03/03/15 – Pat Buchanan – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself, WallStreetWindow.com.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Our first guest today is Pat Buchanan, author of The Greatest Comeback, How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create a New Majority.
That's the latest one.
Before that, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, The Death of the West, Suicide of a Superpower, A Republic, Not an Empire, etc., etc., etc., all available at Amazon, of course.
Welcome back to the show, Pat.
How are you doing?
Doing just fine.
How are you, Scott?
I'm doing great.
I appreciate you joining us on the show today.
Sure.
And I decided I wanted to get you on to talk about Russia and Ukraine last week, and then it just so happens I have you on just after Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the Congress about Iran and the nuclear program this morning.
So it seems timely.
I could bring up a question I've long wanted to ask you.
I was just in junior high, or no, I was a freshman in high school in the first Gulf War.
And I only found out much later on even about the controversy of your statement on the McLaughlin Group back then.
I don't know if it was in 1990 or in 91, during the buildup to the war, that Congress is Israeli occupied territory.
And of course, you've got yourself in a world worth of trouble over that and that kind of thing.
But the point I'm trying to get to is, I was just in high school, but I was paying close attention to that war, in the run up to that war and all that.
And I never heard mention one of the neoconservatives, of the Israel lobby, of the Israeli government and their interest in Operation Desert Storm, the first war against Iraq back in 1991.
And if I had heard you say that on the McLaughlin Group, I wouldn't have known what you were talking about.
So I know about the Israel lobby and their influence these days, especially post-September 11th era and all that.
But can you educate me a bit about what was going on back in 1990, 91, and how much say the Israeli lobby had over that war?
Well, it was, that was not so much, you know, the statement I made that about the Israeli occupied territory, I think had to do with a vote in Congress on some legislation which was favored by the Israeli lobby.
It was not exactly, I believe, the vote on the war.
And that came after August.
I mean, I think that...
Oh, I'm sorry.
I misunderstood you.
But that's all right.
But here's the thing.
Let me say this.
There's no doubt that in the...
I opposed, and Robert Novak did, and we had a small group of paleoconservatives.
We opposed the war because we thought that, as I argued, I said, if we go in here, it's going to be the first Arab-American war.
We're going to go into this region, and we're never going to get out.
And what Saddam Hussein did, clearly, was an act of aggression when he seized Kuwait.
And as I say, there were a number of us who opposed it, and it was astonishingly...
I talked to Sam Nunn, as I recall, back then, and he opposed it himself.
And I believe he felt that that vote against that war, which turned out to be a huge success, was a reason he didn't run for president in 1992, run for the Democratic nomination.
So that was a very controversial issue over...
But I don't think the Kuwait war had as much to do with the Israeli lobby as the...
And certainly, George H.W. Bush was at odds, then, with the Israeli government and with Yitzhak Shamir.
So I think that's not exactly on target.
Okay, good.
Well, thanks for clarifying that for me.
So the comment about Israeli occupied territory, that may have been about the actual occupied territories or something.
It's not in reference to their role in the...
Let me trade out here.
There's no doubt I called the Capitol Hill Israeli occupied territory, but it had to do with another issue.
The phrase I used on the McLaughlin group, and I got into an argument with Mort Kondracki, who had written an editorial calling for the Americans to attack Saddam Hussein, when we only had the 82nd Airborne in Saudi Arabia, and the Iraqis had 200,000 troops in Kuwait, and our guys couldn't attack with a light division against the heavy divisions, and we didn't attack for many more months, six more months.
But I said, the only people that want war now is the Israeli Defense Ministry and its Amen Corner in the United States.
So I think the Amen Corner comment was the one that came at the time of that war.
I see.
And so, well, so, and I know a little bit of the history of the tension between the Bush senior administration and the Shamir government in Israel at the time, but...
Yeah, that was over loan guarantees that fall.
And again, I don't know that the Israeli lobby played that big a role in the...
I'm certain they were in favor of the Americans going into Kuwait and smashing Saddam Hussein.
They detested them, and many Americans favored that war.
But again, it was something like a 52 to 48 vote in the Senate.
Right.
So, so even if they played a slight role, it may have been a decisive one back then for having...
I don't think so.
I think that's the wrong...
We're talking about the wrong war here in this sense.
I knew that we were going to go to war when I heard George Bush, who I knew well, and I had...
