Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Going Back to Where They Came From
The American Cause ^ | 04/21/04 | Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted on 04/26/2004 6:19:08 PM PDT by bob808

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William Kristol has told the New York Times.

The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.

Alluding to his father Irving's definition of a neoconservative as a liberal who has been mugged by reality, Kristol describes a neoliberal as a "neoconservative who has been mugged by reality in Iraq."

Ranking his political preferences, Kristol added, "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan ... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

Yes, it does. But as John Kerry backs partial-birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy, how can Kristol prefer him to other conservatives? Answer: War and Israel.

Like Kristol, Kerry wants more U.S. troops sent to Iraq where they can advance the neocons' project for empire. And at a fund-raiser in Juno Beach, Fla., Kerry declared eternal fealty to Israel: "I have a 100 percent record – not a 99, a 100 percent record – of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel."

Kristol's warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.

The day after Kristol said he preferred Kerry to conservatives skeptical of committing more troops to Iraq, this item appeared in the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Kristol thinks Mr. Bush should use the revelations [from the Woodward book] to shake up his war cabinet by firing Mr. Powell ... along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has pushed for smaller deployments of U.S. forces than some critics, including Mr. Kristol, think wise."

Set aside the suicidal folly of Bush dynamiting his war cabinet in an election year by firing its most famous members, and consider the ingratitude, the rootlessness and the cynicism on display here.

When it was launched in 1995, the Weekly Standard called on Colin Powell to run for president and offered its endorsement. Purpose: Hook up with the most popular man in the GOP who could restore the neocons and Kristols to pre-eminence and power. Powell rebuffed the offer. Ever since, he has been a target of abuse for having repelled the boarding party.

As for Rumsfeld, he has been a hero of neoconservatives for two decades. He co-signed the neocons' 1998 open letter to Clinton urging war on Iraq. He brought Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith into his Pentagon in the No. 2 and 3 slots. He put Richard Perle in charge of the Defense Review Board. After 9-11, according to Richard Clarke, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were making the case for attacking Iraq immediately, even before Bush had ousted the Taliban enablers of al-Qaida and bin Laden.

Agree or disagree with the defense secretary, Rumsfeld has been a lion in the neocon cause. To see the Weekly Standard snake on him like this brings to mind that wretched crowd in Yankee Stadium that took to booing Joe DiMaggio at the end of his career.

With Iraq turning into the Mesopotamian morass some of us warned it would become, the neo-Jacobins have decided they are not going to be the ones to ride the tumbrels.

In times like this, character comes through. By turning on the men they persuaded to go to war, by fabricating alibis and inventing excuses to absolve themselves of culpability for what they labored to create, they have revealed themselves for what they are: hustlers and opportunists devoid of principle, driven by an ideology of power and a passionate attachment to a nation not their own.

The Old Right curmudgeons who warned us against giving these vagabonds food, shelter and a warm place by the fire were right. We should have put them back out on the street.

President Bush should have listened to his father, who kept the neocons at some remove, and he had best beware, because they have a major card yet to play. That card is escalation.

With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, the neocon agenda is to widen the war into Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, and convert it into "World War IV," the war of their dreams, a war of civilizations, an Armageddon, with America and Israel on one side and Islam on the other.

Exiting Iraq with honor and avoiding the wider war for which the neocons are even now scheming is the first duty of patriots.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: kristol; neocons
Kristol's warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.

In light of Kristol's open threat, can they still say this is just "antisemitism"?

1 posted on 04/26/2004 6:19:10 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bob808
Kristol is in a category all his own.

It is called "weasel."

2 posted on 04/26/2004 6:24:30 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
weaselism is born
3 posted on 04/26/2004 6:26:44 PM PDT by RaginRak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bob808
Bill Kristol is the right wing version of John Kerry, neither of them have a spine
4 posted on 04/26/2004 6:29:35 PM PDT by MJY1288 (On Paper, John Kerry is the Perfect Candidate, His Record Shows he's Been all Things to all People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bob808
by fabricating alibis and inventing excuses to absolve themselves of culpability for what they labored to create, they have revealed themselves for what they are: hustlers and opportunists devoid of principle, driven by an ideology of power and a passionate attachment to a nation not their own.

Could easily apply to liberals. I have no liking for either Kristol or Buchanan.

