Pat Buchanan Quotes on Bush's Foreign Policy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]"The president now plans to hector and badger foreign leaders on the progress each is making toward attaining U.S. standards of democracy. ... This is a formula for `Bring-it-on!' collisions with every autocratic regime on earth, including virtually every African and Arab ruler, all the `outposts of tyranny' named by Secretary [of State] Rice, most of the nations of Central Asia, China and Russia. This is a prescription for endless war."

Do you agree? [/Q]


[Q]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."

[/Q]

[Q]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.

[/Q]

[Q]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.

[/Q]

[Q]MR. BUCHANAN: Perhaps we agree because my argument is we do not go around the world militarily intervening in countries to change their internal policies the way we did, or claim to have done, in Iraq.

[/Q]

[Q]MR. BUCHANAN: If you believe in democracy...

MR. SHARANSKY: Yeah.

MR. BUCHANAN: ...that much, would you allow the fate of the settlers in Gaza...

MR. SHARANSKY: Yeah.

MR. BUCHANAN: ...to be decided by all the people of Gaza? Let them vote on whether the settlers should stay or go. You think they should stay. I want to make one more point. The Israelis, when they invaded Lebanon to chase out the PLO, there was no Shia uprising against them. They called into existence that invasion and occupation did, Hezbollah, which eventually drove the Israelis out of Lebanon. Interventionism is not the cure for terror. It is the cause of terror.

[/Q]

[Q]MR. BUCHANAN: ...defending the frontier of Gaza. The question is: What are 8,000 Israeli settlers doing on that Palestinian land? They are the cause why Hamas won a 70 percent vote. You have got to stop occupying countries. That is the cause of terrorism. [/Q]


[Q]MR. BUCHANAN: Imperial interventionism. You want to end terror...

MR. SHARANSKY: Right.

MR. BUCHANAN: ...stop it the way the British stopped it in Palestine. They got out. The French got out of Algiers. It ended. The Russians got out of Afghanistan. It ended. They got out of Lebanon. That ended it.
[/Q]


[Q]MR. BUCHANAN: Look, every American supports the right of Israel to exist and...

MR. SHARANSKY: Yeah.

MR. BUCHANAN: ...almost every American supports American weapons to Israel to defend its national security and national existence...

MR. SHARANSKY: Yeah.

MR. BUCHANAN: ...however, we do believe that Israel has got to give up the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank because this problem in the Middle East, which is caused there, is causing acts of terror, not only against you, but against us. It is making us hated in a part of the world where the United States was never before hated, was admired, if you will.
[/Q]


These are the words of a man who many of you probably disagree with on a daily basis. Is he speaking the truth on meet the press? Any thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6954712/
 
What sort of world is it when the supposed upholders of liberty the liberals are in agreement with Pat Buchanan.
 
to me, he is making a lot of sense. the whole world sees whats happening to iraq, and if you think its gonna become a real democracy like bush is hoping for, youre in for a real disappointment.

the real war on terror has only begun, im afraid

:(


thanks bush :madspit:
 
he is very consistent. crazy, anti-semetic, grossly homophobic, possibly racist, but consistent.

he's a true isolationist populist.

and Bush isn't a real conservative. Bush is a sentimental, idealistic "conservative" who wants government to run your life to an extent a liberal would never dream and who believes in the inherent, god-blessed goodness of all American intentions and the pluck of the US military to overcome any obstacle.

in other words, he's really fucking dangerous.

Buchanan is a realist.
 
Thanks Bush, only in the next few decades will we see if such an ambitious policy will work but the results from both Afghanistan and Iraq already are positive.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Thanks Bush, only in the next few decades will we see if such an ambitious policy will work but the results from both Afghanistan and Iraq already are positive.


ambitious policies are nice. i encourage the growth of Arab democracy.

but if you're going to do it, do it right.

and a single day of voting, and a media-savvy process of dipping fingers in ink, will not make up for the lives lost, the lies told, and the enormous, enormous cost this has had on the american taxpayer due to constant bugling of nearly everything in the post-war process.
 
Last edited:
all_i_want said:
to me, he is making a lot of sense. the whole world sees whats happening to iraq, and if you think its gonna become a real democracy like bush is hoping for, youre in for a real disappointment.

the real war on terror has only begun, im afraid

:(


thanks bush :madspit:
Have you seen only the bad news? And how do you know the future, do you have a crystal ball, or do you want us to fail in Iraq because you don't like our president?
 
Just pessimistic I think, but of course you are when you only tune in and see bad news on the television ~ the reason that the Iraqi elections were such an odd story was that it showed the exact opposite of what many in the media had tried to convey ~ it was an abberation, but sure enough they got back to complaining that the Shiites had majority and that they were certain Iraq was going to turn into an Iranian style Theocracy within the year democratically.

But comeon, Pat Buchanan!
 
no i dont have a crystal ball but i dont think it is really necessary.

unless US puts an end to its antagonistic and intervensionist policy, we are going to see all of this escalate to another level. its plain for everyone to see. except bush and his followers
i guess.

and NO, i really dont want to see US fail because it is not going to endanger the US, but me and many people i know happen to live just next to iraq, and a destablized, messed up country will affect me and millions who live in the region, not the americans. if US leaves right at this moment, the region will fall apart. why? because americans came here in the first place! and they just wont admit they messed up and keep saying that theyre spreading freedom. thats plain b*shit. if you really think that US is spreading freedom and hope in iraq, maybe you should visit baghdad some time.

just because iraq had a joke of an election (no campaigning, tribal relations deciding the vote, under constant threat of physical harm, under invasion, and a large group of the country boycotting the election? come on) it doesnt mean it will stabilize in a year. maybe not even in ten years. maybe even longer.

the sad part is, americans PAY for this war, and that money could be used for more worthwhile and RIGHT causes. funny, if all that money was used for africa, the whole continent could be saved! think about it, 25 million iraqis, compared to hundreds of millions of africans. if bush really cared about saving lives and spreading freedom, there were better ways to spend the money they spent for this war.

now what it all comes down to is will it help in the war against terrorism? isnt it obvious? your president and the country he unfortunately represents is resented all around the world, more than it ever was. congratulations on creating a new recruitment ground for terrorists. why not attack the rest of the middle east as well, since they are all totalitarian regimes? maybe those people would enjoy FREEDOM and FREE ELECTIONS as well? but wait, sure, the others do whatever US dictates, so they can wait for a while.

the more i talk about it, the more all this pisses me off :mad:
 
hi. i'm an american who (mostly) agrees with you.

but i do ask you to distinguish between americans, and the american government.
 
It isn't about Iraq as much as it is about Iran ~ the US does not want to take on Iran millitarily as that would be too costly but by removing both the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists in Iraq then the plausibility of a popular uprising against the Mullah's suceeding is increased and over the next few years that pressure may come to a head.

This is ultimately not relevant, I posit that radical Islam exists as a political ideology that would use instability in the region to sieze power in numerous countries with the long term goal of creating a unified pan-Islamic state ~ of course we must also consider the religious and nationalist obstacles to this goal.

It emerged as the colonial powers came down, it has been involved in politics around the Muslim world represented by a wide variety of groups ~ it is not monolithic.

It is fostered by discontent at the repressive governments and in particular their treatment of these organisations and their members. They also coopt other causes to gain wider support ~ be they nationalistic like Chechnya or Aceh or broader issues such as western influence in the region or the existence of a Jewish nation in Muslim lands.

Disengagement from the region and leaving everything in the state that it is in will not solve anything, if America was to turn isolationist then the problems would only become worse as those very regimes gradually collapse and are replaced with governments of a slightly more religious bend. In addition Iran would develop nuclear weapons making the situation in the region a powder keg with millions of innocent lives hanging in the balance.

Engagement in the region through all avenues is the last best hope, war is not the answer to the problems of the region but it is neccessary to remove some obstacles to change (such as Saddam Hussein), encouragement of good governance through financial aid and diplomatic support (for the Palestinian Authority) ~ the terror sponsering regimes like the Baathists in Iraq and Syria (terrorism against Israeli's is still terrorism), terror funding countries like the Gulf Arab states; the exporters of global terrorism. Of course you cannot go out and topple each one ~ there are always concequences to actions, topple the Saudi Royal Family for instance and the global economy could collapse and a much more dangerous beast could emerge from the chaos. Measured actions must be taken but time is a factor, the longer that you wait the greater the risk of another even larger attack grows. If the chains to freedom are removed in the region the threat from the terrorists will be greatly diminished, without the funding and ideological support that they enjoy today such groups would wither and die.
 
Last edited:
I can only hope the Bush administration will be patient enough to not strike iran (unless of course they attack us but now we're getting too hypothetical) and that you're right that the people of the country will rise up so we're not sent in to do it. :|
 
of course i know, i was there just before the elections, and i happened to be in boston during the DNC AND some DNC delegates slept on my dorm room floor, and americans do rate amongst my top 3 favorite people :wink: too bad those guys couldnt get bush NOT elected this time.

its all good though. i like americans :p
 
yeah i do hope iran gets rid of those guys and there is real potential in the student movements there (never piss off the students:eyebrow: ) and iran may have to change their ways.

i talked to an iranian journalist last year and he was very curious about how the world sees them (he was a supporter of the reforms) and although he wasnt very hopeful about his country's future, he said, 'we can only try'. i hope theyll even succeed.
 
all_i_want said:
of course i know, i was there just before the elections, and i happened to be in boston during the DNC AND some DNC delegates slept on my dorm room floor, and americans do rate amongst my top 3 favorite people :wink: too bad those guys couldnt get bush NOT elected this time.

its all good though. i like americans :p


thanks, i do appreciate that. lots of time in europe has made me rather sensitive to the blatant stereotypes and sweeping generalizations that seem such a common part of discourse over there. (though it appears as if i've just made a generalizaiton myself :uhoh: ) it always surprises me when people feel free saying things about Americans that they would never, ever say about blacks, latinos, women, jews, and, heck, even gay people.

and we tried. we really did try to defeat bush. they simply beat us. i'm sorry.

haven't met too many turks, but i did go on a few dates with one. very swarthy. very. :sexywink:
 
yeah funny, i am kind of dating an american right now... but lets just not derail the thread :wink:
 
Irvine511 said:
t always surprises me when people feel free saying things about Americans that they would never, ever say about blacks, latinos, women, jews, and, heck, even gay people.:

you know what you're right. i never thought about that. :huh:
 
Macfistowannabe said:
do you want us to fail in Iraq because you don't like our president?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but personally, I'm hoping I'm wrong about potential failures in Iraq that could happen as a result of everything that's been going on. My problem isn't so much that Iraq has a democracy, it's moreso the fact that the U.S. felt the need to enforce one on them, which kinda defeats the purpose of democracy to begin with. If they want a democracy, great, but they should've been the ones to decide on that, not us.

But yeah, I think there could be some problems down the road with this whole ordeal, but at the same time, I am sincerely hoping I'll be wrong, 'cause it'd be wonderful if a country in that region had some good things happen to it.

Angela
 
well i think the reason is that americans are the easiest targets for prolonged rants and, well, practically, if you try hard enough, you can blame americans for ANYTHING from space junk to the slow and painful displacement of the north pole. :huh:
 
Buchanan is not advocating disengagement. He is advocating, using other avenues of ENGAGEMENT beside military strength and involvement in the region, which he attributes to be the MAIN cause of terrorism against the US.
 
I do not know how you can change course from the direction we are heading in. Iran should have been the MAIN target after 9/11. Search the threads in here. There have been so many references and links to 9/11 and Iran, I cannot understand for the life of me why they were not #2 on our list after Afghanistan.

We have committed to Iraq, and we need to honor the obligations. God help us if we fail......
 
A-wanderer - see the US is going to hell in a handbasket if I agree with Pat.:wink:
I do not like him on anyother issues by the way, I just agree with those particular sentiments. Dread, I agree he isn't preaching disengagement but diplomacy:huh:

I think we've backed off Iran to take down Syria instead, since God gave us that assassination.
 
I don't think that there is going to be another war in the short to medium term ~ it is illogical to make such a move before Iraq is secure and US forces removed from that theatre. This does not exclude a smaller strike against Iranian nuclear facilities which does remain a very real possibility. I do not think that there will be a war with Syria, it is in nobody's interest for that to occur but some concerted diplomatic effort involving both the US and EU playing good cop / bad cop may yield the desired results of the Syrians getting out of Lebanon.

Iraq was a decaying regime rotten to the core, it was weak and could be toppled easily, both Iran and Syria are formidable opponents and they could each do a lot more damage than Iraq could. It is a moot point in the end, Saddam was removed and that source of instability is out of the picture ~ the situation has changed so we need to get over that. On other fronts diplomacy has served the US and EU quite well, for instance Libya coming in from the cold, the recent movements in the PA following Arafats death. The long term benefits of Iraq are yet to be seen, it is far too early to say that it was a positive or a negative action in the eyes of history. Iran is the mother of terror in the ME, it is a powerful country and without Iraq as a bulwark it is entirely concievable for the Iranians to sieze control of the gulf states while under a nuclear umbrella. An all out war will not be productive in Iran, there is already a significant part of the population who is fed up with the Mullah's, the US needs to court these groups (and do it properly with real support when push comes to shove, they fucked up Iraq big time after the first war by abandoning the Shiites and in the end they get the same situation as they would have in the 1990's ~ a Shiite dominated Iraq) and offer support for their ends be it political or economic. There are many means of using a nations power and the US uses all of them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom