https://www.richardpoe.com

THE MARXIST RIGHT LOVES CINDY: We Were Better Off with Saddam, Says Former Reagan Economist and Mother Sheehan Disciple

by Richard Poe
Monday, August 22, 2005

1:05 pm Eastern Time
Archives
11 Comments

We all marveled when Cindy Sheehan earned a salute from white separatist and former KKK leader David Duke. But now we hardly bat an eyelash as Mother Sheehan’s media steamroller flattens one ideological barrier after another. Her newest recruit is self-styled “progressive, conservative Republican” Jude Wanniski, supply-side economist, former Reagan advisor, Louis Farrakhan chum and weaver of neo-Marxist apologetics (hat tip, Steven Plaut).

In an open “memo” of August 21, titled, “Are We Really Better Off Without Saddam?“, Wanniski addresses these words to Senator Trent Lott:

“It is dismaying to me, even disgusting, to see your congressional colleagues prattle on about how Iraqis are better off without Saddam, when more than 100,000 of their sons and daughters would still be alive if we had not gone to war. Are the dead `better off’? Are their families? …

“I’m with Cindy Sheehan, who still doesn’t understand why we continue to send young men and women into the Iraqi meat grinder.”

Does Mr. Wanniski mean to say that all wars which leave families bereft are fought in vain? Does he contend, for instance, that the 4,435 American troops who died in the War of Independence died for nothing? After all… they are dead.

Honest men may disagree on the rightness of a war, but only if they bring honest arguments to the table. Mr. Wanniski has reduced himself to parroting Cindy Sheehan – a sad fate for a man who once aspired to eminence in the world of ideas.

P.S. As our own Steven Plaut noted earlier on this blog, Mr. Wanniski’s panegyric to Mother Sheehan has turned up, unsurprisingly, on the Baathist Web site uruknet.info.

by Richard Poe
August 22, 2005 01:05 PM ET

Cross-posted from MoonbatCentral.com 08.22.05

Comments

11 Responses to “THE MARXIST RIGHT LOVES CINDY: We Were Better Off with Saddam, Says Former Reagan Economist and Mother Sheehan Disciple”

Trackbacks

Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. dark900 says:

    What qualifies Jude Wanniski to suddenly become an “expert” on foreign affairs? Answer: absolutely nothing. His former stance in the Reagan administration does not qualify him to be an “expert” on foreign policy. The same goes for Paul Craig Roberts, who was also a former member of the Reagan administration and an economist. Roberts, like Wanniski, is rabidly anti-American.

    Like Wanniski, Roberts knows nothing about America or why it is in Iraq or is going to try to disarm Iran. Roberts has made allegations that America “wants” to nuke Iraq and Iran. Roberts never cites his sources and only makes those odd claims out in the open. Roberts, like other anti-American people, has sided with Cindy Sheehan. Roberts has even gone on a pro-impeachment Jihad and has joined Ramsey Clark in trying to impeach President Bush.

    So what’s with these economists from the Reagan administration who believe they are suddenly “experts” in foreign policy? Their former positions in the U.S. government do not qualify them to say that America “will” nuke Iraq, Iran or any other hostile regime that has sponsored international terrorism. They just remind me of all of those leftist professors after 9/11 who believed it was their obligation to become “experts” on foreign policy right after 9/11 when they never qualified to be experts in the first place.

  2. Jacob Laksin says:

    That Wanniski has chosen to make common cause with the most radical voices of the far left is truly dispiriting. All the more so in light of the fact that he is the author of what is, in my humble view, one of the best books of popular economics in history. I refer, of course, to his classic, The Way the World Works, still a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the destructive role played by “progressive” taxation throughout history. Mr. Wannisky was an eloquent champion of economic freedom; we are all the poorer for the fact that he has so gracelessly defected from the cause of political liberty.

  3. Madzionist says:

    Wanniski is a paleocon chicken-dove.

    “Progressive conservative”? What he means is that he’s an “America Firster” looking to jump on the Sheehan Left bandwagon in a desperate plea for constituency and relevance.

    Sorry, not gonna work, “Ski”.

    -MZ

  4. Ripper says:

    There are a bunch of paleos who feel the same way that Wanniski does: Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell, Eric Margolis, Paul Craig Roberts, Joseph Sobran, Dennis Raimondo, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Georgie Ann Geyer – all have another thing in common; anti Semitism.

  5. Madzionist says:

    Well said, Ripper.

    -MZ

  6. Richard Poe says:

    All true. Nonetheless, I still like Buchanan’s proposal to annex Greenland and western Canada.

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  7. Jason P says:

    Wanniski joins Grover Norquist in the Islam-love-fest club. Over the last few years, I’ve read Wanniski’s apologetics for Islam and his defense of his misunderstood friend Farrakhan, purveyor of bootleg Islam.

    Poor Jude. Here’s a guy who’s had one line in the first act and hasn’t realized the play is over.

  8. kyle says:

    RIPPER SAYS: “There are a bunch of paleos who feel the same way that Wanniski does: Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell, Eric Margolis, Paul Craig Roberts, Joseph Sobran, Dennis Raimondo, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Georgie Ann Geyer – all have another thing in common; anti Semitism.”

    Maybe thats why I am no longer a paleocon. It used to be I loved what these guys wrote. But since then I have learned that the world is not what it is in your theory book.

    I was brought up with the certain knowedge that old Woodrow Wilson was a silly globalist who wanted to get us bogged down in the rest of the world. Now I know that if the western powers had followed the advice of Wilson, we would have never had Hitler and the Third Reich.

    We can’t go back to isolationism. Well, we could, but it would be an unhappy moment for the rest of the world, and eventually for us.

  9. Madzionist says:

    “Maybe thats why I am no longer a paleocon. It used to be I loved what these guys wrote. But since then I have learned that the world is not what it is in your theory book.”

    Welcome to the real world, Kyle. Glad to have you here. Bring a few more misguided souls with you if you have the opportunity.

    BTW, what opened your eyes to the fact that the isolationist anti-Semites had it all wrong? Did you figure it out on your own, or did someone else persuade you? Maybe a world event (9/11)?

    Just curious.

    -MZ

  10. ralphbprice says:

    All of those Kyle mentioned have gone over to whatever side they have gone to. I used to love some of them, but now, I see the writing on the wall. Discouraging, but not so much that I won’t carry on the good fight. They have all been inching that way over the years. Time changes all people, some for the good, others, well they will never learn.

  11. dark900 says:

    I think Moonbat Central ought to dig through the Murray N. Rothbard achive over at Lewrockwell.com. He seems to fit the description on the lines of Jude Wanniski. Rothbard lashes out against any one who was an anti-Communist during the Cold War and even compared anti-Communists to Hitler and Stalin.

    This I believe is the ideology Paleocons like Jude Wanniski worship. They worship the father of the Paleocons – Murray N. Rothbard – who sought a pro-Communist/isolationist movement during the Cold War. He even stated that the North Koreans should have won the Korean Civil War sooner and the rest of the Koreans would be happier if they lived under Kim Il-Sung than under Rhee.



Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

https://www.richardpoe.com