Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall

It was an otherwise normal day in the Land of the McLaughing Group. John got to bellow, "The answer is HILLARY." And nobody minded that they weren't as relentlessly dogmatic in the Papism as Pat Buchanan, and the whole panel kinda sorta agreed on the issue of China and the Olympics, but because this was the McLaughlin Group, they all agreed to pillory each other with loud sounds from their cakeholes for our amusement. But, about halfway through the show, Pat Buchanan said something that didn't amuse - not one little bit I'm afraid!

BUCHANAN: But I'll tell you what's coming, John. Petraeus pointed right at the special groups supported by Iran, as the main problem now. They are firing rockets into the Green Zone, they're responsible for Basra. The president said that Iran better not make the wrong choice. We're looking at 140,000 troops there by the end of the year, and very possibly airstrikes in Iran before this fall.

Oh. Fantastic.

[WATCH.]

Later, Pat went back to this scary imagining, predicting: "Fifty-fifty chance of U.S. airstrikes on Iran by October." Paging Dr. Strangelove!

Comments

[Beaux510]

When Pat keeps his own personal politics out of things and merely sticks to event analysis, he is usually dead on.

Last week I read a short paper he wrote about this very subject, albeit in more detail. What was surprising was it could have been posted right here on HuffPo and everyone would have been shocked at it's non-right demeanor. He lays out every point in the sequence of events from early saber-rattling to the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment (points out Hillary's support and vote for it), CENTCOM Admiral Fallon's resignation(vociferously opposed to Bushco's Iran plan) and just recently General Petraeus' testimony and affirmation of Iran's interference in Iraq.
He also states astonishment at how little attention is being given to the subject seeing as how Buishco is playing by the same rules they used to go into Iraq.

[biosolution]

Yeah, let"s bomb Iran for $10.00/gal gasoline. Gee, another neocon wingnut plan!

Iran ships approximately 4,000,000 million barrels of oil per day. Daily total world consumption is about 85,000,000 million barrels per day. The daily surplus or deficit (elasticity in the market) of world consumption is about 2,000,000 million barrels a day, or approximately 2% percent.

When we bomb Iran, some percentage of oil shipments will be halted either for political reasons or from the destruction of their producing and delivery systems. When that happens, and there is no elasticity in the market, oil prices will spike out of control. Industrialized nations will be pitted against each other scrambling for the limited supply.

Iraq"s supply is about 2% percent. Its precarious production has already caused a dramatic spike in the price of oil; but, of course the oil companies and the politicians will tell you otherwise.
There"s no way to tell what the price of oil would be with a 5% percent or even 2% percent in global supply loss, but $200-$300 dollars/barrel is easily conceivable. At those levels, the economic shock to the world"s industrial nations would be catastrophic.

Nations will have to fight for oil, because oil is to their economies, as air is to you. If you can"t breathe, you choke and then you die.

McCain sings, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb..Iran", see and hear it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg.

[Atef861]

The Democratic candidate with the courage to oppose Bush's war on Iran is the candidate who can beat McCain.

[WilPower]

Does anyone else find garbovatwins comments...interesting? Great advice whomever you are. Unfortunately, I think humanity is doomed. Instead of stating the obvious, do you have suggestions on what can be done?

[stepintothelight]

Just look at history people. The Neo-Cons are just the latest in a long line. Look at Iran geograpically. It is a fortress country for those of you familiar with military topographical strtegy. And Americans deserve to be the stuck in the quagmire if we beleive that a War with Iran will be a cakewalk. Many others before us have tried ... Many before have failed!!!

[josephjsalas]

Is it Iran firing rockets into the Green Zone or private contractors firing the rockets in order
to get us into another 100 years of debt?

[Amalek]

I think Pat and the neocons are just talking up an invasion of Iran by a country that actually has weapons of mass destruction so that they can provoke a preemptive, defensive attack by terrorists on the US that will get a republican back in the white house.

Twisted minds think in twisted ways.

[morbie5]

Pat Buchanan does not want to invade Iran just like he was against invading Iraq!!!!

[Reveille]

Once again an air strike is the answer to everything; as an air force veteran buddy of mine always says, "The USAF has the world's greatest PR Department." And suppose the Iranis don't like being bombed? I expect that the tenth-wits that told us that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators will assure us that the Irani people all secretly love us and will rise up against the mullahs to support the people who just bombed their country and killed their citizens. Right. Such delusions have already cost us over 4000 dead in Iraq. And with what does the adminstration plan to use then? The Army and Marine generals repeatedly say that our land forces have been broken due to criminal misuse by Bushie's amateur war tactics. We have nothing left with which to fight. Perhaps it is time that the US Armed Forces, for the first time in history, tell a President,"No sir, we are not going to get our soldiers killed for your illisions."

[glesslib]

Yesterday I read that Cheney is probably trying to get Israel to bomb Iran as our surrogates. It's really not a stretch to think that Pat Buchanan reads the same stuff we do.

I gotta say I'm more than a little bored with the same old "talking heads" on every show. There's Pat, Ann Coulter, James Carville, Marlee Matlin, Bill Kristol, etc., etc, etc. All are quoted everywhere and, in my opinion, don't seem to have anymore expertise than a well-read man on the street. Their responses to most questions as so predictable that I can practically say them in unison with the speaker. Boring TV. The networks would be smart to bring in a few new faces.

[Boboday555]

Previous Buchanan predictions:
"Iraq Does Have WMDS"
"The Iraq War Will Be Over In Less Than a Year'
"Iraq Oil will Par For The Oil War Not The taxpayers"
"We'll be greeted as liberators"
"Bin Laden and Hussein were in cahoots"

Sorry Patty Boy but, maybe you should take a break on making predictions for a while.

[mengwise36]

Lying about a Republican does not make you a good Democrat.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Uhhhh, one thing...Buchanan didn't make any of those predictions. He was against going into Iraq in the first place. Seems his predictions are more trustworthy than your "facts".

>

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd defend Pat Buchanan (maybe it's a sign of armageddon). but Jeez, I'm so sick of this ignorant hate slinging on both sides.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Damn...I inserted a quote from an article Buchanan wrote in American Conservative mag in 2004 that expressed his lack of support for the war in no uncertain terms. But anyone with an ounce of intellectual curiousity can find buchanan's position and predictions on Iraq.

[morbie5]

Am I the only one that has ever watched Buchanan on tvor read his column??? He made none of those predictions. He is not a neocon. He was against the Iraq war back in 2002!!!! If you don't do your homework its you that looks like a fool...

[Kitty40]

The bigger question is "Why is Pat Buchanan still allowed to appear on television and speak to any American audience after his condescending and racial remarks regarding African Americans? I am sick of seeing his face on television - he should put on the white sheet that he use to wear in the 50s.

[morbie5]

If Pat Buchanan is such a racist why was his VP running-mate in 2000 an African-American woman?? The days of throwing around the "racist" tag just because someone doesn't have white guilt are over. Don't embarrass yourself...

[Nonamnesiac]

Not White Shet. Black Shirts He's a Nazi -- a real, live Hitler lovin' one.

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

What a coincidence! Those are exactly the same odds as Bush and Cheney being tried as war criminals!

[paixa3]

If this happens, then Ms. Pelosi and other Dems can be blamed.

They have NOT FULFILLED their responsibility of IMPEACHMENT.

To hell with them all.

[Axolotl]

what a lying, cheating blowhard that Pat B is. he would like there to be bombing because it gets his pseudopatriotic rocks off.

he should be McCain's vice president. two rightwingers lusting and working for war and the killing of foreigners and Americans--the more the merrier as far as those two slugs are returned.

no free pass for Johnny McC when it comes to working hard for war and killing.

[Beaux510]

It's amazing that just because Buchanan wrote it or said it, the leftys will ASSUME its in agreement with Bushco.

HE IS AGAINST ANY SUCH ATTACK.

HE IS WARNING EVERYONE THAT BUSHCO IS GETTING INTO POSITION TO STRIKE IRAN.

