It is almost laughable to watch the verbal artistry Auster and other pro-war imperialists will go through to try and salvage a tiny piece of flotsam from their ship-wrecked arguments.

First, I think it would be useful to point out that in a previous exchange Auster took a great deal of umbrage at my remark that he had turned his blog into an echo chamber for neoconservative talking points. Well, to disabuse me of that notion Auster has proceeded to post the writings of neoconservatives like Tony Blankley, Mona Charen, Stanley Kurtz and other writers from National Review. This has been helpful.

So now Auster is caught in a turbulent gale and is holding on to Bill Clinton and the French for dear life. Clinton said Saddam had WMD back in 1998 and the French were unable to prove a negative and show that he didn’t have any WMD, so ultimately, no matter the outcome, our cause was moral and just. Even if it turns out that the whole reason for war was bogus, it doesn’t matter — the anti-war right was unable to prove that Saddam didn’t have any WMD.

Of course no one can really prove such a thing, and Auster is now showing that he is trying to re-write the reason many on the right opposed the war. Most on the anti-war Right knew that the reason for war had nothing to do with WMD. They were well aware that the dangers Saddam posed to the world and America were being greatly hyped, and they knew the Administration was interested in massaging intelligence reports to build a more convincing case for war.

For instace, we all know about the fact that Bush used a forged document suggesting Iraq tried to procure 100 tons of uranium ore from Niger. We also know that Saddam’s purchase of aluminum tubes were not used to process highly enriched uranium as the Bush Administration suggested. In other words, any tiny bit of evidence that might suggest Saddam was building a lethal bio-chemical and nuclear arsenal was propagandized by this Administration. If they were truly interested in an objective and methodical inquiry into Saddam’s possible weapons program they wouldn’t be running around scaring Americans with stories about mushroom clouds, the most dangerous weapons ever devised and so on. Such obvious hype and propaganda should have sent off alarms bells to all the hawks. Of course this presumes that the real reason for the Iraqi war was WMD, not an ulterior motive.

The Administration would frighten Americans with tales of Saddam’s large arsenal of anthrax. Well, to those who bothered to study the issue knew Saddam’s alleged arsenal of anthrax was liquid anthrax and not in weapons form. There was no evidence of weaponized anthrax in Saddam’s arsenal. However, the Bush Administration and their propagandists — like Auster — never bothered to point this out. Bush made it sound like the anthrax that killed 5 Americans was of the same quality that Saddam had in his arsenal. Moreover, neither the Administration — nor Auster — never bothered to mention that most bio-chemical weapons only have a shelf life of maybe 3 to 4 years. Also, many thought Saddam’s arsenal was ready-made chemical weapons, meaning they might have only had a shelf life of 3-4 weeks. So time eventually disarms all chemical and biological weapons. You don’t need neocons to drop bombs to do it. This means that unless Saddam reconstituted his bio-chemical weapons program after 1998, the old weapons they may have in invetory are no longer deadly. But you didn’t hear this from the Administration or their fellow propagandists.

Since Saddam has had over twenty years to use these WMD against Americans or hand of a dirty-bomb to a terorist cell, how come there is so much urgency now?

Auster’s argument is essentially because Saddam has never used bio-chemical or nuclear weapons against Americans, because he was deterred from using them in the first Gulf War and Gulf War II, this means he is a madman who can’t be deterred, and who must be done away with.

Here Auster takes propaganda to new heights, “It must be emphasized again, however, that the probability of WMDs, especially in combination with Hussein’s behavior which indicated he was very energetically hiding things from the UN inspectors, was by itself a sufficient cause to go to war.”

Auster infers from Saddam’s behavior — which involved opening his country to weapons inspectors, producing a 12,000 page dossier of their weapons inventory, and destroying nine Al-Samound missiles — that he was deceitful and uncooperative.

Well, Mr Auster, as the reality of this war comes into sharper focus, it isn’t the deceitful behavior of the Hussien regime we should be concerned about. It is the deceitful and lowdown tactics of the Bush regime that lied its way into war that should command everyone’s attention.

Edwin,

I would debunk your screed but why waste mine time when it is apparent you are completely off your rocker and out of your league.

One question for you:
Link: http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/vx/vxh/frames.htm

Although VX gas was developed in the British chemical warfare laboratory at Porton Down, the British traded their secret with the Americans for information on thermo-nuclear weapons in 1958. The Americans went into full-scale production of VX gas in 1961, but are now attempting to destroy stockpiles.

If most bio-chemical weapons only have a shelf life of maybe 3 to 4 years, WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY IT’S STOCKPILE. WHY NOT DUMP IT DOWN A DRAIN OR IN A FIELD?

Then again:

Unlike nerve gases, which usually dissipate quickly, mustard gas can remain toxic in the soil for decades. Link: http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/mustard2.html#Q8

I know Fact Checking blows your screed to hell!

Thanks for sharing. Now, the important question is not quality or stability of CW produced in America, but in Iraq.

“2. CIA AND DIA HAVE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS OF THE SHELF

LIFE OF IRAQ’S UNITARY NERVE AGENTS. BOTH AGENCIES AGREE THAT

IRAQ HAS ENCOUNTERED DIFFICULTY OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS WITH

THE SHELF LIFE OF ITS UNITARY NERVE AGENTS”

“DIA BELIEVES THAT

THE PROBLEM PERSISTS, THAT THE STOCKPILE OF NERVE AGENTS WILL

BE UNUSABLE BY LATE MARCH, AND THAT DAMAGE TO PRODUCTION

FACILITIES WILL FORCE THE IRAQIS TO RELY ON STOCKPILED AGENTS.”

“5. DIA BELIEVES IRAQ HAS HAD INSUFFICIENT TIME TO PRODUCE

LARGE AMOUNTS OF BINARY CW AGENTS.”

This information is direct from the CIA and DIA whose credibility is already suspect on the side of exaggeration.

Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal echoes my talking point about the relative importance of the facticity versus the high probability of WMDs:

“The core of the debate seems to be whether the prewar intelligence estimates meant that Saddam ‘had’ WMDs or whether they ‘suggested’ he had them; or whether Iraq’s dual-use technologies (which no one disputes) ‘could’ be diverted to WMD production, rather than ‘were’ in fact being diverted. From this it presumably follows that if Sen. Carl Levin’s hoped-for ‘investigation’ into the Bush intelligence recommendations found they were suggestive, rather than conclusive, then the war was unjustified. And if this isn’t the argument, why are we wasting our time on such casuistry other than for the expectable reasons of petty partisanship?”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110003625

Henninger’s point, like my own, is simply that even Sen. Levin would have agreed that the highly probable existence of Iraqi WMDs capability (combined with Iraq’s evasive behavior which raised the probability to near moral certainty) would have made the war necessary. Therefore there is no controversy here over the correctness of the decision to go to war. The only controversy is over the precise nature and quality of the intelligence we had prior to the war. All the rest is simply the standard liberal (and now paleocon) slander of Bush.

Auster writes “Therefore there is no controversy here over the correctness of the decision to go to war. The only controversy is over the precise nature and quality of the intelligence we had prior to the war.”

This ignores the growing possibility that information regarding Saddam’s CURRENT weapons program was politicized to make the case for war. Those outside the intelligence community have no way of distinguishing between reliable information and politicized information. Regardless, the pro-war partisans never made the case that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States (outside Bush’s nonesense about mushroom clouds) so the war stands as a criminal undertaking.

I should have reiterated, that those who now say that the war was an illegitimate exercise of power in the absence of hard proof of the actual existence of Iraqi WMDs, are the same people who previously said that the war was illegitimate even with hard proof of the actual existence of Iraqi WMDs. In fact, many of those same people believe that the United States of America is an illegitimate political entity, period. Such people have no standing in the current debate, except as nuissances to be endured, or as object lessons in fanaticism.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 13, 2003 03:22 PM
“In fact, many of those same people believe that the United States of America is an illegitimate political entity, period.”

such as?

i hope you’re not including those who think the federal government has overstepped its constitutional limitations, because if you did, you would have to include all conservatives.

well not all, the neocons are happy as clams and don’t think its possible to overstep the constitution. But then again, they’re just libs pretending to be conservative.

if you didn’t notice, i stuck in a capital letter, just to make l.a. happy.

