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, July 17, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Tonkin Gulf II and the Guns of August?
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Is the United States provoking war with Iran, to begin while the Congress is conveniently on its August recess?

One recalls that it was in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred.

Twice it was said, on Aug. 2 and Aug. 4, North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked the U.S. destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy in international waters. The U.S. Senate responded by voting 88 to two to authorize President Johnson to assist any Southeast Asian nation whose government was threatened by communist aggression.

The bombing of the North began, followed by the arrival of U.S. Marines. America's war was on.

As Congress prepares for its August recess, the probability of U.S. air strikes on Iran rises with each week. A third carrier, the USS Enterprise, and its battle group is joining the Nimitz and Stennis in the largest concentration of U.S. naval power ever off the coast of Iran.

And Tonkin Gulf II may have already occurred.

In Baghdad, on July 1, Gen. Kevin J. Bergner charged that Iranians planned the January raid in Karbala, using commandos in American-style uniforms, that resulted in the death of five U.S. soldiers.

As The New York Times reports, this "marks the first time that the United States has charged that Iranian officials have helped plan operations against American troops in Iraq and have had advance knowledge of specific attacks that have led to the death of American soldiers."

The Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards is using Hezbollah to train Shiites to attack our soldiers and providing them with enhanced IEDs that have killed scores of U.S. troops, Bergner charged. He says we have captured a veteran Hezbollah agent and documents pointing to direct Iranian complicity in the Karbala raid.

Iran has denounced the charge as "ridiculous." But the Senate has voted 97 to zero to censure Iran for complicity in killing the Americans.

If what Bergner alleges is true, President Bush has not only the right but appears to have the blessing of Congress to attack Iran. And he now has the naval and air forces at hand. What is stopping him?

For it is surely not Congress, which buried a resolution last spring declaring that Bush must come to Congress before taking us into a new war in the Middle East. Congress appears to be signaling Bush: "If you want to hit Iran, you have the green light. No need to consult us."

Is this yet another abdication by Congress of its moral and constitutional duty to decide when and whether America goes to war?

And something smells awfully fishy here.

Iran has no interest in a war with the United States, which it seems to be toying with. Iran supports the pro-American Shia regime in Baghdad. And the al-Qaida umbrella group in Iraq, which is our mortal enemy, has just warned Iran it faces terror attacks if it does not stop supporting Shiites in Iraq.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the al-Qaida group known as the Islamic State in Iraq, says his fighters have been preparing for four years for war on Iran:

"We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention -- otherwise a severe war is waiting for you," al-Baghdadi said in a 50-minute videotape.

Al-Baghdadi also warned Arab Sunnis in the region who do business with Shiites in Iran that they were inviting assassination.

Query: If Iran's ally, the Maliki government, is our ally, and if Iran's enemy, al-Qaida in Iraq, is our enemy, why would Iran use the Quds Force to attack Americans and risk U.S. retaliation?

Killing Americans in Iraq is not going to defeat the United States. But it could trigger heavy U.S. retaliation, not only on the Quds Force, but on Iran's nuclear facilities -- and a war with the United States. Yet Iran's diplomatic behavior suggests it wishes to avoid such a war.

Another explanation comes to mind. Iran is not initiating, but is responding to U.S.-inspired attacks inside Iran, in the Kurdish north, the Arab southwest and the Baluchi southeast of its country. Was Karbala an attempted kidnapping to exchange U.S. soldiers for the five Iranian "diplomats" we are holding?

Has Bush secretly authorized covert attacks inside Iran? Are U.S. and Israeli agents in Kurdistan behind the attacks across the border to provoke Iran? On July 11, Iranian troops clashed with Kurd rebels inside Iran, and the Iranians fired artillery back into Iraq.

Why is Congress going on vacation? Why are a Democratic-controlled House and Senate not asking these questions in public hearings? Why is Congress letting Bush and Vice President Cheney decide whether we launch a third war in the Middle East?

Or is Congress in on it?

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
Leftist Pat Buchanan Writing Drivel
Pat Buchanan is again showing his left wing stripes by calling upon a page from the left wing playbook with respect to Vietnam by ranting about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and following up with accusations of conspiracy and war mongering. This is drivel that does not belong on townhall.com.

Pat Get Over It
Pat is as bad as John McCainiac who has never gotten over the fact that both of them would have been lousy Presidents and lost handily in the primaries. Old Pat went completely off his rocker the second time around for the nomination as an independent, and has hated the Bush's for years. He is correct about the Bush's not being Conservatives, and he is correct when he says there is not a nickle's worth of difference between the Republicrats and the Dimwits. But Pat has joined the loony left, and not much that he says or writes anymore is worth the time it takes to read. No one takes him seriously any more. He is too consumed with Gov't. conspiracy and paranoia. Apparently TH readers have started ignoring him and his articles since there are hardly any comments posted here.

How The Mighty Have Fallen :(!
One of Pat’s first books, ‘Right from The Beginning’, has been a cherished member of my library fro 20 years. Reading it today & comparing it to Pat’s columns, it is hard to believe they were written by the same man. Pat’s hatred for The Bush Family has sent him over the edge and made him irrelevant.

Brief History --Vietnam, Korea, China



A Brief History of the Vietnam-Korean Wars and China

Americans need to know both sides of issues to be better informed in making decisions.

Who lost China? Who's to blame? Who made the decision to abandon China, our ally during WW II under the Nationalist government led by Chiang Kai-shek. Whomever, the aftermath of that decision resulted in China soon falling under the control of Communist forces led by Mao Zedong.

It's important to know these events, because the roots of the Korean and Vietnam wars can be traced to our losing China to the Communists.

Without a Communist China, an American fifth column preaching defeat, and their backing, there is no way America would have been defeated in Vietnam----nor would there have been the Vietnam and Korean wars.

Will we soon be asking "Who lost Iraq?" Whom shall we blame, and what will be the aftermath?

to question Bush is unpatriotic?
Ridiculous.

Given the intelligence failures, and the either deliberately manipulated or falacious conclusions this administration gleaned from the intelligence as a pretext or justification for attacking Iraq, I don't think Buchanan is wrong in questioning the hyping of what may be another war in the mideast...this time with Iran.

There are a few, thankfully fewer with each passing day, who defend this president regardless of reality.

Perhaps a case for attacking Iran can be justified. Perhaps not.

But if so, let this administration present its evidence to congress, and this time, for once, obtain a true, specific and unambiguous declaration of war against Iran, not this halfbaked authorization for the use of military force against the threat of terror the administration exploited for attacking Iraq.

This is one of the most secretive administrations in history.

And given the horrific mistakes it has made thus far, I think the American people must demand to know, with great specificity, the activities of this administration with regard to the Persian nation, and its rationale for military action, before authorizing war.

This can be obtained in secret hearings before congress.




Pat Who do you beleive?
Your lying eyes ( photos of lots of Iranian weapons in Iraq or truthful peace loving Iranians.

Buchanan: Blame America First
Once again we find Pat as an "America Firster." But this time he joins the NY Times and Cindy Sheehan and Harry Reid and CAIR and the Saudi's as blaming America for Islamist terrorism. For those who read history, as Pat obviously does not, we partnered with Stalin for Pete's sake when we fought against the Nazis (who Pat thinks we should not have fought against) and Imperial Japan. The idea that Iranian terrorists would not partner with al qaeda is ahistorical. Pat states that Iran has no interest in going to war with the US? How about 444 days Pat? How about building nukes? Really, North Vietnam had no reason to start a war with us either, but they did. Why, because we wanted to stop communism from taking over South Vietnam, just the way we want to stop Islamism from taking over Iraq. Pat hates real American values and the older he gets the more he wants to go back to being isolationist and allowing multiple 9/11's and worse. Of course with all the Jews in NYC, Pat probably thought that 9/11 was not that bad. This guy is treasonous and he engages in just enough Bush bashing to make the Dems love him and just enough smilely face with the Repubs so that they continue to show his talking head.

Pat is shooting blanks... again
Belligerent Patsy is curiously timid re: national defense and our nation's self interest. Who would Pat support prior to WWII? Does anyone doubt it would be Neville Chamberlain? Pat the Mule refuses to learn from history. What an odd duck he is.

gaglbert
you are off your rocker, Pat calls it the way he sees it. You fools are so blindly still following a president and group of "me first" politicians who hijacked the republican party for selfish gains. Remember in 2000 when Bush stated that the U.S. would not take part in "nation building?"

Well, it's happening and American interests are going down the tube, Pat sees this and calls out the people that are responsible. And for the other posters that say Pat is a "leftist" are you out of your mind?

Conspiracy...you're kidding
What would a conspiracy accomplish...another front for another war? We can't handle what we have now...who in their right mind would invite more?

The Ever More Demented Buchanan
This is just getting INSANE ... but his leftist poster buddies keep the level of insanity at flood levels! Pat is officially beyond the reach of reason and I'll not bother posting in the future ... sad, very sad!

Who are the liberals
The one's who put American interests firsts, or the one's who believe Utopia can be built by spreading democracy across the earth?

Caelestis asks:
"Who are the liberals
The one's who put American interests firsts, or the one's who believe Utopia can be built by spreading democracy across the earth? "

One might also ask, about the folks who, having seen failure after failure of socialist/communist nations fall into ruin, still believe that Utopia can be achieved by spreading socialism/communism across the globe.

Democracy/capitalism good, socialism/communism bad

Isn't this the same Pat Buchanen
Who insitst that if the United states had stayed out of WW2, that both Hitler and Tojo would have left us alone?

Who Lost China?

.....Satirev ...Well Truman was President and there were still many Communist sympathizers in his cabinet left over from FDR ...so I think the answer is obvious ...

.....Truman also got us into the U.N. and had the charter written by another Communist fellow traveler ...

.....the love of FDR and Truman for Mother Russia led to the partition of Korea ...the fall of China ...our membership in the U.N. ...the Korean and Vietnam wars ...

.....And yet the Democrats ...the Party of surrender monkeys, cowards and traitorous socialists ...who are at this very moment trying to sell us out in Iraq as they did in Vietnam ...are poised to win the Presidency in 2008 ...will our electorate never learn? .....COLOSSUS

Sorry Pat
Interesting but no way! Fight Iran with whom. We're kinda streched thin and even Bush the Delusional is'nt so crazy to believe the American people will go along with this.

Pat could be right
Pat could be right; can anybody with the slightest glimmmer of understanding of US foreign policy reject the possibility that Bush and Co. are getting ready for a war with Iran? The war with Iraq was worked out on the pages of "The Weekly Standard." I have an issue from the late 90s--I'll get the exact date if skeptics doubt this--with a cover reading "Saddam Must Go!" The issue has articles from a number of neocons explaining why this is necessary. The war with Iran is the next act in the War Party's drama; it just hasn't been announced yet.

I'm a believer in the "long war," a concept now sadly missing from most discussions. I think the war in Iraq has been and continues to be badly handled, to the point of utter incompetence. Indicative of this idiocy is the announcement a few days ago that al-Qaeda is doing better than at any time after 9/11. What kind of war is it when the bad guys get stronger as we increase our troops?

A war with Iran will likely be no better. What's wrong with the Bush doctrine is that it fails to recognize the long-term, global dimensions of the war--no other word suffices--between much of Islam and the West.

Think of the war in Iraq and an upcoming war with Iran as two really bad local bands opening for a headliner.


HalO writes: - - - - - 6.02 AM

""If invading Iraq was crazy...""

Good thinking. A lot of food for thought here. All of a sudden we're buddy, buddy with Buchanan again. In any case it looks like we either have a loose cannon in the white house or as was stated, even congress is in on it. Rushing to discover perdition.

What is really going down here.??. As has been stated at different times by a number of posters, why not begin the partitioning of Iraq. Only Sadaam was capable of keeping the factions together. He's not here and Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again. So a fresh start is called for as far as government is concerned. Separate the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds.

Then pull back a reasonable distance and give them about ten years to work it out. Or is someone intent upon proving the prophecies true.??. Or is it a part of a much larger plan "a la Bilderberger".

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what is really going down.??.


Uh, Pat
Three aircraft carriers is not the largest carrier concentration ever off Iran. We've had that many there before, rather often, and we've had more than three on a couple of occasions.

We increased our routine carrier presence in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) from one to two six months ago, in an announced policy to "bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East." The analysis at the time was that this increased carrier presence was also, and not incidentally, a signal to Iran that we would counter any attempts by Iran to close the Persian Gulf to civilian shipping.

According to Agence France Presse, on 10 Jul the Pentagon affirmed that the January 2007 carrier presence guidance (two in CENTCOM) is still in effect. USS Enterprise will replace USS John C Stennis.

http://qwstnevrythg.blog-city.com/pentagon_denies_plans_to_add_third_carrier_in_the_gulf.htm

Note to Pat: when carriers are swapping out forward, there are always more carriers deployed, for the number of weeks it takes to effect the swap-out. This fact per se is never evidence of a plot to embroil America in a war. Moreover, if we were going to attack Iran, we'd need more than three carriers to do it. The reason Congress isn't sniffing suspiciously around this military activity is that there's nothing unusual about it.

Please stop writing like a nitwit.

tanabear
Nero and Caligula? That's a stretch!

baseballdoc
I'm beginning to wonder that myself.

Buchanan's Folly (or is it treachery?)
Pat Buchanan's hysterical warning that the evil Americans, led by the demonic George W. Bush, are planning a cowardly attack on the innocent and blameless Iran of President Ahmadinejad,has led to a spate of equally hysterical responses in this comments column. I don't know what Pompous Patrick has been smoking, but I don't smoke, and I will now add some comments of my own.

1. When you think of attacking Iran, don't think "troops." We now have two (possibly three) carrier battle groups parked just outside the Persian Gulf. Just one of them has the capability of destroying the entire country of Iran, leaving only a smoldering hole. Of course, we wouldn't want to do that, so scale it down, just far enough to destroy Iran's capability to wage a war. But don't think "troops."

2. Also, don't think of destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities. Some of them are deep under ground, anyway, and the use of them for peaceful energy generation can be useful to Iran. Instead, think in terms of destroying the leadership, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs who back him. If we bomb the nuclear plants, we have to wonder what kinds of retaliation the Iranian leadership will come up with the following morning. But if they are dead, they will come up with nothing.

Have a nice day.

By Patrick J. Buchanan
One recalls that it was in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred.
*************************************************

How does a Republican nominee have anything to do with what a Democrat President (LBJ) ordered in August 1964?

Are you trying to imply that LBJ didn't have anything to do with the action by blaming Goldwater?

When someone (of any political leaning) begins an opinion piece by stating a fact that is unrelated to the code idea of the piece it makes one wonder about the intentions of the writer.

By this logic if another terrorist attack happens this summer we can blame Hillary or Obama, right?

Typo.....
In the second to last paragraph it should read;

unrelated to the core idea

onceamarine
So, you are going to partition Iraq? Could you competently explain:

1. Where will you draw these imaginary lines?
2. Are you going to use Korea and VietNam as examples of a successful demarcation?
3. How will you get all of the Iraqis to agree to your line?
4. Will you get an agreemnet from OBL/AQ to observe this division?
5. By the way, who are you to tell Iraqis to divy up their country?

Let's get real about this and do the simple thing here, fight to win, no surrender! Any other course is plain foolishness. It appears that many of your thinking like to believe that after 9-11, OBL wanted to go home and retire to his new cave, but he had to come fight us in Iraq because _____________. The truth is he had declared war and the attacks of 9-11 were his first big hits on America at home. THAT WAS THE JIHADIST RECRUITMENT CALL, NOT IRAQ!!

For anyone interested, I discuss Iraq and other important issues on my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. Check it out, you won't be disappointed. Thanks, Joe

Iran invaded America
when they captured our citizens on United States of America ground in 1976. However, being the girlie nation we are, we did nothing. Our embassy was US territory. And we did nothing. That was the beginning of the war,,,but we are to pansy to fight it. The muslims are ready, but we cowardly Americans are not. Pat, you are wrong. It is the Iranians that are killing troops with their explosives and Saudi fanatics. We should at least bomb Iran's ports...just a little punch please!!!

I mean
just one little fist in the eye...not much.

Rude
It was rude to invade America?,, and we did nothing.
There is no justification for invasion. I would show these Islamic impotents rude. They are cowards, and your mama is probably a congresswoman..thus the split tail cowardice.

Joe
Onceamarine's observation is based on the fact that you have two possible outcomes in Iraq - one related to trying to keep the county together, a second that would lead to a separation of the Shia's and Sunni's - given that the Kurds are already separate.

As to the first, we cannot have a unified Sunni/Shia state unless the Shia's rewrite the constitution according to the demands of the Sunni's. If the Shia's do not rewrite the constitution, the Sunni's will never agree to live under a Shia Theocracy whose civil law is based on the Koran which they intepret. And currently, the issue of the constitution is entirely buried.

As far as separation, 2.2 million Iraqi's now live outside the country in refugee camps, and another 2 million have been forced to flee their homes internally. The latest report says this is continuing at the rate of 60,000 per month.

This does not sound like a country that is unifying itself. Rather, it is dividing. To finish it, you'd need to move another estimated 1.5 million Sunni's and 1/2 million Shia's. Then it would be over. In sum, the largest part of the separation has already taken place, as over 4 million have left or moved, leaving another 2 million to finish the job.

To you this is unthinkable. To others such as myself, it has already occurred in large part, and is continuing. It is only a matter of time, therefore, until it is substantially complete - regardless of what we do or don't do.

Even if by next March the surge is in some way successful, another 1/2 million Iraqi's will have moved to secure havens in which their sect is dominate. The vision of a unified Iraq, in sum, is already lost to these people. The atmosphere has been so poisoned that neither you, nor I, the Iraqi government nor Bush, can change this dynamic. At the current rate of division, it will be entirely complete within 2 years.

The Iraqi's foresaw this in their constitution. They decided on a federated Iraq. We didn't like it, and continue to hold onto the idea that we can convince the Iraqi's to live together in some form of Pluralistic society.

The reality is that they were right. We stubbornly hold onto the ideal, but the people are systematically separating on their own.

Iraq will never again be what it was. It's too late for that. The sectarian geni came out of the bottle, and the ancient hatreds took over.

Get it straight, my friend. The Iraq of the last 80 years is gone. The Christians and professionals have been decimated. The Sunni's and Shia's are daily at each others throats. The old enmities have arisen, and the hatred has taken control. The government can't even survive outside of the green zone.

Many of those in the government live in Syria and Jordan now, because their lives are worth very little.

You better look at the maps of where the divisions are - because if you do, it won't take much to see what the reality on the ground is.

All that's left is to divide up the oil. The rest - will be separate states ruled by the sects living their - or their will be constant civil war for a generation.











Geoge W Bush stuck on stupid
I love when these lefties get a hold of a word.. they use it until they squeeze all life out of it.

Hey, idiot,, what was the blowback for this:

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

QUOTE
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven
UNQUOTE

Or this.

Ayatollah Khomeini (1942):

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” - Ayatollah Khomeini


Time For Pat to go
Just like most of our long-in-the-tooth politicians of both stripes, journalists like Pat and Novak have outlived their usefulness.

They are shells of what they once were and all of them and us would be much better if they took up golf full time.

Vince P
Do you acknowledge that we installed and supported a dictator in Iran? Then after they overthrew that dictator we armed their mortal enemy to the teeth, encouraged them to attack, and a lot of people died. Do you people read history or just choose to ignore it? You have words, I am talking about facts and dead bodies. The words of these leaders are useless if they don't have US Sponsored oppression to blame. That is how they recruit. During Clinton when we were complaining about "being the world's policeman", we were attempting to avoid situations like the current. Of course asking you Big GOVERNMENT Republicans to remember your talking points from last week is a challenge. That is why us conservatives are sick with you nonsensical idiots, you took a great party and drove it into the ground with your ignorance. Bush was for the Bosnian wars and so were his AEI buddies. The Neocons supported Clinton's Police Actions yet you guys blindly support them. Wake up and find some principles.

And once again your quote from 1942 is during World War II. Is this Khomeini's 70 year covert plan to take over the world? "See what we have to do is wait 70 years and then attack." Pretty slow caliphate if you ask me. Nobody has illustrated how this global empire will come to be, we are the most advanced military and we are having problems with a couple of third world countries. How are they going to put the whole world to live under their thumb? Imperial wars are unpopular because less people care to fight over land that isn't yours. Your the one that is stuck on stupid my friend, still you guys pull out your MEMRI(run by former IDF) quotes but cannot refute historical fact.

As for the Barbary pirates, they were capturing our ships, the "blowback" was that we went to war with them. Stupid example.

HalO...
I was wondering how long it would take for some left-wing, communistic, anti-semitic nut case to show up and spew.

The speed with which you showed up surprised even me....

And then VinceP...
I refer you to my earlier post:

"Defying logic we denied Iranian attempts for support against Al Qaeda after 9/11, we turned down their offers and denounced them the Axis of Evil. We then invade yet another border state that was also in the "Axis of Evil" and not involved in 9/11 nor was there any mobilization of WMD Programs. Our government has never wanted diplomacy, in fact they turned it down."

After 9/11 the Iranians were trying to help us, they wanted to better relations. They Iranians are Shiite, they want nothing to do with Al Qaeda if they are going to provoke major military actions. Many Shiite groups stayed away from those Radical SUNNI Wahabbis. Then we put the Iranians on the "Evil" list, and attack the first "Evil" Nation on the list with bogus evidence, much that our own intelligence agencies said were not credible, they even made Bush yank lines from speeches that he intended to make. Armitage said that on the Woodward Tape for the Libby trial. Of course as always they don't tell us that stuff until afterwards, and I doubt it will get much play on Talk Radio, the usual source for "information" around this site. Also Iraq just so happens to be Iran's other border state. The Iranians are not a threat to us and if we leave them alone they aren't going to blow that. What all these people believe is that we won't leave them alone, they just want to be left alone.

Bin Laden wants these wars because when we attack Arab Nations he gets more recruits and more potential allies. Bin Laden should be isolated, we are giving him a vacation and letting him restore his network, while we waste blood and treasure to give Bin Laden rest, recruits, and allies. How stupid is that?

Stop being the World's policeman!

"Colonel, I guess this is why it's so ill-conceived from the very beginning. You know, they didn't anticipate that his popularity would rise. They didn't anticipate that he would beef up his reign of terror, if you will, against the ethnic Albanians. They didn't anticipate the refugee problem, and they didn't anticipate that they would also run out of bombs.

So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
- Hannity, March 31, 1999

Plain and Simple
Iran is killing Americans in Iraq because wusses like Kerry, Reid, and co. will have more ammo to call for the surrender in the battle and retreat. Then Iran will install a Shiite theocracy in Iraq, which will make it easier to keep the one they have in Iran. All this will then be blamed on the Bush boys.

HalO Is A Dishonest Leftist
HalO is full of it in his 7:25 Am Tuesday post. My criticism of Pat Buchanan at 7:07 AM Tuesday was that he has adopted leftist arguments, complete with Vietnam references and groundless conspiracy and war mongering accusations. My point about Pat Buchanan not belonging on townhall.com was and is that he is no longer a conservative, not that Pat Buchanan should be silenced. After all, Pat Buchanan is a welcome guest at leftist outlet MSNBC, and no doubt he can be picked up leftist blogs, perhaps even Kos given their mutual hatred for Israel.

USS VINCENNES
If you remember the Vincennes incident, then you will understand how easy it will be to draw the Iranians into a fight.

If you remember the ease with with we dispatched half of the Irania navy, then you understand how easy it will be to wipe the Iranian military from the Persian Gulf coast.

Then we will turn it over to the Army and Marines.

War and out future
I find it curious that Buchanan did not blame everything on the Jews.

We had better listen to what Iran is telling us. They are uttering threats and they more than imply that they are on their way to hit Israel and us with nukes. They have identified us as their enemy. Unless their leadership collapses it may be decision time again.

Please read this prayer for the troops..
Lord, please save us from these misguided members of the "Project For A New American Century" and those who blindly follow them. Have mercy on their souls, for they know not that violence begets violence. When ignorance and arrogance sire the child of conflagration with the whore called "power," please end not your beautiful creation. This counter-productive occupation distracts them from the protection of their homeland. This, our insane adventurism abroad, our reckless dismissal of innocent life, and contempt for those who work for peace, we pray you will bless. Lord, we should have struck the evildoers in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we forgive those who embezzle money from the United States in order to weaken and distract us. When satans minions blowback upon our shores with righteous anger and furious vengeance, do not blame the useful idiots of the neocon tribe. When
"post 9/11" becomes obsolete because of Chlorine tanker or shopping mall shoot-out massacres, punish the Freeper not. Your wrath shall not be directed at the misused and abused soldiers of the United States Armed Forces. Lord, blame the editors of townhall.com, and smite them.
Oh yeah, and Cheney, Addington, Chalabi, Wolfowitz and Feith too.
Fire out.

TARGET: The soft under belly.
Good job today leftists.

Your next assignment will be: S.O.S. (Same Old S--t

Remember all coments must undermine our troops in the field and shake the home fronts confidence in their leaders and institutions.

It is important to keep in mind our three main goals:
1. Political power
2. Political power
3. Political power

Remember when your out there tomorrow go heavy on the sob stories, its for our children, the government is evil liars, the jews want to rule the world and they are waisting our money.

Please keep in mind that your positions at our death camps, reeducation camps and slave labour camps are being delayed by religious values that should soon be undermined completely. I want to see more links to the Kremlin sponsored web.

Yours forever,

Stalin

How to partition Iraq
Partitioning Iraq isn't exactly rocket science. There's a population divided into mutually hostile groups. Let those groups do what they really enjoy doing--killing each other, until there's a partition. That's how you partition Iraq. It won't be pretty, but what is pretty in that part of the planet?

Which is it?
This is a curious observation.

Half of the folks slam Pat for suggesting that President Bush would attack Iran in August. They seem to say that the very idea of an imminent escalation of hostilities is a manifestation of Pat's paranoia and hatred of the President.

The other half slam Pat for not supporting the idea of an imminent attack on Iran, for which they're apparently in favor.

So, is Pat right about the attack on Iran starting soon, but wrong not to support it or is Pat wrong about an imminent attack, but he should be supporting one anyway, even if it's just a manifestation of his hatred and paranoia?

Support our Troops...

BRING THEM HOME!

You may find the following to be interesting.

"The breakdown of military spending on the election...

This is from Q2 2007 fundraising for the Republicans AND Democrats. The majority of the money went to Republicans as is expected, but the winner is Ron Paul.

[Candidate], Army, Navy, USAF, USMC, Veterans, TOTAL
Ron Paul, 6975, 7765, 4650, 1500, 1250, 22140
McCain, 6225, 6480, 1570, 1600, 800, 16675
Romney, 2051, 0, 1500, 0, 1000, 4551
Giuliani, 1450, 370, 250, 0, 250, 2320
Hunter, 0, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 1000
Richardson, 50, 750, 0, 0, 0, 800
Huckabee, 250, 0, 500, 0, 0, 750
Tancredo, 350, 0, 0, 0, 0, 350
Brownback, 71, 0, 0, 0, 0, 71
Thompson, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

Ron Paul was #1 in contributions from military personnel."

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-best-q2-fundraising-from-soldiers.html

Dr. Paul, as you might know, voted against going into Iraq from the very beginning, believing we should stay focused on those who attacked us, who now have escaped to Pakistan and rebuilt.

-----------
Ron Paul for President '08 -- "HOPE FOR AMERICA"
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm
His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2

“...the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.” – Chuck Muth

"If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. – Walter Williams

Judge Andrew Napolitano describes Congressman Ron Paul as the "Thomas Jefferson of our day." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control." -- Gun Owners of America

“I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

PV
"Time For Pat to go
Just like most of our long-in-the-tooth politicians of both stripes, journalists like Pat and Novak have outlived their usefulness.

They are shells of what they once were and all of them and us would be much better if they took up golf full time."

--------

Interesting comments, PV. Are you also one who believes the Constitution to be outdated? How about our country's sovereignty and heritage? Is that outdated too? Hey, maybe freedom is a thing of the past in your book too, PV.

If we want to have a country much longer, we'd damn sure better start remembering what set this country apart from all the rest. Hint: It had something to do with some people, long ago, who PV would probably call antiquated, who devised for us the greatest form of government the world had ever seen. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what form of government he and the rest of the Framers had given us remarked, "A Republic M'am, if you can keep it." Apparently, we forgot.

The greatest experiment in the history of mankind will soon be over, if we don't start remembering right now.

Pat will be remembered...
Pat will be remembered for standing against the lunacy of Bush's globalist idealism. The bizarre views of Bush & Co. have obscured the vast problems the "long war" will make for our country. Bushism is strange; it is blindly idealistic, imagining that American power can do absolutely anything, and yet hideously short-sighted. I can readily imagine that Bush will instigate (with proper provocation out of LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin playbook) some sort of action against iran. It will look very flashy on TV--probably lots of shock and awe, and do about as much good as that did. What may well follow is some sort of embogment (that's my new word, combining "bogged down" with "embedded") that will cost a lot of American lives and accomplish about as much as the surge is really doing in Iraq.

In doing this, Bush's political strategy will be to emphasize the imminent threat Iran poses to the US, hoping to generate a domestic patriotic surge that will elect a Republican president in 08. That Republican will be committed to more of the same in the Middle East, with more of the same results. [The Republicans can hammer on religious/moral issues to put them over the top; expect another wave of anti-gay marriage referenda--they worked well in 04, so they might as well be rolled out again for 08.] Religious and moral rhetoric will be piled onto patriotic bombast so the Republicans will keep the White House.

Now you'd expect me to say that a Democrat in the White House will be great, but I'm not so sure. The last thing we need is some sort of leftwing peace-mongering and dissing of our military, and I'm afraid that's what the Dems will serve up.

What's needed is someone who can understand competent advice about the real danger: the emerging "long war" of Islam against the West, that my children will be paying for, and in which my future grandchildren, if any, will be fighting. Is there any potential candidate who can see past the next news cycle to look ahead a few years? If so, I haven't heard of him.
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.