Buchanan: Why y'all all 'wee-weed up over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?"

Pat Buchanan asks:

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?

I don't know. You tell me Pat.

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. All of her nuclear facilities are under constant United Nations surveillance and inspection.

Say what?

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.

Yup, I blogged about that article in 2011.

And Bibi has since been prime minister twice. Why has our Lord Protector not manned up and dealt with Iran himself?

Answer: He wants us to do it — and us to take the consequences.

 Bibi's vision: U.S. as aggressor and the fall guy.

Shia Iran has influence in Iraq because we invaded Iraq, dethroned Sunni Saddam, disbanded his Sunni-led army that had defeated Iran in an eight-year war and presided over the rise to power of the Iraqi Shia majority that now tilts to Iran. Today’s Iraq is a direct consequence of our war, our invasion, our occupation.

Buchanan: Infantile Conservatism || Human Events

[Editor's Note: I took liberty with the quote in the headline. Pat's statement which I quoted from isn't in a form of a question.]

Pat Buchanan on the "Coming Age of Austerity"

"With government in the U.S. at all levels consuming 40 percent of gross domestic product, and taxes 30 percent, taxes will have to rise and government spending be controlled or cut. The alternative is to destroy the debt by depreciating the dollars in which it is denominated – i.e., by Fed-induced inflation." Patrick Buchanan || The Coming Age of Austerity

Is a Nuclear Deal With Iran Possible?

Patrick Buchanan making sense on Iran:

What would cause anyone to believe Iran is willing to negotiate?

There are the fatwas by the ayatollahs against nuclear weapons and the consensus by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reaffirmed in 2011, that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Even the Israelis have lately concluded that the Americans are right.

Nor has the United States or Israel discovered any site devoted to the building of nuclear weapons. The deep-underground facility at Fordow is enriching uranium to 20 percent. There are no reports of any enrichment to 90 percent, which is weapons grade.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lately mocked the idea of Iran building a bomb in the face of a U.S. commitment to go to war to prevent it:

"Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?"

Ahmadinejad did not mention that Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons. He did not need to. The same logic applies.

And then he says something even I didn't know before:

And Tehran seems to be signaling it is ready for a deal.

According to the United Nations' watchdog agency, Iran recently converted more than one-third of its 20 percent enriched uranium into U308, or uranium oxide, a powder for its medical research reactor.

Is a Nuclear Deal With Iran Possible? | CNSNews.com

Pat Buchanan: Is Mitt being neoconned into war? - Conservative News

“No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it.”

What does “stand with” Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while Israeli planes strike Iran?

Pat Buchanan: Is Mitt being neoconned into war? - Conservative News

Patrick Buchanan on Ron Paul in 2007: He is "no TV debater" but "was speaking intolerable truths"

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

Patrick Buchanan, But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?