Conservatives do not speak with one voice on Iraq. Like the first installment of 25 Conservative Critics of the Iraq War, the second installment shows that some of the most admired conservative thinkers and doers have opposed and/or criticized the Iraq War. Why? Unprovoked aggression, undeclared wars, nation-building, policing the world, and exporting democracy by gun-barrel rub conservatives the wrong way. Reaganites, military leaders, National Review alumni, right-wing politicians, and pioneers of DC's conservative think-tanks offer prudential reasons rather than pacifistic feelings in making the case against the Iraq War.

26. "[T]he administration believes Saddam Hussein is on the verge of acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them against us. Outside the White House complex, there is some doubt on this score. I am not convinced and I do not believe the majority of Americans are yet convinced that it is wise or prudent to divert resources away from the difficult struggle against the fanatical Islamic Jihadists and the task of rebuilding Afghanistan.... Based upon the hard evidence I have seen, I do not believe the administration has yet made a compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind we could win such a war and dispose of Saddam Hussein. The question that continues to nag, however, is 'what then?'"
--Jack Kemp, Questions to Ponder, Townhall.com, September 24, 2002

27. "Considering that I'm writing this from inside the bunker of what many regard as the Alliance of Neocon Warmongers, it bears mentioning that Michael Moore and I have one surprising trait in common: We both believe that the war in Iraq was ill-advised, ill-planned, and ill-executed, an apparent failure bordering on unmitigated disaster, that was never in our best national interest. Around our office over the last two years, I've made these arguments to colleagues, open-minded types who, after they put me through my water-boarding/naked pyramid sessions, say they'll take it under advisement."
--Matt Labash, Un-Moored From Reality, The Weekly Standard, July 5/12, 2004

28. "At last Thursday's White House briefing, spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether the president was retreating from 2000 campaign opposition to the use of U.S. troops for nation building, since they now are stationed in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and probably soon in Iraq. 'No,' responded Fleischer, 'the president continues to believe that the purpose of using the military should be to fight and win wars.' Instead, he talked about U.S. relief workers distributing humanitarian aid in occupied Iraq along with 'a variety of international relief organizations.' Watching Fleischer on television, a skeptical Republican in Congress could only chuckle. It will take more than civil servants to bring order to Baghdad after the coming war. In quest of national greatness at home and of a Middle East that is safe for America and Israel, George W. Bush faces a daunting task. While disdaining nation building, he is embarking on empire building."
--Bob Novak, The American Imperium, February 10, 2003

29. "As was predicted here almost four years ago, the Iran-backed Shia Muslims, who are the majority in Iraq, are steadily taking over Iraq and turning it into an ally of Tehran--a most ominous development for the United States. Iran is truly one of the charter members of the Axis of Evil--and, ironically, the Bush Plan is turning Iraq into an adjunct of Iran! Under the new Constitution of Iraq, these fundamentalist Muslims will be able to control the oil in the south and also impose their radical political and social agenda. Women will be treated worse under this new government than under Saddam. Beatings and stonings will be allowed; and women will be confined to a backward lifestyle including limited education and no outside-the-house jobs. Did US troops fight and die so that a Muslim Theocracy could be imposed in Iraq? Our whole adventure in Iraq is an example of American intervention run amok. It is why true conservatives never liked the notion of a pre-emptive invasion and we don't believe in nation-building."
--John LeBoutillier, Deterioration, Boot's Blasts, August 29, 2005

30. "No one has ever thought Wilsonianism to be conservative, ignoring as it does the intractability of culture and people's high valuation of a modus vivendi. Wilsonianism derives from Locke and Rousseau in their belief in the fundamental goodness of mankind and hence in a convergence of interests. George W. Bush has firmly situated himself in this tradition, as in his 2003 pronouncement, 'The human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth.' Welcome to Iraq. Whereas realism counsels great prudence in complex cultural situations, Wilsonianism rushes optimistically ahead. Not every country is Denmark. The fighting in Iraq has gone on for more than two years, and the ultimate result of 'democratization' in that fractured nation remains very much in doubt, as does the long-range influence of the Iraq invasion on conditions in the Middle East as a whole. In general, Wilsonianism is a snare and a delusion as a guide to policy, and far from conservative."
--Jeffrey Hart, The Burke Habit, Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2005

