An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is the excuse from the Blame America First crowd, it is not the real reason, however I do understand how some come to that view by watching snippets of statements on the lamestream news without delving into all the aspects of the declared "jihad" aka "holy war".

You are pretty close to suggesting that I think the attacks on our country were justified. I am only suggesting that they were prompted by our meddling and ignorance. No one could ever justify what was done to my former neighborhood on 9/11. There are really only two ways to go at this. You can either spread yourself all over the world and be prepared to fight on a regular basis, or you can stay home and work on your own problems. We are trying to take the middle road of getting in the middle of the ring without putting up our dukes. I can not think of a better way to get kicked in the teeth on a regular basis and forcing yourself to fight like a cornered animal. Why are our troops being turned into peace keepers and nation builders? Why are our defense forces defending the rest of the world and not us?

While Bin Laden does mention occupation, he stated in a 1998 interview that "Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel."

I fail to see how this supports your point, in fact it seems to bolster mine. Imagine if there were a Saudi airbase in the US to help us prevent a Mexican invasion. Pretty ridiculous, but I doubt we would stand for it even if our politicians allowed it.

I'm in total disagreement with your political views, but I have to tell you that your story about your experience on 911 is amazing. I haven't seen pictures that touched me quite this much (Other than things I saw working in medicine, and from my experience with Nam Vets).

That you even "took" pictures during such a traumatic time, is amazing. Job well done. I hope you are doing ok after witnessing what you did "first hand".

Everyone needs to research other posters previous posts and profiles. Your profile led me to your homepage, which proves that when you click on someones profile, you sometimes find out amazing things.

As to politics, we will have to agree to disagree. But I've always felt that disagreements when done with respect, are a "good" thing.

FRegards

Poobah, I have read your posts many times, and I know that you did not agree with Pat.

Accurate statement.

However, I do not support the "open border" policy that seems to be in effect now.

Fine. I just want to see some concrete details. A lot of folks seem to think that all they have to due is wish it so, and it will happen.

I believe we should do everything to control it.

Again, pray tell me the details.

Giving up, to me is not the answer.

I want to see something realistic that American citizens will be willing to support. Americans say in opinion polls that they do not support illegal immigration, but that's a high-level idea, much like being opposed to sin and in favor of motherhood. When I start talking about the kinds of things that you'd have to do to actual accomplish those high-minded goals, a lot of Americans start to not like the idea.

Then again, I must be one of the few people who can truly appreciate the irony of a guy with a Proposition 187 bumper sticker and an "American Patrol" bumper sticker on his truck...and with half a dozen non-English-speaking day laborers in the bed.

I do like your screen name, though.

Thanks.

When I start talking about the kinds of things that you'd have to do to actual accomplish those high-minded goals, a lot of Americans start to not like the idea.

Okay, Poohbah, what do YOU think we should do to accomplish this very difficult task to close our borders? If our prop 187 (which was approved by 60% of Californians) was tossed out by a judge, and subequently trashed by Davis, what do you think anyone could do that would not suffer the same fate, by the same group of idiots that we have in charge now??.

Okay, Poohbah, what do YOU think we should do to accomplish this very difficult task to close our borders?

First off, recognize that it won't be done cheaply or quickly. There are Freepers out there who think that assigning 30,000 troops to border security will magically make the illegals stop trying to cross the border. When pressed for details, they either (a) accuse doubters of being "defeatist" for pointing out that their proposal translates to only 600 soldiers guarding a minimum of 2,000 miles of border at any one moment, or (b) propose rules of engagement that are utter violations of the Geneva Convention. (One now-nuked Freeper actually proposed cross-border raids with B-52 bombers to retaliate for border-crossing events--one illegal entry, one village in Northern Mexico flattened.)

Second, we're going to have do decide if we really want the full panoply of features needed to ensure that everyone here is here legally, or if we're just doing this to make ourselves feel better. Some Freepers actually demand (a) deportation of all illegal aliens and (b) no means of identifying the ones who should be deported (i.e., they oppose any form of national identification).

