printNeoconservative David Frum writes in Newsweek: “I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect).”
Like, whatever.
“In 2007, 17,430 Iraqis died in violence. In 2008, 6,772 people were killed. The first two months of 2009 saw 449 die, the lowest official toll since the invasion.”
All in all, the documented civilian deaths from violence are: 91,131 – 99,510.
Murder makes David “feel silly.” Kind of like a school girl. I like totally get that, although, I’m not sure Iraqis are feeling as giggly. In fact I know they’re not.
Friday was the anniversary of the March 20th American invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Click “Iraq” to read my archives.)
Update I (March 21): A reply to Fanusi’s comment. If you’ve read my archives, you also know that I’m persona non grata among the chattering class–the idiot elites who monopolize discourse in this country, despite having a 100% error rate. Therefore a debate between myself and Hitchens will never happen.
Were the gormless gladiators of (so-called) conservative cable to stage a debate, it would be between a popular bimbo and his highness Hitchens (a very intelligent man, in my opinion, and a fabulous writer). That’s the level of debate they cultivate–and are comfortable with. (Besides, I’m a writer, not a circus animal à la Coulter. I’m quite happy to be left alone—and out of the nation’s TV vomitorium.)
As to Fanusi’s “argument”: By “Baghdad being home to men like Abu Nidal and Mr. Yasin” I presume he means that there were terrorists living in Iraq, ergo, we were justified in invading a country that did us no harm and posed no threat to America.
What about all the “Islamikazis” who call America home? What about the 9/11 mass murderers who relied for their plans on Condi and Bush’s sneering indifference to their Constitutional duties?
I’m afraid that the logic of Fanusi’s “argument” must lead us to invade Germany or The Netherlands as well. The latter probably have less of a handle on Islamic subversives than Saddam had; his interests were inimical to the goals of the jihadis. But neoconservatives haven’t yet grasped that simple fact, because, like, “dem Arabs are all the same.” Or as I put it, “McCain can’t tell Shiite from Shinola.”
We are incapable of defending our own borders against Mexican narco-terrorism. No need to look for monsters to destroy beyond our abysmally porous borders.
Update II: For those who’re interested, here are articles from the Frum Forum:
“Neocon Deluxe, David Frum, Damns Rush”
To be fair to Frum: I find him to be a fine writer. His first book was certainly very good–that was before he took to neoconing.
I never read Kristol and Brooks. It doesn’t get duller than those two. Ditto Krauthammer and Will, although the latter can write and the former has written one or two good pieces about the eco-idiots.
When Coulter is good she is very very good, but that’s twice a year, when she tackles the law or the gangreens. For the rest, she is actually a colossal bore: “liberals that; liberals this; Bush brilliant; B. Hussein Obama a bastard.” Insufferable stuff.
The last of her good pieces was “Olbermann’s plastic ivy,” about which I blogged.
But we’re straying.
Myron captures the soul and strategy of Frum: 1) America has changed. 2) In the New America, certain principles are obsolete. 3) If it wants to lead the principles-bereft America, the Party must adapt to this reality.
I don’t want to wade into the Republican fetus fixation. I’ll say only this: As a libertarian who owns her own body, I have no problem with reversing “Roe v. Wade.” Such a reversal will do no more than remove the issue from federal jurisdiction and discontinue that source of funding.
A woman has the right to pay for an abortion; she does not have the right to compel those who find her choice repugnant to pay for it. So, I have no idea what Frum is talking about when he says he is pro-choice (his wife is a “conservative” feminist). Leave it to localities to fund or not to fund.
Update III: I owe David Frum an apology. Mr.
Frum writes:
The sentence you quoted from my Newsweek article reads:
“I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton.”
By truncating the sentence in the way you did, you turn its meaning upside down.
If you cannot make a polemical point without deceit, you should reconsider the validity of your polemical point.
David Frum
[SNIP]
Mr. Frum is correct. I made a mistake.
To accuse me, however, of an intention to deceive because I made an honest, if hasty, mistake is wrong.
Supporting an impeachment over a lie about a sexual peccadillo is certainly silly, but failing to expiate for the role one played in an unjust war is way worse than silly.
Public expiation is owed for the war. It was not forthcoming. The sentence that followed mention of the invasion of Iraq seemed so frivolous, that, yes, I saw red, and misread.
