Comments on: Norman Podhoretz & John Bolton Offer Essential Books on Struggle Against Islamofascism

By: Lola

Lola — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:47:11 +0000

I couldn't care less if it's the pope that produced the movie OBSESSION, it's impertaive for all to see the danger to humanity coming from radical Islam. Stop protecting (CAIR, or) those that want to slit one's throat no matter what your "politics" is! Do lefy-extremists realy dream that Islamofascists militants care if a christian or a Jew is religious or not a Republican or a Democrat? Reminder, Pearl was a liberal Jew (killed in Pakistan), Tom Fox Canadaian Christian pacifist (killed in Iraq) then again, Christians & Jews are APES & PIGS Says radical Islam. It's not about politics but about your and mine safety, nor do they care if you are afraid of them or not,

By: Vince P

Vince P — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:36:50 +0000

I’m back from my break from the apocolypse.

What happened to John Bolton is a national disgrace. Though nothing surprises me anymore.

The Democrats and NorthEast Country Club Republicans wont be happy until they drive all competent patriotic people out of government and make it so unpleasant to be nominated/confirmed to any post of importance that competent patriotic people will not even try.

By: patrick

patrick — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:37:23 +0000

wow….good stuff in this piece. Timely, pertinent, insightful. This is the kind of
constructive effort I used to look for in Newsweek until I gave up. Thank you Dan! Am adding these to my “to read” list. Right now am swimming through Sowell’s insightful: “The Vision of the Anointed”, which I find to be a helpful critique of liberal thinking.

By: David M

David M — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:35:42 +0000

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/11/2008 A short recon of whatâ€™s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:56:34 +0000

As another example: The “international establishment” (i.e., U.N. establishment) currently has a consensus that (1) the theory of AGW (anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming) is 100% true, and, (2) the one and only solution to it is an expansion of the international establishment’s powers, with punishments levied on developed and/or economically rising countries.

They’re wrong on both counts. And implementing such an erroneous consensus is definitely not positive for U.S. interests.

You could find different examples where international consensus is helpful to the United States. As I said, what counts is the content of the alleged consensus, which will vary.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:32:11 +0000

Haven’t read the book, so I can’t really answer the first question, although here is a semi-reasonable explanation of “moral equivalency” (I do not endorse it on all points):
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8297

As for the second,

In what ways are the interests of the United States of America not concordant with the goals of the â€œinternational establishment favoring global consensusâ€?

It varies from case to case, depending on the CONTENT of the consensus. There is nothing inherently good about consensus per se. If the “international establishment’s” consensus were that the United States should let itself be attacked or destroyed, for example, then obviously that consensus is terribly wrong and bad, and in conflict with the interests of the United States. And that is the “international establishment’s” consensus today, perhaps not with regard to the United States, but with regard to a certain U.S. ally that is, in fact, morally superior (not morally equivalent) to the barbaric countries surrounding it.

By: Christopher (Chino, California)

Christopher (Chino, California) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:55:27 +0000

I have a couple of questions that I hope Dan (or somebody else) can answer. When John Bolton uses the term â€œMoral Equivalencyâ€ in his book, does he mean that all diplomatic points of view expressed at the United Nations are considered by that body to be equally valid? Furthermore, in what ways are the interests of the United States of America not concordant with the goals of the â€œinternational establishment favoring global consensusâ€?