Pat Buchanan on Dubya.

[Guest web_norah]

A nation's foreign policy is bankrupt, Walter Lippmann wrote, when its strategic assets, its arms and alliances, are insufficient to cover its liabilities – i.e., its commitments to defend critical territory and vital interests.

Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor and rapid seizure of Guam, Wake Island and the Philippines, Lippmann wrote, revealed the bankruptcy of FDR's prewar policy. Lippmann apologized for having supported the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 that permitted Imperial Japan to gain naval parity with the United States in the Pacific.

U.S. foreign policy today is surely not bankrupt. The United States has a surplus of power to cover its vital interests. But, with his rhetoric, President Bush has been handing out promissory notes that our military and alliances cannot cover, if called in.

To the architects of this war, Iraq was to be a projection of U.S. power, a strategic base camp flanking and paralyzing the rogue states of Iran and Syria, an Arab democracy that would attract the admiration and envy of other peoples, producing a domino effect across the Middle East. Thus far, that has turned out to be a myth.

Iraq today appears as an exposed salient, a bridge too far, a war against a dispossessed Sunni minority that we can neither win nor walk away from without its becoming the haven for terrorists it never was before we invaded. Half our army is now either in Iraq, has been through Iraq or is on the way. U.S. Reserve and Guard units, which have provided 40 percent of the troops for the war, are no longer meeting recruitment goals.

The cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars is running at $4 billion a month. Manpower pressures on the Army and Marines show us to be nearing imperial overstretch. One by one, allies in the "coalition of the willing" are peeling off and pulling out. Even the New York Times is calling for an expansion of U.S. ground forces by 100,000.

To get the money for the new brigades, the Pentagon is cutting back the F-22 Raptor interceptor, mothballing the John F. Kennedy, one of our 12 carriers, and cutting the purchase of new destroyers.

Under the Bush Doctrine – axis-of-evil nations will not be allowed weapons of mass destruction – Iran and North Korea are on notice not to pursue nuclear arsenals. Yet, Pyongyang is defying the doctrine and Tehran is testing it. No Asian ally has shown any willingness to support us in a confrontation with North Korea. No NATO ally supports a U.S. clash with Iran.

While America has the strategic striking power to devastate their nuclear facilities, we lack the ground forces to deal with an enraged counterstrike by North Korea or Iran. Should Iran retaliate by inciting the Shia to revolt in Iraq and launch attacks on our ships in the Gulf or allies on the south shore, the region could go up in flames and oil could shoot to $80 or $100 a barrel.

Our Arab allies are resisting the Bush-proclaimed "world democratic revolution." But has anyone considered what we would do if it succeeded, and revolutions brought down regimes in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia? How would the United States respond if our indispensable ally in the war against the Taliban, President Musharraf, fell to one of the assassins who have been seeking his death since he cast his lot with America?

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Even more than Iran, it is a nation with a population so large and militant the U.S Army could not invade and hold the country. Yet, our war in Afghanistan depends upon the survival of this one man.

Then, there is the neoconservative drive to expand NATO to the Ukraine of the Orange Revolution. But if Putin was offended by NATO's expansion into the Baltic republics, to bring in Ukraine – tied to Russia by history, faith and geography – would be to humiliate and enrage Moscow. And for what? Can anyone believe that if eastern Ukraine broke free of Kiev and asked for support, and the Kremlin responded, we would go to war?

Then there is the Bush commitment to do "whatever it took" to defend Taiwan. Despite that pledge, Beijing continues to ratchet up the rhetoric against Taiwan and build up its naval, air and missile forces across the strait. Everywhere, it appears, the shock and awe of Operation Iraqi Freedom seems to have worn off.

How, then, do our ledgers read? America has a surplus of power to protect vital interests. But with allies alienated and forces stretched, she does not have the power to maintain a Pax Americana or carry out the promiscuous commitments made by President Bush in his first term, as his second shall almost surely demonstrate.

there is something viciously wrong here but i happen to feel some of Buchanan's views on Dubya. oh Lord.

[V. Barbarino]

the glass is half empty to him..

we are 3 weeks away from elections in Iraq. Afganistan is doing really well, and what if Iraq succeds?

Monday morning quarter backing is one thing, but we are still in the 3rd quarter..

Give Bush a chance to proove himself right or wrong.

[Guest web_norah]

who cares about Iraq?

all republicans

thats so 2003

tired.........................................

[Guest saintjohn]

i happen to feel some of Buchanan's views on Dubya.

web_norah finding common ground with Pat Buchanan? Is this a sign of the impending Apocalypse?

As for Iraq, the pundits are trying to cover their asses, as usual, regardless of how it all eventually plays out.

The "prevailing wisdom" was that Afghanistan would be a "quagmire," but special operations forces had the Taliban on the run before the mainstream media even realized what was happening.

After that operation, a number of reporters (and certain members of the Bush administration) started to think that Iraq would go down the same way. Unfortunately, the Saddam Fedayeen had other plans. While the usual nabobs of negativism predicted heavy American casualties during the initial invasion, few expected the "peace" to be more dangerous than the "major combat" phase.

