And to imply that Paul Craig Roberts is an anti-Semite because he happens to recognize that neoconservatives have taken over the Bush Administration is an insult bordering on libel. Roberts may be a hard-liner on immigration, against sending another 100 billion or so to Israel and in favor of making changes to the criminal law, but that hardly qualifies him as a racist or an anti-Semite.
I've read Wheeler's rants for years, and he rarely deviates from the kick-#ss dogma which ingratiated him to Reagan's team of advisors in the '80s. He's very predictible, whether he's writing about the drug lords in Colombia or the Mujahadin. Kill 'em, bomb 'em, make them respect us by the only language they understand: force.
Unfortunately, the world has changed since then. Beating up on little countries as a proxy for all-out war with the Soviet Union no longer has the palliative effect if once had, since there is no more Soviet Union.
The threats we face from the Moslem world, which pale in comparison to the nuclear war we were ready to fight if the Soviets launched a first strike, must be dealt with. But there is divided opinion, even among conservatives, as to whether Iraq is the appropriate place to begin pacifying the Arabs, if that is the right term. Certainly not everyone subscribes to David Brooks' "national greatness" agenda, let alone the goals and methods of the Project for a New American Century. I dare say most conservatives have never read it, talked about it, or would even recognize it if it popped them in the face.
Certainly a person of Jack Wheeler's intellect should understand that opposing certain aspects of our foreign policy is not the same as siding with the enemy, or being anti-American.
These things are debatable, and that's what is happening, whether he likes it or not.
Isn't it better to have the debate among honest conservatives, who can disagree without fabricating lies and slander, than see the Democrats -- without an honest bone in their bodies -- grabbing headlines with their fraudulent, politically-motivated charges?
Of course. I would hope that that's why Lew Rockwell posted Wheeler's article on LewRockwell.com. It's why I posted it here. These issues deserve to be debated--civilly, on their merits.
Wheeler's most substantive point is the fact that Iraq, the War against Islamic Terror, certain aspects of the Patriot Act, and the legal theories surrounding 'enemy combatants,' are all issues that are dividing the anti-Socialists. All factions need to seriously consider the ramifications of that fact.
I would argue that there are two principles that should provide the parameters of the debate: