Buchanan's Treachery Warrants Excommunication

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

HAVE THE NEO-CONS KILLED A PRESIDENCY? by Patrick J. Buchanan George W. Bush "betrayed us," howled Al Gore.

"He played on our fear. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9-11 ever happened."

Hearing it, Gore's rant seemed slanderous and demagogic. For though U.S. policy since Clinton had called for regime change in Iraq, there is no evidence, none, that Bush planned to invade prior to 9-11.

Yet, the president has a grave problem, and it is this: Burrowed inside his foreign policy team are men guilty of exactly what Gore accuses Bush of, men who did exploit our fears to stampede us into a war they had plotted for years. Consider:

– In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel's Bibi Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power" as an "Israeli strategic objective." Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush's foreign policy team on 9-11.

– In 1998, eight members of Bush's future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote Clinton urging upon him a strategy that "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein."

– On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks "to broaden the (Middle East) conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal."

"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.

On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.

On Sept. 15, according to author Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz spoke up in the War Cabinet to urge that Afghanistan be put on a back burner and an attack be mounted at once on Iraq, though Iraq had had nothing to do with 9-11. Why Iraq? Said Wolfowitz, because it is "doable."

On Sept. 20, 40 neoconservatives in an open letter demanded that Bush remove Saddam from power, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (9-11) attack." Failure to do so, they warned the president, "would constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

While Bush had taken office as a traditional conservative skeptical of "nation-building" and calling for a more "humble" foreign policy, after 9-11, he was captured by the neocons and converted to an agenda they had worked up years before. Suddenly, he sounded just like them, threatening wars on "axis-of-evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9-11.

And here is where Bush's present crisis was created.

Though he had internalized the neoconservative agenda for war, he had no rationale, no justification, no casus belli. Iraq had not threatened or attacked us.

Enter the WMD. Neoconservatives pressed on Bush the idea that Iraq must still have weapons of mass destruction and must be working on nuclear weapons. And as Saddam was a figure of such irrationality – i.e., a madman – he would readily give an atom bomb to Al Qaeda. An American city could be incinerated.

Therefore, Saddam had to be destroyed. Bush bought it.

The problem, however, was this: While there is much evidence Saddam is evil, there is no evidence he was insane. He had not used his WMD in 1991, when he had them. For he was not a fool. He knew that would mean his end. Why would he then build a horror weapon now, give it to a terrorist and risk the annihilation of his regime, family, legacy and himself, a fate he had narrowly escaped in 1991?

Made no sense – and there was no hard evidence on the WMD.

Thus, when the CIA was unable to come up with hard evidence that Saddam still had WMD, or was building nuclear weapons, neocon insiders sifted the intelligence, cherry-picked it, presented tidbits to the media as unvarnished truth, and persuaded Powell and the president to rely on it to make the case to Congress, the country and the world. Powell and the president did.

Now the WMD case has fallen apart. Powell has egg on his face. And the president must persuade Tim Russert and the nation that Iraq was a "war of necessity" because we "had no choice when we looked at the intelligence I looked at."

But, sir, the intelligence you "looked at" was flawed. Who gave it to you?

To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.

But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him?

````````````````````

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith



-- Paul Krieg (Harmony@5starmail.com), April 13, 2004

Answers

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist and I dare say not a big fan of Israel. He sees the world a bit different than I do but, I dont find any of his beliefs warrant excommunication. He has always sided with the Church and held Her in a place of respect.

He would close our borders and limit immigration to white europeans only. He would throw up trade barriers to importers and keep America out of every conflict that was not an all out invasion of our country. I don't think we are alone on this planet and I don't think we can close ourselves off. Islamic extremists are out to get us and their governments are either backing them or look the other way. In time, these countries will all have nuclear weapons and we will be in a tight spot.

I agree with Bush that we need to change the Islamic mindset now or face untold destruction in the future. I think Buchanan is another Neville Chamberlin who wants to let the good times roll no matter what the future consequences. Pat is wrong idealogically IMO but I dont think he has stated anything heretical. In fact the Pope agrees with his anti-war stance.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 13, 2004.


I tend to agree with Anti-Bush. This is a Political situation, not an ecclesiastical one.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 13, 2004.

Some people cant tell the difference between worshipping the State and worshipping God. Government schools have a lot to answer for.

-- Lucio del Mundo (ginsu@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.

Paul,

You are trying to stir stuff up just like Tom on some other threads. Pat Buchanan is a very intelligent, strong, Catholic and American voice. I agree with about 90% of everything he says. I do not agree with him about the Iraq war and Jewish conspiracies. But do you expect anyone to think he should be excommunicated? For what?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 13, 2004.


I don't agree with Pat Bucannon on much, but I don't see anything he has said as being an excommunicatable offence.

Promoting the murder of innocent children can possibly deserve excommunication, especially if done by someone of authoity (e.g., Kerry), but Pat Bucannon does not seem to be promoting grave sins.

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them.68 In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 14, 2004.



Pat isn't profoundly intelligent when it comes to foreign affairs, so why listen to him? He is realiably anti-Bush, of course but that doesn't mean he's bright.

Look, Iraq was one of only a handful of Muslim countries with an indigenous military-industrial complex (capable of producing their own weapon systems rather than just buying them from Western powers).

This fact and the fact that Iraq was governed by a dictator who had imperial ambitions for becoming the undisputed Arab leader of an Arab empire, and who had decade long official governmental contact with REGIONAL terror organizations....all should make Pat aware that Iraq was not some tangental factor in the "war on terror".

Another amazing thing is that every single major terror attack on the US during the 1990's had the terrorists including in their communique taking credit for the attack their justification: and it ALWAYS included Iraq and the US involvement in Iraq's embargo (*universally approved by the UN).

So you connect the dots.

Every single terror attack includes as essental reason the US-Iraq war. Iraq was a major industrial and military power in a region that sits astride a good portion of the world's oil supply. It's leader aspired to be emperor, and had longstanding real connections with regional terror groups. Osama Bin Laden always used the embargo of Iraq, the no-fly zones and the US/UK precence in the region (there precisely to enforce the embargo and no-fly zones) as HIS reason for declaring war....

How blind can Pat be not to accept the connect that the TERRORISTS themselves were making? If we're not willing to take them at their word....how can we be outraged when they follow through on their threats?!

Pat has fallen for the same stupidity that many LIBERALS fell for in the 1930's by discounting Hitler's published goals and motives in Mein Kamph! They didn't take him at his word then, and don't take OBL at his word now...nor do they take Bush at his word either!

He said in 2001 that Afganistan was ONE BATTLE in the WAR...that the threat in Iraq was NOT IMMINENT...that the axis of evil INCLUDED Iraq, Afganistan, and North Korea (but note, he didn't end there, he defined what being a member consisted of and let other countries unnamed draw their own conclusions...which Libya just did!)

Just because you hate Bush doesn't mean you're right or smart. You have to prove yourself and Pat just hasn't done his homework.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.


You cant believe everything in the newspapers. Comparing iraq to Germany in the 1930's and Saddam to Hitler is ridiculous. How many hitlers has the US faced in the last 50 years. A small list:

Castro Gadhafi Noriega Osama The list is endless as are the fools who make the analogy.

-- Roger Lambalund (gem@hotmail.com), April 15, 2004.


Saddam is responsible for the death of about 1,000,000 people. That puts him up there with Hitler, Stalin and the like.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 15, 2004.

Nothing whatsoever excommunicable. He is a good Catholic. It was the Vatican who warned AGAINST the invasion of Iraq because of the bloodshed and the more terrorism it would spawn. Seems the Pope had a clue, doesn't it?

The REALLY big problem for Bush is that he sold the world a pack of goods on the WMD so that he could pre-emptively strike a sovereign nation. We have lost all credibility in the eyes of the world.

Sadam is bad to the bone and I'm glad he's gone, but why does America think it has a right to go around setting up "democracies" wherever it wills. We detroned Sadam. Now its time to get the hell out of the there.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 15, 2004.


Where does the US get the right to exist much less become involved in Iraq or other countries? For that matter, where exactly DO human rights come from to begin with?

The Pope and Church teach that human rights come from human nature and Nature's God (which the US Declaration got right). So where do we get the right to liberate oppressed people? Ultimately from God through our RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS NEIGHBOR...

AND WHO IS OUR NEIGHBOR? Jesus told the pharisees (original hypocritical peace-niks) that "neighbor" was the man beaten half to death on the road...where did the Samaritan get the right to help him? He wasn't his brother or relative...he was a complete stranger - but he was "neighbor" and that was enough to interviene EVEN THOUGH HE WASN'T ASKED TO!

Seriously - where did Christendom get the "right" to liberate the Holy Land in 1098? From the same source.

Where do you get the right to do what is good? Is not liberated captives good? Is not deposing a bloody tyrant good? Is not ending a "structure of sin" (cf. Vatican II) good?

Where did the US get the "right" to stop the famine in Somalia in 1992, when thousands of people were dying per day? There was no government asking us to go in, the UN wasn't doing anything...yet we went in, stopped the famine and then set about rebuilding the country before feckless Clinton pulled us out...letting Somalia descend back into barbarity.

Now you can argue about the MEANS employed to end a situation of evil...and thus, most people claim that diplomacy is the first solution. But in the case of Iraq - like the case of Ruanda, diplomacy was not effective in stopping bloodshed and it was not effective in dealing with someone who was not listening to reason or moral restraint. In such situations yelling "stop" doesn't work.

"stop" is a moral command. Barbarians by definition don't have a moral conscience or internal set of controls. This is why police and armies will always be needed on this imperfect world in which not everyone is rational and virtuous.

And guess what? The Pope and Church and the saints and fathers past have all agreed on this, from the time of the Old Testament through St Paul and beyond. Soldiers are sometimes needed. There is a time for peace...and a time for war.

Not war all the time, not peace all the time. Negotiations are sometimes correct (Jesus even gave his parable about this: he didn't categorically say the king should surrender to his enemy. No, he should decide whether or not to go to war (prudential decision by the one responsible for the common good) whether he could win with 10,000 if his opponent is coming at him with 20,000.

If Jesus was a peace-nik pacifist, that parable was the perfect time to say "kings of course shouldn't have armies to begin with and war is categorically evil and should be done away with". But he didn't. Why not? Why did he ask his followers to sell their cloak and buy swords?

Or don't you realise that infra-human warfare is the RESULT of the warfare between God and the rebelious angels and sinful men? Personal sin always leads to violence and bloodshed. But if good men, personally may turn the other cheek...we can't responsibly turn the other cheek when our wives and children's and children's children's lives or faith or morals are at stake. Sometimes peaceful men will have to fight against those who are violent.

And so it comes down to a state - not personal - decision, which itself is a prudential one, not categoric, whether or not to wage war. After all, a nation can always choose surrender! War isn't forced on anyone who can always surrender. Look at Belgium or Holland in the World Wars!

The Pope called both parties (Saddam and Bush) to seek peaceful settlement of their issues. But diplomacy only works if both sides are honest. Saddam broke every agreement with the UN, not with Bush. If you treat both sides as moral equals, then of course the US looks like the bully. But only if you hide your head in the sand and REFUSE to take into account the facts of history since 1990 to 2003.

Calling for peace is wonderful. Praying for peace is great. Hoping that war can be averted or that Baath rapists and thugs will cease their evil ways is a Christian thing to do. But wishful thinking is not the same thing as diplomacy and it's not a substitute for liberating captives, bringing the guilty to punishment, and eliminating a structure of sin.

You know, it's also a bit hypocritical to rhetorically ask where the US (i.e. Bush administration) gets the right to establish democracy in Iraq when your side implicitly claims the right to keep the people enslaved to a dictator, or claims the right to tell the Bush administration - or ANYONE- what to do!

It's the self-contradictory command "thou shalt not tell others what to do".

Actually, we DO have the right to bear witness to the truth, to liberate captives, punish the criminals, etc. and we get the right from the fact that as richer, freer, and capable neighbors of the world, we have a responsibility before God to spread goodness.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.



Again, I agree, the title of this thread is ridiculous; Pat Buchanan has not done anything whatsoever to warrant excommunication.

Roger: I do think the Hitler/Nazi analogy is very apt in the case of Iraq. Nazi Germany was not always the powerful nation it had become by the mid 1930's. After WWI, Germany was a defeated country, under sanction by the victorious allies. By the early 30's when Hitler took power, Germany was repeatedly violating those sanctions, building up its industrial power, its air force and the like, yet Neville Chamberlain and many of the European leaders turned a blind eye toward those violations. Hitler counted on that appeasement, he banked on it. THE NAZIS WERE NOT FORCED TO ABIDE BY THEIR SANCTIONS TO THE PERIL OF MILLIONS OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.

Iraq was a defeated nation at the end of the first gulf war. The United Nations imposed sanctions upon Iraq. Iraq repeatedly violated those sanctions for over 12 years. They had WMD, it is a fact. They repeatedly denied access to weapons inspectors. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 19 9-11 hijackers, met with Iraqi intelligence agents. The UN wanted to continue to turn a blind eye to all of this and appease, appease, appease. But finally, they decided, with substantial US influence, to enforce their own sanctions before it was too late. So Saddam and Iraq may seem diminutive compared to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Thank God they were not allowed to reach similar stature.

Iraq was not invaded willy-nilly. The US crossed all of its i's and dotted all of it's t's before the UN Security council, much to the chagrin of appeasers around the world.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 16, 2004.


Sorry, the U.S. has DOTTED all of it's i's and CROSSED all of its t's, not vice versa.

-- Brian Crane (brian crane@cranemills.com), April 16, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