Posted on 01/22/2005 8:12:00 AM PST by quidnunc
I remember when friends would excitedly telephone to report that Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy had just read one of my syndicated columns over the air. That was before I became a critic of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration, and the neoconservative ideologues who have seized control of the US government.
America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country's population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.
The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.
In the Thanksgiving issue of National Review, editor Richard Lowry and former editor John O'Sullivan celebrate Bush's reelection triumph over "a hostile press corps." "Try as they might," crowed O'Sullivan, "they couldn't put Kerry over the top." There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."
-snip-
Bigger than bombing the serbians into oblivion for the benefit of muslim terrorists?
Whoever he is, he's so wrong here that it is understandable to mistake him for a Democrat. I think we've had enough of the Ostritch strategy for one war.
I knew who Paul Craig Roberts was, but if he is opposed to the U.S. liberation of Iraq, that means that his only default position is that he would prefer to see Saddam still in power.
I submit that 25 million Iraqis would be happy to kick Roberts ignorant azz until he sees the light.
Until then, he remains an embittered has-been.
He was once a good supply side economist.
What a moron, Israel is retreating from the Gaza. What expansion is this idiot talking about?
I think he overstates his case in the article but some reactions on this thread to Mr. Roberts' words do confirm some of the blind Bush zealotry posing as loyalty about which Mr. Roberts warns.
As I have said before, I don't even agree with my own mother on everything and I love her. Bush certainly isn't my mother.
People are not certifiably crazy just because they tell you things you don't want to hear or believe. That kind of reaction is closer to the beliefs of the Taliban than to those of our founding fathers.
A favorite antic of the hate-Bush crowd appears to be "I am a former conservative", since they realized how powerful Zell Miller and some other former Democrats' message have become.
Regarding Buchanan and his fellow Jew-haters, we have one on the radio here in Baltimore who appears to be conservative except for his support for Sadaam and opposition to Israel. He brings Buchanan on his radio show whenever possible to help him bash-Bush and especially Rumsfeld.
So he worked for The Immortal, Ronaldus Magnus about 1/2 as long as I did.
My question: "What is Outlook-India-Dot-Com, and why is Dr. Paul Craig Roberts now writing for them instead of the Wall Street Journal or the National Review???"
Publius6961 wrote:
Honest question: Who's Paul Craig Roberts?
Outlook just picked his syndicated column off the Znet wire.
One indication of why Roberts isn't writing for the WSJ and National Review is that Dennis (call me 'Justin') Raimindo runs his columns on Antiwar.com.
I would say yes,but not by a lot.Your point is valid and well taken.
Should also include the Clinton/Carter fraud of North Korea.That may be the biggest that has been made.Gets hard to qualify after a while.
Dennis (call me 'Justin') Raimondo thinks Roberts is worth reading too, since his column is carried on Antiwar.com.
quidnunc wrote:
Justin Raimondo thinks Roberts is worth reading too ---
Is that your way of whispering that Paul Craig Roberts is an antisemite?
He has an odd way of showing it, if he is.
After all, he just offered to take in 5,000,000 Israeli Jews en masse. Westbrook Pegler, a real antisemite, would have had a coronary.
If Roberts were the antisemite you seem to be trying to insinuate he is by association (with other real or imagined antisemites -- Bill Buckley found Sobran guilty of antisemitism and banished him from National Review, but the jury is still out on Buchanan: you can't fault him for disagreeing with AIPAC's agenda if he wants to), he would be quite enthusiastic about our supplying Israel with (some) weaponry, in hopes that they would then fight it out with (in round numbers) 1,000,000,000 Moslems, to the last man. The last of one or the other, anyway. Because they're all Semites -- both Arabs and Israelis.
I think you need another theory.
That Roberts has tipped at least a half bubble off center.
Or perhaps you think that Dennis (call me 'Justin') Raimondo is a true conservativce too?
The Cato Institute occasionally comes up with something good, but it is all the crap the comes out normally that puts me right off reading anything they send out.
No more than the paleopinkiepoo pantywaists are reprising their role models in the anti-Vietnam War movement. Roberts, et al., get their ideological talking points and orders from Justin Raimondo, the antiSemitic lavender queen of antiwar.com. (Don't take my word for it. Check out Justine's website yourself) What do we expect?
To paraphrase another line in this thread. GW may not be a "real" conservative, but he will do until a "real" one comes along.
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.