The American Conservative Mag Says “GOP Must Go”
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in ElectionsThey mince no words in an article called “Breaking The Silence”:
It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen�in America and the world at large�as a decisive “No� vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush’s failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration’s endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why�thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer. [...]Meanwhile, America’s image in the world, its capacity to persuade others that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in memory. All over the world people look at Bush and yearn for this country�which once symbolized hope and justice�to be humbled. The professionals in the Bush administration (and there are some) realize the damage his presidency has done to American prestige and diplomacy. But there is not much they can do.
There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country’s reputation for a long time. But the process of recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in the voting booth this Nov. 7. If we are fortunate, we can produce a result that is seen�in Washington, in Peoria, and in world capitals from Prague to Kuala Lumpur�as a repudiation of George W. Bush and the war of aggression he launched against Iraq.
Umm…wow.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 2nd, 2006 and is filed under Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Here’s what we know for sure:
1) The editors of American Conservative are “Leftists.”
2) They hate America.
3) They are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
4) They hate America and support terrorism.
5) They have been brainwashed by the New York Times and CNN.
6) They hate America and want to make sweet, sweet love to Osama.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Tak nailed it! LOL
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:25 pm
6) They hate America and want to make sweet, sweet love to Osama.
That would make them homosexuals too… bonus.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Ummm, wow is an understatement. Are they part of the “drive by media� now?
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:43 pm
And here I always thought of myself as a conservative.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:36 am
This isn’t a new turn for The American Conservative magazine. They endorsed John Kerry in 2004. They are the voice of paleo-conservatives who never supported this war because they are 1) isolationist and 2) think the Iraq war was basically a Jewish plot hatched by the Jewish neocons to fulfill Israeli wishes (Pat Buchanan wrote this for them at the start of the Iraq war). It’s dramatic to attach “The Amercian Conservative” to this kind of opinion — but it’s nothing new from the magazine and nothing that’s going to change minds.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:52 am
I’m sorry Alan, but your posts reads like a continuation of the campaign to smear anyone who criticizes our relationship with Israel with the “anti-Semite” label. There is a real cabal of neoconservatives who have effectively taken control of the Republican party, and who are the chief architects of the war in Iraq. Yet every time someone uses the term “neoconservative,” we hear people like you whispering “He really means Jewish.” This attempt to shut down debate about our relationship with Israel is really despicable. I’m not Jewish, but I like to think that I’m not an anti-Semite, either, considering that my wife and daughters are Jews. I read the article you linked to, and nowhere did I see Buchanan refer to the neocons as Jews. Yet you clearly and deliberately say that the “paleo-conservatives” oppose the war in Iraq because it is a “Jewish plot hatched by the Jewish neocons.” It’s no one’s fault that many of the leading neocons are Jewish. Simply naming people who happen to be Jews hardly amounts to anti-Semitism.
It’s also no secret that American Jews have unique ties to Israel. I’d be hard pressed to identify another group that is so strongly involved with a foreign government politically, especially since many of Israel’s supporters have never lived there. We see condemnations of protesters waving Mexican flags in Los Angeles, yet we are somehow supposed to remain silent about a group that clearly feels US foreign policy should always be based at least in part on what’s good for Israel. What other country enjoys this kind of consideration? I would argue that France and Germany have been long time allies of the US, but I didn’t see any charges of anti-French bias when French wine was being poured down sewers after the start of the Iraq war.
As Buchanan makes clear (and I’m far from a Buchanan supporter) Israel is a long time and valued ally of the US, and we have made a committment to aid them whenever possible. Yet they are still a foreign government, and need to be treated as such. Their interests are not automatically our interests. You may disagree with me, but voicing my opinion doesn’t make me an anti-Semite. I’m sure many in Israel would want us to launch air strikes now against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Should we go along with that without regard for what is in our best interest?
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Chris, where did I use the word “anti-semite?” And what about Buchanan’s article did I misrepresent? He does indeed believe we went into Iraq more for the cause of advancing Israeli interests than for the cause of advancing our own interests. He blames the neocons and points out, right up front, that many are Jewish. Although he says that their Jewishness has nothing to do with his opposition, he does mention it and he does seem to think that their religion has something to do with their strong support for Israel. Whether or not that has a wiff of ant-semetism is a debate for another post. I never mentioned anti-semetism nor accused Buchanan or the magazine of being anti-semetic.
Give me a break. I was making a point about how The American Conservative mag has a history of opposition to this war and the opinion Justin linked to is nothing new. I wasn’t trying to secretly brand all opponents of Israel as anti-semites.
Don’t waste too much breath defending Buchanan. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I’m not defending Buchanan at all. I’m pointing out how his remarks were skewed. And the anti-Semitism charges are used against more than just Buchanan. I see them trotted out regularly as a way of discrediting criticism of the neocons. I don’t think you have to actually use the phrase “anti-Semite” when you say the paleo-Conservatives think the war in Iraq was a “Jewish plot.” I still challenge you to show me where in that article Buchanan characterizes the war as a Jewish plot. And please quote the part of the article where he points out “right up front” that many of the neocons are Jewish.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Second graph, Buchanan says:
He begins by defending himself agains anti-semtic allegations but then still makes the effort to point out that Commentary is very important in the Bush administration and that is is a Jewish publication.
My intent with the original comment was just to characterize the opinions of The American Conservative magazine … paleo-conservatives are hardly the refuge of progressives and the tolerant minded. I didn’t think it was too much a stretch to point out their problem with the war was its ties to Israel (via American Jews) — which is different than most other people’s problem with the war.
And, yeah, I guess I do get a hint of anti-semitism from what Buchanan writes–mainly because there are a lot more accurate criticisms of neocons that don’t have anything to do with their support for Israel or their religion. Let’s start with their overly rosy view of democracy and our ability to affect positive change with military might. THAT’S a much bigger part of their ideology than is Israel. Claiming it’s really all about Israel is a bit odd. And it would hardly be the first time Buchanan was suspected of being anti-semetic. The Democrats branded him as such during the 1992 campaign if you remember.
But, all that said, my intent wasn’t to use that comment to delve into the existence (or appearance) of anti-semitism in paleo-con logic. Nor was my intent to brand all critics of Israel as anti-semetic. I applogize if I came off like some partisan hack.