The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Republican War---Over War Policy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Rand Paul had his best debate moment Tuesday when he challenged Marco Rubio on his plans to increase defense spending by $1 trillion.

“You cannot be a conservative if you’re going to keep promoting new programs you’re not going to pay for,” said Paul.

Marco’s retort triggered the loudest cheers of the night:

“There are radical jihadists in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians. The Chinese are taking over the South China Sea. … the world is a safer and better place when America is the strongest military power in the world.”

Having called for the U.S. Navy to confront Beijing in the South China Sea, and for establishing a no-fly zone over Syria that Russian pilots would enter at their peril, Rubio seems prepared for a confrontation with either or both of our great rival nuclear powers.

Dismissing Vladimir Putin as a “gangster,” Marco emerged as the toast of the neocons. Yet the leading GOP candidate seems closer to Rand.

Donald Trump would talk to Putin, welcomes Russian planes bombing ISIS in Syria, thinks our European allies should lead on Ukraine, and wants South Korea to do more to defend itself.

Uber-hawk Lindsey Graham did not even make the undercard debate. And though he and John McCain are the most bellicose voices in the party, they appear to be chiefs with no Indians.

Still, it is well that Republicans air their disagreements. For war and peace are what the presidency is about.

Historically, Republican presidents appear to line up on the side of Rand and Trump.

Since WWII, there have been five elected GOP presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Only Bush II could be called a compulsive interventionist.

Ike ended Truman’s war in Korea and kept us out of Indochina after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. He ordered the Brits, French and Israelis out of Suez after they had attacked Egypt in 1956. He gave us 7 years of peace and prosperity.

Nixon pledged to end the U.S. war in Vietnam, and did. And as Ike invited the Butcher of Budapest, Khrushchev, to visit the United States, Nixon invited Brezhnev, who had crushed the Prague Spring.

Nixon became the first Cold War president to visit the USSR, and famously ended decades of hostility between the United States and the China of Chairman Mao.

Reagan used military force only three times. He liberated the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada from Marxist thugs who had murdered the prime minister and threatened U.S. medical students.

He put Marines in Lebanon, a decision that, after the massacre at the Beirut barracks, Reagan regretted the rest of his life. He bombed Libya in retaliation for Moammar Gadhafi’s bombing of a Berlin discotheque full of U.S. troops.

Blowback for Reagan came with Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988.

Though they were the foremost anti-Communists of their era, Nixon and Reagan negotiated historic arms agreements with Moscow.

Reagan did send arms to aid anti-Communist rebels in Angola, Afghanistan and Nicaragua, but never confronted Moscow in Eastern Europe, even when Solidarity was crushed in Poland.

George H.W. Bush sent an army of 500,000 to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, but ordered those U.S. troops not to enter Iraq itself.

When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Empire collapsed and the USSR disintegrated, Bush I played the statesman, refusing to exult publicly in America’s epochal Cold War triumph.

It was George W. Bush who gave the neocons their hour of power.

After 9/11, came the invasion and remaking of Afghanistan in our image, the “axis of evil” address, the march to Baghdad, the expansion of NATO to Russia’s doorstep, and the global crusade for democracy “to end tyranny in our world.”

Result: The Republicans lost both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008 when John (“We are all Georgians Now!”) McCain was routed by a liberal Democrat who had opposed the war in Iraq.

With the exception of Rand and Trump, the GOP candidates appear to believe the road to the White House lies in resurrecting the attitude and policies of Bush II that cost them the White House.

ORDER IT NOW

From Marco and other voices on stage one hears: Tear up the Iran deal. Confront Putin. Establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Assad must go. Send offensive weapons to Kiev. More boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Send U.S. troops to the Baltic and warships to the Black Sea. Confront China in the Spratlys and South China Sea.

Responding to that audience in Milwaukee, most GOP candidates appear to have concluded that bellicosity and bravado are a winning hand in the post-Obama era.

Yet, those nationalist strongmen Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping do not seem to me to be autocrats who are likely to back down when told to do so by Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2015 Creators.com.

 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Kamran says:

    Maybe Americans deserve to be swamped by illegal immigrants.

  2. Realist says:

    Our political process is controlled by the rich….for the rich.

    • Replies: @scoops
    , @Reg Cæsar
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    GOP war-mongering whores should watch this movie: The Billion Dollar Brain.

    Never liked Ken Russell but his BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN is one of the funniest and most outrage Cold War movies. It is so over-the-top that it’s like parody. The Texan right-wing paranoid warrior makes General Jack D. Ripper look like Mr. Rogers. Texas Christian quasi-Nazi.

    I’m sure it must have been hilarious to make this movie.

    When given total freedom, Russell(like Fellini and Gilliam)has tended to be indulgent and excessive. But when given genre material, he could have fun with it without letting his imagination run totally wild. Hilarious Alexander-Nevsky-like ending with gasoline-tank-shaped troop transport trucks. And I like the final line of the Soviet character:

    “He was a very stupid man. A patriot of course, and very brave. During a war, such men win medals, win victories. We are proud of them. But in such a time as now, it’s a little bit stupid.”

    Surely applies to nuts like John McCain and other GOP war-monger whores.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hw8qKVxrIs

    https://youtu.be/ehD-gTUMbSE?t=52m38s

  4. scoops says:
    @Realist

    why you complain about the rich! im rich! got 100000.00 in ira, make 36000.00 a year!got 3 kids and 3 grandkids! im friggin richer than most fools! got my guns my land and my freedom! give it all away for money jackasses!

    • Replies: @Realist
  5. MarkinLA says:

    kept us out of Indochina after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

    What a load of crap. We bankrolled the French and should have left when they did leaving a whole intact Vietnam so there was nothing for us to send “advisors” to.

    He liberated the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada from Marxist thugs who had murdered the prime minister and threatened U.S. medical students.

    An even bigger load. We “liberated” them because Reagan wanted everybody to stop talking about his stupidity in putting troops in Beirut after the Iowa was shelling people in Lebanon. That cluster-F was probably put together on the way over there on a napkin. The students were so threatened that the military didn’t get around to finding them until the second day since they didn’t have any useful maps. If anybody had wanted to murder them in retaliation they could have done so with impunity.

    I wonder why Pat didn’t mention our CIA nurturing and cultivating the Islamic fundamentalist movements so as to create a thorn in Russia’s side. I think both parties have been doing that and Reagan certainly no less than any other.

    There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans on these issues.

    The sad fact is so many believe the crap like this that people like Pat put out.

  6. Realist says:
    @scoops

    You don’t know when to use upper case letters. Something learned by most in 3rd grade.

  7. @Realist

    Our political process is controlled by the rich….for the rich.

    Anyone who owns a car and a house is rich by world standards. This demographic controls political process?

    • Replies: @Realist
  8. Art says:

    There is a significant portion of the Republican voters that are libertarian – if Rand Paul would speak up and espouse his fathers principles he could have all those votes. Paul could gain a important segment of delegates.

    Playing kissy face with the Jews and Israelis will never work for him. As it stands now the Jews will NEVER let Rand Paul be president.

    It is possible that the Republicans will have a brokered convention where no candidate has a majority. It is feasible that Paul could be a king maker.

    Dear Rand Paul,

    You are not going to win the presidential nomination this time. Go for what you can get. Put out your marker. Make a name for peace and rational economics.

    Please say -Neocon, no-war, and the Fed – over and over loud and clear. Votes and delegates will come your way.

    Thank You!

  9. Realist says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    You have introduced a non sequitur ‘world standard’
    The premise was ‘our’ political process…. It has nothing to do with world standards..

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  10. @Realist

    You said “the rich”. You didn’t specify where.

    By the way, the rich believe in evolution. Thus it can’t be true, right?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS