"...the relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers on earth has been going steadily downhill. Americans give these reasons for the estrangement: Putin's reversion to authoritarianism, his support for repressive regimes in Belarus and Uzbekistan, his closeness to Beijing (including joint military exercises), his sale of fighter jets to Hugo Chavez and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran, his support for Iran's nuclear plant, his recognition of Hamas' election victory, his oil blackmail of Ukraine, his unplugging of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and his crackdown on U.S. NGO's promoting democracy in Russia. All seemed designed to show Russia's independence of -- and, indeed, defiance of -- the world leadership of the United States. And that is not an unfair conclusion. But Americans need to ask themselves whether we have had it coming. For consider how we have dealt with Russia's interests and sensitivities."

    Pat Buchanan's comments seem indicate the it is the fault of the U.S. for the deteriorating diplomatic ties between Russia and America – never mind that Russia is siding with open enemies of the U.S. – and makes excuses for Putin’s choice to revert to Authoritarian rule. He criticizes the U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in old Soviet satellites, and says that the U.S. and UN had no right to intervene during the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. His argument being that we can’t interfere in the politics of Russia, and we can’t tell Russia what to do. By this logic, we have no right to "control" or "reign in" Israel, though that is exactly what Pat Buchanan has suggested several times in a number of different columns, such as here and here. Talk about hypocrisy!

    Buchanan continues in this vein, blaming the so-called Israeli Lobby for hijacking our government, and doing our dirty work for them. He also says the Israel and the U.S. have never been attacked by Iran, a statement that is obviously false, seeing as Iran has been waging proxy wars against both countries through Shiite militias (Al-Sadr) in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He also seems to be ignoring the Iran Hostage Crises in 1979, when they seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran. President Carter failed to extract them, either militarily or through negotiations. His covert military strike to free the U.S. hostages was a fatal failure. Iran released our hostages as a sign of “good will” when Ronald Reagan won the presidency, probably because they feared direct confrontation with US and their loss of power. 
    
    Buchanan continues, saying that Israel doesn't allow us to talk to terrorists, and that diplomacy is the answer to our problems with terrorists and their sponsors. Never mind that diplomacy with terrorists, especially radical nutcases hellbent on dying for their religion, has been proven worthless! Case in point, Yasser Arafat, whom Buchanan mentions in the above column, had 95% of his deal met at the Camp David Peace Accords. Any rational leader would have upheld that agreement, but instead Arafat vowed to continue his war against Israel. 

    Back to Russia. As I mentioned earlier, Buchanan criticized the U.S. pushing prodemocratic movements in old Soviet satellites. In this column, Buchanan speaks of Georgia, who 

    "...is finding that ex-colonies of the empire pay a price for becoming estranged from Mother Russia. In 2003, Georgia underwent a Rose Revolution that swept Eduard Shevardnadze from power. But in the street demonstrations that raised up Mikhail Saakashvili, Moscow saw the fine hand of Bush's "democracy project." Since then, Moscow has seethed, as Saakashvili has pulled his country steadily toward the EU and NATO."

    Again Buchanan seems to be giving Moscow a pass on this, blaming the U.S. for Russia's power hungry and authoritarian mentality. He goes on to criticize the U.S. in this statement for seeming "...impotent or unwilling to take his (Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian Premier's) side." Wait a minute. Didn't Pat Buchanan just criticize the U.S. for meddling in "Russia's interests and sensitivities?" And now he is essentially saying we aren't meddling enough?! Which is it Mr. Buchanan, do we "meddle" or not? 

    The bottom line is that all countries meddle in the affairs of other countries and that is the sad reality of the world.  I don't disagree with Buchanan's argument that we need to establish diplomatic ties with secular, Arab regimes. Such ties will be important to build a coalition of allies (granted the enemy of my enemy is my friend allies), such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to combat the global threat of militant Islam, which cannot be underestimated, as Buchanan suggests here. He believes that "Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world." 

    They fight to exert their power and influence over others, to establish a world wide Islamic caliphate, and to kill all dissenters so that they may have absolute power over all. That simple. It is a clash of civilizations wether Pat Buchanan likes it or not, and the regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, North Korea, and Caracas have very close ties to Islamic terrorist organizations, either as havens, suppliers or both. They will come gunning for us sooner or later and most likely sooner. And it seems to me that the more free, democratic societies there are with close alliances with the United States, the European Union, and NATO, the better off the world will be.

                                                                                            Mike Grant