[Proud2BAmerican]

Any responses to this article, please try to keep it focused to responding to the content of the actual article and not empty personal slanders against Buchanan.

[Justin Raimondo]

Buchanan is right on the mark.

[goldstategop]

We really do have to wipe out the whole hornets' nest. Its bad enough we put up with it for years and now have 7,000 dead Americans on our hands. Its just not Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban its every state that supports and shelters terrorists. Our enemies think we're too soft and complacent such that we're completely unwilling to defend our freedoms and our way of life. Well its payback time now and we have to show we mean business. America needs to be feared and not loved. Maybe then those who hate us will get the message. If they want to start World War III, let the blood be upon their heads not ours. In case Pat forgets it was America that was attacked first and we didn't ask for it. Boy now that it happened this country means to finish it and finish it good. As for Secretary Powell either he can pussyfoot around with Arafat and the Iranians or he can show he's on board in fighting a real war upon terrorism. This is no time to be faint of heart in the face of the enemy!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA.

[KC_Conspirator]

Pat is about 1/2 right. He for once understands the importance of the coalition Powell is building, however he is off the mark by bringing Isreal and "neocons" into this - it seems all too personal for him. There is a very good chance that Iraq had its hand in the attack, but that still remains to be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Pat does not understand that Isreal and the moderate Islamic states are the stabalizing forces in the whole region. Terrorism is a direct threat to all. Ignoring the problem will only encourage those evil people who intend to do us harm.

[jackbob]

The shot across Bush's bow came in an "Open Letter" co-signed by 41 foreign-policy scholars, including William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, . . .

Any one have the rest of the names on this traitors list. This act of undermining our entire war effort and the safety of our troops in the field at this critical time, is nothing less than treason.

[the_Watchman]

I agree with the neoconservatives that "getting" Bin Laden and toppling the Taliban is not enough. More must be done. However, I also agree with Buchanan that a wide ranging war between the U.S. and the majority of Arab states is precisely what Bin Laden wants and could quickly turn into something we would have trouble handling.

The major thing Powell and Bush Sr. goofed on with the Iraq war was leaving Hussein in power.

First, Bin Laden should be eliminated and the Taliban unseated. Next, I think that Bush should assess his coalition cards and, if possible, pick the most guilty target of those mentioned by the neoconservatives and "let-um have it", in spades. Whatever target Bush picks should be rendered totally and completely powerless at the completion of the campaign. Taking out the Taliban will not impress anybody. They are not a military presence. We shouldn't leave the area until we have made a distinct impression.

Prior behavior should certainly be a factor in the selection of this target, because the purpose is deterrence. Every government and society in the region should recognize that any future harboring of terrorists could result in their destruction. This operation should bear no resemblance to Clinton's ineffectual "message" to Bin Laden; i.e., the missiles which did not hit anything significant. When we walk away, this adversary should not be left standing in the field. That is the message to be sent to those remaining. Once we leave, no one should look forward to our return.

My father used to tell me that the way to handle a bunch of bullies was to pick the leader, or the largest one, and sucker punch them. If you take out the strongest member, then rest will fold. If not, then at least you have taken care of the the largest adversary before the rest of the fight begins.

[BushMeister]

Two major points:

As of Sept. 11, 2001, we did not possess a credible deterrent to prevent Islamic terrorists, and their support groups and support nations, from engaging in a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. We must create one with our actions in this coming war.

It should be clear to all that the prepetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks wuld have used ANY weapon at their disposal against us at ANY time in ANY place. That means a nuclear device in Manhattan or in DC.

I have been strongly against aid to Israel for years, and have been warning that we would pay a severe price for our support of our prickly and self-obsessed "ally". But we have interests in the Middle East, and in other areas of the world that contain Muslim and/or Arab populations, quite apart from the Israeli complications. Now that we have been attacked, we must respond, for our own future safety.

[ouroboros]

ANOTHER THREAD ON THIS ARTICLE

[OKCSubmariner]

BUMP

This article reminds me of Gingrich's letter to Powell asking him why the State Department is not also going after Hamas and Hezbollah.

Does Powell want Iraq and Hamas and Hezbollah to be off limits to the US war on terrorism?? If so, Why??

[kcvl]

I'm soooooooo glad Pat Buchanan is NOT the President of our country!

[Old Professer]

So, the xenophobe speaks aloud now, does he? What does he expect we should do, shoot to kill or wound the whole mess?

Actually, Pat was right all along, America is too accomodating, too accepting of all faiths, cultures and weirdos to the point where even a scorecard wouldn't help.

The real problem is the enemy chooses to be invisible, and as such, virtually invulnerable.

We did bring this upon ourselves, and it won't be easy to undo.

[Reagan Man]

This is the wrong time for Bennett, Kirkpatrick, Krystol and the others to go public with their personal opinions about how this campaign (crusade) should be carried out. Besides, America is in a technical state of war right now. This open opposition does no good. This is the time to support President Bush and our fighting men and women in the military and stay united. I can understand Krystol and his bozos at the Weakly Standard breaking with the President, but Bennett and Kirkpatrick should be ashamed of themselves.

Buchanan's right, "Conservatives should stand squarely with President Bush — and Gen. Powell".

[traditionalist]

Pat is right on the mark. The fact is that not all terrorist groups cooperate, and not all of the get along. Iran and Hezbolla hate the Taliban, Hamas, and Jihad (Shiite vs. Sunni). Iran and Iraq hate each other (they fought a war, remember?). Syria and Iraq don't get along (two rival versions of Ba'ath doctrine). Finally, to top it all off, the extreme Islamic Sunni groups don't get along well with the secular Ba'athist goverments of Syria, Iraq, and Libya, and even Arafat's PLA (though the PLA is a less secular than Iraq and Syria). You may recall a few months back there was a story of Hamas and Jihad militia fighting Arafat's militia.

Bottom line: Terrorism is not a monolith. Terrorist groups are very much divided. We should exploit these divisions and fight one group at a time, possibly with the help of the other groups. It is the only rational thing to do. Right now, the culprits are most likely the Sunni extremist groups (the Taliban, Bin Laden, and possibly Hamas). That means we should focus on them, and not encourage the other groups who they don't like (Iran, Hezbolla, and the Ba'athist regimes) to make common cause with them. And if we can get the groups they hate to make common cause with us, so much the better. You don't have to be friends with someone or completely trust them in order to benefit from a short-term alliance with them.