Cakewalk Crowd Abandons Bush

www.wordlnetdaily.com ^ | 1/05/06 | Pat Buchanan

[Paul Ross]

The nice thing about the internal over-throw of Iran approach is that it would be the least expensive and most likely to have a satisfactory outcome. And it would undermine their messing around in Iraq and Lebanon.

I am frankly amazed it hasn't been put in motion long ago.

[Thorin]

Leonid Brezhnev would have loved your arguments. Robert A. Taft, not so much: "As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."

Robert Taft was one of the greatest Senators in American history, and he was absolutely right here. By the way, Taft spoke these words on December 19, 1941.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Robert Taft not becoming president was one of American history's greatest lost opportunities.

[7thson]

Both.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"We are not discussing whether cowardly dirtbags like Buchanan who stab our troops in the back are legally permitted to do so."

You need to update your squawking points.

Buchanan is (and has for quite some time) been in favor of doing what is necessary to win the war in Iraq.

On principle he was against going in in the first place, and once again on principle he is in favor of staying the course so as not to destroy American authority and not create an anarchic vacuum.

It is the neocons that on faulty principles favored invading Iraq and now based on sheer hypocrisy and self-protection are advocating a cut-and-run approach.

Either that or they now favor the sheer lunacy of a massive attack on Iran.

[Borges]

It's a good thing he wasn't elected in 1952 as he died the next year.

[Paul Ross]

Here are some more, alleged quotes, of Ken Adelman. Harpers and the Washington Post have the usual MSM axe to grind. Destroy any conservative they can.

[Liberty Valance]

"...abject despair over how the Bushites mismanaged the war that they, the "Vulcans," so brilliantly conceived."



If we hang Leonard Nimoy will Pat be appeased?

[ZULU]

Well, the way I understand it, "neo-con" is a buzzword for individuals who support Israel but are otherwise social liberals. If I'm wrong, correct me.

I'm not "jumping ship" and I'm not a "neo-con" even if I do support Israel.

There were very cogent reasons for invading Iraq. "Liberating" Muslims from their own dark age mentality was not one of them, but a desirable side-effect if they wanted it - apparently they do not.


Reasons for invading Iraq:

1. Saddam was working on WMD. He WAS. We knew it, the Euroweenies knew it, and his neighbors new it. Evidence has been uncovered by the American military that he HAD them. Now they are gone - perhaps to Syria, perhaps hidden in Iraq.

2. He violated the terms of the Persian Gulf treaty.

3. He attempted to assassinate an American President - Bush I

4. He fired on American and Coalition planes attempting to enforce the no fly zone rules.

5. He scammed the Oil for food program.

6. He refused to cooperate with U.N. inspectors.

7. He was guilty of horrendous war crimes against his own people

8. He may very well have been involved with 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombings

9. He was funding terrorists throughout the Middle East

10. If we were looking at the total "War Scenario" correctly, and I THOUGHT we were, taking out his regime would allow us to use bases in Iraq to take out the Ayatollahs in Iran from two sides - Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Baathists and Hezbollah in Syria - from the Israeli side and the Iraqi side.

Bush identified - CORRECTLY - certain states as an AXIS of Terror - Syria and Iran and North Korea were those states.

Our objective should have been to topple the governments in those states, destroy their military infrastructure - and PULL out. Let the U.N. or the Euroweenies or the cash loaded Saudis worry about picking up the pieces.

Instead, we got involved in a dubious program of "nation building." Our troops got bogged down in wet-nursing a fledging democracy in a part of the world where Democracy never existed, in a state which had no sense of national identity and whose population is wedded to a Dark Age socio-political system masquerading as a religion.

OBVIOUSLY we can't just pull out now. To do so would make us loose credibility in a part of the world where to do is fatal. But just as obviously, the scheme to create a Democratic united peaceful Iraq is not going well.

This calls for a change in overall strategy - not abandonment of what should be our core objectives. That change should be to finish the job with Iran which is a real and growing threat - one which dwarfs Iraq under Saddam, and the Syrian Baathists - THEN pull out.

I HOPE that is what the Administration is planning.

But accomplishing this will be extremely difficult - not because we are incapable of doing it militarily, but do to the fact that Ms. Pelosi and the Rats control COngress and there are more than enough bumbling RINOS already there to screw things up if such a move is not handled in a masterful manner.

Judging by its track record when Repubs controlled BOTH houses, this isn't likely.

What is more likely is the Dems will gradually throttle military expenditures, forcing a phased withdrawal from Iraq. This will result in increased sectarian violence there - which doesn't particularly concern me, and allow Iran to exert greater influence with the Shiites majority there, increasing its military potential - which does.

Such a phased out withdrawal will encourage further Islamic expansion into Africa, Asia, and Europe as they will have sized US and the rest of the West up for what we have become - degenerate pacifists who don't even have the guts to support that small portion of our population who are willing to assume the military burden of protecting 2,000 years of progressive western civilization.

At any rate that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Nor is it "trollish" or liberal or "neo-con".

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, if you go back and comb through the public comments made by the "neocons" in the 1990s, you'll find that most of them apparently had no idea what al-Qaeda was. Some of them (Richard Perle in particular) even called on the Clinton administration to invade Iraq in response to terrorist attacks against the U.S. that had been carried out by al-Qaeda -- which is a curious approach to dealing with what was a far more serious threat to the U.S. than Iraq ever was.

[jpsb]

agree 85 to 90%. no time to post.

[higgmeister]

Pat, you lost me at "case in point." What an igmo!

[Paul Ross]

Well, the way I understand it, "neo-con" is a buzzword for individuals who support Israel but are otherwise social liberals. If I'm wrong, correct me.

I think that is a mistaken gloss.

I agree with your reasons for invading Iraq. I would also add that he was an ally of both China and Russia...contributing towards a grand axis alliance against the U.S.

Being a Goldwater/Reagan republican, I guess I can't be sure...being labeled some kind of "paleocon" myself by these bastard hyphen-naming idjits.

But, I do know that Adelman was originally an anti-communist Democrat, as was Jeane Kirkpatrick and, I believe, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. All of whom found a role to play within the Reagan administration in its titanic "end-game" war against the Soviet Union. Media pundits who are often described as neo-cons are of course William Crystal, Fred Barnes, and Michael Medved.

I have no idea where they line up on social issues, albeit Kirkpatrick may have been more socially left than she was on foreign policy issues. But as far as the resurgence of the Communist alliance against the U.S., I have to believe they would be very wary.

It is also interesting to note the sudden re-emergence of the "pragmatists" and "Arabists" such as James Baker in his Iraqi Surrender Group. They appear, for all practical purposes, to be anti-Israel. And not terribly wary of the communists getting back on their feet after Reagan had them knocked out for the count....

[jpsb]

Fine line between being critical and being unpatriotic. One has to be careful. What I do is I argue for or against a policy/tactic/strategy but once the debate is over decision make I will shut up about it until unless another debate happens and lessons learned might apply or credibility/accountability should be questioned.

[billbears]

They remain cowardly dirtbags, however.

Yes because anything except blind acceptance of the State's view is cowardly isn't it?

The objective in Iraq, as stated, was to end the Hussein dictatorship and replace it with a representative government.

As I said, pie in the sky Wilsonian claptrap. It is not, nor was it ever, the intent of the Framers for us to be involved in 'spreading democracy'.

We are discussing whether cowardly dirtbags like Buchanan who stab our troops in the back deserve praise or scorn. I vote scorn.

With your implicit praise of the State you would. I vote indifference. Buchanan has too much else I find wrong with his positions to fully support him and many of the anti-war protestors would rather any money spent in Iraq be wasted here at home.

When our troops are home at the end of their mission. A mission which has already been lengthened by carping.

Ah yes. Because if no one 'carped' we could just go for total war and clean the slate of everybody, innocent and guilty, 'over there' as so many posters have implied and stated outright. Good going Sherm..

The Framers did not constrain Congress at all from using or delegating its war powers as it saw fit. The Framers, being intelligent, placed absolutely no limitations on America's military flexibility.

Course then again the Framers never saw the day there wouldn't be an explicit declaration of war against a specific enemy. They never saw the day we would go to war because some nation wasn't fulfilling its obligations to a world organization either.

[Paul Ross]

...but once the debate is over decision make I will shut up about it until unless another debate happens...

Which is in fact, debate ad nauseum when there is no clear "end of discussion" position by the Administration, an explicitly "Bipartisan" governmental process...

That is part of the internal critique from the conservative side of the ledger. At least, so far, we appear to have shut down Baker's little contre temps...

[jpsb]

"Which is in fact, debate ad nauseum when there is no clear "end of discussion" position by the Administration"

Well, yea. Clearly Bush admin is clueless when it comes to winning a war. And as your point out lack of leadership and clearly articulated policy invites endless debate.

[jpsb]

"As I said, pie in the sky Wilsonian claptrap."

Completely agree.

[COEXERJ145]

Pat would have personally surrendered to Hitler.

Nah, he would have formed an alliance with him.

[ZULU]

"Richard Perle is sickened by the consequences of the war he and his comrades so ardently championed. "The levels of brutality ... are truly horrifying, and, I have to say, I underestimated the depravity."


????????????????????

Was there ever a "kind" war? Is killing people a festive occasion (unless perhaps you are Muslim)?

This guy sounds like an idiot. The way to win wars is to kill people - the enemy. As quickly and efficiently as possible. Only by making the enemy hurt more than he is hurting you, can a victory be achieved.

A corollary to the above is that one is never defeated unless one admits defeat.