Posted on 01/05/2007 5:06:00 AM PST by Thorin
No, he is claiming that the neocons are saying that. His position is that the war wasn't winnable no matter who ran it.
Pat is just plain loosing it. I think pat has gone off the deep end. I was reading this and thought this has to come from some standard issue leftist looney, not some self proclaimed conservative.
Pat ran under the old reform party when it was flooded with communists. Pat needs the defeat PERSONALLY because victory is bad for is political captial bottom line.
A few generations from now, descendents of crypto-Nazis will be hardly distinguishable, if at all, from their Arab relatives.
if buchanan was serious about the border he would be using his "star power" by joining the minute men.
groundhog day!
I made it through a few paragraphs and then gave up and scrolled to comments....and sure nuff...it was another article from PITY-PAT!!
I got to where I could spot a DEBKA article from five words away, but Pat still sneaks up on me as if it is a regular MSM hate-Bush article.
Pat's underlying argument is: "My disloyalty to America and to America's Commander-in-Chief is excusable, because other people who never shred my cowardice before appear to be chickening out as well."
Brilliant, Pat.
Go crawl back in bed with Lenora Fulani and whisper sweet Marxist (oops, "fair trade") nothings into her ear.
Candyass.
Nutty Pat is off his meds...again!
"Huge mistakes were made," says Perle, "and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives. ... I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war."
Richard Perle is a thoroughly discredited and disgraced @sshole on a number of different points, but his defensive posture on this issue is comical. He actually started covering his @ss on this war before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Some quick research into his public statements in the months leading up to the invasion will reveal that his assessment of the number of U.S. troops needed to topple Saddam Hussein ranged from 0 (yes, that's ZERO) to 250,000 -- which means he never had a f#cking clue what he was talking about.
The biggest mistake the Bush administration ever made was allowing morons like this to get within 500 miles of Washington, D.C. in 2001.
You are.
And all the other losers who feel the need to post on a thread about how "irrelevant" Buchanan is. If he were truly irrelevant, they would ignore him, not gather together to proclaim his irrelevance.
Of course, none bother trying to refute his argument, which is irrefutable: the neocons egged Bush on to invade Iraq, and now they blame Bush for all the problems in Iraq, taking none of the responsibility themselves. What a cowardly and despicable crew the neocons are.
Claiming that someone who disagrees with American foreign policy is "disloyal" to America is an argument worthy of Leonid Brezhnev. The American government is not America, as the founders well understood.
Nor is Buchanan or any other American civilian required to follow the President. The President is not a king or emperor, another fact the founders well understood. Were those Americans who opposed Clinton's disastrous war in the Balkans "disloyal to America and to America's Commander-in-Chief," too?
They apparently decided to imitate the palaeoconservatives.
Disloyalty? Check.
Cowardice? Check.
All they need now is to cultivate a complete ignorance of economics and a paranoiac fear of Jews and Mexicans.
Then they will be able to hobnob with Lew Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, Charley Reese, Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo and all the rest of the palaeo elite.
Looks to me like Adelmann and Gaffney are dead-bang on. The War was won. It was the Peace that was lost through White House/State Dept. hand-cuffing and enfeeblements afraid of "collateral damage", and a brain-dead idea of letting Iraq fester and produce...an Islamic "constitution".
Pat would have personally surrendered to Hitler.
We're not discussing trade agreements or treaty negotiations.
We're talking about American soldiers in the field being stabbed in the back by cowardly pundits.
Were those Americans who opposed Clinton's disastrous war in the Balkans "disloyal to America and to America's Commander-in-Chief," too?
The Commander-In-Chief, when committing troops to war, should give some clue as to his ultimate objective.
President Clinton seemed more motivated to please Europe than to tell the American people what the goal was.
That being said, once troops were on the ground, there is no justification for maligning their ability to succeed. That's disloyalty. I did not allow my personal distaste for President Clinton to transform me into a cheerleader for the failure of America's armed forces.
While I was not confident in what President Clinton thought he was doing - I wish he'd told us clearly - I was supremely confident in our soldiers' and marines' ability to successfully complete their tactical assignments.
My personal opinion was that Milosevic had to go and that simply containing him was pointless in the long run - but I did not believe for a second that America's fighting forces could not successfully contain him.
And they did contain him.
You're talking about yourself. What a kook. You didn't read his article.
Bump. Indeed. What's the count of propagandists on FR against Buchanan so far? I wonder who writes their paychecks. This definitely appears to be too orchestrated. What are they afraid of? That he might actually return to the GOP and blast the RINOs pretending to be just barely conservative enough for the Base to somehow forget all the betrayals and back-stabbing...and let bygones be bygones? Conservatives will never get behind supporting McCain? Romney? Giuliani? Pataki? Sheesh!
Conspicuous by its absence from disparagements of the president by these deserters from his camp and cause is any sense that they were themselves wrong. That they, who accuse everyone else of cutting and running, are themselves cutting and running. That they are themselves but a typical cluster of think-tank incompetents.
No neocon concedes that the very idea itself of launching an unprovoked war against a country in the heart of the Arab world – one that had not attacked us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us – might not be wildly welcomed by the "liberated." No neocon has yet conceded that Bismarck may have been right when he warned, "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death."
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.