No End to War. The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.

The American Conservative ^ | 1 march 04 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[JohnGalt]

"In temperament, too, neoconservatives have revealed themselves as the antithesis of conservative."

[hchutch]

Buchanan is not much better, IMHO.

I'd turst Perle before I trust Buchanan.

[Atlantic Friend]

So that's the difference between neocons and paleocons ?

[Unam Sanctam]

I find Buchanan's casual dismissal of September 11 offensive, as well as his crude Jew-baiting (and I'm not Jewish!). The continuing festering of a dysfunctional Middle East is a tremendous threat to the United States, as Sept. 11 proved. I'm glad we have a president that has the guts and wisdom to do something about changing it for the better in the long term, both for the good of the peoples of the region and for our security.

[Dog Anchor]

The United States did not establish the State of Israel. That can be attributed to the British and the United Nations.

The U.S. acts in defense of Israel, after the fact, as it is a democratic state. The U.S. will act in defense of democracy regardless. Not a lot of Jews in Vietnam, Nicaragua or Somalia.

[.cnI redruM]

I guess Cynthia McKinney reads PJB on Israel and feels the tug of a kindred soul.

[gcruse]

Quiet Murder

[eskimo]

The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.

Seems there are some who actually desire this.

[.cnI redruM]

It depends upon who is attempting to slander who. The only winner of a Neocon/Paleocan turd-chucking contest is John Forbes Kerry.

[vaudine]

Pat, like many, seems only to have heard David Kay say that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD. He evidently did not hear him say that Iraq was even more dangerous than we had thought--a chaotic shoping mart for al queda as well as other terrorist orgn; that they had an active PROGRAM to develop nuclear weapons. The UN should have backed us simply because Iraq had asked to a cessation of Gulf War I and then did not abide by the terms, and did not heed 17 UN resolutions after that. Actually, I think Saddam thought after all those years and so many countries playing illegitimate footsie with him for their own gain that he was safe to continue. That was reason enough to invade.

For the best rationale I have heard for our foreign policy and against the liberal internationalist view or Pat's isolationist view, go to AEI.com and read Krauthammers "Democratic Realism." Anyone seriously interested in our leadership and in our foreign policy direction should read and reread this.

Because so many are taking only the media view of Dr. Kay's statements on Iraq, i.e. Iraq had no WMD stockpiles, and extrapolating that into "Bush lied and took us where we should not have gone," I am afraid they might buy Kerry's internationalist view that we should bow to Europe and the UN in making our foreign policy. Kerry, leading Dems., the media, and academia are apologizing because we are the only super power and want to neutralize us by setting up an international system whereby we no longer act in our own best interests. These other countries have at heart a huge desire to bring us down, even though many have come to realize that the world is a MORE stable place since we invaded Iraq. They don't care; they still want to trim our sails.

Buchanan's glib assertation that there is nothing new about Islamist ideas of taking over the world, it has been going on for hundreds of years, is both right and wrong. They ginned up and actually started spreading worldwide several hundred years ago.
They were stopped after they had spread into Spain, and settled down until the last century when the Islamist holy men started it up again, and now it is in full swing again. If it isn't stopped, it COULD take over the world.

Good grief! Pat B. thinks we should have ignored WWII and taken up the drawbridge until it was over. Pat is smart and knows history, but his math is poor. He adds two and two and gets three.

vaudine

[billbears]

Oh yes, the 'facts' as provided by those funloving knuckleheads over at the PNAC. Pat, while sometimes a little over the top on the Israeli situation (of which I disagree with him on BTW), does bring up some valid points. I imagine, if Bush wins next November, he will do his best to separate himself from Perle, Rumsfeld, and the rest

[u-89]

>I read where Perle was calling for the removal of Tenet over the intelligence problems. I think there's have a word for that.

There is a certain cabal of people who claim they do not really exist (wink,wink) who selectively cherry picked raw intelligence that supposedly buttressed their case for war and fast tracked it through a specially set up pipeline right up to the VP's office and to sympathetic media outlets. Funny how now it's the professionals in intelligence (who disagreed with these preconceived conclusions and wanted to vet raw data) are suddenly at fault. Yeah real funny how that works.

[dixierat]

Your argument, IMHO, reinforces MINE. We should have dealt with Al Qaeda to the finish, then tackled Iraq. As it stands, we appear to be threatening Iran (we do have them surrounded). Our military is extended beyond the comfort level. If I was 10 years younger, I would volunteer to go fight the Islamics.

My entire point is that our leaders have,IMHO, made a strategic blunderby attacking Iraq before Al Qaeda has been eliminated. They may get away with it, but the cost may be high.

[JohnGalt]

Kraut's piece was an embarrassment to conservatives, and Pat is after all, offering a critique of a Wilsonian Total War book from the conservative perspective. Kraut invented words in the fashion of Dr. Seus to explain a political scheme, which, as Pat noted, does not fit the traditional conservative temperament.

It's clear that the Perle-Frum folks are isolated and on their own on the Right, and while the Murdoch/Scaife press still presents the image that the neoconservatives are the right, any cursory review of the Right would demonstrate that they are really on their own.

With no political support save, well, folks who think Charles Krauthammer represents conservative thought in any way, the President is faced with near revolt on the Right considering the number of Perle associates in the administration.

They are practically daring the President to fire the hawks, just like the President fired the pro-abortion, Canadian expatriate David Frum.

[realpatriot71]

and the rich get richer . . .

[steve50]

Saw a short clip on Tenet the other day where he said something along the lines that he stood by the CIA intelligence on Iraq, but had no knowledge of or responsibility for the editing. Won't save him, only reason he's been kept around this long is to take the fall.

[general_re]

Cite?

[Shermy]

The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.

"Seems there are some who actually desire this"

Yes, indeed. They're called "Wahhabis". Permanent Jihad, aka permanent war, is a fundamental tenet of their ever growin sect, not some anomaly. The mere fact non-Muslims exist, or are not submissive to them is how they define "war". (we are the "House of War") They consider their sect "Islam", no others sects are truly. Being confronted with permanent jihad is on our part, ipso facto, being "at war" with "Islam."

It is not in our interest to call the WOT the WOW, that's why commentators who know the truth dance around setting forth the Wahhabist doctrine. We're fighting "terrorism" - a tactic, the only tactic available to the Wahhabists - often called "fundamentalist Islam", though there's fundamentalist sects that aren't jihadist and imperialist.

Buchanan, like the few lefties who latch onto occasional mentions of "permanent war" have little interest in understanding the context of the term.

[JohnGalt]

LOL

Russell Kirk is turning over in his grave at the notion that you probably call yourself a 'conservative.'


BTW, the Chinese thank you for your support.