Why George W. Bush Really Invaded Iraq (1 Viewer)

[Asian-American]

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so.

[ . . . ]

Complete article at http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

Regards.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

March ... Regards.

That all you got? Pat Buchanan's say-so?

 

[shuamort]

Maureen Dowd, op-ed for the New York Times, also proffered this:

After removing the super-rat, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Libby and their fellow hawk Richard Perle can turn his country into a laboratory for democracy in the Arab world — creating a domino effect to give Israel more security. Once they have planted Athenian democracy on Mesopotamian soil, they envision orchestrating more freedom throughout the Middle East — as long as the region plays ball with the new sheriff. They'll put pressure on Syria and Iran to abandon their support for terrorism. And then, with an American spigot, the oil will flow free — except to the French, who will pay dearly.

An opinion piece from the Harvard Israel Review rebuts:

These insinuations should bother any fair-minded person. Not only do their proponents avoid discussing the actual merits of the war, they use the debate about Iraq to simply blame Israel and Jews more generally. Their choice of argument is particularly bizarre because there are in fact many more convincing anti-war arguments based not on hateful Jewish stereotypes but on legitimate political and moral positions. More important, the vast majority of the 65 percent of Americans who support the war have not been convinced by arguments pointing to the war’s possible benefits to Israel. In fact, none of the administration’s arguments for this war rely on the narrowly defined national interest of Israel. Assertions that the administration is acting on Israel’s behalf fail to address any of the real arguments for war, appealing instead to vague and absurd claims of a Zionist conspiracy to control America. That these theories are gaining popularity among mainstream critics of the war is frightening evidence that the racist assumptions underlying them are spreading too.

It's hyperbole indeed.

As for Buchanan, how could one not agree with his closing argument?

(The President) will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.

 

[Asian-American]

That all you got? Pat Buchanan's say-so?

There is also Professor Kevin MacDonald's article:

September 18, 2003

Thinking About Neoconservatism

By Kevin MacDonald

Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?

The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

[ . . . ]

Complete article at http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

_____________________________________

Professor Kevin MacDonald is the world's leading reseacher on Jewish culture, here is his site: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.html

I would also suggest http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/

Regards.

 

[Squawker]

Everyone has a theory and opinion. President Bush is the only one who can answer the question. Regardless of all the trash talk about the Bush family, they are honest, decent people. Any decision was made in good faith, and with the best interests of the country in mind. I am totally convinced of that. I can't for the life of me figure out where Patrick J. Buchanan is coming from. He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon. He speaks out against GW Bush and the left fawns all over him. I can't decide if he is playing the left for fools, or making a play for their votes.

 

[shuamort]

Buchanan has always been a closed-border-isolationist. He'd be happy pulling all of the troops back in and kicking the UN out. Those policies aren't really either dem or rep.

 

[Asian-American]

the Bush family, they are honest, decent people.

People are of course going to disagree with this statement. As you said, we all have our unique perspective. Here is mine: from the research I've read on human society, elites (e.g. political elites) often only serve their own interests. In ancient times where communities were very small, corrupt psychopathic elites were easily identified and removed from power and punished. Today though in our huge nations, elites live isolated from the public. They can often engage in much corrupt and psychopathic behavior without being detected. And often, corrupt elites will defend each other to preserve the interests of their elite social class.

With respect to George Bush: he appears on TV and gives speeches that are meant to make his image appear positive to the Public. The same can be said of Clinton and most top Federal Democrat politicians. With politicians covering each other's backs, it's hard for the public to really scrutinize them to separate between truths and lies.

Today's politicians are career-politicians for the most part: they are in it to advance their careers, not because they have altruistic desires for the voters. The voters are simply the means to achieving political power, and lying is not a moral problem for them if it will achieve political success.

I can't for the life of me figure out where Patrick J. Buchanan is coming from.

Because just like you, he has a unique perspective as well.

He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon.

I would have to disagree: Buchanan is a old-fashioned traditional Conservative (Paleo-Conservative), while Bush and supporters are Neo-Conservatives (Liberalized Conservatism).

If it interests you, you can study the differences by doing searches at Google.

or making a play for their votes.

Buchanan wants to end immigration, and has written the book "The Death of the West" where he argues how high non-European immigration and birthrates will reduce Whites to a minority by 2050, thus eliminating the culture America was founded on. Though a small percentage of the Left may agree with him regarding who is responsible for the Iraqi war and whose interests it serves, they strongly oppose his immigration policies.

Buchanan is also more supporting of the belief that America was founded on Christianity and as such America should not be so antagonistic to the Christian integration into politics, government, and society. Again, this is something the Left would not agree with.

Regards.

 

[Asian-American]

Buchanan has always been a closed-border-isolationist. He'd be happy pulling all of the troops back in and kicking the UN out. Those policies aren't really either dem or rep.

I consider the term "isolationist" to be invalid and actually a deceptive term purposely created by those who oppose Paleo-Conservatism. Paleo-Conservatives like Pat Buchanan don't support isolation from the rest of the world: they support free trade with the rest of the world, they are okey with foreigners coming to visit America for vacation of what-have-you and vice versa, and they are okey with working with other countries on whatever issue that can be solved better by working with other nations.

Regards.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon.

How do you figure? Would you provide some examples to help explain your point? I know he's not in favor of a controlling nanny-state like some "Big Government Conservatives" of Team Bush.

He speaks out against GW Bush and the left fawns all over him.

Not that I doubt you, but I've not seen this fawning. Could you share some with the board?

I can't decide if he is playing the left for fools, or making a play for their votes.

He's not running for office.
Perhaps he, along with conservative Realists such as myself, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, honestly view the invasion of Iraq as worse than a crime- a blunder.

It's tempting to conclude that you equate opposition to the invasion of Iraq with being liberal. Before I reach this conclusion, I'd like to ask if this is indeed what you're doing.


edited for spelling

 

[Squawker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawker
He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon.

How do you figure? Would you provide some examples to help explain your point? I know he's not in favor of a controlling nanny-state like some "Big Government Conservatives" of Team Bush.

When Pat left the Republican party, he stated that the party had left him. Much like Reagan said of the Democrats. People with strong ideology don’t budge. Both parties have shifted, and moved to the left in the last twenty years. As the right moved left, the left moved further left to distinguish itself. People like Pat, Reagan, and Zell Miller were without a party they believed in. Reagan joined the Republicans who were more like the “Kennedy Democrats” at that time, as did thousands of others who became known as Reagan Democrats. The Neo-Cons were also former Democrats who joined the Republicans, because the Democrats took the anti-war position, and wouldn’t support Israel. Pat knew it was over when he didn’t win the Republican nomination for President. He did have some die hard supporters who voted for him, which gave the election to Clinton. He tried to make his mark as an Independent, but the only time people listened to him, was when he was bashing the Bush Administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawker
He speaks out against GW Bush and the left fawns all over him.

Not that I doubt you, but I've not seen this fawning. Could you share some with the board?

It is acquired from reading liberal/democrat political forums who hate Bush. Because Pat was a Republican/Conservative they love to use him as evidence that the current crop of Republican/Conservatives are wrong. I really think the Liberal mouth pieces have made people believe Republicans are still back in the 1950’s. When Pat speaks out against Bush the Liberals gush –“Look -- See? Bucannan says.” The liberals just want confirmation that Bush is bad. Pat must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawker
I can't decide if he is playing the left for fools, or making a play for their votes.

He's not running for office.
Perhaps he, along with conservative Realists such as myself, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, honestly view the invasion of Iraq as worse than a crime- a blunder.

It's tempting to conclude that you equate opposition to the invasion of Iraq with being liberal. Before I reach this conclusion, I'd like to ask if this is indeed what you're doing.

Opposition to the invasion of Iraq is partisan politics, pure and simple. When Clinton changed the policy of the US from containment of Saddam to removal in 1998, he was praised for it. When he bombed after Saddam violated the no fly zone, he was praised for it. When he said Saddam had WMD’s the left said, AMEN, BROTHER! It is a political p*ssing contest. I voted for Clinton once, and although I believe now that he was one of the worst Presidents we have had, I will never believe a President of the USA would deliberately lead us into war for political or personal gain.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

When Pat speaks out against Bush the Liberals gush –“Look -- See? Bucannan says.” The liberals just want confirmation that Bush is bad. Pat must be laughing all the way to the bank.

I gathered that this what you meant by your comments; however, regardless of your say-so, I have not seen such gushing w/ my own peepers. Such fawning and gushing must exist only in rarified places. I cordially invite you to share some of this with the rest of the board. When you get a chance of course.
By any chance, are you trying to say that you've anecdotally seen a handful of isolated incidents of liberals noting and not disagreeing with some comment of Mr. Buchanan's?

Opposition to the invasion of Iraq is partisan politics, pure and simple.

I have to give a big shout out to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on this one.
I'll go ahead and call Bravo Sierra as well while I'm at it.
You're saying that Scowcroft and Kissinger opposed the invasion of Iraq for partisan reasons.
'Dthey become Democrats while I wasn't looking? Or have Team Bush become 'switch hitters'?
Like Lucy, you've got some 'splaining to do.

I've been a Republican since some of the posters here were still wetting the bed. You'll have to work very long and very hard to convince me that I opposed the invasion of Iraq for partisan reasons.
You have a hard row to hoe cut out for you. Have at it.
I'll patiently await your attempts to explain my own positions to me.


Sincerely,

Simon


ps
If you can stand it and're capable of trying to making a case without it, cut the Clinton crap. I grew up in Arkansas and was sick of Clinton before most Americans had even heard of him. Let's try and stick to the topic at hand if at all possible. Thanks in advance.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do Israel's Interests Have Undue Influence on US Foreign Policy? (esp re NeoCons)

Asian, I'd do it something little more like this:

Quote:
What the Heck Is a Neocon?
Max Boot

...support for Israel -- a key tenet of neoconservatism...

The National Security Strategy that he released in September -- which calls for "encouraging free and open societies on every continent" -- sounds as if it could have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee]

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests... The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view...[called] "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

...[Neocons] think..."realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. ...[suggesting] we need to promote our values...[because] liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East...
...[Neocons] embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives.​

Here's an interesting article that covers quite a bit of ground on this issue. Granted, it doesn't cover the ground thoroughly, but it is a nice survey.

Quote:
Israel's Role: The 'Elephant' They're Talking About
FEBRUARY 28, 2003
By AMI EDEN
FORWARD STAFF

...the Israeli-Jewish elephant has been on...respected media outlets... Washington Post, The New York Times, the American Prospect, the Washington Times, the Economist, the New York Review of Books, CNN and MSNBC. ...the proverbial pachyderm...in the middle of "Meet the Press,"...

Tim Russert read from...the Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave...that the "strategic objective"...was to secure Israel's borders by launching a crusade to democratize the Arab world.
[Then asked Richard Perle:]
"Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests?" Russert asked.

"And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"

...a startling question, especially when directed at Perle... If Russert is asking...on national television, then...The question...is now a legitimate query to be floated in polite company.

...Washington Post...[an] attempt to demonstrate an unprecedented political partnership between Sharon and Bush...Robert Kaiser..."Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy." ...[including] a paragraph outlining a supposed rightward shift among American Jewish organizations.

"Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel" [Kaiser]

...January 25... the Economist published a lead editorial urging Bush to ignore "so-called friends of Israel who will accuse Mr. Bush of 'appeasement' the moment he pushes hard for territorial compromise." [available by subscription only]

Several Jewish commentators have...[warned] that subtle and not-so-subtle antisemitic undertones permeate the new wave of anti-war criticism. ...critics have charged these writers with unfairly playing the antisemitic card [to silence] opposition...

[Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman:]
...accept as legitimate questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of administration officials...
...it is...legitimate to question where the Sharon government or American Jewish groups stand on the war, the...line is... [portraying] these entities as a...Jewish conspiracy...[controlling]American foreign policy.
...American Jews are sometimes too quick to assume that antisemitism is at play...
"It is an old canard that Jews control America and American foreign policy. During both world wars, antisemites said that Jews manipulated America into war. So when you begin to hear it again, there is good reason for us to be aware of it and sensitive to it."​

Choice excerpts from the hard to find MtP transcript:
'Meet the Press' -- February 23, 2003

Quote:

TR: Richard Perle, there's been discussion about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq. Let me show you an article from The Washington Times, written by [Arnaud de Borchgrave]:
Quote:

"The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The de-stabilization of 'despotic regimes' comes next.

<snip>

"The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'.

"Israel...would 'shape its strategic environment', beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein.

"Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint."​

Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?

RP: Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam doesn't disarm- and I doubt that he's going to - believe it's in the best interests of the United States. I don't see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we'd live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.
​

Choice excerpts from the Arnaud de Borchgrave article:

Quote:

A Bush-Sharon Doctrine?
Arnaud de Borchgrave
Monday, Feb. 17, 2003

...strategic objectives of the U.S. and Israel...have...merged into a...Bush-Sharon Doctrine.

...Washington's "Likudniks" — Ariel Sharon's powerful backers in the Bush administration — have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since President Bush was sworn into office.

In alliance with Evangelical Christians, these policy-makers include some of the most powerful players in the Bush administration.

Mr. Sharon...[convinced] Mr. Bush that the war on Palestinian terrorism was identical to the global war on terror. Next came a campaign to convince U.S. public opinion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were allies...

...senior members* of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint.
Prime Minister Sharon has flown to Washington...more frequently than any other head of state or government [in those two years].

*[ Richard Perle,Study Group Leader, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser ]​

 

[Simon W. Moon]

part II

Choice excerpts from the WaPo's Bob Kaiser article:
Quote:

Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy
By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01

"This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman [who first recognized an independent Israel]," said Thomas Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs [JINSA], a think tank that promotes strategic cooperation with Israel as vital to U.S. security interests.

"Every president since at least Nixon has seen the Arab-Israeli conflict as the central strategic issue in the Middle East," "But this administration sees Iraq as the central challenge, and . . . has disengaged from any serious effort to confront the Arab-Israeli problem." [Sandy Berger]

The turning point...[was] when Bush embraced Sharon's view...[that] Yasser Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority [was] a condition of future diplomacy. That was "a clear shift in policy," Kenneth R. Weinstein...of the Hudson Institute, a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud.

...Bush appointed..[a] critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council.

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official... Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by...Condoleezza Rice, ...Cheney and...Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state...[under] Reagan...convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal...

...Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute...: "Elliott's appointment is a signal that the hard-liners in the administration are playing a more central role in shaping policy."

...David Wurmser, [is] ...a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Douglas J. Feith,...undersecretary of defense for policy...​

JINSA members have included such NeoCon notables as, The Hon. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Hon. R. James Woolsey, Jr., Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Hon. John Bolton.

Richard N. Perle, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser are also members of the Hudson Institute's Board of Trustees.

And, of course, the esteemed AEI and PNAC share members with a number of the aforementioned folks. But, that goes almost w/o saying.

 

[Squawker]

Simon, please keep your posts condensed for us. Three long posts in a row is a bit much and the point of the thread gets lost. To answer your prior post:

I've been a Republican since some of the posters here were still wetting the bed. You'll have to work very long and very hard to convince me that I opposed the invasion of Iraq for partisan reasons.
You have a hard row to hoe cut out for you. Have at it.
I'll patiently await your attempts to explain my own positions to me.

I was giving you my vision from the broad sources available to me. Since it is impossible for me to speak specifically to each person, and how you or anyone else view the world, I guess ya got me. If you are a Buchanan supporter, Clinton supporter, or Bush supporter, you are partisan. It is human nature to take sides and take a stand. One who doesn’t is in limbo and unsure of himself. The reason for taking a side is what is questionable.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you are a Buchanan supporter, Clinton supporter, or Bush supporter, you are partisan. It is human nature to take sides and take a stand. One who doesn’t is in limbo and unsure of himself. The reason for taking a side is what is questionable.

So, what are the odds that someone could take a look at a situation and make a decision based on his understanding of the facts, political affiliation be damned?

Absent evidence otherwise, I'm inclined to take Mr. Buchanan's, Mr. Scowcroft's, Mr. Baker's, Mr. Kissinger's, and my own objections to the latest version of the "Domino Theory" at face value.
I see no reason to doubt that Mr. Buchanan genuinely thinks it's a bad idea.
I am open to changing my mind provided I come across good reason to do so. Is there any evidence that demonstrates Mr. Buchanan's sentiments are the result of mere partisanship? If so, would you be up to presenting it? Possibly it should have its own thread as it's only tangentially related to the influence that Israel's interests have on the US foreign policy under the Bush Admin.


edited for spelling

 

[26 X World Champs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawker
He went from ultra-conservative to a liberal icon.

Surely you jest? I think Pat sucks! He's an ultra-conservative right winger! To suggest that Pat is a liberal icon is to suggest that Sen. Clinton is a Republican icon! Ridiculous!

Pat knew it was over when he didn’t win the Republican nomination for President. He did have some die hard supporters who voted for him, which gave the election to Clinton.

Huh? Are you saying that the people who voted for Pat were the direct cause of Clinton's victory, the deciding factor? :rofl

He speaks out against GW Bush and the left fawns all over him.

You mean like you did in this very post about Zell Miller? Seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Pat's fawned over by "the left" but Zell Miller was "without a party." Man, what a crock! Is it possible for you to have any objectivity or is everything you write subjective?

I am very confident in writing that Pat Buchanan is not popular amongst Liberals or Democrats. Do we applaud him when on a single issue he says something we agree with, sure, why not? Does that mean he's an honorary Democrat, inducted into the Liberal Hall of Fame?

Here's an example for you. Sen. Joe Lieberman has often supported Bush's point of view on Iraq and other issues. Does that mean he's an icon of the right wing? No, it does not! Lieberman is no more a neo-right winger than Buchanan is a neo-liberal.

When Pat speaks out against Bush the Liberals gush –“Look -- See? Bucannan says.” The liberals just want confirmation that Bush is bad. Pat must be laughing all the way to the bank.

You mean like Zell Miller's new position on the very same network, MSNBC? Your post, to me, seems chock full of hypocrisy!

I voted for Clinton once, and although I believe now that he was one of the worst Presidents we have had, I will never believe a President of the USA would deliberately lead us into war for political or personal gain.

Uhmmm......have you been in a coma these last 4 years? Bush is the hero of the military industrial complex & energy companies. His partisan politics has lined the pockets of so many of his rich supporters, all in the name of IMMINENT THREAT DUE TO WMDs....oh wait! I mean all in the name of Democracy!

:hitsfan:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Opposition to the invasion of Iraq is partisan politics, pure and simple.

You can't be serious? PROVE IT! How you can write such BS and expect people to believe you is bizarre. People of all parties and faiths oppose the Iraq War! Only someone who IS PARTISAN would write the BS you just wrote.

I've read lots of outrageous claims on this board, but you've entered into a stratosphere few have achieved. So all the veterans who oppose the war, all the Republicans, all the everybody who are anti-Iraq war are partisan rather than sincere?

You need to get out more, your statement is beyond ridiculous!

:thumbdown :tomato:

 

[Squawker]

Champ, I believe you need to brush up on the rules of the forum again. Rules

At Debate Politics we see freedom of speech as the right to communicate ideas. With this right comes the responsibility to choose your words carefully and respect the rights of others. Common sense dicates the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive. If you are focused on contributing to the community, you will not have to be concerned with being a disruption. Disruptive behavior is not tolorated and could result in being banned.

You are extremely insulting to everyone who posts something you do not agree with. Please keep your remarks limited to the content of the post, and not how you feel about the individual poster. Consider this a warning.

 

[Squawker]

I see no reason to doubt that Mr. Buchanan genuinely thinks it's a bad idea.
I am open to changing my mind provided I come across good reason to do so. Is there any evidence that demonstrates Mr. Buchanan's sentiments are the result of mere partisanship? If so, would you be up to presenting it? Possibly it should have its own thread as it's only tangentially related to the influence that Israel's interests have on the US foreign policy under the Bush Admin.

I personally think it was a combination of things. Presidents do not enter into war on a whim.

You can take your pick of what you want to believe. It depends on what your ideology is. Theories as to why President Bush went to war include:

WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar. Source

There were three reasons why the Bush administration went to war: oil, Israel, and military transformation. Source

Bush's Deep Reasons for War on Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars and the OPEC Euro Question Source

This site has a comprehensive overview of opinions about Why President Bush went to war. Source

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You can take your pick of what you want to believe. It depends on what your ideology is.

I suppose this is how some people do it. However, I suspect that I'm not alone in the "reality-based community" which examines facts and then reaches conclusions.

I see no reason to doubt that Mr. Buchanan genuinely thinks the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea that was poorly executed regardless of the reason(s), ostensible or otherwise, that motivated it.
I am open to changing my mind provided I come across good reason to do so.

Is there any evidence that demonstrates Mr. Buchanan's sentiments are the result of mere partisanship?

 

[Squawker]

Is there any evidence that demonstrates Mr. Buchanan's sentiments are the result of mere partisanship?

Pat isn't a liar, so I am sure he believes what he said. Does he have an axe to grind? Yes. Does it cloud his thinking? Yes. Does that make him wrong? No. Just put what he says into perspective and recognize he may have prejudices and motives that we don't know about.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Does it cloud his thinking? Yes.

If Mr. Buchanan's right, how does one tell that his thinking's clouded?

Does that make him wrong? No.

Yes, but is he wrong, albeit for other reasons?

Just put what he says into perspective and recognize he may have prejudices and motives that we don't know about.

Not to be too obtuse, but isn't this sort of like multiplying both sides of the equation by zero?
This seems typical of the human experience, and therefore not particularly noteworthy about Mr. Buchanan specifically.

 

[Repub05]

If the war was not in most Americans best interest, then how come in the first election GWB lost the popular votes and one the electoral votes, then in '04 during the middle of the war 'out of America's interests' he won the popular votes? If most Americans wanted out of the war, they could have just easily voted for the Kerry fairy.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If the war was not in most Americans best interest, then how come in the first election GWB lost the popular votes and one the electoral votes, then in '04 during the middle of the war 'out of America's interests' he won the popular votes? If most Americans wanted out of the war, they could have just easily voted for the Kerry fairy.

Ahhh. An excellent question. Allow me to debunk the myth of sheeple and introduce you to The Greatest Threat To Our Republic- rational ignorance.

Quick and Painless Primer on Rational Ignorance

Now, my turn.
Care to explain:
what exactly the benefits to the US are;
why 57% of Americans say the invasion of Iraq was not worth it;
why 50% of Americans say that Team Bush deliberately mislead the electorate[#18]?

As I ably demonstrated in this thread- Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time" -Team Bush deliberately misrepresented the threat to the US from Iraq to sell the invasion to the electorate.
And as I pointed out in several places the invasion of Iraq has aided anti-American terrorist organizations and causes throughout the world by alienating not only moderates in the Muslim world but also those who were formerly our friends, by providing a new training grounds for untold numbers of terrorists to hone their skills and network connections.

Our erstwhile allies in Turkey have suddenly found more sympathy for aQ et al:
Extreme Anti-Americanism in Turkey

"It is difficult to detect the difference between what Osama bin Laden said in his 19 audio and videotapes since September 11, 2001, and what some Turkish journalists write. If anything, the Turks outvenom bin Laden.
This would be hilarious if not for the incontrovertible fact that it is believed not only by Islamist extremists but by countless millions of Muslim fundamentalists ...
Anti-Americanism is a relatively new phenomenon in Turkey. Throughout the 1990s in Turkey, 60 percent of the people had favorable views about the U.S. and its policies. The 2003 Iraq war closed many minds.​

In Many Turks' Eyes, U.S. Remains the Enemy
Hostility Bodes Ill For Efforts to Boost Americans' Image

The latest survey, gathered in February by the private Metropoll organization, found that four in 10 Turks regard the United States as their country's "biggest enemy." That is more than double the number who named Greece, the ancient rival Turkey has come to the brink of war with three times in the last half-century.​

Apparently, we're not seeing the results in our battle w/ extremist for the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims that one would hope for.


http://cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s...y_02162005.html
Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence
Porter J. Goss
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
16 February 2005

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.​

http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf

• Anti-globalization and opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies.
• Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself.
• Foreign jihadists—individuals ready
to fight anywhere they believe
Muslim lands are under attack by
what they see as “infidel invaders”—
enjoy a growing sense of support
from Muslims who are not
necessarily supporters of terrorism.​

Lest the question be lost, let me reiterate the question, "What exactly are we getting out the deal, and why is it worth it?"

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If most Americans wanted out of the war, they could have just easily voted for the Kerry fairy.

Also note that Kerry wouldn't've gotten us "out of the war." He specifically said as much more than once.

If I am mistaken about this, and Kerry did say he'd "get us out of the war," would you please be so kind yo rectify my ignorance with the relative links? Thanks in advance.

Simply,

Simon W. Moon