SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: FaultLine who started this subject3/24/2003 5:19:11 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (5) of 281500
 
A part of the sideshow of this invasion has been the willingness of some further right wing folk to call protestors, those on the left, etc. unpatriotic. It's been ugly and not exactly unexpected. But the hysteria, I can't think of a better word, seems to have grown beyond even those unreasonable boundaries. David Frum now says Novak and Buchanan "hate their country and wish to see it lose the war."

Novak takes exception.

When the shooting starts
March 24, 2003
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


suntimes.com

On the day after President Bush delivered his ultimatum, Patrick J. Buchanan stopped debating the war. The former presidential candidate and longtime adversary of the Bushes wrote that ''patriotism commands that when American soldiers face death in the battle, the American people unite behind them.'' On that very day, the country's foremost conservative publication listed Buchanan among ''leading figures in the anti-war movement [who] call themselves 'conservatives' '' but hate their country and want it to lose the war.

To my astonishment, I was among them. David Frum, a Washington journalist and White House speechwriter early in this Bush administration, put Buchanan and me on the top of the dishonor roll in ''Unpatriotic Conservatives: A War Against America,'' the cover story in the current edition of National Review.

We are accused of advocating ''a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.'' Concluding, he writes of us: ''[T]hey are thinking about defeat, and wishing for it, and they will take pleasure if it should happen. They began by hating the neo-conservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country.''

That demonstrably is not true of Pat Buchanan, and it is certainly not true of me. Anybody who makes a living by dispensing strong comment should be inured to attack, even when the accusations are totally false. During the nearly 40 years that I have been privileged to write this column, I have not subjected readers to my personal controversies. Now, however, I feel constrained to identify myself as a Korean War-vintage Army officer (non-combat) who has always supported our troops and prayed for their success during many wars. This war is no exception. Dealing with statements about me even so calumnious as Frum's might seem petty in time of war. But broader issues are at stake. Frum represents a body of conservative opinion that wants to delegitimize criticism from the right of policy that has led to war against Iraq.

Anti-war activity over the years has come mostly from the left. Those were not conservatives who shut down Times Square on Thursday. Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle went over the line last Monday when he blamed potential American deaths on Bush's failed diplomacy, but he had regrouped by week's end to promise support of ''our troops and our commander-in-chief.''

Like Buchanan, Daschle ended up following the old American custom of supporting the war once the shooting starts. 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.

Frum cannot find any such statements ever uttered by me. Nor can he find anything I ever have said to indicate hatred for George W. Bush, much less my country. His article cites four quotations from my columns, one reporting that congressional sources predicted the CIA would be unable to find Osama bin Laden, and the other three criticizing an overly close identification of U.S. policy with Israel (especially the Ariel Sharon government). Implicitly, that is unacceptable criticism from a conservative.

''[E]ven Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh ceased accommodating Axis aggression after Pearl Harbor,'' Frum writes. The implication: After 9/11, conservatives should have refrained from debating the Iraq strategy or questioning Israeli policy.

Nevertheless, Frum's mention of Lindbergh recalls the Lone Eagle's unhappy experience. Gulled by Hitler into regarding the Nazi thugs as saviors of Western civilization, Lindbergh was goaded by Franklin D. Roosevelt into resigning his colonel's commission in the Army Air Corps Reserve. Lindbergh sought active duty after Pearl Harbor but was blocked by a vindictive President Roosevelt. He managed to fly secret combat missions in the Pacific, however illegally, as a civilian. A newly naturalized American, Frum might ponder how Lindbergh handled himself once the shooting started.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext