Pat Buchannan Condemns and then Agrees with Breivik

That's basically the story. Breivek, the guy who killed all those people in Norway, is just evil; his ideology doesn't matter. And it's reprehensible for the European media to note that he does seem to have been a fan of many Conservatives warning about the dangers of Islam. Because of course reading about and enjoying anti-Muslim rhetoric has nothing to do with his actual act of violence, even if he said that the two were connected.

But as it turns out, Breivak was, apparently, largely correct in his analysis of the problem.

As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

in fairness to Buchannan he is an isolationist and a nativist; he prefers a strategy of keeping the Muslims in their own land and not interfering with them. Which is frustrating in a way; he's clearly an anti-Islam bigot, but he often opposes military engagement with them.

Still this article is engaging for the way in which it condemns people like me for pointing out that conservative basically agree with Breivak, and then basically agrees with Breivak (on the problem, if not the solution).

Pat Buchannan Praises Bigotry

Or it sure reads that way, in his latest article.

"It is a matter of culture," said Sarrazin, and "Islam is the culture." This is why Muslim immigrants are "socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else." Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a "genetic minus" to describe migrants from the Middle East.

Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.

With Merkel and the German establishment howling for his head, Thilo resigned, unrepentant. Two-thirds of Germans said he had a right to speak his mind, a third said they agreed with him, and "Germany Abolishes Itself" has sold over a million copies.

A genetic minus. Socially, culturally and intellectually inferior. Yeah that doesn't sound good. But better than having darkies running things, apparently.

This is what James Burnham meant when he wrote that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

Yeah, Buchannan is a bit of a bigot.

Let's see what his readers say.

It's called ethnic cleansing. If Germany feels German culture is being killed; they need to identify those killing it (who will mostly be those minorities mentioned in the article) and deport them. If they fight deportation then Germany should resurrect that bad-axed Army it used to have and deport their souls.

France and Britain should do the same thing. But again, the west as villified ethnic cleansing and therefore will not use it. And because of that, in a few decades nobody will even know what a real German or Frenchman is.

HOMOCIDE LIBERALS, POLITICAL TRAITORS, AND WALL STREET CROOKS VERSUS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Liberals are naturally angst-ridden and suicidal.

. . . Look at all the laws we have against the destruction of the United States, and NONE OF THEM ARE ENFORCED! How can we survive when these TRAITORS are allowed to get away with this? ARE THESE RATS TOO BIG TO JAIL?!

Christ was an exclusionist.. not inclusionist. He avoided members of certain groups prevalent in the middle east during His time. Now.. what did He know that if questioned on this fact elicited a response from Him.. 'there are things for man to know and things for God to know". Such an answer might.. just might.. cause a reasonable person to conclude that since Lucifer was and presumably remains nearly as powerful as God.. then this beast could create duplicate beings, soulless while also human in appearance only, that God then took the wise time to separate from His true creation. Who or what comprises this diverse group of ungodly and religio-deviant 'believer-duplicates'?

What a sewer. And in case you missed that last guys point; Muslims aren't actually human. They were created by the devil without souls to be pure evil.

Enemies

Pat Buchannan's latest article is interesting (if sad), particularly set against his previous work. He is essentially an isolationist and nativist; this is well known.

Buchannan's thesis is that we need to be willing to identify Islam as our enemy.

If we are not at war with Islam, why are we fighting the Taliban? They did not attack us. If Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims massacring Christians in Nigeria and Sudan? Why did those Afghan mobs also yell, "Death to Christians"? Why are Christian Copts being attacked in Egypt, and Assyrian and Chaldean Christians in Iraq? Did these Christian communities start a holy war against their vastly more numerous Muslim brethren?

What do the terrorists and "state sponsors of terrorism" -- Mohamed Atta, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- have in common, except for Islam?

. . . How do we win a long war when we cannot name the enemy?

I'm not sure how to take this - obviously the disdain for Islam lies right in line with Buchannan's nativism. But underneath that there is a sense that he feels this war is foolish; we don't have the stomach for wiping Islam out and because of that we probably shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.

Earlier in the article Buchannan underlines this.

. . . if we are perceived as at war with Islam, we will lose that war, and Osama bin Laden will have won by having broadened and defined what the war was about.

So we can't win the war without naming the enemy, but once we name the enemy we will lose the war. Kind of a catch 22; the implication being we'd have been better served by not involving ourselves with those filthy foriegners.

Hallowed Ground

Pat Buchannan, in his latest article, doesn't like the Ground Zero Mosque either.

The issue here is the appalling insensitivity, if not calculated insult, of erecting a mosque two blocks from a World Trade Center where 3,000 Americans were massacred by Islamic fanatics whose Muslim religion was integral to their identity and mission.

It is no more religious bigotry to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque than it would have been religious bigotry to oppose building a Shinto shrine in 1950 on Ford Island in Pearl Harbor, next to the Arizona.

To Americans, the land on which the twin towers stood is hallowed ground, a burial site made scared by the suffering and deaths of all who perished in the horrifying minutes those towers burned and fell.

And there's the rub. Muslims don't count as Americans because of what happened on 9/11. American Muslims aren't citizens in the same way that you and I are citizens (assuming you aren't a Muslim); they are guests here, and should remember their place.

Two Wars

Pat Buchannan's latest article is interesting in it's frankness on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Now he is essentially an isolationist, so this has to be taken with a grain of salt, but this is pretty striking.

A majority of Americans now believe the war is unwinnable or not worth the cost, and a growing minority in Congress wants out. Some NATO allies are departing. Others are setting deadlines for withdrawal.

As for the Afghans we leave behind, who committed themselves to America's war, they will, when we depart, suffer the fate of the "harkis" in Algeria, the South Vietnamese army and boat people, and the Cambodians we left behind to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge.

Have the politicians, journalists and think-tank geniuses who dreamed up these wars suffered ignominy and disgrace?

Not at all. They are debating and devising a new war -- with Iran.

That's pretty accurate. And pretty damning.

Why they Hate Us

Patrick Buchannan's latest article is, oddly enough, right on the money. He takes on the competing theories for why Islamic fundamentalists hate us, and suggests that rather than our freedoms or our wickedness, they might actually have a beef with our actions.

By Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Looking at America's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Maj. Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Shahzad decided that what we call the war on terror was in reality a war on Islam.

All decided to use their access to exact retribution for our killing of their fellow Muslims.

We are being attacked over here because we are over there.

I don't know if it follows that we should disengage; we might be pretty well committed at this point. But I think Buchannans's right in saying that our actions are what anger the Islamic World.

Resuming Transmissions

Apparently Immigration is going to be the issue of the next couple of weeks, what with Arizona's plan to crack down on illegal immigrants and Congress taking back up immigration reform. Naturally the writers at townhall are all over this.

Arizona has decided that if the federal government will not live up to its responsibility to control the border, it will. Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a bill that allows police officers to inquire about a person's immigration status if there is reason to suspect that individual might be an illegal immigrant. The governor correctly noted that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix."

The latest example of that failure is the Obama administration's refusal to finish the border fence begun with some reluctance by the Bush administration.

Cal Thomas

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

Pat Buchanan

So, why would anyone who actually wants to solve the problem suggest implementing a government policy that's already a proven failure? Of course, that's just it: What politicians want is more illegal workers to pad the bottom lines of businesses that give them campaign contributions and more potential voters for the Democratic Party. What they don't want is to fix the problem because they're worried about what's good for them personally, not what's good for the country.

John Hawkins.

So that's the argument of the week.

Salon's War Room has some thoughts on it too, saying it is a cynical but likely successful strategy.

For showing some political savvy, at least, the Democrats deserve some applause. With the election approaching and vulnerable incumbents -- not least Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of 25-percent-Latino Nevada -- getting nervous, putting immigration at the center of the national agenda seems to make a certain strategic sense. It's an issue that divides Republicans more than it does Democrats. Not to mention that, in the wake of Arizona’s new draconian anti-immigration law, getting behind reform is a way for the Democrats signal to Latino voters that at least one party is still friendly territory. Democrats are hoping that they can repeat the electoral gains them made off of California’s 1994 crackdown, Proposition 187. That confrontation helped drive Latino votes away from the GOP for years.

Democrats are probably right to think that another major showdown over immigration with an angry, out-of-power GOP will pay off, even though the bill will most likely not pass. That prospect has the conservative base freaked out about an issue of American national identity. And you know what that means: White people -- engage!

Makes sense to me. A debate on National Identity isn't going to hurt Democrats that bad, but should bring out the worst in conservatives/Republicans, and that's good for the party.

Democracy Not!

Pat Buchannan's latest article takes a strong stand against Democracy. We shouldn't encourage it.

Given free, inclusive elections in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, there is a likelihood our allies would be dumped and leaders chosen who were committed to kicking us out of the Middle East and throwing the Israelis into the Mediterranean.

What, then, is the rationale for the National Endowment for Democracy to continue tax dollars to promote such elections?

Of course Buchannan doesn't seem to realize how much the middle east and other parts of the world resent us for interfering in their internal affairs. We have a long history of propping up friendly dictators and that history isn't lost in those parts of the world. That doesn't exactly win people over to our side. But then I suppose if we help friendly dictators keep their people down we don't have to worry about them.

I'm Bored

I am unable to find much to write about today, so may as well point you to Buchanan's latest attempt to rehabilitate Hitler.

But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?

I kind of imagine Buchanan putting more emphasis on Castro rather than Pinochet. That said, the obvious response is that we have historical perspective on what Hitler did. Even at the time, regardless of what he had done, his ability to mess with Western civilization was far greater than Pinochet's Argentina or Castro's Cuba. For one thing, Hitler was right in the middle of it. For another, Germany was a nation with enormous technological and military strength.

Pat Buchanan then invokes Winston Churchill to support his view that England shouldn't have provoked Hitler. Interesting choice there; of course Churchill is well known for having been one of the main voices against Chamberlain's appeasement policy.

Winston Churchill was right when he called it "The Unnecessary War" -- the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

How exactly will World War 2 prove the mortal blow to our civilization? What civilization, exactly, is Buchanan talking about? Which civilization? The questions are unexplored; I suppose that if they were explored either Buchanan would have to blow on his dog whistle so loud it would deafen us or he would come clean and admit some pretty ugly things.

Suicide is Painless

Or so the song goes; two writers over at Townhall describe America's current course as suicidal.

When a democracy reaches a point where the politicians cannot say no to the people, and both parties are competing for votes by promising even more spending or even lower taxes, or both, the experiment is about over.

"Remember," said John Adams, "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Pat Buchanan, "The Fatal Flaw of Democracies"

One answer is to be found in a new book by investigative reporter, educator and columnist Martin Gross. Gross summarizes in an easy to read and understandable style how and why government has failed its citizens. The book, to be released Sept. 1, is called "National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream from A to Z." In addition to listing some of the more outrageous pork projects that are now well-known to anyone who has been paying attention ($107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail; $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud are just two examples on a long list), Gross touches on even bigger and equally outrageous expenditures.

Cal Thomas, "National Suicide"

Granted both are quoting others, but it is pretty grim imagery.

Complaining about $7,000,000,000,000 in debt and then bringing up $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud strikes me as a big out of whack. That $150,000 accounts for 0.0000025% of the debt. Plus it's a history project; we should be doing more history, not less.

Pat Buchanan and the Persecuted Evangelicals

Buchanan is upset at the Sotomayor nomination, as all good conservatives are. But beyond that, he asks some tough questions about the role of White Evangelicals in our justice system, in his latest article.

And who is the least represented minority in America on the U.S. Supreme Court? Not Catholics, who have two-thirds of the seats. Not Jewish-Americans, who though 2 percent of the population, have 22 percent of the seats. Not African-Americans, who at 13 percent of the population have 11 percent of the seats. And not Hispanics, who at 15 percent of the population will have 11 percent of the seats.

No, the most underrepresented group of Americans -- nay, the most unrepresented minority, the largest group of our fellow citizens never to have had one of its own sit on the U.S. Supreme Court in the modern era is -- Evangelical Christians.

. . . Republicans should now be searching for highly qualified Evangelical Christian judges and constitutional scholars, women as well as men -- and, when falsely accused of being "anti-Hispanic" or "anti-woman," ought to reply: "What do you liberals have against white Christians, man or woman, not to have named one in 45 years?"

He does use the turn Christian and Evangelical interchangeably; but seems to realize that Catholics are Christians. At any rate, I don't have a lot to say about this particular nonsense; the argument that White Christians aren't powerful enough in our society always makes me laugh.

Cherry Upbeat Pat Buchannan

I like Buchanan. Yeah he's kind of nuts and I disagree with him on a lot of issues. but he's certainly not one to follow the trend. It is kind of sickening to listen to Hannity and Limbaugh lionize McCain, a person they have dumped on for years. But no so Buchanan - he has a style of conservatism he likes and he sticks with it.

Of course the problem is that by the lights of his conservatism we are pretty much screwed at this point, and he says so in his latest article.

What we are witnessing today is how empires end.

The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.

What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system.

Kind of depressing, but I have more faith in both the American people and the American system of Government. I think that we are in for a few bad years, thanks in large part to Republican mania for deregulation, but we can pull out of this.

Some poeple who seem to have heard of the Bush Doctrine

As pundits mull whether America's next target in the war on terrorism should be Iraq or a smaller quarry first – such as the Sudan or Somalia – it's time to consider another petri dish of ferocious anti-American hatred and terrorist activity. The Bush doctrine is: We are at war not only with the terrorists, but also with those who harbor them. We've got to attack France. Having exhausted itself in a spirited fight with the Nazis in the last war, France cannot work up the energy to oppose terrorism. For decades now, France has nurtured, coddled and funded Islamic terrorists.

Ann Coulter, "Attack France!", December 20, 2001.

They (meaning Democrats) deny Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam's Iraq.

David Limbaugh, "Plain lies, war lies and partisanship," September 1, 2006.

Victory in Iraq --the creation of a stable, functioning representative government protected by a strong Iraqi military capable of and committed to the suppression of terrorism and sectarian violence-- would be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, and although it would also be in the very best interests of the country as a whole, the left sees a political disaster in such an outcome, and has hence redoubled its efforts to tarnish not just the president who ordered the war, but also the generals who lead it, and the soldiers who fight it.

Hugh Hewitt, "When General Petraus Reports," July 27, 2007

As the war in Iraq ground slowly on, Bush supporters grew more and more timid and pettifogging. What was missing was a full-throated, unequivocal, intellectually sparkling defense of the Bush Doctrine.

It is missing no more.

Mona Charen, "The Podhoretz Cavalry," September 21, 2007.

The Bush democracy crusade was put on the shelf after producing election triumphs for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, after Iraq, appears to be headed there, as well.

Patrick J. Buchanan, "Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant?", May 30, 2008

In conversations I've had with past Pentagon colleagues as well as some of the current crop, a recurring worry has been relayed to me. It is this: If Barack Obama wins the White House, what happens to the Bush doctrine of basically killing these terrorists where they stand?

Douglas MacKinnon, "Only YOU Can Stop the Hate-Driven Far-Left and... Save Your Country", September 3, 2008.

One of Them and One of Us

This is the title to Patrick Buchanan's latest article, in which he writes about Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is one of us, a poor women unjustly attacked by the mavens of political correctness. Barak Obama is one of them, a liberal, ivy-league, affirmative action guy.

That's why criticisms of Sarah Palin's experience are totally beyond the pale, while criticisms of Obama's are completely useful. She's one of us; he's one of them.

That's why the mild discussion of family values in the wake of her daughters situation is a horrid travesty, while constant harping on Obama's "un-American" wife are totally acceptable. She's one of us; he's one of them.

For the record, I'm pretty sure that despite my lack of an Ivy League education, I'm also one of them.

Sometimes Agreement is worse than Disagreement

Patrick Buchannan's latest article takes President Bush to task for his appeasement comments in Israel. This is not as enticing a prospect as it first appears. First of all he takes Presiden Bush to task for criticizing Hitler's reasonable demands to get back Danzig and the Sudetenland. Not an auspicious start.

But then Buchannan notes how Ronald Reagan, a Conservative Hero, didn't seem to think it a foolish delusion to meet with the Communists. And Israelis seem to think sitting down with Palestinians, like Arafat, isn't the world's worst idea either. He concludes with this interesting argument.

. . . JFK's diplomacy in the missile crisis may have averted a nuclear war. And Eisenhower, Nixon, Gerald Ford and Reagan all met with foreign dictators with blood on their hands, without loss to America, and sometimes with impressive gains.

What has Bush's refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?

That's a damn good question.

What's next

Let's check in with Patrick Buchanan, who is pretty sharp on foreign policy, although wrong on nearly everything else. Hell even his foreign policy rightness is based on isolationism, which I don't agree with. But he's not wrong in this analysis.

As for the "cakewalk" crowd that accused opponents of the war of lacking in patriotism, they never repented their demagoguery. Despite the pre-invasion propaganda they pumped out about Saddam's awesome weapons and ties to 9-11, or their assurances that U.S. troops would be welcomed with candy and flowers, like Paris in '44, and their prediction that a democracy would arise in Iraq to which Islamic nations would look as a model, they have never been called to account.

Now they are back with a new enemy for America to attack.

This time the target is Tehran -- and once again, they have the ear of this most ideological and unreflective of presidents.

It is depressing to find myself wondering if we as a nation have learned anything from the Iraq debacle. I am forced to conclude that maybe we haven't.

Clinton Vs. Obama; Foreign Policy

There was a dust-up this week between the Clinton and Obama camps. Obama suggested that he would be willing to meet with Castro and other world leaders who are not our buddies. Clinton reacted to this by calling Obama irresponsible and naive. Obama responded to this by suggesting that Clinton's vote on the Iraqi War Resolution had been more irresponsible and naive.

Patrick Buchannan took this dustup as a good starting point for an article today; one which makes an uncomfortable amount of sense. He argues that Obama might be naive, but he might have a point as well.

All of these rulers wish to be seen as defying the United States, but not one of them -- not North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela or Iran -- can seriously be seeking a major war with the United States that would bring wreckage and ruin to any or all of them.

What we have in common with them is that neither of us wants a hot war. As for a cold war, does any one of these nations represent a long-term strategic or ideological threat to a United States of 300 million, with 30 percent of the world's economy, and the best air force, navy and army on earth, and a nuclear arsenal of thousands of weapons?

If Bush can bring Libya's Muammar Khadafi, who was responsible for Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie massacre of American school kids, in from the cold, why cannot we talk with Hamas and Hezbollah and Assad and Ahmadinejad?

What has any of them done to us compared to what Khadafi did?

Makes sense to me; seems like avoiding and defusing conflict might be a more successful long term strategy than encouraging and seeking conflict.

Joe Conason has also written on this conflict in an article, noting forcefully that the two aren't as far apart as they would like to appear to be. He also praises Obama's position.

Obama deserves great credit for his courageous dismissal of the conventional stupidities of Washington's conservative establishment and the Beltway media. When he said that he would be willing to meet the leaders of Cuba and several other so-called rogue nations, without preconditions, the arbiters of respectable opinion swooned and sputtered. But his urge to break with bad old habits certainly makes sense. And it is refreshing that he doesn't much care when all the brilliant people who have created or abetted our present disaster attack him.

Obama's clear-cut debate answer showed a healthy skepticism of policies that are no longer in our interest if they ever were.

He also notes that the new President will need to be both reasoned and measured (like Clinton) and innovative and willing to change (like Obama).

For my part, I'm kind of an Edward's man, but Obama is a close second. And closer after this week.

Swift Boating

Pat Buchannan's latest article is entitled "Will Bloomberg Swift-Boat Hillary?" By Swift-boating, Buchannan apparently means make more difficult to run.

How so? First, the mayor is Jewish and is best-known and most loved among Jewish voters and denizens of the Big Apple, where he is more popular than Rudy. Both constituencies are Democratic.

Even in his 49-state triumph, Richard Nixon won only a third of the Jewish vote. In his 49-state landslide, Reagan carried even less. In 2006, by one survey, the Jewish vote went 88 percent Democratic. As for New York City, that has long been the Democrats' key to New York State.

The first effect of a Bloomberg candidacy would be to siphon off perhaps 2 million votes from Hillary in New York, putting the state in play for the Republicans. The same would be true in New Jersey and Connecticut.

That Buchannan is a bit focused on the Jews won't surprise many.

Frankly I'm more surprised about the expansion of the term Swift Boating to include simply running against somebody. Swiftboating originally meant lying about a candidate's past/bringing up unpleasant truths about a candidate's past (depending on what side of the fence you are on - personally I think the Swiftboat vets were liars). Now it means any action that could be detrimental to a campaign. Apparently.

The Middle East

Pat Buchanan writes on the Middle East in his latest article.

Great opening sentence, right? I'm a genius.

Anyway, yeah, middle east. He points out that it sure looks like we are drifting towards war with Iran, and that there are clearly some in the government who are keen on moving in that direction.

What is going on? The most logical explanation is that the White House is providing advance justification for air strikes on camps of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that are allegedly providing training for and transferring weapons to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents. And if the United States conducts those strikes, Iranians will unite around Ahmadinejad, and Tehran will order retaliatory strikes against U.S. targets in Iraq and perhaps across the Middle East.

President Bush will then have his casus belli to take out Natanz and all the other Iranian nuclear facilities, as the Israelis and the neocons have been demanding that he do. This would mean a third Middle Eastern war for America, with a nation three times as large and populous as Iraq. Perhaps it is time to begin constructing a new wing on Walter Reed.

Which raises the question: Where is the Congress? Why is it not holding public hearings and sifting the evidence to determine if Tehran is behind these attacks on Americans and if the United States has not itself been aiding insurgents inside Iran?

That doesn't sound very good. And yeah it does seem like Congress needs to get involved in this at some point. We don't want to go to war the way we did last time.

The Democratic Party Wants Political Power

Stop the presses. It turns out an organization dedicated to gaining political power in order to enact their political goals actually wants political power. What a shocker!

And yet political commentators constantly point out their political enemies desire for political power as if it were a black mark of the worst order. Today's example comes from Patrick Buchanan, who writes about why the Antiwar Democrats can go pee up flagpole, apparently.

Democrats know they are distrusted on national security. They fear that if they defund this war and bring on a Saigon ending in the Green Zone, it will be a generation before they are trusted with national power. And power is what the party is all about.

As opposed to the Republicans for whom gaining power is the last thing on their minds.

The larger point is that the world is on fire, and the Democrats aren't keen on putting it out because if they try to put the fire out and fail, it's their fault, and if they sit on their hands, it's Bush's (and the Israeli's) fault. There's a certain logic here, although Buchanan's instinctual attacks on Israel are a bit tiresome. Certainly Democrats in Congress aren't exactly earning themselves places in Profiles in Courage, 2007.