Dodaj do ulubionych

zdradzony przez Busha - Patrick Buchanan

IP: *.nycmny83.covad.net 01.10.04, 18:37
CocaCola, McDonald, muzyka amerykanski, amerykanski angielski panuja nad
swiatem. 30% swaitowego dochodu jest w USA. Ameryka i swiatem rzadzi Bush i
kapital

Betrayed by Bush
Patrick Buchanan says there is no conservative party in Washington. Instead
there is a Republican party of big business, big government and big war
Washington, DC

Not even the British empire at its zenith dominated the world in the way the
United States does today. US forces are deployed in lands the soldiers of
Victoria never saw. Our warships make port calls on all continents. Our
military technology is generations ahead of any other nation’s. Our GDP is 30
per cent of the global economy. Brand names like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and
Levi’s are household words from Kathmandu to Kurdistan. The music the young
listen to around the world is American or an imitation thereof. Americans
annually claim the lion’s share of the Nobel prizes in science, medicine and
economics. Hollywood films are the world’s most watched. The dollar is the
world’s reserve currency. The International Monetary Fund that keeps scores
of nations from bankruptcy has its headquarters in Washington. The American
language, English, is the lingua franca of the Internet and the international
elite. By almost any measure — military and economic power, technology,
standard of living, cultural dominance, social and political freedom —
America is the gold standard, the ‘hyperpower’ of the Quai d’Orsay’s
resentment.


Yet all republics, all empires, all civilisations pass away. For the United
States the invasion of Iraq and the war to impose democracy upon that Arab
and Islamic nation may yet prove a textbook example of the imperial
overstretch that brought down so many empires of the past. Fallujah, where US
marines were withdrawn before completing their mission to eradicate the
guerrillas and terrorists who had murdered four Americans and desecrated
their bodies, may prove the high tide of an American empire that has begun
its long retreat.

If we were to name one cause of the fall of Britain, it would be war. The
Boer war was Britain’s Vietnam. With it came a loss of faith in the
superiority of British civilisation and the spread of the heretical idea that
a British empire that denied self-determination to peoples of colour was no
longer morally defensible. Then, for ten years between 1914 and 1918 and 1939
and 1945, Britain was locked in mortal battle with the mightiest land power
in Europe. Britain alone fought both world wars from the first day to the
last.

In the first world war, 720,000 Britons died, in the second another 400,000.
America, however, stayed out of the world wars longer than any other power
and thus suffered fewer losses. Not until four years after the British,
French, Germans and Russians had started slaughtering one another at a rate
of 6,000 a day did the doughboys arrive to turn the tide on the Western
Front, only six months before the Armistice. Not until four years after
Hitler overran France did the Higgins boats appear off Normandy, just 11
months before VE Day. In both world wars, we played Fortinbras in Hamlet,
coming upon the carnage in the final scene in the bloodstained throne-room to
take charge of affairs.

During the Cold War, America avoided a war with a Soviet Union that could
have wreaked far greater havoc on us than was visited on Britain in two world
wars. We are the last superpower because we stayed out of the great wars of
the 20th century longer than any of the other powers, and we suffered and
lost less than any of them. Since the end of the Cold War, however, all the
blunders of Britain’s ruling class in its march to folly have been replicated
by our elites, from the arrogance of power to the alienation of allies to the
waging of imperial wars where no vital US interests were at risk.

Spurning the counsel of John Quincy Adams, America now goes abroad in search
of monsters to destroy. We have treaty guarantees with 50 nations on five
continents and troops in 100 countries. Some 150,000 US soldiers are tied
down in seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Should the United
States confront another crisis anywhere on earth, the bankruptcy of our
foreign policy would be transparent to the world.

President Bush has declared it to be US policy to launch pre-emptive war on
any rogue regime that seeks weapons of mass destruction, a policy today being
defied by North Korea and Iran, both of which have programmes to produce
nuclear weapons. The President has also declared it to be US policy to go to
war to prevent any other nation from acquiring the power to challenge US
hegemony in any region of the world. It is called the ‘Bush Doctrine’. It is
a prescription for permanent war for permanent peace, though wars are the
death of republics.

