Posted on 11/08/2004 9:37:29 AM PST by tpaine
The Antiwar Right Is Ready to Rumble
NY TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07kirk.html? ex=1100877650&ei=1&en=1003a79efbe25be2
November 7, 2004 The Antiwar Right Is Ready to Rumble By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
ROUND 8 p.m. Tuesday, a gloomy mood was settling over the dozen conservative stalwarts gathered with martinis and glasses of red wine in an office in Arlington, Va., to watch the returns. Early exit polls showed President Bush trailing, and Richard Viguerie, dean of conservative direct mail, thought he knew who was to blame: the neoconservatives, the group associated with making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
"If he loses, they are going to have a bull's-eye on their back," Mr. Viguerie said.
Ronald Godwin, a top aide to Dr. Jerry Falwell, agreed. "I see a real battle for the Republican Party starting about Nov. 3," he said.
The euphoria of Mr. Bush's victory postponed the battle, but not for long. Now that Mr. Bush has secured re-election, some conservatives who say they held their tongues through the campaign season are speaking out against the neoconservatives, against the war and in favor of a speedy exit.
They argue that the war is a political liability to the Republican Party, but also that it runs counter to traditional conservatives' disdain for altruist interventions to make far-off parts of the world safe for American-style democracy. Their growing outspokenness recalls the dynamics of American politics before Vietnam, when Democrats first became identified as doves and Republicans hawks, suggesting to some the complicated political pressures facing the foreign policy of the second Bush administration.
"Clearly, the war in Iraq was a drag on votes, and it is threatening to the Bush coalition," said Grover Norquist president of Americans for Tax Reform and a strategist close to the administration who had not spoken up about the war's political costs before. He contended that the war reduced Mr. Bush's majority by 6 percentage points to 51 percent of the vote. Mr. Bush now has two years to "solve Iraq" to protect Republican candidates at the midterm elections, he said. His suggestions: withdrawing United States troops to safe citadels within Iraq or by "handing Falluja over to the Iraqis and saying, 'It's your headache.' "
On Thursday, Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, issued a call to conservatives for a serious debate about the administration's foreign policy. "The consequences of the neocons' adventure in Iraq are now all too clear," he said. "America is stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight. Our military is stretched too thin to respond to other threats. And our real enemies, nonstate organizations such as Al Qaeda, are benefiting from the Arab and Islamic backlash against our occupation of an Islamic country."
Proponents of the war, however, argued that Mr. Bush would not have won re-election without it because Americans did not want to change the commander in chief. "Bush's foreign policy decisions seem to have been exactly why he won this huge victory that he did," said the neoconservative David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He argued that candidates who opposed the war - Gov. Howard Dean the most, and Senator John Kerry to a lesser extent - suffered the biggest losses. IF the Democrats have silenced some of their loudest complaints about the war, however, some on the right said they were turning up the volume on their own previously muted objections.
"A lot of the antiwar conservatives had to hold their tongue during the campaign because the No. 1 goal was to get Bush re-elected," said Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an important conservative fund-raiser.
Even on the eve of the election, William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the National Review, was decorously edging closer to full-throated opposition to the war. "At War With What or Whom?'' was the headline of his column on Oct. 19.
A few months ago, Donald Devine, a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union, publicly apologized to Mr. Bush after it was reported that in disgust at the war he had failed to applaud a presidential speech. But in a column shortly before the election, Mr. Devine wrote that conservatives should vote for Mr. Bush precisely because he was likely to withdraw from Iraq sooner than Senator Kerry would.
Arguing that the president had dropped hints like a quickly retracted statement in a television interview about the impossibility of winning a war against terror, Mr. Devine argued that "the president's maddening repetition of slogans" about the war was the "only politically possible tactic for a candidate who has already made up his mind to leave at the earliest reasonable moment." He added: "The neoconservatives will be devastated."
But Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, dismissed those theories, pointing to the president's statement in his post-election news conference that troops would stay in Iraq as long as needed: "Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions," the president said.
Its ours if we want it.
And creating a representative democracy out of a bunch of tribal nutjobs in 3-4 years is your idea of a reasonable plan? I hope it works. It would be an ideal solution: undermine the remaining governments without firing a shot. But there are times I don't see much hope for it.
At least its more reasonable than retreating into citadels and watching the country go to hell around us. Maybe we could call them "Norquist forts."
How long have you been posting here?
Longer than dirt.
And you believe something the NY Times writes about intramural squabbles within the conservative movement?
No, -- I believe we will withdraw to our bases & let the Iraqis fight it out for control of their internal politics, -- if we are smart.
Actually I'd bet [& have been saying all along] that has been 'the plan' since day one.
No it's not. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis.
And, I'm also not for "converting" Muslims. Many of them already resent Christians, and U.S.-sanctioned conversion efforts would be a disaster.
STFU, Grover. Because Syria, Iran, and North Korea are all standing in line for their whuppin'. You idiot, do you really believe Iraq is the end of the anti-terror campaign?
Funny.
Poetic. Gets the point across despite not knowing what it is.
Some ostriches missed the news of the huge trade deal between the ChiComs and Iran. Chinese will be more than happy to step in and dominate the Middle East if we cut and run. Russia steps in too.
Iran sells China discounted oil and China sells Iran the protection of it's nuclear umbrella and other high tech military goodies. Nuke technology, missile technology and more.
Before we can even think of converting anyone else to Christianity, we might think about converting ourselves here in the U.S. first.
-- we simply cannot allow the country to be taken over by radical Islamists.
Which faction in Iraq is not "radical islamists"?
The large majority of Iraqis are not radical Islamists.
"I'm not a friend of Nordquist's faction."
I'm sure that keeps him up at night.
They have no details, only innuendo and short sightedness.
Sorry, you are a fool if you think surrendering to democrats is a great way to further conservatives causes.
But hey, don't let that logic stop you.
I never read any posts here if there is more than two or three sentences involved, or if there is no break in the topic. Makes you dizzy, doesn't it?
If you don't think Bush has to have Iraq primarily solved with troops being pulled out by the midterms, you don't understand politics.
All I can tell you is that we must have radically different perceptions of what Islam is and what it means to the rest of the world. I do not believe in the fiction of the "moderate Muslim" any more than I believe in unicorns. Every alleged "moderate Muslim" turns out to be either a murderous radical (a la Arafat) or not truly Muslim at all (e.g., the Muslim reform movement, which denies core Islamic beliefs).
Grow up. -- I am not praising Nordquist.
We intend to stay in our hard won Iraqi bases.
But why get GIs killed doing police work? Answer, -- We won't, - Not much longer.
Eventually we will have to let the Iraqi's themselves fight it out for control. I say the sooner the better.
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.