Third, whatever we do, we're probably going to have to do some form of "regime change" in Mexico. The problem we have is a product of having a corrupt Third World governmental, economic, and social order right next door to a prosperous, stable, and free republic. That is going to have to change--and probably the only way to change it is to invade Mexico, throw out the regime, and occupy it for 20 years, integrating it into the US.

If our prop 187 (which was approved by 60% of Californians) was tossed out by a judge, and subequently trashed by Davis, what do you think anyone could do that would not suffer the same fate, by the same group of idiots that we have in charge now?

There was a reason Proposition 187 was thrown out: it was very badly written. The biggest problem was that it had no severability clause--if one element got tossed, the entire package went with it. Secondly, it attempted to assert state authority over federal funds (the federal grants for MediCal and AFDC) based on something that was under the authority of the federal government. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't let states dictate things like that to the federal government. If the state spends Uncle's money, it has to follow Uncle's rules.

I will try Buchanan's mag.

I will try it, too. I am disheartened by Pat’s rejection at the Presidential debates in 2000. As a result, Illegal Immigration became a non-issue even as it is and remains a huge problem! Judging by all the Ad Hominem attacks on Buchanan on this site and elsewhere, it appears that the Right as well as the Left, are defending at least one identical premise: "no outsiders welcome."

I do not agree with Buchanan on everything, but there is one thing about the man that distinguishes him from every other politician: If you ask Buchanan a question, he will give you an answer to that question. You might not like the answer, but you will get one.

Poobah, thanks for your very interesting and well-thought out remarks about our border problem. You are correct in many of your statements. Your answer is to take over Mexico, but I believe that would mean huge additional funds necessary to look after the people in Mexico. I don't know where you live, but here in CA, we are heavily taxed to support our legals and illegals. As for the Federal government supporting all of these benefit programs, like AFDC, Medi-Cal, prisons, insurance programs for kids, free prenatal care for illegals, help for working families,etc., they have cut down considerably in the amount of funds alloted to us. They promise, but unfortunately don't always deliver. That's part of the reason CA is in debt up to it's ears in the amount of 23 billion dollars. Davis of course, wants to be re-elected and promises everything he can to ensure this happens.

"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."

THANK GOD FOR THIS!

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

Founding a magazine? Sounds like Bay's at it again. It should be called, "Smoke and Mirrors".

Scott McConnell, now thats funny. McConnell was one of the reason for Pat doing badly in his Presidential bid. I bet the focus is going to be on "Illegal Aliens". Thats all the McConnell knows. Guess the mag is enroute to the toilet as well. Just what we need another spin magazine. How does someone like Buchanan get away with a scam like this?

Twenty years of occupation to root out a corrupt oligarchy and teach the next generation about freedom. Meanwhile, Mexico would get a huge influx of capital investment to exploit her natural wealth (which is considerable), because US law (even martial law) is far more business-friendly than Mexico's. By the time the twenty years end, you'd probably see a bunch of gringos heading south to make their fortune in the new territories (and probable future states) of Oaxaca, Sonora, and Baja California. The locals would probably be getting in on the ground level--so their welfare dependence would be far less than you'd think.

In the long run, it would be a LOT cheaper than to continue the present course.

I don't know where you live, but here in CA, we are heavily taxed to support our legals and illegals.

I live in CA. Yup, we're heavily taxed.

As for the Federal government supporting all of these benefit programs, like AFDC, Medi-Cal, prisons, insurance programs for kids, free prenatal care for illegals, help for working families,etc., they have cut down considerably in the amount of funds alloted to us. They promise, but unfortunately don't always deliver.

Ain't it a b!tch when our state votes the wrong way in the 2000 election?

Bush has ZERO incentive to make things easy for Grayout Doofus.

BTW, the Feds support what THEY are willing to pay for all these--Grayout Doofus and the Dimocruds opted to pay way above the Federally-supported amount.

That's part of the reason CA is in debt up to it's ears in the amount of 23 billion dollars. Davis of course, wants to be re-elected and promises everything he can to ensure this happens.

Yup--so he can get at least two more years of Bush, and possibly finish out his term under the guy. Davis may or may not be light in the loafers, but he does seem to have a masochistic streak a mile wide.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.