Syzygys: "let's debate the man himself: "The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism." They are just as entitled to figth occupiers as any other nationality deffending their own country. Occupiers (or anyother murderous soldiers) are just as much of a killer as a suicide bomber." Keep in mind, Buckley made that expression in the context of the bombing of the Askariya mosque. That attack wasn't comparable to direct attacks on US occupation troops. It more loudly boomed out the sound of civil war, than of resistance to occupation. Buckley acknowledged the defeat of the US nation-building project in Iraq, which other neo-conservative PNAC signatories have not summoned the intellectual courage to do. I'm willing to give him some credit for that.
OK, if that was the context, it alters the point. Nevertheless, if he really believed that we went there because of WMDs and that we could nationbuild there, I don't have any respect for him....
pjdude: "the neoconservative movement as it is today would not exist without [Buckley]" Along those lines, this is interesting reading: Neoconservatism: a CIA Front?
I'm trying to take the news as simply that, news. Because—and just for an example— —while I find such hatred vile, and while I respect the folks at Making Light, and while, furthermore, I greatly respect one of the people who echoed in the comments the notion of "good riddance", I just can't bring myself to share the sentiment. Perhaps the world is a better place without such men as Buckley, but even the passing of evil is a form of tragedy. While a representative of hatred may have passed from the world, the hatred itself lives on. I would simply raise a glass and say, "Mr. Buckley, may you find in death a genuine peace." True, 'tis the absolute least I can wish for my fellow human beings, but it feels better than actually celebrating his death. To the other, the rest of the commentary is ... uh ... yeah ... dead on.
Syzygys: "if he really believed that we went there because of WMDs and that we could nationbuild there, I don't have any respect for him..." He came a long way, and he got past that. I'm not keen to praise Buckley more than burying him, I didn't share his perspective at all. But it's something like when the most vociferous, sometimes annoying right-wingers leave the stage here- something's missing.
That's a complete lie. Nazism is just communism where instead of attempting to get the "workers of the world" to unite, it's only the people a certain nation or historical background. They are both far, far left idealogies. And Buckley a neocon?? What are some of you on. Some of you are so offbase there is no way to explain anything to you. You live in a different universe, a universe mutually exclusivve of logic and historical facts.
Guys, the nazism problem belongs to the language section. Anyway, please somebody explain to me why America needed conservatism, and if there wasn't one before Buckley, what was it then? I thought America was always conservative... Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism This is basicly American history from the Founding fathers... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're wrong, and you continue to be wrong. He did not found the Weekly Standard. He founded the National Review. You ought to quit now, because you're embarrassing yourself. It's obvious you hate conservatism in all its forms, but it's equally obvious you don't know jack about it. And while we're at it, Hype your link about the CIA is a joke. Try reading a book about the OSS or Evan Thomas's The Very Best Men. In its early days, the CIA was largely populated by NE liberals (some would say it still is). Allan Dulles was the director for christ's sake.
Your point being? And the original neoconservatives were disgruntled Trotskyists. ____________________ Notes: Noah, Timothy. "Fathers and Sons: A review of Jacob Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons". New York Times. January 13, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Noah-t.html
"Neoconservativism" was never very descriptive of a political persuasion at least as old as democracy and empire. It was just a term everyone settled for. Of course neoimperialist and protofascist never would have been acceptable descriptors for the neocons themselves. I think the question of whether Buckley was a neocon is easily settled by noting that he was a PNAC signatory. The Project for the New American Century is to me the Neoconservative Manifesto.
zarlok: "[Communism and Nazism] are both far, far left idealogies" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Incomplete!
i don't hate conservatives in any form hell i like goldwater. and i knew buckly founded a conservative mag i mixed them ip big whoop
That's a heck of a question, coming from someone who doesn't even attempt to edit his posts and has posted inaccuracies in this thread.
This can be said of most famous people, placing Sadaam Hussein on the same field as Bill Buckley. You're basically stating "Bill Buckley was famous, and you're not," a fact that I'm sure everyone's who's posted on this thread is already aware of.
Mr. G you are still an idiot, and how do you know I am not famous? You can also be famous and an asshole at the same time, just like Buckley was....
