America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by usahog. 23 replies replies.
In case you missed Pat Buchanan
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
AVB Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 6:26 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
on Meet The Press this past Sunday:

MR. RUSSERT: Pat Buchanan, in your book, "Where the Right Went Wrong," you write the following: "In 2003, the United States invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not want war with us to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have. ... Now our nation is tied down, our Army is being daily bled in a war to create democracy in a country where it has never before existed. ... With the guerrilla war, U.S. prestige has plummeted."

You go on to write that Iraq was, "...the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years, a mistake more costly than Vietnam."

MR. PAT BUCHANAN: Certainly, Tim, I believe it is an unnecessary war; it is an unwise war. The United States, by invading that country and taking over its capital, we have inflamed the entire Middle East and Arab and Islamic world. American prestige and support for the president and the United States has never been lower in that part of the world. And Mr. Rumsfeld's question has been answered.

He asked, "Have we been creating more terrorists than we are killing?" When he said that, some 5,000 insurgents were said to be in Baghdad by General Abizaid. The latest count is 20,000. I believe this war itself is creating a pool, a spawning pool out of which Osama bin Laden can draw recruits. I think that there has been nothing that has done more to put Osama bin Laden, if you will, in the mainstream of the Arab cause of nationalism than what appears to the Arabs to be to be a near-imperial adventure by the United States in Iraq.

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 6:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
AVB

pat, are you another one of those unpatriotic, liberal pinko hippies? don't you support the troops. you can't go around slandering the administration's cause-celeb.

did someone give him a shot of truth serum?
usahog Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 6:59 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
So what do you all suggest to apease the radical islamic's?? bring the War to American soil?? are you going to grab up your muskets and fight them off your doorstep?? out of your woods, neightborhood??

Give me a break Pat Buchanan is still pissing vinigar after his lost bid for presidency....

I Thank God for keeping Al Gore out of the White House!!!!

Hog
rastusmcnair Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 8:08 AM EST
Joined: 03-01-2003
Posts: 1,845
I'm stunned. I actually agree with Pat Buchannan.


I never thought I'd see THAT day.
Sylance Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 8:23 AM EST
Joined: 06-19-2003
Posts: 592
Hog,

If the liberals have their way, we'll be fighting them on our soil with rocks because they'll have stripped our guns away. It's all a fear of power, plain and simple. Some of them are terrified of America's military power... and usually these same people are terrified of our individual right to own firearms. Fear of power because they have none of their own… they gave that away when they decided to become a liberal.
bloody spaniard Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 8:40 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Buchanan was ahead of his time!
Alas, the Republican party has abandoned its core constituency.
Bravo Pat- to hell with this "Democrat Lite" party! We're jumping ship with you, bro!!
AVB Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 8:40 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
Somehow I doubt that Pat Buchanan has a fear of power. Feel free to prove differently though.
eleltea Offline
#8 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 9:10 AM EST
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
To put it in context, Pat is an isolationist and always has been. His position on Iraq would be the same as his position on Afghanistan or Nazi Germany. Some of you probably wouldn't agree with what he would prefer to use U. S. troops around the world for --- sealing off the borders, north and south.
eleltea Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 9:12 AM EST
Joined: 03-03-2002
Posts: 4,562
To put it in context, Pat is an isolationist and always has been. His position on Iraq would be the same as his position on Afghanistan or Nazi Germany. Some of you probably wouldn't agree with what he would prefer U. S. troops from around the world be used for --- sealing off the borders, north and south.
AVB Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 9:13 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
I wouldn’t mind using some troops to close off that sieve we call a southern border. They might even get in some good target practice.
JonR Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 9:26 AM EST
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
pat buchwildcannon, is a sore loser whose own party gave him the boot.

Jonr

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#12 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 11:13 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
AVB

sealing the border, i agree with you

"They might even get in some good target practice."

not a nice suggestion. be kind!
usahog Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 11:28 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Now you all sound a bit rash...

I don't believe in sealing the boarder... but enforcing it.. meaning adding more boarder patrols as when your buddy clinton cut them back, But I've worked with allot of Mexican folks and they work better then liberals who want to be spoon fed by the goverenment then b!tch about the mexicans taking their jobs away.. LMAO!!!!
9.00 an hour isn't good enough WHAYYYY WHAYYYYYYY I don't wanna work unless I have to!!!! Thats Not My Job!!!! all the crying BS you hear from these Lefty's LMAO!!!! Now lets seal off the Canadian Boarders... then we won't have more liberals entering the mainstream Country that they hate so much!!! and we can escort all these Rightious Liberals out...

Hog
usahog Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 11:29 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Now you all sound a bit rash...

I don't believe in sealing the boarder... but enforcing it.. meaning adding more boarder patrols as when your buddy clinton cut them back, But I've worked with allot of Mexican folks and they work better then liberals who want to be spoon fed by the goverenment then b!tch about the mexicans taking their jobs away.. LMAO!!!!
9.00 an hour isn't good enough WHAYYYY WHAYYYYYYY I don't wanna work unless I have to!!!! Thats Not My Job!!!! all the crying BS you hear from these Lefty's LMAO!!!! Now lets seal off the Canadian Boarders... then we won't have more liberals entering the mainstream Country that they hate so much!!! and we can escort all these Rightious Liberals out...

Hog
AVB Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 12:58 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
Wrong again Hog. Under Clinton the size of the Border Patrol increased by 15 times the size of when he took office. I do wish you would check your facts sometimes.


As of September of 1995, the Border Patrol had 530 agents. From the start of the Clinton administration, a $500 million crackdown on illegal immigration was put into effect, most of that money put into the Border Patrol. "Operation Gatekeeper" (1994)financed new lights, fencing, vehicles, equipment, and agents. It was the most extensive crackdown ever made against illegal immigrants. Robert Bach, the top policy and planning official for the immigration agency states, "It is a wonderful progress in an area where, frankly, most of us never believed that government intervention like this would work", "This is historic. These routes of travel that Mexicans have been using for decades. We have broken that up." After only one year of "Operation Gatekeeper," the size of the Border Patrol has doubled (1995). The amount of immigrants caught has also almost doubled.

By 1999 the Border patrol had grown to just under 8,000 agents. The funding for an additional 1,000 agents was approved however, The Clinton administration decided to hire only an additional 200 agents.

In fiscal 2000 funding was still approved for the hiring of another 1,000 agents through 2001 however, once again, the administration decided not to further increase the size of the Border Patrol.

usahog Offline
#16 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 1:17 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
So then what are you librals b!tching about?? clinton has a handle on it...

why should we put American soldiers at our boarders anyway??

Hog
AVB Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 2:44 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
It just goes to prove your statement of: "I don't believe in sealing the boarder... but enforcing it.. meaning adding more boarder patrols as when your buddy clinton cut them back" is blatently false.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be more but why don't you tell me how much GW has expanded the Border Patrol?
usahog Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Sep 7 2004, 3:23 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
I'm not worried about the Boarder Southern Boarder that is.. I don't mind working with Mexicans... as matter fact I would rather work with them folks rather then work with a bunch of left handed liberal whiny ass SOB's any day... at least they work instead of looking for a way out of working.... or trying to hurt themselves to draw some workmans comp. on the company!!!

remember they take up the slack on the Jobs many liberals wouldn't do!!!! then sit back and b!tch because their taking away the jobs LMAO!!!!

write your congressman!!!!

Hog
AVB Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Sep 8 2004, 4:17 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
You didn't answer the question.
usahog Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Sep 8 2004, 6:34 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
"By 1999 the Border patrol had grown to just under 8,000 agents. The funding for an additional 1,000 agents was approved however, The Clinton administration decided to hire only an additional 200 agents."

FACTS ( http://www.visalaw.com/99oct/21oct99.html )
The principal features of Operation Gatekeeper have been a dramatic increase in the number of Border Patrol agents stationed in the San Diego area and an increase in the amount of high-tech surveillance equipment used in patrolling the border. The overall budget for the Border Patrol has increased from $374 million in 1994 to $952 million this year, and the number of Border Patrol agents stationed in the southwest has also doubled.
However, this news is dampened by the concurrent increase in overall arrests for illegal entry along the entire US-Mexico border. During 1999 there were about 1.5 million arrests along the border, which is 20% more than in 1994, Operation Gatekeeper’s first year. Another drawback to the success of the program is the increasing number of people who have died attempting to cross the border in more remote locations. Since the program went into effect, at least 444 people have died.

As manpower and technology increase at populated border crossings such as San Diego and El Paso, those seeking to cross are pushed into more and more isolated regions where they suffer from heat and exposure. The increased difficulty in crossing has led to growth in the smuggling business. According to Jordan Budd, an ACLU attorney in the San Diego area, “Operation Gatekeeper has merely shifted the problem from where the migration happens most significantly in the public eye to where it is less noticed.”

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=fp-pull-web-t&p=Operation+Gatekeeper

The Fact is Operation GateKeeper was a flop and Clintons Administration through money at it to "Fix The Problem" as he did everything else accept the Military...

In fiscal 2000 funding was still approved for the hiring of another 1,000 agents through 2001 however, once again, the administration decided not to further increase the size of the Border Patrol.
(This was because the Bush Administration was doing away with the screwed up program... Tell it like it is... It soon went under the control of Homeland Security

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=24&content=3355
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be used to increase border surveillance of illegal activities. Additional helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft will also be deployed.

"We believe the use of UAVs and increased aviation operations will greatly enhance the capabilities of the more than 200 additionally deployed Border Patrol agents bringing the Tucson Sector to more than 2000 strong," said Under Secretary Hutchinson. "Increasing the capacity of our detention and removal facilities along with a focused effort with the government of Mexico to use every available tool to break the cycle of death to migrants in these dangerous terrains where smugglers value profits more than human life will be used."

Fact Sheet: Arizona Border Control Initiative Goals
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=24&content=3357


and one more thing Pat Buchanan is still an Idiot...
buy his book and read it...He is a Socialist, and he's still whining about losing his bid for president...

Hog
usahog Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Sep 8 2004, 8:22 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
No Comment??

Hog
AVB Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Sep 8 2004, 8:38 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
I guess I still could say you didn't answer the question. How many agents has GW hired? If he didn't hire many how much money did he "throw at the problem" as you put it?

I even like the fact you're using an ACLU lawyer quotes in your reply. I'll remember that next time the ACLU comes up and you comment.

"The Fact is Operation GateKeeper was a flop and Clintons Administration through money at it to "Fix The Problem" as he did everything else accept the Military... "

Is the above a quote or just your opinion?


"In fiscal 2000 funding was still approved for the hiring of another 1,000 agents through 2001 however, once again, the administration decided not to further increase the size of the Border Patrol." (my quote)

"(This was because the Bush Administration was doing away with the screwed up program... Tell it like it is... It soon went under the control of Homeland Security " (your quote)

Please tell me how Bush knew ahead of time there would be a Department of Homeland Security? He had no control or input of the Fiscal 2000 budget that went into effect in October 1999. The Fiscal 2001 budget started in October 2000 and Bush wasn't sworn in until January 2001. I'd be interested in knowing how he affected the bugdet process for those two years.

Now that I've "told it like it is" I'm waiting for your spin.


Herr Rabbit Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Sep 8 2004, 9:24 AM EST
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
Pat suddenly gets a lot more air time now. Well, at least he's found a formula to make his career.
usahog Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Sep 8 2004, 9:34 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=fp-pull-web-t&p=Operation+Gatekeeper

The Fact is Operation GateKeeper was a flop and Clintons Administration through money at it to "Fix The Problem" as he did everything else accept the Military... is my PO....


Bush didn't know ahead of time.. what he did know is that the Operation Gatekeeper program was not working and was a flop... as proven read the articles in the link I provided above....

as far as a spin... there isn't one..

read the other links I posted they are informative to how the Government is handling these issue's now...

Hog
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top