Right now, the talking heads are scrambling to make their previous predictions seem more accurate, and to position themselves for better book deals in the future. Sadly, this isn't about interpreting current events or suggesting solutions to world problems, it's about saying "I told you so" and increasing market share for individual media-savvy "analysts," "experts," and commentators.

Buchanan makes some interesting points, but he's also morally invested in proving everyone else wrong. It's his nature. Remember, this is the same guy who wrote that the United States had no business fighting Germany in World War Two. At best, he's an iconoclast. At worst, he's an opportunistic contrarian. But that doesn't mean he can't be right - if only for the wrong reasons - about Iraq and/or the rest of the world once in a while.

As for me, I remain - as they say at the State Department - cautiously optimistic. I expect that, at some point after the Iraqi elections, the U.S. will be asked to scale back its military presence there. Whether such a move will work as well as Nixon's "Vietnamization" remains to be seen, but I'm absolutely certain that every party involved - the Americans, the Iraqis, and the terrorists - will attempt to claim it as a victory of sorts.

[tgibson]

Give Bush a chance to proove himself right or wrong.

I am sure even the staunchest of dems would love to see a democracy evolve in Iraq even though it would kill them to admit it (which is probably why they never would).

We should all pray it goes well...

[V. Barbarino]

i·con·o·clast Audio pronunciation of "iconoclast" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-kn-klst)

n.

1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

I had to look this one up..

by the way, Firefox makes me smarter with thier built in dictionary...

[Guest web_norah]

i happen to feel some of Buchanan's views on Dubya.

web_norah finding common ground with Pat Buchanan? Is this a sign of the impending Apocalypse?

As for Iraq, the pundits are trying to cover their asses, as usual, regardless of how it all eventually plays out.

The "prevailing wisdom" was that Afghanistan would be a "quagmire," but special operations forces had the Taliban on the run before the mainstream media even realized what was happening.

After that operation, a number of reporters (and certain members of the Bush administration) started to think that Iraq would go down the same way. Unfortunately, the Saddam Fedayeen had other plans. While the usual nabobs of negativism predicted heavy American casualties during the initial invasion, few expected the "peace" to be more dangerous than the "major combat" phase.

Right now, the talking heads are scrambling to make their previous predictions seem more accurate, and to position themselves for better book deals in the future. Sadly, this isn't about interpreting current events or suggesting solutions to world problems, it's about saying "I told you so" and increasing market share for individual media-savvy "analysts," "experts," and commentators.

Buchanan makes some interesting points, but he's also morally invested in proving everyone else wrong. It's his nature. Remember, this is the same guy who wrote that the United States had no business fighting Germany in World War Two. At best, he's an iconoclast. At worst, he's an opportunistic contrarian. But that doesn't mean he can't be right - if only for the wrong reasons - about Iraq and/or the rest of the world once in a while.

As for me, I remain - as they say at the State Department - cautiously optimistic. I expect that, at some point after the Iraqi elections, the U.S. will be asked to scale back its military presence there. Whether such a move will work as well as Nixon's "Vietnamization" remains to be seen, but I'm absolutely certain that every party involved - the Americans, the Iraqis, and the terrorists - will attempt to claim it as a victory of sorts.

note to self-- FOREIGN POLICY points made on this article.

i dont like Buchanan or anything he stands for, he is an anti semite, a racist basically and anti women. can someone get more conservative than this man? not really. i happen to think he makes very interesting points here. dont read too much between the lines.

ask any other woman who reads politics and stays informed.

ask anyone here ...see how they really feel about racist Buchanan.

[tgibson]

Isn't Buchanan a just a big protectionist/isolationist who also believes that the US shouldn't help with ANY problems outside it's borders and keep the borders closed for trade?

Where has he been called an anti-semite or anti-female? First I've heard of that.

[Guest web_norah]

read and do your research about Buchanan.

Pat Buchanan is a known anti semite and uber Christian conservative....that should be a clue alone.

[Guest JMT]

ive never heard of him being a racist or anti-semite either.

[tgibson]

read and do your research about Buchanan.

Pat Buchanan is a known anti semite and uber Christian conservative....that should be a clue alone.

"Read your research"?

Normally when someone makes claims about someone, I assume they have read theirs...

[Guest web_norah]

you've obviously never heard him speak....here is a little summary for you. he is openly critisiced Israel on many occasions and different topics.....

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/04/pat

Who's afraid of Pat Buchanan?

His spineless Republican rivals and the political punditocracy, that's who.

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

By Jake Tapper

Sept. 4, 1999 | Pat Buchanan is back in the presidential campaign saddle again, leaving a trail of racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic rhetorical dung behind him wherever he goes.

But unlike in his two previous runs, this time around virtually no one seems willing to call him on it. Not the press, not the commentators and, most significantly, not his fellow Republicans. This week, as rumors intensify that Buchanan may bolt for the Reform Party, thereby becoming a significant factor in the presidential race, the silence has become deafening.

"There's no doubt he makes subliminal appeals to prejudice," says conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, one of the few members of the news media willing to speak out about Buchanan's bigotry. "He tries to be subtle, the comments are not direct appeals to prejudice, which is one of the reasons he gets away with it." But the subtle appeal, Krauthammer argues, "is very much heard by his audience."

Subtle, but not too subtle.

You knew who Buchanan was talking about, for example, during the week of the Iowa straw poll when he blamed the farm crisis on "New York bankers" and "the money boys up in New York."

He didn't say "money-grubbing kikes," but it was there, lurking in the subtext.

Or, in a radio interview, when Buchanan justified his anti-immigration policies by insinuating that the character of Mexicans was generally criminal -- "60,000 of them are in our prisons." The "railroad killer" is the kind of person we're going to have more of unless we build up the border patrol, he said.

He didn't say "dangerous wetback drifters." He didn't have to.

And again, during his speech at the straw poll, he promised that, if he were elected, he'd open up China for U.S. trade -- or else China will have sold its "last pair of chopsticks in any mall in the United States of America."

He didn't say "yellow menace" or "Chinks" or "they're not like us" -- not in so many words, anyway -- but he seemed dangerously close to the precipice of actually uttering such words.

Buchanan has a documented history of making these kinds of incendiary comments. In 1992, the Anti-Defamation League charged that Buchanan had shown "a disregard or hostility toward those not like him and a consequent displeasure with the exercise of freedom by these others ... [a] displeasure ... expressed in a 30-year record of intolerance unmatched by any other mainstream political figure."

[ryan2772]

you're quoting an article written by someone else. come on..... :

[tgibson]

So we're just accepting this guy's interpretation?

===================

He didn't say "money-grubbing kikes," but it was there, lurking in the subtext.

He didn't say "dangerous wetback drifters." He didn't have to.

He didn't say "yellow menace" or "Chinks" or "they're not like us" -- not in so many words, anyway -- but he seemed dangerously close to the precipice of actually uttering such words.

[ryan2772]

So we're just accepting this guy's interpretation?

===================

He didn't say "money-grubbing kikes," but it was there, lurking in the subtext.

He didn't say "dangerous wetback drifters." He didn't have to.

He didn't say "yellow menace" or "Chinks" or "they're not like us" -- not in so many words, anyway -- but he seemed dangerously close to the precipice of actually uttering such words.

exactly my point.

[Guest web_norah]

ok, go on and defend Buchanan for his great remarks....makes a hell of a difference when you're a wasp and not someone of color or a minority...

[Guest JMT]

So we're just accepting this guy's interpretation?

===================

He didn't say "money-grubbing kikes," but it was there, lurking in the subtext.

He didn't say "dangerous wetback drifters." He didn't have to.

He didn't say "yellow menace" or "Chinks" or "they're not like us" -- not in so many words, anyway -- but he seemed dangerously close to the precipice of actually uttering such words.

bingo. there is no actual evidence of anything in that editorial.

[tgibson]

ok, go on and defend Buchanan for his great remarks....makes a hell of a difference when you're a wasp and not someone of color or a minority...

I wasn't defending anyone. I just said I had never heard that before and then questioned your research. I assume if you're right there will be a lot of evidence about it. (aside from the normal political-spin media stuff that I bet is out there too)

[ryan2772]

you see? that's research

[tgibson]

you see? that's research

Well done TP...that's pretty solid...I consider myself educated...

[Guest JMT]

direct quotes, facts. im learning.

[Guest web_norah]

you see? that's research

ding! ding! ding!

i dont need the research or facts....i, unlike probably most of you, have heard Pat Buchanan speak several times & dont need "pointing out the obvious instances", to understand that he is a bigot and a racist.........so please get off my **** with your bla bla bla..........

*this coming from someone who claims that dating on Myspace is actually "cool".

as if

[ryan2772]

you see? that's research

ding! ding! ding!

i dont need the research or facts....i, unlike probably most of you, have heard Pat Buchanan speak several times & dont need "pointing out the obvious instances", to understand that he is a bigot and a racist.........so please get off my **** with your bla bla bla..........

*this coming from someone who claims that dating on Myspace is actually "cool".

as if

then stop telling others to do their research. and i didn't say it was "cool" to date chicks on myspace....i just said i did it once.

[tgibson]

you see? that's research

ding! ding! ding!

i dont need the research or facts....i, unlike probably most of you, have heard Pat Buchanan speak several times & dont need "pointing out the obvious instances", to understand that he is a bigot and a racist.........so please get off my **** with your bla bla bla..........

*this coming from someone who claims that dating on Myspace is actually "cool".

as if

what did the "***" stand for? I couldn't think of a 4-letter profanity that would fit there? Maybe the c-word? Sh-t?

All I was saying was that I had never heard what you claimed. Now I know...

[tgibson]

you see? that's research

ding! ding! ding!

i dont need the research or facts....i, unlike probably most of you, have heard Pat Buchanan speak several times & dont need "pointing out the obvious instances", to understand that he is a bigot and a racist.........so please get off my **** with your bla bla bla..........

*this coming from someone who claims that dating on Myspace is actually "cool".

as if

then stop telling others to do their research. and i didn't say it was "cool" to date chicks on myspace....i just said i did it once.

"don't be jealous that i've been chatting online with babes all day"

awesome quote dude...that guy really cracked me up in the movie...