A New York Reader Says Drop Michelle Malkin; Peter Brimelow Responds
October 21, 2007, 05:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

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.

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.