Posted on 07/23/2007 10:09:37 PM PDT by Coleus
I got a press release the other day from Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani. He was announcing a photo opportunity. It seems a UFO will be landing soon to take him back to his home planet. Photographers are invited. Actually the press release didn't say that. What it really said is that Giuliani has appointed Norman Podhoretz as a foreign policy advisor. But the effect is the same. Only a visitor from another planet could think that the way to win the presidency of the United States is by taking foreign policy advice from the nuttiest man on Earth.
That's an apt description of the 77-year-old Podhoretz. On a recent luxury cruise sponsored by National Review magazine, Podhoretz got into a dispute with NR founder William F. Buckley about the Iraq war. Buckley, the dean of American conservatives, termed the war a disaster. But Podhoretz, who like most "neo" conservatives has his roots in leftist politics, disagreed.
"It has been a triumph," said Podhoretz. "It couldn't have gone better." The man is clearly off his rocker. Yet Giuliani seems blissfully unaware of that unpleasant fact. How could this be? I have my theory, and it derives from a similar luxury cruise that I took seven years ago that was sponsored by the Nation magazine, which is the left-wing counterpart to National Review. After that cruise, I put in a call to my old political science professor at Rutgers, the late Carey McWilliams. His father had been the editor of the Nation during its heyday, when it truly was national in scope. But now its scope had narrowed down to a few blocks in Manhattan where the editors and writers lived. They were wealthy and powerful enough that they could afford to hold nutty views about politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
I detect some serious sour grapes in his comments about Limbaugh and Hannity, though.
Like HE is “The” voice of conservatism?
Sounds better to me than President Rodham-Clinton, or President Obama.
My goodness, as if Buckley and Podhoritz cannot disagree, AFAIK, Buckley has been against the War in Iraq from the start, the NeoCons have championed it, and other regime changes, in the short term Buckley is correct, the war is not a good thing for Conservatism, in the long term, Pdohoritz may prove to be correct, change those 7 countries, and the threat of Jihaddy Terrorism is greatly reduced.
Wow! If possible (and it’s not), this is even more stupid than the one you posted below this. Whatta hack this dude is!
Yes, perhaps, if you're eleven years old.
“President Gore” would have sounded like the title of a bad slasher movie.
Thank God we missed that one!
LOL. You put a great twist on his name.
That and the fact that he is an arrogant cross-dressing New Yorker frightens the hell out of me
This author thinks the rift in the GOP is due to Iraq. Maybe in the beltway it is, but out here in reality land, the problem is immigration and the NAU sellout.
“....its scope had narrowed down to a few blocks in Manhattan where the editors and writers lived. They were wealthy and powerful enough that they could afford to hold nutty views about politics.”
What seems increasingly obvious to me is that for the political and economic elite, the guarantees of the US Constitution are trivial issues. The rest of us peons depend upon those guarantees for us and our children.
Contrary to the hysteric screaming of the Neo Isolationists, the Iraq was has been an overwhelming victory. It has achieved a fundamental shift in the regional power balance towards the USA and aways from the Islamofacists for far fewer casualties then anyone thought possible.
The ONLY place the war is being “lost” is in the headlines of the Hate America 1st Political Corrupt media and the empty heads of the Dincons. See the Dincons are unwilling to EVER admit their 1950s political dogmas are completely irrelevant to the post 09-11-01 world. Perhaps the Dincons should quit mindlessly screaming their drivel, admit they have been wrong about Iraq from the start and TRY actually finally learning some of the simplest basic facts about Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
Why Iraq
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
I’m sorry, what’s the issue here? Podhertz thinks that the Iraq is *gasp* going well? Maybe because we managed to invade an entire country in one month? And we’ve increased personal freedom rights by two hundred percent? And we’ve put together a new government in less time than it took to put together our OWN goverment?
Sounds like he’d be the right man for the job if he wasn’t working for an abortionist.
Personal freedom rights??? I thought the Patriot Act did away with such antiquated concepts. /end snarky sarcasm
“I thought the Patriot Act did away with such antiquated concepts.”
If not completely yet, wait until McGuiliRomney or Hil-O-Bama takes office with the reins of power already there and waiting, courtesy of Globalist Shrub... Then we won’t have to be snarky about it, it’ll be a fait accompli.
“And we’ve put together a new government in less time than it took to put together our OWN gover(n)ment?”
You say this as if it’s a GOOD thing... but just exactly where does the Constitution allow government to do anything of the kind? (Start with the tenth amendment and then go look at the powers specified as allowed to the government. No such authority exists, thus it is PROHIBITED to government.)
Now you are just being too picky. Ask our leaders and they’ll say that the Constitution allows government to do anything they want to.
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.