I've written quite a bit about the"Conservative Crack-Up." David D. Kirkpatrick, in yesterday's"Week in Review" section of the NY Times revisits his April 2004 topic, telling us all how"The Antiwar Right Is Ready to Rumble." Kirkpatrick writes:
The euphoria of Mr. Bush's victory postponed the battle, but not for long. Now that Mr. Bush has secured re-election, some conservatives who say they held their tongues through the campaign season are speaking out against the neoconservatives, against the war and in favor of a speedy exit. They argue that the war is a political liability to the Republican Party, but also that it runs counter to traditional conservatives' disdain for altruist interventions to make far-off parts of the world safe for American-style democracy. ... On Thursday, Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, issued a call to conservatives for a serious debate about the administration's foreign policy."The consequences of the neocons' adventure in Iraq are now all too clear," he said."America is stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight. Our military is stretched too thin to respond to other threats. And our real enemies, nonstate organizations such as Al Qaeda, are benefiting from the Arab and Islamic backlash against our occupation of an Islamic country." ..."A lot of the antiwar conservatives had to hold their tongue during the campaign because the No. 1 goal was to get Bush re-elected," said Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an important conservative fund-raiser. ...
One wonders why that should have been the No. 1 goal in the first place. I suppose they all thought it was a relative question; Mr. Bush has not been much of a traditional conservative in fiscal or foreign policy matters, but Mr. Kerry offered little hope for a rightward shift.
Ugh. Like I've said before:"A Pox on Both Their Houses."
Check out Not a Blog.