Prairie

5 posted on 04/26/2004 6:31:52 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (Resign and testify you feckless, duplicitous, devious traitor. Yes, Jamie, I mean you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bob808
I usually agree with Kristol's analysis. I certainly agree that Powell needs to go, but am a huge fan of Rumsfeld.

I also agree that Syria & Iran need to be targeted next and I suspect if Bush wins the election that is exactly what we'll see in the next few years.

As far as Buchanan goes...he's in a world of his own & one I'd rather not inhabit.
6 posted on 04/26/2004 6:33:28 PM PDT by ConservativeConvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bob808
If Buchanan's name is in the byline, you can rest assured that Israel will be mentioned. It never fails.

Anyway, Kristol is a loon. I am not sure who takes him seriously.


A.K.A. Sleepy Brown

7 posted on 04/26/2004 6:38:25 PM PDT by rdb3 (Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bob808
with America and Israel on one side and Islam on the other.

Buchanan has stated the obvious. What he failed to elaborate on was that America and Israel are attempting to rid the world of terrorism, the only way possible, capturing and killing terrorists one at a time. Islam on the other hand nutures the terrorists who are more intent in killing the innocents than they are any combatants. A hissing match between Buchanan and Kristol serves no favorable purpose other than to illustrate that the Republican is a bigger tent than many would believe, although it is unclear what if any party presently would claim Buchanan. Personally, I feel they deserve each other, and it is somewhat comforting to see treachery turned on itself in the form of these two personages.

8 posted on 04/26/2004 6:43:06 PM PDT by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Since I'm in the mood to trash Bill Kristol, here it is...

Bill Kristol is nothing but a knee jerk reactionary, who isn't capable of seeing a tough job through, in other words he's a quitter, just like the author of this article, "a quitter". I think the two of them should get a room and spare the public from their silly hair pulling sissy fights.

Just in case we have forgotten, It was Bill Kristol who was calling the Afghan War a quagmire 3 days before Kabul fell. When the sand storms of Iraq slowed our forces one week into the battle, it was Kristol who was calling it a quagmire, and now it's this same loser who is calling for troops our Commanders say they don't need. Bill Kristol isn't even good enough to be a Monday morning quarterback, never mind a war planner.

My message to Bill Kristol, Shut up and stay out of the way, and you and Pat Buchanan need to get over yourselves

9 posted on 04/26/2004 6:45:36 PM PDT by MJY1288 (On Paper, John Kerry is the Perfect Candidate, His Record Shows he's Been all Things to all People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bob808
Sometimes I wish that Kristol was part of some neo-con kabal, because then at least he wouldn't be bashing Bush every time he's on Fox lately.
10 posted on 04/26/2004 6:48:48 PM PDT by aynrandfreak (If 9/11 didn't change you, you're a bad human being)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
A pox on both their houses.
11 posted on 04/26/2004 6:49:17 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
I couldn't say it better myself.

I am sick to death of both of them.

And O'Reilly is running a close third.

12 posted on 04/26/2004 7:00:33 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bob808
"Agree or disagree with the defense secretary, Rumsfeld has been a lion in the neocon cause. To see the Weekly Standard snake on him like this brings to mind that wretched crowd in Yankee Stadium that took to booing Joe DiMaggio at the end of his career."

First, I'm still not entirely sure what a "neocon" is. I've read over Irving Kristol's article about the term and it's meaning, but to me his explanation is about as clear as Clinton's conscience. Second, if a neocon can be largely identified as someone who is fixated on Isreal to the point of being irrational about a lot of other things, then I'd have to disagree with the idea that Rumsfeld is a neocon hero. To me, Rumsfeld is a perfectly rational and Conservative guy.

I haven't been following the Weekly Standard, and I must admit that I know little about William Kristol. However, this depiction of the senior Kristol really surprises me. I saw him doing an interview in 1997 on CSPAN and there wasn't anything liberal about him.
13 posted on 04/26/2004 7:01:37 PM PDT by Jaysun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
"A pox on both their houses."
I second that!
14 posted on 04/26/2004 7:02:19 PM PDT by sarasmom (Watching mainstream liberal media "news reports" will cause brain atrophy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
O'reilly is a shameless hussy for ratings, it's no wonder why it's called the "No Spin Zone", How could anything "Spin" when his show shuffles back and forth so much?
15 posted on 04/26/2004 7:07:29 PM PDT by MJY1288 (On Paper, John Kerry is the Perfect Candidate, His Record Shows he's Been all Things to all People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
My message to Bill Kristol, Shut up and stay out of the way, and you and Pat Buchanan need to get over yourselves

Second that comment!

16 posted on 04/26/2004 7:25:44 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04 -- Losing is not an Option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bob808
Special interest groups always cheer-lead where the power is.If Kerry wins,democrat forums will be full of pro-war/spread-democracy threads and conservative forums will go back to being anti-war,anti-government,Waco/Ruby Ridge-ists like they were 5 years ago.

While currently the left are seen as terrorist sympathizers,pre-9/11 the right was firmly viewed as being the (domestic)terrorism-apologists.An election will quickly swing things back to the way they were and sort the real conservatives from the bandwagon jumpers.

Could anyone have imagined 5 years ago that 'militia' would be a dirty word in conservative circles?

17 posted on 04/26/2004 7:55:14 PM PDT by browsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
"Kristol is a loon. I am not sure who takes him seriously."

The folks at PNAC, http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm, which Bill Kristol chairs, do:

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,
Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz,
Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz [et al.]

Do you people even do your own research?
18 posted on 04/26/2004 9:58:05 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
"Bill Kristol is the right wing version of John Kerry, neither of them have a spine."

Yeah, except that Kristol isn't "right wing", either. :-)

19 posted on 04/26/2004 10:26:54 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
"Anyway, Kristol is a loon. I am not sure who takes him seriously."

Way too many Republicans did, when he was calling for an invasion of Iraq.

20 posted on 04/26/2004 10:28:55 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
"What he failed to elaborate on was that America and Israel are attempting to rid the world of terrorism...

I think you've somewhat missed the point, which was that we've been somewhat suckered into spilling the blood of our young men and spending our treasure to fight someone else's war.

21 posted on 04/26/2004 10:32:59 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
"Bill Kristol is nothing but a knee jerk reactionary, who isn't capable of seeing a tough job through, in other words he's a quitter... Just in case we have forgotten, It was Bill Kristol who was calling the Afghan War a quagmire 3 days before Kabul fell."

Then I think you've somewhat misunderstood Kristol. He's not complaining to get out, he wants us to send more in. If it was up to him, we'd be in the middle of a war with Syria and Iran now (and whoever else Sharon has on his enemy list) too.

22 posted on 04/26/2004 10:38:23 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: browsin
Well said.
23 posted on 04/26/2004 10:40:19 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bob808
I think you've somewhat missed the point, which was that we've been somewhat suckered into spilling the blood of our young men and spending our treasure to fight someone else's war.

Baloney

24 posted on 04/26/2004 10:41:11 PM PDT by Texasforever (Will Rogers would slap John Kerry sensless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bob808
Oh, I understand him, and I thank God he is just a pundit, because when it comes to fighting this war, he's clueless
25 posted on 04/26/2004 10:42:57 PM PDT by MJY1288 (On Paper, John Kerry is the Perfect Candidate, His Record Shows he's Been all Things to all People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bob808
Someone else's war?

I think you have missed the point, Bill Kristol has no influence on policy in this country, We here about Richard Pearle and where is he right now?

These boogie men Pat Buchanan is so afraid of, are toothless warriors in a war that is raging in the media and has little or no effect on reality on the ground in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein used to be the strong man in the middle east and he openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews, if Saddam wasn't an enemy that needed war waged upon him, that you have no respect for those who died in the Gulf War in 1992

26 posted on 04/26/2004 10:49:24 PM PDT by MJY1288 (On Paper, John Kerry is the Perfect Candidate, His Record Shows he's Been all Things to all People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Saddam Hussein used to be the strong man in the middle east and he openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews, if Saddam wasn't an enemy that needed war waged upon him, that you have no respect for those who died in the Gulf War in 1992

One can only wonder at the respect shown to those men by those who started that war.

27 posted on 04/26/2004 11:18:56 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Saddam's war in 1992 was against Sunni Wahhabists.
28 posted on 04/27/2004 5:13:54 AM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
"These boogie men Pat Buchanan is so afraid of, are toothless warriors in a war that is raging in the media and has little or no effect on reality on the ground in Iraq."

