Buchanan endorses Bush

[Wotan]

A few days ago there was a thread on The American Conservative's endorsement of Kerry.

In the November 8, 2004 issue they re-visit the 'Endorsement' Issue:

Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case” for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki’s column closing out this issue, constitute TAC’s endorsement. —The Editors

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...”

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree with many of his points but I just can't reward Bush for the mistakes made going into Iraq and the mistakes made following. Not all the mistakes he made were his exclusively his but someone needs to be accountable. It’s far too easy in a democracy to shift blame but ultimately Bush is responsible for those he appointed and whose advice he trusted.

However, my aversion to Bush goes beyond just Iraq. Pat sums it up:

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.

I just want to point out that even though I can not support Bush doesn't mean I have any commonality with the liberals, leftist Canadians and Euros on this board. I wouldn't piss on Kerry if he was on fire and feel the same toward most leftists and liberals. Bush just has not earned my vote.

[Thrawn]

"doesn't mean I have any commonality with...leftist Canadians!


Indeed you are probably very homely and have never "known" a woman.

[Torque]

Your vote will count as much as ours does.

[Charon]

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.

That's why I can't look on Kerry as anything more than part of the typical Washington problem. A politician more than   a leader.

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.

Airhead brough this up a month or so ago, and I have to agree. With a Kerry win it will go from blaming Clinton to blaming Kerry as slime like Wolfowitz get a free walk. "Iraq would be a perfect democracy, if only Bush had four more years..." Neither candidate will get my vote, but I would have a tougher decision to make if I lived in a swing state -- vote for Kerry to hold Bush responsible or vote for Bush to hold Bush responsible. Regardless of the outcome I'll feel about the same election day.

Charon

[ra]

..I just can't reward Bush for the mistakes made going into Iraq and the mistakes made following.

What would you prefer him to have done?

[Pongo]

I know Im just a leftist canadian. But there is alot of truth to that article. I dont know about sabotaging Nixon but certainly the Texas democrat that created most of the Vietnam problem seems to have shaken the blame for it.

[Wotan]

I didn't say that every Canadian that posts on this forum is a leftist. The phrase I used was narrow; 'leftist Canadians'.

I was specifically referring to folks like Thrawn and the dope head Nash and a few others.

What would you prefer him to have done?

He should have fired Tenet the day after he entered office. He should have not been persuaded by folks like Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz was pushing the idea of invading Iraq even before 9/11.

I said prior to the invasion of Iraq that I did not support Bush’s decision but following 9/11 and Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the past that I would give the President the benefit of doubt. I like most of the world believed in all likelihood that Saddam had wmd's.

Bush rolled the dice and gambled with a pre-emptive war. The buck stops with him.

There was no doubt that the US could beat Saddam's army and that it would be quick. But if you are familiar with the Powell Doctrine, which developed after Vietnam, then it’s plain to see that following the toppling of Saddam's government Bush's plan was wholly inadequate for securing the peace. He put his faith in Rumsfeld's idea of 'transformation' and didn't put enough people on the ground to secure the country. Bush is the C-in-C and he should be held to account.

I am no fan of Powell as a politician but FYI here’s a link explaining the Powell Doctrine

PBS's Frontline: Rumsfeld's War  aired recently. It touches on all this.

[ra]

Bush rolled the dice and gambled with a pre-emptive war. The buck stops with him.

So you think he should not have "rolled the dice" in Iraq?  He should have ignored the intelligence and just hoped that Hussein would never help our terrorist enemies?  That is rolling the dice, too.

[Wotan]

Are arguing to convince yourself?

Even if Saddam had WMD's he had them for a long time before this war.

Bush has never made a case that wholly convinced me that Iraq was an imminent threat with or without WMD's.

When Kennedy learned of nukes in Cuba he didn't invade. He told the Soviets directly that if the US gets hit with a nuke then he would hit them. They pulled out.

Saddam isn't some suicide bomber. He used the bluff of WMDs to retain power. If he had WMDs and used them or gave them to terrorists who would then that would have meant his end. He could have been contained.

The US could have used other means to affect regime change in Iraq.

[ra]

Are arguing to convince yourself?

I am neither arguing, nor trying to convince anyone of anything.  I am trying to understand your position which you decided to share.

Even if Saddam had WMD's he had them for a long time before this war.

Even if?  He had them and they were central to the cease-fire agreement from the 1st war.  10 years later we were still forced to guess and roll dice.

Bush has never made a case that wholly convinced me that Iraq was an imminent threat with or without WMD's.

He never tried to.  His justification for the war revolved primarily around Hussein's games regarding compliance with the WMD part of the cease fire agreements.  Bush only used the term "gathering threat" or something like that.  With WMDs when a threat becomes imminent it is too late to do anything about it.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Wotan
I didn't say that every Canadian that posts on this forum is a leftist. The phrase I used was narrow; 'leftist Canadians'.

I was specifically referring to folks like Thrawn and the dope head Nash and a few others.

Oh but your statement is refutes itself.  "I don't support Bush, but not like those leftist Canadians.", that also don't support Bush.@.


That's like saying, "I don't like ice cream, but I don't have anything in common with leftist flappyheaded Canucks who don't like ice cream.".  Sorry dude but you do, we are the same in that we both don' t like iscream.


Anyways, well come to the darkside if you feel like you need a quiet walk on the beach I'm sure a leftist Canadian will be sensitive enough to take you.