Unpatriotic Conservatives: A war against America.

National Review ^ | April 7, 2003 | David Frum

[Scholastic]

bump

[Scholastic]

ping

[Willie Green]

to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world

Frum's problem is that he's so left-wing that he thinks Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are conservative.

[Captain Kirk]

Typical jingoistic smear work. Just about all the conservatives who oppose the current war *supported* the Afghan operation which *was* (a la Pearl Harbor) a response to a direct attack. The social engineering war in Iraq does not fit that rule but, of course, these details are of no concern to the Constitution-hating witch hunters who now dominate the conservative movement (at least on FR).

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

In that paragraph, you've quoted he's attributing a well-known liberal position to paleoconservatives. The article on the whole is a smear.

[quidnunc]

Pfui

[eddiespaghetti]

I still don't get your point.

Have those three EVER come out with a policy suggestion regarding immigration?

If they haven't, how can you assume they are against "tightening" the borders (or however you want to put it)?

[JoeSchem]

Oh brother. I agree with this guy on the war but this rant is ridiculous.

Islam is not a religion of peace, and it is clear that Saddam must go simply because we cannot allow every nickel and dime dictator to have the means to destroy American cities.

Nonetheless, the United States has been an inconsistent force for peace and democracy in the Middle East. We should have pushed the Saudi regime toward democracy a long time ago. We should have gone into Baghdad in '91, rather than listen to the United Numbskulls and imposed blockades and sanctions which have only ended up harming Iraqi children. And we should have pressed the Israelis into forming a Palestinian State (though with safeguards to assure that Yassir Arafat is not in charge of it, and that it does not become a launching pad for terror attacks against Israel).

In short, we should either have stayed out the region entirely, or we should have done some good. This business of half measures has failed us. Today we are rectifying the problem.

[RedwM]

It just occurred to me that I haven't heard or seen anything of our Vice President for a long time. I wonder where he is.

[Destro]

quidnunc, you have to go to the trouble and describe why my comment is bilge. Why I have to listen to a Canadian citizen call American citizens traitors. Non-Americans have no right to call any other American a traitor. The treason it seems is only to go against the Marxist inspired way of thinking of the Neo-Cons.

PS: Just why is a Canadain Citizen working as a White House speach writer? NAFTA?

[quidnunc]

Destro wrote: quidnunc, you have to go to the trouble and describe why my comment is bilge.

I don't have to do jacksquat, but out of courtesy I'll do it anyway.

I describe it as bilge because it is bilge.

[Destro]

and thus you exhibit what is a neo-cons trait.

[KC Burke]

You make your points very well and it shows that a normal Freeper is more on-target than the normal newspaper pundit.

[Regulator]

When have those three come ever come out with a policy suggestion regarding immigration?

Well, Kristol publishes an online e-zine called the Weekly Standard. You can peruse all of his past issues and see the usual names in regard to immigration: Tamar Jacoby, Michael Barone, even Jack Kemp. They all sing from the same book: immigration good, restriction bad. Jacoby advocates legalization of all illegals right now. Barone is more circumspect, but in general always supports large numbers of "immigrants", regardless of ethnicity, religion, or political outlook. In Kristol's case, I can remember specifically an interview on TV where he referred to Buchanan's immigration outlook as "racist". All of Kristol's publications, and all of the people around him appear to argue either obliquely or directly for a Laissez-Faire immigration policy. It's rather well known, and debated far and wide. Look around; find out for yourself. These are not restrictionists. On the contrary.

Wolfowitz and Frum are generally thought of as being in agreement with this group. So, while I don't have specific statements (although Frum's words come out of other people's mouths, him being a speechwriter and all), I would simply say they are guilty by association.

My question to you is, why don't you understand this backdrop to the debate? Every one else here doesn't seem to need an explanation. Why do you think Longshanks called the National Review the International Review, and I referred to these guys as Trotskyites? Do some research. Find out where everyone stands and the sociopolitical backdrop to the debate.

[Destro]

how can Frum be against immigration when he is one himself--he is not even an American citizen but a Canadian--to neocons nationality is meaningless--membership in the party is all--again their Leninist roots show in this attitude.

[KDD]

I must part from the Buchanans, the Rockwells, the Sobrans, and the Raimundos regarding the Iraqi war.

You've summed up my thoughts as well.

[Regulator]

again their Leninist roots show in this attitude

Old habits die hard.

[Destro]

Their reasons for not going to war at least are rooted in logic and patriotisim. The reasons the neo-cons claim for this war are not rooted in logic or American patriotisim. I consider this war to meet many of the rules that nations go to war for, including this one. But I do not discount the paleo-conservative position for being against this war and their views about the aftermath may be more accurate.

[KDD]

The reasons the neo-cons claim for this war are not rooted in logic or American patriotisim.

Perhaps not. But you can't deny that an Iraq under U.S. control will allow us to place military next door to Islamic nations that are hostile to America and our allies. It will allow the free flow of oil from the region and give us bases near Afganistan, and more importantly, China.

This War is justified by two words...National Security.

You can not deny that this War will enhance U.S. security abroad and at home.

[KDD]

...