That was before I ran against him, and when he said in August, after Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait early in August, as I recall, Margaret Thatcher said, don't go wobbly, George.
A famous quote.
I don't think the president liked it, but the president himself said, this will not stand in August.
And immediately, because George Bush was a serious man, senior, when he said that, I said, we're going...
If Saddam Hussein doesn't get up and get out of Kuwait, we're going in.
And when he sent, I knew that he was actually going to go in when they sent that big armored division down from Germany after November.
And I believe after the elections of 1990, he sent that big armored division down there.
The only reason for that was to move on in, and Schwarzkopf did in 1991.
And then, of course, I ran against President Bush in 1992, and my goodness, that was 1992.
And when the war went on, I believe, and then we did pretty well against Bush in New Hampshire, where it was not even an issue.
Right.
And now, I remember reading actually fairly recently about Bob Novak complaining, your friend, fellow paleocon Bob Novak, complaining that Saddam Hussein was really trying to negotiate a way out of Kuwait, if he could just save a little bit of face, but that Bush senior really wouldn't hear it.
I think that's, my feeling is that is right, that Saddam Hussein had gotten himself out there and he couldn't beat the United States.
And Bush put together a 28-nation coalition.
They even had Hafez al-Assad in there sending 4,000 Syrian troops.
The only nation over there that incidentally that was not part of our coalition was Jordan, the king of Jordan, because he had real sympathies for Iraq.
Inside Jordan, among the Berbers, I believe, who were loyal to the king, he declared neutrality, and I mentioned that in a recent column.
But again, I don't think the overall, that the Israeli lobby was as prominent an issue in the 1991 war.
What about the neoconservative movement?
Because they're pretty much for a hawkish position between anyone and anyone, whether Israel's involved or not, right?
Well, yeah, there's no question they would be all for the war.
There's no doubt about that.
Yeah.
You're just saying they weren't the force behind it like in 2003.
Well, they didn't have the influence in George Bush senior's administration.
You know, Scowcroft was National Security Advisor there, and Jim Baker was the Secretary of State, and he was no enthusiast of the Israelis, to be quite frank.
I mean, he had some very tough statements to make about them.
And so I don't think George H.W. Bush, to say that he was heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby is a mistake.
Well, I guess I was thinking more of Congress and kind of the rest of the consensus in D.C. and that sort of thing.
But anyway, I'm glad I had a chance to get you to clarify that for me.
Sure.
I'm glad the music's playing.
But when we get back, we're going to figure out why Pat Buchanan has gone soft on Iran and the Soviet Union.
I mean, Russia.
Right after this.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for Liberty.me, the social network and community based publishing platform for the liberty minded.
Liberty.me combines the best of social media technology all in one place and features classes, discussions, guides, events, publishing, podcasts, and so much more.
And Jeffrey Tucker and I are starting a new monthly show at Liberty.me, Eye on the Empire.
It's just four bucks a month if you use promo code Scott when you sign up.
And hey, once you do, add me as a friend on there at Scott Horton, Liberty.me.
Be free.
Liberty.me.
All right, you guys, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show, talking with Pat Buchanan about the Israel lobby and American foreign policy.
And now.
So, Pat, tell me, are you in favor of this Iran nuclear deal that Obama's negotiating?
Well, I am in favor of a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear program.
I would answer that, yes.
I hope it's a good, solid deal.
And I think a good deal is certainly better than no deal, because I think that would put us on the road to more sanctions, confrontation and possibly war.
All right.
All right.
Well, I mean, we all know that you're a conservative Republican, American patriotic type.
And yet you seem to be, you know, separating yourself from the conservative consensus here that this deal is a bad deal and it's worse than no deal and that we're setting up our friends the Israelis to be annihilated at the hands of Iranian nuclear warfare.
You don't believe that hype?
No.
I don't.
I don't think I don't.
I just I just don't concur with that.
The many of the some of the arguments are that, you know, the the Ayatollah Khomeini is a or how many is the is basically this wild, radical Islamist who is desperate to get an atom bomb.
And when he does, he'll immediately drop it on Israel.
But that would lead to the immediate annihilation of Iran.
The Israelis have some 200 nuclear weapons.
That's the average amount people agree that they've got.
I don't think they're going to do that.
I think the Iranians want a deal both to get the sanctions lifted.
