The Least, First

Monte Asbury's blog

Pat Buchanan: McCain would be a War President

with 3 comments

clipped from

McCain win would mean war with Iran

McCainMSNBC’s Joe Scarborough asked old-line conservative Pat Buchanan about McCain’s remarks, saying, “He talked about promising that more wars were coming. … Is he so desperate to get off the economic issue?

Pat Buchanan replied that McCain never used the word “promise” but simply said there would be more wars, and that from McCain’s point of view, “that is straight talk. … You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran.”

“That’s one of the things that makes me very nervous about him,” Buchanan went on.

“There’s no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. … His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He’s in Putin’s face, he’s threatening the Iranians, we’re going to be in Iraq a hundred years.”

blog it

Me too, Pat.

Look, has this war been a good thing?

Do we want more? More dead soldiers? More traumatized children? More PTSD? More amputations? More brain injuries? More divorces? More suicides? More billions for bombs? More arming the world? More Abu Ghraibs? More international hatred? More world dominance?

McCain, if so, is apparently our choice. And unfortunately, most of the remaining candidates seem more preoccupied with talking tough than with calculating—à la Colin Powell—the human cost of Round 2.

For too long, Americans have said, “Presidents know things that we can’t know; if they think we must go to war, we should support them.” But presidents have taken us to combat dozens of times in the last fifty years. How many conflicts can you name that Americans would have supported, had they known the whole story? Precious few.

Perhaps we should refuse to elect people who assume war is inevitable. Why see suffering as a done deal?

Tags: , , , ,,, , , , , , Monte Asbury


Written by Monte

January 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I am afraid that old Pat is right for several reasons:

    a. Conservatives loath to look like “losers”. They must save face at all cost (somebody else’s blood sweat and tears, also McCain son is serving at this time, rare among the chickenhawks). It doesn’t matter if they are, in fact winning anything and risk real loses to look like winners, they will fight on just they can claim “victory”.

    b. The Beast Must be Feed: the beast of course is Empire, and in decline it covets more resources, more money for KBR/Haliburton and the oil companies and the so called “defense” contractors. Its the old TR compromise, slow down your theft on this side of the Rubicon and I will help you pillage and plunder everywhere else.

    c. Republicans adore the “Commander-in-Chief”, without that title everybody would look at their domestic agenda and go “WTF!”. Destroying the New Deal doesn’t benefit anyone except the MegaCorps(tm) even if they are plenty of deluded Libertarians that think otherwise. A commander needs an army and that army needs a war, without it, he commands nothing. And the war needs a great cause, an existential cause, like the Red Scare of Islamofacism. It need not be real, but it needs to be “credible”.

    d. R & R: “Revenge and Restoration”. Defeat the so called islamist who are really stand ins for the North Vietnamese and the North Koreans. Restore the Empire to its former world spanning glory. Rule Britannia! Errm…I mean Pax Americana!

    Sic Transit Gloria Mundi Americana!

    Monte Says: Being a child of the Vietnam years, I especially dread the Nixonian spirit of “a.” – saving face. It’s a blood-soaked, disastrously futile route. The only honor, and the truest courage, when having sent armies to kill for dishonorable, fallacious reasons, is to stop it; winning a dishonorable war only enhances the pretense.
    In the past two years, I have been amazed to discover the historicity of “b.” I am sure we’ll be involved in these evil wars until we learn of and confront our own history of corporate/government greed.
    I guess that’s why we blog, eh? Thanks!


    February 4, 2008 at 12:14 am

  2. This is the very reason why I belive we do not have a democracy in this country. To me, if this were a democracy, we would know why we were going to war and we would have a say in it.


    January 30, 2008 at 11:43 pm

  3. Yeah because Pat Buchanan is omniscient.

    Monte Says: No; he’s included here because he’s a conservative whose opinion may be respected in some conservative circles where voting for McCain is being weighed.

    Juan Valdez

    January 30, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: