Magazine article The American Conservative

Forum

Magazine article The American Conservative

Forum

Article excerpt

MISTAKEN IDENTITY

I could not help but comment upon your craven and duplicitous cover (March 27), apparently bashing Sen. Hillary Clinton for being too supportive of the war in Iraq.

Now, I already knew I was strongly to the left of Hillary Clinton-but I didn't realize you guys were. Is that what you're saying?

And if it's not what you're saying, then why single out Hillary for censure for supporting the war when she is joined by the vast majority of Republican senators and more than a few Democratic ones?

Or do you merely feel threatened by the fact that the public will soon catch on to the reality that Senator Clinton is much more mainstream than you have portrayed her over the years, and when people get to know Hillary and her policies, your constant past portrayals of her as a left-wing kook will irreparably damage your own credibility?

C'mon, guys-you can't have it both ways. She can't be a shrieking left-wing harridan and a far-right war hawk at the same time. Make up your minds!

JOANNE G. MURPHY

Skokie, Ill.

Justin Raimondo replies:

The author of this letter is confused. She conflates being on the Right with being pro-war, an assumption that I trust the existence of The American Conservative is helping to dispel. And I don't think anyone is singling out Hillary Clinton. By apparently running for president, she is doing this herself. This magazine has indeed criticized pro-war Republicans, as well as Democrats, and I can see that in focusing on Hillary we have accomplished at least one of our aims: to expose, for the benefit of anti-war Democrats such as Ms. Murphy, that Hillary is bad news in the foreign-policy department.

There is a lesson to be learned from all this-that "left-wing kooks" as well as the right-wing variety are, and always have been, an essential part of the War Party. Bill Clinton's Balkan adventure and his bombing of Iraq should have awoken Ms. Murphy and her confreres to that sad fact.

BARTLETT'S BAD FAITH

Bruce Bartlett is partly right (March 13): The level of government spending under George W. Bush has been unconscionable. His ill-advised drug plan, along with its deferred cost, earned the president scorn from liberals, conservatives, and the seniors it was supposed to benefit. Quite an accomplishment.

But Mr. Bartlett betrayed his religious prejudice in his unguarded comments to Mr. Suskind. By portraying Bush as an irrational mystic, Bartlett throws his lot in with the paranoid Left. This now-familiar slander is made without any shred of supporting evidence. Thus, it is itself a triumph of irrationality.

Bartlett's calumny reaches a despicable level in his equation of the president with our enemies. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.