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, August 28, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Has Bush Boxed Himself In?
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?


As Americans anguish over how to extricate this country from Iraq without a disaster greater than what we now have, and without our friends suffering the fate of our friends in Cambodia and Vietnam, they had best brace themselves. This escalator is going up.

George Bush and his generals are laying out the case for a new war. And there has been no resistance offered either by a vacationing Congress or the major presidential candidates.

On CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, No. 2 commander in Iraq, said, "It is clear to me that (the Iranians) have been stepping up their support" for enemy fighters in Iraq.

"They do it from providing weapons, ammunition, specifically mortars and explosively formed projectiles. ... They are conducting training within Iran of Iraqi extremists to come back here and fight the United States."

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said his troops were following 50 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who have been crossing the border and training fighters in Iraq. The State Department is about to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Earlier in August, President Bush directly charged Tehran with aiding Iraqi insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers:

"I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq ... to send the message that there will be consequences for ... people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs, that kill American troops."

The EFPs are roadside bombs that penetrate Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Abrams tanks. They have taken the lives of scores of U.S. soldiers.

Whether Bush has made the decision to attack the al Quds training camps inside Iran, he has painted himself into a corner.

If he does not strike the camps, he will be mocked by the War Party as a weak commander in chief, too timid to use U.S. power to protect soldiers he sent into battle or to punish those killing them.

Thus, Bush must either announce that his diplomacy has worked, and attacks out of Iran have diminished or been halted, or he will have to explain why the Top Gun of the carrier Lincoln was too wimpish to do his duty by the soldiers he sent to fight.

Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on Al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war, and for having assured the American people it would be a "cakewalk."

The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.

Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.

As for Bush and Cheney, if they go home without hitting Iran's nuclear sites, and Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the Bush Doctrine will have been defied by the Ayatollah as well as Kim Jong-il, and their legacy will be a no-win war in Iraq.

The War Party is thus seeking an excuse to launch air strikes on Iran, as that would trigger Iranian counterstrikes on our forces. Then they will have their long-sought casus belli for U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. First, the al Quds camps, then Natanz, Isfahan and Bushewr.

Initially, Americans might cheer the bombing of Iran, and Congress would head for the tall grass. But as U.S. strikes would be an act of war, rallying the Iranians behind the failing regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and igniting a long war the end of which we cannot see and the troops for which we do not have, there are powerful arguments against a new war.

Iran and the United States would both pay a hellish price, and Iran at least seems to recognize it. Both the Iraqi and Afghan governments say Iran is behaving as a good neighbor. There is evidence Tehran's nuclear program is faltering, or being curbed. Iran is said to be making concessions to U.N. inspectors.

Iran has released an American seized in response to our seizure of five Iranian "diplomats" in Iraq. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, in a letter to the Washington Post, denies Iran is aiding the Iraqi insurgency and calls on the U.S. government to "proffer evidence" and "provide the list of Iranian agents who it alleges are operating in Iraq."

If there is a rush to war here, it is not on the part of Iran.

As Bush is preparing for war on Iran, if he has not already decided on war, where is Congress, which alone has the constitutional power to authorize a war?

Or has it given Bush and Cheney another blank check?

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
Dyerje
"We should most definitely take out any Qods camps inside Iraq. But we should issue an ultimatum to Iran at the same time: remove all its forces from Iraq, and cease support to other transnational terrorists and Iraqi insurgents, or we will destroy Iran's entire armed forces and warmaking apparatus, including its nuclear program. The first hostage taken by any Islamic terrorist, anywhere, in the wake of this warning will call down this sentence on Iran."

You forgot a very important part of what holds the Mullahs in power. If we take out their oil refinery and pipelines of refined gasoline, the people of Iran will be shrieking at the mullahs to cease aggression against the US. It could be a match that ignites a popular revolt against the theocracy there. I know a couple Iranians here in the US, and they would support such action to take back their country.