I'm not sure they want a nuclear weapon right now or that they want a nuclear weapon.
Our own intelligence agency, as well as Mossad, have said that they do not see evidence that the Iranians intend to enrich uranium to the 90 percent needed for a bomb.
They have never done so.
They have given up their 20 percent uranium.
I think the Iranians are they're very tough minded, they're brutal, and they've got a bad track record.
But I think they see themselves correctly in an era of peace in the Gulf, no war with the Americans, certainly as because they're the largest country, they're the most populous country, they're the most advanced there.
And they've got a new ally, thanks to George W. Bush in Baghdad.
They see themselves as becoming the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, down the road, and the leader of the Shia world, certainly, and a major force in the world.
But to get in a war with the United States would put at peril all of that.
Yeah, it seems like their best reason to even consider nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein is long gone now.
And boy, what a buffer do they have to their west, huh?
Well, they've got a buffer to their west, and I heard Netanyahu today, and he's correct that they have a buffer in Hafez al-Assad.
But Hafez al-Assad was our ally in the Gulf War, and Iran's ally because he's under threat of being overthrown and murdered, and he's a Shia, and he's an Alawite, and that's only about 15 percent of the population, and so he and Iran are allies for that reason.
And as for Hezbollah in Lebanon, they also are allies of Hafez al-Assad, because they are Shia as well.
But I mean, even General Rabin, when he went into Lebanon, or rather, they sent Ariel Sharon into Lebanon in the early 1980s, I remember Prime Minister Rabin said, we let the Shia genie out of the bottle.
That's the origins of Hezbollah.
So I see the Shia, who are about 15 percent of the Muslims worldwide, and their leader is clearly Iran, as much more on the defensive in the Sunni-Shia war that's in the Islamic world, in which the United States, I think, we should stay aloof.
I mean, if you take a look at the, who is the most dangerous enemy to the United States of America?
That's the way I look at it.
And Al-Qaeda took down the Twin Towers, and Al-Qaeda has done most of these terrorist attacks in the West, and they're number one.
And I would put ISIS now as trying to rival them, and ISIS is number two.
But in that particular conflict, as even Bibi Netanyahu said, Iran is the enemy of our enemy, but he says Iran is still our enemy.
Well, we certainly are not going to fight both sides in Iraq, and both sides in Syria.
And if you have to pick and choose, I mean, I would prefer the present government of Iraq to ISIS, and the present government of Syria to ISIS, and so that's why I don't share the view that we ought to be at war with either, that we should not be at war with the regime in Damascus.
Alright, and now people, in case you're young and you're not familiar, Pat Buchanan worked for Richard Nixon and for Ronald Reagan, and that means that you were in the Reagan administration just after the Iranian revolution, and when anti-Iranian tensions were at their very highest.
So we would be naive to think that you were naive about the revolutionary Islamist government in Tehran.
Well, certainly, I mean, they took our people hostage, and under Jimmy Carter, and frankly when did they let them go?
It's when Ronald Reagan raised his hand to take the oath, because they assumed, I think quite correctly, that they would have been given a 48-hour ultimatum to turn our people loose, and if they hadn't, I think President Reagan would have blockaded them, or could have blockaded them.
And then if they murdered our hostages, which they could have done, 52 American diplomats, I think Karg Island would have gone up in flames.
But Iran clearly was, it came into power, one of its raison d'etre, its very reason for being, was to confront the great Satan and the United States of America, but this is 35 years ago, and I think Iran sees its interest now in the region in a different light, and I think they do want a deal, and I'm willing to look at a deal, I don't want eternal enmity between us and Iran, I mean, I was there when Richard Nixon, I was in China with Richard Nixon when 20 years after Mao Zedong was, you know, killing American soldiers in Korea and brainwashing our prisoners.
Yeah, now in the chat room they're insisting I call you out on the October surprise there, and the deal made to release the hostages before Reagan was even inaugurated, what do you say to that, Pat?
You mean the October surprise?
You mean they released the hostages before Reagan took the oath of office as President of the United States?
I mean, what do you mean in terms of an October surprise?
Everybody was talking about an October surprise, but it didn't happen.
Yeah, well I guess, yeah, the reporting is, and I don't have it all in front of me, but that they had already made a deal with the Iranians to not release the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated.
I don't believe that.
