What Neoconservatives Think

Elliot Abrams’ wife (and as Glenn Greenwald points out, central figure in the neocon family) Rachel Abrams on the release of Gilad Shalit:

“Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you.

“Then round up [Shalit’s] captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.”

Shalit was a bit more forgiving:

“I hope this deal helps achieve peace between both sides, Israel and the Palestinians. …

“I would be very happy if the [Palestinian prisoners] were all released so that they can go back to their families and their lands. I would be very happy if this happened.”

A Dark Day for Democrats

Sarah Palin will not run for president in 2012. Though Andrew Sullivan can be expected to persist in his quest to deploy U.N. inspectors to Palin’s uterus, the nation’s less-cracked Obamatons will have to build a new uber-bogeyman to juxtapose with the Lightworker.

Thoughtful liberal is too heartbroken to castigate Republican misogynists today.
Thoughtful liberal is too heartbroken to castigate Republican misogynists today.
It’s not fair. Why, Andrew just blogged his little heart out about evil Sarah a few hours ago! And what did he have to say about the man who just executed a U.S. citizen without even the pretense of due process?

Obama has ended torture and pursued a real war, not an ideological spectacle. He has destroyed almost all of al Qaeda of 9/11 (if Zawahiri is taken out, no one is left), obliterated its ranks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, found and killed bin Laden, in a daring raid pushed relentlessly by the president alone, capturing alongside a trove of intelligence, procured as a consequence of courage and tenacity rather than cowardice and torture. …

Back in 2001, I wondered if Bush would be the president to win this war, while hoping he would. I wondered if his errors might lead to a successor who learned from them. That hope has now been fulfilled – more swiftly and decisively than I once dared to dream about.

Anarchists for Giuliani Celebrate 3 Years of Non-Rule by President Rudy

Monday night’s debate reminds me of an insightful analysis from the last campaign. Randy Barnett, Georgetown University law professor and anarchist, wrote the following in The Wall Street Journal in July 2007:

While the number of Americans who self-identify as “libertarian” remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres — what is sometimes called “economic conservatism” and “social liberalism.” But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened “because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years,” Mr. Giuliani’s retort — that this was the first time he had heard that “we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq . . . and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11” — sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

This turned up in a Google image search for Randy Barnett. It's not the Randy I'm talking about, but it seems appropriate.
This turned up in a Google image search for Randy Barnett. It's not the Randy I'm talking about, but it seems appropriate.

Four years later, we’re still imagining the utopia that could have been if America’s mayor had picked up only 1,191 more delegates. Well, don’t despair, pro-war anarchists. There’s always Rick Santorum.

I praised Barnett’s political acumen here. The Wall Street Journal seems to have misplaced Barnett’s masterpiece, but thanks to the evil Paultards, you can read the whole thing here.

If You’ve Been Saving Those Moonie Jokes…

Use them now, because Washington Times reporter Eli Lake is moving on up to Newsweek. Lake is the latest Iraq hack and all-purpose neocon instrument to demonstrate the one rule of post-9/11 journalism: there’s always work if you’re always pro-war.

All jokes aside, I’m happy for Lake, who seems to have found his perfect match in Newsweek boss Tina Brown. Just imagine what Lake will be able to do with her crack Photoshop staff! I’m already picturing the “Saddam at 75” cover story, with Hussein and bin Laden wearing matching Code Pink T-shirts.

Less Hawkish in the Hawkeye State?

The Ames Straw Poll, which actually has some predictive value, gave noninterventionists some reasons to smile. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas placed second with 28 percent, just behind Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (29 percent). After finishing third with 14 percent, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who may well have been the most neoconservative candidate in the race, quit. Sadly, he was immediately replaced by his “less boring clone,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who achieved 4 percent with write-in votes.

The two worst of the other candidates, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, finished with 10 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Among the moderately atrocious, businessman Herman Cain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also combined for 12 percent. Not-entirely-wretched former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman got 1 percent. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson did not participate.

As I noted last week, Bachmann has infuriated some of the right people by being less than reflexively bellicose. Whether her deviation on Libya reflects mere opportunism or nascent realism is hard to say, though her reported coziness with Frank Gaffney makes me shudder. Still, if we place Bachmann in the center of this nonet, with Paul, Huntsman, Romney, and Cain to the less-Gaffneyesque side and Gingrich, Santorum, Pawlenty, and Perry to the other, we get 41 percent for the former set and 30 percent for the latter. In the 2007 straw poll, Paul was the only candidate who wasn’t running on a Bush-Cheney foreign policy, and he received only 9 percent of the vote. The winner that year, Mitt Romney 1.0, was much more belligerent than either Mitt Romney 2.0 or Michele Bachmann has been so far. Maybe even the Republican base is inching our way.

Spencer, Geller Smear Giraldi, Paul

The completely dishonest hate and fear Muslims lobby has spent the last few weeks crying their eyes out over all the guilt by association being applied to them by those noticing that the accused mass murderer from the Norway attacks thinks they’re just great [.pdf] and recommends their blogs to you for further “study.”

These are the same people whose entire game is pushing their ridiculous Protocols of the Elders of Islam nonsense that combines all Muslims on earth into an evil aggressor Islamo-fascist caliphate conspiracy of terrorism bent on enslaving us under Sharia law.

And now Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, two of the very worst of these wannabe-Gaffneys, are smearing Antiwar.com writer Philip Giraldi, and by extension, congressman Ron Paul.

Giraldi’s crime? Well, nothing. Just some old time guilt by association is all. This time the hoax/bigot/lunatic site “Veterans Today” reprinted his article “Neo-Cons and Muslim Haters” — about Geller, Spencer et al — which they apparently copy/pasted from the website of the Council for the National Interest, where Giraldi is executive director.

(Giraldi confirmed to me that he has no connection whatsoever with the kooks at “Veterans Today.”)

But Spencer and Geller couldn’t be bothered to find the original post, or they did, but then lied anyway. Giraldi writes for VT, they claimed, so he’s an anti-Semite, and Ron Paul is too since Giraldi has been an adviser to him!

(And what a dummy Phil is, they claimed, for getting the caption wrong, when it was not included in his post at CNIOnline.)

Who cares, why blog it? I don’t know.

Anyway, when I called them out in the comments, they both simply deleted the comments and then banned me.

For the record, here’s the now-deleted comment I wrote on both of their sites:

“All it took was 5 seconds on Google to find that this article was written for the Council for the National Interest, and was simply copy/pasted by the racist-loon site Veterans Today. Giraldi does not write for them, nor did he use that picture in his original. http://www.cnionline.org/neo-cons-and-muslim-haters/ But then again who listens to you but Breivik the mass murderer anyway?”

There. So now you know. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are dishonest-types.