Reply to Buchanan’s insane Blame America First, Blame Georgia Second opinions

President Obama is busy turning the US into the United Socialist States of America and denouncing capitalism and limited government, Iran is racing to acquire a nuclear weapon, and what is Pat Buchanan doing?

He spends his time, and devotes his nationally-published columns these days, to attacking his fellow Republicans and robust foreign policies, while promoting his insane Blame America First opinions which he shares with Ron Paul and his minions.

On December 6th, one day before the 70th anniversary of the unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Buchanan completely rewrote history, claiming that the US was solely to blame for the attack, that it provoked Japan to do so with sanctions, and that Japan was merely an aggrieved party driven to this attack by the sanctions.

This complete revision/rewriting of history is in line with Buchanan’s insane Blame America First isolationist ideology, but it’s also a blatant lie.

The US did impose biting sanctions on Japan – but this didn’t happen in a vacuum. The sanctions were the result of Japan’s repeated aggression against, and huge war crimes in, other Asian countries, including (and most notably) China, where the Japanese exterminated at least 10 million people, 4 million more people than the victims of the German-perpetrated Holocaust. Indeed, the entire genocide perpetrated by the Japanese in Asia is now known as the Asian Holocaust, and it has made the Japanese hated throughout Eastern Asia (including in Korea, China, and the Philippines) to this day. But genocide wasn’t the only war crime the Japanese perpetrated. Rape, enslaving hundreds of thousands of women as prostitutes for Japanese soldiers, torture, destruction of property, and forcible deportations were also standard operating procedures for the Japanese military throughout Asia – in Korea, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. And this was ongoing ever since the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, with other countries falling under Japan’s yoke later. Their war crimes were so huge that after the war, American military tribunals sentenced 925 Japanese war criminals to death.

So American sanctions were fully justified. But Buchanan disagrees and believes that the Japanese were good guys whom the US needlessly antagonized and provoked to attack Pearl Harbor. He blames the attack EXCLUSIVELY on the US. Like Ron Paul, and like the isolationists of the WW2 era, he’s absolutely opposed to any US involvement – military or diplomatic – anywhere abroad, even if other countries are perpetrating aggression and war crimes against other nations. By Buchanan and Paul, as by the isolationists of the WW2 times, that’s perfectly fine – as long as the United States proper is not attacked. And in Buchanan’s case, if the US IS attacked, that’s exclusively America’s fault according to him.

Buchanan’s insane Blame America First ideology was on display again yesterday, on Dec. 8th, when Townhall and HumanEvents published yet another ridiculous screed of his. Titled “Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul”, it tries to portray conservative hero Marco Rubio (R-FL) as a hyperinterventionist crusader itching for a war with Russia, a George W. Bush on steroids, while praising libertarian Senator Rand Paul (Ron Paul’s son and a 21st century counterpart of Sen. Gerald Nye) as a hero constraining Rubio’s supposed crusades. Writes Buchanan:

“Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.

Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann’s ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it — Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio’s effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S. soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.

Back in 2008, however, as Bush was confining himself to protesting the excesses of Russia’s response, his ex-U.N. ambassador was full of righteous rage and ready for military action.

In the London Telegraph, Aug. 15, 2008, John Bolton declared that Russia had conducted an “invasion,” that Georgia had been a “victim of aggression,” that America had “fiddled while Georgia burned,” that we had played the “paper tiger”when faced by the snarling Russian Bear.

As for the European Union, in bringing about a ceasefire, it had achieved results “approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich.”

But did not Georgia launch the attack that started the war?

“This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquis of Queensbury’s rule in South Ossetia,” scoffed Bolton. Russia planned this “rape” because brave little Georgia refused to be “Finlandized.”

Restoring America’s credibility, said Bolton, now requires “drawing a clear line for Russia” in the Caucasus and elsewhere.”

First of all, the claim repeated by Buchanan throughout his entire article – and originally produced by Russian KGB propaganda – that Georgia started the war is a blatant lie. Georgia had been trying to restore government rule in two breakaway provinces – South Ossetia and Abkhazia – for years. Russia’s aggression was not limited to taking over these provinces (which now are begging Russia to annex them, thus discrediting the myth they want to be independent states that Buchanan is peddling); it was a full-scale aggression against Georgia which featured a full-scale invasion and Russian troops marching up to Tbilisi, being stopped at the last minute by a ceasefire brokered by Nicolas Sarkozy. It was not a mere reaction to Georgia’s deeds; it was a full-blown aggression planned long in advance. In any case, this was Georgia’s own internal affair. It was none of Russia’s business. There was absolutely NO justification for what Russia did.

Secondly, Buchanan’s claim that Georgia’s security is “none of our business” is both treasonous and a part of the Kremlin’s propaganda. It is also factually wrong. Georgia is the country that hosts the ONLY Asia-Europe pipelines not controlled by the Kremlin. All others, which go through Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltic Sea, are controlled by Russia (Lukashenko has sold BelTransGaz to Moscow). If the Kremlin is allowed to control Georgia’s pipelines, it will subjugate and “Finlandize” all of Europe; and if that happens, America’s security WILL be adversely affected, as former allies will be turned into Russia’s protectorates. But of course, in Buchanan’s fantasy world, nothing outside America’s borders is a threat to the US.

So Bolton was right: Russia was to blame for the war; Georgia IS an important country; and the West’s response was an act of appeasement. Furthermore, for Buchanan to cynically use the blood of US soldiers for his political purposes is despicable and morally repugnant. No one is talking about involving American troops in a new war. Rubio was merely proposing to extend NATO’s defense guarantee to Georgia. NATO has, to this day, never been attacked by a conventional enemy and has successfully kept the peace in Europe since 1949. Moreover, a CREDIBLE defense umbrella, if it were to be extended to Georgia, would PREVENT war, not cause it. But of course, the brainless Pat Buchanan, as a supporter of massive defense cuts, doesn’t understand that. Reagan’s lesson that “peace through strength” works is completely lost on him.

If that weren’t foolish enough, Buchanan slandered John Bolton and the entire GOP:

“And who is John Bolton?

Newt Gingrich told two groups Wednesday he intends to name Bolton secretary of state.

With Newt appointing as America’s first diplomat an uber-hawk who makes Dick Cheney look like Gandhi, and Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team crawling with neocons primed for war with Iran, a vote for the GOP in 2012 looks more and more like a vote for war.

Like the Bourbons of old, the Republican Party seems to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

This, like the rest of his screed, is not only false, it’s not only garbage, it’s not merely ridiculous, it’s insulting and libellous, and constitutes grounds for the GOP to sue Buchanan for libel.

Buchanan claims that a vote for the GOP will look like a vote for war, invoking Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and John Bolton as supposed warmongers who want to take America into some ill-advised wars. That is patently false. What these three politicians advocate is a strong national defense and a confident, robust foreign policy of standing with America’s allies, such as Israel and Georgia, and standing up to rogue regimes like Iran and the Putin regime (which denies its citizens the most basic right – the right to vote in free, fair elections). Specifically, on Iran, they advocate tough measures SHORT OF WAR, such as sanctions (incl. sanctioning the Iranian central bank), developing missile defense, cyber attacks, aiding Iranian opposition groups, and putting MORAL PRESSURE on the Iranian regime in order to end Iran’s nuclear program or at least bring about positive regime change in Iran through nonintervention, peaceful means, just like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did with the Soviet Union. And as they have shown, it IS possible. They toppled the Soviet Union and won the Cold War without firing a shot.

If Gingrich, Bolton, and Romney try the same methods with Iran, they will likely SUCCEED, and if they do, they will topple the Iranian regime without firing a shot. That’s because peace through strength policies WORK WELL. You don’t solve problems and defeat bullies by being weak, disarming yourself, or isolating yourself from the world. You defeat them by standing up courageously to them. As the Romans said, si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war. George Washington agreed, and famously said in 1790 that “to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of keeping the peace.”

Why have Gingrich, Bolton, and Romney earned Buchanan’s ire and slander, then?

Because they have alluded to the possibility that, if (God forbid) all of these non-war options fail, and Iran is still run by the mullahs and doesn’t reverse course, they are prepared, if elected to the helm of the executive branch, to use military force to stop the Iranian nuclear program. And they are right. The US should exhaust all nonwar options before going to war, and should strive as well as it can to avoid bellum with Iran, but if it becomes impossible, if Iran still continues its nuclear weapons program undaunted, the US SHOULD bomb Iran. That should be the LAST RESORT, but it must be on the table. Eliminating this option would mean saying to Iran it has nothing to fear if it doesn’t comply with Western demands to stop developing nuclear weapons.

That, however, doesn’t mean anything to Buchanan, because he still believes and publicly claims that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons (despite tons of evidence that it is), and believes that, in any case, who is the US to say to Iran that it cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons? (Just like Ron Paul.) According to Buchanan, Iran is not a threat to anyone and it would be perfectly fine if Iran acquired nuclear weapons… Buchanan would start worrying only after an Iranian nuke would hit the US, by which time it would be too late.

Buchanan claims that “Republicans, like the Bourbons of old, have learned nothing and have forgotten nothing.” Actually, the one who has learned nothing is Buchanan. Aged 73, born before WW2, he STILL advocates the same failed isolationist and pacifist policies that led to that disastrous war (as well as to other conflicts) and are responsible for the death of over 3,500 American servicemen on 12/7/1941. He still advocates massive defense cuts, the appeasement of America’s enemies (including Russia and Iran), withdrawal of all American troops from all foreign countries (even strategically important ones), termination of all defense commitments to all of America’s allies (even crucial ones and longtime friends such as Japan and South Korea), retrenching behind oceans, isolating America from the rest of the world, and pretending that anything outside America’s borders is not a threat to the US, even if it’s a nuclear-armed missile in Cuba, North Korea, or Iran. In other words, hiding behind oceans and hoping that the crocodile won’t eat us. That is the foreign policy that Buchanan advocates, as does his ideological ally Ron Paul.

Buchanan has learned nothing throughout the 73 years of his lifetime, not even this crucial lesson about isolationism from Ronald Reagan:

“We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.”

I will not even invoke lessons on the subject from President Harry Truman.

So it is Buchanan who, like Bourbons of the Restoration Era (1815-1830), has learned nothing.


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