The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Who Lost the World Bush 41 Left Behind?
🔊 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

George H.W. Bush was America’s closer.

Called in to pitch the final innings of the Cold War, Bush 41 presided masterfully over the fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, the liberation of 100 million Eastern Europeans and the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.

History’s assignment complete, Bush 41 was retired.

And what happened to the world he left behind?

What became of that world where America was the lone superpower, which 41 believed should lead in creation of the New World Order?

The Russia that back then was led by Boris Yeltsin, a man desperate to be our friend and ally, is now ruled by an autocratic nationalist.

Was not Vladimir Putin an inevitable reaction to our treating Russia like an untrustworthy and dangerous recidivist, by our expansion of NATO into the Balkans, the eastern Baltic and the Black Sea — the entire front porch of Mother Russia?
Did the America that in her early decades declared the Monroe Doctrine believe a great nation like Russia would forever indulge the presence of a hostile alliance on her doorstep led by a distant superpower?

In this same quarter century that we treated Russia like a criminal suspect, we welcomed China as the prodigal son. We threw open our markets to Chinese goods, escorted her into the WTO, smiled approvingly as U.S. companies shifted production there.

Beijing reciprocated — by manipulating her currency, running up hundreds of billions of dollars in trade surpluses with us, and thieving our technology when she could not extort it from our industries in China. Beijing even sent student spies into American universities.

Now the mask has fallen. China is claiming all the waters around her, building island bases in the South China Sea and deploying weapons to counter U.S. aircraft carriers. Creating ports and bases in Asia and Africa, confronting Taiwan — China clearly sees America as a potentially hostile rival power and is reaching for hegemony in the Western Pacific and East Asia.

And who produced the policies that led to the “unipolar power” of 1992 being challenged by these two great powers now collaborating against us? Was it not the three presidents who sat so uncomfortably beside President Donald Trump at the state funeral of 41?

Late in the 20th century, Osama bin Laden declared war on us for our having planted military bases on the sacred soil of Mecca and Medina; and, on Sept. 11, 2001, he made good on his declaration.

America recoiled, invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban, and set out to build an Afghan regime on American principles. Bush 43, declaring that we were besieged by “an axis of evil,” attacked and occupied Iraq.

We then helped ignite a civil war in Syria that became, with hundreds of thousands dead and millions uprooted, the greatest humanitarian disaster of the century,

Then followed our attack on Libya and support for Saudi Arabia’s war to crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen, a war that many believe has surpassed Syria as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Where are the fruits of our forever war in the Middle East that justify the 7,000 U.S. dead, 60,000 wounded and untold trillions of dollars lost?

Since George H.W. Bush left the White House, the U.S. has incurred 12 trillion dollars in trade deficits, lost scores of thousands of manufacturing plants and 5 million manufacturing jobs. Our economic independence is ancient history.

ORDER IT NOW

After 41 left, the Republican Party supported an immigration policy that brought tens of millions, mostly unskilled and poor, half of them illegal, into the country. Result: The Nixon-Reagan coalition that delivered two 49-state landslides in the ’70s and ’80s is history, and the Republican nominee has lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections.

From 1992 to 2016, the American establishment contemptuously dismissed as “isolationists” those who opposed their wars for democracy in the Middle East, and as “protectionists” those who warned that by running up these massive trade deficits we were exporting America’s future.

The establishment airily dismissed those who said that pushing NATO right up to Russia’s borders would enrage and permanently antagonize a mighty military power. They ridiculed skeptics of our embrace of the Chinese rulers who defended the Tiananmen massacre.

The establishment won the great political battles before 2016. But how did the democracy crusaders, globalists, open borders progressives and interventionists do by their country in these decades?

Did the former presidents who sat beside Trump at National Cathedral, and the establishment seated in the pews behind them, realize that it was their policies, their failures, that gave birth to the new America that rose up to throw them out, and put in Donald Trump?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: Donald Trump, George Bush 
Hide 101 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. While Bush 41 was far smarter and more presidential than his son, Bush the Elder needlessly attempted to humiliate Saddam Hussein in Kuwait (by not giving Hussein an opportunity to save face and depart honorably) and thus GHW Bush connived to slaughter some 100,000 Iraqis in Kuwait over a dispute that was none of America’s business. The US had no treaty with Kuwait. And it was later learned that the US ambassador to Iraq (April Gillespie) give Saddam Hussein the nod to enter Iraq so beforehand. It was a set up.

    As Saddam himself said of the disputed oil: “what do you expect for me to do with it (the oil), drink it?”

    This is key.

    The fraudulent claim that Iraq was going to seize and withhold Mideast oil was Fake News then just as the claim that the US War against Iraq in 2003 was a ‘war for oil’.

    More lies. The wars were designed to eliminate anti-Zionist regimes such as Assad’s and Khadafy’s.

    Keep in mind that Iraq, like all the counties in that region, rely almost entirely on oil revenue to survive. Saddam was simply trying to reclaim (from autocratic Kuwait) part of what he considered to be ancient Iraq. He also despised the rich despots in Kuwait as much as those in Saudi Arabia.

    But US oil interests were never threatened by Saddam, though the pro-war cheerleaders in our (((mass media))) suggested otherwise.

    Bush the Elder’s non-stop, 72-hour bombing campaign on Iraqi troops inside Kuwait on was one of the most intense, unnecessary, and murderous in world history.

    For this crime alone, Bush the Elder deserved to be hanged.

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Disagree: TTSSYF
  2. Hail says: • Website

    what happened to the world he left behind?

    What happened to the USA, authority over which he inherited in the ’80s / early ’90s?

    After 41 left, the Republican Party supported an immigration policy that brought tens of millions, mostly unskilled and poor, half of them illegal, into the country

    I think this was not (just) “after 41 left,” but during 41′s tenure as VP and as P as well.

    1980 Census [Bush wins election as Vice President]
    180.3 million White non-Hispanics
    226.5 million Total population
    = 80% White non-Hispanic

    1990 Census [Bush in middle of Presidential term]
    188.1 million White non-Hispanics
    226.5 million Total population
    = 76% White non-Hispanic

    2010 Census [...a generation later]
    196.8 million White non-Hispanics
    308.7 million Total population
    = 64% White non-Hispanic

    What happened to the USA is that it took a demographic hit; the HW Bush-era foreign policy lofty talk and all now looks, just a bit, like so much navel gazing. (And this bird’s-eye view tells only part of the story: The absolute number of White Americans is now declining, as of 2016, for what must be the first time in four centuries.)

    Who lost America?

    In retrospect, why should any American have cared then (or now) about Kuwait’s future (I notice Pat doesn’t mention Kuwait in this article), about whether or not Kuwait would be controlled by foreigners or not, when — well, you know.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  3. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Did the former presidents who sat beside Trump at National Cathedral, and the establishment seated in the pews behind them, realize that it was their policies, their failures, that gave birth to the new America that rose up to throw them out, and put in Donald Trump?

    And Trump, hemmed in by the Creep State, carries on with the same policies.

    As for China, it is not the aggressor. It is the US that has military bases all around China.

  4. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    The last six paragraphs are solid. But while Mr. Buchanan may look like “Mr. Paleoconservative” when compared to his fellows in the Beltway, he’s really more a right-sized imperialist who reliably carries the water for Washington as would-be “lone superpower.” Some examples in this column of how he props up the Establishment narrative while pushing against it:

    “Called in to pitch the final innings of the Cold War, Bush 41 presided masterfully over the fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, the liberation of 100 million Eastern Europeans and the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.” I guess mentioning Nurse Nayirah’s Crusade, as has commenter Mark Green above, would violate this week’s National Mourning.

    “The Russia that back then was led by Boris Yeltsin, a man desperate to be our friend and ally, is now ruled by an autocratic nationalist.” Sure, Yelts was the guy, just like Yats. Not only is Mr. Putin disparaged as an “autocrat” (a term that Mr. Buchanan has thrown at other political leaders resistant to Washington or EU control), but a scary bad “nationalist.”