To SteveL: Why Iraq
You are laughably way off base as to why we removed Saddam from power. America did not gratuitously seek war when, in coalition with other nations (most particularly Great Britain), military force was authorized by Congress and used to remove a murderous rogue tyrant in Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq for, among other things: being in material breach of 17 United Nations arms resolutions going back to the first Gulf War; supporting global terrorism in allowing the operation in Iraq of terrorist training camps; paying for suicide bombers and allowing certain terrorists to operate in Iraq; having and seeking weapons of mass destruction that all believed he had (and according to Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada did have and moved to Syria in the prolonged run up to the invasion); and using a weapon of mass destruction in nerve gas against the Kurds killing thousands. A generally ineffective United Nations in this case was further corrupted and incapacitated by Saddam in the Oil-for-Food scandal.

To SteveL
Read carefully what I wrote: that I cannot imagine Ronald Reagan doing anything less than George W. Bush. I can easily imagine Ronald Reagan doing much more; I don't disagree with you at all; and we do need to do more. One of the problems is that we need a much larger Army and Marine Corps. Rumsfeld was too enamored of special forces and "lean" operations and Bush relied on Rumsfeld. There is no getting away from having an Army and Marine Corps large enough for what we need to do.

Iran
To those of you hot for a war with Iran, how are we going to do it. This would be a much bigger task than even Iraq. We do not have the troops and as Buchanan says we would be bogged down there for years while Asia takes over the economic leadership of the world and probably military as well. You must be absolutly delusional.

To joe_sixpack
What you are defining as conservatism, and I think incorrectly, is a pre-World War II viewpoint that was anti-foreigner, too often anti-Semitic and always isolationist --just what we did not need as we faced German National Socialism and Japanese militaristic imperialism. In today's terms, it would be better termed paleocon.

You can talk all you want about "taking the GOP back" for your paleocon illusion. But you won't have much electoral support; and you won't be able to lead the ocuntry as we did with tyranny's 21st century challenge in radical jihadist Islam.

I write this as one who is pro-life, supports cutting government spending and reducing taxes, supports effective strict law enforcement with respect to immigration, believes the appointment of conservative judges is a priority, opposes the ACLU with a passion and is pro-military. What you call non-foreign intervention, however, I think is a recipe for disaster.

for Phil Byler
Phil Byler writes: "Iraq was not the wrong country. Gauging from your comments, you think there is no right country."

Both of your claims are dead WRONG.

First of all, I know the REAL reasons why the neo-conservatives wanted to knock off Saddam. Those were the original reasons they gave BEFORE 9-11 ever happened, so we can regard those as the most authentic since they weren't trying to link Iraq to the War on Terror yet.

They had TWO separate arguments, both totally fallacious:

1. By smashing Iraq, prove to the whole world that America is "indomitable" and has gotten her "hayba" (awesomeness) back that she lost in Vietnam:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm

2. The neo-cons blamed Arafat and Saddam (NOT al-Qaeda, not Saudi Arabia, not Iran) for 90% of the terrorism that had already occurred. Including the 1993 WTC bombing, Khobar towers and the U.S.S. Cole. They said ALL THAT was Saddam trying to humiliate America in revenge for losing the Gulf War of 1991. Laurie Mylroie even claimed that Saddam had plotted the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing! And Paul Wolfowitz bought into most of this crackpottery and then he sold it to Bush.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html

Now that is the historical truth; go read those articles I cited and see for yourself. And with the passage of time, you can see how wrong they were.

Everything else the neo-cons have said since 9-11 has been an excuse, a case of moving the goalposts, blatant public relations or outright lies. EVERYTHING.

Bush has to STOP LYING and admit just what Wolfowitz had sold him and what PNAC had sold him. Before 9-11.

for Phil Byler
Phil Byler writes: "After 9/11, I don't see Ronald Reagan would have done anything less than what the real George W. Bush has done."

Reagan had instituted a MASSIVE military buildup that would have enabled him to put 500,000 troops into Iraq. How do we know that? Because that's the number that Bush 41 did send during the Gulf War.

Reagan believed in "peace through strength," not this minimalist "small footprint" theory of Rumsfeld. And if we had sent a Reagan-size army into Iraq instead of what Rumsfeld/Bush did send, we would have won this war by now.

As a "pro-military conservative," I would have thought that you would be FURIOUS that Bush didn't call for MAJOR MOBILIZATION of our armed forces after 9-11, with a quick reconstitution of at least 4 new Army divisions plus a tripling of the Special Forces, bringing defense spending up to at least 5% of GDP by his 2nd term. But you're really NOT a "pro-military conservative"--you're a Bush fan who has so emotionally bonded with Bush that you don't see how BUSH LOST THE WAR ON TERROR for the rest of us.

Including your own son, who is fighting under a Bush/Rumsfeld strategy that has made his job MUCH harder than it should be.

for Phil Byler
Phil Byler writes: "After 9/11, I don't see Ronald Reagan would have done anything less than what the real George W. Bush has done."

Reagan had instituted a MASSIVE military buildup that would have enabled him to put 500,000 troops into Iraq. How do we know that? Because that's the number that Bush 41 did send during the Gulf War.

Reagan believed in "peace through strength," not this minimalist "small footprint" theory of Rumsfeld. And if we had sent a Reagan-size army into Iraq instead of what Rumsfeld/Bush did send, we would have won this war by now.

As a "pro-military conservative," I would have thought that you would be FURIOUS that Bush didn't call for MAJOR MOBILIZATION of our armed forces after 9-11, with a quick reconstitution of at least 4 new Army divisions plus a tripling of the Special Forces, bringing defense spending up to at least 5% of GDP by his 2nd term. But you're really NOT a "pro-military conservative"--you're a Bush fan who has so emotionally bonded with Bush that you don't see how BUSH LOST THE WAR ON TERROR for the rest of us.

Including your own son, who is fighting under a Bush/Rumsfeld strategy that has made his job MUCH harder than it should be.

To Geroge W Bush
Iraq was not the wrong country. Gauging from your comments, you think there is no right country.

Derek is right on
*********************
Derek Leaberry writes:
Pat and Phil
Pat has fought for the conservative cause for almost fifty years, when conservatism was not in vogue. It was a lonely battle before Reagan. Pat need not justify his credentials to any person on this board or, for that matter, any conservative or neo-"conservative" scribbler in the country.
*********************
Right on the money Derek.

To the person who said Kristol is a conservative and Pat isn't, you need to get a handle on what conservatism means.

The neocons aren't conservative, it's that simple.

It's folks like yourself (and Kristol) who have stolen the Republican Party for non-conservative means, and they've trashed it to no end.

We don't want him (or you) in our party, because we need to rebuild it with actual, true conservatives. Kristol is neither - he's slime, along with Bush and Rove and the rest of the idiots who grow government, spend like drunk sailors and invade nations on a whim and a prayer.

If the Republican Party expects to attract conservatives in this country, they need to start cleaning house. Start with Craig, Rove, Bush, Kristol, Coulter, Gonzalez, McConnell, et al, for these idiots aren't real conservatives, and they're making the GOP a party that actual and real conservatives can't follow.

Take your party back people, for conservatism, and for small government, and for non-foreign intervention, and for secure borders and ports, and for no sex in public bathrooms, and for states' rights, etc.

Take it back for your country, people, and your country will be forever grateful.

WWII
Why did Hitler lose? Once again, opening more fronts than are necessary spells your doom. Lets see, attack Iraq and become China's slave or not.

Phil
What did Reagan do in Lebanon? What did the Soviets do in Afghanistan? That is the reason we won, its not who you attack, its who you don't attack and get in long drawn out conflicts that drain precious resources.

Phil Byler
Reagan wouldn't have attack the wrong country.

Thank you God.
You stood in this hacks way and he lost any chance of getting elected and doing great harm to America.

Brain rot is not a good thing.

Brain rot allow to put anti Jewish crap on this public fourm is plain dumb.

Is there any one awake at the helm of Town Hall this man is evil and stupid.

No this poster is not a Bush Bot, in fact anti Bush conservative from Texas, former Navy attached to operation igloo white Vietnam, 1966 to 1969, and as bad as Liedon Johnson was he was gold compared to this fool.

Have a nice day, Pat,

give it up, your a pure Jew hater now.

Saddam- No Jihadist
Although an evil man, Saddam Hussein was always a secular Islamic and never part of a radical Islamic network. Leaving him in power would not have damaged America as long as he stayed within his borders and kept his oil flowing. Evil governments cross the globe- North Korea, Red China, Zimbabwe, Cuba and many others. Yet we do not fight them.

Conservatives rightly backed the Cold War for more than forty years. But for the occasional terror strike, radical Islamics are impotent as long as they are isolated to the Middle East. Radical Islamics' powere projection pales in comparison to the old USSR. Radical Islamics are more of a problem at present in that their birth rates are much higher than those of the West and Western leaders, George W. Bush inclusive, have stupidly allowed followers of Islam to immigrate to the West. The Islamic hives nested in the West are a greater danger than Saddam ever was.

It comes to mind that many conservatives, after forty years of hating a vile enemy in the guise of Soviet communism, psychologically need another dragon to slay. Radical Islamics seem to be fulfilling a need right now. However, having some sort of need to slay dragons is not a mature manner for conservatives to behave.

To Derek Leaberry
Real conservatives support the Iraq War because like communism, radical Islamism is a hateful system that threatens to impose tyranny and destruction.

As for real conservatives being "prudent," it would not have been prudent to leave Saddam Hussein in power. Real conservatives are adults who know that as difficult as things might be given the steps taken, the alternative of doing nothing would have been far, far worse.

Bill Kristol is a real conservative. Pat Buchanan is not.

no israel... no problem....
Pat, like all America Firsters, longs for the days where we didn't have to fight battles for pariahs like israel.

With friends like israel, who needs enemies?

The best thing for America is to change our foreign policy in the world and not take sides in other people's conflicts. We don't need israel's problems. We certainly don't need to implicate ourselves by supporting israel over the scumbag palistinians either.

America need not have this little parasite causing problems for us via their enemies.

For all those that want to call me names, spare it. I'm an America Firster, not a zionist pig like you all. If you're so gung ho about supporting israel, please move there yourself and put your own life on the line.

Don't be a keyboard coward that you are.

America wins when israel is dealt with accordingly. Maybe putin can help us and use some polonium with America's enemies at aipac?

Avi

To "George W Bush" re 4:10 PM Post
After 9/11, I don't see Ronald Reagan would have done anything less than what the real George W. Bush has done.

Iraq War- Not Conservative
Traditional conservatives like Buchanan supported the Cold War because communism was a hateful system that was heavily armed and aggressive. The Soviet Union was a vicious power with an army of 4 million, 50,000 tanks, 50,000 artillery pieces, 30,000 nuclear warheads, 10,000 aircraft, and nearly 1000 naval vessels. On the other hand, the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, although led by a hateful man, was effectively quarantined after being defeated in 1991. Iraq could no longer project power after 1991. Consequently, the Iraq invasion and occupation has been a waste of lives and money, an ill-conceived adventure initiated by a foolish and delusional president.

The prudent conservatism of Russell Kirk and James Burnham would have maintained that the Middle East is a cauldron whose only importance to the United States is the oil that comes from the soil of the Middle East. The ideological Wilsonianism of the false conservatives who go by the name neo-conservatism has never been part of historic conservatism. Crusades to force the Middle East to adopt democratic government(which itself is not a conservative goal) is not part of the conservative mindset.

The sooner neo-conservatives like Bill Kristol are driven from the ranks of true conservatives, the better. Sadly, it may take the death of Rupert Murdoch, who has acted as the moneybags of American neo-conservatism. Rupert Murdoch's heirs no doubt will have better use for Murdoch's money than to subsidize neo-conservative journals. And Murdoch is 75 years old.

To tanabear
Your assertion that Iranians are not involved in the provision of a multitude of arms to radical jidadists and radical Shiite militiamen in Iraq is just plain ignorant and dumb on your part. The Iranians are so engaged. You can sit here in this country and spout off your ignorance, but our troops, including my U.S. Army First Lieutenant son serving as a platoon leader in Iraq, are dealing every day with the consequences of the fact that the Iranains are serving as the arms merchant to the jihadists in Iraq.

my 2 cents
I have occasionally visited here and there and told you folks about MEMRI - Mid East Media Research Institute. To me it is an invaluable tool in trying to understand what is going on there and I have also said frequently "Let them speak for themselves."

So here I go again.

