Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Have the neocons killed a presidency?
worldnetdaily.com ^ | February 16, 2004 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 02/16/2004 12:32:03 AM PST by Destro

Have the neocons killed a presidency?

Posted: February 16, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

George W. Bush "betrayed us," howled Al Gore.

"He played on our fear. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9-11 ever happened."

Hearing it, Gore's rant seemed slanderous and demagogic. For though U.S. policy since Clinton had called for regime change in Iraq, there is no evidence, none, that Bush planned to invade prior to 9-11.

Yet, the president has a grave problem, and it is this: Burrowed inside his foreign-policy team are men guilty of exactly what Gore accuses Bush of, men who did exploit our fears to stampede us into a war they had plotted for years. Consider:

* In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel's Bibi Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power" as an "Israeli strategic objective." Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush's foreign policy team on 9-11.

* In 1998, eight members of Bush's future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote Clinton urging upon him a strategy that "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein."

* On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks "to broaden the [Middle East] conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal."

"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.

On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.

On Sept. 15, according to author Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz spoke up in the War Cabinet to urge that Afghanistan be put on a back burner and an attack be mounted at once on Iraq, though Iraq had had nothing to do with 9-11. Why Iraq? Said Wolfowitz, because it is "doable."

On Sept. 20, 40 neoconservatives in an open letter demanded that Bush remove Saddam from power, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9-11] attack." Failure to do so, they warned the president, "would constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

While Bush had taken office as a traditional conservative skeptical of "nation-building" and calling for a more "humble" foreign policy, after 9-11, he was captured by the neocons and converted to an agenda they had worked up years before. Suddenly, he sounded just like them, threatening wars on "axis-of-evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9-11.

And here is where Bush's present crisis was created.

Though he had internalized the neoconservative agenda for war, he had no rationale, no justification, no casus belli. Iraq had not threatened or attacked us.

Enter the WMD. Neoconservatives pressed on Bush the idea that Iraq must still have weapons of mass destruction and must be working on nuclear weapons. And as Saddam was a figure of such irrationality – i.e., a madman – he would readily give an atom bomb to al-Qaida. An American city could be incinerated.

Therefore, Saddam had to be destroyed. Bush bought it.

The problem, however, was this: While there is much evidence Saddam is evil, there is no evidence he was insane. He had not used his WMD in 1991, when he had them. For he was not a fool. He knew that would mean his end. Why would he then build a horror weapon now, give it to a terrorist and risk the annihilation of his regime, family, legacy and himself, a fate he had narrowly escaped in 1991?

Made no sense – and there was no hard evidence on the WMD.

Thus, when the CIA was unable to come up with hard evidence that Saddam still had WMD, or was building nuclear weapons, neocon insiders sifted the intelligence, cherry-picked it, presented tidbits to the media as unvarnished truth, and persuaded Powell and the president to rely on it to make the case to Congress, the country and the world. Powell and the president did.

Now the WMD case has fallen apart. Powell has egg on his face. And the president must persuade Tim Russert and the nation that Iraq was a "war of necessity" because we "had no choice when we looked at the intelligence I looked at."

But, sir, the intelligence you "looked at" was flawed. Who gave it to you?

To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.

But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Offer:

Pat Buchanan's book "The Death of the West" is an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America. Both autographed and unautographed copies are available at WorldNetDaily's online store!

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; neocons; patbuchanan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: Destro
Some on this board have accused Bush supporters of being capable of voting for Hitler or Kerry if he has an R by his name.Party over principles...

Now you are slamming neo cons for sticking to their principles instead of having party loyalty.

I get dizzy.
21 posted on 02/16/2004 1:06:27 AM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I didn't even have to click on this thread...once I saw the title I knew it was a Buchanan piece.

I used to respect and fight for that guy. But lately he's just nuts. When he and Eleanor Clift agree on foreign policy, I'm switching to the Keebler Elves.
22 posted on 02/16/2004 1:08:41 AM PST by Fledermaus (Be careful who you are posting to...It could be a Moby tweaking you with lies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Well,I propose you take a look at Japan's form of government before and after WW2.
23 posted on 02/16/2004 1:08:58 AM PST by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Conservatism has to fit the mood and needs of the people. Considering 40% of the American population will vote reliably for a Democrat no matter how extreme he turns out to be, its amazing there's still common sense in America.
24 posted on 02/16/2004 1:09:01 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Don't worry. Neocon is buzzword for braindead bullsh***ers.

Just like the buzzwords the media create now...soccer mom; security mom (that one never sold); and now Nascar dad.

25 posted on 02/16/2004 1:11:48 AM PST by Fledermaus (Be careful who you are posting to...It could be a Moby tweaking you with lies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Destro
We took his nation over - big difference.

We took his nation through siege 12 years ago. There is no Gulf War One and Gulf War Two. It's one war and we're working to end it now.

26 posted on 02/16/2004 1:12:19 AM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

I think that Buchanan has it wrong, in fact almost everybody has it wrong. Taking Iraq had nothing to do with neocons, terrorists, Israel, WMDs, Saddam, 9/11, etc... It was all about the oil. Anyone who objects to fighting this relatively small war over oil, consider how your lives would change without a steady cheap supply of it. Not just the availability and price of gas for your car but also the trucks, trains and ships that bring groceries and other items to stores near you, the jobs in shipping and retail related to those grocieries and supplies, the jobs in manufacturing that are still left, the entire national and international economy that depends on a steady, reasonably priced supply of oil for the forseeable future. Much larger wars have been fought over much lesser stakes. Future wars will be fought over oil. We have a toe hold in an oil rich region. That is a strategic advantage.
27 posted on 02/16/2004 1:13:03 AM PST by jaykay (Is this thing on?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
Japan was a liberal representative govt and was moving in that direction for 50 years before the Great Depression brought the General Staff to power.
28 posted on 02/16/2004 1:16:43 AM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jaykay
That also is not conservativisim.
29 posted on 02/16/2004 1:18:49 AM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Destro
We all know its a Michael Moore conspiracy to discredit Halliburton.
30 posted on 02/16/2004 1:20:31 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Destro
That also is not conservativisim.

OK hot shot. What is conservatism?

31 posted on 02/16/2004 1:21:25 AM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
If you have to ask....
32 posted on 02/16/2004 1:23:33 AM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Haliburton is a Democratic linked organization - out of LBJ's Texas.
33 posted on 02/16/2004 1:24:43 AM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Destro
LOL!!! Not even Moore would try to wriggle Vice Presidency Cheney out with THAT creative angle.
34 posted on 02/16/2004 1:26:10 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Destro
If you have to ask....

Ido Ido. You have been very vocal on what conservatism isn't so it is incumbent on you to tell us what it is. Come on we all want to know. Put up or shut up.

35 posted on 02/16/2004 1:26:23 AM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
In contemporary terms, the American Federal Republic was "rightist" by its nature. Why? Because it was constitutionally based on decentralization and devolution of powers, with the national government retaining only limited and clearly delimited authority.

Political democracy, on the other hand, is a "leftist" idea. Why? Because it inevitably leads to a massive consolidation of power, centralized especially in the national government.

The Left craves unlimited government power; the Right traditionally doesn't. Going to war to spread ersatz American ideas is thus a Leftist crusade, because it is predicated on a consolidation of and growth in government power.

36 posted on 02/16/2004 1:27:51 AM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Moore is a fool. He called Clark a war criminal in his movie and then backed him for president.
37 posted on 02/16/2004 1:29:03 AM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Ol Pat forgot to mention the 'Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'. IMHO Pat has really gone off the deep end over the past few decades.
38 posted on 02/16/2004 1:30:21 AM PST by Broadside Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Then Reagan's demand of :" TEAR DOWN THIS WALL ", was leftist ?
39 posted on 02/16/2004 1:30:58 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Is that your source an obscure skirt on the internet?? I asked you to define conservatism. Put up or shut up.
40 posted on 02/16/2004 1:31:12 AM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson