Another NRO Poseur Unmasked

It continues to amaze me how the Right so often bucks up admittedly fine, talented and intelligent young men as the would be sages of their age by giving their words such notoriety, when they are so lacking in deeds other than writing - read experience and genuine maturity. And I am not calling Rod Dreher a poseur within the context of his Conservatism, I am calling him that within the context of someone who pretended to have the strength, vision, experience, insight and wisdom to support a difficult war.

Apparently Rod Dreher has set himself up to be the current most misrepresented and consequently, most misunderstood conservative by taping a short, annoyingly superficial and maudlin anti-Bush, anti-war commentary for NPR. Clearly, Dreher hasn't abandoned conservatism, that will simply be the translation offered by the Left, always so in need of this or that useful idiot to pimp their mindless cause.

Hopefully Mr. Dreher will permit someone without the professional byline, but with ten or so more years of life experience, to tell him a few things. Frankly, his commentary suggests to me he understands very little about life, or the real world at all. I'll mostly address his commentary, as available via CrunchyCons in follow up to his mournful 3 minutes of NPR drone.

Anyway, I make it clear in the piece that I'm still a conservative, but that the experience of conservative government with regard to the Iraq war has done away with any illusions I had about the importance of having a Republican president when faced with a national security crisis.

Dreher is talking apples and oranges here. It's impossible to even understand why he brought conservatism into his commentary - excepting that it shows what a superficial, John Wayne-ish concept of conservative leadership he, evidently, has been entertaining himself with all along. Simply put, what Dreher is saying is that he is disappointed with George Bush (I'll address that). Fine! So, say it, Mr. Dreher, but why drag the concept of conservatism, or even Republican-ism, into the muck with you, when in this context, neither belongs there at all?

So, let's cut to the heart of the matter and I'll address his concerns as regards Bush and the managing of this difficult war.

In my essay, I talked about how the conduct of the war was what alienated me. That includes the falsehoods and half-truths told to get us into this mess -- for example, the things we were told back in 2002 by this administration and took on good faith, which we ought to have been far more skeptical of.

What things, Mr. Dreher? Do you even know anything about the real world? Do you think that because a mostly clear and definitive answer to everything you've ever researched or written about is available through some wiki or text, that the answers to precisely what a real-world enemy is doing, or has said or plotted behind closed doors, is readily available to you because you're, you know, John Wayne, The Avengers, and the President of the United States all wrapped up into one?

If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool. Either that, or simply someone who has been spending too much time poking around NPR.

And if in the conveyance of said pre-war information you now believe that this President may have highlighted this, as opposed to that, well, for heaven's sake, Mr. Dreher, that's what every dedicated and determined leader of any movement, enterprise or endeavor in the real world has to do. If not, in a democracy, you end up with 300 million people sitting in a national room twiddling their thumbs without ever coming together around a solution for anything at all.

Yet my commentary was explicitly not about my thoughts about economics, or social policy, or anything other than trusting conservatives in power to do the right thing on war and foreign policy.

Again, he conflates Bush, one man, with conservatism. It almost seems like his entire concept of conservatism is the worshiping of icons, or men destined to be enshrined on mountains. He says he doesn't, but repeats the rhetorical error time and again. But, I digress, as, unfortunately, so did he at that point in his piece.

My error was to think that all Republicans were like Reagan, or to be more precise, that "Reaganism" -- standing tall, carrying a big stick -- was always and everywhere the right response. I failed to be as critical of GWB as I ought to have been before it was obvious to everyone with eyes to see what a disaster his administration has been re: Iraq. What's Jonah's excuse?

Good grief. A big stick? Is that what you think we have been applying in Iraq, Mr. Dreher? Have you ever read any history, perhaps that of the Second World War? What have you been watching these last four years? Not the war that I have, that's for sure. Mr. Dreher, we are having problems in Iraq precisely because we did not go in there like some wholly external and unreasonable force of empire crushing everything in sight, only to later build it anew.

In response, Jonah Goldberg highlights the weakness card:

Indeed, even if the result of Bush's foreign policy has had the consequence of projecting an image of weakness around the globe as Rod asserts, that doesn't mean they are similar foreign policies.

Why is it that an allegedly informed individual cannot comprehend that George Bush attempted to carve a democracy in Iraq, not simply slash and burn the country down to build one up? That isn't weakness, it's actually strength. That, as it requires more maturity, restraint, time, patience and perseverance to make it work. But, in sheer numbers, it can ultimately save a lot of lives.

