Going Back to Where They Came From

The American Cause ^ | 04/21/04 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[bob808]

"What he failed to elaborate on was that America and Israel are attempting to rid the world of terrorism...

I think you've somewhat missed the point, which was that we've been somewhat suckered into spilling the blood of our young men and spending our treasure to fight someone else's war.

[bob808]

"Bill Kristol is nothing but a knee jerk reactionary, who isn't capable of seeing a tough job through, in other words he's a quitter... Just in case we have forgotten, It was Bill Kristol who was calling the Afghan War a quagmire 3 days before Kabul fell."

Then I think you've somewhat misunderstood Kristol. He's not complaining to get out, he wants us to send more in. If it was up to him, we'd be in the middle of a war with Syria and Iran now (and whoever else Sharon has on his enemy list) too.

[bob808]

Well said.

[Texasforever]

I think you've somewhat missed the point, which was that we've been somewhat suckered into spilling the blood of our young men and spending our treasure to fight someone else's war.

Baloney

[MJY1288]

Oh, I understand him, and I thank God he is just a pundit, because when it comes to fighting this war, he's clueless

[MJY1288]

Someone else's war?

I think you have missed the point, Bill Kristol has no influence on policy in this country, We here about Richard Pearle and where is he right now?

These boogie men Pat Buchanan is so afraid of, are toothless warriors in a war that is raging in the media and has little or no effect on reality on the ground in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein used to be the strong man in the middle east and he openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews, if Saddam wasn't an enemy that needed war waged upon him, that you have no respect for those who died in the Gulf War in 1992

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Saddam Hussein used to be the strong man in the middle east and he openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews, if Saddam wasn't an enemy that needed war waged upon him, that you have no respect for those who died in the Gulf War in 1992

One can only wonder at the respect shown to those men by those who started that war.

[SteamshipTime]

Saddam's war in 1992 was against Sunni Wahhabists.

[bob808]

"These boogie men Pat Buchanan is so afraid of, are toothless warriors in a war that is raging in the media and has little or no effect on reality on the ground in Iraq."

Those "boogie men" were, to a large degree, responsible for funneling bad/overblown intel to the President, and he made a decision to wage war based on that. They had the greatest effect of all, which was getting our troops there on the ground in the first place.

"Saddam Hussein... openly bragged about supporting terrorism against us and the Jews..."

Yes, he sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. But when did he ever "openly brag" about supporting terrorism against us?

Again we go back to the point of the article. No one is arguing that Saddam was a good guy. But who was he the biggest threat to? Were we not fed bad info? Who was feeding us that bad info and why?

We were manipulated into fighting someone else's war, my friend.

[MJY1288]

"Those "boogie men" were, to a large degree, responsible for funneling bad/overblown intel to the President, and he made a decision to wage war based on that. They had the greatest effect of all, which was getting our troops there on the ground in the first place."

If you think for a second that the Neocons at "Think Tanks" like "Project for a New American Century" is where the CIA and the DIA gather their Intel for putting together the National Threat Assessment, then your watching way too many TV Pundits or smoking some really good stuff, because real Intel gathering people laugh at fools like Pat Buchanan and Bill Kristol.

Richard Pearle, and others like him, are simply Policy advisor's who submit their views. Intel is an entirely different beast. We are in this war because it was inevitable. How long should we have maintained the No Fly Zones as the U.N. was skimming off the Oil for Food Program?

Like I said before, Pat and Bill need to get a room, their drooling over each other is a bit much

[Joe Hadenuf]

Buchanan has stated the obvious.

He generally does. Why do you think he is so hated so much.

[hchutch]

I'm not sure I would go that far.

The fact is, the Weekly Standard's views on the war on terror are views I agree with on the merits. The fact is, if those who think like Buchanan DID manage to become dominate in the GOP, I would certainly have to consider the same course Bill Kristol has contemplated.

I will admit to having serious misgivings with some of the "culture war" folks on the Right. I guess you could say I have become somewhat disillusioned with the Right on that issue.

That said, I think Kristol's comments were more akin to dealing with a hypothetical situation, and such be viewed as such. The original article was from the New York Times, and that source is NOT one to rely on as a stand-alone.

[hchutch]

Syria and Iran are sponsoring terroist groups, are they not?

[wingster]

The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.

This entire piece sounds like some SNL skit script!

[hchutch]

Buchanan is also ticked off that Kristol has said that he's worse on national security than John F'n Kerry.

I'd be insulted if someone said that about me, too.

[Howlin]

They can have him. He'll crap on them, too, sooner or later.

[hchutch]

Hey... in this context of those quotes, it helps to kepe two things in mind:

1. The New York Times ran that article. Probably hoping to cause a fight or something. Kristol was speaking in terms of a hypothetical.

2. I'll be blunt: Kristol's ranking of preferences is arguably close to mine. In a Buchanan-vs.-Kerry matchup, I'd sit it out. But a Lieberman-vs.-Buchanan matchup, I'd probably align with Lieberman. He is right in that Buchanan is probably worse than Kerry in terms of national security and foreign policy. At least Kerry would be back to Clintonesqu policies, which meant that things were kept stable - problems would be left for a successor to deal with. Irresponsible, but not the worst type of irresponsibility, if you ask me. Buchanan would have America in full retreat. That would be even MORE irresponsible than Clinton or Kerry in the foreign policy arena.