"to back Bush and has followed him over the cliff into our calamity in Iraq."
===
Sure, a very "conservative" position -- being against the War on Terror. (/sarc) It looks like the writer is just left of Pelosi and Murtha.
The War on Terror is not the same thing as what's going on in Iraq. One could be in favor of fighting the Axis after Pearl Harbor,* but against firebombing Dresden. One could be in favor of D-Day, but against Lend Lease to Russia.
And yes, the traditional conservative postition would be to be against the war in Iraq, while the neocon position is to be in favor of it.
As noted in the American Conservative mission statement: "And we will discuss, frequently, America’s role in the world, turning a critical eye on those who want to cast aside every relevant American foreign policy tradition—from Robert Taft-style isolationism to prudent Dwight Eisenhower-style internationalism, in favor of go it alone militarism, where America threatens and bombs one nation after another, while the world looks on in increasing horror."
Do you deny there might have been better ways to prosecute the War on Terror?
*in fact, recall that it was the Dems who wanted to join in overseas adventures, while "Mr. Republican" Taft represented the isolationists.