The Ignorance of Some So-called "Conservatives"

[Bono]

On amazon.com, I was reading the costumer reviews on Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong, and I got astonished at some comments of so called conservatives. Here are some exapmles:

Now Mr. Buchanan has chosen to write a "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" diatribe against the "Neo-Conservative" advisers to both President Reagan and the current President Bush. He has all but called them acolytes of Ariel Sharon, and things worse. Buchanan has always been regarded as a "conspiracy theorist" but now has chosen to march in goosestep with Israel-bashers, and may I dare add, America-haters like Robert KKK Byrd, Howard Dean, Michael Moore and George Soros. Or the myriads of those in groups like MoveOn, International Solidarity, ANSWER, and other fringe groups on the left side of the Democratic Party camp.

Never mind that this effectively takes Mr. Buchanan out of the Conservative camp, nor never mind that Mr. Buchanan in his myopic hatred of Neo-Cons seems to have forgotten that they, i.e., Jeane Kilpatrick, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, and others not were in the forefront of those who stood up to the appeasement and disarmament policies of Jimmy Carter early on (Jay Winik has written a superb book about them) they also not only let "Reagan be Reagan" much more effectively than Patrick J. ever did, but they have done a superb job (unless you subscribe to Patrick J. - or John Kerry's worldview) in advising President Bush in the war on terrorism. Sure, they regard Israel as a vital ally in the war against terror - who in their right mind wouldn't???

This book is a nothing more than a sad, mean rant. It is a choppy read, an isolationist tome, like most of Patrick J.'s other works, and a diatribe against Jewish Conservative Republicans. Patrick doesn't deserve a Conservative audience anymore - he belongs with Mikey Moore and the weirdos of moveon.org

or this

In conclusion, one might say that Pat Buchanan is to the left as Christopher Hitchens or Zell Miller are to the right. All have essentially become apostates to the causes they claim or once claimed to support. Buchanan's views also seem to be more in line with the current policies of Democrats than Republicans, and one wonders whether this is a recent discrepancy, as Buchanan claims, or a more long-term one.

Frankly, I can't stand people who think conservatism is all about wars(nothing to you, John Ford, you allready said you were not a conservative ). Maybe they should read a little more about origins of their own ideology before opening their yack!

[AuH2O]

What losers.

Btw, NeoCons were not super influential in the Reagan admin. W's admin is the first where they assumed power-- and after their incorrect assessment of Iraq they are slowly being removed.

Buchanan is a conservative- a real one.

[elcorazon]

what do you mean "some"?

[The Duke]

What losers.

Btw, NeoCons were not super influential in the Reagan admin. W's admin is the first where they assumed power-- and after their incorrect assessment of Iraq they are slowly being removed.

Really?  Neocons not important in the Reagan administration?

Jeanne Kirkpatrick was UN Ambassador from 1981-1985.

Eliot Abrams was Under Secretary of State for Intra-American Affairs from 1981-1989.

Paul Woflowitz was on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff from 1981-1982, was Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 1982-1986, and US Ambassador to Indonesia from 1986-1989.

Richard Perle was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy from 1981-1987.

Frank Gaffney was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy from 1983-1987 and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy from 1987-1989.

Ken Adelman was Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 2983-1986 and was UN Ambassador from 1986 to 1989.

I'm sure there are more, but why bother.  My point is made.

[Defarge]

Both sides have their crazies and their fools.  In the end, what can you do?

[Gabu]

Both sides have their crazies and their fools.  In the end, what can you do?

Well, many people opt to claim that their side is perfect and that the other side is a completely homogeneous and evil group, so I suppose that's one thing you can do.

[dazzleman]

I'm surprised to see the support for Patrick Buchanan here.

I decided some time ago that Buchanan was more a liability than an asset to the true conservative cause.  It's not a right-left thing, but he has espoused an isolationist foreign policy with an anti-Semitic twist of blaming Israel for things the US does in what it perceives to be its own interest.

He opposed the 1991 Gulf War, and said we did it to help Israel.  We did it to keep Saddam Hussein from controlling 40% of the world's oil, something that would have been devastating economically and in other ways.  Buchanan's inability to see the danger of this puts him in the same league with the Democrats.

Conservatism is not about war, but it is about maintaining the level of strength necessary, and the willingness to use that strength judiciously, in order to maintain our freedom in a world where people oppose our ideas and way of life.

On foreign policy, Buchanan essentially thinks like a liberal - that there are no real threats to our security, and any that there are of our own making.  This is a very comforting thing to believe, because it implies that if only we change our policies, stop supporting Israel, etc, those who hate us will start loving us, or at least no longer care about us enough to want to commit suicide to harm us.  I wish I could believe this line of reasoning - but I can't.

Buchanan is essentially a pre-World War II isolationist in a world in which crazed Muslim terrorists are developing the ability to make or purchase nuclear bombs, and he basically advocates that we either put our heads in the sand, or accomodate these people.  There were people who argued the same thing vis-a-vis Hitler - that we learn to live with him, that he wouldn't bother us if we didn't bother him.  Of course, the Dutch, Belgians, Danes, Czechs, and a whole line of people believed this, to their everlasting regret.

Buchanan is one of those people who would have counseled accomodation with Hitler.  In fact, he still argues that we didn't really need to fight Hitler, that we could have somehow coexisted in a world with Hitler controlling Europe and much of Asia.  That judgment alone, made with the hindsight of history and the benefit of information even more horrible than was generally known during World War II, calls heavily into question his judgment on today's issues.

[badnarikin04]

I totally hate neo-cons. They don't even deserve a name that respectful. "Liars" is a more fitting term.