Pat Buchanan on the War against Iraq

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Wow, this is the third article that Pat Buchanan has written that i actually agree with (someone pinch me, am i dreaming?!)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=285

Congress' vacation from duty



Posted: August 12, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To see members of Congress smiling behind President

Bush, as he signed the "fast track" law by which Capitol Hill surrenders all rights to amend trade treaties, is to understand the new realities of power in this city. We have a Congress that recoils from responsibility.

The great congresses of Webster, Clay and Calhoun, which held this nation together, are history. No longer the first branch of government that the Founding Fathers intended, Congress today ranks in power and influence beneath the president and Supreme Court, and even beneath the U.S. bureaucracy and national press.

At the Constitutional Convention, the framers entrusted Congress, and it alone, with the power to take this nation into war. They wanted nothing to do with Caesarism.

Yet, since his "axis-of-evil" address, President Bush has threatened war, planned war, prepared for war, promised war. He has so committed us to destroying Iraq that the United States will suffer a humiliating loss of credibility if he now fails.

Yet, for six months, Congress has cravenly abdicated its duty to stand up and say to a president hell-bent on war, "Sir, you do not have the authority to take us into war."

Across America, questions are being raised that Congress refuses to ask of the president's War Cabinet.

What was Iraq's act of aggression against us that justifies war? How many troops will be needed to ensure the defeat and occupation of Iraq? Will we have to call up the reserves? How many casualties can we expect? Who will be at America's side on the road to Baghdad? How does the president intend to pay for a war that could cost $100 billion? Raise taxes? What will be the effect on the U.S. economy? The world economy?

How long do we intend to occupy Baghdad? What do we do if the Kurds exploit the chaos to declare independence? Help crush the Kurds? What do we do if Iran encourages the Iraqi Shi'ites to rise up, and they declare independence? What do we do if occupied Iraq turns into another Beirut, with U.S. troops daily subjected to sniper fire and suicide attacks?

Are we confident that in a second Gulf War the "Arab Street" will not succeed where it failed in the first, in overturning one or more of our allies ? in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or among the Gulf states? What will be the impact on nuclear-armed Pakistan?

In 1990, Iraq was the aggressor and the president's father had the support of every neighbor-nation, save Iran and Jordan. We had the U.N. Security Council behind us, the entire Arab world, a united NATO, and the commitment of Japan and Germany to underwrite the war. We had the use of all bases in Saudi Arabia. Yet, even then, President Bush won the vote for war only by the narrowest of margins in the U.S. Senate.

This time, the Arab world is united against an attack on Iraq. Saudi Arabia will not let us use its bases. Germany's chancellor wants no part of the president's "adventure." Outside of Tony Blair ? and his support is tepid ? NATO enthusiasm is invisible. Not only is the U.S. government divided, depending on which paper you read, the U.S. military is divided over the wisdom and necessity of this war.

Even the national security adviser to the first President Bush, a co-architect of his Gulf War victory and co- author of his memoir, Gen. Brent Skowcroft warns that a U.S. war on Iraq could ignite the entire Middle East, imperiling all of America's vital interests in the region.

And where is Congress? Off on five weeks vacation, junketing, campaigning, fishing and doing everything else besides its solemn duty to debate and declare ? or refuse to declare ? war on Iraq.

Meanwhile, the War Party has slipped its leash. This week, The Washington Post reported that the Defense Review Board, chaired by Richard Perle and containing such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, had a secret briefing from a Rand Corp. analyst that Ariel Sharon might have called over-the-top. Message: After Baghdad comes Riyadh!

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," the briefer asserted. Riyadh is "the kernel of evil, the prime enemy, the most dangerous opponent." After we capture Baghdad, give the Saudis an ultimatum and, if they balk, seize the oil fields.

For the president and War Party, there is now no turning back. But if this war turns into a debacle for America, moral responsibility will belong not only with them, but to this cowardly Congress that, in running away from its duty, has disgraced itself, dishonored the Founding Fathers and disserved the people who elected it.

Korea and Vietnam were presidential wars ? undeclared wars that tore us apart. Because Congress has failed us, we are headed into another.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Sadly, I'm going to have to agree with Pat Buchanan. He's still a retard but he's a retard that sometimes makes a point.
 

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Nothing productive or useful has ever been uttered from that hole in Buchanan's head. :disgust:

amish

So are you saying he is wrong in his point?
 

Electric Amish

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
23,578
1
0
Originally posted by: OmegaNauce
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Nothing productive or useful has ever been uttered from that hole in Buchanan's head. :disgust:

amish

So are you saying he is wrong in his point?

I'm saying if it came out of his piehole it's not worth my time.

amish
 

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Originally posted by: OmegaNauce
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Nothing productive or useful has ever been uttered from that hole in Buchanan's head. :disgust:

amish

So are you saying he is wrong in his point?

I'm saying if it came out of his piehole it's not worth my time.

amish

rolleye.gif
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,424
2
0
Korea and Vietnam were presidential wars ? undeclared wars that tore us apart. Because Congress has failed us, we are headed into another.
For a man who has always claimed that the wars in Korea and Vietnam were absolutely necessary to stem the spread of communism, that is a very bizarre statement to make.
 

SgtBuddy

Senior member
Jun 2, 2001
597
1
0
I agree on some points, but I could still see the rancidness that is Pat Buchannan all over it. :disgust:


If it was most anyone else, you would have a very good piece.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,398
6,077
126
No good ever comes from having the Presidential election stolen. He was not the Will of the People. He has no moral force. He is a disaster.
 

I thought people would read the artical then make replys...jeeze, everyone here hasnt even read it. He makes some good points that no one has debunked on here.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Word on the street is bush is using the war on terror and expanding it in order to retain favor with the American public and insure republican control of the congress and his own re election bid. It is a desperate postion he takes and is not well thought out,but this knee jerk approach for sounbites and media attention is diversionary in light of the economic plight of the US Marketplace, the exodus of jobs in america since he was elected, and all the white collar crime by corporate execitives and campaign contributors. Hell, he still has his on Harkin energy scandle to deal with and Cheney has Haliburton to answer for, along with the "whatever happened to the Enron Scam?".

aside from all that, I hope if it is at all posible that Bush gets his way and we gop to Iraq and remove Saddam form power. By whatever means it takes, people, Islamic fundamentalists are threatening to take away your freedom and send you bowing towards Mecca 4 times a day or bury you, it makes no difference to them. This is the heart of the problem and it stems from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countires in that region. Israel/PLO is a cumbersome diversion of the real problem, and at least Bush has the cajones to address this crap face on, which is pathetically absent in Congress, and that is not party specific. Republicans and Democrats suck at coming up with a solution to this. A pox on all their houses.:|
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
I agree on some points, but I could still see the rancidness that is Pat Buchannan all over it.

exactly. he makes a number of cogent points. hell, you can agree with him point for point and still know his ulterior motives
are his primary motivation for making these statements.

he's wrong in his assumption, the very one that underlies his spiel, that congress has abdicated her constitutional responsibility. most of congress in fact supports action to depose the regime of saddam hussein for reasons that transcend iraq's internal authoritarianism.
pollyanish as that may be, it proves they are tackling the questions and concerns pattie claims they are ignoring.
 

AmigaMan

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
3,644
1
0
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Originally posted by: OmegaNauce
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Nothing productive or useful has ever been uttered from that hole in Buchanan's head. :disgust:

amish

So are you saying he is wrong in his point?

I'm saying if it came out of his piehole it's not worth my time.

amish

Why did you bother replying to this thread? :disgust:

I believe that the president is not a king and that he has no authority to declare war. If war is needed and the United States has to sacrifice it's men and women then Congress should be the one to decide. What's next? Is Bush going to remove the Supreme Court and take over it's powers too?

edit: spelling
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Pat Buchanan on the War against Iraq
If you enjoyed that, take a look at the powerful and totally unbiased commentary from some of Buchanan's buddies:

David Duke's Website

The National Alliance

Church of the American Knights of the Klu Klux Klan

Alabama White Knights of the Klu Klux Klan

Weeeeee!


Yes, rather than debate his points, link to some scummy ultra conservative websites to attack his character. I'm far from being a fan of pat, but your post is what we call 'ad hominem'.
 

Ly2n

Senior member
Dec 26, 2001
345
0
0
I have listened to Mr. Buchanan for 30 years now (since his Nixon days) and every once in a while I find myself agreeing with him. Most of his points were good, although I have to take issue with his revisionst history of Vietnam and Korea ( I agree with his history, I just don't know when he finally came around to it). However 3 or 4 good ideas in 30 years hardly makes him someone that I would look to for solutions. I would say thanks for posting this, but I always feel so unclean when I find myself agreeing with Pat. Lynn
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,349
259
126
Yes, rather than debate his points, link to some scummy ultra conservative websites to attack his character. I'm far from being a fan of pat, but your post is what we call 'ad hominem'.
Yep, I have no interest in explaining - FOR THE ONE THOUSANDTH TIME - to all the mushheads out there who don't have two brain cells to rub together in hopes of doing any of their own thinking why Pat Buchanan's points barely dignify a response. It gets very tiresome.

And remember, attacking one's character is never ad hominem when its appropriate and true.