Columnist Pat Buchanan Asks, "Will We Stay the Course in Iraq?"

WND.com | 07-23-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Lord Haw Haw/Baghdad Pat/Gasbag ping!

[Dane]

The way I see it, there's not much of a difference between pre-Saddam Iraq or present-day Iran pursuing a nuclear program and any other nation in the world pursuing a nuclear program

Really? Nuclear programs for everybody, I surmise you are saying.

Whew did you do an apprenticeship under Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter, who looked the other way at North Korea.

[Dane]

Fingerprinting Muslim immigrants at airports is one thing. Anyone who is intent on doing harm to this country will not be deterred from doing so just because his fingerprint is on file at FBI headquarters

OK, it's looks like from your above italicized passage above that the FBI can't do anything now, which contradicts your reply #35, where you placed the blame on the FBI.

I don't know but being all over the map is not a good way to debate, IMO.

[Alberta's Child]

There's a big difference between encouraging nuclear programs and recognizing that they will exist.

I don't like it when it rains on Saturdays, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it when it does.

[Alberta's Child]

OK, it's looks like from your above italicized passage above that the FBI can't do anything now, which contradicts your reply #35, where you placed the blame on the FBI.

In reply #35, I placed the blame on the FBI for its clear failure to identify a threat that wasn't a terribly well-concealed threat. I would not, on the other hand, blame the FBI for failing to identify a threat like the D.C. snipers or the LAX gunman -- these were cases involving people who didn't necessarily show a clear indication of their intent.

[Catspaw]

Ah, yes--and the Blame America First crowd is in attendance.

[Dane]

In reply #35, I placed the blame on the FBI for its clear failure to identify a threat that wasn't a terribly well-concealed threat. I would not, on the other hand, blame the FBI for failing to identify a threat like the D.C. snipers or the LAX gunman -- these were cases involving people who didn't necessarily show a clear indication of their intent.

That wasn't the question asked of you in reply #43. In reply #40 you basically dissed Ashcroft's attempt to make sure that terrorists can't do anymore harm. Your reply #40, directy contradicts your reply #35.

But that isn't really the point of this pro-Buchanan thread. It is to cast doubt about us going into Iraq, just like what Katie Couric tries to do every weekday morning.

JMO, but I am glad for President Bush's resolve in Iraq. He is not being as political as Reagan(who was facing a re-election campaign in 84), who cut out of Lebanon in 83 when the Marine barracks bombing happened.

BTW, I am very greatful of Ronald Reagan's election in 80 and 84, but the precedent of Lebanon in 83, emboldened the terrorists, IMO.

[Tauzero]

Great piece.

[Tauzero]

"So basically what you are saying is that there is no danger of any radical islamic or radical dictatorship in the Middle East developing WMD."

WMD are to nations what guns are to individuals.

...and an armed society is a polite society.

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry for the confusion about #35 and #40.

The number of illegal aliens entering the U.S. in any given year numbers in the hundreds of thousands, a tiny fraction of whom enter via an international airport. Screening people at airports is a great idea, but I happen to know from my own work experience that this is little more than window-dressing to let the public know that "something" is being done. In fact, it is specifically a "backward-looking" measure in that it is a direct response to the last terrorist attack instead of a "forward-looking" measure to ward off the next one.

I'm sure that there are quite a few of these forward-looking measures in place that we don't know about. But I also know that nothing would be more effective in fighting terror than taking the people who botched their responsibilities before and holding them responsible for their role in the last terror attack.

[elhombrelibre]

He was an anti-communist, but he's not against some other forms of tyranny.

[Captain Kennit]

Fifth columnist? Try American Patriot.

[eddiespaghetti]

Pat was the only one vocally concerned about 'borders' and immigration. Pat's the only one, who had the guts to say that groups who want to come here and not assimilate, or are incapable of assimilation, should not be allowed in. . . . Pat also said we should have a immigration moratorium to properly 'assimilate' those who are here.
Pat was/is right most of the time.

Mr. B. is correct in many of his statements on immigration (although I think his foreign policy positions are not particularly cogent and are closer to Robert Scheer's than to anyone else's.)

The Republicans -- ostensibly more concerned with national security and crime than the Dems -- nonetheless ignore the issue of continued illegal immigration (I know there are exceptions, but . . .). Perhaps their business-constituency doesn't want its continued supply of cheap labor threatened.

The Dems, on the other hand, supposedly the "party of the people," ignore the effect of unrestrained immigration on wages (downward) and on housing/rental prices (up). HOw about the acute pressure on local gov'ts (hospitals, schools, etc.) in providing for those who, living "underground," pay nothing into the system?

Perhaps they are too afraid to risk angering any perceived block of Hispanics if they raise the issue of controlling the inflow of people into the US (remember Pete Wilson and Prop. 187 in California); also, they're afraid of being called "racist" if they discuss the non-assimilibility of many newcomers (legal or not).

Thus, both paries have handed the issue over to Buchanan.

A shame, IMO.

es

[liberallarry]

None.

[f.Christian]

Deep throat --- slasher !

[verity]

Go away, Pat, go away.

[mr.pink]

Lord Haw Haw/Baghdad Pat/Gasbag ping!

Anybody seen Richard Perle lately?

[Maria S]

"Any U.S. response to 9/11 that does not include the sacking of every incompetent bureaucrat in the FBI, CIA, INS, etc. is both inadequate and misdirected."


Good luck with trying to “sack” a whole bunch of career employees! The US government is full of them, and they ain’t going nowhere!

[Poohbah]

Any U.S. response to 9/11 that does not include the sacking of every incompetent bureaucrat in the FBI, CIA, INS, etc. is both inadequate and misdirected.

OK.

How many "incompetent bureaucrats" are there in these organizations, total?