Cakewalk Crowd Abandons Bush

by Patrick J. Buchanan - January 5th, 2007 - Townhall.com

David Frum, the cashiered White House speechwriter who co-authored the "axis-of-evil" phrase, faults the president. While he provided the words, says Frum, Bush "just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of maybe everything."

Where Frum, four years ago, accused antiwar conservatives of being "unpatriotic" haters of America and President Bush, he is now saying that that same president either lacked the I.Q. to realize what he was saying or lacked a belief and commitment to follow through.

As Rose writes, this is "the most damning assessment of all." Moreover, it is an indictment of Bush's judgment that he could clasp so many such vipers to his bosom.

Rose describes James Woolsey, the ex-CIA director who was ubiquitous on the op-ed pages and national TV making the case for war, as "aghast at what he sees as profound American errors that have ignored the lessons learned so painfully, 40 years ago" in Vietnam.

Conspicuous by its absence from disparagements of the president by these deserters from his camp and cause is any sense that they were themselves wrong.

Buchanan is striking out at those he has always opposed on the Iraq part of the war. He thinks of himself as part of the "realist" school of foreign affairs and only agrees to wars that he sees as in our national interest. The problem is that he still does not see Islamofascism as a serious issue that can hurt us. He still sees the middle east as a source of oil and believes that the current rulers in the countries of the middle east will stay in power. Osama Bin Laden does not think these rulers will stay in power, but Buchanan does.

That is the real issue. Will Islamofascism get control over the middle east oil? Will the Islamofascists continue to dedicate themselves to destroying the west after they come to power? Will Iran launch its nuclear bombs at Tel Aviv and New York? If Iraq was still Baathist would they be a part of that effort? Where you come down on these questions will determine what strategy you think is best.

My concern is that neo-conservatives were right that attacking Iraq was part and parcel of the war against Islamofascism. However we let the war be run by those who wanted to buy "affection" of the Iraqis, our old school state department fronted by Colin Powell. Like Buchanan they are "realists". It should have been pretty obvious that it is impossible to ever buy "affection". People do not feel "affection" for those to whom they have lost. When the "insurgency" started, we needed to be brutal in suppressing it. Since we would not be brutal, some other strategy was called for.

The only two strategies that were discussed; 1. Leaving the brutal Iraq Army intact and letting them deal with the "insurgency", or 2. Having American soldiers take on the "insurgency" while trying to train a new Iraq Army.

There were probably other strategies and, even within these two strategies, tactics that could have been more successful than we have been. The problem with Buchanan is that he opposed the war and criticized Bush. Now when others are joining him in criticism of Bush he condemns them for their original support without ever explaining why the arguments for the war were wrong. This hypocrisy is one reason I never feel comfortable when Buchanan and I agree on anything. I just do not trust him.