The Rise of the Weak-on-Defense ConsFrom Eric Dondero:
It's not often that Lew Rockwell and David Frum are thought of in the same ideological grouping. But to pro-defensers they are essentially two sides of the same coin. They may start from entirely different areas of the spectrum, but they both end up in the same exact weak-on-defense side.
Chris Queen a national security conservative from Georgia has penned the First Top Ten List of Islamapologist Blogs at Newsreal.
Making the list are many Left Blogs such as HuffPo, Daily Kos, and CNN, of course. But Rockwell and Frum also make the list and are normally considered "Right."
Excerpts from Queen's descriptions of the Top Ten, in spot Number 3:
Sometimes Islamapologism doesn’t just come from the Left. You can even find it on the Right, believe it or not. One prime example can be found at FrumForum.Rockwell and Frum, little if any difference on Foreign Policy
Apparently for one of the site’s bloggers, “modernization and renewal” means sucking up to Islamists and defending their right to attempt to destroy us.
Frum actually refers to those expressing concern over [Grover Norquist friend and C-PAC board member] Suhail Khan as “(mis)representing some very minor personalities as central figures in a giant continuing conspiracy.” Frum intimates that Khan’s dangerous associations are nothing to be worried about. Yet the truth is, we simply cannot ignore what Frum sees as “minor.”
And in the Number 2 position...Possibly one of the most mystifying websites I’ve seen in a long time is the one run by anti-American libertarian Lew Rockwell.You have to wonder why Frum and Rockwell are even considered Right?
Scratch the surface (which is not-so-charmingly retro, looking like a relic from 1996), and you’ll discover a radical libertarian site with plenty of vitriol toward America’s defense, especially when it comes to radical Islam.
Justin Raimondo lashed out at conservatives for being intolerant toward those who are bent on destroying our freedom and our way of life:In more 9/11 anniversary news: a rally sponsored by the David Horowitz-affiliated “Jihad Watch,” in alliance with Pamela “Shrieking Harpy” Geller’s “Stop the Islamization of America” grouplet and the British neo-fascist “English Defense League,” attracted a few thousand wackos to a site a few blocks from Ground Zero, where uber-wacko Geert Wilders (Dutch neo-fascist and leading Islamophobe) made the case for banning Islam…Isn’t it comforting to know that there are people out there who think of those of us who don’t want to live under the thumb of Islam as “kooky”?
Wilders, Geller, and “Jihad Watch” anti-Islam guru Robert Spencer want to import Europe’s Muslim-hating racist fringe to America: their thesis is that Islam is not a religion, but a political conspiracy to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims. They raise the specter of an Islamic States of America, with American women draped in the chador and mandatory mosque attendance — a scenario that doesn’t even qualify as credible science fiction.
14 comments:
Lew Rockwell is a self-described anarchist, so in my book, that makes him a far-right wing radical. I find David Frum to be more of a moderate than an actual conservative.
We libertarians, who resist the war party are strong on defense. We believe our country needs to be defended from tyrants, domestic & foreign.
In resisting foreign tyranny we need the ability to repel invasion and have secure borders. Empire is anti-libertarian as it grants more authority and power to the state.
I know little of David Frum, for he was wrong about invading Iraq. I've known Lew Rockwell since 1977:he is obviously a libertarian and a man of the right.
your most faithful and obedient servant
Alan Turin
PS
Heard the Saudis sent tanks to Bahrain; that they're now getting demonstrations & Oman is doing the same. The American empire in the middle east is breaking up. Good.
ART
I'd put David Frum and Dondero in the same category: both are neocons.
Lew Rockwell is a more authentic libertarian than Dondero, for sure.
Raimondo is spot on about Geert Wilders, piece of shit.
Alan Turin, can you give us an example of a War that American fought that you supported?
240 years of US history. Surely, you could pick one or two?
Alan T. was WWII justified, or would you have favored letting the 6 million Jews die in Hitler's gas chambers without any American intervention?
To explain again: for libertarians wars to repel invasions and wars for independence are ok.
1. Our war of secession from England [1776-1781] is one.
2. For the south: their war to secede was also ok. The Union had no justifiable cause, for a libertarian, to prevent southern states from leaving the Union.
3. WWII, Japan attacked [not a sneak attack, FDR had the information in advance,] and then Germany declared war [probably why FDR leaked our war "rainbow" war plans the weekend before the attack on Pearl Harbor which he expected.
So, even though FDR was provoking war w/Japan & Germany [a method to end the depression his policies worsened], the war, once we were attacked, was justifiable.
Occupying Europe, south Korea, etc. for 50 years, not.
4. Retaliation against the Barbary Pirates & their successors [alkayda] in Afghanistan was justified, occupying the middle east, not.
5. Some of the punitive expedition against Pancho Villa in 1912 was justifiable [after the attack on the US in New Mexico]. Occupying & governing Mexico, clearly not.
6. So the wars of 1812, Mexico, the civil war [from the Union], Spanish American, Nicaraguan, Cuban, Haitian occupations, Phillipines "pacification," WWI, the provocations against Japan & Germany, Iraq, Haiti again, Panama, Iranian naval intervention: not justified.
Eric: none of this is hard to understand. Just read libertarians like Albert Jay Nock, Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Garet Garrett, Justin Raimondo, Roger MacBride, Robert Taft, Howard Buffett, Lou Bromfield, Frank Chodorov, etc.
First get Raimondo's excellent book, "Reclaiming the American Right" and you'll see the sources.
Also, don't forget, George Washington. I'm in his camp on foreign policy.
your most faithful and obedient servant
Alan Turin
Alan, don't be misguided by the Washington quote. When he said it, foreign policy consisted only Europe, and at the time, America was only an infant nation and not in any condition militarily to successfully wage a war with any of the European powers.
Umm, put aside the Pearl Harbor attack and the Germans declaring War on us two weeks later.
If that had never happened would you have been just fine with 6 million Jews being gassed in Hitler's gas chambers? Would you have said "none of our business"?
Take it one step further. It's doubtful the English could have held on alone. Perhaps? But doubtful.
Would you have been perfectly fine with the United Kingdom falling under the realm of Hitler and the Nazis?
Would you have said, "none of our business." Or, "not our fight"?
OF Course lofo would categorize frum and Dondero together - because A) frum and Dondero have absofuckinglutely nothing in common and B) because lofo hasn't a clue why. Dondero a "Neo-Conservative"?
As for frum, his parents were quasi-marxists, elitists and strong supporters of Canada's Left. I knew the lad as a Clarks-wearing snob at UTS. I have been reading his drivel for decades - and I have yet to be convinced that there is a single shred of American libertarian in his "conservatism." Like most "NeoCons" he seems at odds with the full-throated libertarianism of Reagan and Goldwater or Ayn Rand. The stumbling block seems to be that elitist habits don't comport well with first-principles Natural Rights.
As for Turin's rejection of adventurism, it makes sense on a simplistic, intellectual level. Eric's prodding is not to be dismissed: What the quasi-isolationists fail to understand is the nature of those who seek Power.
I do not appreciate the anarchists and Libertrians crashing our right-wing party. Its such a subversion of some foreign bookish intellectual abstraction. The only war i supported was the Revolution. Also i remember the Alamo. As for Korea and Vietnam - Communism was the wave of Asia and the West were its sympathizers. Perhaps right after WW2 China should have been the concern?
And you were for the return to colonial fealty in 1812 and you dug slavery so the Civil War was wrong? Shit, you are a cracker.
I had forgotten them for a time... The war of 1812--yes. The Civil War--no, because we'd be better off without them.
In response to you Eric, yes of course the US should not have interfered in Europe apart from Germany's attack.
Thanks to that intervention we opened central Europe to Stalin, who was far worse than Hitler.
The tendency is to assume a Nazi victory in Europe would have been a moral calamity. But what did we get w/the "V-E?"
1. Germany split & thus no counter-weight to the Soviets in central Europe for the next 50 years.
2. The travesty of the Nuremberg show trials. This was a corruption of the American legal order & liberty needs the protection of a society governed by the rule of law, not victors' "justice." Remember at Nuremberg we had Soviets judging Nazis for slave labor!
3. Occupation of Europe for now 62 years [since 1949]. This represents a distortion of our constitutional order.
4. Occupation by the Soviets of areas they'd never have been able to get to but for the USG.
So, absent the Nazi attack, a US war w/Germany in WWII was bad for America, bad for liberty.
your most faithful and obedient servant
Alan Turin
Alain:
You assume the Axis powers would have ben satisfied with leaving us alone...It is quite possible Patton was correct. He held no animosity towards the germans and wanted to unite them in a war against Russia. Unfortunately such talk was unpopular with Eisenhower and Patton died. The Russians were animals. Read about Erich Hartmann. As bad as some think the Germans were, the Russians were morally bankrupt. They still are.
Post a Comment