"To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil." -- February 19, 2003
"The next -- most radical, most risky, most essential -- action in this process of doctrine-in-the-making will be to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq." -- July 31, 2002
"The second cheering effect is to nip more or less in the bud the anti-globalism movement. This movement, which was growing, offered the outgroup left its first real chance in many years to fashion a radical politics of destruction with some measure of mass appeal. The human costs of globalism, and the policy elite's disdainful unconcern for those costs, had given rise to a fragile coalition that promised the possibility of fulfilling the hard left's eternal dream: Workers of the world, unite. (Under us, of course.) For a brief moment, labor union working men marched in the streets with the Cub Scout anarchists and the perpetual protesters."
"That's gone now. It went up in a cleansing puff when the radicals hit upon the brilliant notion of segueing the anti-globalization movement into an antiwar, anti-America-the-oppressor movement. This was an error in judgment with significant consequences. Working men will not march in the army of the flag-burners. They will march in the army that is setting out to kill the people who killed so many of their union brothers in the fire and police departments of New York City."
"And the dilettantes can get back to the important business of saving Mumia." --November 7, 2001
"The battle of Afghanistan gives America a rare second chance. Start with the radical assumption that Afghans do not like starving in poverty under the rule of psychopaths. What would happen if the United States made it possible for them to live, not under American rule, but under a sane self-rule, with material assistance from this nation? What would happen, in short, if the United States rescued the Afghans?" -- October 24, 2001
"Last week I argued that those Americans who preached pacifism in response to the attacks of Sept. 11 were (borrowing from George Orwell) objectively pro-terrorist, objectively in favor of letting the masters of this attack escape to live and to commit more mass murders of Americans." -- October 3, 2001
"The anti-warriors must know that their position is a luxury made affordable only by the sure bet that no one in authority will ever accede to their position. The marchers and shouters and flag-burners in Washington pretended to the argument that war should not be waged. What they really mean is that war should not be waged by them. It should be waged by other mothers' sons and daughters."
"How many pacifists would be willing to accept the logical outcome of their creed of nonviolence even in face of attack -- life as a conquered people? Not many, I would think. How many want the (mostly lower-class) men and women of the United States armed forces to continue to fight so that they may enjoy the luxury of preaching against fighting? Nearly all, I would think."
"Liars. Frauds. Hypocrites. Strong letters, no doubt, to follow." -- Ocotber 3, 2001
"As President Bush said of nations: A war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans -- perhaps a great many more -- to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers."
"That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil."
-- September 26, 2001