31. "Unfortunately, what we face in Iraq today is a vacuum of power, a lack of stable institutions needed to govern, and the problem that the promise of democracy for which our nation stands may be lost in the essential scramble for safety and stability in the streets. This is one of the reasons I am uneasy about the war we have made here--for we have helped to create the chaos that has overtaken the country, and we may have reduced rather than promoted the pace of democratic reform."
--Jeane Kirkpatrick, Neocon Godmother Considered Iraq War a Mistake, The Nation, April 9, 2007

32. "The emergence of a postwar democratic Iraq is a Walter Mitty fantasy."
--Arnaud de Borchgrave, Bush's Rubicon: War on Iraq Risks Global Muslim Terrorism, Newmax, January 31, 2003,

33. "And the existence of myriad threats highlights the real problem: there are opportunity costs in this dangerous world to being bogged down in a WMD-free Iraq. Yes, presidents sometimes have to make decisions based on imperfect intelligence. But there were substantial prewar doubts. We conservatives have too often allowed this president to soft-pedal those doubts and, worse, conflate the war aims with its actual results. Many conservatives have been too slow to grapple with new data unfolding on the ground in Iraq, preferring the comfort of familiar talking points. But it is not disloyal to our brave troops, a thousand of whom have already made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, to question the war. Nor is this presidential campaign the wrong time to raise such questions, for fear of helping Kerry, whose position on the war is indecipherable and is otherwise banally liberal. In addition to the election, something else is at stake: the credibility of conservatism as the guarantor of responsible national defense."
--W. James Antle III, Conservatives Must Face Iraq Facts, EnterStageRight.com, October 11, 2004

34. "The administration has yet to challenge any of the following statements that bear on whether Iraq is a serious threat to U.S. national interests: Iraq has not attacked the United States. The administration has provided no evidence that Iraq supported the Sept. 11 attacks. Iraq does not have the capability for a direct attack on the United States--lacking long-range missiles, bombers, and naval forces."
--William Niskanen, One Last Time: The Case Against the War with Iraq, Cato Institute, February 5, 2003

35. "For a movement that began uniquely united in opposition to communism, it is strange that the conservative split would become most profound on foreign policy. From its founding document, the Sharon Statement, conservatives had agreed that all foreign policy had to be justified on the criterion--was it in 'the just interests of the United States'? Communism was the 'greatest threat' to those interests, so it had to be opposed. Iraq was not so simple for the question was empirical, not principled--was that war in the U.S. interest or not? Was it necessary to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and control terrorism or was Iraq not a threat unless the U.S. invaded and stirred up Mideast terrorism? Buckley and many others calculated war was necessary but still opposed empire building. Philosophically, either he was right that building an American world empire was against conservative principles or Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Paul Johnson--with some NR and the Wall Street Journal support--were correct that a new American colonialism was required to bring peace and democracy to the world."
--Donald Devine, Revitalizing Conservatism, May 13, 2003

36. "Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that."
--Kevin Tillman, After Pat's Birthday, October 19, 2006

37. "You can make a case for it. You can make a case against it. But what you can't oppose is the clear obligation of the president of the United States to secure a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States before he initiates action in Iraq or elsewhere. We will suffer greatly whenever we fail to adhere to the Constitution of the United States."
--Howard Phillips, U.S. Can't Attack Iraq Unless Congress Declares War, Newsmax, July 23, 2002

38. "For the past ten years at least, the conservative movement has been dominated by a bunch of pudgy, pasty-faced kids in bow-ties and blue blazers who spent their youths playing Risk in gothic dormitories, while sipping port and smoking their father's stolen cigars. Thanks to the tragedy of September 11--and a compliant and dim-witted president--these kids got the chance to play Risk with real soldiers, with American soldiers. Patriotic men and women are dying over in Iraq for a war that was never in America's interests. And now these spitball gunners, these chicken hawks, want to attack Iran--which is no threat to the U.S. at all. One thing I can tell you for sure, there may well be some atheists in foxholes--but you'll never find a neocon. They prefer to send blue-collar kids out to die on their behalf, so they get to feel macho--and make up for all the times they got wedgies in prep school. It shall be our considered task to take on the chicken-hawks of this world, and give them wedgies again."
--Taki Theodoracopulos, TakiMag, 2007

39. "The next president should commit to a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq, and tell the Iraqi people that the U.S. troops will be going home.... the war and subsequent occupation was a mistake and has been badly mismanaged."
--Bob Barr, Tell Iraqis No Permanent Bases, Says Barr, June 3, 2008

40. "In the ongoing debate over the present Iraq War, I have stood opposed since before we first attacked on March 19, 2003. I opposed the war on prudential grounds, believing it to be both unwarranted and counterproductive to the War on Terror. And I opposed it because it is unconstitutional, lacking the congressional Declaration of War required by the Constitution for sustained offensive actions against another sovereign nation."
--Eric Langborgh, Is the Iraq War Constitutional?, Borg Blog, July 19, 2007

41. "Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror--at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East--we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration. We have, moreover, helped solder a new truth in the Arab mind: that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, national disintegration and sectarian warfare. And we have also empowered the Iranian regime and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it was in 2003. Apart from that, Mr Bush, how did you enjoy your presidency?"
--Andrew Sullivan, Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination, Daily Dish, December 17, 2007

42. "Notice what Colin Powell didn't say. Addressing the United Nations Security Council, the meticulous secretary of state--the Bush administration's most credible spokesman--didn't say that Saddam Hussein had anything whatever to do with the events of 9/11. That was supposed to be the whole point of the 'war on terrorism': to avenge and punish the destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, and to prevent a recurrence of that horror. It's hard to see how war on Iraq will achieve either purpose. What do Iraq's hidden 'weapons of mass destruction,' however terrible, have to do with a score of terrorists armed only with box-cutters? Nothing. Nor did Powell say that conquering Iraq would amount to a victory. Or that it would defeat or diminish terrorism. Or that Americans would be safer from terrorists if the United States launches war on Iraq. Have Americans already forgotten that the 'war on terrorism' is supposed to be about--terrorism?"
--Joe Sobran, What Happened to the War on Terrorism?, February 6, 2003

43. "We have created in Iraq the exact type of scenario Bin Laden was hoping (but failed) to lure us into in Afghanistan--an unwinnable war where we're isolated from the world, our troops are walking targets for guerilla terrorists, and our only options are bad (pull out and hope for minimal carnage) and worse (stay in, where our troops will continue to die, and where there's no prospect for stability in the near future). A loosely-connected, (relatively) poorly funded, backward-thinking organization like Al-Qaeda could never inflict significant harm on the United States, at least not in a straightforward war. Their best hope is to scare us into rash, ill-considered actions like overextending our military, alienating our allies, and doing away with the open society and civil liberties that define who we are."
--Radley Balko, Six Years Later: Bin Laden Still Free, U.S. Mired in Iraq, FoxNews.com, September 11, 2007

44. "Still, throughout Bush's almost two-year rush to use the military solution against Iraq, I became increasingly convinced that the Butcher of Baghdad was not a threat to our national security and was far from the main event. No way in my military mind could I see how he represented anywhere near the clear and present danger of a dirty-bomb-armed al-Qaida or a North Korea with nukes and a missile-delivery system probably capable of frying our West Coast at the push of a button. So I was opposed to employing the military solution against Iraq because: We'd lose our focus on dealing with the main contenders; we'd use too many military assets and too many tax dollars; and we'd end up with an already overstretched military force stuck in the Iraqi sand for years."
--Col. David Hackworth, Bad Call, WorldNetDaily, August 5, 2003

