Posted on 05/30/2004 11:31:38 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
Issues? What issues does this article raise? It's nothing but a personal attack on President Bush. The slimy little coward ends most of his attacks with question marks.
If you want to intelligently scrutinize this mudslinging crap, try giving a reasoned factually based response to each of his sentences that ends in a question mark.
He "implies" objectives to Bush. Remove all of his implications and see how hollow his arguments are.
Buchanan was the favorite useful idiot of the old media during the 2000 campaign. Every Sunday at least one talk show had him on their program just so he could look into the camera with that sh*t-eating grin and refer to President Bush as "that Bush kid".
He stole the federal campaign funds that the Perot people had earned and concentrated his anti-Bush ads in Florida and Michigan where he thought he could most help elect Gore.
Now he's trying to hurt President Bush's reelection efforts and unless people like me stand up to him, he will discourage people like you from voting. Why would you possibly give credence to anything Buchanan says? .
Frankly, your assessment is too kind. Remember he even tried to undermine Reagan. Buchanan is out for Pat. He's stopped caring about anything but hearing his big mouth flap. It's sad in a way. He's pathetic now. He could have been a contender.
You know you're right about Buchanan. His predictions make no sense days and weeks after they're made. He's shot his wad a prophet.
One is hard pressed to prove the negative, so I cannot say that Buchanon is not guilty as you charge. But I think the burden is on you to come forth and offer chapter and verse. Meanwhile although no expert on Buchanan and for whom I carry no brief, I took a look at his magazine and here is what popped up. In an article written BEFORE THE WAR in October 2002, Pat concedes that we will make our way to Baghdad but then face guerrilla resistance. Far from committing the mistakes you allege above, he reads eerily prescient:
After the War
by Pat Buchanan
“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.” So wrote British historian A.J.P. Taylor in 1961.
All the 20th century empires forgot the lesson and all perished of wounds suffered in Great Wars: the Ottoman, Russian Austro-Hungarian and German empires in World War I, the Japanese in World War II, the French and British the morning after.
Comes now the turn of the Americans. Guided through the Cold War by conservative statesmen like Eisenhower and Reagan, America rejected Churchillian romanticism and, even in the face of horrors like the butchery in Budapest in 1956, refused to risk the Great War. But now a triumphalist America has begun to behave like all the rest.
If Providence does not intrude, we will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the “On-to-Berlin!” bravado with which French poilus and British Tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict. More likely, it will be the “bloody mess” of which Tony Cordesman warns.
Yet America will not be defeated by an Arab pariah state with an obsolete air force, a dozen 400-mile missiles, a population a tenth of ours, an economy 1% of ours, and neither satellites nor smart bombs.
Indeed, all 22 Arab nations have a total GDP smaller than Spain’s. None can defeat us and any that resorts to a weapon of mass destruction invites annihilation. And before any hostile Arab or Islamic regime can acquire an atomic weapon, the War Party wants to exploit this window of opportunity to smash them all.
But what comes after the celebratory gunfire when wicked Saddam is dead? Initially, the President and War Party will be seen as vindicated by victory and exhilarated by their new opportunity. For Iraq is key to the Middle East. With Iraq occupied, Syria will be hemmed in by Israeli, American, and Turkish power. Assad will have to pull his army out of Lebanon, so Sharon can go back in and settle scores with Hezbollah. Iran will be surrounded by U.S. power in Turkey, Iraq, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Arabian Sea.
This is the vision that intoxicates the neoconservatives who pine for a “World War IV” – a cakewalk conquest of Iraq followed by short sharp wars on Syria and Iran. Already Israel is tugging at our sleeve, reminding us not to forget Libya.
What is wrong with this vision? Only this. Just as Israel’s invasion of Lebanon ignited a guerrilla war that drove her bloodied army out after 18 years, a U.S. army in Baghdad will ignite calls for jihad from Morocco to Malaysia.
Pro-American regimes will be seen as impotent to prevent U.S. hegemony over the Islamic world. And just as monarchs who collaborated with Europe’s colonial powers were dethroned by nationalists in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Addis Ababa, pro-American autocrats will be targeted by assassins.
A burst of gunfire could convert Jordan, Afghanistan or nuclear-armed Pakistan into an enemy overnight. And with Israelis generals blabbing about pre-positioned U.S. weapons and Bibi Netanyahu listing for Congressional committees all the Arab nations we must attack, Al Jazeera does not need shoe-leather reporting to let Islam know on whose behalf America has come to crush their armies and occupy their capitals.
Once in Baghdad, how do we get out? If the Kurds rebel to create a nation, will U.S. troops help Turks crush them? If the House of Saud falls, will it be succeeded by social democrats, or Bin Laden’s fanatics?
To destroy Saddam’s weapons, to democratize, defend and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades. Yet, terrorist attacks in liberated Iraq seem as certain as in liberated Afghanistan. For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world.
With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon.
Twelve years ago, this writer predicted that George Bush’s Gulf War would be “the first Arab-American War.” The coming war will not be the last. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.
A pretty mixed bag of predictions, actually. The fact is Pat's comfortable with authoritarian governments. He still argues that the war against Hitler was unnecessary. For some strange reason, the governments that hate Jews don't trouble him.
" A pretty mixed bag of predictions, actually"
Let's see:
1. If Providence does not intrude, we will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the “On-to-Berlin!” bravado with which French poilus and British Tommies marched in August 1914.
Indesputably true (If you ignore the 'bravado' crack.)
2.But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict.
Indesputably true.
3. More likely, it will be the “bloody mess” of which Tony Cordesman warns.
True, but not indesputably so. I think it is a mess but I do not think it is so 'bloody.' However, the problem is that more than half the country does see it that way now. I do not know what Cordesman predicted.
4. Yet America will not be defeated by an Arab pariah state with an obsolete air force, a dozen 400-mile missiles, a population a tenth of ours, an economy 1% of ours, and neither satellites nor smart bombs.
Absolutely true.
5. Initially, the President and War Party will be seen as vindicated by victory and exhilarated by their new opportunity.
Absolutely true.
6. Just as Israel’s invasion of Lebanon ignited a guerrilla war that drove her bloodied army out after 18 years, a U.S. army in Baghdad will ignite calls for jihad from Morocco to Malaysia.
Absolutely true.
7. Pro-American regimes will be seen as impotent to prevent U.S. hegemony over the Islamic world.
True. Saudi, Jordan, Pakistan regimes have come under attack as collaborators.
8. pro-American autocrats will be targeted by assassins.
Indesputably true. Pakistani President comes to mind.
9. To destroy Saddam’s weapons, to democratize, defend and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades.
Indesputably true.
10. Yet, terrorist attacks in liberated Iraq seem as certain as in liberated Afghanistan
Oh boy is this one indesputably true, alas.
11. For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world
You do not really dispute this.
12. With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes,
Regretably true. The Bush doctrine is dead barring another strike against the homeland but who knows who will be president then.
13. The coming war will not be the last.
Indesputably true. No one has seen the end of war.
Gentlemen, kindly tell if I have omitted any false predictions, or if you disagree, or where you think this is a "mixed" bag. We already know what you think of Buchanon personally, but how about a little respect for facts. Give the devil his due, he called the turn on this war knowing that he would be unpopular. Campare him to Pearle who now is trying to blame Bremmer for the failure of Pearle's own conception. Who has the more exaluted character confined to the isssue at hand?
Unfortunately, I know that we will now hear that Buchannon is wrong even when he is right, and right in advance, and right while speaking an unpopular minority opinion and all because he is personally no damn good. Sorry, but adherence to this sort of thumb sucking is the way to disaster for conservatives and the nation.
Rereading that speech, one finds in it little of Churchill's "We-shall-fight-them-on-the-beaches" defiance. Rather, the president laid out a five-step strategy to secure "freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people" – and then depart.Well, Pat, you go ahead and re-read the speech as many times as you want. Maybe if you read it enough, you'll find those uncounted Florida ballots in there, too.
In the meantime, Pat, if you're reading this, I'd like to wager $1000 with you that there will be a major US military presence in Iraq at the time of the next presidential election. And I'm willing to make that wager without regard to who the eventual winner of this election is.
We will have permanent bases in Iraq, permanent forward positions on the Terror War front lines. And even JFnK (should he be elected) won't close those bases.
“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.” So wrote British historian A.J.P. Taylor in 1961.By this definition, the USA lost great power status by fighting in WWI and WWII.
I don't care how many first initials this British "historian" has, this first sentence --- which Pathetic Pat chooses to start his piece with --- is a silly word-game, the kind that silly university leftists love to play.
The only thing this "witticism" lacks is a rhyming scheme. Calling Jesse Jackson...
Pat Buchanan is another excellent reason not bother to go WND.
To idiots like Buchannan it's "sooner than imagined" only because he pretended that we were in Iraq to build an American democracy there.
Buchannan has lied about that constantly. Now he has to pretend we are leaving in failure without accomplishing a mission we never had.
Excellent post.
Did you read the posted article?
Buchannan is himself saying that he was wrong.
But rather than admit he wrongly defined our objectives by leaving out "as far as is needed to secure our vital national interests" he says that we have failed in them LOL! That's how Pat hurts himself fatally- he substitutes rhetoric for honesty.
Those who want to believe Pat love that, but the rest of us are disgusted with him.
An Iraq which the US has good intelligence of and influence with is our vital national security interest. That will be secured within a year. That's outstanding, it's no surprise and certainly no failure.
You did well to introduce Pat'a actual words instead of those created which never cite references to Pat's plentiful writings. Pat is for America not to dragged into the problems of Kuwait, Kosovo, Korea, Israel, England, Taiwan, Iraq or the rock of Gibraltar and that riles up those with some favorite foreign interest. And Pat is right again.
Piffle
You are a little liar who take things out of context aimed at someone else. Then you throw temper tantrums and must get buddies to back you up while you blow viens on your forhead. Usually I ignore you and your kind...hot smelly air...but sometimes match has to be lighted to get rid of such stench....
Name calling and temper throwing is what he is best at...I usually ignore puff of foul smelling hot air...and many others do as such.
Some time ago I had become convinced that our policy in Iraq to establish a Jeffersonian democracy there was unattainable within the limits of pain our democracy would endure and began posting to this effect under the rubric "A Bridge Too Far." I have been advocating a policy of Machiavellian character driven not by "Wilsonian" ideals of nation building which commit us a bridge too far but by rather by a true if ruthless apprehension of our own national self interest. In practice, this means the implementation of a Policy in Iraq which more resembles our policy in Afghanistan. Someone might see a historical parallel with the British Raj which so effectively dominated the sub continent for centuries with clever alliances with local tyrants where possible or by divide and conquer tactics when necessary.
I believe the Bush administration has already made this turn in Iraq away from ambitious nation building toward our national interests and this turn is best revealed in Fallujah.I believe the administration is now making deals with some unsavory Mullahs in which we seek stability and an absence of terroristic activities from the strongmen rather than a commitment to cracker barrel democracy.
I am not troubled by this ethically because I believe it is the President's responsibility to seek out the Nation's interest and act upon it. It is not his responsibility to make the UN successful, or the Mexicans less hungry or the Israelis more secure but it is his responsibility to make my kids safer from terrorists. To this end I had sometimes posted that I believed America did not benefit enough from our support of Israel to justify the cost of that support.
It did not occur to me that there might be those who resist this approach because it does not further the security interests of Israel - only a democratic and peace loving Iraq would do that.
Although I knew vaguely that there were charges floating about that a cabal known as the "Neo-Cons" had inveigled George Bush into a foolhardy Iraq adventure to further the security interests of Israel, I did not much credit the reports because I thought they came from the left and, anyhow, I believed the Iraq was in America's interest and if also in Israel's interest, then only coincidently so. But now I have become interested in this reaction to Buchanan enough to read his magazine really for the first time and it gradually comes clear what this is all about.
Take a look at his commentary form the issue of his magazine athttp://www.amconmag.com/ . It contains these direct charges:
March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
Whose War?
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.
----------------- We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.
Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.
They charge us with antisemitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.
I actually feel a bit naive for being unaware of the subterranean agendas here on FreeRepublic which have fueled so much of the invective on these threads. I think I can be skeptical of our war aims in Iraq in attempting to build a democracy without being accused of antisemitism, and usually that is the case. But I have often been assailed, much as Buchanan has been personally attacked on this thread without actually linking the charge to antisemitism. If you think America should support the national security interests of Israel I think you can make the case without demonizing those who disagree and I think it should be made openly.
The lack of intellectual honesty of Pat's sheep is as blatant as his own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.