← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 4695 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2003-01-30
2003-01-30 11:22 | User Profile
To view this item online, visit [url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30739]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=30739[/url]
Is George W. Bush an imperialist?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
éà2003àCreators Syndicate, Inc.
Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the United States is about to invade and occupy that country. If we do, it will be the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to reshape the domestic politics and foreign policy of another nation to conform to our own.
A war to convert Iraq into a vassal state in the Middle East is something the War Party has sought for a decade. Sept. 11 gave it the opening to foist its agenda on an outraged and untutored president.
But does George W. Bush share their vision? Has he, too, come to believe in the need for an American empire? Does he see in his mind's eye a U.S.-occupied Iraq ââ¬â allied with Turkey, Israel and Jordan ââ¬â ordering Syria's President Bashar Assad to pull his 35,000 troops out of Lebanon, so Sharon can go back in and settle scores with Hezbollah?
Does he share the War Party's vision of an Iran surrounded by U.S. air power in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Central Asia being ordered to destroy its missiles and nuclear reactors, or face U.S. attack? Sharon sees it. Anticipating a U.S. occupation of Iraq, he has called on us to smash Iran next. After that, Libya.
But, again, the question remains: Has George W. Bush himself become an imperialist? Is the War Party dream of a Middle East and Persian Gulf where the United States is the hegemonic power that dictates to every capital and brooks no dissent now his vision as well?
To be blunt, is there a Bush-Sharon Grand Strategy for a Middle East where all resistance to U.S. hegemony is broken and all opposition to Israel's occupation of Arab lands ends? After Iraq, the War Party will demand that Bush confront Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Will he?
Or will he do as his father did after Desert Storm? Try to compel Israel to get off Palestinian lands and accede to a just peace with the Palestinian people?
President Bush contends that all he demands of Iraq is surrender of its weapons of mass destruction. If that is true, as it was true that all his father demanded was Iraq's eviction from Kuwait, then there is simply an overlap of Bush policy and Israeli policy, and not some grand alliance or agreed-upon strategic agenda. Only after U.S troops enter Baghdad, however, will we learn the answers to these questions.
But if Bush is not an imperialist, why are we about to invade Iraq?
Bush's case for war: Saddam is a murderous tyrant with a grudge against America who has gassed his own people and has weapons of mass destruction that will be used on us, or his neighbors, or given to terrorists. Let us disarm Iraq while we can, lest we confront a situation in the Gulf identical to what we confront on the Korean peninsula: one of the world's most dangerous dictators wielding the world's most dangerous weapons.
The case against war: Iraq had no role in the anthrax attack or 9-11. No terrorist attack of the last decade is traceable to Iraq. Iraq has invited in U.N. inspectors and told us to send CIA agents to accompany them. Not since 1990 has Iraq attacked a neighbor. No matter how evil Saddam may be, he has been contained, and none of his neighbors fear him or want us to invade.
Moreover, Saddam has three or four doubles who travel with him in a fleet of Mercedes, and he sleeps in a different bed every night. This is not a martyr ââ¬â this is a survivor. Why would he attack a superpower when it would mean the certain destruction of him, his sons, his dynasty, his legacy, his monuments and his palaces, leaving him in the history books, not as another Saladin, but as the dumbest Arab of them all?
My view: When George Bush began his fulminations about the Axis of Evil, pre-emptive strikes and "regime change," he had not thought it all through, but has now become a prisoner of his own oratory. After all that bellicosity, he simply cannot be the second George Bush to send an army to the Gulf and order it home with Saddam still in power. And with all those troops over there primed for war, would they not mock a commander in chief who declares that Hans Blix will do the job?
As of today, it would take greater courage for George Bush not to go to war than to go to war. And so, unless Saddam departs or is ousted by the Ides of March, we are going to war. The War Party, it would appear, wins this round.
2003-01-31 01:04 | User Profile
I'm glad you posted this particular commentary by Pat. It's one of his better recent articles. The way he breaks down the War Party/Israeli Likud Party intentions for carving up the Middle East, Northern Africa and South Central Asia is indeed succinctly poignant.
I'm still surprised that Pat is a commentator on World Net Daily. I find their site, Joseph Farah, et al. very Zionist in agenda. They didn't begin that way, but now the truth is surfacing. I wouldn't be surprised if he no longer is welcome or leaves that site ( now in the top ten for online news ) before the year is out.
I voted for Pat in 2000, and would love to vote for him again. If the mainstream media would only have let him debate with the other candidates, he would have pummeled Little Georgie and Alpha Gore. We as the American public are the lesser for it.
I enjoy watching Pat as an occasional guest on The McLaughlin Group on PBS, still one of if not THE foremost mainstreamably viewable political discussion groups on televitz. Last week Eleanor Clift was actually making sense to me, and thats scary. Lawrence Kudlow laid bare his neocon stripes.
I believe Jon Stewart of the Daily Show on Comedy Central put it well last week, " Let me get this straight, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and Ted Kennedy is the voice of reason " .. these are strange times indeed.
May God Bless and watch over all of His People in Iraq, our prayers are with you.
2003-01-31 14:04 | User Profile
Buchanan, in this otherwise excellent article, fails to address the power of the Zionist-controlled media on Bush the Younger. If he had addressed it, the subject of his article might well have been "Is Bush a warmongering opportunist."
Bush's willingness to serve as Sharon's butt-boy in the brutal exploitation of Palestinians by that American-made "Chucky Doll" of a nation that sits on the front porch of the Muslim world carries connotations of intellectual and moral perversion and even political subversion.
If the press were, indeed, free and unfettered, more would be said about Bush's insane policies. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers who slammed airplanes into the Twin Towers were Saudis, yet Bush is determined to launch an invasion of Iraq and talks of almost nothing else.
King Klinton's saving grace was budget surpluses, which Bush promptly destroyed with tax cuts. Now, with budget deficiits and the national debt skyrocketing to new heights and the stockmarket in serious decline, Bush wants even more tax cuts.
Bush is doing great because he serves Zionist interests, they control the media, and the media, folks, is Bush's source of power.
-Z-