Pat Buchanan on why Bush is wrong and Obama is right on foreign poilcy

by

comment

My least favorite thing about Barack Obama is my same complaint with most Democrats (and frankly, most Republicans) - he's a conventional liberal. But where Obama shines is not only his willingness (hopefully he means it) to bring our troops home from Iraq - but to hold diplomatic talks with our enemies, real or fabricated.

But President Bush - who is not only a big government liberal but completely awful on foreign policy - disagrees. Said Dubya in Israel this week, in what was no doubt, a shot at Obama:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

One can only assume our chickenhawk president (for whom it is eternally Munich in 1939 and every foe is the "next Hitler") is reffering to his latest bogeyman, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, among others. But it is Bush who is discredited by history. Writes Pat Buchanan:

"What is it about this tiny man that induces such irrationality?

Answer: He is president of a nation that is a "state sponsor of terror," that is seeking nuclear weapons, and is moving munitions to the Taliban and insurgents in Iraq.

But Libya was a "state sponsor of terror," and Col. Khadafi was responsible for Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie massacre of school kids coming home for Christmas. And President Bush secretly negotiated a renewal of relations in return for Khadafi giving up his nuclear program and compensating the families of the victims of that atrocity. Has Ahmadinejad ever committed an act of terror like this?

Richard Nixon went to Moscow and concluded strategic arms agreements while Moscow was the arms supplier of the enemy we were fighting in Vietnam that used, at Hue, mass murder as a war tactic.

Nixon went to Beijing to toast Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer in history, responsible for the deaths of 37,000 Americans in Korea, who was, in 1972, persecuting and murdering dissidents in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution run by his crazed wife, and transshipping Russian weapons into Vietnam.

And Nixon is today hailed as a statesman for having gone there.

In 1959, President Eisenhower rode up Pennsylvania Avenue in an open convertible with Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin's gauleiter in Ukraine, who, three years before his tour of the United States, had sent tanks into Budapest to butcher the patriots of the Hungarian Revolution.

What has Ahmadinejad done to rival these monsters?

America and Iran have great differences, but also common interests. Among the latter, no Taliban in Kabul, no restoration of a Sunni Baathist dictatorship in Baghdad and support for the present governments. Iran cannot want a Sunni-Shia war in the region, which would make her an enemy of most Arabs, and she cannot want a major war with America, which could lead to the destruction and breakup of the nation where only half the people are Persians.

That is plenty to build a cold peace on, if the hysteriacs do not stampede us into another unnecessary war."

Read Buchanan's entire column

Add a comment