Patrick j. Buchanan IS A NEOCON! Dammit!

[Anarchist420]

I find this article very disturbing. I had thought PJB was a good guy, but now he's opposing the Mosque being built near (i.e., NOT ON) Ground Zero, and apparently changed his position on why he believes 9/11 happened, from the article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed185.html):

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I find Buchanan, of the American Conservative, proclaiming that Islam is a Culture of Jihad, and most militant.[/FONT]

People just get suckered into neoconservatism too damn easily, don't they? If Dr. RAND Paul got suckered into neoconservatism, the paleos are going to be up shit creek.

Was it the neoconservative/liberal media that he works that transformed him or what?

 

[QuantumPion]

I think you like using labels and buzzwords instead of your brain.

 

[Siddhartha]

I find this article very disturbing. I had thought PJB was a good guy, but now he's opposing the Mosque being built near (i.e., NOT ON) Ground Zero, and apparently changed his position on why he believes 9/11 happened, from the article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed185.html):
People just get suckered into neoconservatism too damn easily, don't they? If Dr. RAND Paul got suckered into neoconservatism, the paleos are going to be up shit creek.

Was it the neoconservative/liberal media that he works that transformed him or what?

Why did you think Mr Buchanan was a good guy? I recommend that you do some research on him.

 

[Lemon law]

Pat Buchanan has been a stain on American politics ever since he was the voice behind Spiro Agnew. Buchanan has always been a demagogue, a bigot, and in the words of Molly Irvins, a piss poor populist.

 

[PokerGuy]

Buchanan rocks, he's one of the few who tells it like it is, we need more like him.

 

[misle]

I thought Neoconservatives were big government conservatives, not conservatives against Islam.

Edit:
Definition found on Wikipedia:
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, which supports using modern American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

 

[Jaskalas]

So you've read a hit piece on Buchanan and are now quite upset with him.

Perhaps you should cut out the middle man and simply let Buchanan speak for himself.

Is the War Coming Home?
American’s toxic culture may be a reason devout Muslims detest us. It is not why they come here to kill us. Mohammed Atta’s friends did not target Hollywood, but centers and symbols of U.S. military and political power.

U.S. Marines were not attacked by Hezbollah until we inserted those Marines into Lebanon’s civil war. No Iraqi committed an act of terror against us before we invaded Iraq. And if the Sept. 11 killers were motivated by hatred of the immorality of our society, what were they doing getting lap dances in Delray Beach?

Osama bin Laden declared war on us, first and foremost, to end the massive U.S. presence on sacred Saudi soil that is home to Mecca and Medina.

Some may insist this was not his real motive. But, apparently, the Saudis believed him, for they quickly kicked us out of Prince Sultan Air Base.

As for the Taliban, they would surely make short work of Lady Gaga. But their stated grievance is the same as Gen. Washington’s in our war with the British: If you want this war to end, get out of our country.

By Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Looking at America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Maj. Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Shahzad decided that what we call the war on terror was in reality a war on Islam.

All decided to use their access to exact retribution for our killing of their fellow Muslims.

We are being attacked over here because we are over there.

Nor is it a good sign that U.S. intelligence is reporting that rising numbers of U.S. Muslims are making Internet inquiries about how and where to get training to bring the war home to America.

Yes OP, you're calling a person a Neocon who devoutly believes the War on Terror is due to our presence on Muslim soil. Abandon your madness and untenable position.

 

[heyheybooboo]

If it's any consolation, Puke-Cannon was a much bigger A-Hole before he settled in on Morning Joe.




--

 

[OutHouse]

OP do you even know what a neocon is? i dont think you do.

 

[Craig234]

While I'll criticize excessive military presence in other countries by the US or others, IMO 9/11 was not caused by our presence in Saudi Arabia.

I do think it was a real provocation to Osama bin Laden - one of the real grievances in his list that had others there for PR reasons.

But I don't think it was 'the reason' - note not much has changed now that we have left Saudi Arabia.

Rather, as I've explained before, IMO Osama did 9/11 because Al Queda was in big trouble in the Muslim world, and wanted to increase its support among Muslims.

Just as an attack on the US greatly boosted Bush's popularity in the US, a US attack on a Muslim country could greatly increase support for anti-US groups like Al Queda in the Muslim world. So, Osama knew the way to get the US to attack a Muslim country was with an attack thay would force a military response - this is perhaps the leading technique and purpose of terrorism, for a weaker force to be provoked into a response that will alienate people into supporting the terrorists.

Did it work? Somewhat, not as much as Osama would have liked. But there has been a great increase in the number of people sympathetic to Al Queda there it seems.

Bush to his credit did one thing well, his consistent statements that Islam was a 'religion of peace' and to try to keep the peace between the US and Muslims.

Too bad his followers did not agree.

 

[xj0hnx]

Rather, as I've explained before, IMO Osama did 9/11 because Al Queda was in big trouble in the Muslim world, and wanted to increase its support among Muslims.

Yea, because more US troops, and starting wars in Muslim countries is a great way to gain support

 

[Pens1566]

Yea, because more US troops, and starting wars in Muslim countries is a great way to gain support

You don't think that's a great tool for them to use in recruiting angry young muslims???? Ok ...

 

[woolfe9999]

Yea, because more US troops, and starting wars in Muslim countries is a great way to gain support

Yes, actually it is, because it was nearly a foregone conclusion that the Bush administration would overreact to 9/11 by invading places that had nothing to do with it, and hence it was also a foregone conclusion that the better part of the Muslim world would then blame the U.S. I think Craig's analysis is just about spot on in this case.

- wolf

 

[LumbergTech]

buchanan has always held some quite questionable views

sometimes i agree with some of the things he says but his motivations are not the same as mine

 

[Anarchist420]

OP do you even know what a neocon is? i dont think you do.

Yes, a neocon is a pro-war liberal who likes to refer to themself as a conservative, when they're really just another foreign interventionist, pro-corporate welfare state (as well as pro-individual welfare state) politician. They're globalist and tend to be tolerant of having a large presence of illegal aliens, at least compared to paleocons. William Kristol is the father of neoconservatism, although neoconservatism wasn't really new when he founded it. Sarah Palin is a neocon. Paleocons side with the arabs over the israelis, the opposite position the neocons take.

Jaskalas pointed me to the truth, or so I hope.

I like Buchanan, but if he truly thinks Congress should make a law prohibiting the mosque from being built, then he's a pro-war neocon and he's lost touch with the paleocon beliefs he once held.

The neoconservative movement must be suppressed.

 

[Anarchist420]

Why did you think Mr Buchanan was a good guy? I recommend that you do some research on him.

Because he's an anti-Fed paleo-populist and he at least used to be a paleocon.

Some people say he's anti-semitic, but I don't really think he is. Yes, I've read "Pat Buchanan in his own words", but I think infering that he's an anti-semite from those comments is taking them out of context.

i don't think he hates Jews, I think he doesn't like the actions of the zionists/liberals/neocons.

 

[Lemon law]

Craig234 states, "While I'll criticize excessive military presence in other countries by the US or others, IMO 9/11 was not caused by our presence in Saudi Arabia."

I would like to respectfully agree and disagree by stating the our military presence was one of the causes of 911. But the way 911 was carried out and panned was designed to kill many birds with the same stone.

Up until GHB opted to station troops American troops in Saudi Arabia with Saudi permission, Ossama Bin Laden was a Saudi national hero for his role in opposing the Russians in Afghanistan. But to a Waubitist beliefs of Ossama, the stationing of foreign troops on Saudi soil was a greatest possible sin, and it caused a rift between Ossama and the Saudi royal family that resulted in Saudi Arabia stripping his Saudi citizenship and forcing him into exile.

But the primary target of 911 was the world trade center that only happened to be located in NYC. But the choice of only Saudi nationals to carry out the attack was the other objective of 911, as Ossma bin Laden hoped to create a rift or war with Saudi Arabia and the USA that the Saudi Royal family would surely lose. Thereby resulting in Ossama being able to return to Saudi good graces with the removal of the house of Faud.

The Saudi part failed, but Ossama Bin Laden and Al-Quida succeeded beyond their wildest hopes in the resulting war on terrorism that had a net result in creating more worldwide terrorism while depleting America of blood and treasure in endless measure.

Sadly demagogues like Buchanan are not only too dim witted to see the motives of Al-Quida, they aid Al-Quida in their objectives by helping to fuel a religious war.

 

[Fern]

Supporting or oppossing the Moque's location has nothing to do with being, or not being a neocon.

Unless he's changed his views radically, I always thought he was more of an isolationist, which is basically the polar opposite of being a neocon.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Patrick j. Buchanan IS A NEOCON! Dammit!

He has always been a Neocon, just look in all my posts going back 10 years I've said so.

 

[Jaskalas]

He has always been a Neocon, just look in all my posts going back 10 years I've said so.

Would you care to present an argument on how an isolationist is actually a warmongering crusader in disguise? I'd love to see you work that one out.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234 states, "While I'll criticize excessive military presence in other countries by the US or others, IMO 9/11 was not caused by our presence in Saudi Arabia."

I would like to respectfully agree and disagree by stating the our military presence was one of the causes of 911. But the way 911 was carried out and panned was designed to kill many birds with the same stone.

Up until GHB opted to station troops American troops in Saudi Arabia with Saudi permission, Ossama Bin Laden was a Saudi national hero for his role in opposing the Russians in Afghanistan. But to a Waubitist beliefs of Ossama, the stationing of foreign troops on Saudi soil was a greatest possible sin, and it caused a rift between Ossama and the Saudi royal family that resulted in Saudi Arabia stripping his Saudi citizenship and forcing him into exile.

But the primary target of 911 was the world trade center that only happened to be located in NYC. But the choice of only Saudi nationals to carry out the attack was the other objective of 911, as Ossma bin Laden hoped to create a rift or war with Saudi Arabia and the USA that the Saudi Royal family would surely lose. Thereby resulting in Ossama being able to return to Saudi good graces with the removal of the house of Faud.

The Saudi part failed, but Ossama Bin Laden and Al-Quida succeeded beyond their wildest hopes in the resulting war on terrorism that had a net result in creating more worldwide terrorism while depleting America of blood and treasure in endless measure.

Sadly demagogues like Buchanan are not only too dim witted to see the motives of Al-Quida, they aid Al-Quida in their objectives by helping to fuel a religious war.

While I'll criticize excessive military presence in other countries by the US or others, IMO 9/11 was not caused by our presence in Saudi Arabia.

I do think it was a real provocation to Osama bin Laden - one of the real grievances in his list that had others there for PR reasons.

But I don't think it was 'the reason' - note not much has changed now that we have left Saudi Arabia.

Lemon, please consider the following two sentence as well:

While I'll criticize excessive military presence in other countries by the US or others, IMO 9/11 was not caused by our presence in Saudi Arabia.

I do think it was a real provocation to Osama bin Laden - one of the real grievances in his list that had others there for PR reasons.

But I don't think it was 'the reason' - note not much has changed now that we have left Saudi Arabia.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia was something that greatly offended Osama (you can argue that is reasonable - mass murderderes can have valid complaints, too.)

But as far as a reason for 9/11, there's not much logical connection to 9/11 getting us to leave Saudi Arabia. There is a connection to getting us to attack Muslims.

I don't have the facts to strongly support why he used Saudis, but I've seen the information that this was more about who was available for the 'muscle' role.

I'd check more carefully before concluding it had an intent of a US-Saudi split, though there's some logic to that theory too.

One nit - I don't view the WTC as the 'primary target' - had he levelled Congress, that's a pretty 'primary target' too.

He had little reason to hope to actually bring down the WTC, but rather to damage it as he did the Pentagon - another high value target. Seems to me the WTC was no more 'primary'.

It's just easy to forget the Congress since it didn't happen.

 

[Lemon law]

Craig 234 points out, "One nit - I don't view the WTC as the 'primary target' - had he levelled Congress, that's a pretty 'primary target' too."

But I wonder if we are arguing at cross purposes since neither of us can ask Ossama or Al-Quida which of us are more right. But still I will argue that the world trade center was the primary target, but once each tower was hit, the other planes hijacked on the same day became expendable to seek other targets of opportunity.

Maybe the proof would be in the flight paths of the other planes on 911, if they were flying towards the WTC and then changed course after the second plane hit the WTC,
it would suggest the WTC was the primary target, if there was no course changes, it might suggest the Craig234 conjecture may be correct.

I have not gone back and googled the question yet, but the element of surprise was somewhat lost when the first plane hit the WTC and totally lost when the second hit.

 

[nyker96]

I thought Buchanan retired to the good life after making some cash, now he's out again? much used that bundle up.

 

[Lemon law]

I thought Buchanan retired to the good life after making some cash, now he's out again? much used that bundle up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buchanan now earns his money as a journalist and has the onus of writing frequent opinion pieces. He is not paid for the quality of his work and is paid by quantity of output.

But as long as he can keep some part of the American electorate happy, it sells for his employers and keeps him in business.

I suppose I could get on my high and mighty liberal horse and look down on Buchanan, but us liberals have our journalistic hero's also.

At the end of the day it may be a 4'th estate press freedom issue, lots of divergent opinions out there in the press, but as long as the Buchanan message is popular with even a 5% segment of the American electorate, someone will hire a Buchanan who if nothing else, can turn a praise.

But Buchanan the politician gets nowhere.

 

[First]

Lew Rockwell bigot text FTL.