I found a very interesting exchange between Pat Buchanan and Tim Russert on the state of Iraq: (I never thought that I would be agreeing with old Pat)

MR. RUSSERT: Pat Buchanan, we are now hearing on the wires that Mr. al-Douri, the number-two to Saddam Hussein, has been captured. So we now--and there he is on the screen. We now have a situation where Saddam Hussein and his number two are in captivity. Is the world not safer without them presiding over the country of Iraq?

MR. BUCHANAN: Who promised us, Tim, a cakewalk? Who promised the president a rose garden? Who failed to prepare for what would happen after we took Baghdad and Iraq? Who are the men responsible for this and why has the president of the United States not removed any of them? Most of them over in the Pentagon are the neoconservative war hawks who planned, prepared and propagandized for a war in Iraq as far back as 1996. This was their class project. I believe they imposed it upon the president. The president bears full responsibility for accepting it. But why he has not removed these people from office, I cannot for the life of me understand.


MR. BUCHANAN: Well, certainly, the Iraqi people are probably safer as a consequence of the American liberation and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The problem, Tim, is this: Now, that Saddam Hussein is gone, what we have is a situation in Fallujah and Ramadi where Sunni fundamentalists are in control and the Shias are rising up in the south, and we--and Americans are dying, and we do not have enough troops, in my judgment, in place to win this war. What you could have here and what the risk is: that having overthrown this one devil, we could have seven devils enter in his place. This could turn into a failed state in chaos and civil war, where the United States is forced out or either forced to double our troops in there. And if that happens, Tim, we've got ourselves a hellish situation there. It was not a problem. Saddam was a criminal and a thug and a brute, but he was no threat to a country that flew 40,000 sorties over Iraq in 10 years. He did not shoot down a single one.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops or would you withdraw?

MR. BUCHANAN: This is the question that, I think, should be put to John Kerry and the president of the United States in the debates: "Mr. President, if John Abizaid comes to you and says, `We can't do it with the present complement, we need 75,000 more American troops'--what would you do, John Kerry? What would you do, George W. Bush?" If it were up to me, Tim, I think I would execute a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. I think it was a terrible mistake. We're going to pay consequences one way or the other. And my feeling is probably it would be better for us in the long run if we withdrew.MR. RUSSERT: ...with you and our viewers and give a chance for our group to respond to it. "U.S. dominance of the Middle East is not the corrective to terror. It is a cause of terror. Were were not over there, the 9/11 terrorists would not have been over here. And while their acts were murderous and despicable, behind their atrocities lay a political motive. We were attacked because of our imperial presence on the sacred soil of the land of Mecca and Medina, because of our enemies' perception that we were strangling the Iraqi people with sanctions and preparing to attack a second time, and because of our uncritical support of the Likud regime of Ariel Sharon" in Israel.

Are you suggesting that our alliance with Israel is one of the reasons that we were attacked on September 11?

MR. BUCHANAN: Sure. That's one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden. In his fatwa of 1998, he wrote that there are three causes of the problems and three causes for a declaration of war by all Arabs and good Muslims against the United States. One, America's imperial presence on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. Secondly, the sanctions policy against Iraq which was persecuting and basically starving, he said, the Iraqi people, and we were planning another invasion. Third is the United States' uncritical support of the Ariel Sharon regime in Israel, which he argued is persecuting the Palestinian people.

In my judgment, Chris, this one-sided support for Sharon, the refusal to condemn that wall snaking through the West Bank, the agreement to support Sharon's claim to virtually half of the West Bank, this has caused enormous hostility and animosity and hatred for this country in that part of the world, not just among the Palestinians. And if we want to drain off some of this hatred, this venom against us, we have got to adopt a more evenhanded policy here. We have got to stand up for the same rights for the Palestinian people, a homeland, a nation, a state of their own, a viable one, on the land their forefathers farmed for a thousand years, because those are first our principles and secondly, that is in the national interest of the United States of America. I don't care what Ariel Sharon believes.

MR. RUSSERT: They are not attacking us because they hate us and hate our culture?

MR. BUCHANAN: This is the fundamental point. Are they attacking us because of who we are and what they believe or are they attacking us because of what we do? I believe it is our policies, not our principles that are causing these attacks. Osama bin Laden wasn't sitting in some cave in Afghanistan and stumble on the Bill of Rights and go bananas. It is because of what we are doing. Most fundamentally, it wasn't Israel number one. Number one, Saudi Arabia, female soldiers, American soldiers sitting there on the land of Mecca and Medina.

You do not have an issue with blaming the victim? PB blames the US much like some blame the wife when the husband beats her. Saying well it's her fault she stayed in the relationship. That logic is not accepted anywhere in this society unless it is used against Bush.

I just find it fascinating that Pat Buchanan (stonch conservative) comes out and speaks his mind clearly, right before the election, and takes a position that could damage the Republican Administration. I think its because he is not "compelled to stay on message" and is deeply concerned about Bush's lack of financial discipline; ie that inflation and / or pullout by foreign payers of bonds (Chinese et all) to finance our debt may end. Remeber, $200 billion cost for this war so far.

As far as your analogy, that we're the victim (wife) and Iraq (husband) is the problem, I don't agree that the 1st choice should be to obliterate him to solve the problem, when the police (WMD Inspectors)don't have any evidence (WMD) of their being a crime. Maybe obliteration is ultimately what needs to happen, but should not be done in haste.

You're all wet, TK.

If you poke a hornet's nest, and get stung, it's not your fault?

How about if you leave the keys in your parked car.........are you not at least somewhat to blame if it's stolen?

If I call you a derogatory term over and over until you lose it and sock me in the head, do I share no blame?

Don't play the logic card while making an illogical argument.

I used to watch Buchanon on Crossfire, I even bought his book 'Right from the Beginning' in the late 80's--he made some compelling arguments in those days.

But around 91/92 when he 'jumped the shark' and moved away from logical conservative thinking and became a millitant isolationist, anti-free trader, made what I and other condsidered anti-semitic remarks and made Bush 41 and all his offspring his sworn mortal enemies while trying to run for president (putting his ego before the good of the country)--after going so far off the reservation, logical conservatives haven't welcomed him back.

That's why the only job he can get on TV is on PMS-NBC (they like having a baffoon representing the right).

BTW--I tried to sell 'Right from the Beginning' in a yard sale...but no one wanted to buy it (even at .50 cents).