Conservative Republicans Against the War?

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
I thought you folks would find the enclosed article interesting.

For those of you that don't know who Pat Buchanen is, he is a very conservative and noted Republican. This alone makes this article surprising in its perspective. You would think it was written by someone on the left.

Peachmonkey, Michaeledwards, rmcrobertson, Feistymouse...I thought you four might get a kick out of it given your apparent political perspectives. Along with this I hope you noted that yesterday Bill Buckley announced his retirement from the National Review...and in doing so expressed his reservations over the war. Buckley was my favorite conservative writer. I disagreed with him quite often, but he wrote beautifully.

Article below.


Regards,


Steve



The War We're Losing.

By Patrick J. Buchanan
穢 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

June 28, the day in 2004 that the Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis and proconsul Paul Bremer hastily departed Baghdad, is a day freighted with historic significance.

On June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and led, five weeks later, to World War I.


On June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War I and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster.

Thus, it is a good time to attempt to draw up an interim profit-and-loss statement of what President Bush has accomplished in what he calls the "War on Terror." Who is winning this war?

To answer that question, we must first ask and answer antecedent questions. What is the war about? What are we fighting for? Who, exactly, is the enemy in this war? What is he fighting for?

Since 9-11, the president's objectives have been to exact retribution for the massacre, overthrow the Taliban enablers of Osama, run al-Qaida out of Afghanistan, remove Saddam, disarm Iraq and defend America. He has attained them all. Yet, 54 percent of Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake. The nation understands that something has gone wrong.

The nation is right. For what this war is really about is who shall rule in the Islamic world. Will it be the men who share our views and values? Or will it be True Believers who will purge that world of what they see as our odious and corrupt presence?

What our enemies seek in the great Sunni Triangle from Rabat to Chechnya to Mindanao is what the Iranian Revolution achieved: to be rid of the Americans and of rulers that they view as vile puppets of the United States, to purify their societies and to unite their world against the West.

If this is indeed the ultimate goal of the radical Islamists, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a strategic victory for the enemy.

Consider what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Baath Party is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their allies may one day fill. The Arab world has been radicalized and supports the Iraqi resistance in its drive to defeat and expel the Americans.

The destabilization of the Saudi monarchy through terror has begun. Rulers in Arab countries have been forced to distance themselves from the Americans if they wish to retain the support of their people. Western tourists are staying away from the Middle East, Western investment is on hold, and Western workers have begun to depart Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

"There exists today a hatred of Americans never equaled in the region," Egyptian President Mubarak told Le Monde. "In the beginning, some people thought the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred toward Americans. After what happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred, and the Americans know it."

This longtime friend added, "American and Israeli interests are not safe, not only in our region but in other parts of the world, in Europe, in America, anywhere in the world." The war on Iraq into which his neo-conservative advisers prodded the president seems to have ignited the very "war of civilizations" between Islam and America that the president said he wanted to avoid.

Raised to believe in the innate goodness of America and the nobility of her purposes, President Bush finds it hard to believe the best recruiting tool al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgents have is the presence on Iraqi soil of the U.S. soldiers he sent to "liberate" Iraq.

Of late, the president appears to have begun to understand that our presence is a primary cause of the war of resistance and that, when this phase ends, the real war, the civil war to decide which Iraqis rule in Iraq, begins. Will it be Iraqis who wish to belong to the modern world? Or Iraqis who wish to be part of the anti-American Islamic revolution?

War, Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of Arab peoples.

This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.

We Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are invited, we would be invited more often to come and help.

End of article.

---------------------------------------------------
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Thank you. It is a nice article and consistent with Buchanan's world view. He has always been a very thoughtful isolationist.

I have always despised Patrick Buchanan. Recently, however, I head some describe him as a nice man, who will never say an unkind word; he will argue his points of view strongly, but is always polite. As I reflected on that assertion, I had to agree. I have never heard him put forth any of his arguments with personal attacks. He is always on point, but exceedingly polite. (wouldn't say $%!T if he had a mouthful - type of polite - forgive the expression) This has significantly raised Mr. Buchanan up in my esteem.

What is also intersting is how many other Neo-Conservatives are coming around to this way of thinking, I will cite just one example for now:

Tucker Carlson - "I think its a total nightmare and disaster, and Im ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," he said. "Its something Ill never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine whos smarter than I am, and I shouldnt have done that. No. I want things to work out, but Im enraged by it, actually."

Thanks for the post. Mike
 

RandomPhantom700

Master of Arts
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
69
Location
Treasure Coast, FL
This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.
Wouldn't removing our presence and ceasing to intervene kinda conflict with the goal of standing up for Palestinian justice? Maybe I missed something.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
RandomPhantom700 said:
Wouldn't removing our presence and ceasing to intervene kinda conflict with the goal of standing up for Palestinian justice? Maybe I missed something.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't want to speak for Mr. Buchanan, but maybe when he refers to 'their interal affairs' he was speaking more generally about the Middle-East Nations (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq).

Anyhow ... The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians. Maybe if we just stopped sending money to Isreal, we could 'cease intervening in their affairs'.
 

Feisty Mouse

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
3,322
Reaction score
30
Location
Indiana
The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians. Maybe if we just stopped sending money to Isreal, we could 'cease intervening in their affairs'.
Holy **** - I did not realize it was on that scale. No kidding.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm


There are some interesting nuggets of information on the linked page.

For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were liestrue lies.

Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
Seems my math was wrong -- way wrong. Even using the 3 Billion a year, that works out to more than 8 Million dollars a day.

But, it seems that much of the money that goes from the United States to Israel is private - tax deductible - donations. Which in turn deprives the United States Treasury of taxable income (to the tune of $300,000,000 per year). Oh, well.

Mike
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
480
Location
Not BC, Not DC
:eek: Holy cr*p ... I agree with Pat Buchanan?!?!?!?!?!?

...wait, wait.... I have to sit down....
 
P

PeachMonkey

Guest
michaeledward said:
Anyhow ... The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians. Maybe if we just stopped sending money to Isreal, we could 'cease intervening in their affairs'.
Are you sure the US provides *no* aid to the Palestinians?

Moreover, while I'm completely open to the idea of potentially *cutting back* on aid to Israel, I'd be extremely nervous about cutting *all* aid to Israel. Lest we forget, Israel *is* surrounded by nations that have, on multiple occasions, tried to wipe her off the face of the earth, nations which have considerable military forces (many of which contain highly capable US weaponry, and are funded by US foreign aid).
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
480
Location
Not BC, Not DC
Feisty Mouse said:
shesula - your post had me laughing my tush off.
uh...thanks...I'm seriously sucking wind here...everythings fading away....

:anic:
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
michaeledward said:
What is also intersting is how many other Neo-Conservatives are coming around to this way of thinking, I will cite just one example for now:

Tucker Carlson - "I think its a total nightmare and disaster, and Im ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," he said. "Its something Ill never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine whos smarter than I am, and I shouldnt have done that. No. I want things to work out, but Im enraged by it, actually."

Thanks for the post. Mike


I have seen Carlson quoted elsewhere saying essentially the same thing.

A number of conservatives are balking at Bush. Bob Novak at the Sun Times reports that he's losing his conservative base. He reports that Don Devine, a Vice Chairman with the American Conservative Union, has turned against Bush. And what of the conservative Novak? Hard to tell. If we go with the penumbras and emanations from his articles, I'd say he's pretty disenchanted himself.

And then there were the former statesmen appointed by Ford, Reagan, etc. who came out with a letter protesting the war's lack of vision...the retired Marine generals, Zinni and Hoar loudly voicing their protests...Tom Clancy's complaints that we had no cassus belli going into this conflict.,,,Bill Buckley's comments yesterday..I've posted this all elsewhere, I'm sure.

I just got off the phone with my ward, who is interning with Joe Lieberman in Washington. He says he can't believe that people are calling this coming election "close" given the degradation of Bush's Republican base. I have to agree with him in stating that it wouldn't be silly to call this next election a decisive victory for the Democrats. The one thing that might swing it back for the Republicans is if Cheney retires and Giuliani steps up as a Veep candidate. Until that unfortunate event, I see no reason for hand-wringing on the part of the Democrats.

BTW...the Democrats just set a record and broke Bush's 2000 fundrasing levels. That too should tell people something. Somebody, somewhere is giving that money. A discontented electorate, perhaps?

Regards,

Steve
 
S

sma_book

Guest
PeachMonkey said:
Are you sure the US provides *no* aid to the Palestinians?


I don't believe I made any statements about the United States aid toward the Palestinians. I just did a quick search on google and found this quote.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20001127ib.html
U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not earmarked, but it has been running at about $100 million a year.
Furthermore, the United States gives Israel all of its economic aid directly in cash, without requiring an accounting of how the funds are used. In contrast, aid to the PA is strictly controlled by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and is specified for particular programs, mostly for civil infrastructure projects.


PeachMonkey said:
Moreover, while I'm completely open to the idea of potentially *cutting back* on aid to Israel, I'd be extremely nervous about cutting *all* aid to Israel. Lest we forget, Israel *is* surrounded by nations that have, on multiple occasions, tried to wipe her off the face of the earth, nations which have considerable military forces (many of which contain highly capable US weaponry, and are funded by US foreign aid).

While I haven't examined the evidence in Jane's recently, I really think that there is not an equivilant military in the region. Israel could probably fight all of its neighbors simultaneously and defeat them in short order. Israel's military is perhaps the third most effectively trained army on the planet (behind the US and England). Of course, one of the reason they are so highly skilled is the US aid.

Thanks for listening. Mike

It is particularly the aid imbalance that is cited by many in the middle east who feel we support Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict. The imbalance makes it difficult for the U.S. to be a broker in any peace process, even when we are fully engaged.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
PeachMonkey said:
Are you sure the US provides *no* aid to the Palestinians?

I don't believe I made any statements about the United States aid toward the Palestinians. I just did a quick search on google and found this quote.
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20001127ib.html
U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not earmarked, but it has been running at about $100 million a year.
Furthermore, the United States gives Israel all of its economic aid directly in cash, without requiring an accounting of how the funds are used. In contrast, aid to the PA is strictly controlled by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and is specified for particular programs, mostly for civil infrastructure projects.
PeachMonkey said:
Moreover, while I'm completely open to the idea of potentially *cutting back* on aid to Israel, I'd be extremely nervous about cutting *all* aid to Israel. Lest we forget, Israel *is* surrounded by nations that have, on multiple occasions, tried to wipe her off the face of the earth, nations which have considerable military forces (many of which contain highly capable US weaponry, and are funded by US foreign aid).
While I haven't examined the evidence in Jane's recently, I really think that there is not an equivilant military in the region. Israel could probably fight all of its neighbors simultaneously and defeat them in short order. Israel's military is perhaps the third most effectively trained army on the planet (behind the US and England). Of course, one of the reason they are so highly skilled is the US aid.

It is particularly the aid imbalance that is cited by many in the middle east who feel we support Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict. The imbalance makes it difficult for the U.S. to be a broker in any peace process, even when we are fully engaged.

Thanks for listening. Mike
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
480
Location
Not BC, Not DC
hardheadjarhead said:
... I see no reason for hand-wringing on the part of the Democrats.

BTW...the Democrats just set a record and broke Bush's 2000 fundrasing levels....
:partyon:
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
michaeledward said:
It is particularly the aid imbalance that is cited by many in the middle east who feel we support Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict. The imbalance makes it difficult for the U.S. to be a broker in any peace process, even when we are fully engaged.

An increasing number of people in the U.S. are questioning such aid. I've always been pro-Israel, but I'm not so sure it isn't time for us to cut the purse strings...albeit slowly...and let them make their own way. I say this while professing ignorance of many of the intricacies of the politics of the situation. Any illumination would be welcome.

Lately it has been popular for the Right to alledge that anyone questioning Israel's policies is "anti-semitic", and that there is a rising "new anti-semitism". Victor David Hansen falls prey to this mindset. An historian, Hansen is a conservative apologist, who, like Buckley, is so bright and well spoken I find I can respect him even if I disagree with most of what he says. In any case I saw a taped C-SPAN show with Hansen and he brought this notion of anti-semitism up. At first it was seductive...a tad more thought on it gives one pause. It leaves a bad "after taste" as it where.


Regards,


Steve
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
54
Location
Long Island
1. The US provides a little less than $3 billion/year in aid to Israel.

2. The assertion that the US provides no aid to the Palestinians is incorrect. In 2003 we provided about $75 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. We then provided an additional $50 million in emergency aid. And an additional $129 million was provided to the United Nations specifically for programs to aid the Palestinians. More funds were allocated in 2004.

This info came from the US Dept of State.

Regarding Conservatives Against The War: I'm not a Conservative, but you have to remember what "real" Conservatives believe in. They believe in LESS government involvement in the lives of citizens, fiscal responsibility, and concentration on America. Our current government does not fit this description. The Bush Administration is fiscally profligate, Imperialistic, and is most intrusive in the lives of ordinary citizens--this policy has been called "neo-Conservativism."

So the idea that Conservatives might be against the war is not really so odd.
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
480
Location
Not BC, Not DC
:soapbox:personally, I think it's all smoke and mirrors. It always happens right around election time - the whole, "oh, well, we didn't really support that..." and the old, "well, we didn't really have all the facts but we do now and have ultimate confidence we can make a better decision next time..."

I have two words to say to those nimrods who have M&Ms for huevos -

GET REAL!!

A lemming member of the Republican Party came to my house today, stumping for a Republican candidate for Senate in my area. Now, the last time Republicans came to my door, they wore a suit or dress slacks, white business shirt and tie - basically, "business attire." This one came up to me looking like he had come off of the river - cargo zip-off shorts, Hawaiian shirt, backwards baseball cap, sunglasses with surf leash, and...get this...are you ready for it??? You guessed it - SPORTS SANDALS!!!!! Hmm...gee, do you think they're trying to change their image to...I don't know...drum up some of those old liberal votes, maybe? Hmmm?

One thing I read in the Playboy Interview with Michael Moore that I agreed with him on is that the Democrats have been standing by watching the conservative Republicans take the bull by the horns and do everything they could to win...and they have. The Dems just thought the people would be too smart to buy into the general GOP fodder, but they were wrong. Now it's time for Dems to step up to the plate and play baseball - crap or get off the friggin' pot - either you're in it to win it or you're not. And I think, personally, the conservative republicans are running scared now. I think they know they're in deep doo-doo in November unless they pull another rabbit out of the hat (I'm sure they will - another conflict and we come, magically and magestically to the rescue of some poor country, making it all depend on Florida again, whatever....).

OK - I'm off my soapbox now. Thanks for reading!! :asian::asian:
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Phoenix44 said:
2. The assertion that the US provides no aid to the Palestinians is incorrect. In 2003 we provided about $75 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. We then provided an additional $50 million in emergency aid. And an additional $129 million was provided to the United Nations specifically for programs to aid the Palestinians. More funds were allocated in 2004.
Who made an assertion that the US provides no aid to the Palesinians?

Thanks, Mike
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,607
Reaction score
54
Location
Long Island
michaeledward said:
Anyhow ... The US Provides something like 3 million dollars a day to Isreal. And nothing to the Palestinians.
Who made that assertion? I thought you did, 7/1 11:40.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Phoenix44 said:
Who made that assertion? I thought you did, 7/1 11:40.
Ouch! .... Dope Slaps to Me! .... It does appear that I typed that ... Mea Culpa ... Mea Culpa ... Deepest apologies to Peach Monkey & Phoenix44....

When my man Al Franken wrote 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot' he claimed he worked hard not to call Limbaugh on those wild-*** claims made in the third hour of the show, while he was in the zone, sweating to his own pomposity. Franken felt it wouldn't be fair to call him on statements made under 'momentum'.

Apparently, I was typing under that momentum!

Must -- Slow -- Down.

Mike
 

Latest Discussions

Top