Bush Is Running Out of Alibis, by Pat Buchanan

[DeclinetoState]

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Feb 03, 2006
<!-- START SIDE BAR -->
"The road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline," railed President Bush in his State of the Union. Again and again, Bush returned to his theme.

"America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. ...

"Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. ...

"American leaders from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan rejected isolation and retreat."

Why would a president use his State of the Union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration? The answer is a simple one, but it is not an easy one for Bush to face: His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.

But rather than defend the fruits of his policy, Bush has chosen to caricature critics who warned him against interventionism. Like all politicians in trouble, Bush knows that the best defense is a good offense.

Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12168

Sometimes Pat sounds like a Democrat.

:(

[Kathy29]

I don't know that he was referring to Iraq when he made those statements. He was probably referring to our out of control and outlandish immigration policies.

[Popperite]

I don't know that he was referring to Iraq when he made those statements. He was probably referring to our out of control and outlandish immigration policies.


Buchanan wrote:
Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths. And like Truman's war in Korea and Kennedy's war in Vietnam, Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war. Isolationists had nothing to do with it. To a man and woman, they opposed it.

Now, with an army bogged down in Afghanistan and another slowly exiting Iraq, and no end in sight to either, Bush seeks to counter critics who warned him not to go in by associating them with the demonized and supposedly discredited patriots of the America First movement of 1940-41. His assault is not only non-credible, it borders on the desperate and pathetic.


This is about the war.

[Lazarus]

Pat cant get over the fact that no one wants him for a President... He's pouting...

I didnt know the Army was "bogged down" in Afghanistan... Amazing the things you learn from old Pat...

[DeclinetoState]

"Amazing the things you learn from old Pat..."

Like "My friend, Ralph Nader"?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Lazarus]

Yup! I think Pat has a short in his circuitry... We need to send him back to Mars for repairs...

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yup! I think Pat has a short in his circuitry... We need to send him back to Mars for repairs...
He lost his mind after his overwhelming rejection when he ran for president. He is unable to face the reality that he is out of step with the real world.

[S-T]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12168

Sometimes Pat sounds like a Democrat.

:(Not really. Mr. B was trumpeting the very same themes during the administration of disgraced ex-President Clinton and BJ Billy's military adventures in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo. I think Bush's Iraq policy is much more prudent (not to mention a necessary defense of national security) than Clinton's humanitarian missions, but Pat B. doesn't. That's OK. He (like anyone who disagrees with me) has the right to be wrong.

And if anyone recalls, Pat B's conservatism of the heart came before George W Bush's compassionate conservatism.

[omegatrump]

I don't know that he was referring to Iraq when he made those statements. He was probably referring to our out of control and outlandish immigration policies.

I think he was referring to the whole package of globalism. I don't agree with Pat on some things, namely his sometimes harshly expressed feelings about Israel. His more Washington / Hamilton concepts, like 'avoiding foreign entanglements' has some merit.

I know you guys may disagree but I still think he was a great speech writer for President Reagan.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I know you guys may disagree but I still think he was a great speech writer for President Reagan.
When he was a speech writer for Reagan he was still a conservative. He no longer is and hasn't been for more than 10 years.

[Warlady]

Pat B is a kook. How many times does he have to be told we don't accept him for him to shut the flock up. How many elections has he lost?

[SmellyFed]

Pat B is a kook. How many times does he have to be told we don't accept him for him to shut the flock up. How many elections has he lost?

Damn right. The only thing more annoying then WHAT he says is that Rita-Cosby-eqsue voice that he uses to say it.

[Bob_Arctor]

When he was a speech writer for Reagan he was still a conservative. He no longer is and hasn't been for more than 10 years.
Actually ol' Pat hasn't changed a bit. He's been pretty consistent, while the Republican wing has been highjacked by the neocons and has little in common with traditional R philosophy.

"Republicans" weren't always about big government, foreign adventures, government intrusion and massive debt, were they? I don't think Pat is down with any of these things, while they seem to be the foundation of neocon thinking or at least their results.

[omegatrump]

When he was a speech writer for Reagan he was still a conservative. He no longer is and hasn't been for more than 10 years.

I don't think Pat has changed, I think the Republican / Democrat party has merged into liberalism. I'll be surprised if W doesn't start using Kennedy and schummer for personal advisor's before it's over. George W has never been a conservative, nor is he now a conservative. The only thing the neocons can claim "conservative" on Bush is his Tax cuts. He is going to hang on to that one plank no matter what else happens because he knows that is the plank that sunk his daddies boat. It is not yet clear whether his judge appointments are conservative or not, Alito voted liberal in his very first vote.

Out of control spending, advancement of government, the absolute refusal to close our Mexican border, all major Liberal positions.

As for the war on terror? Lyndon Johnson comes to mind. The Vietnam war was a liberal democrats war. Bush will go down in History as an extreme Liberal when it's all said and done. W Bush and Bill Clinton are soul brothers. Plain and simple.

[DesertFox]

Actually ol' Pat hasn't changed a bit. He's been pretty consistent, while the Republican wing has been highjacked by the neocons and has little in common with traditional R philosophy.Bullhockey.

[Rink]

Actually when Pat Buchanan gets pissed, thats when all common sense flies out the window.

He isnt 'consistent' if anything consistent its just that he has a dogged persistence at being a pain in the arse wherever he goes.

He's changed way too much and has become too fringe kook for me to respect him anylonger.

And yes I used to like him one heckuva lot, but he HAS changed, and not ffor the better I tellya

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bob and omegatrump: You are both revisionists. Pat Buchanan has reversed his position on nearly everything that he stood for through the 1992 Republican primaries when I voted for him because he was still a conservative.

For example: He used to favor free trade; he now opposes it and favors high protective tariffs. He used to be opposed to big government controls; he now favors big government restrictions on trade. He used to favor free markets; now he wants big government controls over the American economy. He used to favor lower taxes; he now favors higher taxes.

About the only issue that he has been consistent on is his opposition to abortion and I suspect that is only because he is a Catholic.

[Republican_Legion]

I think isolationists like Buchanan are an example of what happens to a conservative male when his nutz are chopped off.

[S-T]

Pat B is a kook. How many times does he have to be told we don't accept him for him to shut the flock up. How many elections has he lost? How many votes have you gotten nationwide, Warlady, in comparison to the number of votes Pat B. has gotten? Does that mean you should "shut the flock up"?

I'm not attacking you personally, WL. I'm pointing out your logic is flawed.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:smirky: How many votes have you gotten nationwide, Warlady, in comparison to the number of votes Pat B. has gotten? Does that mean you should "shut the flock up"?

I'm not attacking you personally, WL. I'm pointing out your logic is flawed.


Her statement was in reference to him getting the message that we don't care what he has to say -- she didn't tell him to shut up, she said he should get the picutre and shut up. Big difference.

BTW, no offense, I'm just pointing out so's yours ... how many times has the message been sent to Warlady (through votes or otherwise) that we don't accept her? :smirky:

[S-T]

I don't see the difference at all. Either way, she's telling him to shut up. And a lot of people do care what Pat B. has to say, given that he is a widely-read nationally syndicated columnist. All of us are just posters on a messahe board.

I'm not going to get into an argument on this, though.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I don't see the difference at all. Either way, she's telling him to shut up. And a lot of people do care what Pat B. has to say, given that he is a widely-read nationally syndicated columnist. All of us are just posters on a messahe board.

Apparently, a lot of people here don't care for what Pat B has to say, as she was not the only one expressing that feeling. And yes, we are all just posters on a message board, each entitled to our opinions and our own way of expressing them, including Warlady. :smirky:

I'm not going to get into an argument on this, though.

Wasn't arguing, just responding http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Wyatt_Junker]

I'd prefer isolationism as it mirrors much of my personality, but it only works in a perfect world. At some point, the world encroaches upon the inner sanctum, sometimes rudely and without warning.

Who was being imperial when Japan bombed us? Through their lens, we were. Through ours, this made no sense. Who was being imperial on Sept. 11th, 2001? Through the lens of Whahabbism and much of our own leftist thought here(apologists), we were. Through the lens of those who love America, their arguments at justification made no sense. And any attempt to unearth that 'sense' only emboldened the very people who aimed to kill you as they seized upon it with a raised finger and a righteous 'aha'. The leftists never understood that apologetics is not the hobby it is here in America and Europe as it is in the M.E. Free inquiry means self-flagellation or the ability to pretend to play masochist for a day, but to many Arab societies it means you are guilty for they take such things seriously. Not so in America. Our university trained apologists are only goofing around in order to look cool and get laid(or published). In most muslim coutries it is an outright admission for the justification of jihad(aka terrorism).

