It's time for U.S. to cut losses and leave Iraq (Pat Buchanan)

[struggle4progress]

By Patrick J. Buchanan

<snip> The president, his war Cabinet and the neocon punditocracy sold us on this war by implying Saddam Hussein was implicated in Sept. 11, that he had a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, that he was working on an atom bomb, that he would transfer his terror weapons to Al-Qaida. We had to invade, destroy and disarm his axis-of-evil regime. Only thus could we be secure.

None of this was true. But the president won that debate and was given a free hand to invade Iraq. He did so, and overthrew Saddam's regime in three weeks. ``Mission accomplished!''

That was 20 months ago. What is our mission now? When did it change? With 1,300 dead and nearly 10,000 wounded, why are we still at war with these people? <snip>

The president needs to know that if he intends to use U.S. military power to democratize the Middle East, Americans -- 56 percent of whom now believe Iraq was a mistake -- will not follow him. <snip>

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion...

[NoStinkinBadges]

1. Rarely Do I Agree With PB.

This is one of those rare occasions.

[struggle4progress]

3. Yes, PB is a wingnut. But real politics is about shifting coalitions.

[Telly Savalas]

9. A broken clock is right twice a day.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi NoStinkinBadges!!

Welcome to DU!!

[Midlodemocrat]

2. Good Lord, I can't believe I am agreeing with Pat Buchanan!

What's next, agreeing with Bay Buchanan? Oh, the horror.

[HockeyMom]

5. Agreeing

with Pat Buchanan just goes to show how totally off the deep end George W. Bush actually IS.

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Yeah, but I still think I am going to be sick.

[Martin Eden]

4. Here's a link that doesn't require registration

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan18.html
and 4 more paragraphs:
But why should Americans have to die for democracy in a nation that has never known it? Democracy in the Middle East is not vital to our national security. For though the Middle East has never been democratic, no Middle East nation has ever attacked us. And should we catch a nation that is supporting terror against us, we have the weapons to make them pay a hellish price, without invading and occupying their country.

The only nation in the 20th century to attack us was Japan. And Japan lashed out, insanely, in desperation, because we had cut off her oil and convinced the British and Dutch to cut off the vital commodities she needed to avoid imperial defeat in China. We were choking the Japanese empire to death.

We might all prefer that Arab nations be democratic. But that is not vital to us. If they remain despotic, that is their problem, so long as they do not threaten or attack us. But to invade an Islamic country to force it to adopt democratic reforms is democratic imperialism. If we practice it, we must expect that some of those we are reforming will resort to the time-honored weapon of anti-imperialists, terrorism – the one effective weapon the weak have against the strong.

Yet, if our goals appear gauzy and vague, our enemy's war aims appear specific, concrete and understandable. They seek our expulsion from Iraq and the eradication of all "collaborators." And the tactics they are using are the same as those the FLN used to drive the French out of Algeria.

[Inland]

7. PB isn't going to pretend to care about Iraqis just to make Bush look good

Other republicans felt the necessity to have SOME reason justifying the Iraq war and therefore suddenly adopted the best interests of Iraqis as the reason for war. Yes, they admit, the war is shit for us, and doesn't make us any safer, but we are willing to sacrifice for the good of Iraq, and the entire middle east! It's a lie, but the only alternative is admitting error

Buchanan isn't going to pretend he gives a rat's ass about Iraqis. Frankly, his position is closer to mine than the Bush apologist's declaration that no sacrifice of the US is too great for the sole purpose of helping Iraqis.

[MasonJar]

8. Don't there seem to be several Pugs speaking of getting out of

Iraq? I'm afraid that these are purposeful so W can get us out and work on his cruel agenda here at home.

[Skittles]

13. they got their incompetent piece of shit re-installed into the White House

they know they cannot damage his re-selection prospects now

[necso]

11. "Why have these fools not been fired... ?"

Ah, well, because the whole gosh darned government is in the hands of the neocons.

And I just love the little dig at FDR. -- The measures taken against Japan had popular support, and this included many members of the right wing, who, while they could not have cared less what happened to Europe, were concerned for the "well being" of all those potential Christians in China and that "great Christian patriot" Chiang Kai-Shek.

And rabid isolationism has little to recommend it, although economic necessity may eventually push us to this extremity.

Pat, with his role in creating this win-at-any-cost mentality (common decency, etc, be damned), going back (at least) to the Nixon days, is as responsible for the current mess as the neocons who have consigned him to the wilderness. -- For it is the first steps on a "journey" that make possible the last.

[Skittles]

12. dammit Pat, sometimes you can be one sick bastard

then you say stuff that makes it impossible for me to hate you. QUIT IT!!!