Patrick Buchanan: Phase III of Bush's War

[seafan]

Phase III of Bush's War

By Patrick J. Buchanan
September 1, 2007

Those who hoped that – with the victory of the antiwar party in 2006, the departure of Rumsfeld and the neocons from the Pentagon, the rise of Condi and the eclipse of Cheney – America was headed out of Iraq got a rude awakening. They are about to get another.
Today, the United States has 30,000 more troops in Iraq than on the day America repudiated the Bush war policy and voted the GOP out of power. And President Bush, self-confidence surging, is now employing against Iran a bellicosity redolent of the days just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.


What gives Bush his new cockiness? The total collapse of the antiwar coalition on Capitol Hill and the breaking of the Congress.
Last spring, Bush vetoed the congressional deadlines for troop withdrawals, then rubbed Congress' nose in its defeat by demanding and getting $100 billion to support the surge and continue the war.
Before the August recess, Democrats broke again and voted to give Bush the warrantless wiretap authority many among them had said was an unconstitutional and impeachable usurpation of power. They are a broken and frightened lot.


Comes now evidence congressional Democrats have not only lost the pro-victory vote, but forfeited the peace vote, as well.

According to a Zogby poll the last week in August, just two weeks before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report, Americans, by 45 percent to 20 percent, give this Democratic Congress lower grades on handling the war than the Republican Congress it replaced. .....
Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.


And George W. smells it. He no longer fears the power of Congress, and his rhetoric suggests he is contemptuous of it. He is brimming with self-assurance that he can break any Democratic attempt to impose deadlines for troop withdrawal and force Congress to cough up all the funds he demands.
Confident of victory this fall on the Hill, Bush is now moving into Phase III in his War on Terror: First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran.

.....

"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities. ... We've conducted operations against Iranian agents supplying lethal munitions to extremist groups."
This suggests that U.S. forces may already be engaged in combat operations against Iranians.

Who or what can stop this drive to war?

Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran. Before the August recess, the Senate voted 97 to zero for a resolution sponsored by Joe Lieberman to censure Iran for complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
The resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, but the gist of it declared that Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, laying the foundation for a confrontation.

What is to prevent Bush from attacking Iran and widening the war, at a time and place of his choosing, and sooner than we think?

Nothing and no one.

[donkeyotay]

1. How humiliating for the dems, being out maneuvered by bush

Incredibly, only 3 percent of the nation gives Congress a positive rating on its handling of the war. Congress has lost the hawks, and the owls, and the doves. No one trusts its leadership on the war.

So what prevents the same cabal who brought us Iraq from bringing us Iran?

"Nothing and no one."

Thanks a bunch.

[Toots]

21. As Bill Clinton said shortly after the Bush* Selection of 2001

"Underestimate Bush* at your own Peril".

[tomp]

30. should have said, "oversetimate the dems at your own peril. "nt

[LeftishBrit]

2. Well, Buchanan is just as evil as Bush in a different way..

I wouldn't really trust anything from his poisonous mouth, even if he's accidentally right on occasion.

At least I hope this means that the Right are imploding, and are eating each other!

[Demeter]

4. Any Enemy of Bush Is a Friend of Mine

Even Nancy Reagan.

[SlowDownFast]

3. As much as I dislike and distrust Buchanan

his assessments are often right.

And now he's predicting an Iran attack, and sooner than later?

Woe to all of us if this happens...

[rusty charly]

6. It's the Republic solution to the Mortgage Crisis:

Mutual Annihilation.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Hope they eat Nancy Reagan as well as each other!

I am afraid that no one who wrote an article defending LePen is a friend of mine.

[OHdem10]

5. What is more frightening----Will the Dems permit

the GOP to outmaneuver them to the point that
the GOP take back all 3 branches of Government?

I read somewhere that the Dems are returning from the
break just as divided as before they left.

Thanks DLC and Blue Dogs.

[Boojatta]

7. Was it merely a case of B after A or was there causation involved?

Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran.

Did anyone make a note of the phone number of the Israeli lobby?

[cali]

12. Sorry, but shaded text in a box without a link

isn't exactly authoratative. Please provide a link and attribution for the quote.

[Boojatta]

13. It's from the beginning of a paragraph near the bottom of the

Original Post of this thread!

[SlowDownFast]

15. Link is at top of shaded article:

and here, also:

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/2819

[Usrename]

26. Google is your friend.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=aipac

[Boojatta]

28. Does Google say whether it was a case of "this then that" or a case of "this caused that"?

Buchanan didn't name a specific organization and then tell us what kind of organization it is. He kept it vague: "the Israeli lobby."

Mearsheimer and Walt used a similar term ("the Israel Lobby") and provided a bit of an explanation of what they meant by it:

The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership (...)

[Usrename]

31. Oh, now I get the gist of what you are saying. It's profound.

You don't really deny their existance, or even question who the "Israeli lobby" is, you just take some kind of exception to the phrase.

I suppose you would prefer to call them the "Israeli advocates" instead.

[Boojatta]

33. How did Buchanan confirm that the phone call to Nancy Pelosi

came from what you would call "an Israeli advocate"? Do we have enough information to speak of "the phone call"? Can we identify one particular call to Nancy Pelosi as being the call in question?

Edited to add: by putting my question in the subject line, did I fail to make it prominent enough for you to notice it? After all, you refer only to what I am "saying" and not to anything that I might be asking.

[Palladin]

8. Worth repeating

"Last spring, Nancy Pelosi herself, after a call from the Israeli lobby, pulled an amendment that would have forced Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran."
With this, she is just as responsible for the coming war with Iran as Bush, Cheney, the neocons, and AIPAC and the Israeli Lobby. The only institution standing in the neocons' and AIPAC's way is the US military itself, at least the Army, Marines, and Navy. Maybe there's some loyalty to the Constitution left there.

[gordianot]

10. Afterward there will be all sorts of indignation "how could this have happened".

We should never again make fun of "banana republics". Maybe the military will really protect us and the Constitution.

[Faygo Kid]

9. Damn. Pat nails it here. Why him? What is happening?

One of the most appalling moments in American political history was Pat Buchanan's address to the GOP convention in 1992. Yet, he nails it in this column:

"And George W. smells it. He no longer fears the power of Congress, and his rhetoric suggests he is contemptuous of it. He is brimming with self-assurance that he can break any Democratic attempt to impose deadlines for troop withdrawal and force Congress to cough up all the funds he demands.
Confident of victory this fall on the Hill, Bush is now moving into Phase III in his War on Terror: First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran."

We keep our "purity" of supporting weak Dem actions here, and Pat Buchanan is the one to speak the truth?!? The unanimous approval of the Lieberman "resolution" was the last straw for me. This Congress will not stand up to Bush. Hell, they won't even question his fait accompli report that the surge is wonderful, and all of us who question it are traitors. He and Rush get together at the White House to laugh at us (you can look it up), and we hope for the best, while he now has a blank check.

Spare me the criticism "because it's Pat." You expect David Broder to grow a spine? Hell, even th columnists are getting pushed out - the war-cheerleading Washington Post now has Michael Gerson as a columnist spewing unending war at us, and the horrid Bill Kristol is ubiquitous in his smug warmongering, and getting away with it. Death is in the air.

[tblue37]

22. He is a paleo-con. He has always been against this war.

His American Conservative magazine did a cover story some years ago arguing that Bush is no conservative at all, but a radical. Buchanan has never been a fan of BushCo, though he was an idiot in 2004 in saying it was better to vote for Bush and to get the Republican Party to heal itself from within than to let the Democratic candidate win. Nevertheless, in the same issue where he argued that conservatives should vote for Bush anyway, he also published another conservative's opinion that conservatives should vote against Bush, even though that meant voting for a Dem.

[Nimrod2005]

11. WOW!!! Very good stuff.......nt

[donkeyotay]

14. Nothing illustrates the need for publicly financed elections more

The Democratic base didn't want this war, wants this war ended, and sure doesn't want another one. AIPAC wants war with Iran. AIPAC gets resolutions through Congress with votes of 97-0 (or higher) and we get told to shut up. We are the voter base, but AIPAC makes and breaks congressmen. If we had campaign finance reform, Congress would have to listen to us.

All we hear from Washington is plans about the latest war and what Israel wants/needs. Meanwhile, in the hinterlands, people are watching bridges collapse and wondering if they'll keep their job/home or be able to afford college or afford healthcare... none of which seems to penetrate Washington which is all war all the time... and worst of all, their war policies are a total failure.

I saw a show recently on DW about Israel, and their biggest concern about their government was corruption. Funny, that was ours, too. Somehow, I don't think the two things are completely unrelated, because I believe both the US and Israel have majorities that want peace, but have minorities who control power who either think war works or think it's profitable. I hope the Israelis get to work on their end and we get to work on ours before all hope for peace is lost.

[Imagevision]

16. So, it would seem Bush would choose to bomb Iran when it would be most impacting

for the GOP party for the 2008 election, yes?/no?/maybe? Personally I believe Bush will bomb Iran first then explain afterwards to the American people why he did it (as usual).

[TwilightGardener]

17. Scary--it's like we elected neutered beagles to take on wolves.

I am running out of hope that someone will step forward and show some inspiring leadership (Jim Webb, we need you!) in time to counter the damage from the September Bullshit Festival--everyone is Congress is just too damn worried about '08 than with running the fucking country and stopping foreign policy disasters.

[Disturbed]

18. Pushing Iran towards Bankruptcy?

Keep threatening Iran so they over spend?

[Boojatta]

19. Isn't this a bit naive?

According to a Zogby poll the last week in August, just two weeks before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report, Americans, by 45 percent to 20 percent, give this Democratic Congress lower grades on handling the war than the Republican Congress it replaced. .....

All the Israeli lobby needs is one person working on the inside at Zogby. That person gets the numbers before Zogby calls them. We already know that the Israeli lobby has a phone line and a telephone.

Using that equipment, they can call everyone Zogby plans to call. The Israeli lobby calls them first.

If the Israeli lobby can influence Nancy Pelosi with one phone call, then surely they can influence ordinary people who have been chosen to participate in a phone poll.

Now, what if the Israeli lobby can influence someone to make phone calls for them? That person would then make calls and nobody would know who was pulling the strings. For all we know, the Israeli lobby had such a person make a call to Buchanan shortly before he wrote the article quoted in the OP. Don't you see? They're trying to exaggerate their power when in fact they only have one telephone!

[druidity33]

24. a Zionist conspiracy! nt

[Boojatta]

27. I can't understand why a phone call to Nancy Pelosi

is not recognized as an act of terrorism.

It would be one thing if they paid for an open letter to Nancy Pelosi to be published in a major newspaper. However, they are afraid to act openly. Isn't the Israeli lobby acting just like the terrorists who cannot fight openly on the battlefield?

The fact that they were too cheap to buy an ad in a major newspaper confirms beyond any doubt their identity: they are the Israeli lobby. They weren't simply visitors who borrowed an official Israeli lobby phone to make a call to Nancy Pelosi.

The only consolation in this situation is the fact that you, me, Buchanan, and a few other people know of the phone call. However, we don't have access to a transcript of the phone call. I'm hoping that patriotic federal agents will soon be recording and publicizing all phone calls in America.

Of course, there should be some exceptions. For example, if people read transcripts of all of Buchanan's phone calls, then they might find something that sounds bad and then draw attention to it. A careful study of Buchanan's actual words would simply confuse people. They need to trust Buchanan.

[druidity33]

32. are you sure

they weren't just inviting her over for latke and gefilte fish?

Really, this is a stretch boojatta... and people will start saying you're anti-semitic unless someone else can prove AIPAC actually AFFECTED THE VOTE.

:eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

20. They can't suppress the message...but they can pick the messenger....

It's becoming a familiar pattern...

[deacon]

23. Poor dem leadership at the top. Pelosi, Reid= ugh factor.

[spanone]

25. liberals have no voice whatsoever in american politics

lobbyist rule our nation

[The Stranger]

29. Awaken the Nancy from its slumbers -- her complicity is the problem.

Cannot some U.S. Attorney investigate the "war party" and its conspiracy to commit and aiding and abetting war crimes?

[seafan]

34. More from The Hill on the stripped Iran authorization provision

The Hill

By Roxana Tiron
May 15, 2007

House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill, but abandoned the plan after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush’s attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Needing every vote they could get, House leaders dropped the provisions before narrowly passing the Iraq measure.

After striking the language, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised several members, including Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), that she would allow for an up-or-down vote on an Iran amendment, though it is unclear which amendment or amendments will be voted on.

In the 109th Congress, Iran amendments offered by DeFazio and Hinchey were easily defeated.

.....

(House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike) Skelton also voted against the Hinchey amendment to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill that would have prohibited any of the funds made available to initiate military operations against Iran with the exception of an attack on the United States, its military or interests.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, also voted against the amendments in 2005 and 2006. But it was Murtha, a staunch Iraq war opponent who this year pushed for the language in the supplemental prohibiting military action in Iran without congressional authorization.

While Pelosi voted for the DeFazio and Hinchey amendments, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) voted against both measures.

.....

The White House has refused to commit to seeking the approval of Congress on a potential future conflict with Iran.
Critics of the Iran amendments have said that it would tie the military’s hands, claiming that Iran has provoked unrest in Iraq.
“I think it is more imperative than ever,” said DeFazio. “There are ongoing assertions from the Bush administration that either the Iraq authorization or the 9/11 authorization allows the president a free hand in Iran… Dick Cheney is starting to beat the war drum.”

.....

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) voted in favor of the DeFazio and Hinchey amendments last Congress.
House Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) voted in favor of the DeFazio amendment and against the Hinchey amendment.

AIPAC is likely going to oppose renewed efforts in the House. Hoyer is close with Howard Friedman, a Baltimore-area constituent who is president of AIPAC.
Hoyer is one of the top recipients of pro-Israel groups’ political contributions.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D) together with Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org created a grassroots effort named StopIranWar.com. Their argument, apart from advocating diplomacy with Iran, is that a U.S. attack on Iran would be detrimental to Israel’s security.

[Donna Zen]

35. Thank you Wes Clark

...we've been warned.

[sofa king]

37. You people are doing the bidding of evil.

You don't think that Patrick Buchanan, born and bred in the Nixon school of political assassination and dirty tricks, doesn't know what he's doing to you?

Don't buy his horseshit. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats control Congress by...

...ONE FUCKING VOTE IN THE SENATE.

And Tim Johnson only just came back. Nothing gets done in Congress without total consensus, including the consensus of the criminally corrupt Republican Party and their corporate masters. It's a wonder Democratic Senators aren't falling out of the sky like... like they usually do.

You think that one fucking vote in the Senate is going to end this war? Fuck, no! The best we can hope for is that we staunch the bloodflow until next election, when people like you are critical to helping to elect an unassailable Democratic majority.

Shame on you people for not grasping the political reality of the situation and forcing the corrupt American media to address that issue instead of playing their game. And each and every damned one of you whiners who gave Mr. Buchanan a thumbs up for writing this deserves a swat on the ass.