In order to have a true corrective lens, one would need to raise the monocle of objectivity to their eye by researching basic history. Not easy Chomsky cliches. We would have to trace back the origin of the middle east problem to the Balfour Declaration, to the Brits, to the formation of Trans-Jordan, Israel and even Iraq out of whole cloth. And Britain did not enjoy any of this as it was considered a burden mostly, prompted by the League of Nations to nanny the bedouin Arabs, until oil was discovered. But even then, this was not completely capitalized upon. The Arabs were boorish, overly sensitive sand brats using everything to their advantage against a tired, dying world power. Sound familiar?

And if one were to go beyond that, you would see Arab enslaving Arab for centuries, indenturing generations of them into a feudal system run by the Sultan. This is where the 'palestinians' came from. They were products of one Arab abusing another. Early Zionism actually helped to alleviate much of this cruelty. This is completely re-written today. The Jews are made out to be the root of all that is ill, and a new fable is told where Israel was born out of an imperial land grab. Not only is this fantasist nonsense a historical lie, it is used to kill Jewish children today and by extension the rest of the world's collaborators(their children's children). Even when the actual 'land grab' was committed by Turks(think early colonists vs. native Americans). The early Zionists did not steal anyone's land. They bought the land deeds from greedy Arabs who had originally used a Ponzi scheme to tear it from the hands of poor Arab bedouins who, through this, were later referred to as 'squatters'. And even this is incorrect. The poor Arab bedouins farming the land on the sly(only for self-sustainance, not a commercial profit) were contributers to their own downfall as they agreed in part to sell the land in collectives to those other wealthy Arabs through the corrupt Turkish system of Tanzimat.

I won't even get into how the Brits actually gave the majority of the land to Arabs, not early Jews. Nor will I get into how, when the Brits finally did make Israel a state, they drew the boundaries around the land already mostly purchased by Jews. Not so with the Arabs. They just got free land by virtue of breeding and ennui.

And each time the Brits drew these boundaries, even while the Jews were getting the short end of the stick, they accepted the terms. The Arabs did not. They squabbled, complained, accused, back-stabbed and engaged in their typical cultural hobby of polished yet unsettling faux-machismo, playing the victim while committing themselves to campaigns of hate. It hasn't changed since, even though it was not the Jews who were responsible for any of their misery. Those Arabs(Hashemites) living East of the Jordan R., saw this as an opportunity to inject a divisive wedge into the region on the backs of the very people they screwed over not so long ago; the poor wandering Arab farmers.

I say all this not to hijack a thread, but to show that history is important even though the media believes it irrelevant. The media would rather use cheap cliches about recent 'hostilities' in 'the region'. Yet a soundbite cannot reveal history and CNN does not have the time to dirty itself with the facts of history as it would 1) muddle their agenda and 2) interfere with their commercials and 3) bore the attention spans of its viewers.

And so, instead of history, we get multiculturalism. We get moral relativism. We get revisionism. We accept that Jews had a hand in their own struggle against terror. The media complies with these notions, deliberately choosing mitigating words that equate terror with some kind of noble, righteous 'struggle'.

Isolationism suggest that we also accept that there is no such thing as history or that history cannot be known, or, if it can, that it is not important, that somehow we just arrived here from nowhere. Solipsism suggests that we just appeared from a blank slate, that there is no trajectory of truth that got us here. It ignores the international shove that inevitable leads to an international push. It only wants to unplug, disconnect and pretend that there is no bad guy. If Japan bombs you, Bucky would say that either you 1) deserved it or 2) should ignore it. Its like Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science. If you get a bee sting, it isn't real. If you get sick, its merely an illusion. Don't go to a doctor. Surgery is evil. Have faith. It will just go away.

Yet, with foreign policy, this can be a deadly prescription.

There are bad people in the world. That 'bad' will eventually make a bee line for you. That's what 'bad' does. Its the defintion of 'bad'. Whereas solipsism suggest we get into our real cozy NIMBYism mode(I wish we could), 'bad' will always out. It will not leave you alone. The 'palestinians' or whatever the hell they were originally are now the Hamasholes. They morph from one evil(Arafat) to the next, handing over the baton. They are like transformers, but their essence remains unchanged. Their culture is entirely about misdirection, blackmail, poor productivity and blame. Not to mention their other hobby; blowing up civilians.

911 was an example of how evil exports itself by definition. The US of America had no part in Whahabbism. It did not create it. It did not form it. It did nothing to deserve its rotten fruit. Bucky can believe what he wants, but he is wrong.

The Iraq War was and is important for the same reason that attacking Germany was important in WW 2. Germany did not bomb us. Japan did. Bucky would say we should just attack Japan. His mind cannot grasp a multi-front war composed of plural theaters. Bucky is like Kerry in the sense that he just wants to pin our current state on one man(Osama) like the children's game of pin the tail on the donkey. Bucky wants to say that Iraq did not bomb us on 9/11, just like the DNC talking points. This is historically inaccurate. Germany did not bomb us in WW 2. Japan did. Iraq had more of a stealth hand in 9/11 than Germany did to Japan's actions. Oh yeah, and Kerry, we never 'got' Hitler either so you can shove Osama up your ass. He's as irrelevant as old siding or scrap sheet metal. And besides, its too late to promote NIMBYism as foreign policy now anyway. We are already there. Its in our face. Which leads me to believe that Bucky's motives are insincere and self-serving since he knows this.

[DesertFox]

The real problem with Arabs, and nearly all Muslims, is that they ugly. They gots big crooked schnozzes and receding chins. Fat guts and spindly legs and "outty" belly buttons. They greasy and unwashed and don't shave and don't use deodorant, neither, and for cologne they use stuff that comes outta camel bladders. And they talk these funny lingos, Arabic and Farsi and like that there, that look like spider tracks. And they got this pretend religion that lets them cut people's heads off.

That's what's wrong with Arabs.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The real problem with Arabs, and nearly all Muslims, is that they ugly. They gots big crooked schnozzes and receding chins. Fat guts and spindly legs and "outty" belly buttons. They greasy and unwashed and don't shave and don't use deodorant, neither, and for cologne they use stuff that comes outta camel bladders. And they talk these funny lingos, Arabic and Farsi and like that there, that look like spider tracks. And they got this pretend religion that lets them cut people's heads off.

That's what's wrong with Arabs.

Careful there. You might get posted on the troll site fer all that hatred. :smirky:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

S-T:
How many votes have you gotten nationwide, Warlady, in comparison to the number of votes Pat B. has gotten? Does that mean you should "shut the flock up"?

I'm not attacking you personally, WL. I'm pointing out your logic is flawed.

:nono: NO. Your logic is flawed. The Warchic hasn't gotten any votes, because she hasn't run for office. But, if she did, she'd get a buncha votes. All she'd have to do is to give the liberals the same Hell she gives 'em right here at FC. She's down to Earth, & feisty, & the public would lap that up. If she was up to it, I'd forget Troy Aikman, & draft HER for governor.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

S-T:
And a lot of people do care what Pat B. has to say, given that he is a widely-read nationally syndicated columnist. All of us are just posters on a messahe board.

:rolleyes: So? He convinced some newspapers to air his opinions. You think some of us wouldn't jump at the chance to have our views on editorial pages nationwide? It's not that we couldn't do it, or that nobody outside of FC would care about what we have to say. It's that we don't have the same connections he does.

[DeclinetoState]

Warlady would make a better President than just about anyone we've had in the past fifty or more years.

Except maybe Reagan.

But I'm sure she'll never run (which is part of the reason she'd be so good).

[DesertFox]

Warlady for pres!

[Republican_Legion]

Warlady for pres!

And 'HomeschoolRs' for SCOTUS. She'd make a great justice.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And 'HomeschoolRs' for SCOTUS. She'd make a great justice.

Awww thanks RL, but I couldn't take the demotion, :smirky: -- I'm already Queen of my Monarchy (Double-Wide Trailer), http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biggrin.gif . I would prefer Secretary of Education, he he he, or perhaps VP :evilgrin: ?

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob and omegatrump: You are both revisionists. Pat Buchanan has reversed his position on nearly everything that he stood for through the 1992 Republican primaries when I voted for him because he was still a conservative.
And the Republicans, on the other hand, are identical in philosophy to Republicans of old? I disagree.

For example: He used to favor free trade; he now opposes it and favors high protective tariffs. He used to be opposed to big government controls; he now favors big government restrictions on trade. He used to favor free markets; now he wants big government controls over the American economy.
These three are essentially the same issue - he's not into free trade. Being in favor of "big government" - like we have now - isn't the same thing at all. Some trade restrictions do not big government make.

e used to favor lower taxes; he now favors higher taxes.
To pay down the debt?

[Naturalized-Texan]

And the Republicans, on the other hand, are identical in philosophy to Republicans of old? I disagree.
The Republican Party is actually MORE conservative than it was 40 years ago when the party was controlled by the Rockefeller leftists. In stark contrast, the Democrat Party has moved from a mainstream party to a party controlled by the lunatic left.

These three are essentially the same issue - he's not into free trade. Being in favor of "big government" - like we have now - isn't the same thing at all. Some trade restrictions do not big government make.
However, Buchanan used to be a strong advocate of free trade.

To see how far Pat Buchanan has deviated from conservatism, all one has to do is look at his 1988 book, Right from the Start. In 1988, Pat was an outspoken free trader who was advocating open and free trade with Asian markets. He opposed any restrictions on trade and wrote that anyone who wanted to use the power of government to protect American manufacturers from foreign competition was stupid. So, according to Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan is stupid.

To pay down the debt?
No, to place more controls on the economy. Actually, as we have seen from the Bush 1 and the Clinton tax increases, the 2 largest tax increases in history, tax increases slow the economy and reduce tax revenues. As we have seen from the Reagan and Bush 2 tax rate cuts, they actually stimulate economic growth and increase tax revenues.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Despite all of those non-problems that Buchanan perceives as problems, the real problem he sees is American economic freedom. His "solution" to that problem is to curtail American economic freedom. Here are a few examples:

- Buchanan's Problem: The American people are using their freedom to purchase imported goods. Buchanan's Solution # 1: Use the government to force the American people to buy American-made goods. Buchanan's Solution #2: Impose higher taxes on the American people in the form of high protective tariffs on imported goods.

- Buchanan's Problem: American businesses are offshoring parts of their businesses to foreign countries. Buchanan's Solution: Use government force to prevent businesses from offshoring. (Never mind that foreign businesses are inshoring business to the U.S. at a much greater rate than American businesses are offshoring.)

- Buchanan's Problem: He opposes the Bush tax cuts that have produced 52 consecutive months of strong economic growth. Buchanan's Solution: Roll back the Bush tax cuts, effectively imposing a trillion dollar tax increase on the American people. (Never mind that such a massive tax increase would kill the American economy.)

- Buchanan's Problem: The War on Terror is a Jew's war and is causing record-high deficits. Buchanan's Solution: End the War on Terror and surrender to the terrorists. (Never mind that surrendering to the terrorists would endanger the lives of millions, if not tens-of-millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren.)

There are a lot more such examples, but these are enough to show that Buchanan's real problem is the economic freedom that the American people enjoy. That's why his solution is always to curtail the economic freedom of the American people.

[Republican_Legion]

The Republican Party is actually MORE conservative than it was 40 years ago when the party was controlled by the Rockefeller leftists.

Theres a few Rockefellers family members still in politics today.... They are democrats. WV's other senator is Jay Rockefeller http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0961103
And WA has a state senator Phil Rockefeller
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0961103

In stark contrast, the Democrat Party has moved from a mainstream party to a party controlled by the lunatic left.

Truman and JFK were OK in my opinion but as soon as the LBJ and Jimmy Cahtuhs took over it became the Communist party.

[Republican_Legion]

And the Republicans, on the other hand, are identical in philosophy to Republicans of old? I disagree.


These three are essentially the same issue - he's not into free trade. Being in favor of "big government" - like we have now - isn't the same thing at all. Some trade restrictions do not big government make.


To pay down the debt?

Lower Taxes increase Revenue which increase income for the Govt.

[Rhino]

And if anyone recalls, Pat B's conservatism of the heart came before George W Bush's compassionate conservatism.I heard "compassionate conservatism" being bandied about long before GW was on the national scene.