PatBuchanan on Bush's War Party

“The US War Party's Imperial Plans
By Patrick J. Buchanan
© 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
9-13-2

"The fires had not yet gone out at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a year ago, before the War Party had introduced its revised plans for American empire. What many saw as a horrific atrocity and tragedy, they saw instantly as an opportunity to achieve U.S. hegemony over an alienated Islamic world.
President Bush initially directed America's righteous wrath and military power at al-Qaida. But in his "axis-of-evil" address, he signed on to the War Party's agenda.
What lies ahead? When America invades Iraq, it will have to destroy Saddam and all his weapons of mass destruction. Else, the war will have been a failure. And to ensure destruction of those weapons, we must occupy Iraq. If you would see what follows, pull out a map.
With Americans controlling Iraq, Syria is virtually surrounded by hostile powers: Israel on the Golan, Turks and Kurds to the north, U.S. power to the west in Iraq and south in Jordan. Syrian President Assad will be forced to pull his army out of Lebanon, leaving Israel free to reinvade Lebanon to settle accounts with Hezbollah.
Now look to Iran. With Americans occupying Iraq, Iran is completely surrounded: Americans and Turks to the west, U.S. power in the Gulf and Arabian Sea to the south, in Afghanistan to the east and in the old Soviet republics to the north. U.S. warplanes will be positioned to interdict any flights to Lebanon to support Hezbollah.
Iraq is the key to the Middle East. As long as we occupy Iraq, we are the hegemonic power in the region. And after we occupy it, a window of opportunity will open Ð to attack Syria and Iran before they acquire weapons of mass destruction.
This is the vision that enthralls the War Party - "World War IV," as they call it - a series of "cakewalks," short sharp wars on Iraq, Syria and Iran to eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat to us and Israel for generations.
No wonder Ariel Sharon and his Amen Corner are exhilarated. They see America's war on Iraq as killing off one enemy and giving Israel freedom to deal summarily with two more: Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Two jumps ahead of us, the Israelis are already talking up the need for us to deal with Libya, as well.
Anyone who believes America can finish Saddam and go home deceives himself. With Iraq's military crushed, the country will come apart. Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south will try to break away, and Iraq will be at the mercy of its mortal enemy, Iran. U.S. troops will have to remain to hold Iraq together, to find and destroy those weapons, to democratize the regime, and to deter Iran from biting off a chunk and dominating the Gulf.
Recall: After we crushed Germany and Japan in World War II, both were powerless to reassume their historic roles of containing Russia and China. So, America, at a cost of 100,000 dead in Vietnam and Korea, had to assume those roles. With Iraq in ruins, America will have to assume the permanent role of Policeman of the Persian Gulf.
But is this not a splendid vision, asks the War Party. After all, is this not America's day in the sun, her moment in history? And is not the crushing of Islamism and the modernization of the Arab world a cause worthy of a superpower's investment of considerable treasure and blood?
What is wrong with the War Party's vision?
Just this: Pro-American regimes in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh will be shaken to their foundations by the cataclysm unleashed as Americans smash Iraq, while Israelis crush Palestinians. Nor is Iran likely to passively await encirclement. Terror attacks seem certain. Nor is a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of believers from Morocco to Indonesia likely to welcome infidel America and Israel dictating the destiny of the Muslim world.
As for the pro-American regimes in Kabul and Pakistan, they are but one bullet away from becoming anti-American. And should the Royal House of Saud come crashing down, as the War Party ardently hopes, do they seriously believe a Vermont-style democracy will arise?
Since Desert Storm, America has chopped its fleets, air wings and ground troops by near 50 percent, while adding military commitments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Central Asia. Invading and occupying Iraq will require hundreds of thousands of more troops.
We are running out of army. And while Americans have shown they will back wars fought with no conscripts and few casualties, the day is not far off when they will be asked to draft their sons to fight for empire, and many of those sons will not be coming home. That day, Americans will tell us whether they really wish to pay the blood tax that is the price of policing the War Party's empire."”

“Anyone can just about spin the situation anyway they like...add a pinch of rhetoric..a dash of opinon..throw in a few hot words like "War PArty" and "Empire" ..you end up political hack commentary...

Everyone is quick to criticize the White House when it comes to Iraq, but fail to offer any viable alternatives to the posed threat...It easy to be a critic...but much harder if your in the hot seat...”

“I agree with Davies in this case. Buchanan paints a pretty vivid picture that does not necessarily show what is to be. If the Bush Administration does invade Iraq, there is no government waiting to take over, so it may very well unstabilize the region, but his rantings about Israel and world war IV seem surreal.

On the other hand, Wsdavies, some people HAVE been pointing out a very viable alternative that the Bush administration is only paying lipservice to: the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq.”

“I don't have a problem with weapons inspectors...I think Iraq will jerk them around, and could easily hide WMD from them...There needs to be a regime change...It almost seems like your defending Saddam..the guy killed his way into power..he doesn't represent the people of Iraq..He kills off any threats to himself..We would be doing these people a huge favor...Just one well placed tactical nuke down the vent pipe of Saddams bunker..problem solved :)

Phaedrus..Say the inspectors go back in but are jerked around(Which won't be clear cut no matter who makes the argument) Then what do we do..How do we prevent this Bastard from supporting terrorism and sneaking a WMD into the US...”

“I wonder if finally cornering Saddam isn't the quickest way to establish what WMD he might have and how many. If he thinks 'regime change' is underway and it's his very last hurrah, he may well set off everything he has left.

The discussion of inspections may be moot if what I'm hearing is correct.

BTW, no credible links between Saddam and terrorism have been established since the foiled attempt on George Herbert... in 1995(?).”

“It almost seems like your defending Saddam.

This is a reprehensible statement for you to make. I take offense. I have never once advocated my support for any dictator, and yet you pull this out of thin air.

Say the inspectors go back in but are jerked around(Which won't be clear cut no matter who makes the argument) Then what do we do

I disagree with the premise that we cannot detect deceit in weapons inspection. Listening to Scott Ritter makes that clear. You can question this man's motives all you want, but the fact remains that there is no evidence of WMD in Iraq today.If there was, we would have it layed out before the public and the international community, and this would not be a debated issue.

On another thread, you questioned my loyalty to my country with the "world citizen" remark. On this thread you have called me a saddam hussein apologist. The one thing I have asked for is evidence of a threat from Iraq. Does that make me a bad American and a dictator supporter? Hell no.

Debate the facts of the matter and quit trying to make it a personal attack.”

“Ya dang pinko!”

“"There needs to be a regime change...It almost seems like your defending Saddam..the guy killed his way into power..he doesn't represent the people of Iraq"

Boy wsd you have a short memory. Saddam was one of our best allies when he was at war with Iran. We provided him with military equipment and a lot of the knowledge he now has about bio/chem weapons. Now according to Dubya he's worst than Hitler. Most sheeple in the USA believe this nonsense. It's pitiful to see this.

And Phaedrus
"but [Buchanan's]rantings about Israel and world war IV seem surreal."

That's bull$hit. There's nothing surreal about his take on the situation. The one other thing this is besides an oil grab is a proxy war for Israel. They're the ones who really want this war and the only ones who would gain by it. This war really has nothing to do with our national security and everthing to do with theirs. My opinion is that if Ariel Sharon wants to destabilize Iraq let the Israeli Army do it. But why should they when they have dupes like the Americans to do their dirty work for them? If they have their way we'll be going after Syria, Iran,and Libya next.


Lastly, These wars could go on for years and if we do invade Iraq we'll be bogged down there for decades, just like Kosovo and Afghanistan. I have an 11 year old son. I have no intention of ever letting him get caught up in this madness. We'll see how the warmongers in here feel when they start getting their draft notices to help expand the boundaries of the Empire.”

“I haven't heard the expression 'exit strategy' in quite some time. Has this ceased to be a consideration in some quarters?

All other arguments notwithstanding, it appears that we're going to be stretched mighty thin before long. Is our flank covered?”

“Solitary, if you buy into his vision, which is a series of events, each predicating the next, you have to understand that he is coming from a deeply slanted point of view against Israel-US relations.

Here are a couple of things I found.


Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory."
(St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)

During the Gulf crisis: "There are only two groups that are beating
the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and
its 'amen corner' in the United States." ("McLaughlin Group," 8/26/90)


I don't buy into the premise that a destabilization of Iraq would lead to Israel invading Lebanon, nor do I agree that Syria would pull out of lebanon simply because the Kurds were calling for their own state.

That is the part of it all that seems out-there to me. I think he's ranting, rather than predicting.”

“Oh, and here are some more Buchanan quotes for anyone who might not know the guy's reputation:

ON WOMEN:

"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not
endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and
the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western
capitalism." (syndicated column, 11/22/83)

"The real liberators of American women were not the feminist
noise-makers, they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping
center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer." (Right from the
Beginning, p. 149)

ON DEMOCRACY:

Attacking what he considers the "democratist temptation, the worship
of democracy as a form of governance," Buchanan commented: "Like all
idolatries, democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of
process for a love of country." (Patrick J. Buchanan: From the Right,
newsletter, Spring/90)

In a January, 1991 column, Buchanan suggested that "quasi-dictatorial
rule" might be the solution to the problems of big municipalities and the
federal fiscal crisis: "If the people are corrupt, the more democracy, the
worse the government." (Washington Times, 1/9/91) He has written
disparagingly of the "one man, one vote Earl Warren system."

In Right from the Beginning, Buchanan refers to Spanish dictator
Francisco Franco as a "Catholic savior." He called Franco, along with
Chile's Gen. Pinochet, "soldier-patriots." (syndicated column 9/17/89)
Both men overthrew democracy in their countries.

ON AFRICAN-AMERICANS

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no
politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of
Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses,
playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning,
Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)


Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion
that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get
that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column,
2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer
Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin
her with sanctions?"
(syndicated column, 9/17/89)
”

“That guy is a nut case!”

“now in darkness world stops turning


ashes where the bodies burning


no more war pigs have the power


end of dawn has struck the hour




oh Lord ya.....”

“Shouldn't this be on the "jerk" thread?”

“Phaedrus (or birch or violin or whoever you really are),

You guy(s) drag out the same lame so-called quotes each time we discuss this topic. You go over to Jeff Cohen's www.fair.org site and pull down something taken out of context. You can find any number of choice tidbits about Buchanan there under headings like "anti-semitism", "racism" etc. What you won't find there is anything under those topics about how the Israeli Zionists treat the Palestinians or how they murder them, or how they haved terrorized them since 1948, or how they stole their land.”

“If the "topic" is buchanan, it's in no way unfair to hold the man accountable for words he has uttered in the past. Show me how those quotes were out of context. I personally watched Buchanan admire David Duke on nightline in the early nineties. IF you want to know his stance on the issues from an unbiased source, try this Issues2000.org

Here are a few of his takes on the issues:

Presidency supports traditional values, not gays & abortion. (Jul 1999)
Take country back from ACLU; allow school prayer & gay bans. (Oct 2000)
Tear out diversity programs, root and branch. (Aug 1995)
Stop gun rampages by requiring press silence. (Nov 1999)
For school prayer; against multiculturalism. (Jun 1999)
End bilingualism; end ôhyphenated-Americansö. (May 1999)
Celebrating Earth Day is like worshiping dirt. (Oct 2000)
Drill in Alaska and play hardball with OPEC. (Oct 2000)
Gobal Economy betrays working Americans. (Aug 2000)


I could go on. The guy is as close to a Nazi as is possible to get and still have anything approaching a mainstream following.