Those "boogie men" were, to a large degree, responsible for funneling bad/overblown intel to the President, and he made a decision to wage war based on that. They had the greatest effect of all, which was getting our troops there on the ground in the first place.

"Saddam Hussein... openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews..."

Yes, he sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. But when did he ever "openly brag" about supporting terrorism against us?

Again we go back to the point of the article. No one is arguing that Saddam was a good guy. But who was he the biggest threat to? Were we not fed bad info? Who was feeding us that bad info and why?

We were manipulated into fighting someone else's war, my friend.

29 posted on 04/27/2004 10:37:16 AM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bob808
"Those "boogie men" were, to a large degree, responsible for funneling bad/overblown intel to the President, and he made a decision to wage war based on that. They had the greatest effect of all, which was getting our troops there on the ground in the first place."

If you think for a second that the Neocons at "Think Tanks" like "Project for a New American Century" is where the CIA and the DIA gather their Intel for putting together the National Threat Assessment, then your watching way too many TV Pundits or smoking some really good stuff, because real Intel gathering people laugh at fools like Pat Buchanan and Bill Kristol.

Richard Pearle, and others like him, are simply Policy advisor's who submit their views. Intel is an entirely different beast. We are in this war because it was inevitable. How long should we have maintained the No Fly Zones as the U.N. was skimming off the Oil for Food Program?

Like I said before, Pat and Bill need to get a room, their drooling over each other is a bit much

30 posted on 04/27/2004 11:18:28 AM PDT by MJY1288 (On Paper, John Kerry is the Perfect Candidate, His Record Shows he's Been all Things to all People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
Buchanan has stated the obvious.

He generally does. Why do you think he is so hated so much.

31 posted on 04/30/2004 8:51:42 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Poohbah; rdb3; Howlin
I'm not sure I would go that far.

The fact is, the Weekly Standard's views on the war on terror are views I agree with on the merits. The fact is, if those who think like Buchanan DID manage to become dominate in the GOP, I would certainly have to consider the same course Bill Kristol has contemplated.

I will admit to having serious misgivings with some of the "culture war" folks on the Right. I guess you could say I have become somewhat disillusioned with the Right on that issue.

That said, I think Kristol's comments were more akin to dealing with a hypothetical situation, and such be viewed as such. The original article was from the New York Times, and that source is NOT one to rely on as a stand-alone.
32 posted on 04/30/2004 9:20:08 AM PDT by hchutch (Tommy Thompson's ephedra ban STINKS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bob808
Syria and Iran are sponsoring terroist groups, are they not?
33 posted on 04/30/2004 9:23:59 AM PDT by hchutch (Tommy Thompson's ephedra ban STINKS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bob808
The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.

This entire piece sounds like some SNL skit script!

34 posted on 04/30/2004 9:25:50 AM PDT by wingster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wingster; Poohbah
Buchanan is also ticked off that Kristol has said that he's worse on national security than John F'n Kerry.

I'd be insulted if someone said that about me, too.
35 posted on 04/30/2004 9:35:06 AM PDT by hchutch (Tommy Thompson's ephedra ban STINKS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
They can have him. He'll crap on them, too, sooner or later.
36 posted on 04/30/2004 9:45:39 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Miss Marple; PhiKapMom; Poohbah; Dog; section9; Catspaw; BOBTHENAILER; veronica
Hey... in this context of those quotes, it helps to kepe two things in mind:

1. The New York Times ran that article. Probably hoping to cause a fight or something. Kristol was speaking in terms of a hypothetical.

2. I'll be blunt: Kristol's ranking of preferences is arguably close to mine. In a Buchanan-vs.-Kerry matchup, I'd sit it out. But a Lieberman-vs.-Buchanan matchup, I'd probably align with Lieberman. He is right in that Buchanan is probably worse than Kerry in terms of national security and foreign policy. At least Kerry would be back to Clintonesqu policies, which meant that things were kept stable - problems would be left for a successor to deal with. Irresponsible, but not the worst type of irresponsibility, if you ask me. Buchanan would have America in full retreat. That would be even MORE irresponsible than Clinton or Kerry in the foreign policy arena.
37 posted on 04/30/2004 10:16:09 AM PDT by hchutch (Tommy Thompson's ephedra ban STINKS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson