Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hysteria at Herzliya
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


When Congress finally decides on just the right language for its "non-binding resolution" deploring Bush's leadership in this war, it might consider a resolution to keep us out of the next one.

For America is on a collision course with an Iran of 70 million, and the folks who stampeded us into Iraq are firing pistols in the air again.

At the annual Herzliya Conference, U.S. presidential aspirants, neoconservatives and Israeli hawks were all invoking the Holocaust and warning of the annihilation of the Jews.

Israel's "Bibi" Netanyahu, who compares Iran's Ahmadinejad to Hitler, said: "The world that didn't stop the Holocaust last time can stop it this time. ... Who will lead the effort against genocide if not us? The world will not stand up on behalf of the Jews if the Jews do not stand up on behalf of the world."

Said former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz: "Iran is the heart of the problem in the Middle East. It is the most urgent threat facing the world, and needs to be dealt with before it's too late." After meeting with the Department of State's Nicholas Burns, Mofaz called 2007 "a year of decision."

Richard Perle assured the conference that Bush will attack Iran rather than see it acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. Newt Gingrich also brought his soothing touch to the proceedings: "(C)itizens who do not wake up every morning and think about possible catastrophic civilian casualties are deluding themselves.

"Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... I'll repeat it. Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get.

"If we knew that tomorrow morning we would lose Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, what would we do to stop it? If we knew that we would tomorrow lose Boston, San Francisco or Atlanta, what would we do?"

Mitt Romney agreed. Ahmadinejad's Iran is more dangerous than Khrushchev's Soviet Union, which put missiles in Cuba. For the Soviets "were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime (Iran) that celebrates martyrdom."

Ehud Olmert, mired in scandal, his popularity in the tank after the Lebanon fiasco, was as hawkish as Bibi: "The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to let itself face the threat of annihilation once again. ... We will stand up against nuclear threats and even prevent them."

Came then U.S. peace candidate John Edwards. Keeping Iran from nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation. ... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. ... Let me reiterate -- all options."

Wrote the Financial Times' Philip Stephens of Herzliya, "I gave up counting the times I heard the words 'existential threat' to describe Iran's nuclear program capability."

A few weeks back, according to UPI's Arnaud De Borchgrave, Netanyahu declared that Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the United States -- the goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

Israel's war is to be sold as America's war.

The project is underway. According to Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor of the Guardian, Israeli media are reporting that the assignment to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran has been given to Meir Dagan, head of Mossad.

Listening to the war talk, Gen. Wesley Clark exploded to Arianna Huffington: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office-seekers."

The former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was ordered out of ranks and dressed down by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. But Matt Yglesias of American Prospect, himself Jewish, says Clark spoke truth: "(I)t's true that major Jewish organizations are pushing this country into war with Iran."

Yet is the hysteria at Herzliya justified? Consider:

Not once since its 1979 revolution has Iran started a war. In any war with America, or Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons, Iran would not be annihilating anyone. Iran would be risking annihilation.

Not only has Iran no nukes, the Guardian reported yesterday, "Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium ... are in chaos." That centrifuge facility at Natanz is "archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production."

There is no need for war. Yet, Israelis, neocons and their agents of influence are trying to whip us into one. Senators who are seeking absolution for having voted to take us into Iraq ought to be confronted and asked just what they are doing to keep us out of a war in Iran.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Mr. Buchanan
"Not only has Iran no nukes, the Guardian reported yesterday, "Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium ... are in chaos." That centrifuge facility at Natanz is "archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production."

Can you come up with a little more specific information than the Guardian? You don't name the source of the article and how that source knows what shape Iran's nuclear program is in. Who has had this close of an inspection at Natanz?

So Buchanan, you
continue your assault on Israel. And push to abandon our one and only true Ally in the Middle East. Plus you take Newt Gingrich's words out of context to use for your own propaganda. You say he brought his *soothing touch* to the proceedings. Here is what he actually said!

"In both my talks, I was as frank and direct as our enemies have been in their threats to us. In our country, we face the greatest crisis in American civilization since the Civil War. In Israel, the threat to that nation's very survival has not been this great since the 1967 war. And the reason for the current danger is this: If our enemies get nuclear weapons, they are going to use them.

For America, that could mean losing one or more cities.

For Israel, a three-nuclear-weapon event is a second holocaust.

Our enemies are explicit in their desire to destroy us. But we are sleepwalking through their threats to destroy America and Israel and their relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons, as if diplomatic engagement will somehow cause dictators who have pledged our destruction to turn around and love us.

There are those of us who know it's a dangerous world and that we should take fanatics at their word when they say they want to kill us.

And then there are the elites whose first instinct is to appease, to avoid conflict at all costs, to bury their heads in the sand and pin their hopes on yet another empty report or fruitless diplomatic negotiation."

And you call this "soothing."

How much can one person hate a country?
Even against those who vow to kill us? And destroy Isreal? And wishes the 12th imam will hurry and will do everything in his power to bring him.
Mutually Assured Destruction ONLY works against those who don't WANT TO DIE. This guy does.
How long do we wait? We do have to wait, but how long is long enough. And how long is TOO LONG?

Peppermint
Now, now. You know your not supposed to ask common sense intelligent questions. Doing so interrupts the smooth flow of propaganda and sets Liberals all in a twitter.

Goshawk
I guess we're supposed to believe that Buchanan has all the inside info on just what Iran has. Geesh!
Right. I'm going to take this anti-Semitic's word that we are just fine and let's just wait and see what happens.
Iran has not warred on anyone? What does Buchanan think Hezbollah is? I guess in his mind they are just a play group with guns.

quoting the Guardian?
Does anyone else find it funny that Pat Buchanan, the arch-conservative, is using the Guardian for his information? The Guardian is a more liberal rag than the NY Times. But all Buchanan cares about is information he can use to promote his isolationist views, and if he can slander Israel and push his Zionist conspiracy theories concurrently, all the better.

Pathetic.

Hey, wait! Waaait!
We're not done in Iraq yet. Wait until we get defeated there. THEN we go get defeated in Iran.
Shrillary bleats that Bush must not leave the Iraq war to the next prez. Bush JUST NOW ordered the tracking down and killing of Iranians in Iraq, apparently he just found about them...

Israel
being destroyed is apparently ok to Buchanan. It would warm his heart to have that "evil regime" stop its insolent existence. I wonder though if he thinks that the whole Middle East will just heave a sigh or relief and lay down their arms if Israel becomes a glowing crater. I wonder if he realizes Israel is just the "Little Satan"

Who do you believe. . ?
Newt Gingrich or Pat Buchanan?

Pat was always at Nazi/Islamists side
of any war.

Pat Buchanan says that Adolf Hitler only sought to dominate Europe,
making him "no physical threat to the US" ...
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan)

Mr. Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office
of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals ...
(New York Times, 4/21/87)


Pat Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests

-- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried...

Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops

buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration

camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)
________


The people like Pat Buchanan are always at the Nazi, Islamist, ... Evil side of any war.


They were at the Nazi side of the WW2 and now they at the Islamofascists side of the next Clash of Civilizations.


See also to whom Pat Buchanan wrote all these hatred articles, who are the people of his main target audience:
"The Enemy Within: Hot Summer of 2006":
http://conservativevalley.townhall.com/g/8cccee19-73a0-4789-8fa9-6f4852ec0f15

political correctness and Israel
I understand this may fall on deaf ears, but here goes.

Why not consider the disbanded, archaic, old-fashioned idea of going to war when our national security is threatened, or we are attacked?

I realize this notion is out-of-favor with some.

People will counter that because of 9/11, everything has changed and we must preemptively attack.

But if so, why not attack Saudi Arabia, whose money finances the madrassas churning out muslim fanatics obsessed with destroying our civilization?

Or Pakistan, which turns a blind eye to Al Qaeda sanctuaries along its frontier with Afghanistan?

Of course I am being facetious.

We must do what is in our national interest, period.

Some apparently believe that the future of Israel and the future of the United States are one and the same.

To place the interests of the United States above the interests of Israel does not make one anti-semitic.

I realize this is difficult for some to grasp. But it's true.

Israel is a separate nation with its own agenda, its own needs.

I have nothing against Israel.

If you think we are having problems now with Maliki and the Iraqi government, wait until we attack Iran.

I guarantee Bush's "man in Iraq", al-Maliki, will side with Iran, not us.

As will most Iraqis.

Oddly enough, the Saudis and other sunni states may quietly applaud us, but not to the extent of ceasing the funding of madrassas dedicated to our destruction.

Until or unless Iran attacks us, or is a threat to our survival, I see no point in attacking it.

The mullahs run Iran, not Ahmadinejad.

Pat doesn't have hatred toward Israel
He just resents the "Jewish Lobby" in this country that drives U.S. foreign policy. If Israel wants to make a preventive strike against Iran, they should do so on their own.

jerabaub
"Why not consider the disbanded, archaic, old-fashioned idea of going to war when our national security is threatened, or we are attacked?"

Last time I checked, that (national securtity) is the reason Congress used to justify the use of force in Iraq.
So do you have any other ideas that won't work?

jerabaub
"Why not consider the disbanded, archaic, old-fashioned idea of going to war when our national security is threatened, or we are attacked?"

Last time I checked, that (national security) is the reason Congress used to justify the use of force in Iraq.
So do you have any other ideas that won't work?

Buchanan and Conservatism
Pat Buchanan is an isolationist harkening back to the first half of the 20th century when conservatism was associated in part with isolationism and a "gentleman's anti-Semitism." I think that it is time to recognize that conservatives today are different and that while we may agree with Buchanan on some subjects such as abortion, we do not share the same views on many others, including supporting the military and the need for an aggressive war against Islamo-fascism.

Pat Buchanan
Israel-firsters can't have it both ways: they scream "anti-Semite" whenever anyone criticizes their policies, then deny that Jews organize to promote their agenda.
Every time Buchanan or anyone else urges restraint or diplomacy all we hear is "Hitler, Hitler, Hitler." Look at a map-Iran is hundreds of miles from Israel. It will take at least ten years for Iran to come close to making a bomb. By then who knows what kind of government Iran will have or what can be done diplomatically. As for terrorists-Iran is not the only country in the world promoting terrorism.
The main reason for the rise of Hitler was the awful Versailles Treaty which handed over the agenda in Germany to the extremists. As for the Bitburg speech that Reagan gave, etc. Any student of World War Two history knows that only around two per cent of SS soldiers were war criminals. The vast majority were simply armed soldiers fighting in an elite outfit. Around half of the members of the SS weren't even German-they often joined the SS because the regular army would not accept non-Germans.

none
I'm not sure where you got your screwy ideas about Hitler and the SS, but I am a student of military history, particularly WW2. You are, to say the least only about 10% correct in your assertions.

Another Newt Quote (almost)
Since we're quoting Newt Gingrich among others, I thought he had a pretty cogent thought when he said at a recent conference which I caught on C-Span (I don't sit around with a pen and pad, so this is close, not perfect) , "In the 30's Adolf Hitler stated that he wanted to get rid of the Jews and take over the world, and everyone scratched their heads saying 'What does he mean by that?'". If someone has a more accurate quote, I'll be happy to be corrected. The point is, we now have a group of people in Iran stating that they want to kill all of the Jews and take over the world in the name of Islam. Maybe we should take them at their word instead of waiting this time?

jerabaub's lament

"Why not consider the disbanded, archaic, old-fashioned idea of going to war when our national security is threatened, or we are attacked?"

answer to the first part: both political parties authorized the use of force in Iraq because they believed, quite rightly, our national security was threatened.

answer to the second part: in an age of portable nukes, and deadly biological and chemical weapons, this is one American who is quite unwilling to give the enemy a "freebie" based on a philosophical opposition to preemption

Lydia
My next door neighbor is an American.

Craig
I thought Bush and congress agreed that the reason had to do with Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions, you know, the violations of that world body that often is in conflict with U.S. sovereignty and national interests.

Actually, while he at first attributed the reasons for the invasion of Iraq in violation of U.N. resolutions, and imaginary weapons of mass destruction, the real reason Bush went into Iraq was to create a democracy, which he felt would be a model for other mideast nations to emulate.

Some may assert democracy in the mideast is in our national interest, but I side with those Americans who think it foolish to sacrifice American blood and treasure in paying the price for democracy in a part of the world whose own inhabitants prefer to engage in exotic cultural practices such as blood feuds, sectarian warfare.

jerabaub
I agree, we never should have done things the way we did in Iraq. But the problem is, we did what we did and now must figure out a way to make things secure over there before leaving.
Simply pulling out and letting the Iraqis swing in the wind is exactly the wrong thing to do.

none (2)
Just a little history on the Wermacht (the non-SS part). When Austria was assimilated in 1938, and Czhekoslovakia in 1939, each country had its own standing army. The Germans took the intact units in each of those armies and kept them that way, simply inserting German officers in the command structure where necessary. It took much less time to get ready for war that way. So that is why what you said about no non-Germans in the Wermacht is totally wrong.

Same old Buchanan
Iran is working on getting nuclear weapons while running an international campaign of deception to cover up the process as they speed it on. Meanwhile, their president, a messianic loon who seems to believe that the coming of world Islamic domination is imminent, is announcing that Israel must be "wiped off the map," and that America will soon disappear. Folks in his government are making similar threats against the US.

But good ol' Pat tells us that Iran isn't going to start any wars, so no worries! The whole business is just a Jewish/neocon plot!


The problem isn't that Buchanan doesn't believe that Iran would nuke Israel. It's not even that he doesn't WANT to believe that Iran would nuke Israel. The problem is that Buchanan (true to form) just wouldn't MIND if Iran nuked Israel. In fact, the idea titillates him so, that he's blind to the fact that Israel is just the canary in this particular coal mine.



Iran has not warred on anyone?
I suppose this is technically correct, but only because James Earl Carter was too craven to declare war when the Iranians violated US territory to seize our embassy staff.

The idea
that Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel is laughable.
Israel would love nothing more than to have the U.S. take on all her enemies.
As Pat says we need to more narrowly define our own interests.
To those of you who think we need to attack Iran, follow through with that logic and think of the consequences.

Same old Jewish conspiracy...
Pat, Jerabaub, we all heard your position many times before. It's all the fault of Jews. Jew supporting Israel? That's a nasty Jewish lobby. Determined to fight their wars with American blood. (Just curious - do they do it before or after putting blood of Christian babies in their passover matza?)

How many of you critisize Irish Americans for supporting Ireland? Or black Americans for advocating US help to relieve AIDS and hunger in Africa? But Jews advocating for helping their state - how dare they?

Sure, if Iranian ayatollahs want to nuke Israel - no biggie for you. For all normal people, who have the best interest of THEIR OWN COUNTRY at heart - Israel deserves support of America for one simple reason: according to the enemies of America, "Israel is small satan, America is big satan". So, as soon as they are done with THEM, WE are next.

Pat and Neocons
Pat Buchanan - regarding the "neocons" - just tell the world how you really feel! On second thought, just blame the Jews for Iran wanted to nuke the Jewish state. Pat keeps saying "neocons" without mentioning exactly who are these all-powerful "neocons." Oh right, it's the Jews!

My question for townhall.com is, why give Pat Buchanan a forum to spew his vile? Pat would be more at home with the Koz Kidz Kossacks and at the Huffington Post.

Gregdn
"The idea that Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel is laughable". Yeh, right. Same things were said about Hitler before, in both France and Britain. People were at first laughing at him saying stuff about world domination and conquest. But when Germany conquered France in 1940 and started bombing Britain, there was no more laughter.

I would never advocate for US to get involved with Iran on behalf on Israel. They should defend their country themselves. But I would demand my government support Israel, if it's leadership gets the brains and guts to stop Iran from aquiring nukes the same way they stopped Iraq in 1982.

Correction
Sorry, guys, it was supposed to be "I would never advocate for US to get involved with Iran on behalf OF Israel".

Lydia
Your argument had to do with whether the U.S. military should come to the aid of those in need.

And my point is where do you draw the line.

Sacrificing the lives and limbs of our finest Americans on good-will campaigns abroad, which have nothing to do with our national interest, so some misguided politician can pontificate over America's unique mission in the world, is not a proper utilization of our military.

pro westerner
I simply said that it was not anti-semitic to place the interests of the United States above the interests of israel.

I never realized how heretical, even radical, this notion of mine was.

Israel, not israel
I must correct the typing, else I will be deemed to be anti-semitic. "I"srael, not "i"srael.

Craig C
I agree on Iraq. It probably was a mistake, but we can't just abandon it.

Goshawk states:
>abandon our one and only true Ally in the Middle East.<

referring to Israel.

This position ignores that three provinces of Iraq, known as Kurdistan and governed by a Kurdistan Regional Government has been out ally since they became an autonomous region in 1992.
Kurdistan also supports Israel, in opposition to the central Iraqi government in Baghdad, where the Prime Minister publicly sided with Hezbollah against Israel last summer during the labanese conflict.

As usual, conservative Americans, following the Bush administration's lead, continue to ignore the loyalty and support of Iraqi Kurds, a foolish position considering their strategic geographical location, their generally secular society and government, and their committment to democratic values.

Those who think Israel are our only true ally in the ME need to re-think that position, and begin supporting those who support us.

fence sitter
I could go either way on this one. On the one hand, the thought of a state sponsor of terrorism having nuclear capability is unacceptable. We were told though, what, a year ago, that Iran was a month away from developing a nuclear weapon, what happened? Obviously we are being manipulated. Then, in light of the fact that bush lied to our face about there being a change in the rules of engagement during his latest speach, one has to distrust him. That lie was only the latest of many significant ones, try "guest worker", try "sending the national guard to the borders"-we assumed they would be armed and effective, he sent them unarmed and useless. In all three cases he displayed an utter contempt for the american people. His antics seem like those of a child, outright lying. Does he think that because he comes from a priveleged family and went to Yale that he can get away with it.
He has gotten himself into a corner and is trying to buy his way out with American body bags. He thinks he can expand the war into Iran and force the hand of congress. He thinks he can send our boys into a battlezone with their hands tied by rules of engagement and that the army will just take it. What is the payoff? What makes anyone think Iran will be any less of a tar baby than Iraq? Americans need to ask themselves just who is benefitting from this war and when they do they will start to notice that Bush's contractor buddies seem to have rigged a system where they can convert your son into a bodyy bag and a huge no-bid contract. Time to face it, this government is broken. The only ones with any nobility are those soldiers on the front lines-the ones bush puts in prison for murder. Time we had our boys arrest and execute the criminals in washington. We need to clean out Washington more than we need to clean out Teheran.

supporting jerebaub
jerabaub--
As usual, you speak inconvenient truths-- just like Pat Buchanan. Agree ENTIRELY with you!

It is stunning how so many imagine that the interests of the "51st state" necessarily dovetail/conflate with America's. Some reflexively bleat the predictable ad hominem brickbat responses (A-S, moonbats, conspiracy theorists), but at the end of the day, attacking Iraq was a war of choice! Saddam was a bad guy to be sure, BUT he had NOTHING to do with 9/11... he and Osama were enemies! The 19 perpetrators were mainly Saudi, and the rest Egyptian! We have spent $20,000 per Iraqi to date supposedly (recent lame excuse!) to give them democracy, yet they despise us and want us out, and most Iraqi's think it is just OK to kill American soldiers! We have been a recuiting vehicle for Al What is wrong with this equation?!?!

Who then decided (and WHY?!) that we should take out Saddam and establish permanent American bases in Iraq?! The goals of the neoCONS (incidentally NOT shared by a majority of American Jews, which opposes the War in Iraq) have been CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY stated in their speeches, public appearances (TV talk shows) and writings. There is NO QUESTION who these guys are and what their roles were in engendering the invasion of Iraq: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, David Wormser, Richard Perle, and "Scooter" Libby. And they have been relentlessly supported by the incessant drumbeating of Kristol, Kagan and Adelman, and May, Krauthammer, Gaffney, Prelutsky, Fields, Barone, West, Byrd, Goldberg, Tucker, Shapiro, Glick, etc., here... ah, so fair and balanced!

Jew Hater
Another of Pat's standard Jew hating columns - He is sooo predictable....

jerabaub
Come, on, let's leave hysterics and ranting to the liberals. Nobody (I mean, of course, people in their right mind) would accuse you of anti-semitism becaused you misspelled a word.

Nobobdy, and certainly not me, were saying that Americans should put interests of Israel before the interests of America. Infact, if you read my second post, I was saying the opposite thing.

However, I do believe that our interests match those of Israel quite often. We have same enemies, who hate us both just the same, want to kill us or convert us to their religion just the same. Them first, us second. So, in my opinion, it is in America's best interest to help Israel for fighting with these crazed fanatics. Will we disappear if they nuke Israel? No. Will they turn to attack us with nukes once they are done with Israel? No doubt. So, let's support Israel, so it can keep terrorists busy overseas.

I also think that Buchanan is anti-semite, mostly because he tends to attribute all problems we have to Jews and "Jewish lobby". Find me one article he does not talk about "anti-American Jewish lobby" and I would be happy to apologize.

And, since you seemed to be agreeing with him in your first post, I assumed you shared that belief of him. If I am wrong, please accept my apology.

Yes we should consider
jerabaub writes:

"Why not consider the disbanded, archaic, old-fashioned idea of going to war when our national security is threatened, or we are attacked?"

I absolutely agree. Perhaps however America can finally define what constitutes an attack.
I think the current definition is probably more narrow than say during Teddy Roosevelt's administration.
With a T. R. Definition we might already be at war with Iran.

Don't get me wrong, I think war with Iran is a bad idea. For one thing war there would be Iraq times ten. We would be fighting the best of Russia's armament and China's tech and money (our trade deficit money).
We should exercise the 'brain option' in regards to manipulating their nuke efforts.

America first is becoming more and more palatable to people here. If you don't think so just read Mark Steyn and take a look at the give in to Sharia attitudes in Europe these days.

An inundation of people from the south and national credit spending should be huge incentives put America first.

Lydia
I don't presume to commune with the great collective.

I am of the school that supports the use of our military for the protection of the U.S., not some ethereal collective.

My moral conclusions simply embrace using our military to defend this nation, not in using our armed forces to bestow the "blessings of democracy" upon the great unwashed collective out there.

Keep Us Out Of Iran
It's so hard to fathom why, in the midst of overwhelming public sentiment against our continued involvement in the War in Iraq why there is a rising clamor to get into yet another war with Iran. We're hearing a similar drumbeat for war that we heard before we invaded Iraq: WMDs, an evil ruler, a danger to Israel, etc. Iran is a larger country, has a more potent defense than Iraq did, and our armed forces are carrying more commitments than we were five years ago. I hope we can learn from history rather than repeat it and wind up with a worse predicament than the one we're in now.

Picking a fight with a more powerful foe when we are not as strong as we once were, coupled with there being absolutely no national stake for the United States, seems reason enough for me to say, "No More Crusading!" Let Middle Eastern nations fight their own wars and spill their own blood. There is a time for war, but the time for war is not when we have to seek it out.

Benedict Arnold lives!
By all accounts, Benedict Arnold was a brilliant military leader. Our nation owes its formation, in part, to his leadership in the Revolutionary War. But as a man of humble origins, if not accomplishments, he didn't have the "polish" needed to get the respect and promotions he surely deserved in a Continental Congress populated by many class conscious southern aristocrats. In the end, for this and other personal considerations, he turned against his compatriots in arms. He was not alone in feeling the the distain of aristocrats, notwithstanding vital contributions. (John Adams comes to mind.)

History is replete with proud and angry men of genius turning against their former allies. Our nation exists because this syndrome was not as common as forbearance, grit and personal honor.

Today, one only has to look at many DemocRATS to see the same motivations for treason, sedition and just plain obstructionism. They have become the aginit party, throwing tantrums among the levers of national power in time of war. On a level playing field, this would be rapidly self-correcting at election time. But the MSM, entertainment and educational forums have been largely captured or co-opted by the Marxist ideologues. And they don't report when the Emperor is naked, lies or obfuscates.

Well, that's the war we got!!! And the home front is actually more important than the Middle East. For it's from this bastion that American will, power and purpose originate. Lose here, nothing else will suffice. (Of course, winning abroad makes winning here much easier and vice versa.)

So let's turn our discontent and perspective into potent persuaders on the home front. We need to spend more of our effort speaking to those busy Americans that haven't yet heard a balanced appraisal of today's real issues.

To that end, I propose the Benedict Arnold Award granted to men of promise who have gone over to the dark side. Today I would like to nominate:

(1) Patrick J Buchanan

(2) Senator James H Webb, Jr.

I think it would be neat to really promote this award and help these turncoats get the the recognition they so deserve.
Welcome to my foxhole. Let's ORGANIZE!

Yours in Liberty,

Mac

TK_libertarian
You called Buchanan an "arch-conservative". An unfortunate choice of terms. He is many things - xenophobe, racist, anti-Semite, economic ignoramus, history revisionist - but he has as little in common with conservatives as with liberals. In fact, one can place him with the likes of David Duke and Louis Farrakhan. Sad to say, if there were the nightmare scenario of a Hillary-Buchanan presidential race, I would have to cast my vote for Hillary.

Word twisting by Pat.
Granted - Iran has never started a war since the 1979 revolution. It has however, participated in them by funding and training terrorists, as well as sending its own operatives into other wars. Starting and participating are matters of terminology, but Iran is far from some peaceful entity sitting on the sidelines minding its own business.

On a similar note, while Iran would certainly get wiped out in a toe to toe nuclear confrontation with the US, it will not be deterred from slipping a clandestine weapon into one of our cities via a non-Iranian terrorist. Thus, Iran can hit us, and claim it knows nothing about what happened, and as usual the US would be condemned if we retaliated against Iran.

It matters not that Israel wants our assistance in stopping Iran, for though it is true Israel would be wiped out by a nuclear armed Iran, we would also suffer extreme damage from a nuclear armed jihadist. Thus, the fact that Israel asks for our assistance is irrelevant since we should be willing to defend ourselves anyway.

tbmbuzz
Your post confirms the observation of Sir Winston Churchill on "democracy", to wit: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter".

I am sure you probably have some compelling things to say, but calling Buchanan a xenophobe is asinine.

No offense.


Pat misses the point again
Iran has never started a war? OK, the mullahs have never sent unformed soldiers across their borders in an invasion of any of their neighbors. But they provide support for paramilitary and terrorist organizations, like their proxies Hizbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons? OK, not yet. And just because their program doesn't appear to be very successful, how successful does it have to be? Shall we wait until they manage to get/produce enough enriched uranium to make a bomb?

All indications are that the mullah's government would have no scruples about giving a nuclear device to someone who would bring it here and set it off. Whether it would trigger a retaliatory strike doesn't matter to their calculations; as a matter of fact, given our present weak, Oprahfied society, they must figure that we won't do anything.

How can Pat be so off on the topic of defense? How can he not see that we can't retreat behind our shores, as if to hide under a pile of coats, until everything blows past? Islamic fanatics want to kill us, and they will not stop. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

History of SS
Perhaps the letter writer should read "Forgotten legions" by Munoz. When Germany absorbed Austria and part of Checkoslovakia around 1938-39 they also recognized ethnic Germans in those countries as full Germans. The fact is that around half of the units of the SS consisted of non-German nationals. It was easier to organize SS units because the regular army resisted non-German units. This became especially important after Stalingrad.
As for Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Afro-Americans. I have no problem with humanitarian aid for any country, including Israel. I would not want to see my family suffer in a foreign country.On the other hand, I would not want anyone to push for an aggressive, military posture for the land of their anscestors or to bend our foreign policy to suit the narrow, often sectarian interests of any foreign country. This is part of the reason recognition of the Vatican was resisted for so many years.

jerabaub
If Sir Winston Churchill had known you, his quote would have been: "The best argument against democracy is a five second conversation with the average voter".


No offense.

Your heads are spinning so fast
Hizbollah did not attack us on 9/11. If you neocons want to fight Hizbollah or Iran, join the IDF or their auxillary forces like Rahm Emmanual did or vow to fight and die in a ditch for Israel like Bill Clinton said he would. Don't waste US blood and treasure because Israel is either too cheap or scared to use their forces. We should not have mushroom clouds or larger debts in the US because Israel can't fight their own battles. We give them three billion a year, not to mention all the espionage they conduct on us, they should have enough means to do what they want.

I am not anti semitic, I just don't want the US to be a mercenary force. Our troops are too important.

A reply to GWB
Not the president but the poster above:

And if you want to fight Iran just sit here and do nothing, they will deliver the fight to you if you don't want to come to them.

Think they're making nuclear bombs as some sort of decoration? A status symbol? They are making them to be used. And who better thn the Great Satan? At least as soon as they have taken care of the Little Satan.

And don't tell me we have nothing to fear. If a nation says they want to destroy you, listen to them.

Or do you think that by betraying Israel you will buy yourself freedom from Islamic terrorism? Don't count on it. They hate us for being what we are, not because we support Israel. israel is simply a convenient excuse.

America's War
"Israel's war is to be sold as America's war."

One of the nice things about being a Buchananite, is the realization that one is allowed to have a private opinion, yet still remain loyal to the greatest American patriot (Patrick J.Buchanan).
Pat is not anti-Semitic; if he were, he would have welcomed the overtures of Vladimir Zhirinovsky--not rebuffed him.
He is a nationalist, who holds America first, in all spheres. His caution is admirable; however, we are in the midst of World War III, so it is rather ludicrous to call it "Israel's war," especially when it was America that was attacked by Jihadistan.
We are far past the time or necessity of "selling" any war, for war is upon us, whether we like it or not.
Those who attacked our country, and perpetuate this clash of civilizations, reside in that nest of vipers in Tehran. They must be held accountable for the attack of 9-11-01. Therefore, regime change for Iran is in order.
Should the United States fail to act; it will indeed then become Israel's war.
Words have meaning. Words of hate, started the Second World War.
The words of Ahmadinejad indicate that the future national existence of the United States and Israel will be rubbed out by the coming of the Mahdi--who requires a nuclear Armageddon, to fully manifest.
Iran possesses the same messianic imperative to exterminate the Jewish race, which Adolph Hitler held.
Iran has provoked war with the United States, therefore our decision is not exactly elective.
It is not Israel which is to blame, but rather Iran alone.
Buchanan for President in 2008!



andrews
Liberals can never absorb a historical lesson but let me try again.

Dear Liberals,

So you think that the Islamofascists will leave us alone if we sell out Israel? If we go Dhimmi?

Lesson to be learned: When Saladin sacked Alexandria and one of his lieutenants brought him some of the books from the Library at Alexandria, and asked what to do with these items from one of the ancient Wonders of the World Saladin replied.

"If these writings are in the Koran, they are superfluous, burn them. If they are not in the Koran they are blasphemous, burn them."

The books were used to fuel the city's bath houses for the next six months! I wonder how much ancient knowledge was forever lost.

How 'bout
How about the American Holocaust? 45,000,000 butchered in thirty-four years. 3,000 will be murdered today. This seems not to concern the neo-conservatives, however. In fact, many neo-conservatives support the American Holocaust- David Frum, David Brooks, Jonah Goldberg, "Dr." Charles Krauthammer. Neo-conservatives should be consistent.

Pakistan and India were allowed to develop nuclear weapons with relative impunity and those two nations have been on war footing many times since the 1947 partition. So the cat is out of the bag. Iran should be discreetly told in no uncertain terms that any use of nuclear weapons will doom it to mass annihilation. Someday, Iran will own nuclear weapons whether ten years from now or fifty years from now. Ownership of nuclear weapons requires prudence and maturity from the owners.

US Military to do Israel's fighting
With our own borders evaporating under a President who would unite Mexico as the 51st state of our Union, it seems strange that we should divert our Military forces to fight another Country around the planet. We are being invaded by Union busting, wage destroying multitudes of less than equal wage peons. What point making the world Safe for Israel, while our jobs are being sent overseas, or down scaled to accomodate the new category of 'guest' workers.
Dubya Bush is at least living up to all the Democratic Union Rhetoric against the Republican Party's agenda of lower wages and tax breaks for business.
It could be that much of our problems with the Arab world stem from our very favorable treatment of Israel. While it does seem that Israel has a much better track record of dealings with our nation, ( considering the amount of foriegn aid we send them, it is no suprise!), yet I think we need to mend our own borders and stop the wholesale invasion at home before we launch an extension of the conflict into Iran. Our current policies of conducting hostilities in Iraq, misuse our troops as Policemen. With their hands tied by restrictive rules of engagement, you can expect the casualties of Young American troops to rise. If we cannot even manage Iraq, how can the Administration even consider messing with Iran?

Our ally Pakistan gave Iran nuke tech
Iranian nuclear chief admits ties to Pakistan
NBC News, June 14, 2005

In an exclusive interview with NBC News, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, acknowledged Pakistan's help. "I do have information that some years ago, through intermediaries, we received pieces for centrifuges," he told NBC News in Farsi.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8219801/

well said G. W. Bush (TH version)
It is a funny thing... most American Jews oppose the war in Iraq, but if I do, I am anti-Semitic! Hmmm. We hear this scare talk about the Iranians nuking us-- he11, they cannot even assemble one yet!

Some say that Iraq is the first step in the global WOT against Islam. Yet our soft underbelly border with Mexico is where terrorists are most likely to enter America per our espionage experts, OR by overstaying Visa's, BUT Dubya is spending $500 billion to stir up the Islamics and alienate them further while doing NOTHING really to secure us in America. Hmmm. If we required a tamper-proof I.D. card for NON-citizens to function here (to work temporarily, get a license, apply to college, seek emergency services) it sure would be harder to take flying lessons, etc... but the Bushies who embrace the new world order/North American Union show no interest in this straightforward method to get control of those here ILLEGALLY... we might otherwise readily monitor residence and employment status, criminal records, taxes paid, social services sought-- sounds like a pretty good and effective tool when you think about it.

It is surely true that the Islamics would dislike us even if we did not support Israel with trained pony fealty, but then it certainly does not help our situation that we do. Over 90% of Islamics surveyed worldwide say that they cannot trust America because of Israeli/Jewish influence. Perhaps they are all delusional, but that is what THEY believe. Those bad boys outnumber the Israeli's 200:1... I gotta like their odds long-term. That is a key reason why most American Jews and a majority in Israel eschew the bellicose approach toward the Islamics as ultimately a no-win scenario. It sure ain't worked for us thus far in Iraq.

Our ally Pakistan gave Iran nuke tech 2
Iran 'models nuclear plan on Pakistan'
by Philip Sherwell
The Telegraph (UK), April 22, 2006

Hassan Rowhani reiterated to his audience Iran's public insistence that it is seeking nuclear technology only for peaceful civilian purposes. But his comparison to Pakistan's secret development of an atomic weapon is significant, as Iran acquired much of its nuclear know-how from A Q Khan, the rogue scientist known as the father of the Pakistani bomb.

Mr Rowhani's official post is secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), a body set up in 1989 to "safeguard national interests and protect the Islamic Revolution". He represents Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, on the SNSC, which is chaired by the President, Mohammad Khatami.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/23/wiran23.xml

Logical fallacies
It is great reading for those who will take the time to study the major 'logical fallacies'. One quite evident in these replies is the Ad Hominum attacks on Pat's character and values. Rather than deal with the issues, the objective is to slander and discredit the individual to render his comments absurd prior to a thoughtful review. The fact of the matter is that we are at a serious crisis here at home in America with a massive illegal immigration/invasion, that is largely ignored by the main stream media. Pat is one of the few voices to warn of this and yet people prefer to attack him, and ignore the arguments/issues.
As for Israel, I have respect for the nation and its people, but I do not see how a first rate world power with Nuclear capacity, needs our annual handouts and military support, while our own border is insecure.
Would our friends in Israel, tolerate a massive illegal immigration from, say Syria or Iraq?

go figure.

andrews
"And if you want to fight Iran just sit here and do nothing, they will deliver the fight to you if you don't want to come to them."

Its been how many years since the Islamic revolution? Damn this is a slow mobilization if they are so dead set on magically invading the US. Just because Mike Gallagher or Medved make you p!ss your pants with this over there or over here rhetoric doesn't make it true. Countries stuck in the middle ages are horrible at imperial wars. I hear you p!ss the pants types calling in on C-SPAN's Washington Journal with your ignorant whining. I am convinced that some hide under their covers all day in sheer terror. Read Michael Ledeen's book on Machiavelli and you will learn why they do what they do. Then you will also learn why it probably was Ledeen who falsified the Niger documents. He wrote as to how War is necessary for great leaders and that fear is an essential tool. He has alot of other gems as well and it is very enlightening look into the Neoconservative gatekeeper mindset, not the sheep the shepherds, so I do not attribute Ledeen's beliefs to your own.

"Or do you think that by betraying Israel you will buy yourself freedom from Islamic terrorism? Don't count on it. They hate us for being what we are, not because we support Israel. israel is simply a convenient excuse."

They hate us for our foreign policy, Bin Laden said it himself. He declared war on the US because we blindly support Israel and because we had troops in Saudi Arabia, straight from the horses mouth. It may be a recruiting tool, but then that shows how much the "infidel thousands of miles away" works. If they use the Israel excuse it must be because all the other excuses don't work so well.

Betraying Israel? They are the welfare queen of welfare queens to the tune of 3 BILLION dollars a year. That money pays for the rockets that hit the Palestinians, why do you think they hate us again? How can you betray Israel when they betray us either through their highly successful lobby that buys off most of our politicians, to the consolidated media that doesn't say one bad thing about them, or the fact that they engage in heavy espionage in the US. Betray my @ss, they are a free country let them be free. I could care less if they invade Palestine, Iran, Iraq, etc. just not with my money or my military. Foreign aid has brought us absolutely no benefit and it has not bought us any friends.

Our ally Pakistan gave Iran nuke tech 3
personal history: GGeh81zU
image: HGghx11a

Hana Gitelman
Wireless


PAKISTAN: Controls on Nuclear Technology
by Philip Sherwell
The Telegraph (UK), February 4, 2004

Pakistani investigators say A Q Khan, acting without the knowledge of senior government officials, authorized sales of nuclear-related parts, plans, and designs to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. In addition, at least TWO PAKISTANI NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS ALSO MET WITH AL QAEDA representatives in 2000 and 2001, according to Pakistani investigators, but authorities could not prove they shared nuclear-related information.

In August 2002, Washington learned that Iran was secretly building a large uranium-enrichment facility, and Iranian officials told the IAEA that Pakistan had provided assistance. Then, in October 2003, U.S. and allied forces intercepted a ship carrying centrifuge parts to Libya. Libyan officials told Western authorities that Pakistani scientists were the source of designs for some of the parts. U.S. intelligence agencies have also collected evidence that Pakistan supplied nuclear technology to North Korea for over a decade in exchange for assistance with Islamabad's ballistic missile program.

In his televised statement, Khan took full responsibility for the transfers. "There was never, ever any kind of authority for these transfers from the government," he said. But some experts inside and outside the government say it is difficult to believe that Pakistan's nuclear secrets could have been exported without the knowledge of some in the military and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, especially because some SHIPMENTS WERE MADE ON PAKISTANI MILITARY AIRCRAFT.

Many experts say it would be politically difficult for Musharraf to put Khan on trial and jail him, because Khan is considered a national hero for developing Pakistan's atomic bomb. In particular, it would inflame local Islamic fundamentalists who consider Pakistan's successful nuclear program--the only one in a Muslim nation--a key asset in the struggle against Western influence. Pakistan's Islamic political parties have condemned the targeting of Khan.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7742/pakistan.html?breadcrumb=default

GWB
"Hizbollah did not attack us on 9/11."

Quite true, but irrelevant. Up until 9/11, more Americans had been killed by terrorist activities of Hezbollah than by terrorist activities of all the rest of the know terrorist groups known in the world.
That alone is reason enough to want to assist Israel in its fight with the SOB's. And don't think for a moment that Hezbollah isn't still plotting against the US. If the US leaves them an opening, they will strike again.

Craig
Ok what about the last twenty years? What happens in the seventies or Reagan's first term is not a very valid excuse. Al Qaeda was on our side back then...which would oddly put them opposed to Hizbollah.

And if we want to go that far back then we might as well discuss the USS Liberty, right?

George
We are already fighting Iran in Iraq. This discussion and the article are pointless. Iran has been killing Iraqi's and Americans in Iraq for quite some time. So I say lets kill em back.

Hopeless Mindset
Buchanan states Iran has never invaded other countries or attempted annihilation.

What is supporting suicide/homicide terrorists? What is selling arms to Syria and Hizobollah? What is sending Iranian troops to Iraq to keep our hands tied? What is constant rhetoric of annihilation of a whole country?

I guess Mr. Buchanan draws the line between covert, subtle killing of innocent lives and official invasions. Are they not the same in effect?

Oh, I get it, Buchanan, still believes wars are fought in trenches by troops in uniforms.

You can't be serious Mr. Buchanan. You are not to be trusted, period.

Al Qaeda safe in Saudi Arabia & Pakistan
Craig C,

I agree that Al Qaeda is not Hezbollah. It was Al Qaeda that attacked our Embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, and the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It was Osama bin Laden and his Saudi financial partners who funded the training of 15 Saudi citizens to pilot hijacked passenger jets.

AL QAEDA HAS KILLED THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS -- more than any other terrorist group by a long ways -- so the victims deserve determined justice. That means making Al Qaeda, not Iraq, priority one!

Neville Chamberlain
the comparisons are obvious and many. pat is suggesting that Israelis are warmongering their way into an avoidable conflict with Iran. this is so apparently incorrect. what, do the Halliburton's of Israel want no-bid contracts in Persia? is everyone from mitt romney to even john edwards himself completely misguided to assume that we should take an insane leader of a nation that is the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism seriously?

Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions that want them wiped off the face of the earth, so for them to be alarmed and scared of the real/potential threat posed by Iran should be all the proof we need to investigate their concerns more comprehensively, right?

Unmentionable: Saudis in Iraq
The Roving Eye
by Pepe Escobar
Asia Times, December 14, 2006

Although the House of Saud's Interior Ministry will deny it, the Iraq Study Group (ISG) had to admit that Sunni Arab guerrillas are being financed -- to the tune of tens of millions of dollars -- by wealthy, private Saudi and, to a lesser extent, Gulf state donors, following instructions of powerful Wahhabi clerics.

Thirty-eight of these have just released a statement on Saudi websites calling on Sunnis worldwide to "mobilize" against Iraqi Shi'ites. This has stopped short of being a formal declaration of jihad not only against Shi'ites in Iraq but also Shi'ites in Iran, as well as US troops.

The guerrillas' Russian Strela anti-aircraft missiles in Iraq have been paid for by Saudi money (according to Khudair al-Murshidi, a Ba'athist spokesman based in Damascus, "We have stockpiles of Strelas.") There's no US pressure capable of reverting the situation: this is a matter of Arab tribal solidarity -- not a state affair.

There can be no direct negotiation with the Sunni Arab muqawama (resistance) because in essence what they want is the breakup of the Washington/Shi'ite majority government collaboration and their return to power. The Nuri al-Maliki government -- in fact, any Shi'ite majority government -- cannot possibly quash militia hell and the non-stop carnage because the Saudi-financed Sunni Arab guerrilla identifies any government as an occupier's tool.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/1214rovingeye.htm

Ahmadinejad
Let's get a few things clear. Ahmadinejad is not Iran. He was just soundly defeated in recent elections because he was elected on an economic platform, not a hatred against the West and Israel platform. He has lost favor with the Mullahs, and, even more important, with the Iranian military.

When the moderate Khatami was president, we insisted the Iranian president's role was purely ceremonial. Now we're saying he's got his finger on the button, at least when they get a button.

That power isn't even in the hands of the Mullahs. It's in the hands of the military. We should be working in concert with the Russians and Chinese to have real diplomatic efforts to bring Iran into the 21st century. Unfortunately, Rice is ineffective and Bush has no idea what the word diplomacy means.

rhampton7
Al Qaeda is being fought in Iraq, Afganistan, Africa, and the Phillipines just to name a few. More than likely we are fighting Hezbollah in all of these places as well. Not to mention any number of jihadist clubs that want to see the west defeated.

To think that only targeting Al Qaeda is a sound strategy is ridiculous!

Evidence?
>What is sending Iranian troops to Iraq to keep our hands tied?<

These are claims, not facts. No Iranian troops have been found to be in Iraq.

Neville Chamberlain was a great man
The simplistic, standard argument ad Hitlerum is that if Chamberlain had "stood up" to Germany, at least by the Munich Summit of 1938 then England and France could have cleaned out Hitler's clock. Unknown to them is the fact that England did not even possess a decent air force until she decalred war after the invasion of Poland in 1939. In point of fact, the Munich "sellout" bought England valuable time.
Here's the real story: England was looking for an excuse to go to war with Germany. At the same time the Soviet Union was rampaging in the Baltic area, etc. England told Poland to turn down any German proposals and that England would back up Poland in case of an attack. In 1939, the only demand made by Hitler was for Danzig, a Baltic port city mainly inhabited by Germans.
Instead of handing Danzig over, the Poles foolishly believed British propaganda and defied Germany and the Soviet Union and in the process was quashed like a cockroach. England and France jumped at the chance to knock off Germany, then bided their time for the Russkies to make their move.
This was a typical cyncial English ploy. The Italians had offered a naval agreement with England at Stresa a few years earlier, but the English were thirsting for war with both Germany and Italy, hoping to knock both off.
The decision for Germany to go to war with Poland (and thus spark a world war) was not unanimous. Goering was reportedly skittish and wanted to hold off. Ribbentrop was probably the biggest war monger, along with Hitler. Hitler saw the controversy over Danzig as an historic chance to re-draw the eastern map of Germany and certainly was guilty of starting "a war." But Hitler did not start "the war" if we mean the larger conflict that engulfed the world. Even the attack on the Soviet Union (not an innocent bystander) had some justification: German troops caught the imminent invasion of Germany off-guard, stopping Soviet troops in their assembly areas as they prepared to strike westward.

Al Qaeda Safe at Home
sentry,

To think that targeting Al Qaeda without targeting Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is beyond ridiculous -- it's suicidal!

Al Qaeda Safe at Home - part 2
Saudi Schools Still Teach Hatred for West
by Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com, May 25, 2006

According to the Institute for Gulf Affairs and Freedom House report, current Saudi textbooks obtained by the Institute indicate that intolerance is still being taught.

"These books continue to reflect a curriculum that inculcates religious hatred toward those who do not follow Wahhabi teachings," the report stated. Wahhabism is a fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

With about five million children in Saudi public schools instructed each year in Islamic studies from Ministry of Education textbooks, and many more outside of Saudi Arabia, Al-Ahmed told Cybercast News Service that the threat "is more dangerous than the Chernobyl reactor."

"If even 1% takes this to heart, you will have a lot more terrorists than just the 15 (Saudis) that we saw on September 11," Al-Ahmed said. He alleged that Saudi schools are graduating 1,000 terrorists each year.

The Islamic Saudi Academy is funded by the Saudi government and according to the report uses the same textbooks as those in Saudi Arabia to teach Islamic Studies courses. The Academy did not return phone calls made Wednesday seeking comment for this article.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?
Page=/Nation/archive/200605/NAT20060525a.html

Word play by utahnotamormon

No Iranian troops in the formal sense, but Iranians in the terrorists sense. I know, my platoon bagged one with a passport and everything. You can still find him in Iraq - if you dig down a little.

utahnotmormon
Ok I'll bite. I'm sure you already saw this and are waiting for someone to post it so you can prove it wrong.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/iranian_quds_force_a.php

This was all over the news last week.

What a relief!
I had been laboring under the delusion that all the antiSemites of this modern era were Democrats. I'm glad that Republicans still have one in Pat Buchanan.

I guess he doesn't know, hasn't read, or heard, that the terrorist group that has killed the second greatest number of Americans (stiving to equal al Qaeda) is Hezbollah. If he is so dull as to not know that, he is too dull to have on this blog as a commentator.

1967-v-2007
Let's look at Israel's comparative situation using the dates 1967 and 2007. In 1967, Israel faced enemies on all sides- Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Israelis won an overwhelming victory against those three in June 1967. Today, Israel is on rather friendly relations with Egypt and Jordan while Syria is peaceful towards Israel, albeit a resentful placitude. Israel's only possible Muslim enemies in the Middle East are the Palestinians, various terrorists and, very remotely, Iran. The Palestinians and the Muslim terrorists, although blood is surely on their hands, have no power to seriously threaten the state of Israel. Iran lies hundreds of miles from Israel's borders so couldn't reasonably inflict lethal force on Israel without suffering massive destruction on itself.

Israel's biggest enemies are from within- unassimilable Arabs within Israel's borders, and a lack of will to reproduce themselves, a problem they share with Europe and the United States.

response to utahnotmormon... EVIDENCE?
utahnotmormon... check these out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100427.html?nav=rss_nation/special

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16870070/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran

You could just as easilly see for yourself by doing simple google searches. Iran is assisting our enemies and fighting us in some instances in Iraq. Israel has long been attacked by Iran via Syria and Hizbollah.

See a pattern?

lupine
Name two instances of Hezbollah terrorism on US citizens since Reagan. Name one. Like I said earlier those stats are outdated. You could also say that Hezbollah terrorism on US citizens directly corelates with US funding of Al Qaeda.

rhampton7
It would be foolish at this point to target Allies. They may not be the perfect ally but they are attempting to deal with the internal problems in their countries. As noted here.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/pakistans_insurgency.php

But rhampton7, don't lose hope. I too hope we will carry the fight to where ever neccasary. Remember this will be a long war. We must pace ourselves.

EVIDENCE?
ruvinspivak ,

You can also just as easily see that Saudi Arabia is assisting our enemies and fighting us in some instances in Iraq.

With Friends like these...

The Presence of Saudi Nationals in the Iraqi Insurgency
by Christopher Boucek
The Jamestown Foundation, April 20, 2006

It is widely recognized that Saudi nationals are currently participating in the Iraqi insurgency and have been involved in operations that have targeted the U.S.-led coalition force, aspects of the nascent Iraqi security forces, and segments of Iraq's majority Shiite population. The presence of Saudis in Iraq is deeply troubling not just for the future viability of Iraq, but also for the future security of Saudi Arabia and the smaller Persian Gulf monarchies.

* Saudi al-Qaeda leader Saleh al-Oufi wrote in support of Saudi jihadis in Iraq in the July 8, 2004 issue of the Voice of Jihad online magazine.

* Saudi Islamic militants have also claimed operations such as the assassination of U.S. contractor Paul Johnson and the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah in the name of the "Fallujah Brigades"

* In April 2005, Saudi national Hadi bin Mubarak Qahtani killed himself in a suicide operation near Qaim, Iraq.

* On March 2, 2006, an al-Qaeda operative identified as Abdullah Salih al-Harbi was captured by Iraqi border guards attempting to cross the Saudi border near Samawah.

* A March 2005 Israeli report, "Arab Volunteers Killed in Iraq: An Analysis," that has been subjected to wide criticism, claims that 94 insurgents (61%) killed in a six month period were identified as Saudis, while 70% of suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi.

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369968

Saudi-Iraq border like US-Mexico border
Saudi Arabia Interdicts Large Quantities of Weapons at its Borders
by Christopher Boucek
The Jamestown Foundation, November 14, 2006

According to a November 6 report in al-Sharq al-Awsat, Saudi authorities have recently made sizable seizures of large quantities of weapons and explosives at the kingdom's borders, including its border with Iraq. The report by the Interior Ministry's Border Guard Directorate-General details seizures made only during the third quarter of 2006 along all of the kingdom's borders throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

The seizures included one rocket propelled grenade, four anti-tank rockets, 46 hand grenades, 900 sticks of dynamite, 900 detonation wires, half a kilo of high explosives, nearly 200 guns and more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibers. The confiscations were tabulated cumulatively for the past three months, and no information was provided as to where the seizures were made.

The Border Guard Administration also reported a number of other drug and alcohol smuggling interdictions in its annual statistical report and noted that during the last three months, 236 infiltrators and six smugglers were captured on the Iraqi side of the border.

The quantities of weapons and explosives captured by Saudi authorities in the third quarter of this year are placed into some perspective when compared with the data from the entire year of 2005. For all of 2005, the border guards seized six rocket propelled grenades, 11 hand grenades, 14,040 sticks of dynamite, four unspecified explosive compounds, 14,090 detonation wires, 67 kilos of high explosives, 53 pistols and more than 500,000 rounds of assorted calibers (al-Sharq al-Awsat, November 6).

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370202

pathological antisemite
"Does anyone else find it funny that (Mr) Buchanan, the arch-conservative, is using the Guardian for his information?"

Totalitarian trade Luddite and pathological antisemite, ... Buchanan, an "arch-conservative?" And/or: "funny?"

In his and his supporters most wildly delusional fantasies, perhaps.

And meanwhile the poster child, more likely, for all of the, like himself, soon to be sat on the porch while waiting for their diapers to be changed, Korsokoff's Syndrome set!


ruvinspivak
And Saddam did 9/11 after he bought that yellowcake from Niger. He was able to attack us in 45 minutes.

I can't believe this administration, I believed their bullsh!t once. It reminds me of a saying that we have in DC don't know if they have it around your parts. It goes, "fool me once...shame...shame on you...fool...um...fool me you're not gonna fool me again." That pretty much sums it up.

Not to mention I saw US military on TV and every time he was asked a question about Iranian influence in Iraq his conviction faltered. First he said Iranian IEDs are doing massive destruction and it ended with him saying that the amount of Iranian manufactured IEDs are few but lethal. Sorry but I smell bullsh!t.

Worse than Al Sharpton
If Al Sharpton threw around the racist accusation as much as the Likuds throw around the Anti Semite card, your heads would seriously explode. Likuds have such thin skins, must be why they make America fight THEIR wars. Quit being such babies.

Remedial Reading classes needed
The claim I disputed:

>What is sending Iranian troops to Iraq to keep our hands tied

Supposed proof: 5 Iranians were detained in Erbil


OK, 5 Iranians in business suits are not troops. The Kurds(Erbil is the capital of Kurdistan) claim they were diplomats in a business liason office.
Kurdish forces confronted the US forces at the airport, and a battle was narrowly avoided, not with Iranians, but with our Kurdish allies.

No evidence has been produced that these were Iranian troops. It has been , however, an embarrasing incident for the US, who didn't even give advance warning to Kurdish officials of the unsuccessful raid.

You guys are weak.

More on the Erbil raid
Absent any " ...." US officials said.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13939

Thanks to truthserum
I couldn't have said it better myself. It is interesting how some folks take a delight in throwing out these loaded cliche phrases. To accuse somebody of anti semitism is the end of the debate. Target is discredited, time to go home. Again it is just another example of Ad Hominum rhetoric. If you cannot challenge Pat's worldview, attack his character.
Israel has a right to Exist, as much as does Iraq, or Germany or Russia, but we made a decision a few years ago that Iraq, was 'less worthy' and so now we are there doing a police keeping action and using our Troops as target practice for terrorists. I think this is a gross misuse of our Military. Yet here in America, two of our border guards shoot a drug smuggler and our own government brings back the escaped drug peddler and have him testify against our border guards. They get ten years prison sentence and he gets the blessing of the US Dept. of Immigration.
Sadly, our troops in Iraq are obligated to follow a similar no win strategy of response. I pity the poor marine that actually shoots to kill and hits somebody.

give 'em he11, TH's GWB!
The truth is such a terrible thing to waste! ;~)

Likening sagacious savant Pat Buchanan or other America First, Paleocon style opponents of this misbegotten, fecklessly executed war to Neville Chamberlain is truly delusional, red herring, straw man sophistry, and ad hominem calumny at best!

Because we chose to go over there and play in their sandbox and destabilize the region with troops in Iraq, how could we NOT expect some of the bad boys from Al-Queda and Iran to show up for a brawl?! We have ourselves enmeshed and entrenched in a regular old fashion, protracted, sectarian civil war-- without an end in sight! The *damm* thing could last 10 years! How do we *unfuch* it now?!?!

BUT, we could instead have "shock and awed" the he11 out of them as necessary-- we did NOT need to put our troops into harm's way to establish bases in Iraq (which had NOTHING-- as in NO THING-- to do with 9/11!) for some small foreign country's benefit, which was the REAL agenda of the neoCONS in Dubya's inner circle (Feith-less, Wolfy, Perley, Wormy, and Scooter). Simply read what THEY openly said/advocated via (along with confreres Kristol, Kagan, May, Pohoretz, Krauthammer, Adelman, etc. in a perpetual, relentless, stupefying, deafening din) PNAC, AIPAC, etc. for years BEFORE 9/11, starting at least in 1996.

Erbil raid remedial reading

Here's the remedial reading that you requested.

http://www.nysun.com/article/47544

The headline
"Iran's Role In Iraq Will Be Exposed"

Key words - "Will Be"

"What intelligence will be declassified, intelligence sources said yesterday, was still being debated."

Or created, as has been the case with other "intelligence" coming from Iraq for years.

Even if every claim in that article were true, it doesn't support that:

Iranian troops are being sent to Iraq, and certainly not the 5 Iranians captured (and released) in Erbil.

Revolutionary

I don't think we have a clash of civilizations with the Arab/Muslims. I think it is a clash of a civilization versus barbarians. For me, it puts the present conflict in the ME in the proper context.

GWB - Our national interest is to keep the energy (oil) coming into our country it needs to keep the economy running at the pace it is to keep the revenue coming into the Treasury it has grown accostumed to having.

The barbarians have the oil. The civilized countries want (and need) what they have. They are going to figure out a way to get it one way or another. The barbarians have got it figured out now that they too can live like a first world power if use their resources for their own benefit instead of allowing energy poor civilizations take it away from them.

utahnotmormon - Iran has three branches of its government; the president, the legislature and the judiciary. It is the judiciary made of a religious majority the determines who the president is going to be. At the moment, they are less than happy with the direction the president is taking the country. The common folks would like for the president to pay more attention to them than engage in nuclear arms.

As for Russia and China, both of them are heavily engaged in acquiring power through the acquisition of energy. Iran is merely one source of energy to them. They buy Iran's oil so that Iran will buy their technology. They have no interest in diplomatic relatioships with them. It is all business with them between them.

Donaldd - If all the lights went off in the homes of all of the people in your post you mentioned that thought our troops should return home, they would be clamouring for the troops to regain the oil fields they gave up.

Nazi Buchanan
I don't think Pat is a Nazi or even anti-Semetic, but he bears a distinct resemblance to Nevil Chamberlain.

utahnotmormon
"These are claims, not facts. No Iranian troops have been found to be in Iraq."

Those troops are called Hezbollah.

Iran is not one monolith
Let it be stated for the record that Iran is not some symbolic force of evil in the world. There are in Iran a diversity of people and not all embrace Militant Islam. While the Christian minority is unable to speak out there, I am sure that there are a few, even in Iran. Certainly there are many who desire a more 'western and democratic' society. Should we launch air strikes and play with Iran as we did to Iraq under Bush senior, are we not affirming all that the more radical elements in Iran claim we will do to them?
The whole notion of a right to 'preemptive strike' has hardly been pondered by so many Neo Cons, who take it as a given right, or manifest destiny for us to pound the world into submission. Let us first deal with Iraq by letting the military act like one. Then let us get out.

The Real Story On Hezbollah
Click this GWB. It gives the real story of Hezbollah, then, now and in the future.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011219.php

Everybody
So much for all the terrorism against the US being Al Qaedi.

Sonny I beg to differ
"GWB - Our national interest is to keep the energy (oil) coming into our country it needs to keep the economy running at the pace it is to keep the revenue coming into the Treasury it has grown accostumed to having.

The barbarians have the oil. The civilized countries want (and need) what they have. They are going to figure out a way to get it one way or another. The barbarians have got it figured out now that they too can live like a first world power if use their resources for their own benefit instead of allowing energy poor civilizations take it away from them"

What are the Arabs going to do, eat the oil? They have to sell it. Iraq's production is all messed up because we went in there. If we go into Iran it will be worse. I really don't think these wars are about oil as much as neconservative ambition. The oil companies had their deals with the Arabs, they were fine with the status quo. If you want to know how the oil companies feel about the Middle East follow Jim Baker. Baker and the Saudis have a long relationship, he is a huge friend of OPEC and his interests are their interests. Oil companies and OPEC have basically have the same interests as far as the Middle East is concerned. Afghanistan is a different story but that is complicated.

Where oil really is a factor is with Chavez. Our CIA tried to kill Chavez because he didn't want to give the American companies a big enough cut, so they went crying to the US government and the covert guys failed. That is why you hear all this rhetoric about Chavez. I don't blame Chavez for calling Bush the devil, if you sent the spooks on me, I'd be p!ssed as well. The other thing is that if you want Israel Proper you're going to have to break alot of "eggs", and breaking those "eggs" will make Chavez rich so they figure it is best to put in a puppet so they can cash out.

Now if you are talking about oil reserve currencies that is definitely a factor. The rule of thumb for seeing a nation that the US is going to deem a threat has nothing to do with WMDs, it has to do with whether they are changing their reserve currency to Euros. Iraq was switching from dollars to Euros and Iran is going to or already has. The US government doesn't like that because they don't want to expose the sham that is the US Dollar, now that it is not backed by anything and basically worthless whenever the Chinese want to tell us to go to hel!.

GWB
As usual you are off base again, this time with the Chavez/Venezuela situation. American oil interests set up the infrastructure in Venezuela under signed contract with the Venezuelan government. It was Chavez who decided that he needed more than was contractually arranged. He violated the contract and nationalized (stole)the oil facilities from the American companies.

Easy answer there....
"If we knew that we would tomorrow lose Boston, San Francisco or Atlanta, what would we do?"

Order a keg of beer, some pizza, and party hats for delivery at 12:01 p.m. Irradiated libs are of no consequence.

Jimmy the Saint
Excellent!!!

Craig
They don't operate under our constitution, the state wanted more revenue from the oil. When I studied international business that was called tough sh!t. The oil companies are still doing well in Venezuela, not as well but that is what happens when countries are tired of being exploited for their resources. Africa will figure that out someday. Empire doesn't work too well when the third world realizes what's going on.

GWB
Still wrong. A contract is a contract. The oil companies were kicked out and Chavez took over.
It has nothing to do with empire. If it did, the US would have made sure that Chavez was deposed.
BOYCOTT CITGO

Ignoring Saudi Arabia is Suicidal
U.S. District Judge Upholds Suit by Suicide Bombing Victims
AP, January 30, 2007

Israelis and other foreign nationals can pursue in U.S. courts claims accusing the Jordan-based Arab Bank of promoting Palestinian suicide attacks by FUNNELING SAUDI MONEY TO BOMBERS' FAMILIES, a judge ruled Monday.

The lawsuit, filed in 2004, claims that Arab Bank aided terrorism by acting as the administrator of an "insurance plan" by the Saudi Committee in Support of the Intifada Al Quds, which paid $5,300 to the families of Palestinian bombers killed in attacks by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades.

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=3135

so twiting history
I cannot believe from Pats column to the scores of those that oppose Bush how twisted their view of history is.I mean

If chamberlain acted sooner they still couldnt have stopped hitler.

except maybe they could have mobilized the French army who had tons more armor then hitler.As it was there sat the french army totaly out of postion to do anything but squat.

another brilliant post wow all those republican leaders that voiced against somolia

except somolia has about zero effect on world economy or our national security and when was the last time they threatened access to m.e. oil.
oh yeah I know it was George the first who got us in there, well ya right so much for paying attention to the other side of the debate when you're the comander in chief.

and that wanna be george with the civilizatin takes from the poor barbarian cr*p

when the u.s. comes into a nation no better day have they seen unless they position themself as an enemy.

you people need to get your noses out of mother earth magazines and look into the light before that big freight train of reality blows over you

I know, so much for reasoned respecteble debate.

doug
Actually it is the Left, in its hypocrisy that is touting taking unilateral action in Somalia.

Craig C
Are you following the topic?

Are you claiming Hezbollah troops are in Iraq?

Not even the most rabid Iran war promoters make that claim.

Oil companies aren't kicked out
Show me where they are kicked out. Chevron, Conoco, etc. are all in Venezuela. Show me some proof that they aren't, I can't find anything that says that. Their royalties and taxes are considerably higher but they still profit off of Venezuela. They aren't as happy but they are there.

utahnotmormon
"Are you claiming Hezbollah troops are in Iraq"

I guess you didn't click the link. Or if you did your comprehension level is too low to get it. I'll give you the benefit, and post it again

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011219.php


Pat...
I'm not the best Christian in this world but da*n it if I don't know not to go against Israel...

rhampton7
my previous post should be so twisting history The difference between Saudi and Iraq is that one is a Government that confronted us directly for over a decade and the other is not. I guarntee Mr Bush has people working on the Saudi Issue also.But if he told all that he was doing it would be screamed that he was further escalating into a 4th or maybe 5th front and must be stopped from his evil plot to liberate the world cause dosent he know those people are better off in sand huts...........wait I am sure I already read that in another of Pat's columns

Jihadwatch
Jihadwatch? What next MEMRI? Why not just post Mossad Press Releases?




GWB
Exxon-Mobil left in 1993, because of exorbitant taxes. The others still operate there, but Venezuela took over physical control of the facilities, and only allows the US companies to operate under those parameters. Those facilities were set up by American companies, but are now considered to be Venezuelan property.

Response to none
In A course I recently took on Russian history, it was stated that early in the war between Germany and Russia, thousands of Russian peasants and soldiers defected to the German side. Stalin had been so brutal against his own military and had murdered most of his best generals due to his morbid paranoia that the Russians were willing to take their chances under Der Fuhrer. I am not an advocate of the Nazis, but I think there is a tendency for weaker minds to generalize about the Third Reich and paint the entire nation and every German soldier in the darkest of colors. We have in my own Church a survivor of the German Army. He is on in years but is still quite lucid and candid about his experiences in WW2. There are other versions of history, and we in America have a very sanitized and revised version of thoes events.

CraigC, apparently they are back
"Another move this month was made by Exxon Mobil Corp., Houston, which announced a new petrochemical project with PDVSA that could cost as much as $3 billion."

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/Venezuela-Oil-Chavez24aug04.htm

They still are doing well enough to reinvest. Don't worry they aren't hurting. Your accuracy is still at least 50%. Horseshoes and hand grenades.

The difference between Saudi and Iraq
Saudi citizens planned, financed, and carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed 1,000s of our citizens.

President Bush's mistake was making Saudi Arabia an ally to launch a misdirected war against Iraq instead of confronting the ACTUAL threat to the United States.

craig c.
up further in this thread are several quotes from republicans in 93 that were talking of withdrawal from somolia. My point was two fold in that 1)can the poster of that not see the difference between somolia and Iraq and the respective influence either had on national security and the world economy(yes money matters, and in a good and moral and right way) and 2)George herbert walker Bush went in there under pressure from the liberal ilk. See what listenting to the other side of the Isle gets you. Actually that is one of two major issues where he tried to be bi partisan and got burned care to take a guess on the other one was heres a hint read my lips........
craig c were you talking that currently the left is trying to say we need to get into Iraq or did I clear up the issue for you.

rhampton7
tim mcviegh blew up the federal building in oaklahoma city should we then now not deal with ourselves. Again you are blantantly ignoring the history of saddams decade plus threat to our national security. And again you refuse to see the difference between a National government and the citizens with in a government even if the citizens happen to be part of the Government what happened to the use of diplomacy as a vital tool in the war on terror

Saudi Interior Ministry - the real enemy
King 'Abdullah is Trying to Keep Prince Na'if From Acceding to the Throne
MEMRI, December 12, 2006

Mash'al Al-Mutairi is a Saudi oppositionist former director of Saudi intelligence who left Saudi Arabia and today resides in The Netherlands

Q: "In your opinion, what is the most influential security force in Saudi Arabia?"

Al-Mutairi: "Without a doubt, that would be the Interior Ministry and its people, who are deployed everywhere and who are much more numerous than the military and the intelligence personnel. One of the secrets of the Interior Ministry's strength is that it spies on all means of communication -- telephones, faxes, and Internet. It has two buildings whose purpose is to monitor phone conversations... This monitoring includes the King's office, the intelligence forces, and embassies."

Q: "Do you not think that the Interior Ministry derives its power also from its control of the religious police -- that is, the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice?"

Al-Mutairi: "Certainly. The religious police acts on the Interior Ministry's orders, though formally it is part of the Ministry of Religious Endowments, and it has jurisdiction over the weak citizens. As for Prince [Na'if], he is untouchable, and is not subject to the limitations of law and punishment..."

Q: "Do you think that [Interior Minister] Prince Na'if's influence will allow him to become king?"

Al-Mutairi: "King 'Abdullah and [Crown] Prince Sultan have conspired to keep Prince Na'if from acceding to the throne through eliminating the post of second vice prime minister. Nonetheless, Na'if's chances of becoming king are still good, as long as there is no intervention from foreign forces."

Q: "[You mean] the U.S.?"

Al-Mutairi: "Yes."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP138906

MEMRI should not be used as a source
Yigal Carmon-MEMRI's President and Co-Founder. He served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988. From 1977 to 1982 he was the Acting Head of Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria and the Advisor on Arab Affairs to the Civil Administration. Following Col. Carmon's retirement from the IDF he was advisor to Premiers Shamir and Rabin for Countering Terrorism from 1988 to 1993. In 1991 and 1992 he was a senior member of the Israeli Delegation to peace negotiations with Syria in Madrid and Washington.

Meyrav Wurmser co-founder, is a neoconservative and a Israeli scholar of the Arab world. She is married to David Wurmser, Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Wurmsers also helped to write A CLEAN BREAK.


Muscat
weeker minds ohh please how come it is soo hard for liberals to differentiate between govenrment and the people who are ruled by said people in most cases there are huge differences between the individual and government, especially when talking dictatorships.

MEMRI writes about the Saudi's
Because they are on THE list, after Iran and Syria, maybe after Pakistan as well.

Rampton 7
And when the Saudi air defence and the saudi army start shooting and the Government of saudi arabi actually as an offial act threaten us then sir you will have a point.

Saudi Strellas shoot down US aircraft
Officials say Saudis major provider of finance to Iraqi Sunni insurgents
AP, December 7, 2006

On Nov. 27, a U.S. Air Force F-16 jet crashed while supporting American soldiers fighting in the Sunni insurgent hotbed Anbar province. The U.S. military said it had no information about the cause and Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman, said he would be surprised if the jet was shot down because F-16's have not encountered weapons capable of taking them down in Iraq.

But last week, a spokesman for Sunni insurgents from Saddam's ousted Baath Party claimed that fighters armed with a Strela missile had shot down the jet.

"WE HAVE STOCKPILES OF STRELAS and we are going to surprise them (the Americans)," Khudair al-Murshidi, the spokesman, told the AP in Damascus, Syria. He would not say how the Strelas were obtained.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/07/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq_Insurgency_Saudi.php?page=2

-------------------------

The Roving Eye
by Pepe Escobar
Asia Times, December 14, 2006

Although the House of Saud's Interior Ministry will deny it, the Iraq Study Group (ISG) had to admit that Sunni Arab guerrillas are being financed -- to the tune of tens of millions of dollars -- by wealthy, private Saudis and, to a lesser extent, Gulf state donors, following instructions of powerful Wahhabi clerics...

The guerrillas' Russian Strela anti-aircraft missiles in Iraq have been paid for by Saudi money (according to Khudair al-Murshidi, a Ba'athist spokesman based in Damascus, "WE HAVE STOCKPILES OF STRELAS.") There's no US pressure capable of reverting the situation: this is a matter of Arab tribal solidarity -- not a state affair.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/1214rovingeye.htm

Clarification
I don't like MEMRI as a source but the Saudis are most definitely funding Sunnis. You have to remember we have a civil war on our hands and nobody knows how this is going to play out. The Saudis don't want mass slaugher. Also if they stand idle, the Royal Family's saftey would be threatened.

That is the problem you have civil war between Shia and Sunni, they are going to receive help because they don't want to be left out in the cold. Past US foreign policy is not consistent, you could be a Spoiled prince one day and hung despot the next, or 20 years later as in the last case in Iraq.

Nice job rhampton 7
But then, anyone who claims Saddam was a threat to our national security for a decade isn't really paying attention.

Pepe Escobar, though an avowed leftist, writes some very good stuff for ATO
Here's an excellent article from today's ATO outlining the "new" Bush strategy in Iraq.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA31Ak01.html

The only thing the author doesn't mention is the desertion of Kurds from the national army
instead of being deployed to Baghdad.

Saudi Interior Ministry lets this happen
Are Saudis funding Iraq terror?
by Salah Nasrawi
The Chicago Sun-Times, December 8, 2006

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq's insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile.

Saudi officials vehemently deny their country is a major source of financial support. ''There isn't any organized terror finance, and we will not permit any such unorganized acts,'' said Brig. Gen. Mansour al-Turki. About a year ago the Saudi government set up a unit to track any ''suspicious financial operations,'' he said.

Several drivers interviewed by reporters in Middle East capitals said Saudis have been using religious events, like the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca and a smaller pilgrimage, as cover for illicit money transfers. Some money, they said, is carried into Iraq on buses with returning pilgrims.

''They sent boxes full of dollars and asked me to deliver them to certain addresses in Iraq,'' said one driver, who gave his name only as Hussein, out of fear of reprisal. ''I know it is being sent to the resistance, and if I don't take it with me, they will kill me.''

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/165050,CST-NWS-bushsaudi08.article

That's the problem
All the groups including the Iraqi Government want us out. There is going to be a Civil War, this winning and losing rhetoric is useless. Unless you slaughter everyone in Iraq and give the Kurds their piece of the pie it won't work. If near future stability equals victory than we lost.

This surge to me is just prep for Iran, you don't need Patriots for insurgents, of course we would need stability in portions of Iraq so we can use the Bases, but if we go into Iran and the whole region erupts then what do you do? Fight a 15 front war between every Arab group? Or do you just Airstrike and missile everyone? Not to mention the energy crisis that gives the world to Chavez.

wow youve trumped me
not really as I said before you refuse to see the difference between the official stance of the government and people in it. okay any way my point is made and holds true you have yet to refut with credibility and reasonable people can take the arguments for what its worth.

Official stance
What's Iran's official stance on Iraq?

Besides being happy that their Shia allies are running the government, that is.

Now, what's Turkey's official stance on Iraq?
Are you aware that they are threatening military action if the Kurds annex Kirkuk?
What gives Turkey the right to threten Iraq?

gwbwannabe
you remove the national threat (saddams gov.)done,and build a democracy and stay there untill it's institutions are strong enough to be viable,as long as that takes. Then you use that new ally to continue to destroy the radical islamist movement which at this point may or may not be in controll of Iran and Syria hopefully calmer heads will prevail in those too contries becouse if they continue on there course we will have to take them out . the mideast is too important a region and nothing we can do in the near future will change that even if they impeach bush tommorow we will have to deal with the Iran and Syria, and maybe even Saudi Arabia if their radicals are not better controlled. we may even pull out of Iraq but we will be back if they do not deal with Iran and radical Islam

doug
Further meddling in the region is useless. Like I said it would take mass genocide in Iraq to stablize it but that genocide would infuriate the whole region and "victory" will be bittersweet. The last thing a leader in Iraq wants to be known at is a US puppet, that is why the Iraqi Government has been thumbing their nose. The second we move out Maliki and Sadr becomes buddies, if Sadr doesn't just take over and you have alot of dead Sunnis, over time it will stabilize and it will be friends with Iran. In a democracy you get majority rule and the majority wants to be friendly with Iran.

You know how many years you would have to stay in Iraq? How much money do you want to spend? How much debt are you willing to take? What good is "victory" if we are bankrupt? If you go into Iran, what is China going to do? It has a nice piece of territory that it would like to take back and since the US military is overextended and we owe them so much money, they might find it a moment of opportunity, I at least know they will be sore over all the money they invested in Iran, Russia likewise. We can't sustain that, that is insanity. There are serious consequences to war, it's not as cut and dry as you would like. I have heard goals, goal are nice and all, but how are you going to do it and what's your ROI?

Erbil remedial reading part 2
Even the left loving Times admits it. So naive.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1583523,00.html

gwbwannabe
as long as it takes as much as it cost it is a fight to the finish.

GEORGE BUSH
Bush writes "I am not anti semitic, I just don't want the US to be a mercenary force. Our troops are too important."

BET YOU HAD NO PROBLEM WITH OUR FORCES IN BOSNIA OR KOSOVO. AND FOR ALL THE REASONS YOU LISTED THAT MEMRI SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED IS PRECISELY WHY THEY SHOULD BE TRUSTED AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. ODDLY, THE SOURCES YOU TRUST ARE THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM AND JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES; THEREFORE, WHY SHOULD WE TRUST YOU?

Saudi Arabia
If the Saudi's are adding to the Iraq insurgency, let's take care of them too... You're either with us or against us...

Some of you need to learn that there are people out there who don't value diplomacy. They respect two things... CASH and FORCE.

While we debate the most trivial matters, they, the Islamic Fundamentalists, are planning... don't be fooled.

Grateful American
"BET YOU HAD NO PROBLEM WITH OUR FORCES IN BOSNIA OR KOSOVO."

Guess what your're wrong. I am a Libertarian, I value consistency.

Guess who did support action in Bosnia and Kosovo? The Neoconservatives, you know the people who write Bush's foreign policy. The same guys who have been investigated for passing classified info the Israel. The same guys who sometimes write policy papers for Israel. The same guys who wrote previously that they should not press their agenda, that very soon events would happen that would expedite their rise to power and gain influence over the masses. They were the only activists I know whose official plan was to wait. What did Mossad tell them?

ruvinspivak
You have no idea how to accomplish your lofty goals. That is the same problem the neoconservatives have, they expected everything to be cut and dry, to be easy, that we would be greeted as liberators and all that garbage, what happened to Iraqi oil covering the costs of invasion? How many trillions are you willing to spend on these debacles? War is very costly, that is why you don't have wars for the hell of it, it should be for UNITED STATES National DEFENSE.

Lydia
Forgot who runs it. Is the site putting out TRUE INFO, the ad hominem attack is bunk Lydia.

Yeah, the Catholics have their problems but I haven't seen too many priests running around slicing off gourds.

BTW, check my blog for a story on those peaceful muslims celebrating Ashura.

Sure looks like fun to me.

GWB, really?
The people that thought it would be easy appear to be the ones demanding we pull out yesterday. Many Iraqis do consider us as liberators but you chose to ignore that.

If you really believe we went to war for the hell of it you are blinded by your anti war agenda. Here's a reminder.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Hysteria
Is what the article is about and is what the article produces.

Hysterical is what this world is becoming.

Royal Saudi religious fanatics
High Anxiety Reigns in Saudi Arabia
by Youddrf Ibrahim
The New York Sun, December 18, 2006

Arab intelligence officials have pointed out that among those killed by American forces and Shiite death squads over the past two years were many Iraqis with relatives in Saudi Arabia. Honor and revenge, therefore, beckon.

Amid all this, new rivalries have sprung up among the Saudi princes as the royal clans question the king's abilities to handle a situation that is becoming critical.

The religious fanatic wing of the family, backed by the Wahhabi preachers, is calling for a new jihad in Iraq.

The Faisal brothers -- the foreign minister, Saud, and the Washington ambassador, Turki -- want to shore up their home base, which represents the pro-Western, liberal wing of the family. The former Saudi ambassador to America, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is mounting his own campaign to dominate King Abdullah's foreign policy and undermine the Faisal clan.

http://www.nysun.com/article/45334?page_no=1

Royal Saudi religious fanatics - part 2
Plan B for Iraq
by Ralph Peters
The Armed Forces Journal, November, 2006

We require not only a Plan B, but Plans C, D, E and beyond, as well as constantly evolving variations of each. As former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon Sullivan used to put it, "Hope is not a method." We must not only prepare for the worst, but calculate how to turn it to our advantage.

...Cut a deal with Iran to allow it unrestricted influence over the Shiite provinces of Iraq in return for a mutual-support pact that frees American forces to invade Syria (an indirect withdrawal); to provide guarantees for the Kurds; and to raise joint Iranian-Iraqi oil production in return for an American purchasing shift away from Saudi Arabia. The goal would be to lower world oil prices sufficiently (and just long enough) to create a financial crisis in SAUDI ARABIA, THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF ANTI-WESTERN ISLAM, of destabilizing policies in the Muslim world, and of terrorists.

By driving Saudi Arabia into a government breakdown, we might dry up the funding for WAHHABI MISSIONARY EFFORTS THAT WREAK HAVOK ON STATES FROM PAKISTAN TO NIGERIA missionary efforts that wreak havoc on states from Pakistan to Nigeria, while diverting Sunni Arab resources and energies to internal struggles in place of the export of fanaticism. At an opportune time, we might occupy key Saudi oil fields, holding profits in trust for a future constitutional state. Let Sunni Arabs fight over Mecca the way Christians once warred over the Papal States.

[ Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and the author, most recently, of "Never Quit The Fight." ]

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/11/2129512

BUSH WANNABE
Your hatred of Jews and Israel is transparent. Guess what...it isn't the Jews and Israelis who are murdering us, it is Muslim Jihadists. In a recent poll taken in England, 40% of young Muslims support Sharia law in Britian and 13% support AlQaeda. It is not we in America that is dehumanizing Muslims. They do that very well on their own through suicide bombings, beheadings, and their intolerance of those who do not share their faith in Islam. If you are a Muslim yourself, I would suggest you try to influence moderation among your fellow Muslims instead of excusing their radicalism and shifting blame on Jews and Israel.

Who can afford it?
While it is seemingly a 'given' that Americans must forever subsidize the Defense of Israel, I must ask how do we pay the bill for it all? There are a lot of worthy nations in great need of assistance and how on earth can our people prop them all up while our own borders are insecure? I ask again, would Israel be allowing such madness on its borders as to allow illegal workers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon to cross their borders and take jobs from their native work force? Yet, while Dubya launches his crusade in the middle east, in part to help our perennial ally, Israel, that is exactly what we are doing. Just how much is this war costing the Israeli budget? Are they commiting troops and air power to the current struggle in Iraq, and if so how much?
What is wrong with America fighting its own wars and not getting entangled in a myriad of foriegn treaties and alliances?
If Israel percieves a threat from Iran, they certainly have the superior firepower to deal with it on their own.
A similar situation had existed with Japan after their defeat in WW2, The US forbade the Japanese from rebuilding an Army and Navy, but ended up providing their nation's defense--- at US expense. Can the US afford to play global empire?

Untie our soldier's hands
Since I cannot put a 'tag' or link in this comment, I will simply mention the Author and date in the Washington Times, who describes the absurd restrictions placed on US troops in Iraq.

Untie military hands
By James A. Lyons Jr.
January 26, 2007
Washington Times.

Pat: Your anti-Semitism is Showing
An earlier poster had it right; whom do your trust more for the truth, Newt or Pat? To me it's a no-brainer. Pat Buchanan showed his true colors when he ran for president and selected a known Communist as his running mate. This proved, beyond any doubt, that Pat's true agenda is identical to that of the Democrats; getting and keeping power, America be damned. He is just like Hillary with respect to doing anything he thinks will benefit him in the long run. A Communist Pat? Proving he is no more a "real" or "Reagan" conservative than Algore is. Pat go back home and put on your aluminum hat and go hunting for black helicopters and leave national defense to those who are true patriots and can see "evil" when it raises its ugly head.

Why Biden's Plan makes sense
http://www.controlcongress.com

The key problem is the Kurds, Shiite and Sunni want to have their own homeland unless they are in charge of the other groups. This is why the Biden plan has bipartisan support. What do you think?

ACUF-The now outgoing Central Commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, told Congress two months ago that more troops were not the answer for Iraq. He specifically said that he had met personally with all of the commanders in the field and all agreed that more soldiers would not help. An anonymous “Army officer who recently commanded a brigade in Baghdad” told the Washington Post bluntly, “The plan will fail.” The “surge” in forces was too small and it did not accord with Iraqi politics because Prime Minister Nouri “Maliki must protect [Moqtada] al-Sadr,” who heads the largest, most aggressive and anti-U.S. Shiite militia but holds 30 seats supporting Maliki’s coalition government.

Each of the Shiite, Kurd and Sunni factions still believe they can prevail at least in slightly larger homelands and have no reason to be reasonable. Based on efforts in Yugoslavia and Lebanon the State Department types think any decent order would take six to 12 years to impose. The generals want none of this. While supporting an increase in troops, cracking down on death squads and ethnic militia, and imprisoning more insurgents, hawks Bing West and Elliot Cohen put the real problem facing the president well. “The paradox of American strategy in Iraq is this: President Bush can achieve success only by threatening to do something he is morally opposed to doing—leaving swiftly and risking chaotic civil strife. If the president showed the same iron will toward Mr. Maliki that he does toward Congress and public opinion, Mr. Maliki would blink first.”

Donald Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University


"none" writes the best
In order to justify the current position of Pat Buchanan's, he needs to justify the Nazi' position at the WW2 first.

So, he tried to explain that Mr. Hitler and his SS murders actually were not too bad guys at all.

"none" wrote pretty clear about it:

"The main reason for the rise of Hitler was the awful Versailles Treaty ... ... only around two per cent of SS soldiers were war criminals."

That's it. The basic conclusion is always the same: "Blame the Jews!"

The Jews were the main source of all problems for the Germany, and Mr. Hitler was forced by circumstances to found the right solution. Appeared that it works.

Happy End.
________

Bad news: other Jews create the same problems for the US now.

Good news: Mr. Pat Buchanan still remembers the right solution ...

JSG
You said: "Pat Buchanan showed his true colors when he ran for president and selected a known Communist as his running mate"

From where are you getting this information?

Political correctness abounds
Why is it ok to discuss the government reps of any country, besides Israel? When the leaders of the Likud party are discussed in any way, folks seem to be called anti-semites. I'm not just talking about on townhall. It's rampant everywhere.

No government, not even Israel's, is beyond reproach.

Raising issues about individuals in Israel, does not equate with being against a faith. To immediately attack someone who has the audacity to raise an issue about an Israeli, works to silence them and anyone else watching. Is that the purpose?


Liberty
You are correct Ezola Foster is NOT a Communist or Communist supporter I am in error and sincerely apologize. However, that does not weaken my original point. He picked her after his first and second choices for VP declined. James P. Hoffa and Jim Traficant; both of the "left" and hardly what we would call "conservatives".

Iran has no nukes?
It may be true that for now, Iran has no nukes, but it is also true that they are working around the clock to develop them. Can we take comfort in the fact that they are only 82% on the way to having the capacity?
Once they get the technology rolling, we may have some visitors crossing our Mexican border with more than a change of clothes in the back pack. May be a few Iranian visitors in this wave of tourists and they may well be carrying the war to our own homeland.

Muscat
The scary part is that a vast amount of our infrastructure is UNGUARDED or barely guarded. If I was a terrorist, NYC, DC, etc would be the last place I'd hit. Blasting a nuke in Podunk USA is a dramatic event regardless of the casualty count.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.