Monthly Archives: March 2009

More Neocon lovin’ for CIC Obama

This love affair has been blossoming ever since Obama wooed the pro-war, any war crowd with prospects of more of the chest-thumping, second-hand thrills of overseas conquests that W had given them. But Obama’s latest moves in Afghanistan have made them positively giddy.

Here’s David Horowitz ordering war supporters to tone down their criticism of Obama’s domestic Big-Government agenda:

Even as astute a conservative thinker as Mark Steyn has been swept up in the tide that thinks Obama is a “transformative” radical. But look again at his approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, as noted, he is carrying out the Bush policies – the same that he once joined his fellow Democrats in condemning. And that should be reassuring to anyone concerned about where he is heading as commander-in-chief.

After all, what’s a little socialism among fellow war supporters?

But for sheer bloodlust masquerading as patriotism, you can’t beat this post entitled, “Obama’s Neoconservative Pragmatism”:

Of course, “losertarians” like Justin Raimondo have made common cause the leading factions of the neo-Stalinist left, and here we have Daniel Larison excoriating the Iraq deployment as “folly,” as if U.S. forces under General David Petraeus had not engineered the greatest military/strategic turnaround since World War II. And this is after even some of the most hardline “paleos” have conceded to reality in acknowledging the magnitude of the American victory.

Holy cow, where to start? This kind of happy war talk warps right past “willful suspension of disbelief” into the realm of the hallucinatory.

First, what military masterminds are calling the Iraq timebomb a victory on the scale of WWII? I may not be an historian, but I do know the Allies didn’t win by paying off Nazi war leaders and allowing them to organize their own militias, which is what’s behind the momentary lull in Iraq’s Sunni-Shiite civil war.

But then, what else can we expect from a blogger who believes the Battle of Kasserine Pass was an Allied victory over the Axis?  Is it possible an alleged Neocon has never watched “Patton”?

And those “hardline ‘paleos’” he claims have conceded to the magnificent victory in Iraq are not paleoconservatives, but libertarians who acknowledged the lull in Iraqi violence. But there’s an even deeper problem with that statement: there’s no such concession of victory. One of the libertarians cited, Thomas Knapp, even demanded this of the author in the comments: “I would appreciate that your lie either be redacted or corrected.”

But that ain’t gonna happen. In the phantasmagoric world of the vicarious warrior, sweet victory shines bright upon every display of Imperial power. Can’t you see how that luster reflects the goodness of those who cheer it on? Of course you can.

Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials

This reminds me of what mathematician James Roy Newman warned about the Law of Large Numbers: “The fact is, it is a nest of subtleties and traps; the harder one thinks about it, the more one grows uneasy.” Yes, it would be fine and fitting that Bush & Co. should be prosecuted for the whole “War on Terror” nightmare, from launching a war of aggression against Iraq based on lies, to undermining the Bill of Rights, and to their authorization of torture. And how delicious it would be to see John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Doug Feith doing the perp walk and sweating it out in court. But this just isn’t worth it:

A high-level Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, on whether they violated international law by providing a legalistic framework to justify the use of torture of American prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

I feel the same about this as I do the Federal Marriage Amendment, or various Federal measures to protect gun rights: it’s the wrong way to go about it. In fact, the notion of relying on “international law” to prosecute American officials has the same bad smell as the proposal to use the Federal government to advance any item on the “conservative” agenda, because the means will ultimately undermine the end. Just as increasing DC’s power over the States will only diminish liberty in the long run, relying on international bodies to do the jobs Americans won’t do will further erode the entire idea of national sovereignty, which is already weakened to the point of tottering.

That’s a trap we should have the wits to avoid.

Meghan McCain is Really Starting to Get on My Nerves!

Good looks will only get you so far. My willingness to tolerate the McCain daughter’s shallowness based on my own shallowness is just about exhausted.

Now she has gone on Larry King and played into the hands of the liberal media and the Dems who have been shamefully demagogueing Limbaugh’s “I want Obama to fail” line. Laura Ingraham was right. Meghan really is the left’s “useful idiot.”

Meghan is her father’s child. He was never comfortable with conservatives or conservatism unless it had to do with bombing Arabs. And she is the same. Her identification with the Republican Party is obviously hurting her social status with her young hip friends, so she is joining the ranks of the snobocons whose sole purpose appears to be to shriek “Eww … gross” anytime any of us icky conservatives open our mouth.

Meghan complained that the campaign negatively impacted her social life. Well I’ve got a suggestion for her for a real night of fun. She should get together with fellow snobocons David Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley, and Jeffery Hart and they could take turns looking down their noses at us little people. It would be so much fun and also a convenient way to avoid the heavy lifting of … oh I don’t know … actually conserving something.

Our next debacle

The pro-war, any war crowd just can’t wait for more chest-thumpin’ fun! Arthur Borden, the author of “A Better Country: Why America Was Right to Confront Iraq,” rallies the laptop bombardiers and other Neocon faithful with this other-worldly, damn-the-consequences war whoop:

President Bush was right to confront Iraq. While the decision to go to war is in the past and cannot be reversed, the emerging consensus that it was a mistake is not. Unless we can revisit the debate over the invasion, and comprehend President Bush’s reasons for removing Saddam Hussein, we will be unprepared to debate policy toward Iran – and potentially ill-equipped to prevent Tehran from achieving the regional domination through weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which we denied Baghdad.

In other words: Forget the lies that led us into a counter-productive, obscenely wasteful war, and let’s get on with the next one!

I am moved to verse:

Arthur Borden took an ax.
He chopped and trashed some awkward facts
That halted Dubya’s Mid-East plan
So Neocons can bomb Iran.

Once Catholic Notre Dame Invites Obama to Give Commencement Address

It is a real shame what has happened to Christian higher education in this country. So many once Christian schools have sold their soul for the sake of respectability within secularist academia. (See my comment in the thread.)

Notre Dame is just banging the final nail in the coffin. It long ago ceased to be a Catholic institution in any teaching sense. (It may still be in some cultural and institutional sense.) Inviting legalized baby killing and stem cell harvesting Obama to give their commencement address is a blatant affront. I don’t think Notre Dame necessarily needs to ensure that their commencement speaker agrees with ever facet of Catholic doctrine, but the symbolism of this is just so obvious and bad. It is one more instance of the further co-opting of nominal Christianity by the “religious left.” This is the same reason I opposed Obama’s invitation to speak at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. There is nothing wrong with dialogue per se, but it was another photo and press release opportunity that sent a horrible message.

And don’t think Obama doesn’t understand this. I am sure he got many commencement invites. By picking Notre Dame he is consciously sticking a thumb in the eye of an institution (the Catholic Church) that ought to be providing resistance to his transformative program.

Conservatives in Name Only … CINOs

Here is a good article by New York Post columnist Kyle Smith on media approved “conservatives.” I’m not that familiar with Smith, but since he writes for the New York Post he is probably a bit of a neocon.

One caveat regarding one of his comments: the Republican Party actually has become jingoistic with a few honorable exceptions such as Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan. But non-interventionism is on the upswing.

Seen at Wal-Mart …

Yesterday as I was leaving Wal-Mart I spotted a Black man wearing a t-shirt that said “My President is Black” surrounding a picture of Obama. While I think it is generally unhelpful for White people to play the morally superior color blind card, in this case it is instructive. Can you imagine the outrage if the election had gone differently and a White person wore a shirt with McCain and the words “My President is White?”

I don’t care if Black people are proud that the new President is black. Why shouldn’t they be? It is the hypocrisy and double standard that galls. Either what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander or it is sauce for neither. This is the insidious way anti-racist Cultural Marxism works. What for others is taken for granted (racial and ethnic pride) is villified as the worst possible sin for Whites.

P.S. This is not an invitation for a Captainchaos rant.

Editor’s Note: Comments closed.

Meghan McCain Attacks Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham Fires Back

Have you been following this story?

McCain fired the first shot at Coulter here. Calling her extreme among other things.

Then Ingraham responded calling McCain a “useful idiot.”

Now I think Ingraham’s snarky weight remark was out of line, as I think criticisms of Rush’s weight are also, but she is absolutely right that McCain is a useful idiot. The liberal MSM loves it when “conservatives” call other conservatives extreme.

As I have previously confessed, I still find the young Miss McCain quite lovely. But she needs to wise up. She is only getting her post election 15 minutes because she is bashing conservatives.

Second Thoughts About Governor Sanford

Sanford’s become popular lately (e.g. Dougherty’s recent TAC article), and the man is principled, but I want to point out some important flaws.

Sanford:

- is a huge fan of arch-globalist Thomas Friedman. Dougherty mentions that Sanford “somberly quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek” and later that “[h]e draws lessons from Ayn Rand’s work”. None of these thinkers are conservative.

- supported Graham recently in his US Senate reelection (not Conley or Witherspoon) and McCain’s Presidential campaign in 2000.

