Posted on 08/22/2004 10:29:33 AM PDT by sinkspur
Patrick Buchanan, the conservative commentator whose Republican primary challenge and divisive convention speech weakened the first President Bush's campaign for re-election in 1992, is publishing a book excoriating the second President Bush over the invasion of Iraq, just in time to grab a share of the limelight at another Republican convention.
In Where the Right Went Wrong, released late last week, Buchanan calls the invasion of Iraq "the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years, a mistake more costly than Vietnam. If prudence is the mark of a conservative, Mr. Bush has ceased to be a conservative," Buchanan wrote. The release of the book, which coincides with the Republican National Convention, gives Buchanan occasion to lay out his case on television and in book promotions just as the Bush campaign seeks to project an image of unity, reviving unhappy memories of the disruptive role Buchanan has played in the past.
"He has a following in conservative circles," said Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer. "It is not what it once was just because the religious right is not particularly enamored with him. But it is going to have an effect. In a very close election, criticism from anybody who is credible is going to have an effect."
In an interview, however, Buchanan said publishing a book during the campaign was the best way he knew to inject what he considers important ideas into the debate. "The reason I wanted it out now is, it addresses big issues that are not being addressed in this campaign: the massive and growing deficit, the disintegration of the culture and a Wilsonian foreign policy that means war ad infinitum," he said.
Not many reviews out there yet, sports fans..
This one from Amazon is obviously biased, but still interesting:
Reviewer: R. Hutchinson
Pat Buchanan takes aim at Bush/Cheney and the neoconservatives, and he has them dead to rights. The so-called "preemptive doctrine" is really PREVENTIVE -- Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, so the invasion and occupation was aggressive, not defensive.
It could only be justified as action to prevent a threat sometime in the future -- the "Minority Report" doctrine. This is obviously an incredibly dangerous doctrine which can just as easily be used by anyone who wants to attack the U.S. The open-ended counterinsurgency war has made the U.S. LESS secure, not more secure.
Buchanan draws on the policy of the Founding Fathers of avoiding entangling alliances to bolster his opposition. He makes the same point as "Anonymous" ("Imperial Hubris") in saying that it is childish for Bush to say the Islamic radicals "hate our freedom" -- obviously they hate our policies of supporting corrupt oil regimes, blindly backing Israel, and stationing troops on sacred Saudi soil, among others.
Buchanan also makes an important point that China, the rising power, has to be central to U.S. policy, as the U.S. is the declining power.
Neither "terrorism", which is a tactic, not an enemy, nor Islamic fundamentalism, has the capacity to threaten U.S. vital interests in the way an ascendant China will have in the years to come. As Zbigniew Brzezinski has pointed out (see his "The Choice" and my review), the Bush/Cheney administration's "war on terrorism" propaganda is simplistic and hysterical.
Beyond that, Buchanan the socially conservative Catholic tacks on the predictable call for a White Straight Christian Nation, discussing Mexican immigration at some length. I don't support this in the slightest, but as his main focus is a well-argued, forceful critique of the Bush Doctrine and the invasion of Iraq, I'm only docking Pat one star. See sociologist Doug Massey's "Beyond Smoke and Mirrors" for an excellent analysis of our dysfunctional immigration policy vis a vis Mexico and how to fix it.
Pat Buchanan is true to the old conservative position of isolationism, the traditional Republican position from before the so-called "Cold War."
I respect him for it, and I wish more Republicans today would adopt such a position instead of the wrong-headed quasi-Wilsonian crusade of the neoconservatives who vainly imagine they can use military force to make the "whole world one big American town" in the words of the Randy Newman song
Fortunately for America, buchanan lost all credibility with thinking Conservatives during the last election when he attempted to sell out to any and every special interest group for votes...but even the hardcore maxists didn't buy his BS.
Unfortunately, the media will gleefully call him a conservative icon and try to use this to impact the election...exactly what buchanan wants. So buchanan's book will end up on coffee tables alongside Hillary and Michael Moore's books...suitably.
some people never grow up!
you don't get everything you want in politics, only some things.
and, you may even get what you don't want, if a bitch like buchanan, has his way:
you get comrade kerry! (/s)
Yeah. Promoting an anti-Bush website on a site whose owner is openly and strongly for Bush.
You won't be around long.
It's nice to see what slithers out from under the rocks to defend buchanan.
It's nice to see what slithers out from under the rocks to defend buchanan.
believe it or not, most Americans both dems and repubs agree with Pat in that they don't like wide open borders, the massive unfettered illegal alien invasion, and perpetual pre-emptive neo-con wars, in which we spend $5 billion + a month to 'democratize' lunatic muslims in iraq. give me a break with this stuff! have you read the PNAC plans? they're going into iran next, and are going to draft Americas kids to do it. They planned all this years ago.
If conservatives voted on who ceased to be a conservative, Buchanan would win over Bush any day.
Self-serving asshole? Or just a guy who is out to make a buck on a book advance?
2) Wait a few weeks, it will be on the $2 and under table
3) Real toilet paper is far cheaper and a lot softer...(although the dust covers do make an excellent urinal liner).
The real reason you asked is because you measure an individual's conservatism according to whether they agree with you or not, you're not kidding anyone here.
I don't support out-of-State candidates, it's a waste of my time, and I have my own State's battles to fight. I do freely opine on the likelihood of a candidate being elected or not; I correctly surmised that Arnold S. would be elected, just as I know that Alan Keyes will not.
As for Buchanan, I would think more of him if he would just once, post a tome critical of the Democrats, instead of spending all his time tearing down the GOP.
That, in and of itself, should tell you everything you want to know about Pat.
No thanks. If I read one more screed from Pat calling for a "white, straight Christian nation," I'll hurl.
Buchanan's opportunism is about money. He's through in politics.
I won't be around long? what does that mean? You think I'd get banned for giving conservative, Christian & Constitutionalist views?
Actually, most people realized that he was nothing more then a populist shill many years ago.
BUMP FOR THE SUPPORT OF SWIFT VETS HERE... http://www.swiftvets.com/
It will be pretty hard for Buchanan to top his 1992 speech to the GOP convention.
If I am not mistaken, Pat's Reform Party tent in 2000 was big enough for Lenora Fulani and Jimmy Hoffa.
How much bigger flaps can a party get?
You forget buchanan's speach to Al Sharpton and his crowd...pat wasn't affaid to sell out to anyone.
I wish the self-absorbed blow hard would just take a retirement. Not many give a rats "arse" what he thinks anyway. Those who do sure don't think like I do.
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.