Clear and Present Confusion

I've always wanted to trust Pat Buchanan. I don't. It's a case-by-case situation. Sometimes it's downright weird.

An example of why is found in this entry by Buchanan:

"[...] that Bush's motive in going to war was not a clear and present danger of attack by Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, but to advance a Bush crusade to impose democracy on the Middle East."

I don't recall any "neo-con" (or anyone, for that matter) suggesting that we needed to defensively preempt an attack by Iraq of WMD aimed at the US or anyone else... The point was clear that he had in place programs for their advancement and procurement, that he had used them against Iran, and that more recently he had used them against Iraqi Kurds. Considering the long-term future and failures to observe numerous past UN resolutions, a fourteen month long "rush to war" culminated in Saddam's removal. Buchanan's argument is a straw man, and a rather cheesy one at that. Pat knows it. Only Pat knows why he would employ it.

I'll buy the argument that it was indeed a "crusade to impose democracy". Mark Steyn and others had made the point that the problem with world peace vis-a-vis the Middle East was precisely the stability the ME enjoyed under murderous regimes (with histories of the use of WMDs.)

Here's another sample of Buchanan's nonsense:

"America remains the first economic and military power on earth. But after seven years of Bush, we no longer inspire the awe or hopes we once did. We are no longer the world hegemonic power of the neocons' depiction. And the reason is that Bush embraced their utopian ideology of democratic empire and listened to their siren's call to be the Churchill of his age.

The rhetorical phrase "democratic empire" is patently silly. Internally, it's an ideological oxymoron. Externally, Germany and Japan - upon whom we forced democracy - are hardly subject dominions.

As for inspiring awe and hopes, even Buchanan has to recognize precisely whose country remains far and away the preferred emigration destination worldwide, and who's country hasn't been hit since it hit back.

Were we ever an "hegemonic" power in any respect? (Look at one of America's largest corporations: Exxon. Happens to be one of the smaller global oil companies.) Which "neo-con" depicted us as such?

It's the sort of loopy analysis and mediocre evaluation that drove me away from Tom Friedman and David Frum (neither of who's works I've read in years.) Buchanan, however, does have useful things to offer concerning culture, immigration and American values.

But his foreign policy views and his thing for "neo-cons"... what a trip!

Joseph Hayyim

Posted by Joseph Hayyim at June 11, 2008 08:00 AM