[madrussian]

The policy is "cooperate on hunting down terrorists or face war". That logically applies to any country. The Neocons point out that Iraq is likely to fail the test. Here comes Buchanan saying, "Oh, no, since the neocons suggest that, it can't be right".

Making that ultimatum to a country being bombed by the US is silly and unreasonable. Only if there is an evidence of Saddam being involved in those attacks, a retaliation would be justified, WITH OR WITHOUT any cooperation. Saddam can be relied on to continue to defy America, and neocons know it.

Buchanan is pointing out un-American interests in the neocon position and you are free to point out why a total war in Middle East is in the American interests.

I don't see any evidence of Buchanan adjusting his views to be just the opposite to the neocons', like you suggest may be true. What I see is a consistent position in both camps. The neocons' warmongering was predicted to happen right after the bombing. The motive is an important part of any analysis.

[annalex]

Iraq is firmly in the enemy's camp, true, and if it harbors terrorists then it becomes the target in this particular war, period, neocons, shmeocons. If Buchanan supports the policy of making war on countries that harbor terrorists, then he should have no problem with that policy being applied to Iraq, regardles of what the neocons think.

What Buchanan doesn't seem to grasp is that this war is not about him or the neocons.