Comments on: Return of the Antiwar Right

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:20:40 +0000

The problem is that Bush redefined the purpose of the Iraq war. In his attempt to sell the war to the American people and the world, he said it was about weapons of mass destruction but afterwords the rhetoric switched to liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator and that a free Iraq would be good for the world. In other words, he went from a concrete self-interest defense to a more abstract wilsonian notion of spreading democracy for the overall security of the world. Obviously the switch was made because it became apparent that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The conversative thing to do would have been to acknowledge the the intelligence failure (assuming thats what really happened) and make an effort to leave asap without leaving the region destabilized (thats why I supported the surge and wished they would have done that much sooner). It was a huge mistake to adapt the Wilsonian narrative as a justification for the war. No convservative should have continued supporting the war at that point.

By: Zeitgeist

Zeitgeist — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:55:56 +0000

This isnt a choice between war and peace…it’s STILL a choice between war and something much worse….

I DONT CARE who is in office…I want this war WON.

By: George

George — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:53:40 +0000

We spent a lot of money to fight Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. We now have enemies that are even more determined to defeat us in the radical Muslim world.

The amount of money we are spending to reduce future attacks is not what is killing us. What is killing us is an uneducated electorate that continues to nominate politicians who offer more “freebies” to an uneducated electorate who cannot picture the cost of tomorrow.

By: Chris Broe

Chris Broe — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:03:45 +0000

Did the Right ever enunciate a mission for US troops in Iraq? Will conservatives ever define what it means to be conservative? Maybe Sarah Palin will define it with her next book about the evils of entitlements like free government cheese called, “Going Roguefort”.

By: Pons Seclorum

Pons Seclorum — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:02:57 +0000

“Does your “would attack” mean the same as the Israelis “existential” threat, that virtual reality is more real than real reality?”

The jihadist threat may not beat the ‘existential’ level but their radicalism is nonetheless destructive so it pays to be vigilant regarding its machinations. And, yes, jihadists would still have a motive to attack the West, for as Jack Hunter observed in a piece about Fort Hood: “Like Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers, without massive US presence in Muslim nations, Nadal the Islamist would have had much less inspiration to commit murder”–much less inspiration, but they will have inspiration all the same. Why? Hunter continues: “Liberals who believe Islamic terrorism is mostly due to US occupation of Muslim nations are correct, but foolish to believe there does not exist a religious dimension.” Exactly, and it is this religious/ideological dimension that paleocons and libertarians have to include in their foreign policy analysis, which could facilitate American non-interventionism.

By: The new anti-war right | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

The new anti-war right | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:34:00 +0000

[...] like to believe that Jack Hunter is right, but the more I think about it the more I think that the conservative base in this country, barring [...]

By: Gerry T. Neal

Gerry T. Neal — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:11:48 +0000

Congressman John J. Duncan, who is mentioned by Jack Hunter in this excellent article, consistently took the position he is described as taking here, throughout the entire Bush administration. It stands to reason then, that he would be unlikely to switch to a Wilsonian interventionist position as soon as the Republican Party regains the White House.

By: Demokrati, republikanci, isti, isti | Politikis

Demokrati, republikanci, isti, isti | Politikis — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:16:07 +0000

[...] demokratski senator za časa Busheve vladavine? Mogoče kak mirovnik organizacije Code Pink? No, izrekel jih je republikanec iz Utaha, Jason Chaffetz, vojno v Afganistanu pa je na svoja pleča dokončno prevzel demokratski predsednik [...]

By: Jeremiah Whitmoore

Jeremiah Whitmoore — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:17:43 +0000

Jack,

I’m disappointed, no mention of Congressman Walter Jones?

By: hecuba

hecuba — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:42:06 +0000

Egad, what twisted logic! I haven’t seen any Muslims jihadists trooping around Missouri lately. I’ve seen lots of Americans all over the Muslim parts of the world. Does your “would attack” mean the same as the Israelis “existential” threat, that virtual reality is more real than real reality?