What is it Mr. Dreher wants? Strength, only in the sense that the Middle-East appreciates it - only through overwhelming might? Isn't that one of the very things we are attempting to change within a region having the potential to threaten us so much? That's the easier and, ultimately, less humane, weak way, in fact. And who cares what the world thinks? One begins to wonder if either of these two fine fellows are really conservative at all.

Were there difficult decisions to be made? Yes. Do some, or even several, now, with the benefit of hindsight, appear to have been wrong? Sure! So what? There are few if any truly difficult real world endeavors wherein that isn't the case. Have you experienced enough of them, or simply written of some? Or maybe you acted them out on a pod cast for NPR?

Do you take apart the post-war standing army in Iraq to head off hostility as it was the tool used to subjugate 80% of that nation's population? Or do you leave it in place because it could suddenly be trusted to secure the peace and not almost immediately overthrow any new government the moment America's back was turned? Consult Lexus Nexus, or your encyclopedia, Mr. Dreher, prove to me you could have found that answer four years ago ... I'll wait.

Is this President a mortal human capable of making a misjudgment? Is Donald Rumsfeld? Sure! Again, so what? Aren't we all likely to err, most especially when situations are so complex and dynamic as within a troubled Middle-eastern nation during time of war?

What is it you expected from the beginning? That we'd have this thing done in two hours, so you could run to the fridge and grab a coke? That's not a failing of President Bush, Mr. Dreher, it's a failure in the depth of your thought.

And, now, your judgment, to record what, albeit it in monotone, is no less than an anti-war, anti-Bush screed for NPR, empowering them to pimp you out as this day's useful idiot suggests that if you had anything to do with decision making in Iraq, things would be worse.

Fine, Mr. Dreher ... you've jumped the warship, you're out on your own. Please have the sense, the courtesy, the human decency to go sink to the bottom alone somewhere. While brave Americans are still fighting and dying for a necessary cause, those of us out here in the real world with experience and stamina have just that much more rowing to do, now - and still miles to go before we rest.

Go read or write a book, or something. You certainly don't have what it takes to fight, or even help fight a difficult war. With benefit of hindsight, I'm forced to assume you never really did.

Comments

[NellE]

Ouch, I felt that way over here, and I didn't even agree with a word that Dreher guy said.

[Rhod]

Dreher lost me with "Crunchy Cons". And not because he's betrayed some conservative dogma. He's latched onto a flamboyant scorn for modernism and bourgeois culture as his only idea, and he spreads his venom to everyone in sight, liberal and conservative alike.

If he was a wise, erudite and comic misanthrope he might be tolerable; instead he's a narcissistic, self-infatuated, snooty asshole. Everything he's tried to say has been said vastly better by Kingsley Amis or even Alan Ginzburg or Ferlinghetti, for Christ's sake, with much less self-advertisement. The posturing shithead should just go away.

[Dan Riehl]

Beats hell out of me, I never heard of him except for a reference or two to CC before today. But I certainly have littel regard for some of these Gen X'rs NRO props up in the cause of conservatism. I guess they hire stodgy rich kids out of college who learned conservative values from playing golf with Da and NRO assumes they're going to grow up to be adults.

[Alex]

"You certainly don't have what it takes to fight, or even help fight a difficult war. With benefit of hindsight, I'm forced to assume you never really did."

I'm not usually a fan of the chickenhawk argument, but for God's sake, Dan, isn't there some saying about glass houses that's applicable here?

[Righteous Bubba]

...but for God's sake, Dan, isn't there some saying about glass houses that's applicable here?

Indeed. Why troll?

[Purple Avenger]

"That includes the falsehoods and half-truths"

When I hear that kind of talk, I know right away its a moonbat in drag. No need to look any further at all. I bet if you poke it hard enough it'll start spouting truther shit.

[Xanthippas]

You know, it takes quite a bit of audacity to write something like this about the man, seeing as how he is right about the war, and you are not.

As for your ironic mention of "useful idiots", one need only look to the right-wing blogosphere...

[Artie]

You 31%ers simply cannot admit that you voted for a fool (twice). No WMD's, utter failure in Iraq, $500B wasted. OBL still not 'brought to justice'. The list goes on.

[salvage]

You certainly don't have what it takes to fight, or even help fight a difficult war.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH!

And you do? Yeah, the Islamistfacistalqeada insurgent hordes start quaking in their army boots whenever Dan Riehl puts fingers to keys.

Oh I know, you're in the "information" war, it's totally the same thing.

Rod has finally realized the truth, the majority of Americans have realized the truth (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm) and you Danny never will but that's cool because it's an awful lot of fun pointing and laughing at you.

[ck]

I couldn't agree more. I gave up on the NRO nancy boys a while back. Well except Steyn and VDH.

[SFC SKI]

Mr. Dreher mentions that he is almost 40, and is finding out that war is a hard thing to fight; then draws the conclusion that the hippes were right 30 years ago?

I am 42, on my second tour in Iraq, and wonder just what happend over the last 20 years that took the balls and the guts out of my peers in the civilian world. This is a hard fight, no kidding, but if it's worth doing at all, it's worth doing until we succeed, especially considering the price of failure. For a guy who seems to be aware that history exists, he does not seemed to have learned much from it.

[Fred Beloit]

Don't worry, Ski. Artie, ck, and salvage are in a COP out there in front of you. They won't fall asleep, no, no they won't, zzzzzzzzz. You're much better of with what you've got.

[Smart Liberal Chick]

SFC SKI,

This war is not worth fighting. It's time to come home.

We're just throwing good people and money after bad. Let it go dude.

[Dan Riehl]

The only problem with allegedly smart liberals is that they never know when to keep their dumb mouths shut.

[larry]

a crisp, well-earned salute to sfc ski. feel free to go right ahead & ignore the "smart liberal" wench above, boss. as you noted, she's part of the problem. unable to see past the end of her nose; unable to extrapolate what might happen in a year or two if we abandon iraq; supremely confident that mouthing the slogans spoon-fed her by the profs will somehow make the islamists stop trying to kill us. no balls; no brains; no knowledge of history or the real world, except what she learned on 'barney'. the prototype liberal.

and, of course, she feels sure she's capable of determining a national security policy for this country: one that features a lot of "running & hiding", no doubt. and discussions. lots & lots of discussions.

keep the faith ski. let the guys know that not *all* the country has gone timid; and not **all** the country views the troops and what they stand for with embarrassment. god bless.

[salvage]

What might happen in a year or two if you abandon Iraq?

Would that have happened if Iraq had not been invaded?

Are the people who lead you into this situation really the right ones to lead you out?

See the bit you and Dan and about 35% of Americans don't get is that Bush screwed up, he has made mistake after mistake and gotten people killed as a result. Now where I come from we fire people like that because that's the only way to make sure they don't screw up again.

You on the other hand want to give him chance after chance after chance because to admit otherwise would be to admit that you've been wrong all this time.

That's why Rod's acceptance of reality has got y'all so enraged, he's doing what you don't have the balls / brains to do; face the truth.

But hey, like I said, it's hysterical to watch and it's so rare to find a minority that one can truly laugh at and not feel guilty as a result so please keep it up.

[Righteous Bubba]

"The only problem with allegedly smart liberals is that they never know when to keep their dumb mouths shut."

Jesus, it's an irony meltdown.

[larry]

again & again we see these comments mocking the 'minority', and the '31%' who don't blindly follow the statists down the road to hell.

that's odd.....A) i've always been told our liberal statist scum party was *for* minorities, and B) then why'd it take you clowns so long to finally win an election against that 31%? and are still 0-for-2 in the last presidential elections?

as for iraq, it's the same old (never-answered) question: if - god forbid - the statist liberal scum had been in power on 9-11, what would their idea of a proper response have been? meetings? talks? prayer circles?

[KissMyAssDannyBoy]

"The only problem with allegedly smart liberals is that they never know when to keep their dumb mouths shut."

And the only problem with proven dumb-ass wingnuts like Dan is that he ALWAYS spews ignorance.

[Carl]

Ok, 31%ers - here's a fact for you. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Got it? Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but you asshats decided to go after Iraq instead. Further, almost all of the hijackers were Saudi. You know, the country where Bandar Bush is from? Now, it's 5 years and half a trillon $'s later and you mission accomplished morons have nothing but a civil war on your hands.

Furthermore, its not just the liberals who think that Bushco has presided over a huge clusterfuck. Its everyone other than you sad dopes who just can't admit that you backed the wrong horse.

[Rick]

"Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but you asshats decided to go after Iraq instead. Further, almost all of the hijackers were Saudi."

