Pat Buchanan Comments on Why George W. Bush Really Invaded Iraq

[Asian_Catholic]

I am not sure how much of this is true or not, but it was a very unique perspective that I’ve never seen before, and it came from Patrick J. Buchanan (a loyal Catholic Conservative):

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

. . . ]

Complete article at amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

---

Additional article on the same topic: vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Regards.

 

[mpav]

It’s not at all clear that Bush intends to defeat the entire Islamic world despite what Buchanan says. As for putting demands on Israel, it seems clear that many settlements are being dismantled, and much of what the Palestinians want is being handed over. Considering Israel won the land in a war waged against her, by parties still determined to end her existence, I think Israel has gone much father along the road to a peaceful settlement than her enemies. What was the Palestinian response to the first turnover of land? Demonstrations in the streets alleging that their terrorism had prevailed. The Palestinian Authority has not yet disarmed the terrorists in the settlements handed over to their authority over a month ago.
I consider Israel, warts and all, to be a friend of America before any other place in the Middle East.

 

[JW10631]

Buchanan calls himself a conservative, but that is the same as me calling myself Emperor Cyrus of Persia.

Buchanan is an isolationist. He judges himself the only one who can determine who is a true conservative. For what it is worth, Bush wanted to get out of the Middle East altogether before 9/11 happened. Buchanan has long blamed Israel for much of the Middle East turmoil as well. Buchanan slaps the “neo-con” label on those in the GOP he detests, as only the “paleo-cons” are the ones truly deserving of the “conservative” tag.

Buchanan is a professional Washington DC based windbag. Mr. Fortress America has not learned the lessons of the 1930s when Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan set about building their war machines and the Unites States chose not to get involved.

Buchanan thinks his isolationism will prevent the world from inflicting its problems and hatred upon the United States. Patty the Windbag - professional blowhard, failed political candidate, isolationist, paleocon. I read his column only for a laugh.

 

[Philip_P]

From a certain strategic perspective, it actually makes a lot of sense to go to Iraq. The middle east is obviously an important strategic area, both geographically (between Asia, Africa, and Europe) and of course because of the oil (no one can deny that reliable access to oil is important to maintaining our current economy and way of life). We would want to make sure that we retain access there, especially as threats there will only increase as supplies diminish and demand increases (China, for instance, will be needing a lot more oil). Obviously, a strong military presence there is one way of helping keep control.

There’s also the argument that a strong military presence helps keep pressure on regional governments, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria (and so, indirectly, helping keep access to oil again).

I am not making a reductionist argument that oil was the sole reason we went to Iraq, simply pointing out that it’s probably one of the reasons why establishing a strong military presence there might be attractive to some policy makers. Unfortunately, in addition to this being, in my opinion, a rather immoral justification (invading countries for your own interests doesn’t strike me as satisfying just war criteria), I also think that we’ve paid too large a price for too little return. Antagonizing our Western allies and seeding bad blood between us doesn’t serve our long-term interests, especially as other non-European power rise (we’ll need France, England, Spain, et al as Asia rises to challenge Western dominance. We certainly can’t expect the post WWII US dominance to last forever). It probably hasn’t been in our interests to provide a recuting and training ground for radical Islamists, either. Plus, there’s also the fact that all this gives isolationists like Buchanan more credibility than they deserve.

 

[Philip_P]

For what it’s worth, I don’t put much stock in the Israeli connection, either. It seems a weak argument, especially in light of far more convincing reasons why we might have gone to Iraq. Besides, how does [temporarily, one hopes] destablizing the mid-east help Israel?

 

[Asian_Catholic]

Interesting comments, thanks for sharing your perspectives.

Regards.

 

[Asian_Catholic]

mpav:

Considering Israel won the land in a war waged against her

I am not too familiar with this history. Can you elaborate please, thanks.

I consider Israel, warts and all, to be a friend of America before any other place in the Middle East.

Can you explain to me why you believe Israel is America’s friend? My history is not as good as it can be, so can you give examples of things Israel has done for America to show their friendship? I do know that America has done plently for Israel, but I am unfamiliar with the vice-versa situation. Thank you.

I do know that Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty in an attempt to blame it on Arabs, at least this is the story put forth at ussliberty.org/ And I am familiar with the large number of Israeli spies operating in America, past and present. You may recall Fox New’s coverage of the Israeli spy ring, see informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm And I am aware of the fact that the current Israeli nuclear weapons stockpile was for the most part the result of Israelis in the American government secretly handing over technology blueprints to Israel, people such as Jonathan Pollard who is now living in Israel.

Regards.

 

[Asian_Catholic]

JW10631:

Buchanan calls himself a conservative, but that is the same as me calling myself Emperor Cyrus of Persia.

Buchanan is an isolationist. He judges himself the only one who can determine who is a true conservative. For what it is worth, Bush wanted to get out of the Middle East altogether before 9/11 happened. Buchanan has long blamed Israel for much of the Middle East turmoil as well. Buchanan slaps the “neo-con” label on those in the GOP he detests, as only the “paleo-cons” are the ones truly deserving of the “conservative” tag.

Buchanan is a professional Washington DC based windbag. Mr. Fortress America has not learned the lessons of the 1930s when Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan set about building their war machines and the Unites States chose not to get involved.

Buchanan thinks his isolationism will prevent the world from inflicting its problems and hatred upon the United States. Patty the Windbag - professional blowhard, failed political candidate, isolationist, paleocon. I read his column only for a laugh.

Getting back to the point, what do you think of the data in Buchanan’s article? He mentions the top players involved in pushing the Iraqi war and their reason for it. Can you please comment on that? Thank you.

 

[Asian_Catholic]

Philip P:

Besides, how does [temporarily, one hopes] destablizing the mid-east help Israel?

The articles say that the Neo-Conservative elites want to replace most of the Muslim governments with puppet governments that will agree to capitulate to the demands of Israel.

 

[gilliam]

Asian Catholic:

The articles say that the Neo-Conservative elites want to replace most of the Muslim governments with puppet governments that will agree to capitulate to the demands of Israel.

Are you saying neoconservative elites are Jews and they are trying to take over the world?

 

[Asian_Catholic]

gilliam:

Are you saying neoconservative elites are Jews and they are trying to take over the world?

What do you think about the data in Buchanan’s article?

Thanks.

 

[gilliam]

Asian Catholic:

What do you think about the data in Buchanan’s article?

Thanks.

He’s wrong, was wrong in 2003 when he wrote the article and he is wrong today. Can you name the Jews in Bush’s cabinet? And most of the people who write for the National Review are Roman Catholics.

So you are still saying that neoconservative elites are Jews and they are trying to take over the world?

 

[mpav]

As to how Israel has been a friend to America it must be noted that Israel is in a position of weakness compared to America, and the relationship is colored by Israel’s need of support. In return, Israel cooperates on various fronts with America, such as sharing intelligence and developing weapons systems. Of course these things are in Israel’s interest. The first principle of international politics is that nations do what is in their own best interest. I submit it is in America’s interest to support the one genuine democracy in the Middle East. If it makes despotic princes and mullahs unhappy so be it.
So Israel will do that which is beneficial to her, including selling arms to China (which was sanctioned by the Clinton Administration.) For it’s part, America will push Israel along the road to a peaceful settlement of the problems with Israel and her neighbors. At the same time, we sell weapons to Egypt, which Israel doesn’t like.
We do not need to be in accord on everything, but when push comes to shove I’d rather be in a trench with Israel than let’s say, France.

 

[Asian_Catholic]

gilliam:

He’s wrong, was wrong in 2003 when he wrote the article and he is wrong today.

So you believe the data in Buchanan’s article is incorrect. Do you believe he dishonestly fabricated the data to push his political beliefs, or do you believe his work was honest, but he used poor research techniques and accidentally came up with the wrong data?

Second, what do you think about Professor Kevin MacDonald’s article where he came to the same conclusion as Buchanan, see vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Thank you

 

[Asian_Catholic]

mpav:

I submit it is in America’s interest to support the one genuine democracy in the Middle East.

So you believe this based on your claim that Israel shares intelligence with us and because they work on weapons systems with us. Are these the only two reasons you believe America benefits by helping Israel?

Second, how do you know Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East? I’ve read that many Islamic nations hold elections as well. I don’t have the sources at the moment for this, so from other’s perspective this will still have to remain a hypothesis.

Third, before America decided to support Israel, we had a good relationship with the Middle East and used to engage in friendly oil trade. We had no Islamic suicide bombers, though Israel was carrying out terrorist attacks against the British occupants in Israel, such as blowing up the Kings David Hotel with all the British occupants in it. How is it better for Americans to support Israel instead of how it used to be in the past when we were friends with the Arabs?

Thanks for sharing your perspectives with me!

 

[pear]

Whoa, whoa, whoa…I think this thread is taking a bad turn. Pat Buchanan (sorry, I know some people in this forum like him) is, in my opinion, someone who is either an outright anti-Semite or treads dangerously close to anti-Semitism. He has an unnatural hostility toward Israel and to the so-called “neo-cons.” Many neo-conservatives happen to be Jewish.

Those who try to blame Israel for the problems in the Middle East are just plain wrong, and don’t have their facts straight. Israel is a great ally to America and to many other freedom-loving countries.

It is amazing to me that even now, after the Holocaust and so many other tragic events that should have opened our eyes to the evil of anti-Semitism, there are still people who try to blame our Jewish brothers for all the problems in the world. It makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[Asian_Catholic]

pear:

Whoa, whoa, whoa…I think this thread is taking a bad turn. Pat Buchanan (sorry, I know some people in this forum like him) is, in my opinion, someone who is either an outright anti-Semite or treads dangerously close to anti-Semitism. He has an unnatural hostility toward Israel and to the so-called “neo-cons.” Many neo-conservatives happen to be Jewish.

But getting back to the topic, what do you think about the data itself in the article?

Those who try to blame Israel for the problems in the Middle East are just plain wrong, and don’t have their facts straight.

So you believe the data in the article is wrong? Do you believe Buchanan dishonestly fabricated the data, or do you think it was an honest mistake on his part?

Israel is a great ally to America and to many other freedom-loving countries.

How is Israel an ally to America? Can you give examples of what Israel has done for America? Also, how do you define “freedom”?

It is amazing to me that even now, after the Holocaust and so many other tragic events that should have opened our eyes to the evil of anti-Semitism, there are still people who try to blame our Jewish brothers for all the problems in the world. It makes me sick to my stomach.

But getting back to the topic, what do you think about the data itself?

Thank you

 

[John_19_59]

anti-Semite

Any article that criticises Israel gets this accusation thrown in at some point. Its always a cheap shot.

Heaven forbid that anyone should dare criticise Israel!

Israel and its policies are as open to discussion as anybody elses.

America, Britain and their founding of the state of Israel have a lot to answer for when it comes to the mess in the middle east.

 

[Asian_Catholic]

anti-Semite

Any article that criticises Israel gets this accusation thrown in at some point. Its always a cheap shot.

Heaven forbid that anyone should dare criticise Israel!

Israel and its policies are as open to discussion as anybody elses.

America, Britain and their founding of the state of Israel have a lot to answer for when it comes to the mess in the middle east.

I am no expert, but from what I have studied on the tenets of debating, the goal is to discuss the data itself, not to engage in ad hominem attacks against the researcher. Buchanan and MacDonald have organized data in their articles and I would prefer that people comment on the data itself. Is it valid? Why or why not? If it’s faulty, is it the result of poor research or the result of dishonest fabrication on the part of the researcher?

If an atheist is debating a Catholic, and the Catholic puts forth scientific data in support of Creationism, should the atheist comment on the data itself, or call the Catholic an ad hominem name such as “Bible Thumper” or what-have-you?

 

[John_19_59]

Asian Catholic,

I was agreeing with you. But many here will dismiss any discussion on American/Israel foreign policy as “anti-semite”.

It always gets thrown at some point.