snuffbox 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Heres an essay from conservative legend Pat Buchanan. I disagree with his endorsement, but this is a very well written article. Buchanan, while often found a great distance from my own opinions, has always been an exceptional writer. http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html Coming Home By Patrick J. Buchanan In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be “a tragedy and a disaster.” Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again. In a 6,000-word article entitled “Whose War?” we warned President Bush that he was “being lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations...” Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren song—that the world was pining for American Empire; that “Big Government Conservatism” is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty. Mr. Bush was led up the garden path. And the returns from his mid-life conversion to neoconservatism are now in: • A guerrilla war in Iraq is dividing and bleeding America with no end in sight. It carries the potential for chaos, civil war, and the dissolution of that country. • Balkanization of America and the looming bankruptcy of California as poverty and crime rates soar from an annual invasion of indigent illegals is forcing native-born Californians to flee the state for the first time since gold was found at Sutter’s Mill. • A fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP and merchandise trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP have produced a falling dollar, the highest level of foreign indebtedness in U.S. history, and the loss of one of every six manufacturing jobs since Bush took office. If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing. The only compelling argument for endorsing Kerry is to punish Bush for Iraq. But why should Kerry be rewarded? He voted to hand Bush a blank check for war. Though he calls Iraq a “colossal” error, “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” he has said he would—even had he known Saddam had no role in 9/11 and no WMD—vote the same way today. This is the Richard Perle position. Assuredly, a president who plunged us into an unnecessary and ruinous war must be held accountable. And if Bush loses, Iraq will have been his undoing. But a vote for Kerry is more than just a vote to punish Bush. It is a vote to punish America. For Kerry is a man who came home from Vietnam to slime the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and POWs he left behind as war criminals who engaged in serial atrocities with the full knowledge of their superior officers. His conduct was as treasonous as that of Jane Fonda and disqualifies him from ever being commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. As senator, he voted to undermine the policy of Ronald Reagan that brought us victory in the Cold War. He has voted against almost every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. Though a Catholic who professes to believe life begins at conception, he backs abortion on demand. He has opposed the conservative judges Bush has named to the U.S. appellate courts. His plans for national health insurance and new spending would bankrupt America. He would raise taxes. He is a globalist and a multilateralist who would sign us on to the Kyoto Protocol and International Criminal Court. His stands on Iraq are about as coherent as a self-portrait by Jackson Pollock. With Kerry as president, William Rehnquist could be succeeded as chief justice by Hillary Clinton. Every associate justice Kerry named would be cut from the same bolt of cloth as Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, and Ginsburg. Should Kerry win, the courts will remain a battering ram of social revolution and the conservative drive in Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will die an early death. I cannot endorse the candidate of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Barbra Streisand, nor endorse a course of action that would put this political windsurfer into the presidency, no matter how deep our disagreement with the fiscal, foreign, immigration, and trade policies of George W. Bush. As Barry Goldwater said in 1960, in urging conservatives to set aside their grievances and unite behind the establishment party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Lodge, the Republican Party is our home. It is our only hope. If an authentic conservatism rooted in the values of faith, family, community, and country is ever again to become the guiding light of national policy, it will have to come through a Republican administration. The Democratic Party of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton & Clinton is a lost cause: secularist, socialist, and statist to the core. What of the third-party candidates? While Ralph Nader is a man of principle and political courage, he is of the populist Left. We are of the Right. The Constitution Party is the party closest to this magazine in philosophy and policy prescriptions, and while one must respect votes for Michael Peroutka by those who live in Red or Blue states, we cannot counsel such votes in battleground states. For this election has come down to Bush or Kerry, and on life, guns, judges, taxes, sovereignty, and defense, Bush is far better. Moreover, inside the Republican Party, a rebellion is stirring. Tom Tancredo is leading the battle for defense of our borders. While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right. As Franklin Foer writes in the New York Times, our America First foreign policy is now being given a second look by a conservative movement disillusioned with neoconservative warmongering and Wilsonian interventionism. There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats. The celebrants of outsourcing in the White House have gone into cloister. The Bush amnesty for illegal aliens has been rejected. Prodigal Republicans now understand that their cohabitation with Big Government has brought their country to the brink of ruin and bought them nothing. But if we wish to be involved in the struggle for the soul of the GOP—and we intend to be there—we cannot be AWOL from the battle where the fate of that party is decided. There is another reason Bush must win. The liberal establishment that marched us into Vietnam evaded punishment for its loss of nerve and failure of will to win—by dumping LBJ, defecting to the children’s crusade to “give peace a chance,” then sabotaging Nixon every step of the way out of Vietnam until they broke his presidency in Watergate. Ensuring America’s defeat, they covered their tracks by denouncing their own war as “Nixon’s War.” If Kerry wins, leading a party that detests this war, he will be forced to execute an early withdrawal. Should that bring about a debacle, neocons will indict Democrats for losing Iraq. The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily. They steered Bush into this war and should be made to see it through to the end and to preside over the withdrawal or retreat. Only thus can they be held accountable. Only thus can this neo-Jacobin ideology be discredited in America’s eyes. It is essential for the country and our cause that it be repudiated by the Republican Party formally and finally. The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view. There is a final reason I support George W. Bush. A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own. When the Redcoats approached New Orleans to sunder the Union and Jackson was stacking cotton bales and calling for help from any quarter, the pirate Lafitte wrote to the governor of Louisiana to ask permission to fight alongside his old countrymen. “The Black Sheep wants to come home,” Lafitte pleaded. It’s time to come home. November 8, 2004 issue Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He wouldn't be too bad if he wasn't an anti-Semetic hate mongerer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He wouldn't be too bad if he wasn't anti-Semetic hate mongerer. Agreed. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Damn you for quoting my typo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Damn you for quoting my typo Sadly, I missed your typo. He's still an anti-Semitic shitbag. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He also continues to harbor heavy resentment over Watergate/Nixon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He also continues to harbor heavy resentment over Watergate/Nixon. He harbors pro-Nazi tendencies. His harboring of Watergate love is the least of his problems. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He also continues to harbor heavy resentment over Watergate/Nixon. That may be because he's been personally fingered as Deep Throat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He also continues to harbor heavy resentment over Watergate/Nixon. That may be because he's been personally fingered as Deep Throat. I, honestly, still think Deep Throat doesn't exist and that Woodward used him as a device to make up for info he couldn't verify. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He still ruled on Ali G though, OK it was mostly due to Sacha 'So like, how many times were you president?' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 He also continues to harbor heavy resentment over Watergate/Nixon. That may be because he's been personally fingered as Deep Throat. I, honestly, still think Deep Throat doesn't exist and that Woodward used him as a device to make up for info he couldn't verify. -=Mike Do you think that one of these days John Dean will actually make good and name Deep Throat in his latest HAWT TELL-ALL BOOK~!? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 With Kerry as president, William Rehnquist could be succeeded as chief justice by Hillary Clinton. Yeah, and monkeys could come flying out of my ass. Some conservatives will just never stop with their Clinton conspiracy theories, will they? I cannot endorse the candidate of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Barbra Streisand Moore and Soros I understand the hatred for, Moore for being an annoying liar and Soros for whatever it is he did (I know he "broke the bank of England" or something like that) but Streisand? Not that I'm a fan of her or anything, but why do conservatives hate her? Because she's a Democrat! Or course Kerry is her candidate! But then again, with her being Jewish and having a lot of gay fans, no wonder Pat doesn't like her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 I personally think the policies of the country should be influenced by a Fundamentalist Preacher who probably holds onto one of those conspiracy theories that Jews are secretly plotting to take over the world. You know the ones I'm talking about, the bankers in Zurich controlling the fate of the world and such. It seems that most anti-semitic "Christians" tend to believe some sort of Jewish conspiracy. Was Pat the one who said that 9/11 was because God was angry at the world for having homosexuals in it, and as thus threw plane in the twin towers? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Was Pat the one who said that 9/11 was because God was angry at the world for having homosexuals in it, and as thus threw plane in the twin towers? Nah that was Jerry Falwell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Was Pat the one who said that 9/11 was because God was angry at the world for having homosexuals in it, and as thus threw plane in the twin towers? Pat Robertson said something like that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Olympic Slam Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Just about everything Pat said in this article I agree with. The sad thing is that despite it all, he's still putting his support behind Bush. I feel like I'm living in an oligarchy where we have to pick between two candidates that we don't want. I gurantee that if everyone in America took one of those online political party tests, the Democrats and Republicans would come in near the bottom of the left and the right columns. We'd all be Greens, Socialists, Libertarians or Constitution Party members. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Buchanan was pretty anti-Iraq war though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 I present Buchanan with the Lack of Spine award of 2004, for three long years of complaining about Bush, complaining about Iraq, complaining about Israel, and then giving in and endorsing the man instead of an alternative. And shit, even endorsing some third-party nutjob would have been more honorable. Congratulations, Pat, you can store it next to your autographed poster of Hitler. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 I find it pretty strange how American Conservative runs an interview with Ralph Nader as a cover story, where the whole interview is basically Pat feeding Ralph questions to bash at Bush and explain why he's a viable alternative for traditional conservative voters, then they do a complete about-face and dismiss him as the candidate of the "populist left". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangerous A 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Since Nader was brought up, I'll steer this thread in a little different direction. Nader was on CNBC yesterday promoting his candidacy and his book and said that they took stats of people who are going to be voting for Nader and asked if Nader wasn't available to vote for, who would you vote for instead. Nader said that 52% said that they would vote for Bush with 43% voting Kerry and the rest voting elsewhere or not voting. He brought this up as a case to say that he is not stealing votes from Dems because it's not automatic that Nader voters would automatically vote for Kerry. Do you think this is correct? Is Nader lying? Are Dems wrong to say that it's Nader's fault they lost the election in 2000? What do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 I present Buchanan with the Lack of Spine award of 2004, for three long years of complaining about Bush, complaining about Iraq, complaining about Israel, and then giving in and endorsing the man instead of an alternative. And shit, even endorsing some third-party nutjob would have been more honorable. Congratulations, Pat, you can store it next to your autographed poster of Hitler. Don't be too fast with that award, McCain is giving Pat a run for his money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Since Nader was brought up, I'll steer this thread in a little different direction. Nader was on CNBC yesterday promoting his candidacy and his book and said that they took stats of people who are going to be voting for Nader and asked if Nader wasn't available to vote for, who would you vote for instead. Nader said that 52% said that they would vote for Bush with 43% voting Kerry and the rest voting elsewhere or not voting. He brought this up as a case to say that he is not stealing votes from Dems because it's not automatic that Nader voters would automatically vote for Kerry. Do you think this is correct? Is Nader lying? Are Dems wrong to say that it's Nader's fault they lost the election in 2000? What do you think? Well, you have to look at how many registered democrats voted for Bush in 2000, I think it was 7 million, which easily trumps any "nader effect" rhetoric you hear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 I present Buchanan with the Lack of Spine award of 2004, for three long years of complaining about Bush, complaining about Iraq, complaining about Israel, and then giving in and endorsing the man instead of an alternative. And shit, even endorsing some third-party nutjob would have been more honorable. Congratulations, Pat, you can store it next to your autographed poster of Hitler. I agree with the spinelss comment totally. Yep, yep, yep he hates jews. But I can't help but agree that some of his complaints about Bush have some merit. Bush and co. haven't exactly adhered to the type of republican platforms I have always known them to be. Smaller government, less spending, and being tough on immigration have always been banner conservative points of view. I think he was right to question and be critical in this regard in at LEAST as it pertains to conservatives staying true to what have traditionally believed. Hey, consider the source though. I feel the same way about John Kerry and before about Bill Clinton for pretty much the same reasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 19, 2004 I present Buchanan with the Lack of Spine award of 2004, for three long years of complaining about Bush, complaining about Iraq, complaining about Israel, and then giving in and endorsing the man instead of an alternative. And shit, even endorsing some third-party nutjob would have been more honorable. Congratulations, Pat, you can store it next to your autographed poster of Hitler. I agree with the spinelss comment totally. Yep, yep, yep he hates jews. But I can't help but agree that some of his complaints about Bush have some merit. Bush and co. haven't exactly adhered to the type of republican platforms I have always known them to be. Smaller government, less spending, and being tough on immigration have always been banner conservative points of view. I think he was right to question and be critical in this regard in at LEAST as it pertains to conservatives staying true to what have traditionally believed. Hey, consider the source though. I feel the same way about John Kerry and before about Bill Clinton for pretty much the same reasons. Then again, if you look at Buchanan's 2000 campaign, he is in no position to criticize anybody for selling out their core beliefs. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Didn't he write a damn BOOK about how Bush was ruining the Republican party? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Didn't he write a damn BOOK about how Bush was ruining the Republican party? I won't bash him for his support of Bush because it seems to be identical to the support a lot of Dems have for Kerry --- namely, none at all for him, but an utter disdain for the other option. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Does anyone know why he was so anti-Iraq war? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Does anyone know why he was so anti-Iraq war? Because Bush... IS THE GREAT SATAN~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 19, 2004 Does anyone know why he was so anti-Iraq war? Probably because the Jews made Bush do it or something. With an anti-Semite, always assume the Jews are the problem... -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CheesalaIsGood 0 Report post Posted October 19, 2004 I present Buchanan with the Lack of Spine award of 2004, for three long years of complaining about Bush, complaining about Iraq, complaining about Israel, and then giving in and endorsing the man instead of an alternative. And shit, even endorsing some third-party nutjob would have been more honorable. Congratulations, Pat, you can store it next to your autographed poster of Hitler. I agree with the spinelss comment totally. Yep, yep, yep he hates jews. But I can't help but agree that some of his complaints about Bush have some merit. Bush and co. haven't exactly adhered to the type of republican platforms I have always known them to be. Smaller government, less spending, and being tough on immigration have always been banner conservative points of view. I think he was right to question and be critical in this regard in at LEAST as it pertains to conservatives staying true to what have traditionally believed. Hey, consider the source though. I feel the same way about John Kerry and before about Bill Clinton for pretty much the same reasons. Then again, if you look at Buchanan's 2000 campaign, he is in no position to criticize anybody for selling out their core beliefs. -=Mike Fair enough. I won't miss him when he is gone. Edit - It would certainly help republicans to be rid of him if only to help shed the evil hitlers stigma. Just dishing strategy is all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