45. "Conservatives are divided on the Iraq war, but there is a growing feeling it was a mistake. It's not a Ronald Reagan-type of idea to ride on our white horse around the world trying to save it militarily. Ronald Reagan won the cold war by bankrupting the Soviet Union. No planes flew. No tanks rolled. No armies marched."
--Richard Viguerie, How the Right Went Wrong, Time, March 15, 2007

46. "The consequences of the neocons' adventure in Iraq are now all too clear. 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."
--Paul Weyrich, The Antiwar Right Is Ready To Rumble, New York Times, November 7, 2004

47. "My opposition has deepened as the war has exceeded my worst fears in duration, blatant economic motives, political incompetence and military brutality.... Get out right now. Declare victory, declare defeat, remember a pressing engagement back home... it doesn't matter what reason is given. Get out immediately."
--Wendy McElroy, Iraq Progress Report, Reason, March 17, 2006

48. "It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than in globalism or internationalism. We should be friends with all nations, but we will weaken our own nation, maybe irreversibly unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated in his campaign. Finally, it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war."
--Rep. John Duncan, Conservatives Against a War With Iraq, March 6, 2003

49. "[T]he invasion of Iraq in 2003, has served American interests in no identifiable way. The United States is more diplomatically isolated than at any time in recent memory. The secular regime of Saddam Hussein, detestable as it was, was nevertheless among the more liberal states of the region. As many observers predicted at the time, in the absence of Saddam it may now be replaced by an Islamic state. That is what American security and the 'American national interest' have gained from a conflict whose financial cost alone will surpass the cost of America's share of World War I sometime next year."
--Thomas Woods, The Progressive Peacenik Myth, The American Conservative, August 2, 2004

50. "Congress is there for the exercise of that responsibility. I think our Constitution and our tradition are quite sufficient here. [Bush] should not do what he's planning to do without a clear congressional mandate. This is against all American tradition. Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start in a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before. In other words, war has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it. Today, if we went into Iraq, like the president would like us to do, you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end."
--George Kennan, George Kennan Speaks Out About Iraq, History News Network, September 26, 2002

It's not enough just to get out of Iraq. We must also insure we don't get involved in another war. Remember the Democrats had Vietnam and Kosovo. We must elect Ron Paul endorsed candidates or libertarians to Federal office to insure a peaceful and prosperous future. Ron Paul endorsed candidates can be found by going to http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48174
We are finding out the hard way the Constitution has relevance now more than ever.

"Conservative" critics of the Iraq war are a dime a dozen these days. Many of these critics were actually supporters of the war, and others are more libertarian than conservative.

I agree with Eric. I supported the Iraq War at the time. Surely I should not receive any credit for opposing it now, when it is so obvious that any man of sense must? The same goes for these other conservative "critics".

Many of the quotes Dan provided were from people that were vocally antiwar beforehand.

Dan,

These two are great posts and of great service, thank you!

Eric and Ben,

You guys are missing the point. Who f-ing cares about spreading credit or patting backs. It is "obvious that any man of sense" must oppose the war now . . . and yet we are still there! That is the point of Dan posting this.

It is the IDEAS and the ACTIONS that matter here, and these quotes are filled with real nuggets of wisdom that everyone (let alone "conservatives") should grapple with and take to heart/mind. We have to build a political class that heeds this wisdom asap and Dan has a particular interest in rebuilding a conservative movement that is intelligent.

It's not a matter of "back patting," but recognizing that those who did support the war were not acting on conservative principles in doing so. Of course many of these critics were supporters of the war, and only later came out against it. In fact, I think some of these critics actually support keeping our presence in Iraq.