HE IS SURPRISED BY THE LACK OF ATTENTION TO THE SUBJECT BY THOSE WHO SHOULD BE SMACKING IT DOWN

I REPEAT BUCHANAN ISN'T A NEOCON AND IS TRYING TO BLOW THE WHISTLE LOUDLY ON BUSH AND CHENEY.

Jeebus people, do some research, or merely read what he actually said or has written.

HE IS ON YOUR SIDE ON THIS ONE.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I got the impression that Buchanan is against bombing Iran (and he was against Iraq)...he was just predicting the obvious. And the obvious reaction? bomb, bomb the messenger.

[jaglon]

If what Buchanan says is true, would please ride on top of the first bomb that drops. I do not know why anyone listens to this openly raciest man. All of the major networks treat him as representive of some large group when really he represents a small, but load, crack-pot fringe on the right.

It would not surprise me if Bush-Cheney do drop bombs on Iran especially if the democrats win in November. They would love to saddle the next administration with their mess so that someone else can be blamed for the problems they created. Congress should not allow these two to do this.

The long record for Bush is business failures and the last 8 years have made this perfectly plain. Know one paid attention to his poor track record before he was selected president. But it is all there failure after failure with financial bail-outs from Dad's wealthy pals including some in the Saudi royal family.

[WhatsThis]

I'll bet you dollars to donuts Buchanan has all his money invested in a hedge fund playing the oil futures game. With our domestic reserves rising and refineries cutting back on gasoline production because the margin has gotten so thin, the oil market manipulators have to stoke the "fear" fire someway. The huge volume increase in the number of oil futures contracts since the spring of 2006 clearly indicates that the price of oil is in a bubble cycle driven by speculation.

What would Iran's retaliation likely look like. Mine the Straights of Hormus, cut off oil exports, set Iraq's and/or Kuwait's oil fields afire, or drop a few rockets into the Green Zone? All of which would drive the price of oil higher and higher. This would be Bushes' final reward to his cronies and clearly an impeachable offense.

[MikeDu]

Buchanan's hard to read on Iraq. I *think* he believed the invasion was an awful idea and has turned out even worse than imagined. It doesn't sound like Buchanan's actually advocating bombing Iran here, he's presenting us with the spin the administration's going to put on it. Buchanan's right on that point. The idiot-in-chief loves to play roll-of-the-dice with other peoples lives. Lets whack this hornet's nest just to see what the result would be. I agree Bush has a 50% chance of bombing Iran for no other reason than he doubts his successor would have the 'balls' to do it. Consider Buchanan's statement as forewarning.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I find it so strange that so many Huffpo readers are attacking Buchanan for predicting something that appears quite obvious...the Bush Administration is gunning to bomb Iran. He's not advocating it, forgodsakes. He was one of the few voices who spoke out against invading iraq back then, he sees the writing on the wall and people are attacking him. If Obama said the same thing, he'd be considered prescient or brave or something. Get a grip, folks. Instead of blindly (and often ignorantly)n attacking Buchanan, maybe we should be looking at the real culprits and making sure Buchanan's prediction doesn't come true.

[hu.man]

Buchanan is just trying to grab some headlines and he succeeded.

We cannot afford to open another front in Iran. We are in huge denial about the mistakes that were made in subduing the Baathist regime in Iraq. Iran has the upper hand because of those mistakes. Iran has gained the advantage on us without even engaging us. And they know it too. Anybody with a half a brain can see this except that we, here in US, continue the saber rattling and looking like even a bigger fool than we already have made to be.

The day we stop treating the mullahs in Tehran as religious fanatic idiots who are a throw back to the 12th century is the day that we can finally figure out how to deal with them effectively. The Islamic Republic has more domestic detractors that you can shake a stick at. And yet here we are threatening them with bombing so they can once again, as they did during the Iraqi invasion of 1980, unite under the Islamic banner and fight off the foreign invaders.

I can just see the mullahs in Tehran sitting on their fancy Persian rugs, sipping hot tea and chuckling about how the foolish Americans are going to play into their hands once again.

[MikeDu]

"We cannot afford to open another front in Iran."

Unfortunately Bush reminds me of an addicted gambler. He's bet the kid's milk money and the wife's wedding ring on the Iraq play and the cards are going against him. In his mind the only way to save the day is to make one last 'big play' - bet the farm in hope he'll win the bet and recoup his losses. I think we know how that scheme usually turns out

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Republicans of any sub-stripe weighing the impact of starting a war on their re-erection (sic) chances is sickening, and should cause Americans of good conscience, regardless of party, to vote Democrat.

[nyboomer]

It would be difficult for George Bush to leave office without bombing Iran. He needs more than just Iraq to keep his successor busy for a few years. He needs a full scale war with a reinstated draft so as to deflect any historic judgement while he is still in everyone's memory that he securly locked down the position of worst president ever.

I estimate that it is 90% probable that Cheney will get a bombing mission off before he and Bush are sent to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity or the charge might be criminal stupidity.

[knowhelpnow]

I believe it too that is why Fallon stepped down he said not on his watch.

[mengwise36]

I estimate that there is 0% chance for Bush or Cheney to stand trial for anything. That is reality.

[Nonamnesiac]

Pretty soon the Nazi Buchanan will be vulnerable to a well-deserved attack by progresives - one that c could drive this Nazi from the air once and for all. Rachel Maddow and Keih Olbermann should lead the attack. Buchanan is releasing, in the very near future, another one of his thinly-disguised pro-Nazi books. According to his description, it will basically argue (again from Nazi Buhanan) that WWII should never have been fought. He's going to try to mask his support for Naziism by analyzing the period from 1914 on, saying WWII was, more or less, a continuation of WWI, which also shouldn't have been fought. The last time he wrote a book about WWII, it was about how the US fought on the wrong side during WWII. Buchanan is an outright Seig-Heil Nazi, although a chicken hawk. He has minimized the number of deaths to Jews during the holacaust. He has never come across a murderous Nazi war criminal he hasn't defended. And his books on WWII always are about how we were on the wrong side.

Take this Nazi down once and for all. Make sure to thoroughly research him, as he's both smart and an in-your-face liar who lies to get past the moment.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

I say it again and again, neo-conservatism is not conservative or new and dose not gives a dam about the GOP, this country or anything else except it"s own internationalist idealism. They used to call themselves the NEW LEFT, yet have nothing to do with American liberal tradition. True conservatives view the neo-cons as a virus infecting the conservative movement. Neo-conservatism is rooted in the early communist internationalism of Leon Trotsky. They painted themselves as liberal hawks after the 2nd World War and were rejected by the Democrats during the Cold War. They found a home in the Regan coalition calling themselves neo-cons. Republicans worship Ronald Regan, a former conservative Democrat who got into GOP politics with finical help from Nancy"s father. Ironically the Regan Revolution propelled the fortunes of the GOP after the fall of Nixon, and spelled the end of true practical conservatism, which like any movement is more idealism than realism. Even more ironic neo-conservatism with the help of extremist like Bush-Cheney has fractured the GOP, destroying it like a virus kills the host organism. The Grand Old Party will need to adjust or they will become the Gone Old Party. Movement conservatives continue to underestimate the legacy of FDR, they do so at their own peril.

[frappe]

"50/50 chance we bomb Iran by the Fall"?

Well, Mr. Buchanan, that would be just in time for the November elections. How convenient. Rove must be working hard in the shadows along with the rest of his elite, Orwellian troupe. Could it be the final attempt by the Bush administration to test market their new product, "War with Iran"? Some serious marketing is going on right now. And the timing, which is so crucial with these marketing efforts, must hit all the right notes and at just the right time so that the full Republican ticket can benefit fully from the expected surge of patriotism within the American electorate this November.

[NotBeatenYet]

Yeah, Pat. Gotcha. Thanks.

[Boboday555]

But how do AWOL Bush and PRESIDENT Cheney justify this war?
They can't use the WMDs line.
They can't use the bin Laden link.
They can't scare their childish base any more than they already have!
So what then?
Iraq is a threat to the United States?
Please...not even Bush supporters are that stupid...who knows, maybe they are!