Buchanan on Iraq

[SpeedRacer 1]

hmmmm. I can't believe I'm quoting Pat Buchanan, but I thought this article asks some very relevant questions.

(let the flames begin!)
-----------------------------------------------

The consequences of 'Mr. Bush's War'
Posted: March 22, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A year has elapsed since President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade
Iraq.
Since that March day, 2003, it has become clear as crystal: Operation
Iraqi
Freedom was an unnecessary war.

Saddam had had no role in 9-11 or the anthrax attack, no plans to
attack us
or to invade his neighbors. He was contained by U.S. power and his own
weakness. American planes had flown 40,000 sorties in 10 years over
Iraq
without losing a single aircraft to hostile fire. And Saddam had no
weapons
of mass destruction.

It was a war of choice, "Mr. Bush's War," as the War of 1812 was "Mr.
Madison's War," the Mexican War was "Jimmy Polk's War" and World War I
was
"Mr. Wilson's War." Neoconservatives who schemed for a decade to have
us
invade, occupy and vassalize Iraq say we liberated the country from
tyranny,
blew a hole in the phalanx of hostile Islamic states and are building a
democracy that will be an inspiration to the Middle East.

Better still, we are positioned to use our power against Syria, Iran
and
Saudi Arabia in the war against Islamo-fascism that is the great cause
of
our generation.

John Pilger quotes Richard Perle in the Mirror two years ago: "This is
total
war ... if we just let our vision of the world go forth."

Whether the war was necessary or not, neocons say, it was a just and
wise
war. Better that we fight now when we can readily prevail than wait for
Saddam or his sons to acquire atomic weapons. Even if Saddam's weapons
programs had not matured, we could not take the chance, says President
Bush.
I did the right thing. I take full responsibility. Deal with it.

Whether one agrees with Bush and Cheney, they are unapologetic. They
stand
by the war. But what is the argument for John Kerry?

Had he been a principled anti-war candidate, we would have a great
debate
over how best to cope with the soaring anti-Americanism that is the
spawning
pool of terror. But we have no debate.

For there is no party in Washington that speaks for those of us who
believe
America should stay out of these religious and tribal wars from Morocco
to
Malaysia where no vital U.S. interest is at risk. There is only one
vital
interest in this region – oil, and Iran and the Arabs must sell it to
survive, no matter the regime in power.

We will have no debate because John Kerry voted to give Bush a blank
check
to take us to war. Under attack by Howard Dean, he then pirouetted and
voted
to deny Bush the funds to consolidate America's victory. Now he says he
was
misled. A profile in opportunism.

Kerry calls to mind FDR's story told about the chameleon. When they put
it
down on a brown rug, it turned brown. When they put it down on a green
rug,
it turned green. But when they put it down on a Scotch plaid, the
chameleon
died.

And so the big questions will go unaddressed.

Can the United States afford the cost in blood and treasure of a Bush
policy
of preventive war, when the occupation of one Arab country of 23
million has
tied down half our armed forces and cost $200 billion?

Can we maintain our imperial presence in 120 countries with an Army of
half
a million men? Should we double the size of our Army to maintain our
commitments, or cut back on our commitments to defend other nations'
frontiers and fight other nations' wars?

Is the vast presence of U.S. forces in the Islamic world a deterrent to
terrorism, or an incitation to terror? Where hatred of America is
pandemic,
is disengagement a wiser policy than intervention? Has the war and
occupation of Iraq reduced terror or given jihadists a rallying cause?
The
Spanish might have some thoughts on this.

With Iran and North Korea closer to a nuclear capacity than Saddam ever
was,
was it wise to tear up alliances and tie down our military ousting a
dictator who, no matter how odious, was no threat?

Given our budget deficits, the overextension of our military, our
isolation
from allies and the opposition of Congress, is the Bush policy of
preventive
war already a dead letter?

Finally, why do scores of millions of Arab and Islamic peoples hate us
and
wish to see us humiliated in Iraq? At one time, we were the most
admired
nation on earth. Is any of this our fault, unpatriotic as that question
may
seem?
-------------------------------------------------

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Beerlight 0]

Oh, for a second I thought you were talking about me.

Buck Buchanan

[wmw999 2,593]

All I can say is wow. That the same Pat Buchanan we all know and love?

Dang

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree with Pat Buchanan.

I thought I would never utter those 5 words.

[Kennedy 0]

Yeah, most people never give him a chance. He is severely whacked out on domestic policy, but the man is spot on when it come to foreign policy.

Reminds me of a while ago. I had a dyed in the wool liberal riding shotgun. There was nothing on the radio and we'd been talking politics, so when we found some talk radio we left it on. Well, as the show went on, my friend was agreeing more and more with the host. Well, it goes to commercial, and when it comes back, we find out it's none other than Rush Limbaugh, and the quotes he was reading were from G. Gordon Liddy.

I thought liberals weren't allowed to be dittoheads. I wonder if he had to turn in his bleeding heart.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Same thing here. My best friend is a true lefty socialist. We'd talk about foreign policy and I'd tell him that he sounds like Pat Buchanan. Then I provided his some writings by Pat, and Johan was a "wow" guy.

Pat isn't always wrong. Neither was Clinton. I'm sure even Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson are right some of the time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Buchanan is in some ways the way Republicans used to be: an isolationist. The Republicans always faulted the Democrats for being the "war party". The Republican attitude prior to Pearl Harbor was that we shouldn't get involved in that war over in Europe.

The Neo-Cons are a totally different animal. They seem to believe in world domination by the USA.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Kennedy 0]

He's not isolationist. He just doesn't believe in being interventionist. He has no problem with international actions. He is just against constant wars and treaties that could draw us into wars that have no interest for the US.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*