An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ^ | Wednesday, August 28, 2002 | BY BRIAN MITCHELL

[sixmil]

Patrick J. Buchanan isn't giving up. He's left the Republican Party for good. And he isn't planning a fourth run for the White House.

But he is finally trying something fans have been telling him to do for years. He's founding a magazine.

The new, bi-weekly magazine will debut next month and be called "The American Conservative." Scott McConnell, former editorial-page editor of the New York Post, will edit it. Society gadfly Taki Theodoracopulos will help with cash.

Buchanan is upbeat, about the magazine at least.

"We hope to have a conservative magazine which is genuinely and authentically conservative," he said. "We hope it will be sort of a rallying point for the conservatism that is really utterly unrepresented by either the K Street conservatives or the Weekly Standard, National Review, Commentary, New Republic neocons."

IBD talked with Buchanan at his home in Virginia to get a flavor for the new journal.

IBD: How are we doing in the war on terror?

Buchanan: I think the president did a bully job of diplomacy and moral leadership from September to January. The way they fought that war and won it was outstanding. It was a moral and just war, fought in a moral and just way.

But when he got into identifying an "axis of evil" and then threatening pre-emptive strikes against all nations that might develop the kinds of weapons we've had for the past century, he lost his focus. He has disrupted alliances. He has threatened actions that we don't have the troops in place to take.

He's asserting a right to wage pre-emptive war without the approval of Congress on any nation that aspires to build the kinds of weapons we've had since World Wars I and II. I don't think he's got the right to do that, and I think a policy of warning about pre-emptive strikes is the kind of policy that could invite pre-emptive strikes against us.

IBD: What about a war with Iraq?

Buchanan: Anybody who has a state, including Saddam Hussein, is going to be reluctant to go to war against the United States or to commit any atrocity which would put them in a war with the U.S. Containment and deterrence will work with almost any state.

Saddam is terrified of the United States. He wants to hand over his power to one of these sons of his. He's got all these palaces out there.

Why in heaven's name would he want to trigger a war with the United States of America and have all that blown to kingdom come along with him, his sons, his family, his dynasty, his army, everything?

I don't think we should give up on the policy of deterrence. It frightened Joe Stalin. It frightened Mao Tse-tung. These guys are not in that league.

IBD: What should we be doing here at home?

Buchanan: The first thing we should do is get serious about border security. Since 9-11, we've only had 411,000 illegal aliens come into the United States.

If there is a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into this country, the whole idea of global interdependence and 10,000 Mexican trucks coming into the U.S. every day, almost all of them not inspected, and over a million containers - that's going to come to an end.

It will be a very powerful argument for retiring to economic independence and economic nationalism, where you do not have thousands of people crossing your border every day. One or two more of these attacks and globalization itself is in trouble.

IBD: What will that mean for an open society?

Buchanan: I'm a believer in an open society, I'm a believer in a free society, and this is why I'm opposed to the idea of an empire. They say we need a Department of Homeland Security. I thought the Defense Department was in charge of homeland security. Apparently it's in charge of empire security.

Of what advantage is all this American empire, interfering in all these quarrels around the world, if as a consequence we lose freedom at home and live in constant danger of some kind of small atomic weapon detonated on American soil?

I think the American empire is going to go, and I think that's a good thing. The reason they were over here on 9-11 is that we are over there.

IBD: Where do you see things 10 years from now?

Buchanan: I regret that for the rest of Mr. Bush's first term, we're going to be at war. The president has subcontracted out our Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon, and I think that's a dreadful mistake.

Palestinian terrorists ought to be condemned and Israel has a right to peace, but you have to give the Palestinian people some hope. And I think Bush's (June 24) speech gives them very, very little hope. I think his speech could have been written in Tel Aviv.

IBD: Will there ever be a Palestinian state?

Buchanan: I think the question is not whether there'll be a Palestinian state. There may be two. The ultimate question is whether there's going to be a Jewish state in the Mideast. I think Ariel Sharon is leading them into a cul-de-sac from which there is no way out but back through Oslo and Tabaah and the Saudi plan.

[Zviadist]

Your guilt by association only works on those who don't know any better.

Absurd. You join a movement founded by a Nazi and you are a member of a Nazi movement. You join a movement founded by a pro-lifer you are pro-life. You join a movement founded by Trotskyites you are a leftist. It is pretty clear.

[Zviadist]

We fear that Saddam is arming and sheltering al Qaeda.

Read this very carefully: Rumsfeld mentioned the possible presence of al Qaeda in NORTH Iraq, i.e. the area controled by OUR allies the Kurds. Get a map.

[Zviadist]

I'd say you got that about right.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

To: Zviadist

LOL, I'd change the subject real quick too if I had been as wrong as you were in the pre invasion analysis of Afghanistan. What you said couldn't be done in years and without tens of thousands of dead Americans was done in months with 40 casualties, God bless'em.

Remember our debates back then Zviadist? Now who was full of crap?

Answer that honestly and we'll move on to post war Afghanistan.

160 posted on 8/28/02 1:01 PM Pacific by jwalsh07

Sadly, some people who post here, seem to forget that thier words are saved. BTW.. we agree with you. Our Troops have done an outstanding job. God Bless indeed those 40 casualties. They died for all of us. And, they died feeling they were doing a job our country required of them. Thank GOD for this President, in that they are serving under a Commander in Chief they respect and trust. That is so important!! (Pretty dang proud of Sec. of Def. Rumsfield too, I don't know of any other Sec. of Def. who has visited the troops this much, you can see he TRULY cares about them. Bout damn time!!).

Thanks for stating the truth so well jwalsh07!!

