Pat Buchanan: What Would America Fight For?

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

By Patrick Buchanan

"What Would America Fight For?"

That question shouts from the cover of this week's Economist. It is, asserts the magazine, "the question haunting its allies."

While most agree that America would fight to defend her treaty allies and to protect vital interests if imperiled, the question is raised by President Obama's reticence in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria.

Asked in Manila how he answers critics who say his foreign policy appears to be one of "weakness," the president, stung, replied
:

"Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question ... I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we've just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?

"[M]ost of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people had no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests.

"[M]any who were proponents of ... a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven't really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again."

Full piece: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/is-obama-right-about-war.html

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Just think if McCain or Romney had been President? The nukes probably would have been flying long ago.

Buchanan says Rand is the only Republican who is not as insane as McCain and the rest, but I don't think he's ever sounded as much like his father as Obama does here:

"[M]any who were proponents of ... a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven't really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again."

What amazes me is how people like Obama and maybe Rand if we're lucky can promote 95% of the Deep State's program of world domination and then all of a sudden start to put the breaks on for purely practical reasons AND SOUND LIKE RON PAUL when they do it. And then people like Pat Buchanan and Justin Raimondo have to tell us "Thank God for Obama and Rand, otherwise McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Hitlery would have launched the nukes by now!"

I'm not saying they're totally wrong but 95% of the Deep State is still intact. They've just slowed down the rate of growth of the Deep State the same way the Fed will occasionally slow the rate of growth of the money supply or the Congress will slow the rate of growth of the budget or debt.

They're actually helping the Deep State by reigning in its growth rate and stopping it from spinning out of control.

I'm not saying I'd rather be incinerated, but I really think that when Obama or Rand all of a sudden make a Ron Paul-worthy statement like Obama did above after months of uniterrupted toeing of the Deep State-party line, it strikes me as just another nasty Orwellian newspeak device. The purpose is to create cognitive dissonance where they gaslight us into holding contradictory thoughts in our minds about the most important issues such as war and peace.

 

[Anti Federalist]

"What Would America Fight For?"

To defend our homes or the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is a racket. - Smedley Butler

 

[acptulsa]

The purpose is to create cognitive dissonance where they gaslight us into holding contradictory thoughts in our minds about the most important issues such as war and peace.

+rep

You had me until here. The purpose is to 'gaslight' us into thinking they hold contradictory thoughts about war and peace. You know, like when they gave Obama the Nobel.

Never before has a president spent his entire eight years in office presiding over continual war--not even just one war, much less two. Obama is the first president in U.S. history to do that. It has never happened before. The next time you encounter someone toting the establishment water pail and telling you what a man of peace Obama is, that simple and true fact just might cure them of their cognitive dissonance...

 

[anaconda]

Asked in Manila how he answers critics who say his foreign policy appears to be one of "weakness," the president, stung, replied:

"Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question ... I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we've just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?

Nice that the Council On Foreign Relations have apparently given Soetoro instructions to play the pacifist role for now, after getting mercilessly swatted down by The American People on Syria, and with non-intervention being served up as a hot topic for 2016.