|
|||||||||
Posted November 15, 2002
How Did They Pass Security?
Regarding "He's Alive!" by Justin Raimondo:
Homerun, Justin. Homerun.
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney & Co., boxcutters in hand, have hijacked the United States, steering it maniacally towards a suicidal collision with the monolithic Middle East. A nation of suicide martyrs for a Greater Israel.
The only thing that angers me more is the thought of Osama's smile while he watches it all on CNN. A patriotism that runs deeper than Ari Fleisher and Saving Private Ryan will do that to you.
Canada Insult
Regarding "Jonah Goldberg, Bottom Feeder" by Justin Raimondo:
Justin Raimondo should not be so dismissive of Pat Buchanan's insult aimed at Canada. So we're "only a bunch of Canadians," and "touchy northern neighbours," eh? Raimondo's defense of his buddy ... on the grounds that some other pundit is out to smear the old Reaganite warmonger, is just a touch ironic. The man insulted Canada in one grandiose derogatory phrase ("Soviet Canuckistan"), based on myths, half-truths and establishment lies. He oozes with the typical hubris we've come to expect from south of the border.
Ironically, statements such as his only serve to solidify a very common stereotype that most Canadians have about Americans (and what of the rest of the world?, God only knows what they may think of you!). Namely, it seems that Americans, straight across the political spectrum including many antiwar folks appear ... self-serving, arrogant, insular, insensitive, ignorant ... (much like the foreign policy of the War Party that you so despise).
And speaking of The National Review (your now conservative arch enemy) note the current issue and its satirical cover story, which calls for an American invasion of Canada apparently because we are "wimps" and have no right to "lecture" to Americans about how to behave in the world. Buchanan's sentiments too, perhaps?
It is hard to see how ignoring Buchanan's insult, while endlessly droning on about other blogheads is the type of column that best serves the antiwar coalition at home or outside the US. Is this where Raimondo has decided to place the lion's share of his considerable writing talent and (when focused) his insightful analysis, and valuable critiques? Lets hope not!
Justin Raimondo replies:
Pat – a "Reaganite warmonger"? The meaning of "Reaganism" in 2002 seems vague, at best, and as for being a "warmonger" – I don’t think so, dude! If Pat writes any more articles opposing the proposed invasion of Iraq and a Pax Americana in the Middle East, he’s going to go down in history along with Norman Thomas and Dorothy Day as America’s number one opponent of war.
On the "Soviet Canuckistan" remark: maybe you guys need to be a little more careful whom you give "asylum" to. Pat is right that Canada has become a haven for Islamo-terrorists, as well as the World Capital of Political Correctness. Terrorism is indeed a threat to America: which is why we shouldn’t be invading other countries, but protecting our own.
As for being "self-serving, arrogant, insular, insensitive, [and] ignorant" – Pat is certainly not ignorant. But I’ll plead guilty to the rest: what’s wrong with insularity? We could use a little more of it, given the predilection of our anti-isolationists to be "expansive" and "international-minded" at the expense of the rest of the world. Insensitive? Tough. The world’s a hard, mean place, and if Canada is going to harbor every Tom, Dick, and Abdul who claims "persecution," then Canadians are just going to have to live with the consequences – but why or why should we?
No, I don’t want to invade Canada, not even in jest: but it does seem to me that the Canadian government is not one to lecture anybody, since they were in the forefront of the international campaign to invade and subjugate the Balkans on behalf of the Kosovo "Liberation" Army.
And, hey, I write a column three days a week: not every column can be a sober analysis of foreign policy and a model of profundity. Besides, I just couldn’t resist the headline, which I wrote the column around: "Jonah Goldberg, Bottom Feeder"! Cut me some slack, my friend – I have to have fun sometimes.
Kirk
Regarding "Against 'Democratic' Imperialism" [Spotlight editorial on November 11, 2002, originally titled "Prospects For Conservatives Part I: Prospects Abroad"]:
While it appears Russell Kirk was against "Democratic" imperialism, he was wholeheartedly in favor of "Republican" imperialism. The selective quotes of Kirk in Justin Raimondo's article about Jonah Goldberg left me with the impression that Kirk was a principled anti-interventionist. However, upon reading the entire text of his Heritage lecture one can see the image of a Republican apologist who cheered on the Grenada and Libyan slaughters as well as the entire interventionism of 20th century Republican Presidents because they were supposedly "conservative" adventures and not the "liberal" adventures of the "democratic" imperialists.
Upon reading this lecture by Kirk, one is left dumbfounded by the incredible naïveté of a purportedly great political mind:
"I have been suggesting, ladies and gentlemen, that a soundly conservative foreign policy in the age which is dawning should be neither 'interventionist' nor 'isolationist'; it should be prudent."
Perhaps this is where Bush the Elder lifted the description for his "prudent" foreign policy. Substitute "Republican" for "prudent" and you have Kirk's analysis in a nutshell. Only a state apologist can equate invading foreign countries and assassinating foreign heads of state as noninterventionist. Kirk's chimerical prudent foreign policy was nothing but a blank check for future dictators like the present W to impose his own idea of Kirk's "true national interest." For just as Ludwig von Mises so presciently observed that in the economic sphere that there is no middle ground between socialism and free enterprise, in the political sphere there is no middle ground between interventionism and isolationism. Interventionism cannot be non-interventionism. "True national interest" and "prudent" foreign policy are decided by the self-interests of the current rulers. Those interests generally coincide with interventionism overseas which is incompatible with freedom at home. Which means that as long as the United States government continues to exist in its present centralized form interventionism will be the driving force of its foreign policy.
The Accommodating Foe
On Monday Bush came out beating the drum for Homeland Security. On Tuesday bin Laden comes out with threats. Have you ever viewed this feud as a puppet show, The son's of two rich men glare at each other and hiss and spit.
One calls for destruction, and one for security. The sum of their activities pushing us all in one stupid direction.
Assassination in the Desert
We were able to see on the news the other day how a nonpiloted CIA plane fired a Hellfire laser guided missile that hit the car in which (according to what the official reports say) a top Al-Qaeda man was riding, of course, ending his life.
Soon, of course, we witnessed the outrage of some politicians, talking heads, specialists, etc., about this, basically speaking, assassination.
All that gave me the impression that for those people is morally more acceptable to bomb a country to ashes, killing thousands of innocent civilians; or imposing economic sanctions with the same result, than to kill a single man in the middle of the desert.
What is wrong with this picture?
I totally disagree with either of the methods, I think both are acts of terrorism and cowardice; yet, if you gave me to choose between one or the other, I would certainly prefer the assassination.
The American Dream
I watched General T. Franks, yesterday, in his Palm Beach speech. It was noteworthy that he repeated the phrase "the American dream" numerous times and used it as the primary justification for the impending war with Iraq.
Was he referring to the same dream that our founding fathers had? Or, was he referring to the current American mindset that has semi-intoxicated morons sitting in front of TV sets , lapping up most of the pap that spews forth, while they gladly give significant portions of their earnings to a corrupt government?
Want War?
With congressional approval to conduct war against Iraq one hopes President Bush ponders the dehumanizing wretchedness of combat before he casts aside other options and starts a war with uncertain and frightening possibilities.
Politicians and pundits (most not tempered by the searing experience of combat) offer numerous reasons/justifications for going to war against Saddam. Does their charge that a questionable “possible/potential” threat 6,000 miles away justify war and the significant U.S. foreign policy change of legalizing preemptive strikes against a sovereign nation?
There is nothing romantic or noble about war. While reality may ruin your “have a nice day” attitude, know the face of combat is gruesome, appalling and people die, not with poise and dignity but panicked, arms flapping and blood spewing.
Consider a young soldier trying to hold back the flow of blood from a gaping chest wound, panicked eyes pleading to be assured he will not die.
Consider terrified children, wide-eyed and screaming as death rains down around them. This is reality, Mr. President. The flippant explanation of “collateral damage“ will no longer be accepted.
There are legitimate reasons to go to war and, when confronted with national crisis, Americans will respond. But is the current situation a national crisis? Can desired results be achieved in other ways? What about unintended consequences, such as payback? How will history view our actions? Consider carefully Mr. President.
~ William T Corbett, Hampton, Virginia
The Clock is Ticking
Funny how in Europe, "virulent opposition to any US attack on Iraq proved the dominant theme, with anti-war slogans drowning out all other issues at the rally." Americans have to do the same, not because other issues are unimportant but because the clock is now ticking away awfully fast.
It is too depressing a thought, that Mesopotamia, the Cradle of Civilization, might soon be annihilated by a very bold bunch of savages. And for what?
~ MC