For that I, once again, apologize.
Mr. Frum, however, has yet to apologize for a transgression far graver than my minor mistake: providing “intellectual” justification for that war.
I have been going through your archives, and I was wondering whether you engage with, say, Christopher Hitchens on the subject. I’ve been through the archives, and I was wondering what your response was to Baghdad being home to men like Abu Nidal and Mr. Yasin.
I should like to see you go toe to toe with Mr. Hitchens; it would be a debate well worth witnessing.
In fairness to the feckless Frum, he was feeling silly in retrospect on supporting Clinton’s impeachment. Regrettably, he DOESN’T – but should – feel silly about the “liberation of Iraq”. Most of his essay was how the GOP should come back to power by basically looking like the Democrats since social conservatives, white men, Sarah, libertarians, and you-name-it are currently unpopular. Well, that is all fine, Frum, but then WHY come back to power – or is it just so you can dine on the White House China or ride in Air Force One? This many has the ideological conviction of a marshmallow – he doesn’t say what is wrong with libertarians or social conservatives or capitalists or paleocons … other than “we are not winning”. For that matter, those in Russia who opposed Stalin were “not winning” either! What makes this banal “pundit” a “pundit” (as are Kristol, Brooks, and other feckless “moderate” neocons) is a complete mystery considering how he is uniformly bland, trivial, witless, and wrong. Coulter, however obnoxious, is at least not boring! Krauthammer and Will can actually write. Frum is just pathetic – the Intellectual Twinkie of the Moderate Right.
Frum and Krauthammer are two carpetbaggers from the Third World; Krauthammer from South America and Frum from Canuckistan.
By his “logic” we should have invaded Canada as well since it’s occupied by Third World nationals.
I opposed the war. I was vocal about it. I was told to “go back to Europe” by a third generation American. This person was a warmonger who refused to go off to war.
I also had to endure the hatred manifested by the Neocons toward the French simply because I have a French surname. Somehow the “attacks” on 9/11 did not involve Third Worlders, but instead involved descendants of the Vichy government.
Parasites like Frum and Krauthammer fostered this poisonous atmosphere.
In a former era they would have been expelled from the country.
“I should like to see you go toe to toe with Mr. Hitchens; it would be a debate well worth witnessing”
Hitchens is not a worthy opponent of Ilana Mercer. I would prefer to witness her exchange with a man such as Tony Blair. As Myron indicates in his post, these characters like Hitchens, Frum, Kristol and Brooks deserve to talk only among themselves — “it is uniformly bland, trivial, witless, and wrong.” He forgot to add “crashing bore” which even on her worst day, Ilana is not!
Ilana,
Here is one apology that Frum owes to some Americans as a result of his ridiculous equivocation of dissent and patriotism:
“The Defense Department today announced 27-year-old 1st Lieutenant Andrew J. Bacevich of Walpole was killed yesterday when an improvised bomb exploded while he was on a patrol in the Salah Ad Din Province.”
His father — Andrew J. Bacevich — is a Boston University professor and was a vocal critic of the war.
But for heavens sake, Frum is what he is and the fact that he lives and breathes in some of journalism’s most influential venues (while more thoughtful men and women like Col. Bacevich and Ilana Mercer linger in the obscurity of the blogosphere) is an honest commentary on the “conservative” venues as well as the eager readers they influence.
Ms. Mercer: While I have long (and respectfully) disagreed with you about the wisdom of invading Iraq, I agree 100% with your critique of Bush (Clinton, Obama, whomever) for failing to protect and defend our own borders: I am no lover of any of the elites who pooh pooh such obvious basics. I will prefer your principled stands to the musings of the pragmatic and Liberal-lite Mr Frum any day.
It is a waste of time to listen to anyone in the establishment news media; they are all either idiots, or cowards, or puppets of the Powers That Be. To speak the truth is to lose their employment or their life. There seems to be little hope that any group will be able to overthrow the all-powerful lying and treasonous Government and the complicit lying and treasonous establishment news media. Failure to enforce laws against illegal immigration is only one facet of their treason. Financial destruction of the United States seems to be the current target, but it may have backfired upon wealthy beneficiaries; or maybe they are wealthy enough to ride out the financial storm.