Wednesday, September 28, 2005

The Conservative Debate on Iraq

David Frum, who is as responsible for the American lives and money lost in Iraq as anyone but the President, reviews The Right War? The Conservative Debate on Iraq in the WSJ here.

The divisions [within conservative circles] haven't healed since [Brent Scowcroft first opposed the Iraq war]. Lining up behind Gen. Scowcroft is a battalion of former ambassadors and uniformed military men, of Republican lobbyists and business executives. And cheering them on is a small but noisy coterie of neoisolationist writers who have effectively depicted George W. Bush's foreign policy as the work of a cabal of secretive "neoconservatives." [Yup]

But Frum, not able to argue on the merits, has to play the anti-Semite card.

Omit the accusations that the war was a Jewish plot foisted on a stupid president by scheming neoconservatives and you omit something important about the mental atmosphere in which the intramural conservative debate over Iraq has been conducted. The article by Mr. Buchanan that appears in "The Right War?" is a relatively anodyne one. But he also wrote this, in the March 23, 2003, issue of the American Conservative: "Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud." This line of thinking can be found only a little way below the surface among some of the most respectable war opponents.

It is perfectly respectable to claim some people had the interests of another nation in mind when they acted, if you can back those statements up with evidence. This has been done on this blog and elsewhere.

Individuals can and do have interests outside the United States. They can act on them and we may document and comment on those actions and biases.

The line is crossed only when accusation are made "the war was fought for the Jews", or "the Jews are not loyal to America." Frum desperately wants someone to make such a claim, but it is just not there.

Steve Sailer also exposes other misleading statements made by Frum in the review:

As a regular contributor to The American Conservative magazine, I'd [Steve Sailer] like to point out that I strongly advocated America's war on the Taliban, but was highly skeptical of the ill-considered Iraq adventure that Mr. Frum whooped for so ferociously.


Why does anyone still pay David Frum money for his opinions? How much harm can one man do to America, to the Republican Party, and to the Conservative movement and still have people listen to him?



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Sept. 27
Halpern to chair public broadcasting
A former chairwoman of the Republican Jewish Coalition was chosen to lead the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Cheryl Halpern was elected by the corporation’s board Monday to replace Kenneth Tomlinson, whose term as chair expired.

As a board member, Halpern has been critical of Middle East reporting by National Public Radio, which the board oversees. “We have a duty to provide the public an explanation for the kind of work we do,” Halpern said in Washington after being elected. “And we must honor the principles clearly stated in our charter, to encourage objective and balanced programming.”

Halpern is a New Jersey attorney and real estate developer, and is an influential Republican donor. In addition to the RJC, she is active with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Anti-Defamation League.

Note her Jewish activist credentials and her concern with "objective and balanced programming" on the Middle East.

9/28/2005 07:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home