This is what gives rise to Dan's observation about *allegedly smart.* Iraq was gone after following the disposition of the Taliban. What part of the 4th quarter of 2001 didn't you get.

Iraq is a great place to be in order to rattle our sabers--bordering the Wahhabi homeland, dear old Syria, and the Iranian theocracy.

Shi'ites & Sunnis going at each other tooth & claw: what's not to like? This should've happed 1200 years ago.

Cordially...

[Chris Vosburg]

Riehl writes: "If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool."

What nonsense.

In every instance, the President chose to ignore the consensus of experts to seize on a single dissenting voice as the correct one.

In the case of the tons of anthrax and other toxins supposedly still in Saddam's inventory, he chose to ignore the simple physical law of the short shelf life of the toxins themselves, which meant that even if Saddam still had them, they were inert. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.

In the case of the aluminum tubes allegedly acquired for employment in centrifuges for refinement of radioactives, he ignored the nature of the tubes themselves, which due to being anodized and of the wrong thickness, could not have been employed for that purpose. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.

In the case of the alleged attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, he ignored the findings of those dispatched to investigate, who found it without basis and further unlikely in the extreme to happen in future. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.

In the case of alleged unmanned drone aircraft capable of attacking other countries, he ignored the findings of those investigating, who found primitive model aircraft with no such capabilities. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.

In the case of alleged mobile chemical weapon labs, he ignored the fact that one had never been seen, and that the design was in fact the fanciful result of a team tasked with drawing up what such a mobile lab would look like. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process. He lied again during the invasion in claiming that a couple of trucks found were mobile chemical labs.

In the case of alleged collusion between the Iraq government and Al Qaida, he ignored the acknowledged fact that Saddam wanted nothing to do with them, and further had had no contact with them. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.

In the case of the alleged stockpiles of WMDs, he ignored the findings of the UN inspectors in the country following leads provided by his own intelligence agencies, who came up empty again and again and were on the brink of certifying that the country was in fact cleared of WMDs. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.

I could go on, but I don't need to, do I, Dan?

[Chuck]

Why would anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty have a problem with the "chicken hawk" argument?

This war will determine the entire course of human civilization, right? Your President says a temporary escalation will "win" it, right? Our military forces are spread perilously thin and in desperate need of volunteers, right?

Inescapable -- INESCAPABLE -- conclusion: if you support Bush's goals, are under forty-five and in reasonably good health -- and still won't do anything for the war effort but sit at your keyboard lobbing spite-bombs at the people who've been proven RIGHT in everything they've ever said about this President and his war of choice... well, then, sir or madam, you are not just a chicken hawk...you are chicken shit.

[D. Carter]

What Rhod said. I've been reading Dreher off and on for a few years, and he was always one of those so-called conservatives who struck me as inherently unreliable.

Great post, Dan.

[Dan Riehl]

"I could go on, but I don't need to, do I, Dan?"

Not much point until you read something besides headlines in the NYTimes. That you would still defend Joe WIlson speaks volumes about the rest of your stuff. And as for the idiot talking about being under 45 ... yeah, I wish. Two liberals, two uninformed comments. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!! SSDD

[jim]

This is a comedy jamboree. Reading the grammatically-challenged, macho rants here -- complete with "crisp salutes" -- has all of us in stitches. I heard Peggy Noonan now has "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as well. Soon there won't be any "reliable" party members left, will there? Please keep right on devouring your own: your orgy of paranoia and jingoism is comedy gold.

[Adam]

The truly lamentable thing is that:
1. We were told, en masse, that this would be a cakewalk. That we would be greeted as liberators and this would all be over in a heartbeat. WRONG ON ALL COUNTS
2. "necessary cause"??!! Afghanistan was necessary, Iraq was a choice.
3."difficult war" Come on Dan. Produce that declaration of war. Show it to me. Can't can ya.

Your spin just can't beat the truth no matter how fast you spew it

[Dan Riehl]

the truth

The truth is very simple and if the Left would stop wrapping everything up in "We hate Bush," he would be much easier to communicate.

Truth - the majority of Americans supported going into Iraq. Once you undertake such an action, a responsible nation can not turn back. Therefore the only goal can be to win. And if the Left and the Dems as a whole hadn't spent the better part of four years undermining our cause, things would not be as nearly bad as they appear.

[Bat Guano]

"While brave Americans are still fighting and dying for a necessary cause, those of us out here in the real world with experience and stamina have just that much more rowing to do, now - and still miles to go before we rest."

Now, what is it you do (besides cheerlead) to "help the war"? I'm glad to see you eating each other, it's actually quite fitting. Btw, cowardly is the best thing I can say about you.

[Chris Bray]

Help me to understand your posture, here: You're the "marketing and sales director for an established technology company," and you say to Dreher that "you certainly don't have what it takes to fight, or even help fight a difficult war."

You do? You are? Explain.

[jerry]

Truth hurts, huh?

[Riehl 5ux0r5]

Riehl is a moron, a jackass, a chicken-shit-hawk, of the top shelf. A full fledged jingoist and accredited member of the 101st "Fighting" Keyboardists (too bad these imbeciles don't recognize the irony of that moniker). Row your corpulent ass to hell, bitch.

[Riehl 5ux0r5]

The Truth Riehl? Yes, Bush does suck, and yes, the Decider is an idiot. But many of us non-apparatchiks know he's not solely to blame. You and your cohorts have ruined America inside and out. As earlier posters mentioned, you idiots lost everyone at the Iraq mess, sprinkled in with Katrina. Maybe if you rightards would take some responsibilty for the crap you've caused, people wouldn't shit all over piece of crap blogs like this.

[jim]

>The truth is very simple

Everything is simple to the simple-minded.

>the majority of Americans supported going into Iraq.

The majority of Americans were misled and lied to about the justification(s), premises, and "evidence" that led them to support going into Iraq. Did you miss that part?

>Once you undertake such an action, a responsible nation can not turn back.

"Cannot" is one word. Once it makes a disastrous mistake, a "responsible nation" makes the mistake worse?

>Therefore the only goal can be to win.

How do you "win" a sectarian religious civil war as a third party? You don't. The US lost by invading in the first place.

>hadn't spent the better part of four years undermining our cause,

You mean by pointing out that the strategery wasn't working? That we needed more troops three years ago when it would have actually made a difference? Your Dear Leader has already admitted his strategery didn't work. His Sec. Def. admitted that we are losing the war. (Shouldn't they both be thrown in jail for treason and "hurting our troops" for saying these things, by the way?)

[mistermark]

The title of this posting is "Another NRO Poseur Unmasked". Just out of curiosity, what other NRO writers do you consider to be poseurs? I'm assuming that when you use the word poseur, you mean pseudo-conservative, or something like that.

[American majority]

Wow, I'm sure our troops sure appreciate the support of steadfast keyboard kommandos like Ms. Riehl. He's always willing to stand up to those scary Islamo-fascists that are just a hair whisker away from toppling us, in his mind. Why he stands right "behind" our brave troops who are serving their 3rd tour of duty in a place where nothing has changed in the last 4.5 years. Sure it might cost us over a trillion bucks, but brave Dan Riehl is doing his part. The taxes from the few bucks his salary as a 5th tier blogger represents almost a microsecond of financial support for this feckless and idiotic war that makes us no safer from the oh so scary threat of islamic terror. While it keeps nancy boys like Dan Riehl up all night scared bejeepers that a turbaned fedayeen might kidnap him and saw off his head while fondling the space where testicles would reside on a normal man, most of America has more pressing things to worry about, like when might their sons and daughters might come home, and how will we pay for this ridiculous blunder.
But keep up the good work, Ms. Riehl. There surely will be other defectors from NRO and other conservative websites with some intellectual heft that will surely be in need of a steely rebuke from a blue flame patriot such as Dan to ridicule their lack resolve in this difficult time. They will take "his" criticism with all the seriousness it is worth.
Zilch

[Horatio]

You certainly don't have what it takes to fight, or even help fight a difficult war.

How did you even type this sentence?

What it takes to fight??? And you're implying that you possess this steely je ne sais quoi? Don't make me laugh. You're a flipping BLOGGER, dude. You sit in a comfy house and tap on a computer. If you ever found yourself underfire in a warzone, let me just say that I hope your comrades would have the foresight to step in front of you - not as much to defend you as to steer clear of the spray of shit that'd surely be forthcoming.

"What it takes" indeed. You are a coward and a disgrace. How dare you speak about having fortitude in battle as if you had any clue what you were talking about. Again, the wingers of the world fail to understand that wars are fought on battlefields, with guns and bombs and sharp knives, not Bill Kristol's living room. You may think yourself quite impressive as you compose the newest paean to the noble resolve of President Bush, but with every word, but to anyone who has brains enough to oppose this war (by now 70% of the country) you appear nothing more than a fool.

[Rick]

"1. We were told, en masse, that this would be a cakewalk. That we would be greeted as liberators and this would all be over in a heartbeat. WRONG ON ALL COUNTS"

Four divisions toppled a decades-old tyranny in three weeks, and were greeted as liberators. Cakewalk, check. Liberators, check. Over in a heartbeat, check. Yet "WRONG ON ALL COUNTS." Why not add some exclamation points, as long as you're being bass-ackwards.

Mission Accomplished, doods.

Cordially...

[R.L.]

A VERY important message for everyone here at tinyurl.com/yxu4b6

[Horatio]

"Mission Accomplished, doods."

OK, Rick. If the mission was solely to permanently depose Saddam, then I agree that a) we did pretty well accomplishing it, and b) people seemed to appreciate the gesture.

I guess that only leaves the question of why in holy hell are we still there four years later? Have a smart ass answer to that one, Rick?

With contempt...

[mos]

"those of us out here in the real world with experience and stamina have just that much more rowing to do, now - and still miles to go before we rest"

This clause contains multitudes. I'll just observe that I think you meant 'typing' there, not 'rowing.'

[Horatio]

Genius, mos. Rowing. HA! That was a gem I had missed. You'd think he was piloting a swift-boat into enemy-occupied territory or something. Wait...

[Horatio]

And Dan, if the "rowing" gets too tiring, I do believe that the elliptical machines at your local Bally's are ALSO wired to blow pixie dust into the eyes of terrorists. So no need to worry that you're letting anyone down.

[Horatio]

LOL! I keep finding these fantastic little nuggets. This post is a goldmine!

"Fine, Mr. Dreher ... you've jumped the warship, you're out on your own."

From this I take it that you consider yourself still on "the warship." I guess I only have a few questions: 1) This "warship" isn't made out of cushions from your couch, is it? 2) Are girlz allowed on the "warship?" and 3) Do you wear a sailor hat while in the "warship?"

[zsa zsa the whore]

"Why is it that an allegedly informed individual cannot comprehend that George Bush attempted to carve a democracy in Iraq."

Tell me something darling, what is Iraq, a country, or a turkey?

Tell me the truth, darling, did you know the difference between a Shia and a Sunni before March 18, 2003?

Can you tell me what the names of the major tribes in Iraq are?

Why are Christians fleeing Irae?

[Chris Vosburg]

Dan Riehl writes: "Not much point until you read something besides headlines in the NYTimes. That you would still defend Joe WIlson speaks volumes about the rest of your stuff. "

There isn't any connection between the Bush administration's false allegations concerning Iraq and the existence of the New York Times or Joe Wilson, and you know it, Dan. Bush doesn't get his intelligence from the New York Times, for heaven's sake, and Joe Wilson is one of several who investigated the Niger allegations, all of whom found them false.

That you would consider this pathetic little sneer at the Times and Joe to be a refutation of my argument speaks volumes about the depth of your intellectual cowardice.

[gbh]

I was particularly wondering what your relationship to the military might be, Mr. Riehl. Well, it seems there is none, so let me fill you in, There are real people out there who die for the ideas you promote, and it is scum like you who spend a lot of time telling those of us who have served--1970-75--what we ought to think about the great leader and his failure of a war that has done nothing but degrade the American people and the interests of this country. Step back, fool, and learn from those who have some sense for the reality to war. Begin with Gen.
Shinseki, who spoke the truth, but got exiled by Bush and his stable of synchophants. They have destroyed the integrity of our armed forces, and those of you who have never served, and will never serve, can go to hell.

[I Am The Walrus]

Well, aren't you just the most apologetic apologist who ever apologized? You are pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

[lightning_fast_draw]

Mr. Dreher is not sinking to the bottom alone but coming to his senses in a way most rational people do when dealing with betrayal. His only error is in classifying Republicans as conservatives as though they are one and the same. Republicans abandoned conservatism with the election of George W. and replaced it with neocon/fundamentalist Christian ideology.
An NRO poseur unmasked is an unfitting description for this bright young man. It is the NRO posing that to be unmasked as looking nothing like conservative.

[Andy]

Come on guys! Dan is brave culture warrior!

Who else has the guts to mourn the passing of his beloved dog while letting his gay brother die alone and unloved? That takes some guts. I don't see any of you other homophobes letting your family members die alone.