Site Search: WWW DTN

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Antiwar.com's Allies

My colleague Richard Poe is doing an admirable job of holding the line against Raimondo et. al., but I thought I would add my own two cents.

Here is the nub of the matter: Antiwar.com proprietor Justin Raimondo is incensed—incensed!—that his site should be labeled pro-al-Qaeda. See here, he says, we publish articles by the likes of Michael Scheuer.

Ah, yes. Michael Scheuer, it may be remembered, is the CIA’s disgraced point man on al-Qaeda, who spent his three years as the head of “operations against al Qaeda” spinning elaborate conspiracy theories about Israeli agents and the pernicious machinations of “wealthy Jewish-American organizations,” all the while demonizing Israel as a “theocracy-in-all-but-name.”

Conspicuously more charitable was Scheuer’s treatment of Osama Bin Laden, whom he adulated as a “practical warrior,” not to mention “the most respected, loved, romantic, charismatic, and perhaps able figure in the last 150 years of Islamic history.” All that hard work and still we failed to prevent 9-11. Imagine. (A revealing account of Scheuer’s three years on the job can be found in the current issue of Commentary.)

Perhaps sensing that the contributions of Mr. Sheuer are insufficient to confirm antiwar.com’s anti-al-Qaeda bona fides, Raimondo further writes: “That's why we've advocated killing bin Laden and wiping out his organization.” Puzzlingly, no examples of antiwar.com’s blistering assaults on the “organization” are provided. Maybe you can throw a few links our benighted way? In the meantime, Justin, consider choosing your friends more wisely.


27 Comments:

Richard Poe said...

Good one, Jacob! I didn't know this Scheuer fellow was, well… like that.

Thu Mar 24, 01:17:31 PM  
Edgar said...

Raimondo is an egomaniacal windbag. His diatribes against conservatives are pathetic, utterly devoid of any meaningful substance. Even Ann Coulter has more balls than this freak.

Thu Mar 24, 02:29:47 PM  
beakerkin said...

Raimondo is more Elmer Fudd with his odd fixations. Stephen Schwartz
destroys him in a recent article on FPM. Let him run an open forum
like Horowitz and then we will take him seriously.

His obsession with neocons and Stephen Schwartz should require medication.

Thu Mar 24, 02:53:28 PM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Spot on!

Thu Mar 24, 10:26:31 PM  
Patrick said...

Is Frontpagemag some arbiter of what is and what is not conservative? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Horowitz a committed Marxist for most of his life, and on top of that so deluded as to be a white Jewish man that joined the Black Panthers? (and in so doing, got others to join, pretty much killing one of his friends). Yes, by all means let this obviously mentally unstable man write the litmus test for Conservatism. Are any of you really serious?

And what great works have you all produced on Conservatism itself? Raimondo at least has to his credit the Reclaiming the Right book, which rights a few wrongs that even Nash's Intellectual Conservative Movement puts forth in just the first 5 pages. All Horowitz has written are a few self aggrandizing autobiographies and few bomb throwing books (and of course I am ignoring anything he wrote in his Marxist phase). Please, lets lay it all out on the table…

How many of you at Frontpagemag are Conservatives with no Marxist taint, and what creds do you have all that aside?

Fri Mar 25, 01:46:19 AM  
canadafitz said...

I just came across the Post by Jacob Laksin, entitled, "Antiwar.com's Allies," and I have to say that Jabob's post seems to make some very questionable claims.

Most noteworthy, is that Laksin seems to imply that Scheuer’s treatment of Osama Bin Laden is charitable and sympathetic, because Scheuer describes bin Laden as a "practical warrior."
Scheuer's alleged sympathies are also in evidence, according to Laksin, when he describes bin Laden as. “the most respected, loved, romantic, charismatic, and perhaps able figure in the last 150 years of Islamic history."

Scheuer's aforesaid statements about bin-Laden, if accurately quoted by Laksin, do not at all necessarily imply any sympathy toward bin-Laden. Rather, Scheuer's remarks probably establish that Scheuer can realistically acknowledge the strengths of America's number one enemy. A trait that Lao Tsu described when he said that to defeat an enemy, one must know that enemy and be able to thus weigh that enemies virtues and flaws.

Laksin's piece seems to demonstrate the projection of over-blown rhetoric which has been fashioned to hide hollow arguments.

Sorry, but that's what I see.

glenn

Fri Mar 25, 04:53:43 AM  
canadafitz said...

Edgar says:

"Raimondo is an egomaniacal windbag. His diatribes against conservatives are pathetic, utterly devoid of any meaningful substance. Even Ann Coulter has more balls than this freak."

Edgar's comments, unsupported by any specific examples, rate as unworthy of attention.

You know Edgar, you might as well say, "the moon is made of green cheese," when you spew out stuff like this on an online forum and can't back up your ravings...er...claims. LOL.

glenn

Fri Mar 25, 04:58:50 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Horowitz a committed Marxist for most of his life, and on top of that so deluded as to be a white Jewish man that joined the Black Panthers? (and in so doing, got others to join, pretty much killing one of his friends). Yes, by all means let this obviously mentally unstable man write the litmus test for Conservatism. Are any of you really serious?<<

I'm serious enough to question the "conservative" motives of someone eager to point out Horowitz's ethnicity as the cause of "killing one of his friends."

Burned any good books lately?

Fri Mar 25, 06:59:41 AM  
Patrick said...

Mr. Beamish, you need to retake reading comprehension 101.

Fri Mar 25, 07:43:13 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Mr. Beamish, you need to retake reading comprehension 101.

Oh? Care to explain how "...so deluded as to be a white Jewish man that joined the Black Panthers? (and in so doing, got others to join, pretty much killing one of his friends)." doesn't imply "if a white Jew hadn't joined the Black Panthers, someone would still be alive."

Fri Mar 25, 08:16:16 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Don't wait for the translation, Patrick.

Fri Mar 25, 11:24:42 AM  
KeithM, Indy said...

Well, I'm not a former Marxist, and find Raimondo and antiwar.com not to be the arbiters of what conservatism is, or is not.

So, to that end, instead of boycotting Horowitzs' work, I donated money to it precisely because of the call for a boycott.

Keep up the good work, David, and all the rest of you.

Fri Mar 25, 12:49:56 PM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Helloooo, Patrick?

Sister Bay?

Fri Mar 25, 07:06:32 PM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

Oh? Care to explain how "...so deluded as to be a white Jewish man that joined the Black Panthers? (and in so doing, got others to join, pretty much killing one of his friends)." doesn't imply "if a white Jew hadn't joined the Black Panthers, someone would still be alive."

I didn't read it that way, either. I think it's more a case of 'if horowitz hadn't joined, and hadn't gotten others to join, one of his friends would still be alive.'

The fact that a white Jew would join an outfit like the Black Panthers in the first place may point to some "delusion" on his part.

But then, he was Marxist at the time, so he was deluded enough already.

J

Sat Mar 26, 12:53:07 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I would dare say David Horowitz is of a far more conservative bent than crypto-leftists such as Raimondo and company.

Perhaps Raimondo and Buchanan shouldn't be the amen corner of strident anti-Semites.

Sat Mar 26, 01:49:44 AM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

Depends how you define "conservative."

That seems to be the main sticking point, once you remove the name-calling over who hates whom.

J

Sat Mar 26, 03:09:19 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

j edward tremblett:

Fair enough. What, if anything, makes Raimondo and Buchanan distinguishable from the far left?

patrick:

Time's up, thanks for playing.

Sat Mar 26, 09:14:47 AM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

"Fair enough. What, if anything, makes Raimondo and Buchanan distinguishable from the far left?"

Raimondo I wouldn't want to sound off on without nosing around his site some more.

Pat, on the other hand... no offense, but I'm wondering what you could possibly mean. Pat Buchanan is a social conservative of the first order. He stands directly opposite the far left on far too many things for there to be a serious question of distinguishing him from that group.

(Of course, he DID clasp hands with Lani G for a while, there...)

It's when it comes to the "New American World Order" of the post 9/11 viewscape that he takes a harsh tack off and winds up over in the same corner as the anti-war crowd.

But I think it's a mistake to say that just because they're on the same side of that issue, they're one and the same.

J

Sat Mar 26, 09:47:41 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Drop Moonbat Pat's laudable pro-life stance, put him in a tie-dyed saffron, and nickname him after an air conditioner part, and what do you get?

A raving moonbat leftist that looks like Pat Buchanan.

Sat Mar 26, 12:12:23 PM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

Time's up, and thank you for playing.

Sun Mar 27, 12:00:40 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

J. :

You're going to have to do better than that.

Pat Buchanan is conservative because _________ ?

Sun Mar 27, 09:32:41 AM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

America first policy towards trade, tariffs and treaties?

Immigration reform/stoppage?

Anti-communist?

Opposed to PC/Multiculturalism?

Anti-Abortion?

Anti Gay Rights?

In favor of smaller government, less/no federal taxes?

I'd hardly call any of that the calling cards of a leftist, Beamish.

Now, your turn - Buchanan is NOT a conservative because_________________

Sun Mar 27, 10:01:25 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Sun Mar 27, 11:29:23 AM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I would say Pat Buchanan is America's least popular populist.

Sun Mar 27, 11:34:37 AM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

"I would say Pat Buchanan is America's least popular populist."

Eh, no offense, man, but you're going to have to do better than that ; )

What's put him on the left side of the bar?

J

Sun Mar 27, 12:08:09 PM  
Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

What exactly is Pat Buchanan "conserving" by being opposed to things that don't exist?

Sun Mar 27, 01:50:35 PM  
J. Edward Tremlett said...

Your crazy moon language is confounding me. ; )

To repeat - Buchanan is NOT a conservative because_________________


??????????

Mon Mar 28, 12:07:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Copyright 2003-2005 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org