I mean, I've heard the reports, I mean, the Vice President-elect, I mean, or George Bush or somebody flew to Paris and cut a deal.
That's what they said.
I don't believe it.
No?
All right.
All right, now, so let me ask you about America's relationship with Russia right now.
It seems like the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine is more or less holding, and some of the statements of the Germans and the French as they were going to make this deal, they seem to be, you know, putting normal political politeness aside, and they're pretty blunt about how the narrative of Russian aggression here is wrong, and we want to put an end to this conflict right now.
And so my question for you is, do you think that's going to stick?
Are European allies' interests in peace in eastern Europe, is that going to take precedence over, you know, American adventurism at this point, do you think?
I think the French and the Germans do want a deal, they do want a truce.
I think a truce would be a good thing.
There have been something close to 6,000 dead in this war of secession in the Donbass.
And I would, I hope it sticks, because I think if it goes on and on, the result is going to be more dead Ukrainians, both rebels and loyalists, and not only soldiers but civilians as well.
And if it spikes upward, I do think that the Russians could take Mariupol and get a land bridge to Crimea.
So I think the deal, the truth is that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia, I mean, this is very close to Russian territory, the Russians could support the rebels, they've got fine equipment, they could put people in there.
And so I think the idea of Ukraine taking on Russia or a Russian proxy in that region is fruitless, and I don't think people should die in that cause.
And so I'm glad to see the Minsk II agreement seem to be holding right now, and I hope it does hold, because I'll tell you, Ukraine's in horrendous shape economically.
Their currency last year lost 70% of its values.
I think it's lost about 40% of it this year alone, and the people are suffering terribly.
And this idea of increased sanctions on Russia, and then have the Russians sanction Ukraine so that both of them become economic crises, I don't think that's a hopeful sign for all of Europe.
All right, now, well, so what about Putin?
Who is this guy to you?
Because everybody else says that he's trying to create at least the old Tsarist empire, if not the old Soviet one, and his aggression must be checked, or else he's going to run roughshod over us all.
Well, I mean, look, Putin, he's got the Crimea back, and he's got the Russified sections of the Donbass, Donetsk and Luhansk.
But, you know, if you talk about recreating the Russian empire of the Tsars, you're talking about going in and recapturing all the Baltic republics, you're talking about recapturing Byelorussia, or Belarus, as they call it now, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, all these other areas.
I don't for a second believe that Vladimir Putin has that in mind.
I simply don't believe it, and neither do they say that you can recreate the Soviet empire.
Do they really think he's going to be back on the Elbe River?
I just don't believe it.
I think Putin is reacting to events as they happen.
I don't think he's got some grand strategy.
I think he's enraged by the fact that the Americans took advantage of him, moved NATO into the Warsaw Pact countries, and then into the three Soviet republics of the Baltic states.
The Americans tried to move NATO into Moldova and Georgia and Ukraine.
He feels crowded.
He feels we're on his doorstep.
He doesn't like what we did in Libya when he authorized Americans to strike to defend the folks in Benghazi.
I think he feels that Russia has been taken advantage of horribly when they held out their hand of friendship after the Cold War.
I think he's not without a point.
All right.
Now, I'm sorry I'm keeping you over just a couple of minutes here, but I want to give you a chance to talk real quick about your latest piece, which is running today on antiwar.com, best of times or worst of times.
What's your point here?
Well, the point is, Kerry made a statement saying, you know, these are something like we've never been safer than we are now, and fewer people being dying, and fewer things happening negatively, and we all look out the world and it looks like it's coming apart.
And then Mr. Clapper, the national security man, the intelligence man, he comes out and says that there's been more terrorist attacks or twice as many last year as the year before, which is also true.
But, as I point out, the 20th century was a century of horrendous wars and massacres and slaughters.
I mean, 30,000 died at the hands of Stalin, 30 million at the hands of Stalin, maybe 50 million at the hands of Mao Zedong.
We had World War I and World War II, two of the bloodiest wars in all of human history.
And you had all these great, you know, millions dying in Burundi and Rwanda and in Ethiopia and in Nigeria.
And so what I'm saying is, compared to that, that horrendous years when we were growing up, what is happening in Iraq and Syria is bad, but it is nothing like Hitler's Reich or Stalin's USSR or Tojo's Imperial Japan, and all the death and destruction wrought by those regimes, and wrought, frankly, by the allies and liberating countries from those regimes.
