Listen to the Man

The American Conservative editorializes:

Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.

As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.

The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can’t face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria. . . .

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country’s reputation for a long time. But the process of recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in the voting booth this Nov. 7. If we are fortunate, we can produce a result that is seen—in Washington, in Peoria, and in world capitals from Prague to Kuala Lumpur—as a repudiation of George W. Bush and the war of aggression he launched against Iraq.

I agree. Go vote. Call a friend in Montana or Virginia.

Comments

So this is real disintegration on the right. Except for the obsession with illegal immigrants, I have no quarrel with TAC here (MY elided most of that stuff). And even on immigration, my dissent is only partial. Time for a realignment?

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 7, 2006 8:23 AM

Matthew Yglesias: Paleoconservative! Who knew???

Posted by Al | November 7, 2006 8:50 AM

I love Pat Buchanan's magazine, though I do find the constant Mexican-bashing pretty alienating.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 7, 2006 9:07 AM

Although about as likely as Borat being elected supreme commander of Kazakhstan, sending Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney to the Hague for criminal prosecution would go a long way toward repudiating Bush and showing a new willingness to work within International agreements.

Posted by theCoach | November 7, 2006 9:53 AM

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posted by CJColucci | November 7, 2006 10:52 AM

i'd rather deal with pat buchanan's version of conservatism, which actually has some connection to conservative principles, than the right-wing crazies that dominate the republican party, who not only have no connection to conservative principles but also none to reality.

Posted by howard | November 7, 2006 11:01 AM

I liked the end of that American Conservative piece best:

"PS The Jews killed Jesus. Dirty Mexicans are invading the country. There are fags living next door and it spooks me."

Posted by Linus | November 7, 2006 11:24 AM

Points of view are not additive. They're competitive. Buchanan disagrees with Bush for his own reasons and they're not always savory ones.

Ignore Buchanan and The American Conservative magazine.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 7, 2006 11:34 AM

I'm wierded out by the fact I like The American Conservative. Not that I always, or often, agree with it, but that I always find it interesting. (It's a little like enjoying Steve Sailer, who, as Evan Mcelvary put it, is potentially interesting when he's not throwing rocks at the darkies.)

If Pat Buchanan ever comes out in favour of gay marriage, I'm going to have to just admit I'm a real Paleocon.

Posted by Ikram | November 7, 2006 12:09 PM

Re: sending Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney to the Hague for criminal prosecution would go a long way toward repudiating Bush and showing a new willingness to work within International agreements.

An international trial would be far too divisive and would be seen by a large majority of Americans as illicit meddling in American affairs by foreigners. No, the only truly cathartic trial would be one conducted right here under American jusripridence-- at the very least Rumsfield should go down. For the record I also think international trials are a bad idea generically for any nation except in very rare situations (either no home government exists to try the malefactors, as was the case after WWII, or the government in question requests an international tribunal because it fears or is politically unable to conduct such a procedure itself).

Posted by Jonf | November 7, 2006 1:25 PM

The American Conservative consists of National Reviewers who were purged by the neoconservatives who took over that magazine.

Ignore Jeffrey Davis and Linus, who I bet are uncomfortable with the magazine's frequent assertion (as above) that "neoconservativism" is an emanation of Israeli influence in our foreign policy. J.D. and Linus are not really that antiwar if they'll so readily cast away allies in ending this war. It's going to require mobilization on both the left and the right to break the neoconservative hold on foreign policy. We can endure some of Pat Buchanan's prejudices; we can't endure an endless occupation of Iraq or an attack on Iran.

Posted by brendan | November 7, 2006 4:11 PM

Who cares if Buchanan doesn't want gay marriage when he's openly called for the impeachment of Bush if he attacks Iraq? Priorities, priorities.

Posted by brendan | November 7, 2006 4:12 PM