[goldstategop]

I am from the neo-conservative school. I object to how Pat Buchanan characterizes our influence on President Bush. The President is his own man; he's no one's puppet. The President has prosecuted the War On Terror and to overthrow Saddam Hussein for one reason: to make America safer. Its too bad paleos like Buchanan look for conspiracies where none exist.

[SunStar]

Yawn...

[marron]

I find it impossible to imagine that we would be at war with someone for 12 years and not consider removing him from power.

I find it impossible to imagine that after being at war with someone for 12 years we should feel guilty about removing him from power.

[weegee]

President Bush won't lose the election over Iraq. His poll numbers would have been below 50% for many months if the war had provoked that much outrage.

Michael Moore is planning to release his ABCDisney financed October Surprise smear campaign film "Farenheit 911" when the election nears. THAT bit of propaganda may influence some voters. It doesn't have to be many, look at the hit that George W. Bush took in his support for the old DUI charge. Albert Gore Junior only got 0.52% more of the popular vote. Think that number might have been 1% more in George W. Bush's favor (+0.48% more of the popular vote for George Bush) if that story hadn't been leaked from his legal folder?

[Fledermaus]

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.

[jaykay]

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.

[Broadside Joe]

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.

[Fabozz]

Pat's making no sense here at all. There are only two possibilites: Either Saddam was a threat to Israel or he was not. If he was a threat to Israel, then he was as much or more of a threat to our interests in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—after all, it's not Israeli jets Saddam was shooting at daily, or the Israeli President he tried to assassinate. The US troops whose presence on Saudi soil caused Osama bin Laden to found al-Qaeda weren't defending Israel from Iraq, they were defending Saudi Arabia. So if Saddam had the capacity and will to use WMDs against Israel, US troops and US oil supplies would be just as much in danger.

But if Saddam didn't have WMDs, and wouldn't use them even if he had them, then he was no threat to Israel. And if he was no threat to Israel, why would Israel want him removed from power? If the Mossad or the Elders of Zion or the Neoconservative Cabal or whoever were "cherry-picking" intelligence to frame Saddam, surely at least the conspirators knew the truth. Or is Pat saying that Sharon is smarter than Bush but dumber than Saddam?

Conversely, is Pat now saying that WMDs were a legitimate reason to depose Saddam? Back when everybody in the world believed Saddam was sitting on stockpiles of ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons, Pat was saying that wasn't a valid reason for war. If that's still the case—if real WMDs aren't a legitimate casus belli—then discussing how the Jews "cherry-picked" the intelligence they allowed Bush and Powell to see is irrelevant.

A reasonable person could have written a very straightforward editorial saying "see, I told you so"—Pat didn't believe Saddam was a threat and lo, Saddam wasn't a threat, case closed. But no, Pat has to make this about the Jews.

[WOSG]

Answer: NO.

Now go away, Pat.

[garylmoore]

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?

---

Hogwash! He is his own man!

[Chi-townChief]

I guess it still comes down to definition. To Pat as with Jesse Jackson, Andrew Greeley and others, a neocon is a Jewish conservative.

[CGVet58]

Pat is wrong on this, as he is on so many other things. Case in Point: Pat says we had no Casus Belli - he is flat out wrong, and either stupid of the facts, or just plain lying.

Casus Belli was active the moment Saddam broke the conditions of cease-fire back in '91. A cease-fire is a temporary cessation of hostilities predicated on both parties honoring the terms of the same. When these terms are broken, the cease-fire is nullified, and the war continues.

The war did continue, with the uprisings which Bush 41 did at the least encourage, yet (to our eternal shame as a nation...) not support; with the no-fly zones that quickly became hot. I believe history will judge Gulf Wars I & II as being the same conflict, but right now we aren't living "history" (we never do, needing years before we can get a proper historical perspective on things).

Juan

[DugwayDuke]

"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."

And, to the paleocon Buchanan, it's all about the jews. Oh, how much safer we'd all be if we would only build a fortress and hide from the world.

[mtbopfuyn]

Where's that blocker for WNN, Debka, et al?

[Ciexyz]

I never read anything written by Pat Buchanan. He's lost all credibility with me.

[joesnuffy]

"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.

Ahhh those wonderfull Machievelian platitudes do turn 'the boyze' heads....

'thesis-antithesis-synthesis' 'management by crisis' 'third way' 'sustainable development'

'points of light' 'new world order' the irresistable siren's call of 'blind ambition'

led many a good man down the wrong path....