Buchanan and two columns of great importance

[DWolper]

Pat Buchanan has two new columns that are very worthy of the quick read.

"America's Next War" is a superb piece of writing indicting the necons and their ilk for the quagmire in Iraq and the next war - Iran.

"Enter the "cakewalk" neoconservatives. Though disastrously wrong about Iraq's receptivity to U.S.-imposed democracy, and though they face disgrace and oblivion if Bush loses, they have one last card to play: That is to have America widen her wars with Afghanistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. For the neoconservatives, Iraq was simply Phase II of "World War IV" for imperial domination of the Middle East and serial destruction of the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority."
http://www.theamericancause.org/patamericasnextwarprint.htm

The other is a short piece from his magazine. The column title is "Morning In Which America?"

"If neither party comes up soon with a solution to this crisis of one America steadily rising as the other America slowly sinks, this nation is headed for a time of trouble."
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_08_30/buchanan.html

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. kick!

[DWolper]

2. Thoughts?

The column on the coming war with Iran is the best I have read on the subject. Any thoughts, anyone? Is there anybody here who doubts that it will happen?

[MUSTANG_2004]

3. Iran with the bomb

It's a difficult situation and the unnecessary invasion into Iraq has made it more difficult. I give Buchanan credit for highlighting these issues repeatedly over the last several years.

Destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities (presumably with a missile strike since I doubt Congress would ok another invasion in the Mideast) without provocation is troubling.

On the other hand, Iran with nuclear weapons could turn into a nightmare.

It's unpleasant, and I just hope that Bush dumps his neocons before he tries to deal with Iran.

[theboss]

4. I'm always troubled when I find myself agreeing with Buchanan

Mainly, because I think his ideal to the problems in the Middle East involve Israel being destroyed.

[sadiesworld]

5. Pretty solid assessments, IMHO.

Minor argument w/ him over the "fat" Reagan years, but on the $$ otherwise.

Could electing Kerry and repudiating the * doctrine still work w/ Iran?

I haven't a clue as to why he still supports * over Kerry.