October 21, 2007
NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or
email address published when sending VDARE email.
10/20/07 Saturday Forum: A Seton
Hall Law School Professor Offers Alternatives For
Dealing with Gov. Eliot Spitzer; etc.
A New York Reader Says Drop Michelle Malkin; Peter
Brimelow Responds
From: Liz Smith (e-mail
her)
Re: Michelle
Malkin’s Column:
Mahmoudapalooza: The Good, the Bad and the Craven
Cancel
Michelle Malkin's column! I presume that
since it is syndicated, you pay for it. My advice: save
your money.
The question brought up by
Pat Buchanan in his September 24th
column
Infantile Nation, "does this generation
possess the gravitas to lead the world?" was
answered with a resounding "No!" in Malkin's
hysterical column.
Malkin is a leading neocon mouthpiece among a
monotonous group that includes Rich
Lowry,
David Frum et al—all arrogantly supporting President
Bush and Israel while hating its enemies.
The Columbia student that frustrated Malkin with her
astute observation "I'm frightened by the polarity"
is exactly right.
I too am frightened by the lack of discourse, respect
and thoughtful, reasoned opinion. None are as guilty as
neocons.
Malkin called
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "bloodthirsty
thug" but I'll bet she has no problems with
Ariel Sharon who should
have been tried for war crimes during his tenure.
Neocons lack the diplomatic skills to be on the world
stage. In one example, during the Republican debate back
in May, candidate
Ron Paul was asked about his opposition to the
invasion and occupation of Iraq
and gave a reasonable response:
"They attack us
because we've been over there. We've been bombing
Iraq for 10 years. We've
been in the Middle East [for years]. I think
(Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the
irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now,
we're building an embassy in
Iraq that is bigger than the
Vatican. We're building
14 permanent bases. What would we say here if
China were doing this in
our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be
objecting."
Paul continued his argument that
Osama bin Laden and
al-Qaeda are "delighted
that we're over there" in Iraq,
pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400
of our men and I don't think it was necessary."
Rudy Giuliani, another neocon, immediately stomped on
Paul's statements, interrupting the format of the debate
with,
"That's really an
extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary
statement, as someone who lived through the attack of
Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were
attacking Iraq. I don't
think I have ever heard that before and I have heard
some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would
ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us
that he didn't really mean that."
About twenty or so years ago, I was a student of the
late
Michael Harrington's at
Queens College, who warned of the rise and
influence of neocons in foreign policy.
Even Harrington would be shocked at how low
our nation has sunk, the diminished value of our Bill of
Rights, and the vulgar ad hominem attacks courtesy of
neocons like Malkin that seek to discredit dissenters.
Smith’s previous column
about Bush’s amnesty betrayal is
here.
Peter Brimelow replies:
It’s sort of a relief to
get letters attacking Michelle Malkin, after so many
attacking Paul Craig Roberts
from the opposite direction. As I’ve said before, we
carry syndicated columnists who are with us on
immigration and the National Question;
we run all of their columns because we have to pay for
then all. We hope to add to our columnists soon,
probably pleasing and displeasing more readers but
certainly expanding the patriotic immigration reform
coalition.