John Podhoretz

Podhoretz was a staunch supporter of President George W. Bush. His 2004 book Bush Country: How George W. Bush Became the First Great Leader of the 21st Century---While Driving Liberals Insane called Bush "the first great leader of the 21st century". When some conservatives denounced Bush's immigration plan, Podhoretz wrote that Bush's "efforts on behalf of conservative causes—from faith-based policies to stem-cell research to a strict-constructionist judiciary to entitlement reform and massive tax cuts—have all fallen down the memory hole".[5]

Podhoretz is emphatic in his defense of Israel in its conflicts with its Arab neighbors. When pundit Pat Buchanan called Israel's actions in the 2006 Lebanon War "un-Christian", Podhoretz wrote: "You want to know what anti-Semitism is? When Pat Buchanan calls Israel's military action 'un-Christian.' That's anti-Semitism."[6]

Podhoretz has supported the Iraq War from its inception until the present. In his book, Bush Country, he wrote. In a July 25, 2006 column for the New York Post that discussed the Israel-Lebanon conflict, Podhoretz advocated a more Machiavellian policy in Iraq, writing: "What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?"[7] In a December 2006 column, he wrote, "The most common cliché about the war in Iraq is now this: We didn't have a plan, and now everything is in chaos... This is entirely wrong. We did have a plan—the problem is that the plan didn't work... We thought a political process inside Iraq would make a military push toward victory against a tripartite foe—Saddamist remnants, foreign terrorists and anti-American Shiites—unnecessary... The only plan that will work is a plan to face the tripartite enemy—the Saddamists, the foreign terrorists and the Shiite sectarians—and bring them to heel. Kill as many bad guys as we can, with as many troops as we can muster."[8]

In disagreement with several writers at National Review and conservatives in general, Podhoretz has aggressively favored a more open immigration policy for the United States. He wrote: "I said merely what I feel deeply—which is that, as a Jew, I have great difficulty supporting a blanket policy of immigration restriction because of what happened to the Jewish people after 1924 and the unwillingness of the United States to take Jews in."[9] Podhoretz was generally supportive of President Bush's proposals for a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants in the U.S.

In November 2007, comments on Commentary's blog "Contentions", Podhoretz attacked his former colleague at National Review Online, Mark Krikorian, for what Podhoretz called a "vision of a walled-off America primarily under threat from border-crossing immigrants." Podhoretz attempted to connect Krikorian's stance on immigration to an isolationist foreign policy.[10] In response, Krikorian called Podhoretz a "pedantic bore" who had no "actual arguments" against Krikorian's position on immigration.[11]

On March 30, 2006, Podhoretz was criticized by various bloggers[12][13] for posting the following comment on National Review Online approximately three hours after hostage Jill Carroll's release from her captors: "It's wonderful that she's free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn't beaten or killed—while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is—I expect there will be some Stockholm syndrome talk in the coming days."[14]

Within days of Carroll's release, a video of Carroll slamming the "occupation" of Iraq and praising the insurgents as "good people fighting an honorable fight" appeared on an Islamist website. However, Carroll subsequently released a statement through The Christian Science Monitor's website stating that she participated in the video only because she feared for her life and because her captors said they would let her go if she participated to their satisfaction. Carroll called her captors "criminals, at best" and said she remained "deeply angry" with them.[15]

On April 1, 2006, Podhoretz wrote the following on National Review Online: "For writing these predictive words, which were entirely accurate, I've been pilloried all over the blogosphere. Weird, especially in light of Jill Carroll's statement today, which was an effort to address and quiet precisely the kind of talk I predicted would take place."[16]

In response to assertions by National Review writer John Derbyshire that the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre should have been more forceful in defending themselves, Podhoretz wrote: "The notion that a human being or group of human beings holding no weapon whatever should somehow 'fight back' against someone calmly executing other people right in front of their eyes is ludicrous beyond belief, irrational beyond bounds, and tasteless beyond the limits of reason. 'Why didn't anyone rush the guy?' Derb asks. Gee, I don't know. Because he was executing people? Because if you rush a guy with a gun, he shoots you in the head the way he executed the teachers in each classroom?"[17] Podhoretz went on to ridicule Derbyshire's claim that he was touching a "third rail" by raising a subject nobody else wanted to discuss.

Podhoretz has frequently clashed with Derbyshire on immigration policy and other issues.

Podhoretz often writes about popular culture, and was called the "resident pop culture expert" at National Review Online by Jonah Goldberg.[18] Dennis Miller has called Podhoretz his "favorite movie reviewer."[19] Podhoretz has written that "it doesn't make sense to judge pop culture by its politics."[20] In 1999 a column he wrote for The New York Post, "A Conversation in Hell",[21] which featured a conversation between Satan and Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., was killed because of its controversial nature.[22]