Auster writes, “I should have reiterated, that those who now say that the war was an illegitimate exercise of power in the absence of hard proof of the actual existence of Iraqi WMDs, are the same people who previously said that the war was illegitimate even with hard proof of the actual existence of Iraqi WMDs.”

Yes, that is correct. The mere presence of WMD does not mean a nation is an imminent threat to the United States. Is Pakistan an imminent threat to the United States since they possess nuclear weapons?

Under the thread _Thanks America_ I wrote, “Consider this scenario: would you rather be driving across a bridge and have that bridge hit by an American MOAB, or by an Iraqi mortar shell filled with liquid anthrax? Since liquid anthrax degrades over time and is only fatal if digested, an attack on a bridge would most likely result in zero casualties. However, a US MOAB would destroy the bridge and kill everyone. Calling Saddam’s arsenal of liquid anthrax — assuming he still has it — a weapon of mass destruction really distorts the threat he poses.”

In other words I was well aware back then that even Saddam’s possession of certain WMD was being hyped and was not a threat to the country.

So I guess none of the paleo critics on this website are go to explain why our opposition to Clinton’s 1999 war in Serbia made us similar to leftists? Was Auster saying that paleos were irrational and driven by emotions back then?

What’s the difference between Clinton’s pointless Serbian war and Bush’s Iraq war?

The question is a good one, and if it was being asked by someone who wasn’t a belligerent ranter who ignores everything that is said to him, I would answer it.

I’ve taken time to make sure I address all the criticisms of the anti-war right. You can not show me any circumstance in which I’ve ignored someone’s argument. Perhaps I don’t always tell you what you want to hear, but that does not mean I’m ignoring you or anyone else.

As an opponent of both the Serbian war and the Iraqi war, I think I’ve remained perfectly consistent. It is the pro-war contingent on the Right that needs to explain why war against Iraq was necessary.

Have I missed something?

Although Mr.Weller has taken up a lot of space to prove that the reasons the administration gave for going to war were lies, he doesn’t tell us what the real motive was. The two motives most-often heard until recently—“it was all for oil” and “it was to help Israel”—have been so thoroughly refuted that they’re losing their popularity, and I wonder if even Mr. Weller would venture to invoke them.

What then was the motive? Please, Mr. Weller, enlighten us.

Mr Weller asks:
“What’s the difference between Clinton’s pointless Serbian war and Bush’s Iraq war?”

There are quite a few differences just on the face of it. Clinton did not initiate a war, he jumped into the middle of one and took one side, the side that seemed to him to be the more liberal cause. Bush initiated a war against a moral monster who was also 1) a symbol of pan arab power against the US that inspired terrorism, 2) a financier of Islamofascist terrorism, 3) a harborer of Islamofascist terrorists, 4) a developer of highly dangerous, portable, easily hidden weapons of explicit interest to Islamofascist terrorists for use against the US; 5) a tyrant who had invaded his neighbor (our ally), been repelled by us, and was violating the terms of the cease-fire for 12 years; and 6) had attempted to assassinate one of our former presidents. One basic (and sufficient in itself) moral justification of Bush’s war was to bring the monster’s regime to an end, and beyond that there are political and prudential issues that we have discussed ad nauseum.

It is possible and even likely that if we had not had a narcissistic moral degenerate baby boomer in the oval office for the bulk of the cease-fire period, we might have brought down Hussein before 9-11. The fact that a moral degenerate did not do the right thing doesn’t make it the wrong thing once he is no longer in charge, though.

It is possible that there is an arguable justification for Clinton’s decision to take the side of Christendom’s traditional enemies in an already existing conflict. I haven’t heard one, but it is possible in principle. Mr. Weller’s objection doesn’t make any sense to me though. The justifications for the Iraq war are not general justifications that would apply to any war whatsoever. Every war requires its own justification.

Sure someone who always opposes war can claim consistency, but so what?

I wrote:
“The fact that a moral degenerate did not do the right thing doesn’t make it the wrong thing once he is no longer in charge, though.”

This applies generally, by the way, and to everyone not just leaders. I often hear the argument that because we didn’t have the will to do X immediately after some event it is somehow illegitimate to do X now. I don’t recall “thou shalt observe a statute of limitations on doing what is right” or “thou shalt not do a morally permissable and smart thing after a statute of limitations has run out” commandments from the decalogue; but perhaps I don’t have the latest revision of the modernist bible.

If it was morally permissible and politically smart to bring down Hussein before 9-11, but 9-11 made us *realize* that this is the case, the fact that it took 9-11 to make us *realize* it doesn’t mean it was never true in the first place.

Frieda writes, “Although Mr.Weller has taken up a lot of space to prove that the reasons the administration gave for going to war were lies, he doesn’t tell us what the real motive was.”

Well, since the Administration is lying about the real reason for the war, how am I supposed to know what it is? Of course I can speculate and throw around all sorts of conjectures, but for now I would prefer to wait and let more evidence come out. It will be interesting to see how long we stay in Iraq, what kind of civil government we leave in place etc. Now, I have not ruled out the possibility that the war was about Israel and oil. Considering all the Likudniks in the Bush Administration — Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc — it hardly strains credulity to think they might have Israel somewhere in the back of their minds while formulating “American” foreign policy. In a recent column Elizabeth Drew quoted Wolfowitz as saying “The road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad.” This suggest many Likudniks realized that toppling Hussein’s regime was an essential part of creating a feasible strategy to create peace between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Matt writes, “There are quite a few differences just on the face of it.” As the philosophers say, “Do the differences make a difference?” I do not wish to respond to each one of those points because none of them prove that Saddam was a threat to the United States. Actually, I wasn’t even sure if you were speaking about Syria and Saudi Arabia or Iraq at times.

Matt writes, “Sure someone who always opposes war can claim consistency, but so what?”

Great point! I mean God forbid our foreign policy be consistent and not arbitrary.

Mr. Weller writes:
“Great point! I mean God forbid our foreign policy be consistent and not arbitrary.”

Actually, a foreign policy of “always oppose war” would be both consistent and arbitrary. Arbitrary means chosen for no substantive reason, and consistent means not logically contradictory.

He also said:
“I do not wish to respond to each one of those points …”

Clearly.

Hillary’s flip flop on the WMDs between last fall and now:

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/16/11554

ya know, maybe those rapture artists got it right after all. i sure know my world is coming to an end when my idol, ol’ hillary, starts a flip floppin.

i feel auster’s pain, i’m sure it breaks his heart to see hilary and the bushies break-up like this. they were such a good match, and to go public like this spreading it all over gossip pages.

In his latest response Matt was kind enough to truncate my response to him, so just for the record I thought I would post it again:”Matt writes, ‘There are quite a few differences just on the face of it.’ As the philosophers say, ‘Do the differences make a difference?’ I do not wish to respond to each one of those points because none of them prove that Saddam was a threat to the United States. Actually, I wasn’t even sure if you were speaking about Syria and Saudi Arabia or Iraq at times.”

Matt writes, “Clinton did not initiate a war, he jumped into the middle of one and took one side, the side that seemed to him to be the more liberal cause. Bush initiated a war against a moral monster…”

Unlike Milosevic who was a saint.

He also writes, “1) a symbol of pan arab power against the US that inspired terrorism…”

I guess that is why we had a friendly policy toward Iraq during the 1980’s and assisted him in his war against Iran.

Also he writes, “2) a financier of Islamofascist terrorism, 3) a harborer of Islamofascist terrorists, 4) a developer of highly dangerous, portable, easily hidden weapons of explicit interest to Islamofascist terrorists for use against the US…”

The first two points could be said about Syria and Saudi Arabia and the last point is pure neoconservative propaganda. So where are all those WMD that made Saddam such a threat to the United States?

He writes “One basic (and sufficient in itself) moral justification of Bush’s war was to bring the monster’s regime to an end, and beyond that there are political and prudential issues that we have discussed ad nauseum.”

Like all those WMD that Bush sold the war on, but so far have not turned up?

For more information of Bush’s estranged relationship with the truth, check out this link: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,194926,00.html.

So it turns out those mobile bio weapons labs were nothing of the sort.

Matt and other seemed to have missed my point entirely. I was wondering why Auster, in particular, accuses paleos of cowardice, selling out their country, being nothing more than mirror-images of the Left etc. for opposing Bush’s war against Iraq, but not Clinton’s war against Serbia?

Since most paleos think Saddam was not a threat to the United States, why should they betray their commitment to an isolationist foreign policy in this case?

How does this make them Leftist?

The above link does not work if you click on hyperlink. The hyperlink includes a period or dot at the end, and therefore doesnt bring up the right website. When the page loads just erase the dot at the end and it will load the right page. :D

Mr Weller apparently didn’t appreciate my non-response to this (apparently critical) observation that he made about himself:

“I wasn’t even sure if you were speaking about Syria and Saudi Arabia or Iraq at times.”

So Syria and Saudi Arabia have invaded their neighbors (our allies), been repelled by us, and are currently in violation of the cease-fire terms? Syria and Saudi Arabia have attempted to assassinate one of our presidents?

Mr. Weller seems to think that he ought to be able to isolate every word of a justification, and that if every word by itself is not a stand-alone sufficient justification then there is no justification. That is postmodern liberal deconstruction at its best, brought to you by the paleo right.

“Since most paleos think Saddam was not a threat to the United States, why should they betray their commitment to an isolationist foreign policy in this case?”

For myself, I haven’t said anything remotely like that. I’ve said that the difference between going to war with Iraq and not was a legitimate prudential judgement call, and that paleo attempts to paint it as a dishonest moral outrage don’t hold up and indeed follow the usual liberal pattern of attempting to undermine the basic legitimacy of authority.

It is perfectly legitimate to assert that it was poor policy or a bad judgement call to go to war with Iraq. That is certainly arguable, and indeed only time will tell. It is not legitimate to adopt a leftist stance against the moral legitimacy of the war and the legitimate authority to prosecute it.

“Mr. Weller seems to think that he ought to be able to isolate every word of a justification, and that if every word by itself is not a stand-alone sufficient justification then there is no justification. That is postmodern liberal deconstruction at its best, brought to you by the paleo right.”

Exactly.

Mr Weller writes:

“I guess that is why we had a friendly policy toward Iraq during the 1980’s and assisted him in his war against Iran.”

So what? A mistake made then does not make taking the correct actions now wrong.

“Also he writes, “2) a financier of Islamofascist terrorism, 3) a harbourer of Islamofascist terrorists, 4) a developer of highly dangerous, portable, easily hidden weapons of explicit interest to Islamofascist terrorists for use against the US…”

The first two points could be said about Syria and Saudi Arabia and the last point is pure neoconservative propaganda. So where are all those WMD that made Saddam such a threat to the United States?”

In fact, the first point could be made about Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. But does Mr Weller think we should go to war against all of those countries at the same time? The Administration had to make a decision as to how to best take action against this threat. Iraq was the obvious choice for a number of strategic reasons. First it borders on Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, making it ideal as a base. Second, by taking action to remove the Baathist regime in Iraq, the Administration is betting that a demonstration of power there would make further military actions unnecessary, and this may now prove to be the case. We are already witnessing the beginnings of a popular uprising in Iran, with Iranian students calling on American help. Taking out Saddam in Iraq was a stroke of strategic brilliance that will help to transform the Middle East and go a long way towards destroying the state sponsors of Islamo-fascist terrorism.

Mr Weller also makes an interesting confession here. He states that Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia could all have been said to be sponsors of Islamo-fascist terrorism. Yet he has also failed, despite repeated attempts by others and myself here, to say what should be done about this fact. My Weller seems to me to be advocating pacifism and defeatism in the face of countries that are carrying out a war against America through terrorist proxy groups. Iran has been engaged in this war against America since at least 1983, and since then Syria, Iraq, and elements at least within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have joined. What does Mr Weller think should be done about this? Does any country have the right to kidnap and kill American soldiers and citizens with impunity? It would seem that Mr Weller thinks they do. There is nothing conservative about such a stance.

“Since most paleos think Saddam was not a threat to the United States, why should they betray their commitment to an isolationist foreign policy in this case?”

The fault of paleos is in viewing Iraq in isolation. As I have said before, we are facing a network of countries and terrorist groups. All of these countries and groups need to be seen as a single threat against the U.S. The plaeos have chosen to ignore this threat and the network behind it because their rigid isolationist stance has blinded them to any possibility of America having to fight wars overseas. Many paleos believe that America should only fight defensive wars when America itself as a territory is directly attacked by an invading army. This suggests to me that paleos simply do not understand the nature of modern warfare. Invading America through conventional means is impossible. So any country or groups wanting to attack America are not going to send army divisions to invade. Instead they are going to attack Americans overseas, as in the multiple embassy bombings over the last twenty years, or they will attack America directly through terrorist means such as 911. This form of warfare is known as asymmetric war. Syria, Iran, the former Iraq, and elements within Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and Pakistan are currently waging such a war against the U.S, largely through proxy terrorist organizations such as HAMAS, Al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiya and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is what paleoconservatives fail to grasp. We are at war, and a large, fanatical and well funded Army is being fielded against us, and in the last twenty years it has killed close to five thousand Americans, bombed several of our embassies, bombed a Marines barracks killing over two hundred Marines in the process, highjacked numerous aircraft, crashed one deliberately into Scotland, attacked and nearly sunk the USS Cole, and carried out the 911 atrocity. If paleos do not think we are at war, they are living in a fantasyland of their own making.

I have just finished reading Robert Baer’s disturbing account of his twenty yeras in the CIA. He details the reality of a network of Islamic terrorists and States carrying out an assymetric war against the U.S, reveals the very real links between Saddam Hussien and this network, and makes it clear that a pacifist and non-interventionist stance by successive U.S governments against these groups and States led directly to 911. How many more Americans have to die before the paleos wake up?

Thankfully, we now have a President who knows we are at war and is prepared to take action, however timid, against the Islamic threat.

Posted by: Shawn on June 16, 2003 06:45 PM
“Thankfully, we now have a President who knows we are at war and is prepared to take action, however timid, against the Islamic threat.”

‘timid’ did you say. tell us shawn, what does the bush need to do to remove ‘timid’ from a description of himself. don’t be shy, let’s here about the real blood and gore your heart desires.

afterall, in debate it’s best to know what the other parties really think, and ‘timid’ just doesn’t cut it as an explanation.

Abby asks:
“timid’ did you say. tell us shawn, what does the bush need to do to remove ‘timid’ from a description of himself. don’t be shy, let’s here about the real blood and gore your heart desires.”

I can’t speak for Shawn of course, but Bush could start by closing down Moslem immigration completely, aggressively deporting the illegals already here, and dramatically shortening the stay of those here legally for whatever complex of reasons.

I think Bush is way too timid to do anything like that though.

I believe we’ve reached the apogee in this debate where the neocons are in a state of extreme desperation and are throwing everything except the kitchen sink at critics of the war.

First to the lineup is Matt who writes, “Mr. Weller seems to think that he ought to be able to isolate every word of a justification, and that if every word by itself is not a stand-alone sufficient justification then there is no justification. That is postmodern liberal deconstruction at its best, brought to you by the paleo right.”

Is Matt trying to set a trend with this statement? Since Paleos have been outfront in highlighting the Trotskyite and Straussian backgroud of many leading Neoconservatives, is Matt trying to plant the idea that Paleoconservatives are secret followers of Michel Foucault?

But despite what Matt intimates there is not a secret occult war between the followers of Foucault and the followers of Trotsky, but between a conservative movement that wishes to preserve something of the Old Republic, and those who wish to turn America into an empire. Matt can vent all he wishes but the “justifications” he catalogues were not casus belli for the war. Just ask Auster. He was quite clear that the “decisive” reason for the war was Saddam’s possession of WMD, not “connections” with “Islamo-fascists”, a purported assassination attempt on Bush I etc. If it turns out Saddam was not stockpiling large quantites of WMD the justification for the war will be groundless, both morally and legally.

Matt writes, “For myself, I haven’t said anything remotely like that. I’ve said that the difference between going to war with Iraq and not was a legitimate prudential judgement call, and that paleo attempts to paint it as a dishonest moral outrage don’t hold up and indeed follow the usual liberal pattern of attempting to undermine the basic legitimacy of authority.”

Well, I was originally addressing Auster, and in particular, why he thinks the Paleoconservative commitment to an isolationist foreign policy did not put them in league with leftists during the Serbian war, but does in this war. So far Auster has not provided any clarification. Unless he can offer some explanation, all his name-calling is meaningless.

Matt writes, “It is perfectly legitimate to assert that it was poor policy or a bad judgement call to go to war with Iraq.”

I agree. That is exactly what I’ve been saying.

He continues, “That is certainly arguable, and indeed only time will tell. It is not legitimate to adopt a leftist stance against the moral legitimacy of the war and the legitimate authority to prosecute it.”

I don’t have a single leftist bone in my body, so I surely have not adopted a leftist perspective.

Auster unleashes his wit: “Exactly.” Why so wordy? Why so verbose?

The pro-war partisans have not been able to offer any sound reason for war apart from lies, propaganda, and wild conjecture. If a war against Saddam — or the whole Middle East as Shawn seems to desire — were really in the national interests, why did this Administration have to lie so often? Are the facts of the situation not sufficient to persuade Americans to go to war?

Shawn rambles off a laundry list of Muslim aggression againt the United States and other western nations. How much of this is attributable to our foreign policy in the Middle East? Putting American infidels in Saudi Arabia was a great recruiting advertisement for Al-Qaida. Our support for Israel also inflames Muslim passions. Muslim fanaticism does not grow in a vacuum and American foreign policy has been a tempting provocateur.

Mr. Weller writes:
“I don’t have a single leftist bone in my body, so I surely have not adopted a leftist perspective.”

Is this the “I don’t like liberals therefore I can’t be one” defense? I suppose that approach does rule out repentance for Mr. Weller. He seems to think it also provides him with license to engage in postmodern deconstruction while claiming that he is not.

Its too bad the approach is so transparent. If it weren’t then someone might actually be fooled by it and not notice that Mr. Weller didn’t actually address the criticism at all.

Heaven only knows what Mr. Weller means by the Old Republic, but if he intends to imply that America didn’t have an ounce of liberalism in it to start with but was later corrupted by liberalism, then he is indeed a form of liberal himself.

Mr. Kalb has written on this here:
http://jkalb.freeshell.org/texts/american_tradition.html

The following raises an interesting question:
“Are the facts of the situation not sufficient to persuade Americans to go to war?”

A Christian traditionalist believes that it is God, not some narcissistic voting public composed of free and equal supermen, who places men in positions of power (or allows them to be so placed).

Suppose (heaven forbid!) God were to place me in a position of authority, as say the commander in chief of the armed forces of the USA. Suppose further that there was a course of action that was unequivocally, clearly, objectively right and morally necessary. Suppose further that I knew without question that the modern narcissistic American public was too stupid and liberal (but I repeat myself) to comprehend our national duty.

What then would be my personal duty before God?

“timid’ did you say. tell us shawn, what does the bush need to do to remove ‘timid’ from a description of himself.”

Abandon the so-called “peace process” with the “palestinians”.

Adopt an immigration reform policy that includes a 10 year moratorium on all immigration and a permanent ban on Muslim immigration from any country.

As to blood and gore, I do not desire any such thing, I want peace. But what you fail to grasp is that the Muslims do not, and the truth is that we are at war. Not just America, but the entire West is at war with Islam. As far as blood and gore is concerned, there was plenty of that on 911, remember?

“Heaven only knows what Mr. Weller means by the Old Republic…”

It doesn’t have anything to do with the coronation of Bill Kristol as Caesar.

Mr Weller writes:

“Shawn rambles off a laundry list of Muslim aggression against the United States and other western nations. How much of this is attributable to our foreign policy in the Middle East? Putting American infidels in Saudi Arabia was a great recruiting advertisement for Al-Qaeda. Our support for Israel also inflames Muslim passions. Muslim fanaticism does not grow in a vacuum and American foreign policy has been a tempting provocateur.”

First let me say that I am not a neoconservative. I was for ten years a supporter of Patrick Buchanan, and I remain committed to America First policies on economic and immigration issues.

I also reject the neoconservative ideology of America as a global policeman for the U.N, and the notions of global democratic imperialism.

But in many respects both paleoconservatives and neoconservatives are two sides of the same coin. Both have become unbalanced in their policies, a result of the split in American conservatism that is damaging the movement.

Paleocons want extreme and rigid isolationism, which is totally unrealistic. Neocons want a global American empire, which is also unrealistic. BOTH of these policies would lead to the destruction of the Old Republic that Mr Weller claims to want to preserve.

A balanced defence and foreign policy must serve the interests of America alone, not the U.N, but it must take seriously the fact that we face real threats, and that those threats mean we will sometimes have to take military action overseas to deal with them.

Both strict isolationism and “democratic” U.N imperialism are wrong.

As to the substance of Mr Weller’s comments above, he trots out the usual claims about American foreign policy being to blame. It may well be that aspects of our policy have not served out interests (though our support for Israel does), but even if America had followed a strict isolationism for the past one hundred years, the fact is that we would STILL be a target for Islam. Mr Weller ignores the centuries of Islamic hatred for the West, and Islam’s repeated attempts to invade Europe. He ignores the imperialist and expansionist nature of Islam and its idea of the unity of Mosque and State, not to mention its belief in and historical practice of Jihad as a primary means of Islamic expansion.

Paleocons are right about the civilisational unity of the Christian West, and the need to preserve that civilisation. But they seem unable to articulate a serious response (beyond immigration reform) to Islamic imperialism, and the intent of Islam to destroy the West and forcibly convert our people.

A few years ago I saw a BBC interview with one of the leaders of HAMAS. At one point he was asked the question “Is the final goal of HAMAS the destruction of Israel?”, to which he replied “No”. “Then what is?” asked the interviewer, to which the HAMAS leader replied, “To see the flag of Islam raised in every country on earth”.

Muslim clerics in Britain, the U.S, and around the world are on record as saying that all people must convert to Islam or be killed.

Does anyone seriously think that changing our foreign policy is going to make a bit of difference to Muslim imperialists?

If anything, an isolationist policy that abandoned Israel would only embolden Muslims to wage Jihad against us with renewed vigour, as our cowardice would convince them of our weakness.

“I can’t speak for Shawn of course, but Bush could start by closing down Moslem immigration completely, aggressively deporting the illegals already here, and dramatically shortening the stay of those here legally for whatever complex of reasons.” — Matt (June 16th, 10:13 PM)

“Adopt an immigration reform policy that includes a 10 year moratorium on all immigration and a permanent ban on Muslim immigration from any country.” — Shawn (June 16th, 11:24 PM)

We’ve got a good crew here at VFR … a good crew. I’m PROUD of you guys!!! (If there’s anybody from the Bush administration browsing the site, I hope you’re taking notes!)