- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Bob Novak: One of My Favorite 'Unpatriotic Conservatives'
Reading and writing obituary tributes to the great journalist Robert Novak will, no doubt, provide most of the day's work for myself and others who admired Novak and his work. My young friend Richard Spencer recalls the famous question asked by Pat Moynihan, after Novak -- of Jewish ancestry and a secular upbringing -- had converted to Catholicism:
"Now that we have made Novak a Catholic, do you think we can make him a Christian?"
Novak made many friends during the course of his long career because he was never afraid to make enemies. When I heard the news of his death today, I remembered the first time I met Novak, at a May 2002 foreign policy forum sponsored by Pat Buchanan's American Cause organization. And when I Googled Novak's name along with the name of Georgie Ann Geyer, the Washington Times columnist whom I recalled as one of his co-panelists that day, I found this report of the event:
Not surprisingly, the public debate won little press attention, probably because it actually applied reason to matters much of the press doesn't want reasoned out.
Mr. Buchanan. . . sided with columnist Robert Novak against Richard Perle of the American Enterprise Institute and Middle East expert Reuel Gerecht, formerly with the CIA, at a debate sponsored by Mr. Buchanan's think tank, the American Cause. The first topic debated was "Should the U.S. invade Iraq?"
The case for invasion was made by Mr. Perle and Mr. Gerecht, who argued that Iraq is seeking or already has weapons of mass destruction, that it may give these weapons to terrorist groups, and that terrorists armed with them might then launch massive attacks on the United States or other American targets that would make Sept. 11 look like a fender bender on the Beltway. Mr. Perle was also emphatic that Iraq already supports terrorism and may have had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks themselves.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Novak questioned all of the above. The two journalists demanded to know what Saddam Hussein had done to threaten the United States or its extensions abroad and what evidence there is for Iraqi support for terrorism today. . . .
Mr. Buchanan's point was that by the logic of his opponents, we should invade anywhere and everywhere a foreign government is doing something we don't like or something that might someday somehow threaten us. That's a formula for perpetual war -- and his opponents said little to distance themselves from it.
It was Novak's criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and especially his agreement with Buchanan on that subject, that earned him inclusion in David Frum's notorious 2003 catalog of "Unpatriotic Conservatives."
Since then, Frum has gone on to attack others, including Mark Levin. This seems to demonstrate a lamentable habit on the part of Frum, whom I wish to regard as a friend. As a result of the Bush policy -- and the rhetoric that attended the political defense of that policy -- every consideration of the U.S. position in the Middle East became a crude referendum on anti-Semitism, so that all dissenters were suspected of being closet Jew-haters in "unpatriotic" allegiance with terrorists.
This Manichean rhetorical escalation was both unfortunate and unjust, even if some of the dissenters (including Buchanan) had unwisely given their critics ammunition with which to arm accusations of mala fides. When discussions of policy become clouded by such damaging insinuations, when disagreement is cited as evidence of moral inferiority -- can anyone but a child molester be worse than an anti-Semite? -- then honest discussion becomes impossible. We see much the same problem at work today, when every critic of the Obama administration risks the charge of "racism," which is often implied even when it is not made openly.
My own feelings of friendship toward Frum, considering that he once did me a favor when I badly needed it, have caused me tremendous angst, given his repeated attacks on others whom I also consider friends.
Today, of course, Novak can no longer be harmed by accusations that he, born a Jew, was guilty of aiding and abetting anti-Semites. Whatever his faults and errors, Bob Novak now awaits the judgment of a higher authority than David Frum. Let us pray that Frum will now pause to consider that he, too, shall one day be judged by the same authority.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Pingback| 8.18.09 @ 3:12PM
Ed Driscoll » RIP, Bob Novak links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Teflon93| 8.18.09 @ 3:26PM
"Let us pray that Frum will now pause to consider that he, too, shall one day be judged by the same authority. "
You mean The New York Times?
That's all Frum cares about impressing lately.
Pingback| 8.18.09 @ 5:14PM
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Novak vs. Frum, Levin vs. Frum, and Casualties of Rhe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Red Phillips| 8.18.09 @ 5:37PM
RSM, I honestly think you suffer from a bit of cognitive dissonance. Mark Levin has no more friendly things to say about anti-war conservatives than Frum did. Check out Levin’s list of "deranged bloggers." Most of them are anti-war conservatives. In this respect, Frum and Levin are more alike than different.
WendyG| 8.18.09 @ 6:11PM
I guess we are all supposed to forgive and forget that Novak was a self-hating Jew who converted then spent the rest of life attacking Israel, and supporting Hamas. Well, you can if you want to. I won't.
Red Phillips| 8.18.09 @ 6:36PM
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." KJV
Jesus, another self-hating Jew according to Wendy I guess.
Bill C| 8.18.09 @ 6:50PM
Well I'm not too hopeful, especially given the recent commentary. The neocons at... Commentary are already slamming him on the day of his death. In the manner called for by WendyG John Podheretz remarks "He had, as they [who is they???] say, “issues” with his Jewish roots, expressed largely in a hostility to Israel that made little sense given the overall nature of his views on a wide range of subjects—he was, for instance, an intimate of and close friend to the late Jack Kemp and agreed with Kemp on nearly every particular, but Kemp was a supporter of Israel, and Novak an opponent of it.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/76342
Just the typical nastiness from that crowd. Sad that they can make a career peddling this hate.
Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 7:52PM
I'm sad Novak's gone because he was an independent, clear thinker, a fine writer, and a strong debater.
He was a conservative whose opinions were NOT dictated to him by Rush Limbaugh. Unlike Limbaugh, he was a reporter first and foremost. He was, essentially, a JOURNALIST, something that's being lost in the blabosphere. I think I agreed with him never once, but I enjoyed his column and learned from it.
Teflon93| 8.18.09 @ 7:52PM
Wendy G must be blissfully unaware that American evangelicals and Catholics are more pro-Israel than American Jews are.
They must be self-hating.
As for Novak, if American Jews are under no obligation to support Israel, much less unequivocally so, how precisely is Novak so obligated?
It's a bit like saying that someone baptized Catholic is "self-hating" for becoming a Methodist in adulthood. I am a Catholic but would never dream of being so uncharitable.
In short, Wendy G, if you have issues with Novak I can only imagine your unquenchable hatred for Rahm Emmanuel.
Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 7:57PM
WendyG --
I'm not sure where you get your information; I'm positive it is NOT from reading Mr. Novak's columns.
Novak was critical of Israel and he sympathized with Palestinians. This does not make him a "self hating Jew." (His sympathy may have been increased when he converted; many Palestinians are Christians, after all. Or, his conversion may have affected his thinking in other ways.)
Generally, speculating about what happens in a man's soul is a bad business, unless you're a man's priest.
I think what you and many other "conservatives" don't like about Novak is his independence from the howling populist mob -- i.e. the nuts that many conservatives of his generation fought long and hard to marginalize.
Teflon93| 8.18.09 @ 7:58PM
Ahh, it's back to "Liberal Reader" again. Update your programs, people!
1. Limbaugh is not a journalist and doesn't claim to be. Good thing too since the overwhelming majority of journalists are Democrat hacks who can't get cushy political jobs at the moment.
2. Journalism is alive and well in the blogosphere. Ask Dan Rather, whose hindquarters were handed to him for his perpetrating a fraud with a phony letter created in Microsoft Word and backdated to 1972. Little Green Footballs among others broke that story. I can understand why liberals think the blogosphere stinks---the Lefty side of it being all they read and a fever swamp of stupidity and lies.
3. Novak's most famous "apostasy" was over the Iraq War. I suspect that you agreed with him on that, unless you have changed your mind now that it's Obama's war.
Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 8:03PM
Mr McCain --
I can't imagine why you feel so conflicted about being a friend of Frum. The man's willingness to criticize his own speaks well of him.
I can't think of a single issue I agree with Frum on, but I appreciate his thoughtfulness and generally take him to be a good sport.
I could live without the "unpatriotic" epithet being thrown around by conservatives every five minutes: it makes them look weak and foolish. (Which they often are.) But who am I to judge? Conservative Land is a nice place to visit, but I sure as hell don't want to live there.
Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 8:11PM
Teflon --
I was ambivalent about the war and chose to remain silent.
I believe we have to trust presidents, especially when WMD are in the mix. I'm not really sorry for my position either, although I think the war was dreadfully, dreadfully mismanaged. The incompetence of its prosecution until 06 / 07 staggers the mind. But I kept my mouth shut.
Obama, by the way, is a "war president." He's got 150,000 soldiers abroad who are looking to him for leadership.
Conservatives may want to think about that when they call him a "fascist." And yes, I said the same thing when Bush -- whom I in general did not support -- was president. I was a soldier before I was an arugula eating, sociology studying, white wine sipping, peace-loving, live piano-concerto listening, bespectacled bleeding heart liberal.
But no, my respect for Novak was not over the war. It was for his WRITING and his debating style. Anyone who earns the nickname Prince of Darkness has my complete admiration.
Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 8:16PM
By the way, Teflon --
What I know about the war was delivered to me by REPORTERS, not chickenshit bloggers or disc-jockey war-mongers.
As of a few months ago, over 80 journalists had been killed in Iraq, bring people all over the world actual information about what was going on there.
Whom would you have me trust about what's happening in Iraq? A reporter, or the Pentagon?
Sure, journalists screw up all the time. Sure, some are corrupt. But Jesus, Teflon, grow up, man. That's life. A lot of reporters do great work, too.
Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 8:26PM
One last thing on journalists, Teflon --
Your post rehearses a logical quagmire that happens pretty frequently in conservative talk.
Journalists are bunko, you claim. Your evidence? Dan Rather, who was debunked by other journalists.
Well... that's how it works. Journalists debunk other journalists, and somehow something like the truth often gets to us. What's the alternative? We just sit around watching CSPAN and assuming everything Dick Cheney says is true?
Robert Stacy McCain| 8.18.09 @ 9:19PM
Noticing in the comments how the Iraq war continues to spark vitriolic debate. When I arrived at The Washington Times in 1997, Warren Strobel was one of the newspaper's reporters covering the White House. He eventually joined the McClatchy chain and, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Strobel was one of the voices crying in the wilderness that U.S. intelligence about Iraq did not appear to be reliable. But such was the media's mood, in the wake of 9/11, that Strobel and his colleagues could get no one important to pay attention to their reporting.
The question was never whether Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. At issue was the scope and nature of Hussein's WMD program, and whether it constituted the "clear and present danger" that the Bush administration said it did.
With questionable intel on the casus belli, the Bush administration also -- and this is inarguable -- miscalculated how Iraqi civilians would react to a U.S.-led invasion. The interim government under Paul Bremer was an unmitigated bungle and clearly the Pentagon's initial counterinsurgency strategy was a failure.
Yet in late 2002 and early 2003, it seemed that no one in any position of influence with the Bush administration or the Republican Party had any inkling of the potential disaster that Novak and Buchanan (and Strobel and others) tried to warn them about. The GOP had always been so strong on foreign policy and military affairs, and to fritter away their advantage on those issues by blundering to a Mesopotamian catastrophe was a policy error with tremendous political consequences, for which we are even today paying the price.
The Bush administration's errors may have been made honestly and in good faith, but it needs to be recognized that they were indeed errors -- and that Novak and Buchanan's opposition was wiser than the pro-war advocacy of Perle and others. It is an unwillingness of the architects of the Iraq invasion to admit their own errors that prevents a rapprochement and healing among conservatives who remain divided by that debeat.
Pingback| 8.18.09 @ 10:04PM
Doug Bandow » Blog Archive » Bob Novak, RIP links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 10:05PM
Amen.
Nobama| 8.18.09 @ 10:17PM
Yeah, Jeremiah--but your "Dear Leader's" favorables are still in the toilet, along with his ObamaCare "Death Panels."
Don't get too happy.
Teflon93| 8.18.09 @ 10:44PM
LR, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.
