John McBush will continue these insane policies.No poor kid will be to bad to get himself or herself killed furthering these policies.Russia really does have nuclear weapons and wmd’s also.Even our intelligence can verify that.
Whatever you think of Pat Buchanan’s policies he is 100 per cent right in his assessment of the situation.Wake up now before your kid is forced to fight in Georgia for a pipeline to deliver oil that someone else’s kid died to secure.The Exxon Mobil army on the move.

Dennis Moss, August 20 at 9:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
If we could send a delegation of Dems. To meet with Conserves. like Ron Paul, & Pat Buchanan.ie. with the goal of having them present articles of impeachment , boy could that get N Pelosi off her no impeachment position.
I’m afraid that Nov. is to far off to let this psychopath continue to rape the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Be careful what you wish for Dennis. Ron Paul is not as he appears to be. He had an opportunity to back the first impeachment efforts of Dennis Kucinich, and *instead* HE was the one who argued (and passionately) AGAINST referring it to committee. (Ya really gotta read more than just the spin on all of these guys).

Buchanan Jr. on the other hand, and I would say he is not the ONLY conservative republican that has rejected and criticized this gangster regime, has written quite extensively. So, you can search and find more than just this one piece, that will show a consistency in his views on the subject. You will NOT be able to do that with Ron Paul. Rather, Dr. Paul’s views are largely switch hits that may “appear” liberal in certain situations, but he is still guided by his own ideological agenda, (as well as his own wallet) and so we all do well to carefully review, (and extensively) any position papers, speeches, and particularly the Congressional votes/records of any of these people, at least to the extent that they exist. Dr. Paul has spent 2 decades in Congress as a Republican from Texas, and his Presidential runs have been on the repug ticket as well. If he was so much more of a Libertarian mindset, he could have left the rethug party long ago. He hasn’t. He’s from Texas, and so are they. He knows what they’re about, and 95% of the time, he supports them. If he’s making noises now, it’s because he wasn’t in on the rape and pillage.
His complaints aren’t about what these wars do to humanity, but what it’s costing the economy.

Meantime, on a brighter note, I’ve just read recently where nine republican Congressmen did in fact approve of the latest impeachment resolutions. (don’t know if Paul has changed his tune since last year) Another 9 ‘deferred’ so IOW, at least didn’t say no.

I’ll try to find the link.

Who in the present US administration - or indeed, in the one to come - is going to listen to Patrick Joseph Buchanan - or, indeed, those of a far more credible source like Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev in today’s New York Times (http://tinyurl.com/59efsf) ? Unable to see that the so-called «unipolar world» they envisaged after the implosion of the Soviet Union some one and a half decades ago never could be a reality and that the temporary «gains» that the US made during the period at the cost of much treasure and literally millions of lives were illusory and ephemeral, those who control the levers of economic, political, and military power in the US seem to be determined to attempt to shore up the first two of these by a one-sided reliance on the third. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad - but will the gods permit them to take the rest of the world with them in a general conflagration ?...

Henri

Who the hell does this yellow bellied punk Bush think he is, Augustus Caesar? Since when do administrations enter into mutual defense treaties based on a handshake? I’m speaking of this “pact” with Poland. If American troops are going to be sent into combat, the treaty that arranges this should be ratified by the people’s representatives in congress, not a lame duck collection of draft dodgers & oil executives.The Democrats aren’t doing the job They’re being paid to do. When do they plan on standing up & denouncing this clown, the day after the tank battle on the Baltic?

Part 1 reply to Paolo
Hi Paolo,

You hit the nail right here…

•  The problem with saying that some interventions are “good” because they are “humanitarian,” while others are “bad” because they are motivated by baser concerns (oil, money, imperial power-lust) is that clever politicians can always skew the argument one way or the other.
The reality is that politicians have been KNOWN to do this for decades, just as in your example with Dick Bush and Iraq. It was the same with Clinton’s so-called “Humanitarian Intervention” on Serbia/Bosnia, and there have been so many others.

However, none of those were legally sanctioned as Humanitarian Interventions, based on the very specific conditions laid out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. AKA the “Genocide Convention” as it is generally referenced.

In fact, the terms and conditions for such intervention (as outlined in the treaty) are in my opinion relatively narrow. The overwhelming priority in that Convention, (as it is in most International Law) is “State Sovereignty” and the laws recognize that first and foremost. So under the terms of the convention, a CIVIL CONFLICT contained *within* a sovereign state, is not enough, (alone) to justify intervention.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

And, off the top of my head, I don’t know that Iraq would have even met the criteria for such an intervention. Regardless, it would never be ‘unilateral’ such as in the US only, but rather an international force is dispatched to resolve such events, and only based on an International mandate. So I’m not really speaking in terms of some interventions being “good” and others not, but rather interventions that are legal, based on the International body that has both constructed the language and can interpret it based the specific conditions, and what are clearly illegal. (like the invasion of Iraq and other sovereign states).

Still, you’re absolutely correct that clever (and even not so clever) politicians have used this to advance imperialistic ventures, which is at least ONE of the reasons that the Convention has been largely unsuccessful in the prevention of Genocide, and only slightly more successful in the punishment of the crime. If geopolitical superpowers (like the US being the sole remaining of them) can make such a claim as an excuse, and GET AWAY WITH IT, then that is one of the failures. Keep in mind that Dick Bush did NOT ‘originally’ use that as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq. Had he, it would have involved a UNSC resolution. I don’t think he would have gotten it. Not because the Shia hadn’t been repressed, but there was no mass genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Shia going on, at least not based on the criteria of the convention, which does NOT include political persuasion. (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, are a few) . So in other words, there was no ‘genocide’.  Now, SINCE the invasion, there are certainly indications of that, though from both sides, and therefore it is not ‘state sponsored’ as can be seen in the cases of Rwanda and Darfur, and earlier instances such as the Nazi Genocide as well as the Armenian genocide. In fact, the Genocide Convention was conceived at the same time (a day before I believe) as the Geneva Conventions, and in response to the massive genocides of the Nazi regime.

Part 2 reply to Paolo

What I realize has occurred, (at least in the past several years) is this merging of the concept of Humanitarian Intervention, to mean far more than the very specific conditions of Genocide. I mean if you think about it, ‘Humanitarian Intervention” could be nearly anything. It can be aide to another nation in terms of a natural disaster. For instance, the May 2008 disaster from the cyclone in Myanmar.
Remember how hard it was to get aide even into that region, and particularly from the West? They didn’t want us in their nation, even if it was to provide humanitarian aide. Based on the history of the US, I can understand the paranoia. The West says, “Oh, we’re gonna provide “Humanitarian Intervention” (whether the people want it or not) and the next thing they know, they’ve been flippin’ OCCUPIED!

So, no doubt there’s a dilemma. Still, my reference is specifically to conditions where genocide exists, and can be sufficiently determined as such. Even that much is tricky, which is the larger reason why the Convention has been mostly unsuccessful in preventing it.

I agree with you on the flaws of the Constitution as well. In all fairness and honesty, racism is actually built into it, and while there have been ‘adjustments’ over time, that was still at the foundation. Besides that, we are mislead in believing it to be a blue print for a so-called ‘democracy’. It may have been called that, but technically, the Constitution is actually a blueprint for a Constitutional Republic. To that extent, it is acceptable enough, and probably better than some, and not as good as others. Still, we’ve seen how it could be highjacked, and so that should be a clue to those with the remaining youth and energy, to try to correct things to make it a bit more ‘high-jack’ proof. It looks great on paper,(but even then, only if one doesn’t dig too deeply to note the loopholes, or open any of the closets) but the actual practice has gone haywire.

Anyway, it was great talking to you as well. Take good care.

Hi Cyrena, and thanks for your in-depth analysis. I disagree, but your arguments are well thought out.

The problem with saying that some interventions are “good” because they are “humanitarian,” while others are “bad” because they are motivated by baser concerns (oil, money, imperial power-lust) is that clever politicians can always skew the argument one way or the other. For example, suppose Bush had argued, before the war, that we needed to take out the Saddam Hussein regime, not because of phony WMD fearmongering, but because humanitarian concerns demanded it? Would that have made the invasion okay?

After all, Saddam was indeed a very bad man. And Shi’ites were discriminated against. And opposition leaders were captured and tortured. If we invaded on “humanitarian” grounds because we wanted to engage in the noble and grand mission of ridding the world of tyranny, would that have made it acceptable? (Of course, the neocons made and continue to make such arguments, after the fact, once their original list of lies was exposed.)

Suppose we invade Darfur on “humanitarian” grounds, kill a hundred thousand or so opposing troops, lose several thousand of our own, and get mired down in another occupation because we have to “see the whole thing through to total victory?”

Suppose we finished up in Iraq, then decided to “assist” Georgia, all on “humanitarian” grounds, of course. After all, poor little Georgia is being picked on by big, bad Russia!

Examples could be endless. But the bottom line is: foreign interventionism leads to quagmires, followed by more interventions, followed by more quagmires.

Regarding the Constitution, like many libertarians, I think it is a flawed rule book, but I think it would be acceptable if anyone actually followed what it says. Regarding war and the military, the Founders only gave Congress the power to fund an army for a period not greater than two years at a time, since a permanent, standing army would be harmful to liberty. Check it out; it’s in there.

Militarism, grand foreign interventionism, delusions of being the world’s policeman and judge—these are the quickest routes to tyranny. Allow politicians the power to invade and conquer foreign lands, and they will always think up excuses to do so. Usually, ginned up “humanitarianism” is cynically employed. Do you remember the earnest stories of evil Iraqi soldiers invading hospitals in Kuwait, dumping little babies on the floor, and stealing the incubators? It was smooth propaganda. Totally untrue, of course—but effective. All wars feature such propaganda campaigns. So you see, “humanitarianism” is the most frequent excuse to engage in evil and pointless wars.

Sorry to ramble on at such length, so I’ll stop here. Again, thanks for engaging in thoughtful discussion.

Bravo Pat, Bravo!

Though Pat Buchanan is a nationalist, ethnocentric reactionary, he also has a charmingly anti-imperialist streak such that I find myself agreeing with him half the time. I think he got this one right. It’s hard to find such views anywhere else in the MSM.

as thebeerdoctor points out—Pat Buchanan is a force to be reckoned with.

Fahrenheit 451, you answer your own question but perhaps incorrectly, rather than “because he’s conservative” what about “because he’s views are too frequently radically opposed to peace and prosperity for all”—he’s said some pretty nasty stuff to and about a lot of “ordinary people” who just happen to be something he’s not—gay for instance. That kind of hatred isn’t something I’d want to be remotely involved with.

That being said, I agree with your premise—it is very difficult to find ANY place with truly balanced reporting and (civilized) discourse/debate. I wish for such a site myself but I fear it is just not possible. The problem is really one of volume and control—such a site would either have so much volume that it would be difficult/impossible for ordinary mortals to use or it would have to be controlled (edited) to provide a semblance of sanity. The latter action naturally introduces biases, the former isn’t a place I’d waste time on (I don’t have that much time to waste ).

In the end, I agree with you and think the attempt at humour (for that is what I guess was the reason for that) was ill-thought out.

You do have a point, Jackpine, about disproportnate force for clear and specific goals.  The Awe and Schock terrorism of the Bushites exist, but not for clear and specific political goals.  It seems incredible, but they literally had no political plans after the military invaded Iraq.  That was it, Mission Accomplished.  Rumsfield then was going to put in Chalabi as president under Freedom and Democacy and steal their oil.

But neither the Iraqi people or their power structure liked this idea.  This was a country with a history extending back five milleniums and just completed a US instigated war against Iran.  The Bushites assumed that they would be as passive as the American people. 

Shisenski, of the Joint Chiefs, testified to congress that they would need four hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq,  And the Bushites, none of whom ever had a shot fired in anger at them, FIRED him.

Their incompetence, and that of the neocoms, is due to their delusionary view of the world.  They appear to confuse killing a lot of people with military and political victory.  this is crazy.  We are being ruled by homocidal maniancs, and the policies will not change significantly no matter who is elected.  Buchanan is a racist fascist, but he is not ideologically insane in the same way that the neocons are.

I don’t think that Bush does understand using disproportionate force.  He completely abandoned the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Iraq, and the Powell Doctrine equals disproportionate force for clear (limited) goals.

Respect is not the same as total agreement or looking up to.  One of our most serious problems is that the majority of people in this country have no respect for people who disagree with them.  Being conservative doesn’t make one wrong in every instance.  And Buchanen has been writing like this for a long time.

He is at least rational about foreign policy, and that’s something that cannot be said about many people of stature from either side of the aisle.

I respected HST for his style.  And i managed to retain respect for him, even though he was a Democrat…see how that works.

By Paolo, August 17 at 12:24 pm

•  “I only wish the left would be consistent in its anti-war, anti-imperialist positions. Too many on the left criticize (correctly) our idiotic venture in Iraq, or the even more idiotic proposed meddling in Georgia. But then, they want to intervene in other parts of the globe, like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur. ….Folks, we don’t own the world. Americans should concentrate on making America a great country, not trying to police the world.”

~~~~~
Part I

Ah Paolo my friend, (hopefully I can call you that),
You have related the age-old ideology that certainly has long roots of wisdom attached. However, it’s a black and white ideology, when the reality reveals far more shades of grey. Nothing is as simple as the black and white of libertarianism, at least not in today’s world, and that’s probably the root of your frustration with the so-called ‘left’. I’ve mentioned before, the peril in the connections between ideologies and directions/positions (left, right center) as well as colors like red/blue/green. Its one sure way to jack-up any understandings of anything political, specifically because the rule of law doesn’t sit on a position point, and it doesn’t have any color to it either. At the same time, the rule of law does often succumb to the perils of the black/white ideology, based on interpretation.
All of that said, imperialist intervention is something that most ‘rule of lawers’ do not approve. (regardless of their position or color). And yes, it’s true that the US has done that repeatedly. I could name, Viet Nam, Korea, the Philippines, Grenada, Nicaragua, long before Kuwait, Iraq, and I’ve certainly left out more than I have included. And those are just the obvious ones, where our involvement (troops, weapons, the entire military apparatus) has been visible. That doesn’t even include the interventions in Iran, Chile, Peru, and multiple others where the CIA has overthrown the established government to insert puppet regimes. These too, are imperialist interventions. MOST of the 700 US military bases scattered about the globe are there as a result of US imperial interventions.
HOWEVER, you actually sited examples where genocide has been massive, and therein lies the peril of lumping all of it into US “imperial intervention:”  because in reference to genocide and other well-defined crimes against humanity, the US has an OBLIGATION to intervene, based on the treaties and conventions to which we have agreed and committed. That said, such intervention *is not* (or should not be) ‘imperialist’ in nature. That’s why the treaties and conventions are very clear in requiring a UN resolution before any such intervention can occur, and it should NEVER be undertaken as a unilateral effort by the US alone.

You noted Bosnia/Kosovo as separate entities, when in fact the conflict (involving genocide) are one and the same, and DID involve massive genocide. However, for many of us, it is only in hindsight that we can see this genocide (or the larger part of it at least) as a result of US imperialism, and that the US intervention, (unilateral and without UNSC approval) was in fact another imperialist endeavor by the US, using the excuse of the much exaggerated civil conflict/genocide to cover up the ultimate imperialist motivation.

That is NOT the case for Rwanda, or Darfur, or even the occupied territories of Palestine. In the case of Rwanda, the US responded to its obligation far too late. Hindsight or “after the fact” truths have since been revealed that we had a military part in that as well. In Darfur, we’ve done nothing, and millions of people continue to be raped, massacred, and driven from any established means of survival. It’s clear that this situation clearly falls within the Convention’s established criteria as genocide, and yet we’ve failed to respond, as the world has also failed to respond in the genocide of the Palestinians.

Part II
My point, is that there is a difference between the ordinary imperialistic interventions that the US has become known for, and the situations/conditions carefully put forth and codified in International Law, that actually *require* a response from us. That’s why this ‘consistency’ that you reference is not and cannot be appropriately addressed in terms of such simplistic ideologies that suggest the US should NEVER be involved in anything outside of the US. Rather, the ‘consistency’ that one should demand and expect from ALL Americans, is compliance to the rule of law to which we are committed.
Again, this should have nothing to do with left/right/center. The rule of law doesn’t bend that way, at least not at the foundational concept of what rule of law actually means, as embodied in the Constitution, which is how this republic was established. Since Libertarians claim an allegiance to the Constitution, it would probably be helpful to understand that our Constitution does now, and always has included international agreements and commitments. And, it is only be understand the purpose of those agreements, and the language of the written text, in conjunction with any given set of circumstances, that the difference between an illegal and imperialistic type of intervention, and the interventions that are required of us, based on a commitment to humanity.

I admit that most often, that is extremely difficult for the average American to determine, because we don’t know the language of these treaties, and because we rarely if ever know the REAL circumstances. (this is a perfect example of intentional propaganda that would lead us to believe one thing, rather than the truth). HOWEVER, there ARE people, (many of them) who do study this stuff, and who do know how to write these agreements, and how to interpret them. They are a neutral body of jurists who can make these interpretations, based on a huge collection of codified and accepted law.

So if we’re really committed (as a population) to the rule of law, then we’ll allow that to be accomplished.

Sadly, (heartbreakingly really) many of our leaders have never been as committed to that as they’ve claimed to be, and therein lies our demise.

By Anarcissie, August 17 at 5:52 pm

Elitism is costing this world a lot. Their control of the political, religious, economic and military systems to advance their bank accounts further and further into la la land is beyond logic, rational civilization. These people have no morals not one bit of compassion except for their on kind and to use as a means of control of countries and the people. In other words their law pertains to anyone but themselves, they have a free hand.
I just shake my head at american imperialism mostly because it has been proven to not really work. Imperial empires have a long history of not working and I can only think that what america is up to has to do with its nuclear arsenal being in control of a bunch of idiots called neocons. The don’t have or should not have the ability to push the botton but there are sure enough of them in enough positions to heavily influence that ultimate decision. Gives some of these chicken hawks a video game conception of life. Solve it with a big blast.
But maybe this russia vs. georgia thing is giving them pause for thought because one should never take it lightly when attempting to sandpaper a bear’s asshole. That has some serious blowback.

“Conservatives”, that is, rightist Americans, were converted to internationalism (that is, imperialism) only very recently, historically speaking.  In the 20th century, it was the more liberal sort of Republicans, like Teddy Roosevelt, and the Democrats, like Wilson, FDR, Truman, Marshall, the Kennedys, and so on, who hungered for global dominion.  Even in the 1950s and 1960s some American rightists argued that the United States could not run the world without destroying itself, and opposed the Korean War and the War in Vietnam.  The remnants of this school now call themselves “paleoconservatives” which I guess is a play on the term “neoconservative”.

In this case I think Buchanan is picking pretty low-hanging fruit.  The hypocrisy and apparent bad judgement of the U.S. government in regard to Georgia has been astonishing even for Bush and Company, something I expect most people who care are going to notice regardless of ideological coloration.

Georgia is planning to perform an appalling provocation. According to Russian military intelligence a gang of about 200 mercenaries of Slavic appearance (most of them from Ukraine thus they speak Russian fluently) will disguise themselves as Russian soldiers. Then they are going to plunder Georgian city Gori where there are only Georgian police forces now. All these crimes will be accurately videotaped to persuade the world community in the utmost guilt of the Russian army and the atrocities it supposedly commited.

By the way the videoscenes of a devastated and burning Gori (that CNN and Fox were feeding the world with) were in fact the scenes of Tshinval - the capital of South Ossetia.

If Scheer is right, Jackpine, as it increasingly appears that he is, Bush was handed a losing hand.  OF course he knows that wars are won by applying disproportnatate force by public opinion is won by lying about it.

Ahtough Bucannon is correct here, and it was right to print him,. your respect for him is misplaced.  He is a racist fascist.  It is true that he was friendly with Hunter Thompson but Thompson was a stylist.  He did’t have any politics, he was a Democrat.

I’ve had the phrase “disproportionate force” stuck in my craw for some days now.

What the hell is wrong with Bush.  He doesn’t even realize that wars are won by applying disproportionate force?  Of course, if you start too many at one time you end up being forced to use proportionate force out of necessity.

Using proportionate force gets you Diem Ben Phu’ed.  Valorous, certainly.  But bravely stupid is still stupid.

Buchanan’s article is good and I’m glad you printed it.  We need allies in our fight against the interventionists wherever we can find them, and we must treat them with respect.

One thing which Buchanan, and everyone else, seems to agree on but which I would question is that the Russian response was “disproportionate”.  Disproportionate compared to what?  If you consider the context and possible consequences of alternative Russian responses, you may, as I have, come to be thankful that Putin had the guts to do the right thing.

Georgia lost to South Ossetia and Abkhazia in their wars of independence 14 years ago, but has never given up its claim to them.  Since Saakashvili’s taking power he has been swearing to re-take them by force.  Russia simply can’t let that happen, as they are under Russian protection, with Russian troops stationed in them, and their people now hold Russian Federation passports.  Georgia has built up a huge and well-equipped army for a country of its size, has thousands of US and Israeli trainers, advisors and mercenaries on its soil, and has been calling for NATO membership to back its planned assault.  In the meantime, Bush has been openly pushing a policy of military encirclement of Russia, and there has been a lot of loose talk among those close to Bush about World War III against Russia and about using nuclear weapons against Iran. 

Against this background, Georgia launched a massive sneak attack against South Ossetia, killing and injuring many Russian troops.  What should Russia’s response have been?

I suggest we consider, as Putin must have, the possibility that a more measured response, one that merely pushed the Georgian forces out of South Ossetia without inflicting a massive defeat on them, would have left room for Georgia to keep fighting and to call on the US for help, and would have allowed time for the US to insert troops into Georgia to support that fight. And he would have had to weigh the possibility that this was the Bush/McCain plan. If that had happened, the US and Russia could now be on the brink of of a world war, or perhaps beyond the brink.

One does not have to see Putin as “the Good Guy” to understand that Russia is an intended victim in Bush/Cheney/McCain’s world plan, and that blaming Russia for acting to thwart those plans is part of their propaganda plan.  A huge effort is being made to fan the flames of jingoism and war hysteria, to mess with our heads and intimidate us into silence.  The people of the world are counting on us, we who “live in the belly of the beast”, not to succumb to it but to keep our heads clear and to keep up the pressure against those who are scheming to start new and more terrible imperialist wars.

I had similar thoughts, unbelievable that Bush ignored slaughter of Ossetians to position himself as presidential (stupid to the rest of us). Wasn’t that the point of the Iraq invasion after wpm’s weren’t found, to save those suffering under Sadam. What a great explanation on ethics of invasions, ya, and let’s send Rice in there to calm tensions—so much great success with that.  Don’t see what Putin has to be angry about but wants decency and to hold off close incursions to Russia’s border, supports historic respect for Russian culture much of it born from Gypsy culture long ago.  Buchanan is a one and only, believes in what he says which is rare these days.

Americans don’t realize yet how disastrous the blowback is.  The US has lost Pipelineistan, according to a piece by Kenneth Anderson.

The US was trying to route Caspian gas and oil through Georgia as an alternative to Russia and Iran, but the looniness of the neocon Georia president has scared everyone away from the plans and turned toward Russia and Iran.  Including Europe.

Astonishing the damage that the neocons are doing to the US.  You would think they are in the pay of some really Alien power.

As a libertarian, I agree with Buchanan more often than I disagree, though I have to say that, when he’s wrong, he’s really wrong. But in this article, he is dead-on accurate.

I only wish the left would be consistent in its anti-war, anti-imperialist positions. Too many on the left criticize (correctly) our idiotic venture in Iraq, or the even more idiotic proposed meddling in Georgia. But then, they want to intervene in other parts of the globe, like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur.

Folks, we don’t own the world. Americans should concentrate on making America a great country, not trying to police the world.

A good example of how right wingers who oppose both the Dem and Gop neocons can cogently tell the simple truth.  Bucannon was raised a Franco facsist with his brothers and has gotten so right wing that he is now telling leftist truths.  A good choice to feature him.  It illustrates that no matter how dispicable and racist one’s ideology, as his is, it is still possible to analyze correctly.

“People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.” Were it so that you had told the Bush Administration that piece of reasoned wisdom back in ‘03, Mr. Buchanan.

Pat Buchanan failed to reach the obvious conclusion:  The so-called Cold War, as pointed out by critics at the time, was just an excuse for U.S. capitalist imperialism, which continues whether or not there is a Cold War.  The same is true of Zionist expansionism:  It continues regardless of what Egypt does.

On CNN Sunday morning (8/17), Wolf Blitzer showed a clip of Condom Liza chiding Russia for its actions in Georgia, then cut to a Russian parliamentarian for comment.  The Russian dissed Condi on grounds she’d stated facts, and he brought up how conveniently the Bush Administration has missed the parallels between Georgia and Iraq.  At least the Russians had some provocation in attacks on ethnic Russians in Ossetia; short of occasional potshots at American jets in the no-fly zone, we had none.  And for all the tough talk out of the White House, the Russians are doing what they please, safe in the knowledge that we no longer have a war machine to stop the incursions, no do we have the moral high ground on the world stage.  How pathetic this country has become in the last eight years!

Russia could build a wall around whatever land it wants in Georgia just like the Zionists do to the indigenous Palestinian people’s land—with U.S. support.

Wow, those are some stinging words from Pat B.  Mostly on target.  The last part inviting Americans to imagine counterfactuals (Europe in the Warsaw Pact, Russia stationing pliable regimes in a ring around the US, bypassing the US with a Sino-Russian oil pipeline) is well-done indeed. 

One line which should give pause, though, is this: “American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite scalawags to loot the Russian nation.” While I agree that the US’s cold war “victory” (a pyrrhic one if you read critical accounts of the cold war by Mahmood Mamdani and others), was used by the US to utterly humiliate and impoverish Russia, I find the analogy to American reconstruction here highly unpalatable if not inadmissible.  Among the carpetbaggers and scalawags were many well-meaning reformers who genuinely wanted to guide the South beyond a history marked by the heinous institution of slavery and its unsavory consequences.  Many of these carpetbaggers and scalawags were responsible for implementing federal laws (e.g., the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th ensuring equal protection by law of all - albeit male - citizens, and the 15th prohibiting states from abrogating voting rights based on race).  The language Buchanan uses suggests a none-too-comfortable affinity with the same notions deployed by terrorist campaigns (e.g., the KKK) which violently targeted carpetbaggers, scalawags, and not least, African Americans, and eventually succeeded in returning the South, in effect, to the days of slavery.

It would be good to remember that Buchanan’s skepticism, while in this case on target and certainly welcome from the conservative ranks, comes out of an isolationist, not to say reactionary tradition that, while at moments sharing common points with progressive critique, is basically opposed to the latter.

I have always felt there is an element in both parties which have NO alliegnce to US. appears Pat may actually be one of those REAL ol’ school Republican (at times).
Also glad to see you too have realized WHO’s ‘Chickens’ Rev Wright was talking about- which ‘America’ he was damning (those who fly our flag as camoflague).Wright was not damning AmericaNs- just those who use US as their scapegoats.
Now could you help US get rid of CheneyCorp, and their Blue arm the ‘Clinton machine’ aka DLC?
Pat I am a life long liberal Dem, I am Hoping Sen Obama Screws both these Traitors by naming Sen Chuck Hagel as VP, or at least in his cabinet.
come On Pat- say it…endorse Sen Obama,we need all the patriots we can get this time!End the Corp strangle hold which has brought this country to it’s knees!And throw whatever weight you have left behind criminally prosecuting this admin and their corp & foreign sponsors!

As someone who have never cared for Pat Buchanan, it pains me to say I agree with everyone word he says about the Russia-Georgia conflict.

Despite all their posturing and moral outrage to the contrary, it has been Bush’s, Rice’s, and Cheney’s scheming that has led to this incident in Georgia.

An incident that cost many thousands of people their lives. Do they feel any sense of guilt or remorse over what they did?

What did they think was going to happen? Did they think that Russia was going to sit by and let us politically isolate them, arming their geographic neighbors with our rockets and hostility?

I thought Putin was supposed to be our friend? And this is how you treat our friends, by stabbing them in the back?

I guess so.

Then Bush and the Neo Con’s used CNN and their other propagandist’s in the Media, as mouth pieces to justify their aggression, and cover their ass with fine sounding words, when it all went bad.

Facists like Bush always justify their actions, with speaches about freedom, justice, and self determination, while marching off to War with someone else’s children.

What else can they do, tell the truth?

I’ve always respected Buchanen, mostly because i’ve long been aware that Hunter S. Thompson respected him. 

He’s an actual conservative.  And while i may not agree with him on all things, he’s worth listen to and/or arguing with…at least he’s rational, which is more than can be said for most “liberals” and “conservatives”.

He summed this situation up succinctly, and didn’t even bother to point out that a lot of the provocation of Russia came under a Democratic (er, “liberal”?) administration.

Mr. Buchanan and I hardly see eye to eye on anything, yet to read a commentary such as this is astounding to say the least.
The arguments are cogent and forthright in their view. Mr. Buchanan, makes the point that the neo-conservatives have at heart a visceral hatred of the Soviet-Russian nation. They have worked long and hard for a “defeat” of the Russian nation, and then when it occurred, made the most of their opportunity by scouring the country for any money and power that could be obtained.
To what end is the neo-conservatives idea that Russia is as ally and should be treated as a subservient nation?  One can only guess that there are more motives than meet the eye. By continually harping of the fact that Russia lost the Cold War, are we not giving into a mindset of a hardness of heart regarding the fact that Russia could not afford to keep up with America in the Arms Race?
I for one, foresee an invigorated Russia, which takes its national pride seriously and does not give in to the whims of those it sees as adversaries in the global sense.
Would it not be advantageous instead, to accept the Russian people as part of the world community and look upon them as friends and not as “former enemies?”  We are one! This mindset of adversarial and continuing conflict is hurting our country as well as the rest of the world.
Instead of building “missile defense shields,” why not build bridges of understanding between our two countries? Is this an impossibility?  Should we the people not make an attempt to work out our differences without bloodshed and violence?
But since the neo-cons are in power at the moment, they hold the reins and given the choice between a legitimate friendship and another Cold War, they would for the sake of the military-industrial complex, their “bestest” buddies, and money brokers, have no change in the stance taken by our government. 
What if there was a people’s revolution? A change made by the people’s of our two great countries which made bridges instead of bombs?  Wouldn’t there be a noticeable change in the atmosphere of the worlds relations between countries that were once adversaries?  One can only hope that no more hawks gain power, and that the people have a say in how the foreign policy of this country is run.
Should this happen we will no longer need such a bloated and overweight military, an obsolete method of dealing with countries with which we have disputes, and make sincere efforts to relate to other countries before hostilities occurred.
What a dream!

As the late Hunter S. Thompson said: “Only the doomed argue with Patrick J. Buchanan”. In this instance the hard right pundit has nailed this nonsense down. It makes me question whatever became of geographical, sovereign borders? The new speak of “democracy” is in reality an unabashed promotion of corporate global capitalism, using military might as means to an uncertain end. Yes in this sense Mr. Buchanan is right, “the chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost”.