Pat Buchanan - "A Matter of Trust"

[TennesseeWalker]

Pat's dead on in this one.....a must read...

-snip-
But why did Bush choose Iraq? Why not Iran, whose hand in terror attacks was more demonstrable and whose missile and nuclear programs were more advanced? Why not North Korea?

The neoconservatives – Wolfowitz, Perle & Co. – we know, had been plotting war on Iraq and propagandizing for a U.S. invasion for years. But why did Bush sign on? Why did he make Iraq the first target of his doctrine? There was no tie between Saddam and 9-11, and Iraq seemed neither a grave nor an imminent threat.

What appears to have happened is this. Sometime soon after 9-11, the neocons persuaded the president that invading Iraq was the next crucial step in winning the war on terror and evil in which Divine Providence had chosen him to be the Churchill of his generation. And if the country and Congress were unconvinced of the need for war, it was his job to convince them.

And here is where the administration began to cross the line. To persuade us that Saddam was a mortal threat to which the only recourse was war, they needed evidence. But, apparently, there was little or no hard evidence to be had. No smoking guns. Saddam had been corralled in his box for a dozen years. America had flown 40,000 sorties over his country without losing a plane.
-snip-

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37064

[joeybee12]

1. I'm notsure, though, that the Neocons had to do much convincing...

...in the mix of the reasons for this war is Dumbo's and the evil Bush clan's desire for revenge against Saddam.

But Pat is mostly right, especially the part about appealing to Dumbo thinking he had been selected by God to lead this crusade.

[TennesseeWalker]

2. Check out the strong wording at the end of the article.....

-snip-

Upon such "evidence," the White House stampeded Congress and the country into war, a war we now know was utterly unnecessary. We were misled, and the only question that lingers is: Were we deceived?

For if Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the president were truly relying on the ambiguous intelligence the CIA was providing, whence came their absolute certitude as to the gravity and immediacy of the threat? For the CIA was saying there was no imminent threat.

History will record this as Bush's War. And he seems content with that judgment. But the price of victory has been the lost trust of many of his countrymen and of much of the world. The credibility of yet another administration has been compromised. Was it worth it?

And if it was not the weapons, what was the real reason America went to war on Iraq?

[hippiechick]

3. kick and email this to all the freeps we know !!

:wow:

Pat hits one out of the park for our side !


:hippie:

[fishnfla]

4. He's got it in a nutshell

what do you think his handle is here at DU?

I cant believe he used the "stovepipe" term

[Zeke]

5. Yeah!

Nice.

What's Buchanan's DU handle?

That is laughs---very nice! :)

[salinen]

6. Pat's the kinda guy

you want to kiss while strangling.