Tags: Interview: | Buchanan | Endorses | Bush

Interview: Buchanan Endorses Bush

Sunday, 24 October 2004 12:00 AM

In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Pat tackled some of the most controversial issues America faces and spelled out his solutions in his usual courageous and straight forward manner.

Pat has endorsed President Bush for re-election. He told NewsMax.com why he is backing a president many of whose policies he has vigorously opposed.

The fundamental home of conservatism is the Republican Party and we cannot cede that party to the neoconservatives who have hijacked it. The right approach is now that their policies have failed and are perceived to have failed is to step in and take the party back.

I think there will be some changes made.

I think that the whole Iraq episode has discredited neoconservatism as has the continued loss of manufacturing jobs abroad and the invasion across our southern border and these monstrous deficits.

If the president loses the election it will be because he embraced these neoconservative ideas. I have to believe there are men around him including his father who know what went wrong and who will counsel him what to do right.

That's the first goal. Secondly, the battle for the succession will begin almost as soon as this election ends. True conservatives have to find themselves a candidate to support in 2008.

On big government conservatism however they certainly joined hands with President Bush and they provided him with an intellectual rationale and editorial support - and commentary and printed support for big government conservatism which is a contradiction in terms. I think even there the chickens are coming home to roost.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that a rapidly growing and expanding industrializing China will begin to use its weight and power to assert some of it's old Chinese policies of attaining hegemony over East Asia and seeking world domination itself - to become the dominant power in the world and to begin by reincorporating Taiwan, forcibly if necessary, which could bring them into a direct confrontation with the United States.

This is an area where the next president should sit down with his National Security Council for several nights and review exactly where we are going with China and whether a policy of building China up, which we now have with our $150 billion trade surplus we give them every year - Whether this is in the national interest of the United States.

We are not shipping goods to China so much as we are shipping factories and plants and technology and jobs. It's not true to say that the president has not created jobs since his administration began - He's created tens of millions of jobs - in China.

The prospects for a revival of authentic conservatism have never been better since 9/11 for the simple reason that neoconservatism has conspicuously and blatantly failed. This is why the president is in trouble because the neoconservative policies he has embraced have damaged this country.

White collar outsourcing via the internet is a much more difficult problem. I have not yet thought through a solution to that. And you cannot control the international flow of money but you can to some extent if you are dealing with industries and manufacturing - that's a soluble problem.

What you do with Islamic terrorism is that you isolate the terrorists from the sea in which they swim which is the Islamic world and the Arab world by working with Arab governments and Arab nations that do not support the terrorists.

The president did a good thing in disarming Libya of weapons of mass destruction. That's the right approach. Even working with Iran in Afghanistan was the right approach.

What you don't want is a policy of confrontation with the entire Arab world or a policy of preventive wars to invade Arab countries to rearrange their internal affairs. That will simply turn the entire Arab and Islamic world against you and convert prospective allies into allies of Osama bin Laden which is exactly what has happened in Iraq.

What we want to do is separate Iraqi nationalism from this Islamic fundamentalism which has married itself to Iraqi nationalism in waging war against us. I think Mr. Alawi is moving the right way in that.

I have no use for this Muqtada al-Sadr but there's no evidence he was an enemy of the United States until we arrived in that country. I would like to see his Shiia forces unleashed against the Sunni Muslim Islamists who they don't want running the country any more than we do.

I think that what we've got to do is withdraw ourselves as a unifying adversary for these forces so that they will divide and fight among themselves.

Quite frankly, the Palestinians have been brutally treated and mistreated and they have been dispossessed of their land and denied their rights and they have been persecuted, and the United States should not support a policy of Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands.

We should say that the Israelis have a right to build a fence on their own land to secure themselves but they have no right to build a fence on Palestinian land, that the West bank settlements remain illegal and that the Palestinians have a right to their homeland and a state of their own with its capital in Arab East Jerusalem. If that offends Mr. Sharon it offends him.

It seems to me that that is a policy that is consistent both with the U.S. national interest and with the interests of justice. Where there is no justice there will be no peace.

We cannot tolerate a situation where nightly TV shows Israeli troops using American weapons to shoot down Palestinians who are fighting fundamentally - many of them - for their own legitimate rights.

My point and the point of conservatives is very simple: in all these conflicts in the cultural war the issues should be decided by the people through their elected representatives, in state legislatures and state gubernatorial offices and in congress and in the presidency.

But the Supreme Court has seized and usurped powers away from the legislatures and the legislatures have failed to use their powers to retrieve what rightfully belongs to them.

That's why in my chapter "Congressional Abdication and the Rise of Judicial Dictatorship" I argue for Congress to impose strict restrictions upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all federal courts.

At the state level we need courageous legislators and governors who will defy state court decisions which are inconsistent with the state constitutions. We need to wage peaceful and constitutional war to win back powers that have been usurped unconstitutionally by judges and justices. The failure of conservatives and Republicans to do this is an abject surrender of their responsibility and duty.

We've got tremendous weakness in national politics in both parties. We have blindness as to what is happening to this country when you've got a massive invasion taking place in the southwest and no one has the courage to stop it and everyone is terrified of being called a name if they take a stance against our Israeli policies or our immigration policy or our trade policy.

No one wants to be called a protectionist - so it's very hard be optimistic in the long run. The country resembles 4th century Rome. I'm fearful of what's going to happen, and many young people seem oblivious to what's coming and what they are going to lose. It's not going to be all sweetness and light if they lose this last best hope of earth.


© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Pat tackled some of the most controversial issues America faces and spelled out his solutions in his usual courageous and straight forward manner. Pat has endorsed President Bush for re-election. He told NewsMax.com why he is...
Sunday, 24 October 2004 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved