their tongue during the campaign because the No. 1 goal was to get Bush re-elected," said Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an important conservative fund-raiser.
Even on the eve of the election, William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the National Review, was decorously edging closer to full-throated opposition to the war. "At War With What or Whom?'' was the headline of his column on Oct. 19.
A few months ago, Donald Devine, a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union, publicly apologized to Mr. Bush after it was reported that in disgust at the war he had failed to applaud a presidential speech. But in a column shortly before the election, Mr. Devine wrote that conservatives should vote for Mr. Bush precisely because he was likely to withdraw from Iraq sooner than Senator Kerry would.
Arguing that the president had dropped hints like a quickly retracted statement in a television interview about the impossibility of winning a war against terror, Mr. Devine argued that "the president's maddening repetition of slogans" about the war was the "only politically possible tactic for a candidate who has already made up his mind to leave at the earliest reasonable moment." He added: "The neoconservatives will be devastated."
But Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, dismissed those theories, pointing to the president's statement in his post-election news conference that troops would stay in Iraq as long as needed: "Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions," the president said.
Good grief. Another conclusion jumper.
~Reread~ my comment. I agree with Bush on why we must have bases in Iraq.
-- And if you still can't understand my position on letting Iraqi fundamentalists kill each other off, read more of the thread. I've explained my points ad nauseum to anyone willing to listen.
Few do.
"Rational debate" does not mean citing "neoconservatives" as the enemy, and mentioning it as often as the Left cited "Halliburton". It is obviosu they mean "Jews". This has been widely discussed and debunked. Looks like you are late to the party. From your shrill tone I am not surprised.
These past few years, conservatism has gotten very strange. Many "conservatives" now behave like Leftist caricatures of conservativism.
Which was not Europe's to hand to anyone.
Indeed, during World War One, the Allied Powers promised Arabs their independence if they'd join the Allies' fight against the Ottoman Turks. Then France and Britain reneged on that promise to the Arabs, and simply took the place of the Turkish rulers.
No, it isn't. "Neoconservatism" is a word coined over 20 years ago. It refers to a conservative faction that is primarily concerned with an aggressive foreign policy, and little or not at all concerned with social issues.
Neoconservatives used to call themselves neoconservatives. Only recently did they start denying that neoconservatism even exists.
I knew that...it just didnt make a difference...I dont really care what his opinion is of me...
today is not a day to be dogging the armed forces about whether staying and fighting is right or wrong.. .. today is a day to be praying for them....its shameful he started this thread ...
To: tpaine
In other words, it is all about the JOOOOOOOOOOOS!
Same old garbage from Wahabbi-stooge Norquist and Friends.
4 montag813
______________________________________
I'm not a friend of Norquist's faction.
26 tpaine
______________________________________
IOW, you can't argue the merits of our foreign policy, so you behave like a typical Leftist who reaches for the racism card.
Only instead of the racism card, you reach for the anti-Semitism card.
Whenever the Left can't answer an arguement, they scream racism, sexism or homophobia. It sickens me that "conservatives" are likewise opting for smears over rational debate.
119
______________________________________
montag813 wrote:
"Rational debate" does not mean citing "neoconservatives" as the enemy, and mentioning it as often as the Left cited "Halliburton".
It is obviosu they mean "Jews".
This has been widely discussed and debunked. Looks like you are late to the party. From your shrill tone I am not surprised.
______________________________________
NO one here is citing "neoconservatives" as the enemy, nor do they use 'neo' as meaning "Jews".
You're out of line, and also seem to be mentally out to lunch.
Counter arguments can also be very easily made, so what?!
'Libertarian autodidacts' was a good blow!
I must say, however, that you sound a bit like a freshman reading Spengler on righteous bud. ;^)
Grover Norquist: "withdraw United States troops to safe citadels within Iraq or by handing Falluja over to the Iraqis and saying, 'It's your headache'.
Paul Weyrich: "America is stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight...our real enemies, nonstate organizations such as Al Qaeda, are benefiting from the Arab and Islamic backlash against our occupation of an Islamic country."
The four rules of terrorism that the Copperhead pukes need to learn:
--Boot Hill
Suffice it to say for now that your post would make great propaganda material for any enemy of the United States.
--- today is not a day to be dogging the armed forces about whether staying and fighting is right or wrong.. ..
Weird, seeing I'm saying we should stay & fight. -- But we should NOT get GI's killed doing police work.
today is a day to be praying for them....its shameful he started this thread ...
No, it's shameful that you're irrationally hyping my point.
stop posting to me.....
I dont like you NOR your disregard for the safety of our Armed Forces.....
He is muslim.
American Copperheads...
Grover Norquist: "withdraw United States troops to safe citadels within Iraq or by handing Falluja over to the Iraqis and saying, 'It's your headache'.
According to Kilpatrick, Grover Norquist is a strategist "close to the administration."
Norquists suggestions: withdrawing United States troops to safe citadels within Iraq or by "handing Falluja over to the Iraqis and saying, 'It's your headache.' "
The four rules of terrorism that the Copperhead pukes need to learn:
There is no such thing as international terrorism that is NOT state sponsored. No exceptions.
Thats why I support the Bush decision to establish bases in Iraq, and fight terrorism from them until we win.
There is virtually NO Islamic state that does not sponsor terrorism.
Thats why we are in Iraq, in the middle of them.
If you go to war with one Islamic terrorist organization or terror sponsoring state, you've gone to war with all of them. No exceptions.
Yes indeed. We're in the right place, and we intend to stay there.
Terrorists have chosen to make their war a black flag battle to the death, they can only be defeated on the battlefield.
Policing rival tribal factions in Iraq is "the black flag battlefield"? Can you elaborate on that point?
Stop posting to me. I don't like your disregard for the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.