Where are they, Mr. President? (Buchanan about no WMD found so far in Iraq)

WorldNetDaily ^ | Patrick J Buchanan

[FairOpinion]

After each war, historians sift through the record to discern its real causes. Invariably, they divide into two camps: the court historians who defend the war leaders and the revisionists who prosecute them before the bar of history.

After World War II, the evidence that FDR had steered us into war, while asserting he was doing his best to avert war, was so massive even his court historians admit he lied. Wrote Thomas A. Bailey in FDR's defense, "He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for his own good."

Roosevelt had cut off Japan's oil, sent the Flying Tigers to China and sought to tempt Japan into attacking a line of picket ships. He had lied about German subs torpedoing U.S. destroyers and Nazi plans to conquer South America and replace the Christian cross with the swastika. This mattered in 1950. For, with Stalin triumphant in Europe and China, it appeared – in Churchill's phrase – that we "had killed the wrong pig."

But today, with the immense focus on the Holocaust, the question is no longer, "Did FDR lie?" But, "Why did we not declare war sooner?"

Vietnam was, in Reagan's phrase, "a noble cause." But because it was a lost cause, it is now said and believed we only went to war because LBJ had misled us about the Tonkin Gulf incident.

The war in Iraq is being portrayed by the president's men as a just and necessary war that removed a mortal peril. But if our victory turns to ashes in our mouths, and we discover that we have inherited our own West Bank in Mesopotamia, the White House will have to explain again why we went there.

In his speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, President Bush told the nation, "With those attacks (of 9-11), the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got" – i.e., the invasion of Iraq was payback for the killers of Sept. 11.

But is this the truth? For this war on Iraq was not sold to the nation as retribution for 9-11. Indeed, the ties between Iraqi intelligence and the al-Qaida killers turned out to be bogus War Party propaganda.

We were told, rather, that Saddam had gas and germ weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. And once he had them, he would use them on us, or give them to Osama. "Do you want to wait for a nuclear 9-11?" Americans were asked.

Trusting the president, believing that he had information we did not, a majority of Americans approved of pre-emptive war. But where, now, are the thousands of artillery warheads and terror weapons the president and secretary of state told us Saddam had?

We have scoured Iraq for a month. No Scuds have been found. No chemical or biological weapons. No laboratories or production lines. No evidence that Iraq was building nukes or seeking fissile material.

"Every statement I make today is backed up by ... solid sources," Colin Powell told the United Nations. But since then, his case has crumbled. Were he a district attorney, Colin Powell would be under investigation today for prosecutorial incompetence or possible fraud. One British document he relied on turned out to be a 10-year-old term paper by a graduate student. The documents from Niger proving Iraq was seeking "yellowcake" for nuclear bombs turned out to be forgeries – and crude ones at that.

Who forged them? Why have we not been told? Does the secretary who put his integrity on the line not want to know?

If our occupation of Iraq turns sour and U.S. troops are being shot in the back, a year from now, Americans are going to demand to know. And President Bush could face the charge thrown up in the face of FDR by Clare Boothe Luce, that he "lied us into war."

Both the president and Powell are honorable men. If they misled us, surely it is because they themselves were misled. It is impossible to believe either man would deliberately state as fact what he knew to be false. But the president must find these weapons – or find the men who told him, with such certitude, that Iraq had them.

For there is something strange here. If Saddam had these weapons, why did he not surrender them to save himself? If he did not give them up because he intended to use them on us, why did he not use them on us? And if they were destroyed before the war, why did he not simply show us where, and thereby save himself, his family and his regime?

Last fall, Congress abdicated, surrendered its war-making power to a president who demanded that Congress yield it up. If Congress wishes to redeem itself, it should unearth the truth about why we went to war. Was the official explanation the truth, or was it political cover for an American imperial war?

[Victoria Delsoul]

Hatshepsut, the fifth ruler of the 18th Dynasty, was the daughter of Thutmose I and Queen Ahmose. As was common in royal families, she married her half-brother, Thutmose II, who had a son, Thutmose III, by a minor wife. When Thutmose II died in 1479 B.C. his son, Thutmose III, was appointed heir. However, Hatshepsut was appointed regent due to the boy's young age. They ruled jointly until 1473 when she declared herself pharaoh. Dressed in men's attire, Hatshepsut administered affairs of the nation, with the full support of the high priest of Amun, Hapuseneb and other officials. When she built her magnificent temple at Deir el Bahari in Thebes she made reliefs of her divine birth as the daughter of Amun. Hatshepsut disappeared in 1458 B.C. when Thutmose III, wishing to reclaim the throne, led a revolt. Thutmose had her shrines, statues and reliefs mutilated. LINK

[Howlin]

It's a bad thing when the only way you have to attract attention to yourself is to trash the administration.

[FairOpinion]

That is precisely the problem. He is "frozen in time" and is ignoring the "new reality" of a post 9-11 world.

