This is conservatism?
By Pat Buchanan
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The Washington Post, as always concerned with fairness and balance, runs a blog called “Right Turn: Jennifer Rubin's Take From a Conservative Perspective.” The blog tells us what The Post regards as conservatism.
This week, Rubin declared that America's “greatest national security threat is Iran.” Do conservatives really believe this?
How is America, with thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, scores of warships in the Med, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, bombers and nuclear subs and land-based missiles able to strike and incinerate Iran within half an hour, threatened by Iran?
Iran has no missile that can reach us, no air force or navy that would survive the first days of war, no nuclear weapons, no bomb-grade uranium from which to build one.
Citing The Associated Press and Times of Israel, Rubin warns us that “Iran has picked 16 new locations for nuclear plants.”
How many nuclear plants does Iran have now? One, Bushehr.
Begun by the Germans under the Shah, Bushehr was not completed until 2011. In their dreams, the Iranians are going to throw up 16 nuclear plants.
Twice Rubin describes our situation today as “scary.”
Remarkable. Our uncles and fathers turned the Empire of the Sun and Third Reich into cinders in four years, and this generation is all wee-weed up over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“For all intents and purposes, (Bibi) Netanyahu is now the West's protector,” says Rubin. How so? Because Obama and Chuck Hagel seem to lack the testosterone “to execute a military strike on Iran.”
Yet, according to the Christian Science Monitor, Bibi first warned in 1992 that Iran was on course to get the bomb — in three to five years! And still no bomb.
And Bibi has since been prime minister twice. Why has he not manned up and dealt with Iran himself? Answer: He wants us to do it.
“With regard to Afghanistan, the president is pulling up stakes prematurely,” says Rubin.
We are in the 12th year of war in Afghanistan and about to leave thousands of troops behind when we depart in 2014. What is she talking about?
“In Iraq, the absence of U.S. forces on the ground has ushered in a new round of sectarian violence and opened the door for Iran's growing violence.”
Where to begin. Shia Iran has influence in Iraq because we invaded Iraq, dethroned Sunni Saddam and presided over the rise to power of the Iraqi Shia majority that now tilts to Iran. That was not the doing of Barack Obama, but of people of the same semi-hysterical mindset as Ms. Rubin.
She writes that for the rest of Obama's term, we “are going to have to rely on France, Israel, our superb (albeit underfunded) military and plain old luck to prevent national security catastrophes.” Is she serious?
Undeniably we face challenges. A debt-deficit crisis that could sink our economy. Al-Qaida in the Maghreb, Africa, Arabia, Iraq and Syria. North Korea's nukes. A clash between China and Japan that drags us in. An unstable Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
But does Iran, a Shia island in a Sunni sea, a country whose major exports, once we get past fossil fuels, are pistachio nuts, carpets and caviar, really pose the greatest national security threat to the world's greatest nation?
Rubin's blog may be The Post's idea of conservatism. Ronald Reagan wouldn't recognize it.
Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Jailed Hribal ‘fine,’ but family ‘terrible’ as answers in stabbing sought
- Five years later, Crosby wants another Cup win
- Starkey: Fleury’s future at stake
- South Fayette parents express dissatisfaction with handling of bullying
- Penguins’ Malkin expects to play in Game 1
- Community turns out for Franklin Regional students’ return to class
- PNC posts 7 percent rise in 1Q profit
- Pirates notebook: Wandy Rodriguez experiencing decline in fastball velocity
- Men charged in Washington Co. girl’s slaying to stand trial
- Blue Jackets confident as they wade into postseason
- Hempfield Area superintendent, business manager quit