Pat Buchanan rails against the war, charges President lied


April 18, 2004, 12:13 PM
I just saw a debate on TV with Pat Buchanan about five minutes ago.

He was railing against the war. He kept charging that the President was fighting the wrong enemy.

He repeatedly said that the President lied to get us into the secondary war, which distracted us from fighting the people who actually attacked us.

Of course, the war Buchanan was railing against was WWII and the President who lied us into war was FDR and the illegal war against the people who did not attack us was against Nazi Germany in Europe and Africa.

It was "History in Dispute" on the History Channel.

And of course, the other man in the debate kept gutting and skinning Buchanan's argument like it was a big old catfish. And unlike Buchanan, he didn't have to resort to shouting and screaming and wild gestures to make his point.

In fact, Buchanan looked rather like he was late into a passionate speech given before a packed soccer stadium near Nuremburg.

But I was struck by the similarities of the arguments to today's situation. Exactly the same arguments made and countered.

Only subsitute Afghanistan and Iraq for Japan and Germany.


If you enjoyed reading about "Pat Buchanan rails against the war, charges President lied" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
April 18, 2004, 12:19 PM
Buchanan is a nut case. he's as bad as the loons on the left.

April 18, 2004, 12:23 PM
There have always been people on the right side and the wrong side. Only history will tell.

But with hindsight, unless it was an exercise, Buchanan should know better. Then again, he is an isolationist.

April 18, 2004, 12:30 PM
if true, Buchanan is an idiot - FDR didnt "lie the US into WW2" because Hitler saved him the trouble by declaring war on the US.

April 18, 2004, 12:36 PM
Buchanan did say FDR lied us into war.

He kept railing about how FDR's speech right after Pearl Harbor never once mentioned Germany.

He kept shouting that FDR did not mention Germany because FDR knew that public opinion in the US would not allow for a war against Germany and so he had to distract the US public from the fact that America was going to go to war against Germany as well as Japan.

Later in the program, he tried to make the argument that the real enemy we should have been fighting was the Soviet Union, not Nazi Germany.


April 18, 2004, 01:15 PM
Any wonder why the Republicn Party disowns him ???????????
What I wouldn't give to see a Pat Buchanan v Micheal Moore debate.

April 18, 2004, 01:55 PM
Agricola, I think your history is cockeyed.

In fact, Roosevelt DID "lie us into war," after he had campaigned (like Wilson) on keeping us OUT of the war.

Roosevelt was jacking with Japan and forced them to attack Pearl by cutting off their supplies of rubber and petroleum. He was aware that Pearl was going to be hit, but did NOT pass on the info to the Pearl commander.

AFter the attack, Roosevelt declared war--and ONLY THEN did Germany declare war on the US.

And BTW, I think Buchanan is wrong regarding fighting the Nazis--we should have. We also should have rolled right through (as Patton thought) and blew off Stalin. But Roosevelt's administration was so full of Russian spies and double-agents (who Roosevelt picked) that the stupid SOB didn't know any better.

Ask any Czech about Stalin and his boyzzz. Patton was right, and PJB is half-right.

By the way, it would be really nice if GWB could come up with a consistent story on why we did Iraq. First it was the weapons. Then it was the terrorists. Now it's "planting Democracy." What will it be in 12 months?

April 18, 2004, 03:25 PM

the "FDR knew about Pearl" theory was pretty much demolished here last week, it doesnt hold any more water than the "Bush/Clinton knew about 9/11" theories, for the same reason (because its b***ocks).

FDR behaved towards Japan in the way that he did because the Japanese were engaged in a genocidal war against the Chinese, a war that featured unimagined (and almost forgotten) atrocities that challenge anything the Nazis (or, for that matter, the Soviets) were capable of.

Oh, and if they had listened to Patton, you would have lost - the Red Army had more men, more and better tanks and tank organization, better generals who had more experience against the cream of the German Army and two thousand miles of operational space to play in. You would also have been alone, because the Commonwealth forces would have left you to it.

April 18, 2004, 04:41 PM
PRECISELY, agricola ! I am happy to see that someone has their facts straight.

The Japanese had invaded China and occupied Manchuria with a brutality rivaling the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. Japan urgently needed all those things a powerful empire required, and never could become self-sufficient in; namely: non-ferrous metals, rubber..and above all OIL. The solution to the Japanese ruling hierarchy was simple : Japan would acquire the resources it needed from it neighbors and assure its direct supply by imperial conquest. China was the obvious source of supply. After Japan secured its supply line in China it signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy....binding the three countries to a kind of mutual support.

Next Japan began expanding southward forcing its way through Indo- China only to near its one major hurdle: the American protectorate of the Philippines.

The United States reacted by anouncing a general principle of behavior to the Japanese hoping to put a check on the the movement of Japan's violent expansion establishing primacy in Her backyard . The United States bluntly presented an ultimatum to the Japanese: withdraw its troops from China as well as Indo-China, accept Chaing Kai-shek's government as legitimate, and withdraw from the pact with Germany and Italy.

The Japanese delayed responding to our demands secretly planning an attack. Awaiting Japan's reply to US demands, a coded Japanese
message was intercepted by "Magic"; the Japanese intended to declair war on the United States. That message was NOT decoded until Pearl Harbor was under heavy attack !

It's one thing to despise FDR's social policies and quite another to be ignorant of your own country's history ! Get down on your knees and thank God FDR was President at the time. You think gun control in the US in bad ain't see nothing until a SS Unit goosesteps up to your house, kicks the door in, shoots you. ........and THEN takes away your guns.

April 18, 2004, 04:50 PM
Buchanon, I always thought, was a religious nut. THen I read a book called "Death of the West" (referred to me by a buddy on this site) in which he makes some excellent points in a very intelligent manner. I think he's a lot smarter than many people give him credit and I would not categorize him as a religious nut.

April 18, 2004, 05:25 PM
So Agricola: you concede that Germany declared war on US (contrary to your first post;) you declare that FDR knew nothing about Japan's intentions (but the next poster states that MAGIC had the dispatch) and you declare that George Patton was wrong.

Well, you're wrong on Patton--and you have no friggin' idea whether Stalin could possibly have financed (let alone FED) the Soviet Army for another 12 months. Patton, most likely, did know--that's why we have military intelligence. And if FDR had not been so enamored of Communism, he would have dragged Churchill and DeGaulle along.

FDR was a very serious blot on the history of the Presidency in this country--until Nixon and Clinton came along and made FDR look good in comparison. He had no use whatsoever for the Constitution, and showed it. He was a narcissistic fop. At least, unlike Clinton, he was not a traitor.

Malone LaVeigh
April 18, 2004, 05:49 PM
If the point of the first post is to draw a parallel between WWII and Iraq, it fails. Whoever declared war first, the Germans and Japanese were allies, bent on hemispheric, if not world, domination. Iraq under Saddam and Al Qaeda were mortal enemies. While Saddam had once had ambitions for regional supremacy, he wasn't an imperialist in the way Japan or Germany were. And Al Qaeda (remember them? They attacked us.) is more of a movement of religious identity and anti-westernism.

Yes, the prez did lie to us, and we did get distracted and attack the wrong country in Iraq, regardless of what Buchannan thinks of FDR.

April 18, 2004, 05:55 PM
ninenot -

Japan were in alliance with Germany. Is this the reason that Germany declared war after the US declared war on Japan for their act of aggression?

Your point about the knowledge of Pearl Harbour being supported by diamondback isn't correct according to this quote from diamondback:

a coded Japanese
message was intercepted by "Magic"; the Japanese intended to declair war on the United States. That message was NOT decoded until Pearl Harbor was under heavy attack !

Dislike FDR's peacetime policies all you want, he was a good war leader. You think that the Nazi's would have stopped in Europe?

April 18, 2004, 05:58 PM
Substituting Iraq and Afghanistan for Japan and Germany is completely flawed due to the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan have no connection aside from being predominantly Islamic countries.

That's like saying The United States and Mexico are partners in terror because they're both primarily inhabited by Christians.

April 18, 2004, 06:23 PM


i)I said at the start that Hitler declared war on the US - I dont understand your point;

ii)the poster pointed out that the MAGIC information wasnt decrypted until AFTER Pearl, which makes the theory meaningless. Check out the thread on that topic, which contained many salient points as to why the theory is deeply flawed - but that shouldnt excuse the fact that you have clearly taken a point out of context;

iii) Stalin was quite able to feed the Red Army because he did so at the end of the war. As for "financing the Red Army", are you serious?

iv) Churchill would not have been "dragged along" because he was in the process of suffering one of the biggest electoral defeats in British political history - to the Labour Party (then a socialist movement of the old school) no less.

v) oh, and FDR was dead.

April 18, 2004, 06:31 PM
As some posters have pointed out, there is absolutely nothing to the idea that Japan and Germany's relationship in WWII has any parallels at all when Iraq and Islamist Terror networks are mentioned.

There is no connection whatsoever between the War against Iraq and the War on Terror.

I mean, like Malone LaVeigh and DTLoken point out, the comparison has no basis in any logic or reality.

So, pay no attention to what comes after this sentence because there is no connection at all......

Ignore Abu Nidal being captured in Iraq by US forces. No connection at all.

Ignore all the following.....remember, no connection at all, no parallels,

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

Nope, nothing at these links connections at all..........

April 18, 2004, 07:24 PM

Don't go throwing all of those little, troublesome facts around. The Saddam apologists may learn something :uhoh:

Malone LaVeigh
April 18, 2004, 07:55 PM
Nope, nothing at these links connections at all..... Well, you're almost right. I didn't say NO connections with any terrorists. I pointed out the differences between two allied countries and two forces in the Middle East that were not allies, but largely enemies. The material from the source you cite was already largely debunked ( three months before the article you cite. All of the rest of the links you provided are at least a year old and largely discredited. Those same sources were saying we'd find lots of WMD there.

Jeez, some people will believe anything they hear. (

Seriously, though, no one thinks Saddam was incapable of dealing with terrorists and using them for his purposes, including PR in the Mid East. The question is whether he was allied with the forces we went to war with in Afghanistan. The case has not been made, and there ought to be some credible evidence before going to war, especially if doing so will distract from the real target.