As for your Palestinian argument, It is a diversion from your first argument that the Buchanan quotes were taken out of context. Taken on it's own, it's a huge oversimplification of a complex issue. But you knew that already, right?”

“"I could go on. The guy is as close to a Nazi as is possible to get and still have anything approaching a mainstream following." Phaedrus’

Phaedrus,
 
You are no moderate, Pat Buchanan is no Nazi. You a liberal. That is your choice. Pat is an Irish Catholic, conservative thinker and that is how he is. His choice. We have a lot of those types here in New England. He did win the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary a few cycles back. He is not out of the mainstream.

Open up your mind and stop shoving your agenda down our throats.

As to the original question or article, pure conjecture. Opinion, speculation for the sake of making a point. Nothing more, nothing less.

The following sum up my thoughts on the Iraq predicament.

--"Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!"
— Winston Churchill

--Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life.
    Theodore Roosevelt, President

--Weasel words from mollycoddles will never do when the day demands prophetic clarity from great hearts.
    Theodore Roosevelt, President, 1937

--"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."
— Winston Spencer Churchill, address at Harrow School, October 29, 1941.”

“"Their minds to your mind...
Their thoughts to your thoughts..."

-- Cmdr. Tuvok (kindof)



"It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw."

-- Calvin


<G>”

“You are no moderate, Pat Buchanan is no Nazi. You a liberal.

I'm a liberal compared to buchanan, but then McCarthy is a liberal compared to buchanan.

Open up your mind and stop shoving your agenda down our throats.

This coming from a troll who goes by "Tommy Gun", notorious for spewing the NRA party line whenever possible. Open minded? Agenda?

The following sum up my thoughts on the Iraq predicament

Followed by a series of quotes (other people's thoughts). Do YOU have an original thoughts on the matter?”

“For a minute why don't you go back and re-read the original post. Admittedly it is speculation but at the same time it is in the realm of possiblity. One of the reasons I post Buchanan is that no one else in the national media seems to dare question Bush's Middle Eastern policy in general or our long term foreign policy concerning Israel specifically. Half of the stuff going on over there wouldn't be happening if this country showed at least some semblance of balance in our policies towards Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. I say it's high time we took a different approach. As you stated it is a complex issue but sometimes by trying to solve the baseline problem much progress can be made in all areas. What is wrong with that logic?”

“BTW Israel is very likely to invade Lebanon and probably sooner than later. The Lebanese don't have any rights to the water Ariel Sharon needs for all those illegal settlements on the West Bank.”

“As much as I disagree with Buchanan, I think the piece solitary hiker posted, stripped of much of it’s rhetoric and speculation, makes a whole lotta sense.”

“Yeah, the problem is that it's ALL rhetoric and spec... Oh... Hehehe. That's a pretty good one, Violin!”

“Buchanan is a damn fool and his opinions in this article are risible. I'll refute just one point he failed to make:

"With Iraq's military crushed, the country will come apart. Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south will try to break away, and Iraq will be at the mercy of its mortal enemy, Iran"

First, "crushing" the Iraqi military is not the first choice of military planners, as far as I've read. Rather, the rapid isolation and destruction of Iraq's national command/control authority is the real priority. Dummy seems to be counting on using air power and special forces to destroy Iraqi command/control. Unless Sadam has been de-centralizing his military or has established a robust, low-tech communications network, then the Iraqi army will not be able to function effectively with its head cut off. So Dummy is counting on the quick capitulation of the Iraqi army rather than a crushing defeat through battle. Sure, the U.S. Army has been claiming a huge ground force is needed, but their efforts at swaying Dummy has not been nearly as successful as the Air Force and their "new model of warfare."

So if the Iraqi army is left largely intact and the U.S. is successful at rapidly generating a credible national command/control structure, then there's little reason to believe that Iraq will fall apart, because there will be authority and power in place.

Regarding the Iraqi Kurds, they are not that interested in claiming a sovereign state at the moment. This last decade has been very prosperous for them, and they have set up a de-facto democratic, capitalistic society for themselves, with little outside influence. They don't want to risk the ire of Turkey et al by rashly rebelling. What they want is a continuation of what they have: peaceful prosperity and a representative government. There's little reason to believe that they're going to risk this when they know the U.S. is most likely going to attempt to instill a democratic government in Iraq.

Regarding Iran, they're going to do two things: Jack and #&%!$. First, the Iraqi army won't be decimated like Buchanan is crying about. Second, they wouldn't dare mess with American power, particularly when they see the U.S. perhaps unilateraly kick the hell out of Sadam because he was listed in Dummy's idiotic "axis of evil." Iran is too prosperous right now to risk doing much other than funding terrorists and other such cowardly activity.”

“First off your name calling only proves that if anyone is an idiot it is you.

Second just because Bush thinks he can win the war via some strike that would take out the Iraqi command/control structure doesn't mean that it will play out that way. If Saddam isn't assassinated or doesn't flee the country very early on Bush will need a large force to go in and fight through the streets of the major cities and/or occupy the space. The Air Force can't do that and thank God the US Army generals know how things really work. (Air Force and their new model of warfare indeed. LOL!)

Now as far as the Kurds go. They have been chafing under the Turks and the Iraqis every since the end of WWI. They may be fat and happy right now but you just let them get the chance. Kurdistan might not encompass parts of Turkey (right now) but it would encompass part of Iraq. And after what Saddam did to the Shi'ite Muslims after the Gulf War, there is not telling. They might still be part of Iraq but in name only. Their friends and allies are in Iran. They are going to want some sort of autonomy.

Iran on the other hand is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. They might want to dominate the area and they would if we didn't have an army occupying the region. But that's Buchanan's point isn't it? We're going to have to occupy the space and pay the costs in dollars, blood, and world opinion. But besides that Iran won't have to do anything and we're still going to go after them because (1)Bush will say they're harboring terrorists that we want [that's the cover story] but more importantly (2)they back and finance Hezbolla (sp?) and Israel wants us to help them crush Hezbolla. In these days Zionist Israel gets what Zionist Israel want.”

“Next, you'll be telling us that it's part of a larger Jewish conspiracy.

Buchanan is so full of crap, it's overflowing.”

“Israel doesn't get what they want. After they rolled into Jenin a couple of months ago and slaughtered everyone, they were forced to pull out. If they'd had their way, I'm sure they woulda stayed....”

“http://masada2000.org/historical.html



but the history is correct, there is some spin... but take a look if you want know why there is a problem in the area”

“donman -

masada2000.org is not a pro-Israeli site. Calling it that defames the many fair-minded citizens of Israel. It is a hate site. It is filled with lies an distortions and outright bigotry.”

“I consider myself pretty pro-israeli, but that site is hate propaganda.

A quote:

"In effect, Islam remains a religion of the Dark Ages. It is the most violent and intolerant faith that has ever been presented to mankind! A prima facie example of the insanity found within the Qur'an is the fascist, warlike notion of "Jihad," or "Holy War." Apologists for Islam say "Jihad" is one personal struggle to obtain a higher moral standard. But what it really represents is a violent military action (even terrorism) against the non-Muslim. If you don't quite believe this, visit Ground Zero where New York City's World Trade Center once stood!

”

“http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0


here's the resolution

the Jewish people of Palestine were being murdered... when the U.N. developed this plan 7 countries tried to wipe the Jews off the map... I don't agree with the way the Israeli government is dealing with the Muslims in their country now. But with a single terrorist attack in America the reactionist response to Middle-Eastern people can kind of demonstrate what happens when people are afraid of another group of people”

“like I said earlier... that site does spin... but the history of the area is pretty close to what happened and they lay it out in a simple way”

“Iraq allowing arms inspectors:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25855-2002Sep16.html”

“WOOHOOO!”

“that is a good beginning. now to see what proof britan was planning to unveil of sadam's connection to terrorism.”

“At first I thought you really might have some important points to make but from what I see all you can do is try to divert attention from the real issues and call Buchanan names or make snide remarks about the other posters. I was surprised when early in this game you reached into your bag and pulled out the Big 'N' word to use on Buchanan! I guess it was one of those "well I don't like the message so I'll try to kill the messenger" moments. Give it up because it wouldn't work on Buchanan (he'd verbally and probably physically kick your ass) and it damn sure won't work on me.

As far as this being an Israeli or Jewish conspiracy I don't know. All I know is is that we as a nation do a lot of things for Israel that are not logical in the context of geo-political situation we find ourselves in. Israel is not a good ally and its location and resources have no real strategic or economic value to us. Now if you have anything to say about this you need to start making your points and leave the name calling at the door.”

“LOL @ SH. You're a sensitive little girly-man when it comes to name calling. Hehehe.

I liked your rebuttal to my arguments. I think you made some good points.

Israel is not a good ally and its location and resources have no real strategic or economic value to us.

Um, where did you come up with that non-sequitor? It's up to you to support that assertion. It flies in the face of common sense, and is just ignorant IMO.”

“Call me what you want, all I can say is it's very easy to call names when you really don't have any real arguments or points to make.

As far as my Israel is not a good ally to the United States statement, I fully plan to document my claims. We'll do that under another thread and in the near future. All I can say is you had better have your rebutal arguments in order.”

“All I can say is you had better have your rebutal arguments in order

Oooohhh, tough guy! LOL. It's hard to take you seriously, SH, but it's obvious you take yourself way too seriously.”

“No I just know I'm going to kick your ass in this argument.”

“Well I hope you do make a good argument! TT is in sore need of substantive political discussion. Go for it.”

“besides....i'm the one that's always right......














guess ole bush got saddam's attention. bet not one of you leftwingers will admit that he's da man.”

“No, I expected Sadam to let the inspectors back in. It'll buy him some time. I will give Dummy credit for excellent timing for the repugs. This whole Iraq thing has shifted attention away from a weak economy, a bankrupt domestic agenda, corporate scandals, et al, at the perfect time to coincide with mid-term election campaigns. Bush will give Sadam a year or a year and half to dodge the inspectors, and then, just in time for the next pres. campaign, claim we need to invade Iraq - for reals this time.”

“oops, I meant - Dummy will give Sadam a year.....”

“Oh, and SH, I forgot to call Buchanan a repressed-memory altar-boy.

IT's impossible to address points he makes int he above column, due to the fact there aren't any. It's a speculative load of hogwash. You want to keep your nose up his backside, be my guest, but most people be they liberal, moderate or conservative, shy away from this guy's extremist views.”

“I agree with Mutt's general outlook. Saddam is buying time by allowing inspectors in and hoping for a regime change in the U.S. before they're done finding out where he hid that nuke.”

“Phaed is that supposed to be a dig? Please elaborate if you have the cajons.

roseymonster,
Dubya is in a pickle now. Although it appears Saddam has justed blinked in this staredown in actuality he is making Dubya play his hand. It's going to be fun seeing Dubya sweat over this turn of events.”

“Oh, I agree. He's calling Georgie's bluff and it should be interesting to see the spin the administration puts on this one.”

“Solitary, if you haven't noticed, I have a sense of the absurd. I also have a sense of futility. I stoped debating you a long time ago when you showed your support for Buchanan (this is an absurdity in itself), and started just baiting you.

It would be futile for me to debate the merits of Buchanan's speculation with you (especially when you told me above that Buchanan could kick my butt... Oooo). Take that however you want to.

As for Bush, I believe he expects to find flaws with the UN's plan and send in the troops. I hope I'm wrong.”

“Excuses, excuses. Why don't you just go over to one of the "Should I wear my pink trail shorts or should I wear my blue trail shorts?" threads. You'll do a lot better over there.”