Now, I'm not calling you that, old Pat, I know you're not, but what about, can you compare at all, from what you know, I know you know your history so well, about the level of fear of the American people relative to the threat?
Well, that's a very good point, because, I mean, we see Jihadi John and this horrible beheading of these couple of journalists and aid workers, innocent people, and we see the Christians on the beach being beheaded.
And this is on television, it's on these, I mean, phone cameras, it's on Instagram and all these social media, as they call it, and it's constantly on cable TV.
And so people are talking about ISIS, which is a dreadful, dreadful organization, and it is a death cult of sorts, a militant Islam, but it's not a threat, existential threat to the United States of America.
The Turks apparently don't consider it a threat, because they could go in there and annihilate ISIS in a matter of a month.
They've got an army of half a million men, 3,000 tanks, 1,000 helicopters, and fighter bombers and fighter planes, and they could go in, in no time at all, and finish these folks off.
And they don't do it, because they don't consider it that grave a threat.
And secondly, some of these Sunni nations in the Persian Gulf, like the Saudis and others in Qatar, basically have been, as Joe Biden was right when he said, they've been, you know, they were initially aiding these people because they're Sunni.
And they all look at the conflict as a Sunni-Shia conflict, and they're anti-Iran and anti-what's going on in Baghdad and anti-Assad, so they see them as de facto allies.
And so there's, going on in the Middle East, all these folks have their own fish to fry, and they all, they tilt to various sides, none of whom is very attractive.
But my point is, I don't want another army of Americans getting all caught up and bloodied up trying to win wars which aren't our wars, but are their wars.
All right, and with that, I'll let you go.
Thanks very much for your time, Pat.
I sure appreciate it.
Sure, you take it easy.
You too.
Bye-bye.
All right, y'all, that's the great Pat Buchanan.
He's at antiwar.com slash Pat.
His last few articles are Best of Times or Worst of Times, The Ultimate Enemy of ISIS, Whose Job Is It to Kill ISIS, U.S.-Russia Clash in Ukraine, The Persians Are Coming.
And of course, check out all his great books at Amazon.com.
The latest is The Greatest Comeback, and we'll be right back.
Hey, Al Scott Horton here for The Future of Freedom, the monthly journal of the Future Freedom Foundation at fff.org slash subscribe.
Since 1989, FFF has been pushing an uncompromising moral and economic case for peace, individual liberty, and free markets.
Sign up now for The Future Freedom, featuring founder and president Jacob Horenberger, as well as Sheldon Richmond, James Bovard, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and many more.
It's just $25 a year for the print edition, $15 per year to read it online.
That's fff.org slash subscribe, and tell them Scott sent you.
Hey, Al Scott here.
Ever wanted to help support the show and own silver at the same time?
Well, a friend of mine, libertarian activist Arlo Pignotti, has invented the alternative currency with the most promise of them all, QR silver commodity discs.
The first ever QR code, one ounce silver pieces.
Just scan the back of one with your phone and get the instant spot price.
They're perfect for saving or spending at the market.
And anyone who donates $100 or more to The Scott Horton Show at scotthorton.org slash donate gets one.
That's scotthorton.org slash donate.
And if you'd like to learn and order more, send them a message at commoditydiscs.com or check them out on Facebook at slash commodity discs.
And thanks.
This part of The Scott Horton Show is sponsored by audible.com.
And right now, if you go to audibletrial.com slash scotthorton show, you can get your first audio book for free.
Of course, I'm recommending Michael Swanson's book, The War State, The Cold War Origins of the Military Industrial Complex and the Power Elite.
Maybe you've already bought The War State in paperback, but you just can't find the time to read it.
Now you can listen while you're out marching around.
Get the free audio book of The War State by Michael Swanson, produced by Listen and Think Audio at audibletrial.com slash scotthorton show.
Oh, John Kerry's Mideast peace talks have gone nowhere.
Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for the Council for the National Interest at councilforthenationalinterest.org.
U.S. military and financial support for Israel's permanent occupations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is immoral, and it threatens national security by helping generate terrorist attacks against our country.
And face it, it's bad for Israel, too.
Without our unlimited support, they would have much more incentive to reach a lasting peace with their neighbors.
It's past time for us to make our government stop making matters worse.
Help support CNI at councilforthenationalinterest.org.