Proof that lunacy is not just a moonbat trait
Add Pat Buchanan to the list of anti-Israel columnists that seem to have forgotten that we are currently immersed in a global war on Islamofascism. In this column, Buchanan basically advocated an isolationist policy that, as history has told us, is a policy doomed to failure. He is overtly critical of Israel’s proactive defensive actions and, while at it, takes a stab at Bush’s similar approach. This is my response to some of Buchanan’s comments.
"Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?"
I suppose a better option would be for Israel to simply allow Hezbollah to attack their soldiers unprovoked, kidnap them at will, and maintain a constant threat of attack from just beyond the Lebanon border. Yet, somehow, that’s Israel’s fault? I live about 15 miles from the state line. If there were a terrorist group on the other side with thousands of rockets aimed at my town, I would want something done about it…apparently Pat Buchanan wouldn’t (unless of course it were his town under threat).
"Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?"
Congress hasn’t declared war since 1941, yet that hasn’t stopped us from defending ourselves when the time came. The Constitution does not forbid using military force to protect our interests overseas, Mr. Buchanan.
"none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria,"
Since when does it take an attack to identify a threat? Did Germany attack us in the 1940s? By Buchanan’s reasoning, we wouldn’t have taken any action against the Third Reich until they had conquered Europe and Asia.
"there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel"
Proof? How about 13,000 Iranian-made rockets? Did they spontaneously manifest themselves or did Iran possibly supply them? And these very rockets are killing many Israelis as we speak, yet no one seems to care about that. No, they’re too busy weeping for the terrorists that have clearly bitten off more than they can chew.
"there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty"
And you prefer to wait for proof? That, to me, means waiting until Iran has a nuclear weapon. That’s NOT acceptable. If we do that, then Tel Aviv will be destroyed before we can act. This is foolish and irresponsible. If we have any shred of evidence suggesting Iran is even close to having the bomb, then they must be taken out. Either that, or face a nuclear war.
Mr. Buchanan is as wacked as Howard Dean. Neither one of them have any semblance of a clue regarding the nature of the enemy. They’re still deluded enough to think that diplomacy is an option when dealing with blood-thirsty hoodlums. Their thinking endangers us all and I don’t appreciate it. We ARE at war, gentlemen, despite what you may think, and the enemy will overcome us if we don’t stop them before they become too powerful to stop. Do it now, or wait until they can strike us with WMDs, which do you prefer?
2 comments:
I'm back from vacation/undercover work, ha. Israeli tanks have entered Lebanon this morning. Reports say Iranian soldiers have entered Lebanon from the south. Things are changing fast. Also China is supplying Iran, who in turn is supplying Hezbollah. Israel needs to take this time before Condi arrives to wipe Hezbollah out once and for all.
1. You said: "Congress hasn’t declared war since 1941, yet that hasn’t stopped us from defending ourselves when the time came. The Constitution does not forbid using military force to protect our interests overseas"
But, in fact, the Constitution DOES preclude our president from waging war without congressional approval. The fact that we have allowed our presidents to illegally declare a war in the past does not justify it now.
The Constitution as written by our founders divided war in to two distinct facets: Congress - and Congress only - can declare it and the President can wage it, once declared.
I offer the words of James Madison:
“The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies... The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”
2. You asked: "Since when does it take an attack to identify a threat?"
We ought only attack another sovereign nation as a result of an attack or clearly impending attack because the notion of "pre-emptive war" is an unholy one. It fails to recognize the fallen nature of humanity - our limited genius. We don't attack nations that we think might be a possible threat at some point because it would not be prudent (or conservative) to do so. We may be wrong and even if we weren't, it may still not be the most prudent action to take.
This recognition of the limited nature of our genius and moral integrity is at the heart of conservative thinking and rightly so. We don't know what results may happen as a result of our actions and so we have to be pretty certain before we undertake any action as reckless and wrong as attacking a sovereign nation.
Recent history should teach us this if nothing else.
Post a Comment