April 18, 2004, 08:40 PM

More recent stuff.

This originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 9.

Also, interesting picture of interesting mural found in Iraq, too.

And I clicked on the "debunked" link above. It's a Washington Post article that says there is "talk" amongst high level folks and there is a "secret" report circulating that the connections are not as strong.

No specifics, no named sources, no specific facts. I reckon that's good enough for "debunked" for Malone LaVeigh.


April 18, 2004, 08:42 PM
Well, if we can't concentrate on two things at once we should just pack up and bring everybody home - close the embasssies, shutter the bases and mothball the military.

Meanwhile, there's work that needs to be done and somebody has to do it.


P.S. - I just found out today that Clarke was Clinton's policy man for Rwanda during the genocide. No wonder he feels so guilty.

April 18, 2004, 10:17 PM
What the ???? does a stupid mural have to do with another countries' government?

April 19, 2004, 02:53 AM
Hillbilly, you da man. :D Impressive research.

April 19, 2004, 07:15 AM
some views:

• Fact No. 1: "Ramzi Yousef" entered the U.S. in September 1992 on an Iraqi passport, with stamps showing a journey beginning in Baghdad. This fact is attested by the inspector who admitted Yousef into the U.S. Yet Mr. Clarke contends that Yousef entered the U.S. without a passport.

Someone who we are told is an Iraqi intelligence business (a business that we are later told is expert in creating new identities for its agents), intending to bomb the WTC as part of a conspiracy against the US, enters the US on his own passport (of a country the US has recently been at war with) which shows that he came from Baghdad!

• Fact No. 2: The sole remaining fugitive from the 1993 bombing, Abdul Rahman Yasin, is an Iraqi. After the attack, Yasin fled to Iraq. The Iraqi regime rewarded Yasin with a house and monthly stipend. Yet Mr. Clarke claims, incredibly, that the Iraqis jailed Yasin.

Yasin fled to one of the very few countries that would be guaranteed not to extradite him, and one that he could be reasonably sure would support him (as a symbol of a strike against the US). This is not all that different to the Iraqi (in addition to most of the middle east) support (by sending money) to the families of suicide bombers. Its an easy way of pandering to Muslim sentiment without actually doing anything risky, and it doesnt mean that Iraq was engaged in the commission of the attack.

• Fact No. 3: Seven men were indicted in the 1993 attack. Two of the seven, Yousef and Yasin, have Iraqi connections. Yet Mr. Clarke inflates the number of participants to 12, so as to create the impression that the presence of one or two men with Iraqi connections was no big deal.

There are two problems with this - firstly, Mylroie expects us to believe that "Yousef" is an intelligence agent who enters the US on his own passport, and yet has to obtain a replacement passport from the Pakistani consulate for a character named "Abdul Basit", for which he has two photocopies of the '84 and '88 passports. As said above, if we are to expect that "Yousef" is an Iraqi intelligence agent engaged in a strike against the US then one would expect multiple, pre-arranged identities (especially given what she later claims).

As it is, its surely as likely that "Yousef" and "Basit" are in fact both false documents for someone with a far more amateur set-up, which Mylroie cannot acknowledge because it eliminates the Iraqi link to "Yousef".

Secondly, with 9/11 in mind two out of seven suspects is not that big a deal - anyone want to tell us how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi?

The fingerprint card in Mr. Karim's file had to have been switched. The original card bearing his prints was replaced with one bearing Yousef's. The only party that reasonably could have done so is Iraq, while it occupied Kuwait, for the evident purpose of creating a "legend" for one of its terrorist agents.

In addition to the points raised above, there are these. Firstly, there would have been nothing to stop Iraqi intelligence from creating an entirely "new" identity for "Yousef" (fingerprints and all) given that they were in control of the files, in addition to supplying him with a bona fide passport rather than photocopies.

Secondly, it is just as likely (if not more so given the photocopies and the small nature of the changes) that the switch could have been done by one person at any point prior to 1992 who had access to the files.

The Worldnetdaily article goes on to expose further the sillyness of the Mylroie claims

April 19, 2004, 07:58 AM
Whatever happens over there is based upon

1) the need to protect oil supplies and prices

2) the need to relocate military bases out of Saudi Arabia, a move with scope grander than the Middle East alone. My guess, Kuwait and Iraq, since the UN can be ignored on the issue of Iraq. Kuwait is pretty much in place to ensure naval access.

3) an ongoing commitment to support defense of Israel

The rest is just details.

Art Eatman
April 19, 2004, 08:34 AM
I disremember how many decades ago I first read Kipling's "Kim", with its references to "The Great Game" of international efforts at some form of dominance. I watched the efforts of the USSR to gain political influence so they could have trade routes to the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean.

I've thus regarded international politics as an unending chess game, with never a permanent checkmate. Unending.

I've also been a map freak. I enjoy correlating events and tidbits of information with correlative locations: Oil in Kazakhstan; how to get it to Europe? Oil pipeline routes across Afghanistan or through the Balkans are also of interest.

We, Europe, Japan and China are locked into two facets: Our societies need oil in order to survive, and we are both in competition and in certain amounts of cooperation to ensure some orderliness in gaining supplies.

My view of the Great Game is that we're in the Balkans not due to humanitarian reasons involving Milosevic, but to gain enough order that a pipeline into central Europe from the general Crimean area would be possible.

I think we're in Iraq in part because of the WOT, but also as a way to eventually have bases there and withdraw from Saudi Arabia and possibly other parts of the Persian Gulf. Iraq is a central location from which to project power into the region at a lesser cost than that of the Navy--or the vulnerability of "pre-positioning" in an unstable Saudi Arabia. Stipulating success at pacification, it allows political dominance in an effort to create enough stability to ensure oil supplies into the west (China be damned.)

Justification? Well, considering how much whining now occurs with gasoline here around two bucks a gallon, imagine what happens to our already sick economy were it to get toward three. And imagine what that would mean to the costs of the myriad consumer products derived from the petrochemical industry--including the plastics of that computer you're using.


April 19, 2004, 09:00 AM
Thanks, Art,

That is the shortest and most accurate summation of the issue.

April 19, 2004, 11:01 AM
Art's view seems persuasively plausible. Power and resources. Another day in the great foodchain. Which would seem to divide the onlookers and analysts into The Moralists and The Geopolitical Realists...?

April 19, 2004, 11:19 AM

Are you saying that the left has the moral high ground? :confused:

I see nothing moral in having a yellow streak.

April 19, 2004, 12:09 PM

No, not at all. I'm saying that the U.S. is, like other nations, pursuing its own self-interest and survival interests. I think that's realistic, not that I am condoning predatory actions anywhere by anyone. I'm tired of people I know driving gas-guzzlers who keep telling me "it's all about oil" as if they could get by without it or would be willing to pay $5 a gallon or watch our economy go into a depression. I think Art was accurately describing the way the world is and has always been.

April 19, 2004, 05:58 PM
Well, whether or not you support the war in Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq, it is not what really matters at this point.

What really matters in my opinion is that the United States now has a major bridgehead in the Middle East, putting the neighborhood on notice that we are not messing around any more.

The Middle East is now confronted with the most powerful nation in the world having easy access to them.

Some observers say we will be in Iraq for decades to come. And, maybe that is a good thing.

The Middle East is pretty much a basket case that is the potential breeding ground for much evil mischief, and that will probably only get worse.

Taking down Iraq MAY turn out to be a brilliant geo-political coup.

Art Eatman
April 19, 2004, 07:53 PM
Consider: Do not all governments consider themselves to have an unending existence? I grant that some, like Hitler's "1,000-year" Third Reich didn't make it, but that wasn't his expectation.

Our handicap in the unending chess game is our every-four-years potential for a change in direction by our leadership. As evidenced in Vietnam, many asian countries think in terms of an unchanging direction, unless the changes are by well-thought-out design.

Regardless, many in our government do look at very-long-term sequences. Iraq is not a six-month or two-year "make'em happy and leave" deal. I see the goal as a macrocosm of a very large aircraft carrier accompanied by troopships: Projection of force capability, to enhance and/or protect our long-term security. I think some folks are looking at five, fifteen or even more years there.

How long have we been in Germany? Is not oil as important to us, now, as containing the USSR was, then?

:), Art

Malone LaVeigh
April 20, 2004, 12:44 AM
Well, that's pretty much been my point all along. The problem with such geopolitical "realism" is that it's based on two fantasies:

1) That the supply of oil is infinite. I'll admit to the possibility that the fantasy is just that the world is going down the toilet and the only goal is to be riding on top, with the last few cheap supplies as we all go down.

2) That the cost of extending and projecting our military power can be borne indefinitely. We're already seeing the limits on our economy and morale in trying to support the military we have and realizing it isn't quite adequate for the two actions we're involved in now. Imagine if some of the neo-cons are successful in getting us entangled in Iran or Syria.

Well, and there is always that problem of morality. There was this guy named Jesus who lived about 2000 years ago. Not many in the "Christian" west act like they ever heard of him, at least not any leader that would hatch or approve of a scheme like Art described.

April 20, 2004, 02:19 AM
As conservative as I thought I was, I was still a leftist until I read "Death of the West" by Buchanan, who is a true conservative.

I stumbled across it in my university library (I know; I can't believe they haven't burned it yet either!) and the title caught my attention.

I too thought Buchanan was a raving nutjob before I read his book.

It turned out to be the single most influential book I have ever read in my life, at least on the topics of politics and social issues, and I do NOT say that lightly. I mean, it completely changed my way of thinking and looking at the world, specifically in regards to the left, where they came from, and what their mission truly is.

If you would actually read one of his books, particularly this one, you will see what an incredibly intelligent and learned man he is. I came away from the book with nothing but respect and admiration for the man. I also bought my own copy.

He documents and backs up his statements in his books with more hard facts than a PHd thesis.

If you are going to take on Buchanan, you had better be:

1) INCREDIBLY intelligent.

2) INCREDIBLY well-researched.

Even then, you do not stand much of a chance.

To dismiss him offhand as an "idiot," "moron" or whatever shows that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about this man.

I just wish he could get elected president.

All that being said, I do not agree with him on only one issue that I can think of: he is a bit overly-isolationist. Other than that, I'm with him all the way.

April 20, 2004, 10:15 AM
"Death of the West" is a must read.

April 20, 2004, 11:52 AM

Why read it, it is happenning every day :fire:

April 20, 2004, 11:48 PM

Why read it, it is happenning every day

Because practically NO ONE knows it is happening.


:uhoh: :uhoh:

We are in a war for our very survival, and 99.9% of people do not even have the slightest clue. :uhoh:

Malone LaVeigh
April 21, 2004, 02:02 AM
What do you mean WE, paleface?

April 21, 2004, 02:23 AM
Oh, don't worry're in it're just on the other side.

April 21, 2004, 02:27 AM
If there were a rolling over laughing smiley, I would use it right now.

Malone LaVeigh
April 22, 2004, 01:21 AM
Oh, don't worry're in it're just on the other side. OK, war for survival, and in your worldview, I'm on the "other side." That kind of thinking causes people to do really dumb things. Get a grip.

April 22, 2004, 01:34 AM
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser!:uhoh:

April 22, 2004, 01:45 AM
Whatever you say, T.J. Hooker...

April 22, 2004, 01:55 AM
:confused: I thought it was Adrian Zmed.

April 22, 2004, 02:27 PM
When you position yourself in a way that aligns you with the enemy, you become a traitor and the enemy. When you put yourself in a position in which things that are good for our country are bad for you, you and become the enemy. When you put yourself in a position in which things that are bad for our country are good for you, you become the enemy. That's precisely what liberals have done. We've been too soft on treason for too long, to the point that we don't call it what it is. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Joe Demko
April 22, 2004, 02:33 PM
When you position yourself in a way that aligns you with the enemy, you become a traitor and the enemy. When you put yourself in a position in which things that are good for our country are bad for you, you and become the enemy. When you put yourself in a position in which things that are bad for our country are good for you, you become the enemy. That's precisely what liberals have done. We've been too soft on treason for too long, to the point that we don't call it what it is. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Why do I get the impression that you were hyperventilating as you posted this?

April 22, 2004, 02:56 PM
Probably your imagination. You imagine me yelling it in one big run-on sentence when I'm actually just stating facts.

April 22, 2004, 03:54 PM
Thanks, Art,
Why can Art say, "It's all about oil." and not get all the conservatives' boots up his butt?

And, BTW, monster Roosevelt was secretly and illegally sending supplies to Western Europe way before Pearl or Hitler's war declaration.


April 22, 2004, 04:03 PM
And, BTW, monster Roosevelt was secretly and illegally sending supplies to Western Europe way before Pearl or Hitler's war declaration.

surely, if FDR is "monster Roosevelt", then Hitler deserves a moniker approproate to someone who is directly responsible for the deaths of nearly twenty million people?

edit: mercedes, you are right to point out that Art's comments have gone largely unchallenged from the conservatives here. Its probably because, after seeing the rest of the justification (WMD breaches rather than WMD, "sponsored terrorism" reduced to a very tenuous link to WTC 1993 and a mural) the only ground left is that which the anti-war people have been occupying.

though, many of the true libertarians here have been spot on in their views.

April 22, 2004, 04:49 PM
Also, IIRC, the US Navy was convoying shipping in 1941 before the US entry into WWII, and activily engaged in hunting German U-boats. An American destroyer was sunk by a U-boat after itself was attacked by the destroyer.

I am quite sure the US Navy would not have been hunting U-boats without FDRs approval, and probably direction. This was a provacation that Hitler did not fall for.

Neither Germany or the US declared war as a result of this state of events on the high seas.

April 22, 2004, 05:02 PM
More and more intelligent posts surface as time goes on.

Yes, PJBuchanan is VERY smart, DrJones; and his "Death of the West" is a landmark book, which libertarians will have a hard time with because PJB pretty much places Christianity at the center of "the West."

Roosevelt had good reasons to drag the US into war--not least, to defend our large stake in Great Britain--the dollars, that is. Would Hitler have attempted to take the US? Perhaps. But he would have been occupied for a LONG time with Russia and Eastern Europe--both difficult to 'pacify.'

Finally, as to Iraq: I am comfortable that Saddam had enough involvement in attacks on the USA (WTC, OKC, or others) that we were justified in going after him. Further, it's VERY clear that Iraq will be a handy projection-of-power base in the future. And, yes, they have a LOT of oil.

But "to institute Democracy?" Get serious.

April 22, 2004, 05:47 PM
(ninenot) I am comfortable that Saddam had enough involvement in attacks on the USA (WTC, OKC, or others) that we were justified in going after him.

What was the connection between Hussein and Tim McVeigh, again?

MR :confused:

April 22, 2004, 05:58 PM
There's a VERY persistent reporter on this OKC thing who insists that McVeigh had a third accomplice--an Iraqi military officer.

Between that and the Iraq location of the B-727 training site, and the likelihood that SH had provided money and/or passports--etc., I will give GWB the benefit of the doubt--but barely.

HAVING SAID THAT, I agree with Stratfor intelligence newsletter that GWB has been utterly unable to articulate a clear, consistent, and compelling rationale for the presence of the US in Iraq. He started out by declaring that SH was part of the terrorism problem and had WMD. Then, when no WMD's showed up, his justification was 'terror and brutality.' Well--that's true, too. NOW he's trying to sell us on some "establish Democracy" routine. Muslims don't like democracy. Never have, never will.

If he'd just tell the truth: We NEED a base in the Middle East--that would be fine with me.

Ah, well.

Art Eatman
April 22, 2004, 07:19 PM
Malone, yeah, the world supply of oil is finite. I've seen no reason not to believe in Hubbert's Pimple*, even if the dates might be a bit off. There is reason to believe, however, that vast amounts of oil underlie areas around the Black Sea and in places like Kazakhstan.

As we develop alternative energy sources, we are yet needful of oil. Even if it's not used in transportation or in the production of energy, we still need the consumer products which derive from the petrochemical industry--such as the plastics in our myriad communications devices. Computers or cell phones, anyone?

There's no magic. Realpolitik sez that nations will do what nations gotta do in order to survive. The perceptions of the leadership come into play, here, of course, but whether Kerryite or Bushie, any administration will continue to follow the path that helps maintain our economy--and that means oil.

"Nations don't have friends; they have interests." is a fact. Realpolitik has no morals. It is oriented to survival--which leads, then to the question whether survival is a moral imperative. :)

Stipulate we'll be well on the downtrend of Hubbert's Pimple in (likely) thirty years. Is it not in our national interest to be in a physical position to have strong influence in the greatest oil-producing areas? And as to cost, is it not better to be in a country like Iraq than on the high seas with lesser capability but higher costs? I submit that force projection from bases in Iraq will cost less than force projections from the U.S., the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.

Note that I'm not assigning "good" or "bad" or moral values in general to any of these comments, here and earlier. National survival is more important to national leaders than winning football games was to Lombardi.


* Hubbert's Pimple: M. King Hubbert was a petroleum geologist with the USGS. Around 1950 he charted his idea of the world's usage of fossil fuels, in the form of a graph. It showed a slight but steady rise from the first usage of peat and coal, adding oil after the first discoveries in the US, to a steep rise beginning in the late 1930s and peaking around 2010. The decline is as steep as the rise. The decline in use results from the decline in availability.

April 23, 2004, 12:49 AM
Why can Art say, "It's all about oil." and not get all the conservatives' boots up his butt?

Because Mr. Eatman is putting it in PERSPECTIVE. If you follow the trail or reasons, oil is one of the reasons, but not the only reason. But for the oil, we would have no real interest in the sand box. But it is not merely oil, but energy, which allows our quality of life. Our dependence on the OIL has the US and the West in the sights of Islamic zealots.

So the link to oil is complicated. If you cook it down and state that it is a "War for Oil" then you are oversimplifying and we throw the BS flag. It is about or way of life and our comfort. In a perfect world we could merely exchange money for oil. But "realpolitik" enters the fray.

April 23, 2004, 01:50 AM
RealGun has pinpointed the reason we are in Iraq, Oil!

The WOT is a nice distraction from the realty that the World runs on Oil and any interruption to the supply would prove disastrous to not only the U.S. economy but that of the world as well.

What GWB & co. are trying to accomplish is the establishment of a Western style.Democracy in the region to act as a warning to the numerous Principalities and Sheikdoms whose very existence is threatened by the possibility that they could be next

Saddam needed taking out, and I only wish he had been sent to take a dirt nap. As long as he draws breath, he will foster terrorism and do all in his power to disrupt the free worlds economic stability. High up in his arsenal ofweapons was his ability to disrupt the Worlds Oil supply

So, IMO if we are going to project our power in the World community, the stabilization of Oil supplies is a perfectly valid reason.

Malone LaVeigh
April 24, 2004, 12:51 AM
Whatever you say, T.J. Hooker... I suppost that's some pop culture reference. I don't watch enough TV, obviously.
When you position yourself in a way that aligns you with the enemy, you become a traitor and the enemy. When you put yourself in a position in which things that are good for our country are bad for you, you and become the enemy. And I guess you and bubba get to decide what's "good for our country." Well, there are a few of us out here that think that kind of alleged thought is exactly what's bad for our country, not to mention the rest of humanity.
There's no magic. Realpolitik sez that nations will do what nations gotta do in order to survive. The perceptions of the leadership come into play, here, of course, but whether Kerryite or Bushie, any administration will continue to follow the path that helps maintain our economy--and that means oil. That's an argument any junky would grasp in a heartbeat. Look up the definition of "tragedy." Yes, we are locked into a seemingly inexorable struggle for the last of the cheap oil. The smart money is that we'll go down the imperial path. Just remember, in the long run empire has it's worst effect on the imperial country itself.

Malone LaVeigh
April 24, 2004, 12:54 AM
What GWB & co. are trying to accomplish is the establishment of a Western style.Democracy in the region And the tooth fairy will leave money for you if you leave your tooth under your pillow...

April 24, 2004, 12:59 AM
Typical leftist response. Thank God there's just a few of you that want to turn our country into a socialist hellhole. You can't even understand a simple concept like lining up against the very nation you live in to favor an enemy of that nation is a bad thing. :rolleyes:

Malone LaVeigh
April 24, 2004, 01:50 AM
Typical right wing response. Don't question the ubermench. Our glorious leader will protect us.

April 24, 2004, 02:03 AM
I'll protect myself, thank you very much. I don't mean to be repetitive or anything, but since you didn't get the point, "Thank God there's just a few of you that want to turn our country into a socialist hellhole. You can't even understand a simple concept like lining up against the very nation you live in to favor an enemy of that nation is a bad thing."

Malone LaVeigh
April 24, 2004, 02:35 AM
Yeah, repeating it really helps. Try yelling.

I just don't appreciate a narrow-minded definition of what's good for the country, and I don't mindlessly follow our leaders' when they tell us to go fight some country that is no threat.

April 24, 2004, 04:12 AM
First let me start off by saying ... after 9/11 I was ready to go to battle with anyone or everyone that had something to do with the attacks. Bin Laden was named the mastermind and three years later American casualties are nearing 4,000 deaths (3,000 from NYC and Pentgaon and over 600 from the war in Iraq) and there is no Bin Laden in sight.

I want Bin Laden ... but over the course of time ... somehow our attention shifted to going after Saddam ... a man who once was backed by our very own government ... (circa 1980 picture with Donald Rumsfeld calling him an ally)

I remember clearly the president saying that Iraq was an imminent threat to our society ... but he has since stated that he never said the word "imminent threat." Please.

#2 I remember Gen. Powell outlining all of these Weapon of Mass Destruction (lol) locations ... well its been over a year, where are they?
But here is the kicker ... don't all countries have wMD's ... I know darn sure America does ... being that we are the only country to drop an Atomic bomb on another country ...

Am I Bush bashing ... maybe I am ... only because I find the guy arrogant.

But is Kerry the guy to do the job? I personally do not think so ...

I'm tired of all you people out there (u know who you are) that can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. It is possible to be against the war and support our troops. And being that this very nation was built on dissent I find it equally ridiculous for people to be upset that the PEOPLE are questioning the presidents actions and holding him accountable. Doesn't he work for us? Didn't we elect him?

So for all of you people out there, stop wrapping yourselves in the American flag just because there is dissent. Dissent sparks key debate, which leads to alternate plan of actions.

April 24, 2004, 06:28 AM
I would, but you still wouldn't get it Malone. You're too busy blaming America first.

April 24, 2004, 11:10 AM
It's only a LITTLE ironic that PJBuchanan's first public beating was administered after he re-affirmed that "a nation does not have friends, it has interests."

That was immediately siezed by the Amen Corner and it was determined that PJB was anti-Semitic, because he had used that phrase as part of an overall rationale to disconnect what seemed to be an iron linkage between the US and Israel.

PJB claimed that in fact, the US government was not necessarily acting "in the interests" of the USA by linking itself so closely to Israel, and further, that such linkage was eventually going to create trouble for the US with the Arabs.

Well, PJB postulated that back in 1990 or so. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Malone LaVeigh
April 24, 2004, 04:20 PM
Doesn't he work for us? Didn't we elect him? Well, the first part is right, anyway.

April 24, 2004, 05:15 PM
Dissent sparks key debate, which leads to alternate plan of actions.

We had the debate over 2 years ago. We are now committed. The new "national debate" appears to be aiding the enemy conbatants. They appear to be increasing attacks on our troops because they think America will cut and run. They think America will lose its resolve.

Even Malone used to say in his sig line "Get the job done, then throw the ba$***** out" (or something to that effect). That is a responsible means of communicating dissent. With freedom (of expression) comes responsibilities. If I told you that everytime you spoke publically against the war, one more soldier or marine would die, would you stop then? sKerry has moderated his language now to say that he will stay the course and continue the WOT AND Iraq (if you do not consider Iraq to be in the WOT). I applaud him for that.

Please give Malone some slack. He is not as unpatriotic as you may think. Give some of these posters time before branding them as traitors. :eek: What fun would this be if we all had groupthink?

April 24, 2004, 05:33 PM
If I told you that everytime you spoke publically against the war, one more soldier or marine would die, would you stop then?

No, because such a statement would be as false as it would be ludicrous.

The president and his polices are not and should not be immune to criticism just because there is a war on. The Bush team have long acted as if they knew something the rest of us didn't. Turns out they were making it up as they go along, buggering the intelligence process, smearing their opponents, and have generally shown themselves to be inept at invading and occupying a country.

"It's now widely accepted that the administration 'failed dismally to prepare for the security and nation-building missions in Iraq,' to quote Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies - not heretofore known as a Bush basher. Just as experts on peacekeeping predicted before the war, the invading force was grossly inadequate to maintain postwar security. And this problem was compounded by a chain of blunders: doing nothing to stop the postwar looting, disbanding the Iraqi Army, canceling local elections, appointing an interim council dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding important domestic groups." Paul Krugman (

April 24, 2004, 05:46 PM
Krugman? Is that all you got? Krugman is also a bush hater.

Is CSIS another "non-partisan" home for left-wingers?

I can't tell.

Malone LaVeigh
April 24, 2004, 08:06 PM
The point is that Bush lied to us and got us into a mess that is going to cost a lot of lives and money to get us out of. I do hope there is a chance of finishing the job, but am losing confidence in it. At some point, it might be necessary to just get the hell out. But at any rate, there ought to be a political cost for this mess. I wish the Democrats would nominate anybody but Kerry.

April 24, 2004, 08:21 PM
I am starting to see some blunders manifested and need to be corrected ASAP (actually yesterday is not soon enough). I support the action, but we are starting to compromise and negotiate with people that really have no power. We must stay on a war footing until, and if, power can be handed over to elected Iraqis. I do not believe that it is viable to pull out.

Art Eatman
April 24, 2004, 09:52 PM
I'm getting a bit fed up with people saying something they believe to be fact and then when it's shown to be wrong, they're called a liar.

It's one thing to be remiss in getting more information from other sources, and Bush obviously blew it on this issue. That's a free fire zone, IMO.

As far as statements about WMDs, Candidate Kerry is as guilty as President Bush. You can include many other bigwigs in Congress, of both parties, as well. The whole atmosphere within the Beltway was, "He's got WMDs!" Now, all those spouters are in the "Me no Alamo, me no Goliad!" mode, as though they'd never said a word.

As far as support for Al Qaida, there are still bits and pieces of information coming to light in the various media which show at least modest connections between them and the Iraqis.


All y'all need to cool it a bit in your phrasings. Too much that's at best minor personal attacks. Think twice, post once. Otherwise, think "padlock".

April 25, 2004, 03:07 AM
Sorry, Malone.

April 25, 2004, 05:37 AM
The point is that Bush lied to us and got us into a mess that is going to cost a lot of lives and money to get us out of. I do hope there is a chance of finishing the job, but am losing confidence in it. At some point, it might be necessary to just get the hell out. But at any rate, there ought to be a political cost for this mess. I wish the Democrats would nominate anybody but Kerry.

I'm sorry that you would prefer wars to be neat, tidy, cheap, and bloodless, but they do not typically work out that way.

And more typical leftist verbal vomit: "Oh, how I wish some omnipotent being who happens to have all the right answers would come along and wave his magic wand! Lord knows Bush doesn't have the answers, nor does kerry, nor clinton, nor Bush Sr. nor......"

All complaints and nothing constructive. Like the spoiled brat who's never satisfied with anything.

Thanks for nothing.

Malone LaVeigh
April 26, 2004, 02:32 AM
Dr thanks for nothing:

Well, if you are going to so thoroughly misinterpret what I said (not tomention the gratuitous slurs), it's going to be hard for me to follow Art's advice. Omnipotent being? What are you sniffing? All I said is that there ought to be a political cost for misleading the public and Congress into an unnecessary war. I'm well aware wars aren't neat and tidy. That's why we should only get into one when there is a real and present danger. It's the admin that promised us the Iraqis would throw down their guns and greet us as liberators. It's those of us who opposed the war that knew it wouldn't be so neat and tidy.


Apology accepted, and my apologies to you, sir.


There's just too much evidence to me that the admin did not play honest with the facts. I'm not going to get into finding sources at this point, because they've been rehashed enough. While I do think some in Congress were mislead by the admin, they should have questioned the dubious claims more, so I don't give them any more credit than Bush and Co.

April 26, 2004, 02:50 AM
We aren't fighting Iraqis in Iraq as much as we are fighting Syrians and Iranians in Iraq. This war was neccessary. Syria and Iran should be next. THe WMDs everyone is so ticked off about were most likely moved to Syria, where they will be handed out like candy to terrorist groups. We shouldn't handle Iraq with kid gloves either, we should pound Fallujah and Najaf into submission because all those people understand and respect is ugly, painful death. Any action that even smells a little like compassion and they take it as a weakness and ram it back down your throat at the first opportunity. Remember, their religion professes that it is okay to lie to nonbelievers. It is okay to make a truce when you are weak, then break it as soon as you're strong enough to do so. There is no diplomacy, no negotiations that will work with terrorists. If you think there aren't terrorists in Iraq and that Hussein didn't aid terrorists when he was in power, then you need to examine the situation more closely.

Art Eatman
April 26, 2004, 10:26 AM
Seems to me y'all oughta agree to disagree and leave it at that. Nobody's persuading anybody to change their views, seems like...

Seems to me the general idea of L&P is discussion. It's not about backing and forthing and forthing and backing and finally just trying to score points. Nor is it, as Malone pointed out, about gratuitous slurs. (I get a little slack in my job when "The same old folks got into it, again." Apologies to all.)

Seems to me some threads oughta just die a natural death...

:), Art

Malone LaVeigh
April 27, 2004, 02:49 AM
I'm perfectly willing to let this one die a well-deserved death. But I don't get into these tit-for-tat matches to try to convince anyone. I respond when someone puts out the charge that those against the war are lacking in patriotism or when someone regurgitates some hackneyed and meaningless term like "leftist traitor." I don't care to try to change the politically correct chorus around here, but to serve as testimony that not everyone who supports gun rights is a right-wing whacko. It's for the young people that might find themselves poking around here and need to know that there is an alternative.

April 27, 2004, 03:16 AM
So I guess I didn't convince you?

If you enjoyed reading about "Pat Buchanan rails against the war, charges President lied" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!