I don't think these "quotes" represent nuggets of wisdom. Anyone who's passed Conservatism 101 could make the same points about why a war with Iraq would be folly.

I think a better title for the thread would be _Non-Leftist criticisms of the War_ because some of these critics are not identifiable as conservative.

I think Dan should add to the list. Paul Sperry, a conventional conservative Republican, has been a vocal critic of the Iraq war, even going so far as to suggest that -- yes, Virginia, -- Bush and Cheney lied to the people about the war.

Also, conservative economists Paul Craig Roberts and Alan Reynolds should make the list. Alan Reynolds actually went on the record back in 2002 claiming that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs was highly suspect and that Iraq probably was not pursuing WMD.

However, in the conservative movement coming out against the war only succeeds in making one irrelevant. Critics of the Iraq war are virtually non-existent in the widely read and popular conservative press. The conservative movement is absolutist in its belief that the war was just, good, and noble and critics are flirting with treason.

I suspect Phyllis Schlafly is against the war, but is too scared to speak out against it because it would alienate her from the conservative base. Schlafly is no ignoramus on foreign policy and I find it astounding she's written virtually nothing about the Iraq war.

Even though it's clear that the war has been an obvious failure, mentioning this fact is still verboten in the conservative press where Bush is idolized as a heroic and courageous leader.

Another good list. I do think some of the libertarians might object to the conservative label though.

My personal opinions on the war (which are still very much in flux) notwithstanding, it is not fair to ignore the blood-lust many people, including myself, were operating under in those days. Certainly this is not a justification, but to look back and ignore the prevailing environment of the time prevents us from seeing the full picture.

Unfortunally my TN Dist. 7 conressman Marsha Blackburn loves the UN and the War!
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
She is no conserevative.
See her unconstitutional votes at my old blog:
mickeywhite.blogspot.com
See current info at:
bluecollarrepublican.com

Mickey
Rossville TN

Now you're getting it.

Homer,

I certainly agree with you that remembering the bloodlust gives important context to the decision to wage war on Iraq.

This is the exact reason why many of us long-time conservatives opposed the war from the first moment the Bush Administration began to pull out the war drums. Following conservative principles from the start would have been a strong antidote to bloodlust - a decidedly unconservative state if there ever was one.

This is the whole reason the Founders implemented divisions of power and checks and balances into our system of government. More, it is why changes to the Constitution were to come through the cooling system known as the amendment process. The Founders were horrified at the prospect of the ever-changing whims of man violently pulling society to and fro. Such a system would, in George Washington's words, "subvert the power of the people and usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

This is especially true when it comes to what should be the most weighty matter ever to be considered by the state: whether or not to go to war. Therefore, they prescribed a Congressional Declaration of War as the only proper vehicle for choosing to wage sustained offensives.

The purpose of these posts Dan has blessed us with is not so much to raise further opposition to the war now - as Bruce Wayne suggests - as worthy a goal as that is. More, it is to avoid such tragedies in the future.

Eric: Your church will be forever empty unless you welcome back repentant sinners. (And except for, a few -- e.g., the tumbleweed Sullivan -- most of the repenters are sincere, I think.)

Also, you write, "The conservative movement is absolutist in its belief that the war was just, good, and noble and critics are flirting with treason." Isn't this the biggest benefit of these lists? Certain (rather nonconservative, but very visible) parts of the "conservative" "movement" are absolutist about Iraq and use the myth to shut the rest of us out. A list of 50 rather undisputable, diverse conservatives who didn't or don't now take the party line will help debunk the absolutist myth and open space for the perpetuators of it to be dethrowned.

You people just dont get it! what George W. Bush did he did out of love, and a desire to help the people of the world, (something that most of you know nothing about). The Iraqi people were very unhappy under Saddam's rule. So the next time your in Iraq and you see an Iraqi child smile, you will know that this is worth more than any amount of money. Its time for us to start putting of our own wants and needs second, and start putting the happiness of the people of the Middle East first for a change. This is why George W. Bush is the greatest president we have ever had, he understands the sacrifices that the American people are willing to make to insure the happiness of the Iraqi people. No matter what the price, if it makes one Iraqi child smile, it will be worth the cost. Hopefully McCain will have this same vision, and lead the American people to put others first and our own greed second for a change. Money is only paper, we can make more of that, but can you really put a price on a smile.

I was for the war and i still am, we are winning, the american soldier is kickin arse. no attacks on the home land in 7 yrs. more rags are being killed by thier own people. ragheads cant sit back and plot another attack cuz they cant waite to get to iraq to kill americans. but OOOOOH these guys shoot back, and these GIs hit like a 10 ton hammer son. now we have bombers within minutes of iran. no wmds, i know, but its funny how syria now is close to wmds, hmm maybe those convoys streaming out of iraq might of had something to do with it.

let me guess sunbeam you're a dude? and tagmnbagm you're a gal? right? hee hee I'm so smart.

Xan,

There are people who identify themselves as conservative who are against the war, but they are not part of the conservative movement. Movement conservatives have created a little cocoon around George Bush and the moral sanctity of the Iraq war and conservatives who raise doubts about Iraq may as well be liberals.

Take talk radio for instance. All of right-wing radio is pro-war and pro-Bush -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Reagan, Savage, Hewitt etc. The flagship magazines of conservatism are pro-war and pro-Bush -- National Review and Weekly Standard. Townhall.com, the main internet site that features conservative commentary, is virtually pro-war. The only critic of the war they publish is Pat Buchanan. Other critics were dropped.

The popular conservative movement has built an airtight cocoon around Bush and Iraq and they continue to regard anyone who questions, criticizes, or opposes the Iraq war as liberals or traitors.

Eric: I don't think you have disagreed with what I said (viz., that certain "conservatives" are absolutist about Iraq and use the myth to shut the rest of us out). Now our disagreement seems to be, who counts as part of the conservative movement? That seems to be a pointless disagreement.

Isn't the deeper point an opportunity to preserve/restore the name? That seems to me worth doing. If all of these guys haven't toed the Republican Party line on Iraq, then doing so isn't a requirement for little old me to still be a "conservative."

Xan, the point I'm trying to make is that those who identify as conservative and oppose the war in Iraq may as well be liberals, communists, traitors, or anti-American radicals. They are entirely irrelevant to the conservative movement. So what's the point in even identifying as a conservative? The debate is about how to define a word.

Would it make any sense for someone to call himself a liberal in the Clinton years yet insist that liberalism really means less government, a gold standard, and low taxes?

By their fruits ye shall know them. We know what conservatives believe -- unconstitutional aggressive wars, torture, private mercenary armies, unaccountable executive power, warrantless wiretapping, big government -- and that makes it an evil movement. Why identify with it?

Eric,

Perhaps b/c those who advocate such things are no conservatives in the American historical sense of the word. They have high-jacked it.

Now, I agree with you that the word is practically useless b/c it has been emptied of that historical meaning. But I'm not sure where you are going here. What do you propose that those of us who advocate following the constitution at all times, even (esp.) on issues related to war, who oppose torture, who oppose the police state and advocate for a restoration of our civil liberties, limited, much smaller government, etc., call ourselves instead?

I'm not interested in how you choose to identify yourself politically. There are many words to choose from -- Constitutionalist, Libertarian, Federalist, Thomist, Lockean, Natural Law, etc.

When George Bush went to CPAC, the largest conservative political action group in the country, he was met with uproarious applause. President Bush is the "fruit," so to speak, of conservatism. Why call yourself a conservative?

People who believe in less taxes, less government, free trade, a gold standard, and civil government don't call themselves "liberals," although one could equally argue that these beliefs represent "true" liberalism. The ideas that went into the Declaration were "liberal," but again the word bears to resemblance to its modern usage.

Conservatism has a very specific meaning as well: big government, inflation, unaccountable executive power, aggressive wars, nation-building, torture, private mercenary armies, and all the other aspects that attend the security state. I'm sure Ron Paul was hated more by conservatives than liberals.

The "fruit" of conservatism is George Bush, big government, and aggressive wars, so if you don't believe in these things then the last thing you call yourself should be a conservative.

Ron Paul calls himself a conservative. A "true" conservative.

And I'm not sure I buy your premise, that these things are the "fruits" of conservatism. The fruits of neo-conservatism, yes. This has its genesis, in part, in Trotskyism, which then fell out into strident anti-communism. So it was "conservatism" only by virtue of its true conservative allies in the Cold War. Now it is something else. I call it fascism. Or corporatism, if you want a softer term. But I don't call it conservatism, no matter how much the GOP establishment wants that term for itself, and no matter how much Republican statists applaud Dubya.

And I say this as someone who doesn't bother with the label much anymore myself. I am a constitutionalist, politically. That was a big part of what it *used* to mean to be a conservative. But people get confused now.

But that is due to a grand heist, a hijacking. It isn't some fruit in the conservative garden. Though it may qualify as a weed...

Right, but now you're trying to excuse the misdeeds of a word by re-defining it. This is like someone one claims to be a Communist but strongly opposes Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Soviet system and the historical experience of communism. Perhaps he could claim he's a "true" Communist and Lenin, Trotsky etc. were impostors, but this is just trying to get around the reality of communism by defining it out of existence.

The leading luminaries of the conservative movement -- from Limbaugh, to Hannity, to Coulter, to Ingraham etc -- all claim to support the Constitution, less government and the usual, but their "fruits" tell a different story. They regard President Bush as a historically great president. Why? Has he done anything to advance a "conservative" agenda?

The historical experience of conservatism is reflected in the Iraq war, the USA PATRIOT ACT, the support for amnesty and open borders, big spending, huge deficits, inflation, and so on.

Ron Paul can call himself a conservative, but that doesn't change the fact that conservatives despise him more than liberals. In fact, if you go to any conservative blog and speak negatively about the war in Iraq or President Bush you are immediately tagged as a liberal. You can call yourself a conservative or you can call yourself a chipmunk, but re-defining words doesn't change reality.

Eric,

I agree with everything you are saying. Except you are 100% wrong on the re-definition issue. I am not the one redefining conservatism. THEY have.

To restate the old political cliché: "I didn't leave conservatism, the conservatives left me."

They are imposters. But the one good thing about so many people calling themselves conservative who aren't is that we can educate them about what that term has historically meant, and thus call them back to true conservatism. There is a point of common ground - even if it is confused label - on which we can meet. Most will be hardened to our message. But some won't.

They? Who is they? The foreign policy of President Bush is unmistakably Neoconservative, but this is still insufficient to explain the entire drift of ordinary, plain vanilla conservatives to this point of view.

Why are those like Thomas Sowell all for the Neocon agenda? Why is Coulter? Malkin? etc?

This shows that the conservative movement is entirely corrupt and has been so for a long time, although it wasn't obvious during the Clinton years. The point, though, is that those who proclaim conservative principles produce the bad fruit of war, inflation, and empire. Redefining conservatism doesn't change the fact that conservatism is evil.

"Why are those like Thomas Sowell all for the Neocon agenda? Why is Coulter? Malkin? etc?"

It's simple, really. Party over principle. In fact, party loyalty defines the principle. And those that follow it are just as corrupt as Acton's dictum would predict. But individuals - many of them are corrupt, not actual conservatism.