Dan Rather was debunked by Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) and a small cadre of other bloggers.
Journalists did NOT debunk his bogus ANG story. Indeed, many still haven't---they're afraid to.
The blog heard 'round the world---except in the Left Wing Media:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/12526
As for investigative journalism, there are few indeed who practice the ancient craft. The American Spectator is one of the few safe harbors for them.
And if you rely on reporters for the story on Iraq, you are a misinformed fool.
I rely on people like Michael Yon. Unlike the Hair Helmet Hamas LR prefers, bloggers like Yon have the advantage of actually having served in the armed forces. They know their subject.
But you've indicted yourself sufficiently, LR. No need to go for more counts when the sentence is severe enough to deter like-minded unserious people.
Teflon93| 8.18.09 @ 10:45PM
Mr. McCain-
Have you read Doug Feith's book?
Pingback| 8.18.09 @ 10:54PM
The Shadow Knows: Robert Novak (1931-2009) | thelobbyist links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Smitty| 8.18.09 @ 11:27PM
Dan Rather was debunked by other JOURNALISTS? That's a whopper--they were rooting for Dan (What's the frequency, Kenneth?) Rather. Care to offer up some names of these courageous few?
You're out of your mind, troll.
watches replica| 8.19.09 @ 1:49AM
Thank you for sharing, I thought.
Replica breitling
Replica tag heuer
Watches Replica
cheap watches
Replica Watch
Replica Omega
Replica Seiko
Replica Watches
fake Watch
Replica Cartier
Replica Rolex
Replica Panerai
Derek Leaberry| 8.19.09 @ 9:34AM
A little man named David Frum wrote "Unpatriotic Conservatives" six years ago about men much bigger than himself, notably the late Robert Novak who were mourn today. Long after Frum lies mouldering in his grave, Robert Novak will be remembered as the pre-eminent reporter of his sort of his era or any other era. He was one of a kind.
As for the Iraq War and Occupation, Novak and the other "unpatriotic conservatives" were proven right and Frum, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives were proven wrong. Iraq was not worth the cost of 4000 soldiers and $ 1 trillion. It was not worth one life. As the late James Burnham wrote in National Review back when it was a serious conservative journal, the only thing in the Middle East vital to American interests is the oil beneath its sands- and nothing more. With Frum's diatribe against Novak, Pat Buchanan and the others, National Review proved itself to be a journal in rapid decline, slaves to neo-conservative foreign policy meddling. Ironically, William F. Buckley expressed regret for initially supporting the Iraq War, making him an "unpatriotic conservative" as well.
A last note on Robert Novak was his support of young conservative journalists, many of whom he hired. He was a big supporter of the National Journalism Center, which has provided the conservative cause hundreds of young journalists, Ann Coulter and John Fund two of the most notable. Although a very busy man, Robert Novak often found time to lecture at the NJC. He will be missed.
Teflon93| 8.19.09 @ 10:41AM
Iraq had continuously violated the terms of the 1991 ceasefire with repeated attacks and coalition aircraft, violations of the no-fly zone, and armed incursions into Kurdish enclaves in northern Iraq. Moreover, Iraq housed a terrorist training camp which used a real airliner to teach jihadists to hijack airplanes.
There was more than sufficient cassus belli to justify the invasion without WMD. You will no doubt remember how Democrats rushed to vote affirmative on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq---there was good reason they did so.
We lost 2,977 Americans in one day on 9/11/01. Regrettable though our losses in Iraq have been, they are simply unparalleled in how LOW they are for a war of this type. It is no stretch to say during WWII we lost more men TRAINING than we have in combat in Iraq.
Novak was wrong on the "quagmire" question.
With regard to Bush's larger policy, the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan is Iran. One cannot have a War on Terror without reckoning with the terror masters of Tehran. They have been at war with us since 1979 and have committed atrocity after atrocity, sometimes directly, other times thru proxies.
There seems to be nothing that Iran can do to us which will not be met by stoic indifference or outright obeisance.
Perhaps some of the concern over Israel could be better aimed at concern over the people who resolutely keep killing Americans.
sartana| 8.19.09 @ 12:52PM
I agree with Teflon93.