[clintonh8r]

WHERE ARE THEY, MR. PRESIDENT?

Who cares, Mr. Thank-God-You-Never-Will-Be-President?

[OneVike]

The heyday of Limbaugh's radio show, and the best columns that Buchanan has ever written, date back to those 1992-94 days when the forces of the political world were arrayed against conservatives.

This is a bunch of crap! It is the same bullsh#$* that liberals spew.

They all claim that Clintoon made Rush what he is, the facts tell a different story.

Rush increased his share of listeners more during Bush # 1's presidency than Clintoons.

It is conservatives like Buchanan that do more harm to our cause than good. I put Buchanan in the same ilk as Timothy McVeigh, they ensure liberals success when they are successful.

Now I agree that Buchanan is not as evil as the McVeigh's of the world, but the political results is often the same.

[FairOpinion]

"This 'analysis' by Pat shows an alarming naiveté towards knowledge of Hussein and his history. "
---

You are right. Pat obviously has no clue about the thought processes and characters of dictators and tyrants.

[Consort]

I believe that a year or so ago Buchanan anounced that he was a Republican again.

Then he's one of those right wing RINOs.

[dogbyte12]

Pat Buchanan seems to have a thing for strongmen leaders with funky mustaches.

[FairOpinion]

"We have scoured Iraq for a month. No Scuds have been found. No chemical or biological weapons. No laboratories or production lines. No evidence that Iraq was building nukes or seeking fissile material."
----

As I said, NO facts. These are Pat's STATEMENTs. He doesn't have access to national security information, so he doesn't have a clue WHAT was or wasn't found.

Just what trickled out in the news is some definite evidence: the mustard gas and cyanide found in the Euphrates, the highly radioactive underground material found by the Marines at Al Tuwaitha, now this mobile bioweapons lab.

[Alberta's Child]

This is a bunch of crap! It is the same bullsh#$* that liberals spew.

I don't think this is a bunch of crap at all. I think I'm a pretty decent fan of talk radio, and there is no doubt in my mind that those days were the absolute best period for talk radio. Part of the problem is that you have so many Rush-wannabe imitators now that give talk radio a bad name.

Rush increased his share of listeners more during Bush # 1's presidency than Clintoons.

Rush didn't even have a syndicated show until 1987, so that's not telling me anything. I wonder what Rush Limbaugh's numbers are today compared to ten years ago.

It is conservatives like Buchanan that do more harm to our cause than good.

Part of that is because Buchanan has always attracted the wrath of liberals in the media who couldn't stand hearing what he had to say. For a real lesson in this, compare the typical media spin about his 1992 Republican convention speech to the reports that were given immediately afterward. Someone (it may have been Peter Jennings) even went so far as to call it one of the best speeches he had ever heard.

[speedy]

Exactly. I used to like him too, which is why this is so sad.

[FairOpinion]

I hope his name doesn't turn up in the Iraqi files. Being a crackpot is bad enough, but if it turns out he got paid for it, that would really be a disappointment. I hope that is not what he is nervous about and what sent him into this tizzy.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Or his warning, on the campaign trail in 2000, to a group of Chinese journalists covering the 2000 campaign: "If I am elected President, we won't be buying any more chopsticks from you Communists for our Chinese restaurants here in the U.S."

Or the time when Buchanan said that his first words to Clinton upon taking the oath of office would be, "Sir, you have the right to remain silent."

[Alberta's Child]

Here's a quote from a Buchanan column about the Clintons in the aftermath of the 1994 election:

"As long as their causes were right, they could do no wrong. Hillary could rise at Wellesley's graduation and give an arrogant little speech about the moral superiority of her generation, and be burbled over it in the nation press. The way rich and indulgent parents burble over a favorite infant pooping on the living room rug."

[MinuteGal]

Your # 101 - It describes Empress Hillary in a Tutshell.

Leni

[JustPiper]

I have been writing MSNBC for MONTHS about their losuy Buchannan-Press fiasco. I told them to give that hour to Dennis Miller!

[Victoria Delsoul]

The way rich and indulgent parents burble over a favorite infant pooping on the living room rug."

Hmmm, that reminds me...

[rdb3]

Indeed, the ties between Iraqi intelligence and the al-Qaida killers turned out to be bogus War Party propaganda.

Mr. Buchanan, you've been caught in a lie.

You should love it
Way more than you hate it
What? You mad?
I thought that you'd be happy I made it...

[tpaine]

To: quidnunc
"I believe that a year or so ago Buchanan anounced that he was a Republican again."


Then he's one of those right wing RINOs.
107 -consort -


Pat was never a republican. -- He has always been a paleo-Rino..
Gotta love seeing all you neo-Rinos eating one of your own..

The end of the GOP [as we know it] is near.

[rdb3]

Yet another retread.

You should love it
Way more than you hate it
What? You mad?
I thought that you'd be happy I made it...