    “Late in the 20th century, Osama bin Laden declared war on us for our having planted military bases on the sacred soil of Mecca and Medina; and, on Sept. 11, 2001, he made good on his declaration.” Once again, the “OSB did 911″ version of the story, which, among other benefits to the Establishment, whitewashes the war in Afghanistan as merely improvident.

    “Bush 43, declaring that we were besieged by “an axis of evil,” attacked and occupied Iraq.” No mention of the lies about WMD.

    And, of course, the column is laced with pronoun propaganda — “we, us, our” — to keep Americans marinated in the sense that they, despite “our” tactical differences, must always root for Uncle Sam.

    Mr. Buchanan has well earned the respect of many here, particularly when it comes to his resistance of the Gilded Progressive erosion of American life. But readers should bear in mind the limits of his dissidence whenever he addresses matters outside his country.

  5. Realist says:

    George H W Bush was the epitome of a Deep Stater.

  6. Realist says:

    The ridiculous pomp and circumstance crap for days and days, around GHWB tells you who is running this country. Those who think this country is a Democracy or a Democratic Republic are sadly delusional.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    , @Mr. Anon
  7. alexander says:
    @mark green

    Hi Mark,

    I think you are both right and wrong on 1991.

    Saddam “chose” to invade Kuwait. Nobody put a gun to his head.

    The reasons (I have gleaned) for Saddam’ decision, are threefold.

    1) Saddam wanted Kuwait to cough up some dough for the 8 year war he fought with Iran, he claimed that he was protecting Kuwait.(Kuwait refused)

    2) Saddam accused Kuwait of horizontal oil drilling into Iraqi territory.

    3) Saddam maintained that Historic “Greater Iraq” had once included Kuwait within its territory, so he sought to reclaim it through conquest.

    Whether he got the “nod” from some US state department underling may be germane up to a point, but in the end it was Saddams’ decision to commit the crime of invasion and conquest.

    And invade he did.

    Need I remind you, it is the supreme international crime to invade another country to acquire its assets and/or territory by force.

    The entire world, not just the United States, voted unanimously (in multiple UN Security Councils) that Saddam had to leave.

    The US did not “rush” into Desert Storm, the world spent “over a year” demanding Saddam evacuate Kuwait.

    During that year, Saddam was given plenty of prodding, urging, pleading, and demanding to remove his military from Kuwait.

    He refused.

    Ambassador Joe Wilson, prior to the conflict, was sent over one last time, to tell Saddam to “get out” or there will be war.

    You can read all the Security Council resolutions during the period.

    The unanimity of the entire world on this issue is beyond suspect.

    Even “Assad” sent 4000 Syrian troops to assist in the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

    I am not a fan of war, but if there was an instance where the US was acting as an arbiter of international law, this was it.

    Operation Desert Storm was the greatest military success in US History. It was an astounding achievement not just for us, but for the world. We believed in the law, stood by the law, and enforced the law.

    And we did so with overwhelming military dominance.

    By contrast, our Iraq invasion in 2003 upended “everything”.

    In almost every possible way it was the “exact opposite” of Desert Storm. We became guilty of committing the EXACT SAME CRIME as Saddam when HE invaded Kuwait.

    Is 2003 ,the United States, under Neocon tutelage, became the “criminal belligerent” of the world, not its law enforcement officer.

    This is the supreme tragedy of our era, compounded only by the fact that to date, there has been zero accountability, anywhere.

    Like none.

  8. ” Russia ..is now ruled by an autocratic nationalist”.

    Dr. Putin has the same powers as President Macron, neither more nor less.

  9. Pat, you know and I know what happened to the world since 1991: Baby Boomers. Yes, Boomers, and their idealism, narcissism, greed, and hypocrisy.

  10. @alexander

    I think you miss mark green’s point. His point is not that Saddam committed a crime; it is that the U.S. set up Saddam, and that it had no business attacking him.

    The U.S.’s crime is greater even than Saddam’s, because at least he was addressing what he saw as his own interests in his back yard. The U.S. butted into a small regional conflict that had nothing to do with us, did not threaten our interests in any way.

    Our glorious rulers also killed a lot more people that Saddam did, most infamously on the “Highway of Death,” when U.S. forces, on the order of George Bush, strafed and bombed helpless defeated Iraqis, including civilians, without mercy. This was despite the fact that they were withdrawing under the provisions of a U.N. resolution. And then add those that died under the sanctions, about which Madeline Albright said that an estimated 500,000 dead children were “worth it,” and the total destruction of Iraq following yet another war based on lies and deceit, leading to the deaths of still more people and ruining of the lives of millions. What a wonderful victory for freedom and democracy.

    And it all started with Bush’s refusal to give Saddam a way to save face when pulling out of Kuwait. He was a great leader, indeed.

    • Agree: RVBlake
    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Franz
  11. TG says:

    “The establishment won the great political battles before 2016. But how did the democracy crusaders, globalists, open borders progressives and interventionists do by their country in these decades?”

    “Do by their country?” Their country be damned. Their wealthy patrons made trillions in short-term profits. Mission accomplished.

  12. Stick says:

    Our greatness as measured by military and economic power was due to the fact that we weren’t the first to jump into a war but, rather, the last. Maybe we should implement this foreign policy? Better yet, lets not jump into any war for a century or two and see how that goes. Maybe mothball six or seven carriers and let the globalists fund the defense of sea lanes on their own? The money saved would go to buy down the $10T Obama debt (whatever that bought) and fund the US Army on the Mexican Border? Who knows, defending America might be in America’s interest? Stranger things have happened.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  13. alexander says:

    I understand the notion that maybe Saddam was “set up”, but like I said, nobody held a gun to his head to invade Kuwait. He did it of his own volition.

    It was his choice.

    And I would think the “set up” argument (in this case) would hold more weight if we attacked Saddam , right away, in response.

    We didn’t.

    He was given over a years time to remove his forces from Kuwait…..He chose not to.

    I also recall ,very well, Bush Sr’s reasoning for not taking Saddam out at the time.

    He said the removal of Saddam might lead to a chaotic civil war inside Iraq as well as destabilize the entire region.

    He was right.

    Furthermore, my understanding of the sanctions imposed on Iraq, post “Desert Storm”, were to ensure he could not reconstitute his military power.

    This is a good reason to impose sanctions on a belligerent state which had no qualms about invading its neighbors.

    It still is.

    The fact that 500,000 Iraqi children may have perished from starvation did not keep Saddam from eating three square meals a day and drinking fine wine in his assorted regal palaces.

    He certainly didn’t sell them off and use the proceeds to make sure his people were fed, …did he ?

    Did he ?

  14. @alexander

    “…but in the end it was Saddams’ decision to commit the crime of invasion and conquest.”

    This is a key point which is too often overlooked. Hussein didn’t need a green light from Glaspie or anyone else to commence the invasion of Kuwait. Like the leader of any country, he felt that it was in the interest of Iraq to invade (for many if not all of the reasons cited above), otherwise why invade? And like the leader of any country Bush (and our allies–remember that this was a coalition) felt it in their interest to repulse the invasion. And they were successful. It is to Bush’s credit that the goal was a limited one–drive Saddam/Iraq out of Kuwait. Period! This in contrast to his son and his son’s successor, both of whom adopted a strategy which seems to amount to “the sky’s the limit” and which has come at a cost in blood and currency which seems to have no end.

    • Replies: @alexander
  15. alexander says:
    @Bizarro World Observer

    Comment # 13 was meant as a response to your comment. Unfortunately, it did not post that way.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  16. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    Thanks for the clarification, as you ignored most of what BWO had to say.

    Do you have some reason — such as your own or another’s involvement — to distinguish that particular episode in Uncle Sam’s carnage in the Middle East? I suspect so, or perhaps you’re too young to have observed Nurse Nayirah’s Crusade in real time and choose to believe what you’re told as part of the current Great Mourning.

    • Replies: @alexander
  17. Franz says:
    @Bizarro World Observer

    Correct.

    Saddam knew Kuwait was slant drilling under his territory, British and American oilmen on the scene verified this at the time. Saddam’s cause was just.

    Green-lighted by Ambassador Glasspie and a Bush asset besides, Saddam felt the de facto go ahead was solid.

    After the invasion, Bush 41 thought nothing of it, went golfing in fact. Then Margaret Thatcher called him in mid-course and asked him WTF was he thinking… uh-huh.

    Like this is the Big Opportunity, Georgie Boy, wake up! Suddenly George decided war was the answer to a problem he hadn’t previously noticed.

    The New World Order speech following thereafter was the Chastised George, following Her Ladyship’s lead whilst she pretended to be the Junior Partner 0f the enterprise — even after US bombs killed UK troops by accident during all the confusion. Fog of war an all that.

    Add this to George’s contribution to the CIA’s drug trafficking and the Mena murders, not to mention the destabilization of Latin American nations especially Salvador (Reagan made speeches, Bush made hit lists) and you have a pretty sophisticated criminal here.

    The Whitewashing of King George just proves we’re still going deeper into the bog, one step at a time.

    But at least Icepick’s got his ticket to hell. When he was a CIA killer Icepick was Bush 41′s nickname, after he favorite instrument of murder.

  18. @Stick

    Agreed about the plan to stop trying to rule the world, but I hate to tell you, Stick, that debt is up to about $21,000,000,000,000. ($21 Trillion) now. It seems like just yesterday, the nation’s debt was only $100,000 for every actual-tax-paying American family. Man, time flies when you’re spending OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!

  19. alexander says:
    @anonymous

    No, I am not too young. I am 55.

    I lived through “Desert Storm”, ….the whole thing.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  20. What a clown paddy has become. The Soviet Union collapsed because it was a fucked up system that could never work. Bush the wrinkled had nothing to do with it. He did however had a hand in changing today’s America into an equally dysfunctional cluster-fuck.
    He was the first senior politician I heard use the phrase “New World Order”.

  21. @anonymous

    Mr. #340 – that was an excellent “fisking”, if I may, of Mr. Buchanan’s column. My criticism would include also that the squandering of the massive good will and possible peace dividend due to the winning of the (external) Cold War by Ronald Reagan* was started by Mr. “41″ himself.

    It’s the 1st Buchanan column, except for the last 5 paragraphs (as you just pointed out), I’ve disagreed with the entire point of, in, say, forever. Not only was Mr. Bush 41 NOT a good thing from America, as President and beforehand, but I’m just sick of all this State Funeral nonsense. This ain’t a freaking Kingdom, Pat (or it’s not supposed to be). I know you know that. Is it just that everyone can’t bear to turn off the idiot box providing this mournful-infotainment?

    Anyway, I was going to write much of what you said, but couldn’t have said it better anyhow. Thanks.

    .

    * with, as I always add, lots of help from millons of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and engineers/technicians, along with Maggie, the old -Real-Pope, Konrad Adenauer, Lec Walesa, etc.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  22. Late in the 20th century, Osama bin Laden declared war on us for our having planted military bases on the sacred soil of Mecca and Medina; and, on Sept. 11, 2001, he made good on his declaration.

    I quit reading at this point…

  23. @Realist

    To demonstrate solidarity and respect, Mafia Dons traditionally attend the funerals of fellow Dons.

  24. bluedog says:
    @alexander

    Who named us as the arbiter of the world, for I’m sure all the other nations of the world were not given a vote on that as to this, and as far as our greatest victory it was nothing more than the slaughter of any third world country as we have slaughtered other third world countries, (well except for Nam that is) which we were desperate to overcome,and of course you need your mouth washed with soap for even mentioning international law, we don’t even know what international law means,no it dosen’t mean the law of the jungle which is our way of describing it,or perhaps in Serbia where we bombed them for days on end for no other reason then the fact that we could…

    • Replies: @alexander
  25. Hail says: • Website
    @alexander

    commit the crime of invasion

    The problem is: Do any of us really care about the semi-arbitrary political entity ‘Kuwait’ and its royal family? Do you? If so, why? If propping up monarchies is the American Way, why didn’t we intervene in 1914 to keep the Hapsburgs on their throne?

    As for “invade,” It’s sure a good thing that no global hyperpower existed to shove us around in 1848 when the U.S. invaded Mexico, and etc. (choose any of a hundred possible examples; in some ways, a better analogy to Iraq-Kuwait 1990 might be an early U.S.-vs-Amerindian war).

    • Replies: @alexander
  26. Hail says: • Website

    A point I have not seen brought up in any retrospectives on HW Bush:

    Ruby Ridge (1991 to 1992) occurred under his watch.

    I believe Randy Weaver had been photographed with a t-shirt “Stop the New World Order” or the like in the months before they besieged his cabin and killed his family, a direct tie-in to HW Bush and that infamous speech.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  27. anonymous[145] • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    Thanks for replying, at least in part.

    I lived through it, too, but was disgusted and ashamed at the time and ever since.

    Please consider the contrarian thoughts and evidence (e.g., Nurse Nayirah, April Glaspie (sp?), the ferocity of the destruction of retreating Iraqis, the deadly sanctions that killed thousands more) and let us know how you can remain supportive of the narrative.

    {Although this may have a different #, I’m 340.}

  28. @alexander

    What part of it was none of our business don’t you get?

    What provision in the constitution authorizes war to be made against a middle eastern nation which has not declared war on the US?

    What provision in the constitution authorizes a President, without a formal declaration of war from Congress, to make war?

    What provision in the constitution authorizes a President to order the mass murder of civilians, in a foreign nation, who pose no threat to the US?

    What provision of international law permits the United States to mass murder civilians fleeing a war zone?

    While George H.W. Bush was in office, his subordinates murdered Vicky Weaver and attempted to murder her husband. Those acts were violations of international law as no government official has the right to murder those who do not comply with gun confiscation schemes disguised as criminal law enforcement actions.

    George H.W. Bush was a craven, cowardly, mass murdering, nasty, profligate piece of cucky effete WASP garbage.

    • Replies: @alexander
  29. @Hail

    See my comment below.

    GHWB should have been hung for the murder of Vicky Weaver.

  30. @Achmed E. Newman

    To paraphrase Anne Coulter. The best thing about Bush’s death was that it ended McCain’s funeral.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  31. KenH says:

    Pat’s loyalty to certain establishment figures like Bush 41 seems almost blind and absolute even if those individuals were starkly opposed to Pat’s own America first principles which Bush 41 clearly was.

    HW Bush liberalized our immigration policy even further than conservative icon Ronald Reagan, was on record as supporting NAFTA and other free trade schemes that have since all but destroyed the white working class and Iraq war I which set the stage for Iraq war II and America as the world’s police force (i.e., endless wars for Israel). He supported sonny boy Dubya’s incessant war mongering and the “war on terror” which has given us a Soviet style police and surveillance state on steroids.

    To his credit he refused to occupy Iraq and mire us in a quagmire but the neocohens finally got their wish when chip off the old block Dubya was elected. He probably would be following a saner policy towards Russia but he was still a globalist and at most would only have minor quibbles with the direction America has taken since he left office. He might have qualms with the means but not the globalist ends.

    “Pappy” Bush also ordered the white LAPD officers involved in the Rodney King affair to be retried under federal civil rights statutes when they were acquitted on state charges. This was a cynical ploy to win the black vote in the upcoming 1992 presidential election but as always when Republicans kiss black booty and deliver white scalps to the rabid black population it failed mightily and Bush lost enough of his base to Ross Perot to secure his defeat by Bill Clinton.

    So, George H.W. Bush, prodigal son of the “greatest generation”, was very much a part of the worsening problems America and the incredibly shrinking white majority now find themselves in.

  32. @mark green

    The dead in Iraq number several million.

  33. Maybe, Nixon, Reagan and Trump were more in-touch with human nature than the WASPish Bushes, albeit it remains to be seen whether Campaigner Trump meant what he said about opposing mass-scale immigration.

    Was it just an election-closing tactic?

    But Trump was aware of the way a critical mass of US citizens felt about the welfare-sustained immigration invasion, even though PC culture forced the “silent majority” to stay quiet about it pre-Trump.

    In both domestic & foreign policy, politicians who are out-of-touch with human nature might cause the US major trouble in any upcoming currency wars, too, since Russia and a block of Asian nations might link together, undermining the USA.

    It is natural for Russians to have a visceral reaction, putting a No Trespassing sign beside their “front porch,” however much of an eyesore it might be to their once-unipolar-proud—but now cash-strapped—Cold War neighbors thousands of miles away.

    Pat is right. US leaders shouldn’t be peeping into Russia’s windows, issuing moral condemnations about their backyard activities, when America’s war-happy neo-con / neoliberal leaders in both parties gave the Chinese a pass on the Tiananmen massacre, just so they could cash in on the cheap Chinese labor that increases profits for the US-owned corporations that finance their campaigns.

    American politics is full of double standards of various types—from the welfare-eligible illegal aliens who are above the law because of providing cheap labor, while underemployed US citizens experience a less-safe surveillance state, to the elites who seek cheap Third World labor, telling the most educated group of citizens in American history that the loss of middle-class prosperity is all about declining “skills.”

    At least, Trump cut through some of the BS layers, rather than scolding underemployed citizens for resenting this mass “immigration-replacement” strategy of elites.

    On the campaign trail, Trump did not ask voters to defy human nature—to suppress the natural resentment that arises from an attempt by government to undercut them in their own country’s labor market—but he is acting differently as President Trump, especially on the issue of legal immigration. At 1.7 million, we had record-high legal immigration in one of Trump’s years in office, and immigrants have taken 3/4ths of the jobs in some months.

    Nor has there been cuts to the monthly welfare and refundable child tax credits up to $6431, which enable womb-productive immigrants to undercut wages for non-welfare-eligible citizens, and the higher earning immigrant parents were given thousands of dollars in a non-refundable tax cut.

    Both parties require that non-wealthy single citizens, trying to cover unaffordable rent on one income without all that money that .gov gives to so-called working families, willingly suspend their natural survival instinct, voting for politicians who act against us, favoring even the non-voting illegal immigrants over us.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  34. Anon[155] • Disclaimer says:

    The days-long funeral of HW resembled to many the kind of thing they’d do in autocratic countries – maybe the old Soviet Union or North Korea. It was bizarre and, in my opinion, needlessly voyeuristic; it looked almost like some kind of show trial. How much longer until they start putting on military parades through some new Red Square?

    • Replies: @Hail
  35. densa says:

    Agree with many of the comments here that Bush the Elder was no friend to us. He may have been our first, but was not last, CIA president. These alphabet agencies seem strangely loyal to the one world order project even though we paid for them to secure our own liberty. (As misguided as that was.)

    The creation of the UN and NATO, of the FBI, CIA and NSA, all have helped exploit our power and wealth for its quasi-hidden agenda. All who resisted or protested have been swept aside.

    So not only was that the official beginning of the highest office being held by the biggest treason, but you can’t overlook the role the takeover of money control also played.

    Yes, it seems more apt to me to say GHWB was the beginning of our end, not the end of our beginning.

  36. alexander says:
    @bluedog

    Hi Bluedog,

    The US was not the unilateral arbiter for this decision, the world was.

    The entire UN body voted unanimously that Saddam be mandated to leave Kuwait.

    Every member of the UN Security Council voted that Saddam leave Kuwait.

    I believe over the course of that year, there were no less than five (unanimous ) Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and ordering him to withdraw his forces.

    You can read each and every U.N. resolution……I re-read four of them about 12 years ago.

    It is crystal clear this was the worlds mandate.

    Unanimously so.

    • Replies: @bluedog
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  37. alexander says:
    @Hail

    I get your point , Hail.

    If you choose to define World War II (and its aftermath) as a hinge point in history, then what divides “before and after” is the banning of all wars of conquest and aggression. Period.

    This prohibition against “war of aggression ” was accepted and ratified by nearly every signatory to the Geneva Convention, including the USA.

    This became the worlds standard for decent conduct among nations, post WWII.

    This stuff should be common knowledge to everyone on the planet. The fact that it’s not is quite troublesome.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  38. @alexander

    No, of course he didn’t. That’s not the point.

    The point is that U.S. interference caused far more suffering than he did. And it was bad for the interests of ordinary Americans, too. I still think that kind of thing matters.

    What if Saddam DID “reconstitute” his military power? Would he use it to threaten me or you? And if not, why is it any of our business?

    I know we’ve been taught to believe that the U.S. owns the world, but please …

  39. @alexander

    Yes, Saddam did invade, but only after Kuwait pulled out of a Hosni Mubarak mediated conference to resolve the issue. Now, why would puny Kuwait pull out of a mediated conference, knowing full well that Saddam had already threatened to invade if the dispute wasn’t resolved? My guess is that the babies thrown out of incubators story was already written and ready for prime time.

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @dimples
  40. bluedog says:
    @alexander

    Lol I wonder just how much those mandates cost us seeing we control the UN,as Haley said we are taking names of those who vote against us,and of course we had the full bore propaganda then as we did when Bush’s retarted son was in office for another run at Iraq.Now I wonder just how many would have voted for it if we had been removed from the picture not many if any I’m sure…

    • Replies: @alexander
  41. alexander says:
    @Liberty Mike

    What are you talking about ?

    Operation Desert Storm in 91 , or our illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 ?

    What permitted the USA to act in 1991 was the provision in the constitution that states our “treatises” are the supreme laws of the land.

    The USA was a signatory to the Geneva Convention, post WWII, which banned all wars of conquest and aggression.

    Without exception.

    Pushing Saddam out of Kuwait in 91 was not illegal, it was voted on unanimously by the entire world as the “right thing to do!”.

    Read the Security Council Resolutions at the time.

    Every country on the planet said in one clear unified voice ” Saddam, get out of Kuwait”.

    On the other hand ,our invasion of Iraq in 2003, was totally illegal and a complete catastrophe.

    We became guilty of the exact same crime for which we punished Saddam in 1991.

    It’s a total disaster.

  42. @Bill Jones

    Yes, Bill, I read that one too. She is a witty, sharp cookie, and my number 1 written pundit. I love her from the neck up … and down. (I’d pick Tucker Carlson for TV – youtube for me – pundits.)

    BTW, I haven’t watched any TV so was not subject to either of these weeklong bouts of mourning infotainment. I’d rather know for sure that McCain’s dead, now that Miss Coulter’s statement has got me wondering. Maybe we should nuke the grave from orbit, just to be sure.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  43. @Bill Jones

    “They’re men, baby!”

    No, OK, just the one. I liked GW Bush’s wife, as she didn’t seem to have any major agenda, as far as I recall.

  44. @Endgame Napoleon

    Excellent comment, E.N. Keep on reading VDare (I am guessing here). I have one additive correction, then one possible answer.

    Many of the illegal immigrants getting the tax credits (taken directly out of your and my taxes) use dependents from wombs unknown. I mean that they include kids that are still down in Salvador using made-up SS #’s and other times just plain made-up kids. My friend used to work for one of the tax companies during the busy refund season, and he saw it all.

    As to your intial question about Trump. I think he really meant to do this job, but has failed, partly due to being distracted by tweets, and partly due to relying on, and putting too much trust in, his beltway-bred advisors who are “from the government and here to help you.”

