Patrick J. Buchanan asks 'Whose war is this?'

[DaveB]

From http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. - by Patrick J. Buchanan

…This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.â€

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…

This is possibly the first thing Buchanan has written that I can agree with.

db

 

[rock jock]

Pat Buchanan is a has-been. As a former supporter of Pat, I have come to see him as nothing more than a wannabe who has become bitter from glorious dreams of presidential power never realized. His obsessive hatred of Israel and the Bush family is the basis of his entire political philosophy. Is he forgetting that we saved one Arabic country and spared another imminent invasion only ten years ago? Did we do that for Israel? Has he forgotten that the most serious national threat that we face today is from Arabic terrorists and those that harbor and supply them? No, none of that really matters because Israel and Bush somehow factor into the equation and no further analysis is needed. Pat is pathetic. He doesn't speak for America, and he certainly doesn't speak for conservatives.

 

[seeker_two]

If you read his "agenda" for America, you'll see that Pat Buchanan is no better than any of the socialists masquerading as Democrats...

Only thing I agree w/ him on is border security...

 

[BigG]

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends.

What kind of friends does he think we have had? The only one I remember backing our plays has been England and a couple others. IOW, we ain't got no old friends.

 

[Joe Gunns]

Doubt that backing down from current stand will help Bush presidency. (Obviously, not truely part of Patty's agenda anyway.) Would only serve to severely weaken American ability to deal with world hence forth.

RE: friends of America, as said so eloquently above - What friends? True friends will back your play.

 

[Blackhawk]

Pat's been a bit daffy for a long time.

 

[Quartus]

We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords.

He thinks Israel wants all out war with the Arab world?





He's been right on occasion, but this ain't that occasion!

 

[Khornet]

I'll say this for Pat

...he doesn't BS. No weasel words. Probably the only honest candidate in my lifetime.

But he's wrong, and it's a shame, 'cause he has backbone.

Friends, I think we are about to find out who was right and who was wrong about this. I hope to have the grace to admit it if I'm proven wrong. But I don't expect the other side to do so. Not the folks here; not DaveB etc., just the general antiwar movement.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Friends, I think we are about to find out who was right and who was wrong about this.

Maybe. I'll get in on the betting though.

I am afraid that we've got the first administration (of many) that will take the attitude that:

1. The wishes of the administration are superior to its obligations to the constitution, or to the people. See Patriot Act, proposed Patriot Act II, Total Information Awareness, arrest of US citizens as "unlawful combatants" (even though they aren't accused of using force), the integration of various intelligence agencies under the Dept of Homeland Security and the new understanding that it's OK for our intelligence crew to utilize information on American people gathered by our allies that would be considered unlawful if gathered internally, CAPPS2 that will flag some people so they are not allowed to fly based on "undisclosed" information (like their credit rating), etc.
2. The wishes of the administration are superior to the norms of international law. What we're doing in Iraq, whether you believe it's the "right" thing to do or not, isn't based on a response to Iraq's use of force against us. It isn't based on their violation of an agreement they made (yeah, that's what we're being told, but the evidence suggests it's actually a suspicion of a violation that hasn't been proven yet). It isn't based on an international mandate for the "good guys" to step in and do Right where no-one else has the power to do so. We're doing it because Bush wants to do it, and that's the end of it.

Agree or disagree, that's part of the argument you'll get from some of us over on the (small-l) libertarian side of these debates. The fed.gov has been frighteningly powerful over the last half-century, but we're seeing an expansion in federal power that's unprecidented.

If "we" are right, I fear for the Republic, and for freedom in the world. I'll happily step forward and say "I was WRONG" if I am.

But I'm pessimistic.

 

[Quartus]

It's a shame that for many people, you are either for the war or you are an anti-American pinko. That kind of non-thinking does not serve America's interests.


Derek, I think you hit the nail on the head. America is about to attack a nation that has not attacked us in any way that can be proven. And in light of the Korea situation, the motives are questionable.

 

[gburner]

I say 'roll the dice!' The old 2 superpower constructs are passe as is the world view that requires that we continue to adhere to them. Common sense dictates that the new enemy is islamofascism; deeply rooted in the middle east with franchises in all countries with significant moslem populations. I say 'go to the source and tear it out by the roots.' There is no way that these people could feel any more hatred against us than they do now.
There is no way that France and Germany will ever support us again, so what are we losing? Saddam has given us plenty of reason to end his moment in the sun and given the opportunity would use whatever means necessary to hurt us grievously.

Face it folks, we live in interesting times and the deck is about to be shuffled again. Play on.

BTW...leave Pat alone re. his feelngs about the Jews. I read somewhere that he had a grandfather who died in a concentration camp. He fell out of a guard tower.

 

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Quartus:America is about to attack a nation that has not attacked us in any way that can be proven.

There is enough evidence of Iraqi involvement in attacks against the U.S. that we are more than justified in attacking them considering their PROVEN violations of the cease fire agreement ending the first Gulf War.

The organizer of the first WTC bomber entered into the U.S. under an Iraqi passport. Iraq has two terrorist training camps that are used by every branch of the islamic terror network. Iraq is supporting the Abu Saief terrorists in the Phillapines. Iraq is supporting Hammas, Islamic Jihad and Palistinian terror groups. The Czechs still stand by their assertion that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi agent prior to 9-11. Iraq attempted to kill former President Bush. Iraq fires on U.S. aircraft virtually every day over the no-fly zones.

I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to wait for Sarin gas to be released in the NY subways to prove the anti-war crowd wrong.

Originally posted by Quartus:And in light of the Korea situation, the motives are questionable.

Do you prefer that we wait UNTIL Iraq develops nukes before we take out Saddam?

Just think how much easier it would have been dealing with North Korea if Clinton had actually destroyed their nuclear reactor instead of attempting to buy them off!

North Korea is the perfect example of why we need to take out Saddam NOW, before he gets nukes.

 

[fallingblock]

What gdburner AND Cactus said!

They beat me to it...the war with terrorism isn't the traditional sort of nation-state war, and we cannot prevail using the old rules.

Reasonable suspicion will have to result in pre-emptive action; if we wait for the absolute proof, as Cactus said, we'll be choking on the gas

In any war of history, when it came down to 'forging new rules of engagement' or losing, the new rules found favor. So it will be with the struggle with the Islamist terror networks. What's the option...lose?

 

[Khornet]

Derek,

when you argue against the war as you just did, you are applying logic and strong beliefs about our constitution, laws, etc...in other words, arguing out of a belief in the American ideal. No one could call that pinko.

But people like you are a rarity, sad to say. Most of 'em just say Bush=Hitler, etc. The bulk of the 'antiwar' types, at least the ones who make all the noise, are in fact America-hating pinkos. See recent posts re: trashing 9/11 memorial, Iraquis shut up by Jesse Jackson, etc.

I do wish that some of those who oppose the war could learn to acknowledge that the administration might actually be trying to protect us from what they perceive as a real threat, that they might just be acting out of honorable motives. Just like to hear it once. Please.

 

[Quartus]

Clarification required:


"Proven" Proven to the satisfaction of our allies. I'm satisfied that we have good reason, but the world is not that simple. I don't think Bush has made his case very well. He's gone after the WMD and the U.N angle, and tossed in the terrorist connection as an afterthought.

He SHOULD have gone after the 9-11 connection, and declared that an act of war against the United States. He should have made his case to Congress (and the American people) and asked for a formal declaration of war, instead of trying to hide behind the U.N. THen he could have tossed in, "And oh, by the way, they're in violation of the U.N. sanctions, so when we hit them for their act of war against us, we'll clean that little business up for you. "


As for the motives being questionable, just what do you make of our response to Korea? We are SAYING that war with Iraq is justified to prevent them from developing nukes, and we virtually ignore Korea when they are doing the same thing! And THEY can hit the U.S. directly!

What do you do with that?

<sigh> I'm afraid that the answer is, we're too weak to do anything with Korea. We've got to deal with Saddam first, and even then we may not dare to touch them. We'd get nuked. The cat IS out of the bag, and we can't put it back.