Saddam had been for years, in violation of the cessation of hostilities agreement he signed at the finish of the Gulf War. That was reason enough to have removed him from power. The fact that the Bush administration chose to sell it almost solely on WMD doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves to that justification alone.
I also, for a while, supported fully the drive for Democracy in the Middle East. After studying Islam, I no longer support it.
I agree with Stacy McCain on the notion that for Conservatism to be made whole enough to win back OUR country, there must be a debate between the NeoCon internationalist, open borders nation builders and the traditionalist Conservatives.
Teflon93| 8.19.09 @ 1:42PM
And I agree with sartana.
I wish it were true that democracy were the key to stability and peace in the Middle East but the fact that Hamas got elected rather put paid to that. Democracy doesn't necessarily inculcate Western values as the ongoing persecution of Christians in Iraq amply demonstrates.
Novak's concerns about the Bush doctrine seemed largely to be tied to "When do we stop?" That is a fair question; my own answer has less to do with a new Pax Romana (creating a vast desert and calling it "Peace") but more to do with WWII. We fight until the enemy surrenders. If that means Iran, Syria, and North Korea need to be thumped in turn, that is what it means. Part of the reason we are at war now is because we chose to ignore various cassus belli (cassi belli?) because we couldn't be bothered. We dropped the big stick and relied on soft talking exclusively.
We cannot police the world nor right every wrong. We can ferret out Al Qaeda and its allies and force those who provide safe harbor to terrorists to pay an enormous price.
It takes a lot of money and a lot of effort to maintain terrorist operations. Cut off the state support and the vine will wither. Ignore it and it'll grow and spread.
Which is where we are today.
I would hope Mr. McCain's admiration for Novak's Iraq position doesn't extend quite so far as support for Buchanan's. Buchanan insists we shouldn't have fought WWII.
Derek Leaberry| 8.19.09 @ 1:51PM
We may have a debate between different sides of conservatism but I can not see any sort of reconciliation. Some conservatives support the policy of a virtually bankrupt nation continuing as world policeman, other conservatives oppose the USA acting as world policeman. Some conservatives fervantly support a "War on Terror", other conservatives find a "War on Terror" a little open-ended and Wilsonian. Some conservatives want limits on immigration, others want open borders. Some conservatives, like David Frum, want to turn their backs on cultural conservatives and embrace modern decadence, other conservatives wish to retain cultural conservatism. And so on. Despite the governing pains of the Left, conservatives are split amongst themselves in a myriad of issues that are irresolvable. About twenty years ago, Bob Tyrrell wrote a book called "The Conservative Crack-Up". He could probably write a sequel if he so desired.
Teflon93| 8.19.09 @ 3:29PM
Well, not so fast, Derek.
What precisely is David Frum considered to be "conservative" about these days?
Beyond that, which conservatives say America ought to be the world's policeman? It is quite possible to support the War on Terror---and extending it to Iran---on the basis of self-defense. Iran cannot claim we are preemptively striking when they've been at war with us since 1979.
When did conservatism become pacifism? I must have missed the memo.
Derek Leaberry| 8.19.09 @ 4:19PM
Al-Qaeda, the organization that perpetrated the September 11 terror spree, is virtually annihilated and its leader in hiding, presumably in the mountains of the Pakistani-Afghani border. I agree that if we can kill him, we must for national honor.
As for a grand War on Terror, we are broke and can't afford crusades. The Federal Reserve can keep printing money to hide American fiscal insolvency but an implosion will occur eventually. With the Baby Boomers retiring at increasing rates, fiscal collapse is in the cards.
Bob Miller| 8.19.09 @ 4:23PM
"Today, of course, Novak can no longer be harmed by accusations that he, born a Jew, was guilty of aiding and abetting anti-Semites. "
But he can rot in Hell.
Heather| 8.19.09 @ 4:58PM
Sure, Miller, too bad the majority of American Jews voted for Obama--that's anti-Semitic by any standard.
You're still an ugly little man to disparage the dead. Loser.
Red Phillips| 8.19.09 @ 5:35PM
"But he can rot in Hell."
How nice. If Novak's conversion to Christianity was genuine, then we can all rest assured he is today with his Lord in Glory.
Angel| 8.19.09 @ 10:15PM
Red, would you be quite so sympathetic toward Novak if he had been a big pro Iraq War Hawk?
Somehow--I think not. But at least you stand up for your friends and I find that admirable.
You make me laugh.
Pingback| 8.20.09 @ 3:03AM
Blogging Bites: Frum vs. Novak, Changing Healthcare Strategy, eBook Launch, and More links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Teflon93| 8.20.09 @ 7:39AM
We are not at war with Al Qaeda alone.
I suggest Derek and anyone desiring a firmer grasp of the interrelationships between terrorist organizations and their state sponsors---without whom they would not exist---read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright.
Beyond that, one should consider that the 9/11 attacks weren't even the first terrorist attacks on the WTC complex, much less the first attacks on American soil, people, and equipment. It was merely the latest round.
If Al Qaeda dissolved tomorrow would the War on Terror be over? Of course not. Terrorist organizations reorganize all the time. Once the hijacking wave was over in the 70s, the PLO terrorists who perfected the art didn't stop being terrorists.
Work on shutting off terrorist funds since 2001 has established one thing for certain---terrorist groups are far more interconnected than American foreign policy and intelligence leaders thought on 9/10/01.
Until we are willing to take on the terror masters of Tehran, we will continue to be subject to terrorist attack by various jihadist groups. They are formed, funded, trained, and granted safe haven by Iran and Iranian proxies. Just as we could not interdict Viet Cong supplies without dealing with "neutral" Cambodia, we cannot cut off the flow of arms, money, training, and personnel to terrorist organizations without bringing Iran to heel.
It is essential to do so before the mushroom cloud appears over an American city.
Angel| 8.20.09 @ 3:23PM
Teflon, to my eternal grief, I agree. Unfortunately, we spoiled Americans learn the hard way. God help us.
Derek Leaberry| 8.20.09 @ 4:06PM
Some neo-conservatives place too much faith in the technological aptitude of Muslims and make fevered pleas about mushroom clouds over places like New York, Amsterdam or London if the Muslims are able to build a nuclear device. If the Soviet Union with 10,000 warheads didn't initiate a nuclear exchange with America, what is the worry over some bungling Muslims. The most successful Muslim terror attack on the West was when Muslims used our own technology in the form of airplanes against us.
What a bankrupt nation does not need is to spend more money on Middle Eastern adventures. America is broke with an entitlement explosion of spending just over the horizon. America's two chief existential threats are the looming avalanche of red ink and the tens of millions of Third World immigrants that we've allowed into the country over the past twenty years. Iran building a bomb they almost assuredly will never use is of minor importance.
Teflon93| 8.22.09 @ 11:40AM
The Soviet Union didn't attack American cities with our own aircraft, Derek. The Iranians have made quite clear what they intend to do with their nuclear capability and how it will impact Israel and the United States. You may recall that Al Qaeda similarly telegraphed their intent prior to 9/11. I assume you similarly scoffed then.
I am no neo-conservative, although it may be hard for someone who lacks the stones to say directly what he means when accusing someone of such to reliably distinguish between a conservative and a neo-con when it comes to unthinking pacifism.
Let me clue you in:
The difference between conservative support for taking out the mullahs BEFORE they develop nuclear weapons and neocon support for the same is that we have been at war with Iran since 1979. We're not talking about attacking Serbia or Sudan, which, however monstrous those regimes may have been or be, have done nothing to America nor to her interests.
The trouble with your position, Derek, is that it is disastrously weak in wartime, worse than Lindbergh's pre-WWII position given that the Nazis hadn't killed scads of Americans.
But perhaps you think those IEDs in Iraq were manufactured by the military-industrial complex to drum up body armor sales.
discount Laptop cpu fans| 11.8.09 @ 9:54PM
brand new discounting laptop AC Adapters
brand new discounting Laptop Batteries