Oh, to be a gonzocon
Review online (NRO) become the National Backward Glance? Are
all the rah-rah
warmongers and Star
Trek fans on "The Corner" beginning to feel the breath of
history down the backs of their necks?
Or, to paraphrase Tolkien, is Smeagol
his nerve? Why, ragin' Rich Lowry has actually published an editorial suggesting
that America "negotiate with elements of the insurgency"!
What's that he said? "Negotiate with elements of the
insurgency"? Dudes, you're neocons! Are you having some kind of group panic
attack? If you negotiate with insurgents, doesn't that make you (gulp) – appeasers?
Rich sure used to think so!
"Appeaser" is an ugly word, one that the gonzocons
have been screaming at their enemies for the past three years like Donald Sutherland
at the end of Invasion of
the Body Snatchers. But is this new realism a sign of blossoming intellectual
maturity from the scribes of Gonzoconia, or are some of them trying to emulate
masters and re-write history?
Take David Frum, for instance. Apart from having a penchant
for ridiculous man-of-action poses,
Frum was the author of one of the most scurrilous of all ideological attacks
on neoconservatism's opponents, entitled "Unpatriotic
Conservatives," which NRO published on March 19, 2003.
What? The link's gone? Never mind, here
it is, reprinted at Moonbat Central. But what makes this puzzling is that
if one scrolls
down to NRO's archives for March 19, 2003, "Unpatriotic Conservatives"
is the only article from that day that is unavailable. One can almost imagine
the webmaster standing before William F. Buckley Jr., his head hanging in shame,
saying "Sorry, boss, one of our smear-jobs is missing," like Tattoo
in Fantasy Island.
It's also very, very strange that the one they're missing is probably the most
controversial piece the Web site has ever carried.
And in case rantin' Rich Lowry ever tries to paint himself
as a reasonable man, does (ahem) anyone remember that item he posted on "The
Corner" on March 7, 2002? You know, the one where he said that he was hearing
of sentiment for nuking Mecca"? The revelation that their editor, their
boy, fantasized about the mass murder of Muslims must really have sent the publishers
scurrying in search of their major advertisers. Hello, Mohammed? Hello? Yes,
it's Bill Buckley here. About what Rich just said about Mecca…
Man, don't you just love the smell of freshly raked muck!
Or the sound of skeletons rattling in cupboards! Lowry later really had to grovel,
get his nose down in the dirt, after the firestorm of protest that erupted
after his display of stupidity and crassness.
Is there anything else that might possibly be embarrassing
to future career or political prospects, the product of a moment's indiscretion
at the keyboard, lurking on "The Corner," archived away from public
view like Mrs.
Rochester? I mean, apart from John Derbyshire's fantasy about brutalizing
Ghraib inmates? If Derb were a comic book villain, he'd be called Volte
If the removal of Frum's article is deliberate, then the
editors and publishers of NRO have set out to try to deliberately mutilate and
refashion the public's perception of them, what they have written, and what
they have allowed to be published.
This would be both disreputable and, to use an archaic
word, dishonorable in the humblest private person. But the NRO gonzos consider
themselves to be Gods of the New Domain, with a proven lust for war and no conscience
as to how it disrupts or terminates the lives of others, no matter where they
Their stock in trade is lies, their spoor is death. As
they will always remind us, Buckley kicked off National Review in 1955
with an editorial that declared its purpose was to stand "athwart history,
shouting 'Stop!.'" Now they seem to be standing athwart history, shouting
They are such good Communists.