Pat Buchanan: U.S. Pays the High Price of Empire

Los Angeles Times ^ | 09/18/2001 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[Pokey78]

As the twin towers of the World Trade Center came down in flames, taking 5,000 Americans with them, an unserious era in U.S. history came to an end. "All is changed, changed utterly," wrote poet W.B. Yeats. President Bush has now received full authority to wage war against all who abetted the slaughter. It must be done. Our American family cannot permit the mass murder of our brothers and sisters to go unpunished. But as the president directs the moral outrage of his wounded nation, he will need the wisdom of Solomon.

[EaglesUpForever]

Perhaps there is the necessity to define "national interest". Oil, that is national interest. What we did in Yugoslavia was not.

I think Oil is true national interest, and we are in so deep with Israel that we should stand by them. But running the whole world should not be a goal of US policy.

[mrflashrifle]

Pat, is in fact a very serious voice of reason. The collective 'we' are in fact a victim needing blame. Having developed a habit of dependency on foreign oil, we are at the mercy of Arab Nations. In the process, we have emasculated our defenses and military intelligence thanks to a naive belief that with the end of the cold war, we had nothing to worry about. As Pat has pointed out, not only have we built an empire, it is an empire without proper defense. We *do not* have the ability to wage two concurrent major campaigns - a stated goal since the end of world war II. If I were a Taiwanese national or a South Korean, I'd be trembling as we are about to get mired in what will prove to be a decade long war in the middle East, as our allies flee for cover. We'll be left twisting in the breeze as we fall to the tar baby bait of creating a war between fundamentalist Muslims which will rapidly gain followers as they try to topple the great Satan. The paradox here is that the very people - the f&cking french, Italians and others will sit out on the sidelines, not wanting to get involved in 'war', but rather supporting empty rhetoric. paradoxically enough, the true terrorist is the US Environmental terrorist - the college student with his dreadlocks, who aided and abetted by the Sierra Club, is preventing us from using our own resources and eliminating our ability to detach ourselves from foreign dependencies. AMERICA FIRST!!

[Professional]

Agree with you 100%. Bombing Yugoslavia was nothing but a Clinton photo op, at a great price to a country we had no vested interest whatsoever in pissing off.

[GregoryFul]

YOU SEE, THE ENTIRE EPISODE COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED HAD EACH OF THOSE PLANES HAD STRONGER COCKPIT DOORS AND THOSE FOUR CAPTAINS HAD CRUMBY $300. PISTOLS IN THEIR FLIGHT BAGS!

That cannot be repeated too often! If our government were interested in solving the problem of hijacking and using a plane as a weapon, it would be done immediately.

But look at our govenrment's solution to random acts of civil violence: Further impeed an individual's right to self protection.

And the quality of airport security management measures: Take the plastic knives out of airport eateries. Abysmally stupid. Like suspending tots for making a drawing of a gun.

What are we trying to do, make the terrorists laugh themselves to death?

[Pelham]

If anyone should be sighing, it's those of us who find smear campaigns tedious. Everyone who has examined this stuff knows that Buchanan's column about Hitler didn't praise him at all, and it's only selective editing that makes it appear so. The quote you post was Buchanan describing what many Germans who were swayed by Hitler saw in him, but you offer it as if Buchanan himself were praising him. I don't know what you call people who seek to deceive others, but "liar" comes to mind.

[Pelham]

That post says all I need to know about you, junior. If you were bold enough to speak like that in 3-D you would long ago have learned to clean up your mouth.

[William Wallace]

I don't know what you call people who seek to deceive others, but "liar" comes to mind.

Actually, when I think of liars, the word "Pelham" comes to mind. Your claim that I selectively edited Buchanan's words to change their meaning is a load of bs. I copied Buchanan quotes verbatim from a website. I didn't edit or redact his verbiage. Why would I do this? To invent an animus against Jews and other minorities that doesn't exist? I don't think so.

The quote from William F. Buckley speaks volumes about Buchanan's character. IF the accusations made against Buchanan were false smears (as you claim), Buckley could have cripsly refuted them. Fact is he didn't. IF the damning quotes were taken out of context (as you claim), Buckley would have said so. Fact is he didn't. Lastly, since Buckley knows Buchanan personally, he could have unequivocally stated that, notwithstanding any unfortunate slips of the pen or tongue, the Buchanan he knows is no anti-Semite. Instead, Buckley said that he couldn't defend Buchanan against the charge of anti-Semitism. Pretty damning considering how well they know each other.

[Pelham]

I copied Buchanan quotes verbatim from a website.

That figures. Maybe if you had actually read Buchanan's essays, instead of simply copying quotes from a website, then you would have seen his words in their context. The fact that you haven't actually read Buchanan's essays, and are therefore ignorant of the context of the words you copied, doesn't make you any less culpable for deceptively isolating selected quotes.

Is Buckley above reproach? Hardly. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority"? Apparently not. And did you actually read Buckley's essay, or is this just another instance of what you have already admitted, your habit of simply repeating what you find at some website? I doubt that you know any more about Buckley's writing than you do of Buchanan's. If you do, then tell us all what Buckley thinks about his protege Joe Sobran. Surely someone as familiar with WFB will be able to speak to this subject on a moments notice, and will know the reason why it will be so.

[bigunreal]

If the unthinking masses would have only listened to that 2% of the electorate you denigrate, this tragic incident would never have occurred. First of all, those who have long been concerned about the massive numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal, in America, could have told you that permitting huge numbers of people whose possible ties to fanatical terrorist organizations would become especially difficult to detect due to the increased numbers of completely law abiding immigrants with whom they shared both physical and cultural characteristics, was probably not a good idea. But then anyone in that "kooky" 2% who advocate such things is either "xenophobic" or "racist," or some other leftist-inspired label, and certainly isn't welcome in the Stupid Party. Anyone who has the capacity for thought must realize that terrorism exists because the people who have resorted to it don't have more conventional and, until recently, far more effective weapons at their disposal. Terrorists hate us because of our unswavering support of Israel-who has treated their muslim neighbors with an iron and unjust hand-and because of our redneck style, playground bully foreign policy. Do you think that followers of Islam-even the most fanatical of them-didn't become angry over the thousands of innocent civilians killed by our saturation bombing of that tiny country over the last decade? Do you think they didn't feel something akin to what all Americans feel now, as they stare in amazement at the pile of rubble and body parts that used to be the WTC, when they wandered the streets of Iraq (or Libya, or the Sudan, etc.) and found similar piles of rubble, with their own loved ones buried underneath? There is a motive for everything; if you wish to believe the absurd notion that is being pushed by our own corrupt and incompetent leaders that the Islam world hates us because "we represent freedom," then you are swallowing a suggestion that there is a large number of people in the world who are opposed to the concept of freedom. If you're that naive and gullible, you definitely shouldn't be questioning the wisdom of the only people in America concerned about the underlying causes of terrorism, and the Stupid Party is probably the appropriate place for you.

[CWOJackson]

I see you've met some of the 28 diciples. Fun aren't they?

[Cincinatus]

If the unthinking masses would have only listened to that 2% of the electorate you denigrate, this tragic incident would never have occurred.

You believe this and you think that I'm the one who belongs to the "stupid party", eh?? ROFL!!! Let's just leave it at the following: I think that we're both in the appropriate parties!

[CWOJackson]

Although I'm independent, I'm far more closely aligned with you...and glad for it. By the way, shouldn't that be .4% of Americans not 2%?

[snodog]

Hey Pat, I am guessing that you didn't hear, but Osama has called for your head, and every other AMERICAN.

I don't know about you, but when someone says they want to kill me, I get upset.

It's either me, or him.

[Greg Weston]

I'm guessing that you didn't hear that Pat said Bin-Laden needs to be eliminated.

[Greg Weston]

"If the unthinking masses would have only listened to that 2% of the electorate you denigrate, this tragic incident would never have occurred."

Only a brain dead Globelist does not realize that this statement may very well be the truth.

AMERICA FIRST!! Keep telling the truth Pat, maybe someday someone will heed your wise council on foriegn entanglements.

[Cincinatus]

By the way, shouldn't that be .4% of Americans not 2%?

I stand corrected. I guess I momentarily confused Pat's final totals with Ralph Nader's!! ROFL!!

[Cincinatus]

Only a brain dead Globelist does not realize that this statement may very well be the truth.

So I'm a "globelist", eh?? ROFL!! The Reform Party -- The Big Tent for Illiterates everywhere!! What a bunch of "loOsers"!!

Yes, we are both in the appropriate parties!

[vox1138]

Sometimes Pat is awesome, but he's missing the point now. This is not a particular skirmish, it is a global struggle of the new versus the old, and of freedom versus dictatorship, that will soon involve nearly every nation. It is dangerous and filled with risks, but assuming that catastrophic threats will subside, if this conflict is limited to a single exercise, is denial.

[Greg Weston]

The only one ones who are going to end up losing are your fellow Americans if you you want to keep advocating being world cop butting into everyones conflicts. Wasn't 5000+ plus enough for your dense kind? Security begins at home. Your ilk blew it big time.

[wita]

There is a good bit of difference between those who chose to come to the colonies before this country was a country, and what we now call immigration from what at best could be called third world countries. Even if you want to compare immigration from 1900 to 1938 to what exists today, there is no comparison. Pat is not advocating a closed border, he is advocating a controlled border, as am I. If INS was doing its job, and we had a well defined immigration policy that controlled and monitored what entered this country, the events of tuesday the 11th would not have taken place.

I should add, that repeal of the many anti-constitutional gun laws now on the books, where anyone and everyone no matter where they were, could be in charge of and responsible for their own protection, would go a long way toward adding to peace and security within our borders. Had anyone on those hijacked airplanes, been armed, with something besides brains, and physical strength, none of the planes would have reach their objective, and we wouldn't now be mourning the loss of 5,400 plus dead, and 5,000 plus wounded including our national pride. Stupidity reaps its own rewards.