>>>Since you seem to be unable find his use of it, here you go.
I never said anything even remotely like that. I did say, quote: "I don't see the level of guilt by association that you and others seem to see in David Frum's piece."
As I said, if you read the first two paragraphs, you'll understand the relevent aspects and the thrust of Frum's piece. You've decided to turn this into something it is not.
Frum's article is clearly about how certain conservative voices, continue to ignore the realities of terrorist threats that America faces in the world today. It is a desire on their part, to accept and appease the enemies of America, instead of condemning and challenging them. Novak and Buchanan have said it time and time again. >>> Iraq hasn't attacked the US, why are we invading Iraq? <<< I'm paraphrasing, of course. This is the thrust of the argument presented by the anti-war conservatives and goes to the core of their opposition.
These so-called conservatives have made it very clear, they want a more isolationist foreign policy then we have right now. I don't support the US being the policeman of the world, but things have changed since 9-11. It is the job of the CIC, President Bush, to make sure the US is protected and defended from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Terrorism has no ethical foundation and no moral compass. Terrorism exists to destroy civilized society and slowly bring down the great democratic powers of the world. To allow terrorism to continue to exist, is unacceptable.
President Bush understands that terrorism will only be defeated if we stay on the offensive and keep the terrorists off guard. Some people, like Novak and Buchanan, call this idea of pre-emptive strikes, imperialism or colonialism. I say buckola!
I say, we hit the bastrads before they hit us, again.
Yes, meaning that you do not see all the guilt by association that dominates the piece. As my last post demonstrated, it is pervasive throughout his argument.
As I said, if you read the first two paragraphs, you'll understand the relevent aspects and the thrust of Frum's piece.
No you won't. Not until, at minimum, paragraph four does it become clear. The first two paragraphs simply make anonymous characterizations about certain conservatives. He does not specify who they are until paragraph four, and after that he devotes the entire article to smearing them.
You've decided to turn this into something it is not.
To the contrary. You seem to prefer that giving attention to only those first two paragraphs and ignoring the much more underhanded content of the rest of it.