The Great Betrayal

[Religious Dick]

February 11, 2008 Issue
Copyright ? 2008 The American Conservative

The Great Betrayal

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Offering more ?straight talk? on the Sunday before the Florida primary, John McCain made an arresting prediction: ?It?s a tough war we?re in. It?s not going to be over right away. There?s going to be other wars. I?m sorry to tell you, there?s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.?

Ike promised to ?go to Korea? and ended that war. Nixon pledged to end Vietnam with honor. McCain says we may be in Iraq a hundred years and warns, ?there?s going to be other wars.? Take the man at his word.

Mimicking the Beach Boys? ?Barbara Ann,? McCain has joked about ?Bomb, bomb, bomb?bomb, bomb Iran? and urged the expulsion of Russia from the G-8. He wants to expand NATO to bring in Georgia and the Ukraine. This could mean confrontation between Russia and the United States over whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia should be free of Georgia or ruled by Tbilisi, a matter of zero vital interest to this country.

We are forewarned. John McCain intends to be a war president.

Where Bush has lately cleansed his administration of neocons, McCain offers the last best hope for a neocon return and restoration and more wars in the Middle East. And if, as seems probable, Bibi Netanyahu again becomes prime minister of Israel, he and a President McCain will find a pretext for war on Iran.

Year 2008 may prove a defining one for conservatives. For on many of the great issues, McCain has sided as often with the Left and the Big Media as he has with the Right.

Where Bush has been at his best, cutting taxes and nominating conservative judges, McCain has been his nemesis. Not only did he vote twice against the Bush tax cuts, McCain colluded to sell out the most conservative of Bush?s judges

In 1993, McCain voted to confirm the pro-abortion liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain formed the Gang of 14, seven senators from each party. All agreed to vote to block the GOP Senate from invoking the ?nuclear option??i.e., empowering the GOP to break a filibuster of judicial nominees by majority vote?unless the seven Democrats agreed.

With this record of voting for Clinton justices and joining with Democrats anxious to kill the most conservative Bush?s nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain would nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

McCain also colluded with liberals to pass McCain-Feingold, a law that denies to Second Amendment folks and right-to-lifers their First Amendment right to identify friends and foes in TV ads before national elections.

On ANWAR, too, McCain votes with the liberals, and on global warming he has moved toward Gore.

After five record trade deficits have denuded the nation of thousands of factories and 3 million manufacturing jobs, McCain is still babbling on about Smoot-Hawley. ?When you study history,? he told a Detroit newspaper, ?every time we?ve adopted protectionism, we?ve paid a very heavy price.?

But what history was McCain talking about? From Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge, the GOP was the Party of Protection that put 12 presidents in the White House to two for the Democrats, and the U.S. became the most awesome industrial power and self-reliant nation in the history of mankind, producing 42 percent of the world?s manufactured goods. Even Hillary, whose husband passed NAFTA with McCain?s support, has begun to question the free-trade paradigm and the disastrous results it has produced.

On controlling America?s borders and halting the invasion through Mexico, McCain collaborated with Senate liberals in the McCain-Kennedy amnesty, which was rejected only after a national uprising.

When 190,000 Arizonans petitioned in 2004 to put Prop 200 on the ballot, requiring proof of citizenship before an individual could vote or receive welfare benefits, John McCain led the GOP congressional delegation in opposing it unanimously. Prop 200 passed with the support of 56 percent of all Arizona voters and 46 percent of Hispanics.

Unsurprisingly, Juan Hernandez, the open-borders chatterbox and former adviser to Vicente Fox, has turned up in McCain?s campaign.

On the two issues where Bush has been at his best, taxes and judges, McCain has sided against him. On the three issues that have ravaged the Bush presidency?the misbegotten war in Iraq, the failure to secure America?s borders, and the trade policy that has destroyed the dollar, de-industrialized the country, and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America?McCain has sided with Bush.

Now McCain is running on a platform that says your jobs are not coming back, the illegals are not going home, but we are going to have more wars. If you don?t like it, vote for Hillary.

And this was to be the Year of Change.   

http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/buchanan.html

[fatman]

If I thought Pat Buchanan had any credibility, I'd be worried.  He has one thing right on the money though:  Now McCain is running on a platform that says your jobs are not coming back, the illegals are not going home, but we are going to have more wars. If you don?t like it, vote for Hillary.  Because although you may think McCain is bad, Hillary is much, much worse.

[sirs]

If I thought Pat Buchanan had any credibility, I'd be worried.  He has one thing right on the money though:  Now McCain is running on a platform that says your jobs are not coming back, the illegals are not going home, but we are going to have more wars. If you don?t like it, vote for Hillary.  Because although you may think McCain is bad, Hillary is much, much worse.

Sad, but true.  While Obama is simply a less experienced and even more liberal version of Hillary.  In other words, we're pretty screwed this coming Presidential election     

[Xavier_Onassis]

  Because although you may think McCain is bad, Hillary is much, much worse.

===========================================================
Why? Bill Clinton was far more successful than Juniorbush. I imagine that a Hillary presidency would be like a Bill presidency, but without Monica.

McCain guarantees war, war and more war. More maimed soldiers, more mental cases, more dead, much more in expenses, money flowing out of the country, never to return. More buggering of the dollar, no medical reform, no social security before, and an ancient guy at the helm whose message is mostly gloom and doom.

Who needs that? How could Hillary be worse? Because RUSH says so?

[fatman]

Sad, but true.  While Obama is simply a less experienced and even more liberal version of Hillary.  In other words, we're pretty screwed this coming Presidential election

Isn't that how it usually turns out?

Who needs that? How could Hillary be worse? Because RUSH says so?

I think you know XO that I don't listen to Rush, or Anne, or Hannity.  My radio is always on either classic country or classic rock, and sometimes just classical.  Hillary could be worse because she won't take a chance, certainly not in her first term.  She's very methodical and very predictable, and will only do something if it's politically favorable.  She's also very divisive and I don't see her having a good relationship with Congress, even a Democratic one.  McCain, on the other hand, is unpredictable.  He may very well do something not politically expedient.  He might well ditch the advice of his party and chart his own course.  I see McCain as very Eisenhoweresque, and while the Eisenhower presidency was dull and not particularly exciting, progress was made and was formed during his tenure.  On the other hand, McCain might pull a GW and dig in his heels over rather trivial matters.  I'll just have to hope that he doesn't, because I'll vote for the one that I think  might take a risk over the one that won't.

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Plane]

Who is out there promiseing that there will be no more war?


Reasonable preparation for war prevents war , seming vunerable attracts war.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Reasonable preparation for war prevents war , seming vunerable attracts war.

=================================================
This is largely anceient Cold War leftover bullshit. The US has never been so vulnerable as now in decades. The army is stretched beyond its limits in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet, no one has staterd a war with the US..


Here's what the real equation is: if you give the US government an army, they will give us a war. The larger the army, the larger the war.

[Plane]

Reasonable preparation for war prevents war , seming vunerable attracts war.

=================================================
This is largely anceient Cold War leftover bullshit. The US has never been so vulnerable as now in decades. The army is stretched beyond its limits in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet, no one has staterd a war with the US..


Here's what the real equation is: if you give the US government an army, they will give us a war. The larger the army, the larger the war.

No  you don't get the attack you are prepared for , the potential attackers can see that you preparation is enough to harm them they just don't. Osama Bin Laden declaired war on America and attacked us where he found a chink in the armor.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No  you don't get the attack you are prepared for , the potential attackers can see that you preparation is enough to harm them they just don't. Osama Bin Laden declaired war on America and attacked us where he found a chink in the armor.
===================================================================
Oh please. It is absolutely nutty to say that the 9-11 attacks resulted from too small an army.

A handful of security guards could have prevented 9-11. A battalion of troops would have been useless.

When one of the guys extradited from Egypt he 1993 attempt on the WTC was being driven to prison, they saw the twin towers. Some smartass FBI guy with an overdose of Caruso said "There it is, still standing", and the Arab said "not for long."

Our National Security adviser Condi Rice ignored this, rather than sitting down and analyising the situation. She could have said "We know they want to bring therse buildings down. Let us think about how they might do this with their limited resources. Perhaps some genius might have pointed out that Hitler approved the design of suicidal aircraft to hit NYC skyscrapers in 1943, but they were never built.


Richard Clark sent her memo after memo right up to the moment of the attack.

She got promoted. Did Juniorbush say "You're doin' a great job, Condi?"

Perhaps not. But that was the attitude. Incompetence triumphant. More Americans lost than in any previous attack on civilians.

Troop strength could not have prevented this. Troops are offensive for the most part. Security is defensive.
If the size of the army is increased, there will be more war. It is as predictable as the posies that bloom in the Spring.

A good offense is NOT the best defense. The best defense is a good defense.

[Plane]

No  you don't get the attack you are prepared for , the potential attackers can see that you preparation is enough to harm them they just don't. Osama Bin Laden declaired war on America and attacked us where he found a chink in the armor.
===================================================================
Oh please. It is absolutely nutty to say that the 9-11 attacks resulted from too small an army.

Is that what I said?

A handful of security guards could have prevented 9-11. A battalion of troops would have been useless.

How would a handfull of security gaurds have stopped those guys?

When one of the guys extradited from Egypt he 1993 attempt on the WTC was being driven to prison, they saw the twin towers. Some smartass FBI guy with an overdose of Caruso said "There it is, still standing", and the Arab said "not for long."

Our National Security adviser Condi Rice ignored this, rather than sitting down and analyising the situation. She could have said "We know they want to bring therse buildings down. Let us think about how they might do this with their limited resources. Perhaps some genius might have pointed out that Hitler approved the design of suicidal aircraft to hit NYC skyscrapers in 1943, but they were never built.


Richard Clark sent her memo after memo right up to the moment of the attack.

She got promoted. Did Juniorbush say "You're doin' a great job, Condi?"

Perhaps not. But that was the attitude. Incompetence triumphant. More Americans lost than in any previous attack on civilians.

Troop strength could not have prevented this. Troops are offensive for the most part. Security is defensive.
If the size of the army is increased, there will be more war. It is as predictable as the posies that bloom in the Spring.

A good offense is NOT the best defense. The best defense is a good defense.

What do you have in mind? What sort of defense would actually give us a chink free armor?