Posted on 02/03/2006 6:38:56 PM PST by canuck_conservative
"The road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline," railed President Bush in his State of the Union. Again and again, Bush returned to his theme.
"America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. ...
"Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. ...
"American leaders from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan rejected isolation and retreat."
Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.
But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism. Like all politicians in trouble, Bush knows that the best defense is a good offense.
Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths. And like Truman's war in Korea and Kennedy's war in Vietnam, Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war. Isolationists had nothing to do with it. To a man and woman, they opposed it.
Now, with an army bogged down in Afghanistan and another slowly exiting Iraq, and no end in sight to either, Bush seeks to counter critics who warned him not to go in by associating them with the demonized and supposedly discredited patriots of the America First movement of 1940-41. His assault is not only non-credible, it borders on the desperate and pathetic.
"Abroad, our nation is committed to a historic long-term goal. We seek the end of tyranny in our world," said Bush. "Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends upon it."
Intending no disrespect, this is noble-sounding nonsense. Our security rests on U.S. power and will, and not on whether Zimbabwe, Sudan, Syria, Cuba or even China is ruled by tyrants. Our forefathers lived secure in a world of tyrannies by staying out of wars that were none of America's business. As for "the end of tyranny in our world," Mr. President, sorry, that doesn't come in "our world." That comes in the next.
"By allowing radical Islam to work its will, by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself, we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals or even in our own courage," said Bush.
But what has done more to radicalize Islam than our invasion of Iraq? Who has done more to empower Islamic radicals than Bush with his clamor for elections across a region radicalized by our own policies? It is one thing to believe in ideals, another to be the prisoner of some democratist ideology.
Bush has come to believe that the absence of democracy is the cause of terror and democracy its cure. But the cause of terror in the Middle East is the perception there that those nations are held in colonial captivity by Americans and their puppet regimes, and that the only way to expel both is to use tactics that have succeeded from Algeria in 1962 to Anbar province in 2005.
Given the franchise, Arab and Islamic peoples from Pakistan to Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and Egypt have now voted for candidates with two credentials. They seemed to be devout Muslims, and they appeared dedicated to tossing America out of the region and the Israelis into the sea.
With opposition also rising to his free-trade policy, Bush reverted to the same tactic: Caricature and castigate critics of his own failed policies. "Protectionists," said Bush, pretend "we can keep our high standards of living, while walling off our economy."
But it was protectionists from Lincoln to Coolidge who gave us the highest standard of living on earth. And the record of Bush's merry band of free-traders? The largest trade deficits in history, a $200 billion trade surplus for Beijing at our expense in 2005, and 3 million lost manufacturing jobs since Bush first took the oath.
If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime.
It is George W. Bush who is running out of alibis.
There's a duplicate of this thread somewhere where apparently all three or four of the Reform Party's members showed up to defend ol' Patty. Must be lonely for them, crying into their beers at Party meetings in Pat's basement...
Oh Pat...been hanging out with Arianna too long? A little too much ouzo?
Pat must be getting senile to write this.
Nope, it's Pat Buchanan running out of wind because of the accomplishments of George W. Bush.
Take it to the bank for Pat Buchanan is trying to.
Pat Buchanan = enticing rhetoric and George Bush = Affirmative leadership.
Perhaps it takes a "rocket scientist" to figure that one out but it shouldn't.
Senility and desperation together are a personal concern for the once respected Reaganite.
Bump/Ping!
I actually respect Pat, but stuff like this is simply crazy.........
only if you consider an infant with crayons an "event", should this tripe be published.
Whoops, too tired to read THAT tonight !!
Bookmark for tomorrow!
There was a time I might have voted for Pat....that time has expired.
What's to disagree with here? These threads are always Bash Buchanan Fests and never arguments against his ideas (which I don't favour, by the way, but still.)
Thanks for the facts.
You just performed a great service.
Ahhhhhhh the truth is beautiful!
Welcome to the growing crowd who understand reality.
I, myself would have at one time, however like it or not, liberalism has permeated society to the point that accepting the lesser of two evils must prevail and give hope for a gradual return to a convinced and hopeful society as dictated by our Fore Fathers.
Albeit, all the rhetoric and disclaim, if one looks at the accomplishments achieved since Dubya has taken the seat of POTUS, we all should tote a gratitude and appreciation and forgo the mire of the media and the unfocused.
Thus tonight I tip a glass in appreciation that we are still free and are well suited to maintain this free status.
After all, Al Gore could have been POTUS and isn't....
"Thanks for the facts.
You just performed a great service."
I'm always amazed in the number of people who have no clue
how, why and who got us 1st involved in the Viet Nam War.
I personally have spoken to US Vets,
who were there in the 50's,
under Eisenhower and Nixon,
who were NOT allowed
(actually ordered)
to carry loaded weapons
and had to rely on the South Vietnamese Army
to protect them.
Don't misuderstand me, Kennedy and Johnson,
were no better than Eisenhower and Nixon.
Johnson and Nixon have almost an even
number of the 58,000 + Names on The Wall
Then Nixon decided to "cut and run"
to get the US out.
Thank God President Bush has vowed
that tis will not happen on his watch!
"Divided"??
Hey Pat -- we didn't need this war to "divide" us.
And a correction: Nam was LBJ's "war," and secondly neither Truman OR Johnson fought those wars to "win."
Thirdly, 100,000 fought and died in those wars which we had NO intention of "winning."
Lastly, the last time I looked, a clear American victory has led Iraq to a democracy in a sea of hostile Muslim sheikdoms.
Right on!
GOOD to see the feisty you tonight.
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.