BOOK REVIEW: “Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq” (2008) by former Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN)

Many Republican candidates are attacking President Obama this year, but John Hostettler is the only one to criticize Obama for abandoning the anti-war lobby. According to the Evansville newspaper, he "accused Obama of abandoning his anti-Iraq War views. 'The one person, the one person who can get us out, who has unilateral authority to get us out, doesn't want to,' he said."

Book Review by Gregory Hilton
Former Congressman John Hostettler (IN) is now running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. He is in a primary with former Senator Dan Coats and State Senator Marlin Stutzman. The incumbent Democrat Evan Bayh surprised everyone by announcing his retirement on the day before the filing deadline. The GOP now has an excellent chance to capture this open seat.
Hostettler describes himself as “very conservative” but on foreign policy and national security issues his outlook is similar to the extreme left of the Democratic Party. There is little difference between the isolationist foreign policy he advocates and the viewpoint of anti-war activists Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.
Yesterday, Hostettler’s campagin was endorsed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate. The Texan noted:

‘John was a good friend and valuable ally . . when we served together in the House of Representatives. I always knew I could count on John.’ In a review of the book Paul said ‘My friend and former colleague John Hostettler, who was one of the few Republicans to oppose the Iraqi War, not only demolishes the ‘official’ justifications for attacking Iraq, but he demonstrates why true conservatives should have joined John and myself in opposing the war. I urge all Campaign for Liberty members, and anyone who wishes to understand how America was neoconned into the Iraq war, to read John’s book.’

In 2002 Hostettler was one of only six Republicans to vote against the Iraq war resolution. He is a disciple of Pat Buchanan and says we were in Iraq because of the influence of people “with Jewish backgrounds.” The lead review of this book on Amazon praises the book by saying:

The immense Jewish lobby, and their legions of Jewish public servants that have positioned themselves at all levels in our government, have basically taken over the foreign policy of our USA. They have wrongly directed us into this useless, unnecessary war, that may never end. We should condemn such an ‘invasion’ of our government by persons that have strong loyalties to countries other than our own. . .The entire world agrees that the USA is nothing more than an arm of Tel Aviv. . . Bravo to Rep. Hostettler for his brave stand.

Hostettler says he is against RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only), but he appears to be a RINO himself. He completely disagrees with the GOP platform on foreign policy and opposes the U.S. mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. The book contains many quotes from the founding fathers, but he clearly does not understand their intentions.
The American revolution was won at Yorktown but there were more French soldiers than American. The author says George Washington’s farewell address is his guiding principle, but the Founders were not isolationists. The United States had the first democratic revolution, and many of the founding fathers acknowledged they were acting for all nations. The French Revolution of 1789 began at the Bastille, and the key to this prison was presented to the greatest revolutionary of that era, General Washington.
Washington’s advice was wise for the years after the French revolution and before the war of 1812. This was a time when France and Britain were finishing a century of conflict. Washington was correct in urging his countrymen not to choose sides between France and Britain which was the hallmark of the campaign when our first president left office. Jefferson was viewed as being sympathetic to France, while Adams was portrayed as being more favorable to Britain.
In the same speech Washington advised against the creation of political parties. The Constitution of 1789 allowed slavery and women were denied the right to vote. We have a different outlook from the time Washington spoke in 1796.
Hostettler wants to ignore the lessons of the 20th century, and is completely opposed to the Republican Party’s freedom agenda. He wants to end America’s system of collective security, which probably would have avoided both World Wars I and II. He acknowledges Afghanistan’s responsibility for 9/11 and admits Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, but Hostettler never wants to do anything in response. In fact, he wants to ignore all evil in the world. He wanted to do nothing about the genocide in Darfur or the ethnic cleaning in the former Yugoslavia.
Morality means nothing to him, and he wants to ignore all of the state sponsors of terror. His repeated insistence that “There is no risk of somebody invading us” is just what the isolationists of the 1930s believed — right up until Pearl Harbor. They did attack us: 1993 (WTC I), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (African Embassies), 2000 (USS Cole), and 2001 (WTC/Pentagon). Their logic would have caused the US to lift not a finger to help Europe against Hitler (remember: “non-intervention”), nor help the West Berliners (1948), nor help the South Koreans (1950), nor help the Grenadians (1984), nor help the Kuwaitis (1990).
Hostettler’s idea that we can maintain peace by halting our projection of military strength has been proven wrong by history. Many Republicans are attacking President Obama this year, but Hostettler is the only to criticize Obama for abandoning the anti-war lobby. He “accused Obama of abandoning his anti-Iraq War views. ‘The one person, the one person who can get us out, who has unilateral authority to get us out, doesn’t want to,’ he said.” Many of Hostettler’s appearances have been sponsored by “Veterans for Peace.”
Many of the observations about Hostettler in the “Hoosier Hopeful” article in the isolationist “American Conservative” magazine are accurate. It says Hostettler “is unapologetic about his disagreements with neoconservatives. ‘The neocons know what a Senator Hostettler would mean,’ he says. ‘They would rather have Evan Bayh as the lead sponsor of sanctions against Iran, bringing us to the brink of war or a Republican who would do the same thing.’ Hostettler argues, ‘They want to mold the Republican Party’s image on foreign policy, and I am not of that mold.’ . . . Foreign policy is likely to remain a hotly debated topic in the general election, where the probable Democratic replacements for Bayh are all centrists not known for their antiwar views. But first, Hostettler will have to get there.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s