Posted on 08/28/2002 9:16:46 AM PDT by 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.
Yes, on my profile page it is stated I am the epitome of conservatism.
There. Much better.
Just a smear. Being for America first mean antipathy toward Jews only to the Israel first and free Pollard crowd. Israel and America are two different countries.
I agree. Those that want him can have him. I desire nothing to do with him at all.
BINGO!
"Despite the go-ahead from his legal advisers, administration officials said the president has not ruled out seeking lawmakers' approval if he decides to attack Iraq."
Fleischer said that "in all cases, the president will consult with the Congress because Congress has an important role to play."
He did not say whether such consultation would include a congressional vote approving military action, as was done before the Gulf War in 1991.
"The president has taken the advice of many of us in Congress; he wants input from Congress," [Tom] DeLay said. "And he has said he's going to come to Congress when he decides what needs to be done and when it needs to be done. And I expect him to do that."
So why all the hype...a decision has NOT been made yet on how or when to attack, much less whether Congressional approval will be sought, regardless of what the Bush bashers in the media are SPECULATING. That's right...PURE SPECULATION.
And just in case you don't know the law, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 which requires the president to consult with Congress before deploying the military in "hostilities" and to notify Congress of troop commitments within 48 hours of deployment. The president also must end military action within 60 days unless Congress declares war or grants an extension to the armed forces.
So the "how and when" factors which HAVE NOT been decided yet will play a big factor in whether Congressional approval is needed or sought. The media hype on the issue is just that...hype, speculation...what ever you want to call it, is disengenous...ever hear the saying about "ASS-U-ME"?
America is doomed until we re-define globalization to be the infiltration and neutralization of our enemies.
BUMP
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
George Washington's "Farewell Address"
I wonder why you never state such vitriol about the Left. It's easy to hurl epithets behind the anonymity of cyberspace, but I'm willing to wager that you wouldn't if 1,000 FReepers were in the same place at the same time.
Ronald Reagan was a Nazi? Do you have a cite for that?
Regarding your comment on Israel, does that mean you believe that the Palestinians are less entitled to a state than are the Israelis?
That's exactly right. The Palestinains are among the most corrupt people on earth now or that have ever been on earth? They train their kids to hate the subhuman jews and kill them - just like Hitler trained his Hitler Youth. Arafat's mentor was a Hitler acolyte, in fact. They send their little children out to die, then the parents celebrate their deaths! Why should an evil people such as this get anything other than the barrel of a gun?
Absolutely. BUMP
First of all, the President does not make policy based on the opinion of one individual. Secondly, Al Gonzales did NOT make the public statement...
Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress.
They DID NOT have the permission to make those statements or they would have come forward with their identities intact instead of hiding behind the "anonymous White House officials" cloak of secrecy. It is just a case of someone trying to muddy the waters for Bush.
Let me tell you pal - the time for containment is over. The radical mohammedans are out for American blood - your blood, my blood! Wake up and smell the coffee. It's them or us! Buchanan is right about the borders, but he is wrong about self defense. This guy doesn't have all the answers, and he most certainly has no clue about islam.
Ronald Reagan was a Nazi? Do you have a cite for that?
I've met Ronald Reagan. As a Marine during his Presidency, I thought of Ronald Reagan as a friend. Buchanan is no Ronald Reagan.
If you want to be a nationalist socialist like Buchanan, instead of a conservative like Reagan, then so be it. But please do not slander Reagan by trying to make a hack speechwriter who caused more trouble than he was worth into Ronaldus Redux.
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.