Destino Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 http://www.theamericancause.org/ A Time for TruthPatrick J. Buchanan May 12, 2004 With pictures of the sadistic sexual abuse of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison still spilling out onto the front pages, it is not too early to draw some conclusions. The neoconservative hour is over. All the blather about "empire," our "unipolar moment," "Pax Americana" and "benevolent global hegemony" will be quietly put on a shelf and forgotten as infantile prattle. America is not going to fight a five- or 10-year war in Iraq. Nor will we be launching any new invasions soon. The retreat of American empire, begun at Fallujah, is underway. With a $500 billion deficit, we do not have the money for new wars. With an Army of 480,000 stretched thin, we do not have the troops. With April-May costing us a battalion of dead and wounded, we are not going to pay the price. With the squalid photos from Abu Ghraib, we no longer have the moral authority to impose our "values" on Iraq. Bush's "world democratic revolution" is history. Given the hatred of the United States and Bush in the Arab world, as attested to by Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, it is almost delusional to think Arab peoples are going to follow America's lead. It is a time for truth. In any guerrilla war we fight, there is going to be a steady stream of U.S. dead and wounded. There is going to be collateral damage – i.e., women and children slain and maimed. There will be prisoners abused. And inevitably, there will be outrages by U.S. troops enraged at the killing of comrades and the jeering of hostile populations. If you would have an empire, this goes with the territory. And if you are unprepared to pay the price, give it up. The administration's shock and paralysis at publication of the S&M photos from Abu Ghraib tell us we are not up to it. For what is taking place in Iraq is child's play compared to what we did in the Philippines a century ago. Only there, they did not have digital cameras, videocams and the Internet. Iraq was an unnecessary war that may become one of the great blunders in U.S. history. That the invasion was brilliantly conceived and executed by Gen. Franks, that our fighting men were among the finest we ever sent to war, that they have done good deeds and brave acts, is undeniable. Yet, if recent surveys are accurate, the Iraqis no longer want us there. Outside the Kurdish areas, over 80 percent of Sunnis and Shias view us as occupiers. Over 50 percent believe there are occasions when U.S. soldiers deserve killing. The rejoicing around every destroyed military vehicle where U.S. soldiers have died should tell us that the battle for hearts and minds is being lost. Why are we so hated in the Middle East? Three fundamental reasons: Our invasion of Iraq is seen as a premeditated and unjust war to crush a weak Arab nation that had not threatened or attacked us, to seize its oil. We are seen as an arrogant imperial superpower that dictates to Arab peoples and sustains regimes that oppress them. We are seen as the financier and armorer of an Israel that oppresses and robs Palestinians of their land and denies them rights we hypocritically preach to the world. Until we address these perceptions and causes of the conflict between us, we will not persuade the Arab world to follow us. What should Bush do now? He should declare that the United States has no intention of establishing permanent bases in Iraq, and that we intend to withdraw all U.S. troops after elections, if the Iraqis tell us to leave. Then we should schedule elections at the earliest possible date this year. The Iraqi peoples should then be told that U.S. soldiers are not going to fight and die indefinitely for their freedom. If they do not want to be ruled by Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr or some future Saddam, they will have to fight themselves. Otherwise, they will have to live with them, even as they lived with Saddam. For in the last analysis, it is their country, not ours. The president should also offer to withdraw U.S. forces from any Arab country that wishes us to leave. We have already pulled out of Saudi Arabia. Let us pull out of the rest unless they ask that we remain. Our military presence in these Arab and Islamic countries, it would seem, does less to prevent terror attacks upon us than to incite them. A presidential election is where the great foreign-policy debate should take place over whether to maintain U.S. troops all over the world, or bring them home and let other nations determine their own destiny. Unfortunately, we have two candidates and two parties that agree on our present foreign policy that is conspicuously failing I don't know what to make of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Pat Buchanan wrote that? Upon first glance, I actually agree with alot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 yeah, you take his name off the top of that and man...I would of never guessed he wrote that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Pat Buchannan has been a vocal critic of the Neo Conservative movement and the entire war in Iraq ever since Iraq appeared on the national radar. Good or Bad, Pat rarely frames his opinions around intelectual arguments but rather relies on a black and white, view of the world to justify his positions. Other Pat Positions... Anti Homosexual Pro Life / anti Abortion Typically apposed to NAFTA and WTO Anti war where America isn't directly threatenned [1] Anti WWII, Gulf War II [2] Pro Vietnam.. ( Pat was always up for fighting communism maybe because they were Godless..) Not afraid to critisize Israel on a number of issues.. wants more balanced approach to I vs P.. If you agree with him he's a vocal and compassionate advocate who speaks to the morals of the issues. If you disagree with him he's a hard headed dogmatist who is unwilling to compromize or allow an accomadation. Pat will tell you there is no compromise from the moral position. This makes Pat a very poor polotitian and a loose canon for the Republican party. It also makes Pat a pretty honest broker and a great columnist who is shown time and again a willingness to call them how he sees them across party lines. Like him or hate him you have to respect a guy who always speaks from his heart and for what he thinks is right. Most folks who hate him do so because they just don't agree with his view of what is right.... Unfortunately for Bush, Pat is the fourth respective conservative intelectual who has come out with a negative position about George W. Bush this week... George Will Robert Novak Pat Buchannan Thew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Yeah we knew Buchannan is anti Jewish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Yeah we knew Buchannan is anti Jewish No, Buchannan isn't anti Jewish. He has been a vocal critic of Israel though. Specifically the last time he ran on the Republican Presidential ticket. A Cleveland Auto worker John Dyenyok(sic) had been stipped of his American citizenship and extradited to Israel on charges of being Ivan the Terrible. He was tried and found guilty and senticed to death largely on the basis of eye witness testomony. Then absolute proof was found in the Soviet Union that he wasn't Ivan the terrible. Ivan the terrible was a documented soviet citizen who had died decades earlier. What's worse the United States knew of this evidence when they extradited him. I remember a state department official resigned over protest of being ordered to extradite him by superirors...Anyway, when it was proven he couldn't be Ivan the Terrible Israeli prosocutors wanted to prosocute him for being some other prison guard. Buchannan was the only American polititian at the time who had the balls to call that what is was. A sham.. To retry him for being a different person when all of the evidence for the second trial was known in the first trial and yet prosocuters still tried him for being Ivan the terrible rather than this other guy. The logic of it was such that the prosocutors themselves did not find the evidence creditable or they would have gone with it rather than the now discredited Ivan testomoney.... Buchannan was alone among American polititians but he wasn't alone among Israeli politicians. In fact to there credit the Israeli supreme court agreed with Buchannan and ruled Dyenyok could not be retried for being this other person and Dyenyok was released after many years of imprisonment in Israel. Still this didn't stop many pro Israeli groups from speaking out against Pat proir to the rulling of the Israeli supreme court. I remember them calling him anti semetic which of course is redicolous. I've been listening, watching or reading Pat Buchannan in the Washington DC area for almost three decades. He's a passionate moralist, and I don't usually agree with him. But he definitely never shirks from the truth as he sees it... Oh by the way Duyenyok(sic) was in the news recently. It seems this dude who's in his late 80's early 90's now still hasn't been given his citizenship back. It's a national disgrace. I believe Pat went to war over his post release treatment with the Pro Israeli groups too, who still have it in for Duyenyok(sic). He's still fighting for it though. Dude had the good fortune to have his daughter marry a lawyer. His legal bills must be outragous.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman56 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 But all those Jewish grandparents in Florida voted for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 This isnt news. Buchanan didnt like Bush 1 and ran against him. He is very passionate about his beliefs and seems to have reasoned each of them. He refuses to be pigeonholed into the ideology of a party platform. I respect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 This is consistent with his other stuff. Of course, in Israel, his sympathies always seem to align with the suicide bombers instead of the innocent victims. I've never respected him since he joined the Reform Party and ran with a radical socialist VP. BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Graudated SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 I agree with you Kilmer in that it is nice that he stands on his beliefs and principles and does not conform to a platform regardless if it is the side he is fighting for. I am just curious though, can you be a critic of the Isreali government but not be called an anti-semite. Seems to happen way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.