In 2003, the United States invaded a country that did not threaten us, had
not attacked us and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have
since discovered it did not have. His war cabinet assured President Bush that
weapons of mass destruction would be found, that US forces would be welcomed
with garlands of flowers, that democracy would flourish in Iraq and spread
across the Middle East, that our triumph would convince Israelis and
Palestinians to sit down and make peace.

None of this happened. Those of us who were called unpatriotic for opposing
an invasion of Iraq and who warned we would inherit our own Lebanon of 25
million Iraqis were proved right. Now our nation is tied down and our army is
being daily bled in a war to create a democracy in a country where it has
never before existed.

With the guerrilla war, US prestige has plummeted. The hatred of President
Bush is pandemic from Marrakesh to Mosul. Volunteers to fight the Americans
have been trickling into Iraq from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. In the
spring of this year revelations of the sadistic abuse of Iraqi prisoners at
Abu Ghraib prison sent US prestige sinking to its lowest levels ever in the
Arab world. We may have ignited the war of civilisations that it was in our
vital interest to avoid. Never has America been more resented and reviled in
an Islamic world of one billion people.

At home, the budget surpluses of the 1990s have vanished as the cost of the
Afghan and Iraq wars has soared beyond the projections of the most
pessimistic of the President’s economic advisers. The US budget deficit is
above 4 per cent of GDP. With a trade deficit in goods nearing 6 per cent of
GDP, the dollar has lost a third of its value against the euro in three
years. One in six manufacturing jobs has disappeared since President Bush
took the oath. By mid-2004, the President had failed to abolish a single
significant agency, programme or department of a Leviathan government that
consumes a fifth of our economy. Nor had he vetoed a single Bill.

America’s native-born population has ceased to grow. Its birth rate has
fallen below replacement levels. US population growth now comes from
immigrants, legal and illegal, from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The
religious, ethnic and racial composition of the country, a child of Europe,
is changing more rapidly than that of any other great nation in history in an
era when race, religion and ethnicity are tearing countries apart. The
melting pot no longer works its magic. Newcomers are not assimilating. We are
becoming what Theodore Roosevelt warned against our ever becoming — ‘a
polyglot boardinghouse for the world’.

US primary and secondary education is a disaster area. Test scores have been
falling for decades and are below those of almost every other developed
nation. In o
Obserwuj wątek
    • Gość: sindi Re: Buchanan o Kerry IP: *.nycmny83.covad.net 01.10.04, 18:52
    • Gość: sind Re: zdradzony przez Busha - Patrick Buchanan IP: *.nycmny83.covad.net 01.10.04, 18:53


      Now Available!
      Pat's New Book
      "Where the Right Went Wrong" Autographed!

      Click Here for Details!

      Bush Plays the Patriot Card

      Patrick J. Buchanan September 29, 2004


      After the swiftboat attacks of August and the Rathergate debacle – CBS' botched
      attempt to paint President Bush as an insolent National Guard officer deserving
      of court martial – John Kerry seems to have found his footing. Kerry seems a
      liberated man.

      He is now pummeling the president on the great issue of this campaign. "The
      invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest
      enemy, al-Qaida," declares Kerry. It has turned Iraq into a haven for
      terrorists. He describes "the real war."

      [T]o destroy our enemy we have to know our enemy ... They are not just out to
      kill us, they want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the
      Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they
      hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region's
      governments and pave the way for a new empire: an oppressive, fundamentalist
      superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle
      East to Central Asia. That's their goal.

      Truth be told, this is exactly what we confront. So, Kerry has rolled the dice
      to offer himself as a leader to disengage us from what he calls a mistaken,
      mismanaged war, to redirect our fire at al-Qaida:

      "As president, I pledge to you, America, I will finish the job in Iraq ... I
      will refocus our energies on the real war on terror. I will wage this war
      relentlessly, with a single-minded determination to capture or kill the
      terrorists, crush their movements and free the world from fear."

      Kerry has belatedly occupied the terrain on which he will fight, but he has
      obstacles to overcome if he is to win.

      First, he must offer an exit strategy, a way out of Iraq. This he has not done.
      Second, he must explain why, if Iraq was a detour in the war on terror, he
      voted to give Bush a blank check to go to war. Why did he say, a month ago,
      that he would have voted to authorize an invasion, even had he known Iraq had
      no role in 9-11 and no weapons of mass destruction?

      Moreover, history is not on Kerry's side. In wartime America, the peace
      candidate and the dovish party always lose.

      Gen. McClellan was defeated by Lincoln in 1864 after Sherman took Atlanta.
      William Jennings Bryan was routed by McKinley when we were bogged down in a
      Philippine insurrection even bloodier than Iraq. Nixon routed McGovern, the
      anti-war candidate, in 1972 by 49 states to one.

      Eisenhower and Nixon ousted ruling parties in unpopular wars in 1952 and 1968.
      But Truman and LBJ had been bloodied in primaries and did not run again. And
      Ike was more hawkish than Adlai Stevenson and Nixon more hawkish than Hubert
      Humphrey, who had promised a bombing halt.

      Now, the Republicans are moving ruthlessly to play the ace of trumps in
      American politics, the patriot card, against Kerry.

      When Kerry scoffed at assurances by Prime Minister Allawi that the war was
      going well and elections would be held in January, Bush charged him with
      undercutting an ally. "This brave man came to our country to talk about how
      he's risking his life for a free Iraq," said Bush, "and Sen. Kerry held a press
      conference to question [his] credibility."

      Alawi, too, piled on: "When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in
      the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence."

      Cheney was brutal: "I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Sen. Kerry
      showed for this man of courage ... Iyad Allawi is our ally ... John Kerry is
      trying to tear him down and to trash all the good that has been
      accomplished ... His words are destructive."

      When Kerry called Allawi America's sock puppet – "you can almost see the hand
      underneath the shirt today moving the lips" – Sen. Orrin Hatch tore into
      him: "You know what is really underneath the shirt of Prime Minister Allawi?
      Scars from an ax attack by Saddam's henchmen. And do you know what is
      underneath those scars? A brave and patriotic Iraqi heart, beholden to no one
      but the cause of a free Iraq."

      "When you undermine our principal ally in a war against terror and tyranny,"
      roared Hatch, "you are undermining our cause" – i.e., John Kerry is giving aid
      and comfort to the enemy.

      Indeed, if you trash our allies in Iraq as "some trumped-up, so-called
      coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted," as Kerry
      did, call Iraq's prime minister a sock puppet and denounce a sitting president
      as an incompetent war leader, you have to expect what Kerry is now receiving.

      The New York Times may wail about "an un-American way to campaign," but Bush
      and Cheney are fighting for their political lives and places in history. Do not
      expect this pair to go gentle into that good night.

      So, America is going to find out what the candidate they call "the Frenchman"
      is made of. And, frankly, we should, before we go to the polls. Stop the
      whining. Let's get it on.

      © 2004 Creators Syndicate
      • Gość: MM Re: zdradzony przez Busha - Patrick Buchanan IP: *.z64-154-67.customer.algx.net 01.10.04, 19:23
        "When Kerry called Allawi America's sock puppet – "you can almost see the hand
        underneath the shirt today moving the lips" – Sen. Orrin Hatch tore into
        him: "You know what is really underneath the shirt of Prime Minister Allawi?
        Scars from an ax attack by Saddam's henchmen. And do you know what is
        underneath those scars? A brave and patriotic Iraqi heart, beholden to no one
        but the cause of a free Iraq."

        To samo mowili wczesniej o Chalabim. I nie zmienia to faktu, ze sytuacja w
        Iraku sie pogarsza zamiast poprawiac, a pogawedki o stabilizacji i wyborach w
        styczniu to jakis makabryczny zart.
    • Gość: spect Re: uzyteczni idioci Osama Bin L- Patrick Buchanan IP: *.nycmny83.covad.net 01.10.04, 18:56
      The Useful Idiots of Osama bin Laden

      Patrick J. Buchanan

      September 27 2004

      Of all Ronald Reagan's achievements, among the greatest was that this president
      who began his term declaring the Soviet Union an "evil empire" was, by the end
      of his tenure, strolling through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev to the
      cheers of the Russian people.

      That the Cold War ended without our tearing our nations to pieces, as Britain
      and Germany did, was a triumph, especially considering the awesome power of our
      weaponry. And since the Cold War ended, Americans have seemed to understand the
      importance of good and strong relations with Russia. The Washington-Moscow
      connection is among the most critical on the planet.

      Why, then, this raft of attacks on President Vladimir Putin over his efforts to
      consolidate power to combat his terrorist threat?

      In late August, two Russian airliners were brought down in minutes by "Black
      Widow" Chechen terrorists. Days later, a school of Russian children was seized
      by Chechen terrorists loyal to Shamil Basaev, the Osama bin Laden of the
      Caucasus. Hundreds were slaughtered in the most barbaric atrocity since 9-11.

      After these horrors, Putin acted to centralize power over his Balkanizing
      country. He called on parliament to approve a plan to let him name the
      governors of Russia's 89 provinces, rather than have them elected. Most of the
      governors approved. But Western elites are howling as though Putin were using
      the Beslan horror as Hitler used the Reichstag fire – to railroad his rivals to
      Dachau.

      In the Washington Post, Robert Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and
      the Weekly Standard calls Putin's plan an "unambiguous step toward tyranny in
      Russia." Putin "is imposing dictatorship," rails Kagan. "Putin is not
      really 'with us' ... A dictatorial Russia is at least as dangerous as a
      dictatorial Iraq ... A Russian dictatorship can never be a reliable ally of the
      United States."

      "[T]he aspiring dictator of Russia has forced President Bush to reveal how
      committed he really is to the cause of democracy around the world." Kagan
      demanded that Bush denounce Putin – which Bush and Colin Powell both mildly
      did, infuriating Moscow – and even consider sanctions against Russia.

      Query: Have we lost our minds? In Russia, what is vital to us is that we have a
      stable, friendly government and reliable partner in combating terrorism. How
      Russia chooses its regional or provincial leaders or parliament is none of our
      business. What are Western media and politicians doing hectoring Putin and
      mucking around in Russia's internal affairs?

      British journalist John Laughlin has looked behind the attacks on Putin and
      discovered the "oligarchs" – Russian billionaires who looted the privatized
      assets of the old Soviet Union, men like Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail
      Khordokovsky. Putin has run them out of Russian or locked them up. And they
      have used their vast fortunes to buy up intellectuals in Western capitals to
      agitate against him.

      Also agitating against Putin is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a
      front group of neocons such as Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Michael Ledeen and
      Kenneth ("Cakewalk") Adelman.

      ACPC wants Bush to cut Putin adrift in the name of democracy. These are the
      same ideologues who engineered the war to "democratize" Iraq and prevailed on
      Bush to declare "world democratic revolution" the overarching goal of his
      foreign policy.

      These neoconservatives are demanding that Putin negotiate with the Chechens
      rebels. Many favor a NATO presence in Chechnya along the lines of the NATO
      missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

      Putin sees them as pressuring him to negotiate with child-murderers and as
      pursuing a devious Western strategy to further weaken and break up Russia. In
      interviews, he has expressed a growing bitterness toward the West – reacting
      just as Andrew Jackson would have if Czar Nicholas I had loudly demanded that
      Jackson sit down and start negotiating with the Cherokees.

      But the larger question is: Why is Bush still listening to these people? These
      were the propagandists and agitators for the war in Iraq that may yet cost him
      his presidency. Nothing they promised has been delivered. They constantly
      undercut relations with our European allies with their insults. They persuaded
      Bush to outsource Middle East policy to Sharon, to our national detriment.

      Now, they are pushing Bush to distance ourselves from, if not to destabilize
      Saudi Arabia and Russia.

      Why does Bush continue to heed men whose policies have radicalized the Middle
      East and converted much of the Islamic world into a giant recruiting station
      for Osama bin Laden?


Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się


Nakarm Pajacyka