Frum offered a highly detailed account of how certain members of the conservative movement, are standing in stark opposition to the courageous efforts taken by President Bush and his administartion in finally taking the actions to rid the world of a the dangerous lunatic of Baghdad.
There has been a definite stench of disdain coming from remarks made by people like Novak, Buchanan and other paleocon's. This has been occuring for a long time and has been unwarranted. The fact that Novak and Buchanan now support the troops, doesn't give them a pass for acting so wrongheaded in the lead up to this war.
In fact, in Novak's most recent column, he once again makes remarks that don't ring true and continues to trash decisions made at the highest levels of the Bush adminstartion. In the lead up to the war with Iraq, I never heard one individual use the term "cakewalk". However, Novak now wants us to believe that's exactly what the Bush administration and the military brass were saying all along. That is pure BS! Novak also slams SecPowell for not flying to Turkey and begging the Turk's to alllow US forces to invade Iraq through Turkey, from the north. Novak also mentions remarks made by ex-general Barry McCaffrey, a Clinton appointee.
It's obvious Bob Novak is hurt deeply by David Frum's remarks and he should be. They're true. Novak and his fellow paleo's have been on the wrong side of this issue from the get go and it appears Novak wants to remain a voice of dissention. Novak is wrong on this one.
I don't beleive so at all. Novak hit the nail on the head with this line:
"Frum, on the other hand, chose that moment to begin shooting at ''paleo-conservatives.'' He brackets me with his selected paleos--people whom I have never met or read and whose anti-Semitic and white supremacist views I abhor."
That is the heart of Frum's argument. It is nothing more than a guilt-by-association discrediting of the people he named and implicated in that same article.
I also read David Keene's remarks and his overall response in defense of Novak was also very weak.
Once again, I disagree. Keene too hit the issue dead on by calling out Frum's guilt-by-association tactics:
"Frum is among those who can't seem to accept the fact that those who disagree with him may not be in league with the devil...One can question the man's [Novak's] judgment and sometimes even his facts, but to suggest that Novak is no different from the crypto-fascists and Marxists organizing "peace" rallies these days says a lot more about David Frum than it does about Bob Novak."
Frum offered a highly detailed account of how certain members of the conservative movement, are standing in stark opposition to the courageous efforts taken by President Bush and his administartion in finally taking the actions to rid the world of a the dangerous lunatic of Baghdad.
In some respects, yes he did. But that is not the point of objection to his article. The objectionable portion is his use of guilt-by-association in an attempt to discredit Novak by tying him to the American Renaissancer fringe wacko types who he quotes and, most of all, their anti-semitism. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.
There has been a definite stench of disdain coming from remarks made by people like Novak, Buchanan and other paleocon's.
Since when is Novak a "paleocon"? He doesn't appear to consider himself one, nor, by his own admission, does he have much of anything to do with the American Renaissancer types that Frum attempted to associate him with in the smear piece.
The fact that Novak and Buchanan now support the troops, doesn't give them a pass for acting so wrongheaded in the lead up to this war.
Tell me this - why can't Novak, if he chooses, oppose the war as a policy prior to its starting? What is wrong with that? I fully support the war and have been calling for it for quite some time, but that does not mean I have a right to make personal attacks on Bob Novak for holding another view. It is as Keene appropriately put it: "Like many other conservatives, I happen to disagree with Novak's analysis of what's going on in the Middle East. But to suggest, as does Frum, that his disagreement with Bush's Iraq policy stems from a hatred of the president and the country is scandalously and irresponsibly absurd."