SD # 1696, August 24, 2007

Jordanian Parliamentary Speaker: Iran's Intervention in Iraq - Product of Historical Conflict Between Arabs and Persians

People in the mid-east think in terms of decades, and for the most part we here in the USA are incapable of that. That is what our enemies are counting on - that we will run out of the will to sustain the fight. Because they WON'T. They don't care how many people die, they don't care how many children are sacrificed. They just don't care.

We do - they don't.

And, for those who could use a laugh in these troubled times, I present this one

SD #1691, August 22, 2007 -

The Heavy Metal Music Scene in Tehran

Don't believe me? Check it out.

(I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!!!)

To Liberty & Derek Leaberry
Liberty and Derek Leaberry, my point that Pat Buchanan no longer should be regarded as conservative is based on what he is writing. You can say Buchanan is conservative all you want and cite past service as such, but that does not make him a conservative today. Buchanan is an isolationist and defeatist, and his arguments borrow from the left wing page of hysterical attacks. Benedict Arnold was one of the best and bravest American generals in the American Revolution until he betrayed his country. I think that what Buchanan writes is terribly ill-advised because we as a nation need to face up to the challenge of radical Islam. Buchanan's isolationsism and hysteria is as bad now as it would have been before WWII when we faced the challenge of German National Socialism and Japanese militaristic imperalism.

Liberty, your list of what supposedly neoconservatives believe in is just off the wall. I don't care who says they like the list. You are arguing using a strawman. Deal with the facts in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. And for your information, I regard myself as a pro-military national security conservative, and I don't read and have never read Leo Strauss.

Liberty
I don't know where you get your neo-con hatred /dribble. I suggest you read the Encylopedia of American Conservatism.

dyerje
It's also hard to believe Pat ever worked for Reagan as well.

Georgetwin writes:
'Pat hates The Bush Family. Pat is smarter than The Bush Family. Israel is Evil.'

As I count it two out of three are correct. Now which two are they?

OK Liberty
I am glad you agree we should butt out of other peoples' business. That is the position that I openly state in my Campaign Platform.

My complaint with Pat is that he keeps talking about Iran, but he never offers a solid plan of how to deal with them WHILE THEY ARE ACTIVELY KILLING AMERICANS!

As for the Iraq war, it is well past too late to worry about how we got there. What we need to do is finish the job that we started, and make sure the next time we MUST go to war, that we do it the correct way. That is not, by the way, an endorsement for more war.

What is ultimately needed in this country is for the American people to wake up and reclaim their birthright, which the elites have stolen from us all. The best way to start that is to deny them the Presidency. If we do not, they will continue on with their internationalist, one world government agenda. That is something we cannot allow to be passed on to our children.
Hence, my candidacy for President in 2008. I urge you to check out the website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. You will not be disappointed. Thanks, Joe

Derek Leaberry
Right on!

Pat and Phil
Pat has fought for the conservative cause for almost fifty years, when conservatism was not in vogue. It was a lonely battle before Reagan. Pat need not justify his credentials to any person on this board or, for that matter, any conservative or neo-"conservative" scribbler in the country.

If
If Bush attacks Iran and sends petrol prices to $ 100 + a barrel for 2008, Hillary Clinton can measure carpet for the Oval Office and Bill can buy boxes of his favorite cigar, to be used with his lady friends in the Oval Office while Presidet Clinton is away.

The obsession that neo-conservatives have for military action in the Middle East is destroying the Conservative Movement. It is counterproductive. All the United States should want in the Middle East is cheap oil and that is all.

Pat's limited horizons
Buchanan demonstrates yet again that his vision is limited. He can see only the option of simply attacking Iran, if we deem that nation to be a problem -- with the corollary that if we attack Iranian Qods force camps in Iraq, that will be a form of brinkmanship on our part, provoking war.

It's hard to believe this guy ever worked for Nixon.

I would enter the caveat here that there have been apparent limitations in the strategic vision of the Bush administration as well. Bush and his advisors may or may not see the highest-payoff way to address Iran.

But the great factor in our favor with Iran is that it is a nation-state with a central will to be opposed. This type of enemy is ideally suited for intimidation -- not just blunt attack, but the use of threat and warning -- with America's high card: unexcelled conventional force. What does not work against decentralized terrorist groups DOES work against a nation.

We should most definitely take out any Qods camps inside Iraq. But we should issue an ultimatum to Iran at the same time: remove all its forces from Iraq, and cease support to other transnational terrorists and Iraqi insurgents, or we will destroy Iran's entire armed forces and warmaking apparatus, including its nuclear program. The first hostage taken by any Islamic terrorist, anywhere, in the wake of this warning will call down this sentence on Iran.

We don't need to invade Iran with armor and infantry to execute this threat. We can do it from the air, and with special forces. Iran knows that. Iran would shriek in fury. But Iran would comply.

Iraq & Iran
When Iraq and Iran were at war, we supported Saddam Hussein. Then we went in and took him out, even though Bush admits Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Now the neocons are saying that we can't leave Iraq, because Iran will come in and fill the power vacuum. Well, duh!! Have we got a screwed up Middle East policy, or what!?

Same Column, Different Day
Pat hates The Bush Family. Pat is smarter than The Bush Family. Israel is Evil.

ENOUGH YOU SENILE FOOL!

WRTITE A DIFFERENT COLUMN!

Liberty
Thanks for your last post, which I thought was especially good. I have copied and emailed it to friends.

Neoconservatives' belief set
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means…that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Phil Byler
"I have been writing for months that we need to stop thinking of Pat Buchanan as a conservative."

Actually, Pat is very much a conservative. What you seem to want Phil, is to promote the Democratic agenda and neoconservatism. It has always been the Democrats who hailed war and using our military to enforce UN sanctions. The very things that the neoconservatives are pushing today. It's not surprising really. As neoconservatives are steeped in Trotsky and Strauss and came from the Democratic party. There is nothing "conservative" about neoconservatism.

my 2 cents
After reading Buchanan's column and then reading the posts herein I have come to the rather yucky conclusion that the ragheads and the mullhs and the rioters don't understand us any better than we understand them.

And that is scary.

Joe Oliva
..."or else we should butt out of other peoples' business"

BINGO! How about we do THAT.

What business is it of ours to dictate to other countries their form of government or who their leader is, as long as they are friendly to our country? Answer: It's not.

George Washington had it right. We should butt out of other countries' business, not entwine our affairs, talk to them, trade with them....
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

It was always the DEMOCRATS who wanted war. Does anyone remember??? It was Republicans that got us out of war! Even Dubya ran on a platform of minding our own business; no nation-building. Then, 9-11 happened and that was used as an EXCUSE to carry out the plan to overthrow Saddam that was put in place DURING CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION!. It is called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Iraq never had a thing to do with 9-11. We have been duped.

Our attackers are sitting in PAKISTAN.

If the answer...
is war each time an 'enemy' of ours goes nuclear then the question can not be what is the smartest thing we could do to blunt the nuclear threat?

At one time Saddam H was our ally. He expanded his ambitions which did not agree with the globalist mentality of GHWB so we ran Saddam out of Kuwait. Was that the smartest thing we could do?

The real enemy is in Saudi Arabia. The radical muslims are extremely anti-American. Why didn't we let Saddam take them and kick their butts? This would have kept him busy and would have cleaned up a mess at the same time. Saddam would have subdued the wackos in much the same way the Caliphat dealt with them in the past.

So back to Iran. Who could be their enemy besides Israel? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Pakistan? We should tell these people that if Iran is not backed off we will pull out of Iraq and leave the mess for them to deal with. Don't you think Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Pakistan would not want an Iran that has growth ambitions?

Sometimes the best way to beat your enemy is to empower their enemies to beat them. Why does the USA have to be the one? The globalists will use the biggest stick to force their agenda. When the USA isn't the biggest stick they will drop us like a hot potato.

correction
greatest risk of "it" -- a nuclear explosion in our country.

In free fall w/o free press
Israel is long overdue for answering to crimes against humanity, but our press in not free enough to permit publication of truth on the issues. That truth makes us evil in the eyes of most of the world.

The trillion we are destined to spend on Iraq did not buy us one barrel of oil, yet we could likely have purchased much more oil than all the reserves of Iraq (and at sharply discounted prices in ground, perhaps prepaid for two decades of our consumption). How many Israels or Palestines could we have bought and built anew for a trillion? Facts and international law do not matter to Israel. Anything long unaccountable would stink, and Israel is no exception.

Those in the know fear that the greatest risk of it is from Israeli false flag operation (and I do not separate our own neocons). The neocons manipulate public opinion in this country via coordinated articles, as have been published against Iran and muslims and in favor of torture and our use of nuclear weapons. Our next “pre-emptive” war will paint that target on our back; and the cost to your loved ones and mine in retaliation will be too much to bear, not to mention the cost in economics or the total loss of our country and our freedoms.

Webster Griffin Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism (free online) should be required reading for any patriot. Mr. Tarpley was summa c. laude Princeton, and his book is a great, quick read. He has two pages of vitriolic criticism for GW and Clinton (as he has written a book critical of one or both previously), which was the only hard portions for me, as the rest is predominantly little known fact and history. It reads better than, but akin to, a spy thriller because it is from the perspective of the world’s intelligence agencies.

Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs and Paul Craig Roberts are each great Americans who have not subjugated their love of this country to Israel and the extremists who control it (and us).


ApolloSpeaks
It is interesting to hear you say the Iranian mullahs and our president have something in common...namely their rigidity, or, to put it another way, stubborness.

You may be on to something there.

Actually, Iranians had offered to assist us in going after the Taliban(which harbored the radical sunni sect of Al Qaida), in the aftermath of 9/11. There had been bad blood between the two.

Iran should be grateful, for not only did Bush eliminate one of Iran's most despised foes, Saddam Hussein, but our president also attacked the Taliban, another foe of Iran.

Of course we had no choice but to attack the Taliban and Al Qaida, but it is hard to argue that our actions have not benefited Iran.

Those darn mullahs have a strange way of showing their appreciation.

WAR PARTY?

.....Pat ...I like that ...

.....Let the real red blooded Americans split off from the RINO's and Wimps in the Republican Party ...they don't even have the gonads to stand up to the Democrats much less the Islamo-fascists in Iran ...

.....The War Party sounds much more macho than the GOP (Grand Old Party) ...and it leaves no doubt in the minds of our enemies about our intentions ...

....The first thing that the President of the War Party should do is to dump the Department of "Defense" moniker and return to the WWII "Department of War" with a strong hawkish "Secretary of War" to run the show ...

.....Americas needs to get back on offense ...we have been playing prevent defense for too long .....COLOSSUS

PATRICK: America won the Iraq war ...what we are failing at is Nation Building ...

KANAAN: Nixon's diplomacy was to bomb Hanoi back to the stone age if they did not sign the peace treaty in Paris ...they signed it ...Nixon pulled out the troops ...the Democrats broke Nixons peace treaty in 1975 and stabbed the South in the back when they voted to cut off all aid and air support to Saigon .....COLOSSUS

Pat Buchanan should join the Dems,
not because he is opposed to war, but because he promotes policies that have no basis in knowledge or facts.

Apparently everyone except Pat knows that Iran is supplying weapons and training that are killing Americans. Against this, Pat has a list of so-so, maybe conditions of why we should be nice to these guys:
1. Iraqi & Afghan govts. say Iran is being nice
2. There is evidence (somewhere) that their nuke program is faltering.
3. Iran is said to be making concessions (no one knows what they are however)to inspectors.
4. They released (on bail) one of six people illegally arrested.
5. The Iranian ambassador says he is a nice guy.

Really Pat, if you were elected in 2008, EXACTLY how would you deal with the wonderful but misunderstood Iranian madmen?

While American foreign policy has for too long intervened where we should not have done so, to give a free pass to the Iranians is a mistake. We can take agressive military action if we wanted to, carefully target nuclear sites, and eventually the Iranian leadership, all without moving a single troop on the ground. The arrest of the six academics and the weapons and training of those who kill Americans are reason enough to act.

Our foreign policy should be tough when it really matters, or else we should butt out of other peoples' business. If Pat wishes to make the case that this is a time to butt out, then do so with real facts and a real plan. To simply tuck tail and run because he is afraid of the mullahs is foolish and as always, weakness invites more trouble, not less.

For more info on foreign policy and other issues for the 2008 campaign, visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. You will be encouraged at the possibilities. Thanks, Joe

Limits
The President may also simply be using the threat to obtain the diplomatic concessions he's looking for. Whatever the case, he has two limitations to confront. The first is that our forces are entirely committed, so this cannot be a ground war nor a war of occupation. If we cannot bring our troops home from Iraq until we've created more stability than is currently the case, we cannot equally pull them out of Iraq and send them over to Iran. A second is that Iran has learned the lesson of the bombing of their first reactor, and our intelligence reports that much of their nuclear activity has been dispersed or taken underground. As a result, bombing is not the same option as it once was, given that we no longer have a target such as the Israelis have. We could bomb, but it may not be effective.

For a more realistic assessment
untainted by antipathy to the current administration, access Stratfor's Geopolitical Intelligence Report for 8/27/2007.

Here's how to support our brave military
Do something to support our troops besides putting a yellow ribbon on the back of your vehicle. Coming up in Sept. is a massive nationwide effort to support our troops and their mission. Check out:

http://www.moveamericaforward.com

to see how you can be a part of it. Get off your duff and do something constructive.

Border problems
Maybe Bush should make a greater effort at protecting the Iraq/Iran border. For some reason he and his advisors don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of border protection. Anywhere!

It is time to stand up.
Are we certain no Iranians were among the 9/11 hijackers? We all know the mainstream media distorts things to make the president look bad. It would not want us to know some of the 9/11 hijackers were Iranians, just like it didn't want us to know some of the 9/11 hijackers were given their orders by Saddam.

We all know our nation, under our wise commander-in-chief, would not now be in Iraq, had Saddam not attacked us on 9/11.

We must go after the evil-doers.

Our all-volunteer military can handle another war. Our president knows best. He has already given us our marching orders. He has asked the American people to do what we can in this war on terror...by going shopping.

I did my part. Bought a really cool 4 wheel drive pick-up truck.

Americans oppose war with Iran 2-1
It's long overdue to stop following Israel's agenda and start following our own. Americans oppose war with Iran 2-1. But I doubt the same could be said of Congress which collectively put their snouts in the AIPAC trough.

Bush has demonstrated very effectively that he cannot win in Iraq, a nation with 1/4 the population of more mountainous Iran.

All that the saber-rattling about Iran does is push gas prices higher at the pump as the panicky oil market responds.

Someone above mentioned that if the US doesn't do it, that Israel will. But Israel is a joke that couldn't even defeat the Lebanese next door.

As for the nutball Tre Belcho who claims Buchanan is a "liberal" much-loved by the MSM, I would suggest that George Washington was no liberal and that Buchanan is probably motivated by his words:

"The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

-George Washington

Leftist Nitwit Buchanan
Pat Buchanan shows himself to be a leftist nitwit with this article. Radical Islamic Iran is on an aggressive march and is a supplier of arms and bombs to the jiadists in Iraq used to attack our troops, yet Buchanan accuses George Bush of being a warmonger. Perhaps Buchanan has a soft place in his heart for the radical Islamic leaders of Iran because they also call Israel "Little Satan" and have threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

I have been writing for months that we need to stop thinking of Pat Buchanan as a conservative. His foreign policy views echo those of George McGovern ("Come Home America") and fit in quite well with the leftists at MSNBC and the left wing of the Democrat Party.

Buchanan with head in the sand!
What about IRAN sending agents and armaments, into IRAQ is not a REASON FOR WAR?

How did Bush lie "the country into an unnecessary war"? Didn't he just restated the facts that were stated by the previous administration?

No wonder the MSM loves this guy, says he is a conservitive and sounds line a liberal, probably why he never got the Presidental nomination! Buchanan ignores the fact that the younger generaton of IRANIANS are pro-America and it is the ISLAMIC Ayatollah's who are the repressors there. What a weak argument from a MSM maverick!

Better us than Israel
Let's just hope that Bush takes a page from the Nixon book: how to leverage American power to make the deal without stomping around the globe like a big dumb ape (Iraq). Maybe he's getting advice from Jim Baker on how to make Iran pee their pants a little without actually shooting like a stupid, clumsy idiot (Iraq). Let them save face, give them a sweetheart deal, but they have got to back down. It's either us or Israel, but Iran is not going to get nukes. I do not want to see Israel between a rock and a hard place on this, because they will shoot.
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.