- received a D+ from numbersusa (on immigration) when in the US House.

- voted against withdrawing from the WTO and in favour of fast track.

I realise  the governor looks great next to Obama, but let’s not get carried away. Dougherty writes, “Sanford seems incapable of playing a red-meat populist like Sarah Palin”. That’s because he isn’t a populist.

It’s “racist” to oppose Afghan war

The latest example of how the all-purpose condemnation of “racism” can be applied to any act or policy the speaker dislikes is a real doozy. Afghanistan’s ambassador doesn’t like what he sees in his backyard, as resistance to the US-led invasion stiffens and NATO resolve withers. Poor fellow could end up picking poppies (or worse!) if the NATO-installed puppet government he works for can’t hold on to power. And without popular support, the Afghan puppet government can’t stand on its own, so it must have more NATO troops to prop it up. To spur NATO forces to action, the Afghan ambassador accuses them of the most unforgivable shortcoming of New-Age Western man:

Afghanistan’s ambassador to the United States attacked Western governments fighting in and providing billions in aid to his country, saying that those who claim the international community is not winning the war against extremists there “should know that they never fully tried.”

“We never asked to be the 51st state,” Ambassador Said T. Jawad said, a reference to a suggestion last month by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) that the United States should concentrate on “realistic goals” and its “original mission” of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.

“To suggest that Afghans do not deserve peace, pluralism and human rights is wrong and racist,” Jawad said.

The notion that opposing a US-led invasion is “racist” is nothing new. Condi Rice once judged critics of the Neocon fantasy of reconstructing Iraq into a Jeffersonian republic as “racist.” But now that idea is being used to control us.

DC projects a self-image to the rest of the world as the purest, most secularly sacred force for doing good on the planet. So any criticism of its actions, or any limitation on its power, is wrong-headed, retrograde, or just plain evil. It’s a reputation than can intimidate critics both domestic and foreign. But that reputation can be turned on its owner to manipulate him, too, as the esteemed and increasingly nervous Afghan ambassador illustrates.

The Coming Evangelical Collapse

According to The Christian Science Monitor, Rick Warren’s prayer at Obama’s inauguration is a sign of things to come.

I’m not sure about Spencer’s claim that “evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues was “a mistake”, exactly, but I would agree about the danger of  ”believing in a cause more than a faith.”

It seems to me that the problem with the American expression of Christianity is that very few even attempt to develop a cohesive and far-reaching Christian worldview.   People embrace the cognitive dissonance of professing Christianity on Sunday while living by the creeds of democratic capitalism & Americanism the other six days of the week. 

A Christian vision has to have more implications and mean more than just frowning on gay marriage, abortion, and cussin’ & drinkin’.

Can’t Get Enough Frum vs. Limbaugh

Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried comment on the affair at TakiMag.

Gottfried says this:

Still and all, Frumbag does not wield the kind of influence that Rush does at the present time; and his efforts to ingratiate himself with the Obamaites, which have been going on for months, look like acts of desperation. As a neocon and GOP frontman, Rush is the more formidable personality, and the fact that NR has rallied to him against their longtime hitman indicates who is our more powerful enemy on the bogus right.

I agree that Rush is the more formidable personality, but the problem here is that most people (the masses and the opinion makers) do not believe that Rush represents the bogus right. If anything they seem him as representing  the more doctrinaire right. So first it is necessary to make the case that Rush’s right is in fact bogus. By cheering on Rush’s downfall (which is not imminent anyway) we run the risk of discrediting conservatism as an idea even if we know Rushism very poorly represents it. Once we have made the case that Rush’s conservatism is bogus, then we can attempt to displace it. But hoping Rush becomes hated and toxic and the movement now called conservatism collapses so we can pick up the pieces is a very risky strategy. Isn’t it more likely that we will have a harder time selling our authentic brand of conservatism in a post conservative society than we do now where conservatism is tainted but still claimed by a plurality? Our audience needs to be that plurality.

Frum on the other hand is a malignant squish who is publicly disavowing conservatism from the center. Much better for him to get squashed.

Frum Attacks Limbaugh, NRO Attacks Frum

Frum is a slimy little character assasin. First he was a neocon smearing paleocons. Now he’s a moderate out to save the GOP from conservatives that he and his urban, elitist circle think are icky. None of this should shock his former colleagues at NRO.

I don’t have much use for Limbaugh, but my criticism is of course from the right, not the squishy center.

HT: Tom Piatak