Conservative principle wants to limit and severely check power, so the corrupting influence of power is lessened, and so that those so corrupted are relatively impotent - or at least, checked by others who wield power - to do anything with that corruption. Conservative principle recognizes man's fallen nature, that as a consequence we are all corrupt in every part of our beings, and that we are all predisposed to further corruption. Therefore, it seeks to do what I said in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Power - and the pursuit thereof through party politics - is the corrupting influence. It is not the principle that opposes that corrupting influence. That would be non-sense.

I understand our differences. When I refer to conservatism I'm referring to something that is actually real: the conservative movement and its beliefs, practices, and consequences.

You're referring to some Platonic ideal that has no real existence.

the great thing about being a repub/con. is that i or we can disagree on issues. but dems have to walk lock step with the party or they send out the goonsquad. braindead led by elites, typical pinko stuff.

almost all pre-surge quotes... get over it... we're there, and we'll leave... we removed Saddam it was a good thing...our safety and everyone else's...

quote some real men....
for instance...

Marine Major General Douglas Stone, commanding general
of Task Force 134, talked about on ongoing detention
operations in Iraq. He recently completed a 14-month
tour as the deputy commanding general for Detainee
Operations with Multi-National Force Iraq. He talked
about his time deployed in the country. 6/09/08

to watch click on the red flash player button...

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205892-1

----------

Major General Mark Hertling, commander of
Multinational Division-North and the 1st Armored
Division, spoke by live remote from Iraq about ongoing
security operations in Iraq to reporters in the
Pentagon.
06/09/2008 32 minutes

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205891-1

-----------
Defense Department Press Briefing on Iraq
Major Gen. Jeffrey Hammond, Commanding General,
Multi-National Div., Baghdad briefs reporters from
Iraq on ongoing operations in Iraq.
6/2/2008: IRAQ: 38 min.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205782-1

The secular regime of Saddam Hussein, detestable as it was, was nevertheless among the more liberal states of the region.

That statement alone suffices to discredit Dr. Woods as a serious student of Middle Eastern politics.

Eric,

Your last comment would hold water IF I were talking about something that didn't exist in real-time history and IF flesh-and-blood people weren't actual conservatives according to the definition I've been propounding here.

But there it is in history, in the lives and beliefs of people like John T. Flynn, Robert Taft, Howard Buffett, F.A. Hayek (yes, I know about his essay), Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, Brent Bozell, Frank Meyer, Stan Evans, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Dick Armey, Dan Flynn, little ol' me, and so many others. And there it has been enunciated in history: in the early pages of The Freeman and National Review, in short, eloquent statements penned at Sharon, CT; and in longer works such as "The Conscience of a Conservative" and "The Conservative Mind," among others.

Further, we aren't talking about some absolute perfectionist ideal, as the movement has always tolerated certain practical difference of opinion on issues (i.e. application of principle), but great commonality around first principles.

No, what we actually have here is your ready acquiescence to grand theft of a movement. I liken it to a sugar bowl, which someone or ones emptied of its original contents and replaced with flour. Or, at the very least, a hefty quantity of flour intermingled with a remnant of the original sugar. Now, the contents of that sugar bowl share many of the characteristics of the original contents: both are white, particulate, and dissolve in water, for instance.

But there can be no mistake to anyone who knows the real thing that what is in the sugar bowl now is fundamentally different than what was there before. Everyone might call it sugar, because it is in a bowl labeled "sugar" and it bears some superficial resemblances to the original contents. But the fact of the matter is that while a rose by any other name is still a rose, a different substance/idea/movement by the same name is a different substance/idea/movement.

Flour ain't sugar. And Bush/McCain Republicanism, Frum "National Greatness" bullshit, and Hansenite "bomb-all-the-ragheads-and-let-God-sort-them-out" evil are all not conservatism. Not by any historical or principled standard by which that movement can justly be defined.

But you would rather we just call flour sugar, and stop calling sugar sugar, just b/c some one or ones replaced the content of the sugar bowl. Well, sorry, but I'm just not going to do that.