Here We Go Again

WND.com ^ | 12-10-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Theodore R.]

Here we go again

Posted: December 10, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

A close read of President Bush's November addresses at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington and at the Whitehall Palace in London leads a traditionalist almost to despair.

George Bush did not write this democratist drivel. This is the kind of messianic rhetoric he probably never heard before he became president. Who is putting these words in his mouth? For if George Bush truly intends to lead a "global democratic revolution," and convert not only Iraq but the whole Middle East to democracy, he has ceased to be a conservative and we are headed for endless conflicts, disappointments, disillusionment and tragedy.

At London, he called a "commitment to the global expansion of democracy" both "the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror" and "the third pillar of our security." But before he wagers our security on a crusade for democracy, Bush should ask the hard questions no one seems to have asked before he invaded Iraq.

Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments? Can he truly believe that by hectoring such autocracies as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, America is more secure? Who comes to power if Mubarak goes in Cairo, the Saudi monarchy falls or Musharaff is ousted in Pakistan? If memory serves, the last wave of popular revolutions in the region gave us Nasser, Khadafi, Saddam and the Ayatollah.

With $200 billion sunk into democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan, how many more wars does Bush think Americans will support before they decide to throw the interventionist Republicans out?

Where did he get the idea we are insecure because the Islamic world is not democratic? The Islamic world has never been democratic. Yet, before we intervened massively there, our last threat came from Barbary pirates. Lest we forget, Muhammad Atta and his comrades did not plot their atrocities in the Sunni Triangle, but in Hamburg and Delray Beach.

Surveys show that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel. Interventionism is not America's solution, it is America's problem.

It was our earlier intervention in the Gulf War and our huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that lead directly to 9-11. They were over here because we were over there.

If one-man, one-vote comes to Pakistan, what do we do if that nuclear nation supports a return of the Taliban? What do we do if the Iraqi regime that takes power after free elections tells us to pack up and get out, and declares the liberation of Kuwait and its return to the embrace of the motherland to be as vital to Baghdad as the return of Taiwan is to Beijing?

Freedom, the president said, "must be chosen and defended by those who choose it." Exactly. Why not then let these Islamic peoples choose it on their own timetable and defend it themselves?

It is "cultural condescension," says Bush, "to assume the Middle East cannot be converted to democracy. ... Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking."

But if 22 of 22 Arab states are non-democratic, this would seem to suggest that this soil is not particularly conducive to growing the kind of democracies we raise in upper New England. This may be mulish thinking to the progressives at NED, but it may also be common sense.

What support is there in history for the view that as we meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, we advance our security? How would we have responded in the 19th century if Britain had declared a policy of destabilizing the American Union until Andrew Jackson abolished slavery?

"Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity and the best hope for progress here on earth." Is it? Before democracy became our god, we used to believe that salvation was Heaven's plan for humanity, and Jesus Christ was the way, the truth and the life.

The neocons have made democracy a god, but why is George W. Bush falling down and worshiping their golden calf?

The last time we heard rhetoric like Bush's at NED and Whitehall Castle was the last time we were bogged down in a war. LBJ declared that America's goal was far loftier than saving South Vietnam. We were going to build a "Great Society on the Mekong."

Like Woodrow Wilson, Bush has been converted to the belief that democracy is the cure for mankind's ills. But our Founding Fathers did not even believe in democracy. They thought they were creating a republic – a republic that would be secure by remaining free of the wars of the blood-soaked continent their fathers had left behind. How wrong they were.

[general_re]

Oh, jeez - I think I made it too easy ;)

[MissAmericanPie]

Excellent points. I never have understood those that voted for this guy. My main gripe about him is his throw them to the wolves stance on Israel. I do believe in selective isolationism of the USofA, but not in any direction he supports.

[aculeus]

Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments?

Where in The Constitution does it say America must wait until some nuclear-armed fanatic manages to kill a few million of us?

[hchutch]

Never cared for his foreign policy, and to be blunt, I don't care for much of anything the plaeos have pushed on the domestic front, either.

I'm with the neo-conservatives of foreign policy, and I think Grover Norquist's stance on taxes and domestic policy sound pretty good, too.

Of course, to some folks, that must make me a heretic.

[philosofy123]

I agree with you 100%

[squidly]

I'd say Mr. Buchanon is guilty of some "cultural condescension", to put it politely.

[Poohbah]

Act like some metrosexual when it comes to foreign policy?

Can you say "metrosexual" on Free Republic?

[MissAmericanPie]

Like you, I cannot define myself totally with neo's or paleo's. I feel that I take the best aspects of both branches.

[TomB]

Can you say "metrosexual" on Free Republic?

Yes, as long as you don't say "Jehova".

(ooooooops.)

[TomB]

Where in The Constitution does it say America must wait until some nuclear-armed fanatic manages to kill a few million of us?

All I want is for a paleo to give me specific ideas as to how they would secure the safety of this country from islamic terrorists.

And no, saying "close the borders" or "let the free market handle it" aren't serious ideas.

[Alberta's Child]

And you, also, conveniently ignored the second part of my post, your solution.

The Solution (Assuming the War on Terror is Truly a War Against Islamic Fundamentalism)

Part 1: Immediate interment and deportation of all U.S. non-citizen residents from Islamic countries. Mandatory registration, fingerprinting, and identification of all non-citizens from other countries.

Part 2: The immediate sacking of all FBI, INS, and CIA officials in the U.S. government whose negligence and/or incompetence resulted in the 9/11 attacks, followed by criminal prosecutions for criminally negligent homicide and dereliction of duty.

Fighting a "war on terror" in Iraq without taking these steps at home is a monumental waste of time. Which leads me to speculate that the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

[TomB]

I think you put it best when you said:

Now that's a naive outlook if I ever heard one.

Part 1

How, exactly, are you going to do this? Legally, I mean. Also, how do you propose finding all the people who don't want to be found? Are you proposing identity cards for everyone? Routine checkpoints? What about the Muslims who ARE residents?

Part 2

Well, now THAT'S going to stop future terrorism.

[Grampa Dave]

"I can't believe anyone still publishes Buchanan. And, who funds him? The Dems?"

Probably the Dems, the Opecker Thugs and Princes and George $oreA$$ are the funders for old Patty. Since he was fired from his gig with his buddy Bill Press, he needs a job.

[Alberta's Child]

Let's be blunt here -- NOTHING is going to stop future acts of terrorism. But at least we can start holding people accountable for their failures in positions of public trust.

And no, we don't have to worry about the "legality" of anything we do anymore. If the U.S. has no problem fighting idiotic wars to "promote democracy" all over the world, then we should have no problem arresting and deporting actual or perceived threats to it here at home.

If "9/11 changed everything," then let's get down to business.

[mr.pink]

Probably the Dems, the Opecker Thugs and Princes and George $oreA$$ are the funders for old Patty.

Although it's fun (and cheap, disingenous, and lazy) to toss that sort of pie.... it's actually Taki Theodoracopulos (with very deep pockets and the guts to put his money where is ideology lies) who publishes The American Conservative magazine which includes Buchanan's articles.

[TomB]

Let's be blunt here -- NOTHING is going to stop future acts of terrorism. But at least we can start holding people accountable for their failures in positions of public trust.

So, since we can't stop terrorism, let's punish the government for not stopping terrorism.

I see.

And no, we don't have to worry about the "legality" of anything we do anymore. If the U.S. has no problem fighting idiotic wars to "promote democracy" all over the world, then we should have no problem arresting and deporting actual or perceived threats to it here at home.

So, in other words, you have NO IDEA how to fight terrorism, but that isn't going to stop you from bitching about those who are.

Wonderful.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the US or it's interests outside the war zone, since 9-11, this despite the fact terrorists have attacked numerous countries, mostly MUSLIM countries.

[Grampa Dave]

When this war on terrorism winds down, we will see all types of funding from the Opecker Princes, thugs, the Sorea$$es directly and via their various so called no profits as well as many so called political think tanks.

In the meantime a probable indicator is to remove the name of the writer, where it was published and see how often it sounds like something right out of the middle east re its hatred of any activity towards terrorism and those who would fight terrorism.

[Alberta's Child]

So, since we can't stop terrorism, let's punish the government for not stopping terrorism.

We can't stop terrorism for the same reason that law enforcement is incapable of preventing one type of crime -- murder/suicide -- no matter how many resources they commit to the effort. But if someone who commits such a crime after being mistakenly released from jail by the lawful authorities, we'd still hold those authorities responsible, wouldn't we?

So, in other words, you have NO IDEA how to fight terrorism, but that isn't going to stop you from bitching about those who are.

You've got it all wrong. The whole point of this article is that the U.S. is not fighting terrorism anymore -- the "war on terror" in Iraq has morphed from . . . 1) an attempt to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; to 2) a global war on all types of terrorism; to 3) a noble crusade to promote democracy in the Middle East; to 4) a war that doesn't really make sense at all in these two respects, except that "to cut our losses and leave now would encourage all future terrorists."

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the US or it's interests outside the war zone, since 9-11, this despite the fact terrorists have attacked numerous countries, mostly MUSLIM countries.

1) Flight 587 in Queens (possible terrorist attack, particularly in light of the subsequent shoe bombing attempts); 2) Shootings at the El Al ticket counter in LAX; 3) Sniper attacks in suburban Washington, D.C.

It's also worth noting that on September 10, 2001, I could legitimately have made the claim that "we must be doing something right -- no terror attacks have taken place in the U.S. in more than eight years."

[Ernest Hemmingway]

All I want is for a paleo to give me specific ideas as to how they would secure the safety of this country from islamic terrorists.

How about not letting them into our country genius?

[Ernest Hemmingway]

Fighting a "war on terror" in Iraq without taking these steps at home is a monumental waste of time.

Well said.