[cake_crumb]

I have a question for you. With a followup. Speaking in strictly broad geopolitical terms, without considering any particular country - except our own - and considering no particular culture, just human nature....

Do you think that if the US had never interacted with any other country upon Earth, that we would have had any reason to develope the technology we currently enjoy?

Do you think we would never have had another foreign war after the American Revolution?

[Zviadist]

TALIBAN IS GONE FROM POWER in Afghanistan.

Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did. And the only thing that happened to them is that they have been disbursed throughout south Asia and the Middle East where they can regroup to attack again. Some victory.

I speak to them often, and I can assure you, OUR GREAT FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN RESPECT AND LOVE THIS COMMANDER IN CHIEF!

You are really silly: By this "president" I am referring to HAMID KARZAI, not OUR president (we were talking about Afghanistan, have you forgotten?). I would have NO PROBLEM with our military protecting OUR president. Sheesh!

"UN-ELECTED President".. good GOD!!... You have GOT to be kidding? Next time put a </sarcasm so we know when you're done with the sarcasm and false innuendo's.

I AM TALKING ABOUT KARZAI!!!!! This is about Afghanistan!!! Can't you read??? OUR president IS elected. Karzai was appointed.

I am still waiting for a list of our wonderful achievements in Afghanistan. And please learn to read properly.

[Zviadist]

Sadly, some people who post here, seem to forget that thier words are saved. BTW..

What words saved? I saw no quote nor did I see a link to anything I had written. Once again you demonstrate an inability to read and comprehend.

[rdb3]

Absurd.

For the "ideology über alles" crowd, of course it's absurd!

[Zviadist]

Your questions are silly and irrelevant. Where have I ever written that Americans should not be engaged abroad? That is absurd. Or don't you see the difference between individual Americans engaged in travel and trade and the U.S. government bombing countries that have not attacked us?

As to war, it should be for self-defense. Only. It should be sufficiently fierce so as to discourage potential enemies. It should adhere to our values so as to demonstrate them to the world.

[skeeter]

Especially when being interviewed in person. On paper, he can "appear" rational. But in person.. or in a television interview.

Then he musta conducted his interviews with the Nixon and Reagan White Houses via mail. And faked it well enough to last umpteen years on two very popular talk shows.

You may not agree with him, you may suspect his motives. At times I do. But one thing Buchanan is not is wacko.

[ex-snook]

"You can classify me however you'd like. "

Hey my list is so people can classify themselves or anyone else.

--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a conservative.

Your Catholic and pro-gun can fall into any group. Pick your slot.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a neo-con.

--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a conservative.

Sorry buddy,.. but we are not "Neo-Cons" and I think that word is extremely offensive. It equates people who are conservatives to Nazi's.. period!! I would argue that it is people like you, who would silence free speach..and since you are one of the 1% that believe in Buchannans positions, perhaps you need to check out your own political ideologies and mental stability?

Pat Buchannan is a loose cannon. Pure and simple. The thoughts of him in ANY kind of leadership position is a frightening thought. We used to respect the man,.. but then we started to hear him talk more and more. And well, ... we were cognitive enough to realize the man is has a few lose screws.

Unless NEO means "Never Engage Ostriches" in meaningful dialogue.. it is a ridiculous label, and an offensive one.

[cake_crumb]

"Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda did"

There is no distinction. You would know that by now if you had any real understanding of the region.

"I AM TALKING ABOUT KARZAI!!!!! This is about Afghanistan!!! Can't you read??? OUR president IS elected. Karzai was appointed."

So? Karzai was not appointed by the United States. He was appointed by a panel of Afghan delegates....we only made suggestions. We appointed neither Karzai nor the panel of delegates which appointed him.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

You need to "write" properly. Next time state who you are talking about. And, we are accomplishing our objectives in Afghanistan. (But then you would tell the dead soldiers that they died for nothing. That's Bull Sh*t!!)

That region has a history of extremely complex politics. Karzai was elected as the INTERIM President until an election is held. You cannot run a country with out a head of state. Pure and simple. With the rivalry's between tribes/warring factions, and a delicate sitution in that regard, Karzai was selected to lead as "Interim" President.

The old King is back, and considering what has been going on in that region, I'd say that disbanning the Taliban, who are advid supporters of bin laden and al quaida, is a pretty damn good start. Especially considering how short a period of time it all took, and how few casualties we took. Every single one of our men who died, deserve that much understanding for the sacrifice they gave. They did not die in vain, they're mission IS being accomplished. With as little as possible death to our troops, and WHEN IT IS OVER.. a more democratic society for Afghanistan.

Or, perhaps you think they were better off with the Taliban in charge of things? Or that the world was a safer place while the Taliban harbored terrorists??

[ex-snook]

So discuss the article.

[xJones]

For the "ideology über alles" crowd, of course it's absurd!

You're missing the point, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SCREAM TO MAKE YOUR POINT! :)

[Zviadist]

"Neo-Cons" and I think that word is extremely offensive. It equates people who are conservatives to Nazi's.. period!!

What on earth are you going on about? Who has claimed that neo-conservatism is equal to Nazism? I have never seen that.

[Zviadist]

There is no distinction.

If you believe this you have zero understanding of East Asian politics or geography.

[rogerthedodger]

Where does the equation of Neo-con to Nazi come in? Does this relate to the term "Neo-Nazi?" The "neo" simply means "new" as in, "these are the new conservatives," as distinguished from the old, or "paleo" conservatives (such as Robert Taft). I don't know who coined the phrase, but I'm guessing that a "neo-con" probably has used it to apply to himself, without meaning he was a Nazi. I don't think Old Conservatives mean to associate New Conservatives with Nazism.

[hchutch]

See post 162.