Can’t believe I’m saying that?!?!
Meet the Press.
It’s been interesting to watch how many of the right-wing are now distancing themselves from old Pat - because they don’t like what he’s saying.
|MR. RUSSERT: Pat Buchanan, you have analyzed this book in the latest issue of The American Conservative. You write: “Only democracy can pave the way to true peace and security. This is the message of Sharansky’s `Case for Democracy,’ which the president has embraced and encouraged all to read. ut what is often true is not always true, and U.S. foreign policy, which is to protect U.S. vital interests and the peace and freedom of Americans, cannot be rooted in the idealism of an ex-Soviet dissident. …Sharansky notwithstanding, democracy is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of America’s peace and security, nor even of Israel’s.” |
MR. PAT BUCHANAN: All right. Well, let’s take Israel’s situation. Mr. Begin signed an agreement to give back the Sinai to Egypt with Anwar Sadat, who is the successor of a military dictator, Nasser. He was not a Democrat. The Israeli government signed an agreement with Hafez al-Assad, a dictator of the worst kind, for a truce on the Golan Heights, which has held. What I am saying is this, Tim. You do not need a democratic government in order to achieve a success.
In Mr. Bush’s first term, he cut a deal with Qaddafi, state sponsor of terror whereby Qaddafi would give up his weapons of mass destruction, his support for terror in return for the United States letting him out of the penalty box of sanctions. Qaddafi remains a state sponsor of terror. He was. But we cut a deal with him, and it was a successful deal on the part of the president of the United States. He is to be commended for it. That is realism in foreign policy. It is not idealism, but it is realism.
MR. RUSSERT: Prescription for endless war?
MR. BUCHANAN: Certainly it is. Look, the United States of America–I dissent strongly from my friend. The United States of America has always been free and always been secure. There have been despotisms from time in memorial. There are 22 Arab states, not one of which is democratic, and the United States has not been threatened by any of them since the Barbary pirates.
In my judgment, what happened on 9/11 was a result of interventionism. Interventionism is the cause of terror. It is not a cure for terror. The idea that the president of the United States, as he said in his inaugural, is going to help democratic institutions in every region in every nation on earth is a formula for permanent war, Tim. And look, the president of the United States has no constitutional authority to do this. Where in the Constitution do we get the right to intervene in the internal affairs of countries that do not threaten us and do not attack us? If they don’t, their internal politics are their own business. As Quincy Adams says, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion of freedom everywhere, but the vindicator only of her own.”
MR. RUSSERT: The president said that on September 11th, “Freedom came under attack.”
MR. BUCHANAN: The president of the United States was profoundly mistaken. He has misdiagnosed the malady. He has misdiagnosed the reason for the attack, Tim. The United States was not attacked because we are free. Bin Laden was not attacking the Bill of Rights. We were attacked because the United–over here because the United States’ military and political presence is massive over there. Bin Laden in his fatwah, his statement of declaration of war on the United States, said the infidels were standing on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. They want us out of the Middle East. They don’t care whether we have a separation of church and state.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that? Were we attacked for our ideals, our freedom…
MR. BUCHANAN: We brought down the shah and we got the ayatollah. You bring down that Saudi monarchy, you destabilize that regime and Howard Dean, an Arab Howard Dean, is not going to rise out of the wreckage. That country is a nation whose people now admire and respect bin Laden, not George Bush. We cannot make the enemy the best of the good. Tim, look, we have had occasions, the last great crusade for democracy was Woodrow Wilson going across the sea with an army to make the world safer. We brought down all the monarchs and we got instead Lenin and Stalin and Mussolini and Hitler.
Is Buchanan running for something?
Noooohhhhh. You should get out alittle more.
People are out there.
PB is probably running FROM something.
Pat’s got it right this time!
Maybe. I just don’t like guys like Buchanan. He’s just a Republican Jesse Jackson. Does a great job of whipping up emotions and firing folks up about things, then slinks off to a dark corner while the real men take care of business.
Nope. Ain’t got no use for the likes of 'dem boys!
The little I know of Buchanan, it seems to me that a drive towards the middle is against his belief.
This smells fishy to me.
Buchanon’s been critical of the war since it’s start. He’s one of the few “conservatives” who vocal against the war. If you consider suppoprting the war to be “going down the middle”, then he’s not that.
well, I don’t know enough about him to speak intelligently, nor do I care all that much.
what is his tax position?
|Quote (clark_griswold @ Feb. 14 2005,13:54)|
|The little I know of Buchanan, it seems to me that a drive towards the middle is against his belief. |
This smells fishy to me.
Thats not fish you smell.
I smell a guy about to do the Party-Swapping Boogie.
what is his tax position?
Either check in on this conversation, or check out. Who cares what his tax position is, or whether he wears brown or black shoes?
This thread is about his views on the US's role in [not] fighting for Democracies in the world, etc. which I happen to agree with. He's an ultra-conservative & I'm an ultra-liberal but yet we agree on this issue.
|Quote (Mr Soul @ Feb. 14 2005,14:22)|
|Either check in on this conversation, or check out.|
Duuuude? This is the "Anything Else" forum. Right?
Sure it is but that’s just means we can start OT threads here, not what you imply. It doesn’t change the rules of discussion.
I’m trying to probe you guys into thinking about what Buchanon says & commenting on it. I’m not interested in conservative litmus tests.
|Quote (gtr4him @ Feb. 14 2005,13:24)|
|Maybe. I just don't like guys like Buchanan. He's just a Republican Jesse Jackson. Does a great job of whipping up emotions and firing folks up about things, then slinks off to a dark corner while the real men take care of business.|
Nope. Ain't got no use for the likes of 'dem boys!
There you go. That sums up my thoughts on PB.
While I share (some of) PB's Christian beliefs, I also realize we live in a very nasty world with a lot of rotten people. Did Dubyah screw up by smacking down Saddam and giving Iraq back to the people? We won't know for years. (and we may never know his honest to God, no bull motive) Point is, SOMEBODY has to make tough decisions and take RESPONSIBILITY for them. Guys like Buchanan and Jackson cut and run when things heat up. I have NO INTEREST in their arm-chair quarterbacking.
wow. just asking.
Clark, Pat’s stand on taxes? Well back in the Nixon days, he drafted a plan for “Tricky Dick” and friends to use the IRS as their own private investigation service to dig up dirt on anti-Nixon folks.
I figure he still marches to the same tune. Take your money, then spy on you with it!
Really? I need to find something about that. I never heard that! wow.
Is he a tallking head full-time? what network?
Upper bracket of course.