  45. @alexander

    Not to pile on too much here, but to give a reply that bluedog didn’t: Which is the law of the land, the US Constitution, or some Charter of the UN? Oh, and Nicky Haley, traitor to South Carolina, can go to hell with her blue helmet on.

    • Replies: @alexander
  46. alexander says:
    @bluedog

    As I mentioned in numerous posts, Bluedog.

    The United States, post Iraq war 2003, has become the worlds belligerent criminal and aggressor state.

    Under Neocon stewardship, we have become exactly like Saddam was in 1991, willing to commit to criminal wars of aggression anywhere at anytime.

    We will now illegally invade and occupy any nation our elites dictate, with total disregard for the very laws we once stood for.

    It is, I have to say , a supreme national tragedy.

    • Agree: bluedog
  47. KenH says:
    @mark green

    Pretty much spot on. And it was columnist and political commentator Patrick Buchanan who said it was none other than Israel and their amen corner in the U.S. Senate pushing for war with Iraq in 1990. The amen corner has now grown into the amen chamber along with the amen oval office.

    Also, Iraq war I was one of the events that began turning Timothy McVeigh against the U.S. government. He came to see that the Iraqi people were no threat and just trying to live their lives and stay alive. Being of Northern European descent he had a very strong sense of fair play and felt the U.S. was picking a fight with a nation that wasn’t looking for one and could barely fight back which deeply angered him.

  48. alexander says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    According to the US constitution, Mr Newman, our “treaties ” are the supreme law of the land.

  49. the yankee hubris is so thick in this article that it was hard to finish reading without feeling sick and throwing up. PB is so in love with a narrative that it is hard to take him serious at all.

  50. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    “We will now illegally invade and occupy any nation our elites dictate, with total disregard for the very laws we once stood for.”

    Pretty much. They just arrested the Hauwei CFO for daring to do business with Iran.

  51. alexander says:
    @Curmudgeon

    It’s a good guess, Curmudgeon.

    But, with or without the “incubator babies” ,it does not change Iraq’s crime of illegal invasion and conquest.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    , @TomSchmidt
  52. @alexander

    Hi Alexander. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait was seven months. Moreover, the US demanded unconditional withdrawal. Compare this to how the US treats multiple Israeli invasions and occupations (not to mention our own history of expansion).

    In the 21st century, Zio-Washington has become a predatory and unprincipled empire with millions of victims in its wake. And the body count is still rising. Iraq’s local misbehavior pales in comparison.

    As for Saddam’s 1990 aggression upon Kuwait, Iraq believed that Kuwait was using vertical drilling to steal oil. This charge was likely true. Thus Iraq’a act of war was not entirely without basis. Plus, to the socialist Iraqis, the Kuwaiti emir epitomized Arab profligacy and decadence. Saddam Hussein dreamed of uniting the Arab people under a socialist umbrella. This frightened every globalist from Jerusalem to Washington to Los Angeles.

    As for the ‘crime of invasion’, well you are certainly correct. But powerful countries such as the US, Israel and the UK invade smaller nations and murder routinely. Consider our ongoing military actions against Syria right now. And unlike Kuwait/Iraq, Syria poses no threat to the US and has not attacked or behaved aggressively towards the US in any way.

    Would you not agree that a case could be made that Zio-Washington’s deliberate annihilation of Iraq and Libya (and destabilization of Syria) was more deadly and morally reprehensible than Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait?

    Indeed, one could argue that the ongoing, preemptive US attacks upon Assad’s Syria alone are worse than Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. And the 2003 US war on Iraq was worse still.

    Lastly, compare Iraq’s invasion of a fake country (Kuwait) to Washington’s half-century-long protection and multi-billion-dollar subsidy of Israel’s 50-year-long conquest of Palestine–not to mention the Zionist State’s preemptive invasion of Syria (1967) and its unlawful annexation of the Golan. There are probably war crimes being planned by the ‘good guys’ right now.

    Perhaps we can agree that some vast criminal enterprises are more consistent with US values than others.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @alexander
  53. @alexander

    Nope, they do not supercede the Constitution which requires a Declaration of War, no matter what treaty the war is aiming to comply with.

    • Replies: @alexander
  54. alexander says:
    @mark green

    Hi Mark,

    Good, thoughtful comment.

    As I have mentioned before, and as we both agree, the USA turned the corner into criminal belligerence this century.

    WE are NOT the same country we once were, Mark.

    And it has nothing to do with the will of the American People.

    Post 9-11, the mandate of “the people” was to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crime. There was NO mandate from the people to illegally invade, occupy, and decimate countries that never attacked us and never intended to.

    Its a total outrage …and continues to be so, years after the fact.

    But before we enter the foray of US “unconscionable behavior” over the past 18 years, lets go back to 1991 for a moment.

    Do you know that Bush Sr’s approval rating was the highest of any President, post “Desert Storm”?

    Something like a 96 % approval rating.

    This is pretty darn high.

    At the time, he deserved it.

    Mark, Bush Sr. did the RIGHT THING pushing Saddam out of Kuwait.

    There was no debate on this issue, it was unanimous around the entire world.

    BUT, the world said to Bush Sr. (after the fact)….Yeah, you are willing to launch a WAR to remove Saddam from illegally occupying Kuwait. (Bravo!)…..Now, what are you going to do about ISRAEL and its illegal occupation of Palestine and the Golan Heights ?

    What are you going to do about “that “?

    Bush Sr. was the “last” US President who actually WITHHELD all loans to Israel, until it ceased and desisted with its illegal settlement enterprise within the Palestine territories.

    The last one .

    Some say it is what cost him his second term, but I do not know for sure.

  55. @alexander

    You are right, Alexander, about Bush Sr. trying to withhold aid to Israel. But he failed. Why? Global Jewry is far more powerful than any single president. After all, the Zions control Congress, they dole out a huge percentage of all political spending inside the US, and they manage most all US news and entertainment. So Bush folded. But his vainglorious son picked up the ball and ran with it 13 years later. The same pro-war, Zionist cheerleaders sanitized Bush Jr’s murderous crusade just as they did his father’s mass murder in Kuwait.

    As for Bush the Elder’s huge popularity following the bloody expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. This is mostly true but his popularity was thin and artificially-induced.

    Americans are brainwashed by the MSM, high-prestige celebrities, and elite opinion. Thus Americans were uniformly pro-war and anti-Saddam (because they were) right up to and through America’s 2003 annihilation of Iraq. There was immense, top-down support for that war. At the same time, there were huge, international protests against the 2003 US invasion before the US-lead, international assault began. But Americans love war when we thrash our enemy to smithereens.

    Incredibly, millions of adult Americans still believe that Iraq was connected to 911 and that Saddam Hussein was developing evil WMD right up to Zio-Washington’s 2oo3 invasion. Fake news wins again.

    Question: has anyone paid a penalty for Zio-America’s destruction of Iraq?

    No. Only the millions of Iraqi victims.

    Why? Israel wanted Saddam gone and Iraq destroyed. Mission accomplished!

    Next target: Iran.

    We live inside a rogue empire which is governed in part by a global criminal cabal.

    • Agree: RVBlake
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
  56. geokat62 says:

    History’s assignment complete, Bush 41 was retired.

    Bush 41 wasn’t retired because hisory’s assignment was complete. He was retired for having the chutzpah of briefly cutting off loan guarantees to the Israeli government over their settlement policies.

    https://www.mintpressnews.com/in-1991-george-h-w-bush-took-on-the-israel-lobby-and-paid-for-it/252650/

  57. alexander says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry,

    Our treaties are recognized as the “supreme” law of the land. Please re-read our constitution.

    Furthermore, The United States never declared “war” on the nation of Iraq in 91′.We told Saddam to get out of Kuwait. There is a difference. We committed ourselves, along with 34 (?) other nations, to oppose Iraq’s act of criminal aggression and invasion of that country….. The world was unanimous in its determination that if Saddam would not retract his occupation forces …he would be forced to do so.

    This is correct behavior on our part…..It was the “right thing” to do.

    Someone should have done it to us, when we illegally invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003.

    Need I remind you that Bush Jr. got the votes to authorize his use of force against Saddam in 2003.
    When it became clear , after the fact, that Saddam was not a “WMD Imminent Threat”, those votes became meaningless, because they were all based on a total “fabrication” of the facts. It was all fraud, Mr Newman, pernicious, belligerent “war fraud”. But alas ,Bush Jr. , under neocon tutelage , was told he could ignore ” our ” international treaties”, and invaded anyway.

    Tragic.

    Immensely tragic.
    .

    • Replies: @anonymous
  58. anon[458] • Disclaimer says:

    “Our treaties are recognized as the “supreme” law of the land. Please re-read our constitution.”

    That’s not correct. Treaties are only valid such that they do not conflict with the constitution itself. The government, for example, cannot sign onto any treaty rescinds the First Amendment, nor would any treaty that did so be valid or enforceable.

  59. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    OK, here’s Article VI, Clause 2:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    I think you need to reread this as a whole, and in context. Known as the Supremacy Clause, it subjects the laws and courts of the several States to (i) the Constitution and (ii) the statutes enacted and treaties ratified in accordance with the Constitution. Even if you stop reading at the second semicolon, the words in no way subordinate the Constitution to any treaty.

    But beyond that, what treaty do you believe compelled Uncle Sam to wage war against Iraq, to defend Kuwait, or to enforce a UN resolution? Please be specific and cite (with links) what you rely upon.

    • Replies: @alexander
  60. Hail says: • Website
    @Anon

    All things being relative, what was it like in England when Thatcher died? Same era.

  61. alexander says:
    @anonymous

    “Please be specific and cite(with links) what you rely upon”

    Do I have to “my captain” …and what if I don’t ?

    “Just joking”.

    Look, the easiest thing for you to do is read the Security Council resolutions enacted after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.There were quite a few.

    Most of the information you are looking for is there.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  62. SafeNow says:

    I recall an old movie, Twilight’s Last Gleaming, in which Burt Lancaster tries to compel the government to disclose the secret, REAL reason why we fought the seemingly preposterous Vietnam war. The secret, strategic reason was to convince large nuke countries that we were irrational; unpredictable; capable of a disproportionate and vicious response; we were Liberty Valance. Even if this Liberty Valance effect was not a motivator of the Middle East wars, it is an effect.

  63. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    No, it is not there. You are now plainly evading good faith argument about your challenged assertion.

    If you had believed that UN Security Council resolutions are treaties that suspend the Constitution, then you were wrong, as has been explained to you above.

    If you still believe that UN Security Council resolutions are treaties that suspend the Constitution, then you are not only wrong, but too emotionally invested to accept some free education. My hypothesis would remain that you’re somehow personally connected to the Establishment narrative about Gulf War I.

    If you or anyone else can demonstrate (i) that UN Security Council resolutions are, in fact, treaties that suspend the Constitution and/or (ii) that there was in force a treaty obligating Uncle Sam to wage war on Iraq, please do so.

  64. alexander says:

    Hi Mr. Anonymous,

    I am not sure what you are talking about…You are making very little sense.

    Maybe I can help you.

    The US constitution is quite specific in regards to waging war, The US Congress may declare war only in times of “invasion or rebellion”.

    There is nothing in our constitution which permits our leaders to defraud us into illegal wars of aggression. Period.

    Its a crime.

    Article 2 of the U N Charter specifically forbids all “wars of aggression”. period.

    The United States is a signatory to the UN Charter….which is an international treaty.

    So you have BOTH our constitution which disavows all “wars of aggression” and the UN charter to which we are a signatory, which prohibits all “wars of aggression”…and as a “signed treaty” becomes the supreme law of the land.

    Under no circumstances should the United States be engaging in “wars of aggression”, ever .It is a crime against our own laws , it is a crime against our ” treaties”, and it is a crime against humanity.

    The question you seem to be raising is how does the world RESPOND when a country such as Iraq, in 1990, commits illegal war of aggression and invades its neighbor Kuwait.

    What do we do, how do we react, what is the worlds response?

    More specifically you are asking where, within our constitution, does it grant the authority to the President as to the use of force in such a situation.

    I believe the President has sixty days under the war powers resolution(1973)to act militarily, beyond which he needs congressional authorization.

    Are you suggesting Congress did NOT authorize the use of force to repel Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 ?

    I believe they did ,in January 1991, pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 678.

    I suggest you review all the Security Council resolutions which were enacted at the time (between 1990 -1991), to understand the worlds response to Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait.

    There are pretty specific and appropriate.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  65. @alexander

    So you’re a NeoCohen?

    • Replies: @alexander
  66. anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @alexander

    The U.N. Charter is not a “treaty,” especially in the sense you were using it. And it seems you’ve now poked the wrong REPLY button. But at least you’re no longer blithering about the Supremacy Clause.

    I’m tiring of you. How about an armistice?

    340, but this may show with a different #

    • Replies: @alexander
  67. @alexander

    What about Kuwait’s alleged invasion by under-border slant drilling? Which country invaded which?

    All that being said, Saddam either should not have invaded or gone all the way and seized Saudi oilfields. We would all be better off if he had rattled sabers at Kuwait, gotten a payoff, and notinvaded.

  68. alexander says:
    @anonymous

    Dear (Mr/ Ms).. Anonymous ,

    I have tried to help you ,the very best I can, to understand a few small issues regarding US Law and international law pertaining to “war of aggression”.

    I think I have explained everything very simply, accurately and nicely for you.

    If it is still beyond you , what can I say .

    I did the best I could.

  69. @anonymous

    Yes. I love Pat Buchanan. But to describe Putin as a “nationalist” is totally inappropriate. He isn’t “autocratic” either. He is what I believe the Russians call a “silonik,” which is a particular kind of technocratic intelligence apparatus conservative that emerged from the late Soviet Union. Putin’s job was and is to bring stability to Russia, which was under siege by NATO. If only our friend Anatoly Karlin (a blogger here) could correct Pat. Real Russian nationalists often are uncomfortable with Putin because they see him as not sufficiently nationalistic.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  70. @alexander

    Oh, we did the same thing in Vietnam as we did in Iraq in 2003. The only difference is that LBJ was smart enough to send his ships into harm’s way to fake an attack by the commies.

    • Replies: @alexander
  71. alexander says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Yeah, I guess you are right.

    I don’t like it.

    I don’t like being defrauded into war….. Not one bit.

    I think every single individual responsible for defrauding us into Iraq war 2003, should be held accountable.

    At a bare minimum, all their assets should be seized to pay for the trillions in war debt their lies created.

    If they are forced to bear the burden of the costs, maybe they will think twice before attempting to enact their deceptions in the future.

  72. bjondo says:
    @alexander

    Various leaders of Iraq have made claims for the separated territory of Kuwait. It was a province of the territory now called Iraq. Separated by Brits I think.No time to research.

    Saddam tried via negotiations and intermediaries to get Kuwait to stop waging economic warfare against Iraq to include the stealing of oil. No success. Why? A little rabbit is going to thumb its nose at a wolf? Not unless there is a T-Rex (US) waiting as a backup.

    Economic warfare is waged because it too harms, destroys, kills.

    Saddam had every right within any law to invade the aggressor, Kuwait. A proxy aggressor.

    The US also lied about Irq massing tanks and soldiers at the Saudi border ready to invade. Russian satellite photos showed sand, no tanks, no army, no invasion planned by Iraq. The only planned invasion was by US and its puppies.

    And the US fabricated the baby incubator atrocities. Reminiscent of WW2 Nazi bayoneting babies propaganda. Probably same PR firm.

    April Glaspie following admin orders.

    It was a clever set up for the beginning of the destruction of Iraq as a country.

    Didn’t matter if Saddam in or out for the beginning of the destruction of all the Arab countries.

    5ds

    • Replies: @alexander
  73. @mark green

    Agree! And Kuwait did not deserve protection.

  74. @alexander

    No. He got that approval rating through press propaganda. He deserved to be impeached for Desert Storm, not lauded. Withholding loans to Israel, however, was a good start. Stopping all aid permanently would have been much better.

  75. bjondo says:

    I may have missed in a comment

    H was only going to delay the $10billion for 120 days.

    Yids wants to get when Yid wants.

  76. @mark green

    I have an Iraqi friend who was in Kuwait when the Iraqis attacked. His father was working Iraq and one morning he hears sirens. He looked out the window and bunch of Kuwaiti police cars drove up and blocked the road the came from Iraq. Half an hour later they heard the rumble of tanks and saw an armored column coming from Iraq. The tanks stopped when they got to the police cars. An officer got out of the lead tank and an officer got out of a police car. They talked heatedly for 10 or so minutes. Then the police drove off and the column continued on its way.

  77. alexander says:
    @bjondo

    Look,

    I appreciate all the “arguments” and the counter arguments.

    I appreciate the awareness of all the phony propaganda, …all of it.

    But lets face it, if you are being honest with yourself…you will realize that Iraq was a “stupid f#cking country”

    It had just spent “eight” years fighting an immensely useless war with Iran….how stupid was that ?

    Then after that stupidity, it turns around and invades Kuwait…How stupid was that ?

    Then it was given a year to get out, and it refused….How stupid is that ?

    If Iraq was smart it would never have squandered its immense resources fighting all these stupid , stupid , wars.

    It should have used its substantial wealth to defend its borders, build its infrastructure and educate its populace….But it didn’t.

    I have to say that Iraq was just as stupid and belligerent between 1980 and 1991…as the US has been between 2003 and 2018.

    Belligerent, criminal , imbecile nations…. squandering their immense resources on stupid, stupid , STUPID F#cking WARS.

  78. bjondo says:

    Your defense of US aggression appreciated by the Zionized Secret State.

    And it is BS.

    Stupid is irrelevant to the criminal actions, plottings of ZUSA and its pups.

    Saddam/Iraq was going to be destroyed no matter what.

    See current Arab states and their conditions and lack of ‘stupid’ actions.

    5ds

    • Replies: @bjondo
  79. Mr. Anon says:
    @alexander

    Operation Desert Storm was the greatest military success in US History. It was an astounding achievement not just for us, but for the world. We believed in the law, stood by the law, and enforced the law.

    Using the most sophisticated military machine the World had ever seen to beat the Hell out of a fourth-rate power like Iraq was the greatest military success in US History? What was WWII? Chopped liver? Granted Iraq had the 4th largest military in the World at the time, but it was manned by demoralized conscripts and incompetently led.

    I know that hindsight is perfect and that at the time a lot of people (myself included) feared that the war could go off much worse for us than it did. However, I remember speaking to an Indian student at the time – during the lead up to the War, before the fighting actually began. He was a smart guy and was following the Indian media at the time. He told me about an interview he had heard or read with an Indian general, who was recounting what was widely believed within the Indian military at the time – that Iraq was a paper tiger and that the war would be a complete rout, which it indeed was. So the relative state of the two combatants was known to some people, even if it was not told to us by our own press (but when are they ever right?).

    What you say about the War is indeed true. If the UN means anything, it means that member states aren’t supposed to just annex one another. And once Hussein had taken over Kuwait, something had to be done. I suppose.

    I also distinctly remember the arrogance of the Bush administration in asserting that they did not require Congressional approval to go to war. When you have nearly a half a million met at arms on foreign soil, prepared to fight another country…………that’s a War. And clearly, Congress and only Congress is granted the power, under the Constitution, to declare War. As it happend, they voted on some mealy-mouthed “authorization of use of force”. I think they should have declared War. The Bush administration overstepped its authority, and Congress abrogated its own authority.

  80. Mr. Anon says:
    @alexander

    According to the US constitution, Mr Newman, our “treaties ” are the supreme law of the land.

    No. The Consitution and federal statues and treaties are the supreme Law of the Land in the following sense. The actual relevant text reads:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    That means that treaties are superior to any State Constitution or statute. It does not mean that a treaty stands superior to the US Constitution itself or can supercede it. How could it? If that were the case, and the UN voted a resolution that the United States henceforth is to be abolished, would we be obligated to dissolve ourselves? Is THAT what you think the framers of the Constitution intended? In any event, a UN resolution is not a treaty. The Senate doesn’t approve every single resolution; it only approved the UN Charter as a whole. I don’t think the framers ever intended that our country be held hostage to open ended treaty commitments, to be determined at a later date.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @alexander
  81. Mr. Anon says:
    @alexander

    This prohibition against “war of aggression ” was accepted and ratified by nearly every signatory to the Geneva Convention, including the USA.

    Is there a more redundant term than “war of aggression”?

  82. Mr. Anon says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    BTW, I haven’t watched any TV so was not subject to either of these weeklong bouts of mourning infotainment.

    Mourn Porn

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  83. Mr. Anon says:
    @Realist

    The ridiculous pomp and circumstance crap for days and days, around GHWB tells you who is running this country. Those who think this country is a Democracy or a Democratic Republic are sadly delusional.

    It is unseemly for a Republic. They are public officials – public employees – not kings and princes. We are being encouraged to think of them as some kind of nobility. But the American Republic died a long time ago. We are an Empire now, and it shows.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  84. @Mr. Anon

    Mourn Porn is a good one, Mr. Anon. Thank you. I will try to remember that for the next time the flags are at 1/2-mast for a week at a time. It’s getting to the point where businesses may just want to buy shorter flagpoles.

    Also, thanks for explaining Constitutional authority to Mr. Alexander for me. The way I’d put it is: Treaties can be signed and the approved by the Senate, but then any war resulting therefrom must require a Declaration of War by the congress, as always. Why would that not be the case? There have been, and will later be, times when a treaty is broken in the interest of the nation. No treaty supercedes the sovereignty of the US.

    I know this is water under the bridge, but originally there was to be NO standing army. The Declaration of War was the only way to get the various States to come up with militias or armies.

    Mr. Alexander, thank you for all your discussion made in a civil manner here (not quite the case under the previous Pat B. article, by any means!)

  85. @Mr. Anon

    AGREED! I wrote something similar above somewhere(?) and in my quote-obituary-unquote on Peak Stupidity. I glanced at a TV in a lobby two days back, and the news was going on about some train car carrying the body, blah, blah. WTF? Are we going to pay to preserve him and lay him in an open coffin in the White House laundry room? Just put this mofo in the ground and get it over with.

  86. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I went through this with Alexander upthread. He evaded and dissembled. But good luck!

  87. dimples says:
    @Curmudgeon

    I’ve always thought (after I grew a brain) that the Gulf War was America’s most successful conspiracy. It was a setup obviously, Saddam was sucked in like a bong at a dope party. But all the dupes think that its one of those rare American ‘good wars’ they’re always desperate for after the Big One in WW2. The ones that make them feel good to be American with the finest military in the universe and all that.

    Sadly no. I’d guess that Bush 41, the experienced master CIA operative, did a deal with the Kuwaiti royals. If they annoyed Saddam big time by selling oil low, demanding their Iraqi loans back, slant drilling under the border, etc. sure, they’d get invaded, but that was the plan. The royals could quickly get out so no harm was going to come to them. Then the white knights of the Coalition of the Willing would come thundering in, destroying Saddam’s army and installing all the US bases the Middle East could find land for. The Kuwaitis would never, ever, be threatened by Iraq ever again.

    You can see how desperate Bush 41 was for war by the fake incubator babies scam and the fake Iraqi troops on the Saudi Arabian border alleged satellite photos scam. He couldn’t let his part of the deal collapse.

    And the purpose of all this, apart from military fun and games, shooting off a lot of ammo, live fire tank and military equipment testing, war medals and so forth? I’d say it was to set up the Middle East as the next major theater of war after the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can’t have a giant MIC without at least some semblance of an enemy. Bush was playing the long con. Installing US bases in the Middle East not only annoyed the shit out of fundamentalist Muslims, it prepared the way for 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror.

  88. alexander says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Mr. Anon,

    I agree with just about everything you say,but I think you are missing the boat on my point.

    As I tried to explain in comment #66 to Mr /Ms Anonymous, both our constitution AND our treaties expressly prohibit “war of aggression” under any circumstances.

    For the US to engage in any form of war that is NON defensive in nature, it has to jump through two hoops, not just one.

    The first (and foremost) hoop is Congressional authorization .

    Yet, because of the the very “treaties” we have signed (post WWII ) — with expressed reference to Article 2 of the UN charter– this is NOT enough.

    The second hoop is a Security Council Resolution authorizing the specificity of the use of force.

    For our government to engage in any type of (non defensive) warfare it has to satisfy the will of the American people as expressed through their representative body of Congress….AND …it has to satisfy “world opinion” as expressed through a UN Security Council Resolution.

    The point is that , post WWII,”everyone” needs to be on board to maximize the certainty that whenever (and whatever) use of force is authorized, it is not a”war of aggression”.

    This is all to the good, if you believe (as I do), that war of aggression is the supreme crime against humanity.

    Please refer to my comment to Mark (# 7 of this thread) as to my perception of the distinctions between 1991 and 2003.

    The first was an authorized “use of force” to repel an illegal(and real) invasion, the second was an “illegal invasion” based on a wholly fraudulent “Imminent Threat” rationale.

    They are not the same thing.

    The first was not a crime, the second was not only a crime, it was a supreme crime and a tragic, heartbreaking catastrophe.

    Every Individual, who conspired to defraud the United States into the illegal war of aggression in 2003 should be held accountable.

    At a bare minimum, all their assets should be seized to pay for the trillions in war debt their lies created.

    I think they are very well aware of this …and they are afraid. The latent potential for accountability could become a very real issue … Thus ,they have launched a multi-pronged effort to cleverly revise history (just enough) to dilute that possibility.

    One prong is to recast “Desert Storm” not as a distinct legal action to repel an unacceptable invasion(which it was) but as part of a long determined continuum culminating in their crimes of “preemptive” aggression …..Iraq war 2003 and beyond.

    They are trying to subtly infuse the legality of Iraq 91 into Iraq 2003. if one was legal…they both were legal…or conversely, if one was illegal they both were illegal….in either case it is an attempt to dilute accountability.

    The other Neocon mandate is to make absolutely certain that every President, since Iraq 2003, commits the same or similar crime. This is a MUST. Otherwise the danger of non -dilution becomes very real.

    It is exactly why Fareed Zakaria was instructed to refer to Trumps illegal tomahawk shots at Syria…as ” Presidential”.

    It is why the Neocons pressed so hard for Trump to do it. Once his hands are dirtied up,(even just a bit) they can rest a lot easier.

    They are also very active, full time, in deflection and distraction . The underlying tenor of “Russia gate”(which few are aware of) was to make certain Putin could never advise Trump on how best to drain the swamp of our criminal Neocons .

    Holding them accountable for mass murder as well as tens of trillions in war debt…MUST NEVER COME TO PASS….So they throw up as many “road blocks”, “foibles” and “detours ” they can think of…

    To date, they have been very successful.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  89. Corvinus says:
    @Hail

    “What happened to the USA is that it took a demographic hit…The absolute number of White Americans is now declining, as of 2016, for what must be the first time in four centuries.”

    Par for the course. No doubt WASPs felt the same way when the Irish and German hordes, then later the Italian, Pole, and Slavic derelicts, came en masse to our shores with their “odd ways”. I guess good things come to an end.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  90. Corvinus says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    “Putin’s job was and is to bring stability to Russia, which was under siege by NATO.”

    Indeed, by autocratic ways via nationalist fervor.

  91. Mr. Anon says:
    @Corvinus

    Par for the course. No doubt WASPs felt the same way when the Irish and German hordes, then later the Italian, Pole, and Slavic derelicts, came en masse to our shores with their “odd ways”. I guess good things come to an end.

    The usual rubbish from the idiot known as “Corvinus”. Those people were all white. The US remained a white country. It matters what color your country is, although you are too much of a stupid hypocrite to admit it. If you are so fond of black or brown countries, go live in one. I suggest Honduras or Sierra Leone. Send us a postcard to let us know how you’re getting on. Or, better yet, don’t bother writing.

    Nitwit.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  92. Mr. Anon says:
    @alexander

    The second hoop is a Security Council Resolution authorizing the specificity of the use of force.

    For our government to engage in any type of (non defensive) warfare it has to satisfy the will of the American people as expressed through their representative body of Congress….AND …it has to satisfy “world opinion” as expressed through a UN Security Council Resolution.

    None of our wars fought under UN aegis have been “defensive”, as we were never attacked nor in any danger. We were not defending ourselves.

    Frankly, you are a fool if you believe all this legalistic UN bullshit. You act as if the government really cares about all that. They don’t. We are an empire; we do whatever the f**k we want – or rather – whatever the f**k the government and the ruling elite want. I don’t like it, but there it is.

    • Replies: @alexander
  93. Corvinus says:
    @Mr. Anon

    “Those people were all white. The US remained a white country.”

    You are so far gone it’s not even funny. The WASPs and nativists did not like the potential changes to their society that the Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, and Slavs would bring. These groups were allies against non-whites, to be certain. But when it came down to brass tacks, the other ethnicities represented the death knell to WASPdom with the strange customs and oddball religious beliefs.

    “It matters what color your country is…”

    No, what is most important is our collective humanity. That’s the message of God and his Son, Jesus, Why do you seemingly hate them? ‘Tis near Christmas. Yuletide, candy canes…and the Birth of Christ!

  94. Mr. Anon says:

    You are so far gone it’s not even funny. The WASPs and nativists did not like the potential changes to their society that the Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, and Slavs would bring. These groups were allies against non-whites, to be certain. But when it came down to brass tacks, the other ethnicities represented the death knell to WASPdom with the strange customs and oddball religious beliefs.

    Far gone? What I said is demonstrably true. America was essentially a white country. The post 1798 immigrants were overwhelmingly white. You are a drooling idiot.

    “It matters what color your country is…”

    No, what is most important is our collective humanity. That’s the message of God and his Son, Jesus, Why do you seemingly hate them? ‘Tis near Christmas. Yuletide, candy canes…and the Birth of Christ!

    Most important to you perhaps. Not to me. What is important to me is the maintenance and good health of my civilization. To Hell with you and what you find “most important”, you blathering a**hat.

  95. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    Not true. These groups were absorbed. All you say is drivel.

  96. alexander says:
    @Mr. Anon

    To my statement ” for our government to engage in any type of (non defensive) warfare…..”

    Your response was….”None of our wars have been fought under UN aegis have been “defensive”, as we were never attacked nor in any danger. We were not defending ourselves.”

    What is the point of your argument by responding to “(non defensive) warfare” by saying our wars were non defensive ?

    What is the point ?

    And to whether I believe in all this “legalistic bullshit” is beside the point also.

    The fact that our Government considers itself wholly “above the law” when it comes to starting criminal wars of aggression may be all well and good for you.

    But for me, as one of three hundred million Americans forced to bear the burden of the outrageous costs of their criminal wars , which to date have put us close to 22 trillion in heinous debt, it is a very potent starting point for “accountability”.

    Demanding our elites, (at a bare minimum), pay up every penny for the cost of the illegal wars they lied us into , is a superb way to extract some justice…… as well as get the US back on course.

    If you have a better idea, I am all ears.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 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
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.