To anybody who defends Pat Buchanan...

You are defending this "man"...

http://www.fair.org/current/buchanan-bigot.html

Makes Roburncyst and Foulhell sound liberal...

...politics makes for strange bedfellows, and while I find his view abhorrent on most subjects, he is usually dead in the black where his criticism of the Bush administration is concerned.

an oven. So many rainbow flags flashing so much defense of right wingers, so much bashing of anyone that is a friend. I don't fucking get it.

Buchanan and I arrive at somewhat similar conclusions (via wildly different paths), I don't need that bigoted fuckwit to make my case for me.

I know where he stands on the issues... it's more than I can say for Mr. Bill (closet-Republican) Clinton.

(Closet Republican)Roosevelt didn't even finish the new deal (never mind that he had a Republican supreme court) makes about a much sense as the above remarks. Use that stuff between your ears.

1930's-40's politics are much different than today's politics... Strom Thurmound was a Democrat back then...

your post reminds me of those silly "The party of Lincoln" comparisons that come from Republicans...

Clinton is not a "closet Republican" and such a charge has no merit at all. Buchanans politics has a history going back to the 30s and 40s family supported Franco, were isolationist a nice way of saying they were pro Hitler, anti New Deal. Buchanan orgainized Reagan's laying a wreath on the tomb of nazis, so history does connect to today politics. May be if you would really look back on history you could connect the dots to today and not make such ridiculous statements. Or wait it minute Reagan? That was way back in the 80s.

and I am pretty horrified by what I just read. But, for as bad as he is, the man is actually honest in his opinions and doesn't lie, I don't think. He is forthright about his bizzare and quaint views, and that is a lot more than one can expect from the new generation of conservatives. With them it's lie, lie, lie, and then run away from responsibility for what you said. Buchanan has never denied or tried to spin any of the sick crap he has said publicly, because he honestly believes it.

I believe he means what he says, and I like that. Wish everyone would say what they mean and mean what they say.

I would love to see a resurgence for Buchanan in the repuke party. I would love to see him drafted to run in 04 to represent the "real repuke party" If he could force a debate with bush, well, we could go sip wine by the pond. Buchanan would tear bush apart. At that point the repuke party would be in chaos.

Actually, I think he might have a shot at overtaking the party. Give the real repukes in the homeland a choice, and a lot of em might be looking for a choice. He should announce now for the best media exposre.

He doesn't parce, or change his opinions. He criticizes both republicans and democrats when he thinks they are wrong.

That being said, he is wrong on most every issue, but he is honest.

I haven't seen it myself. I do know a lot of people like myself are enjoying his bashing of Bush. And I hope he keeps it up.

only mainstream pundit that the troopers at stormfront like,although sometimes they have thier doubts about him. weiner boy is their hero...

Is he some type of insect that only looks human ? Why are pro-Zionists so often the ones to decide that some among us are not even really "men".

You know, FAIR is not the only outfit with access to Google. I found this editorial from Buchanan's magazine in March. Do you disagree with it ? Perhaps you should learn from your enemies, instead of de-humanizing them. In particular, I find that pro-Israeli partisans are UNIQUELY unprepared to look clearly at the Arab world. You simply have a very hard time understanding that anyone who is not fully committed to the state of Israel can have all-too-human reactions to invasion and occupation. Hence the "cakewalk" canard.

..snip..

After the War
by Pat Buchanan

“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.” So wrote British historian A.J.P. Taylor in 1961.

All the 20th century empires forgot the lesson and all perished of wounds suffered in Great Wars: the Ottoman, Russian Austro-Hungarian and German empires in World War I, the Japanese in World War II, the French and British the morning after.

Comes now the turn of the Americans. Guided through the Cold War by conservative statesmen like Eisenhower and Reagan, America rejected Churchillian romanticism and, even in the face of horrors like the butchery in Budapest in 1956, refused to risk the Great War. But now a triumphalist America has begun to behave like all the rest.

If Providence does not intrude, we will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the “On-to-Berlin!” bravado with which French poilus and British Tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict. More likely, it will be the “bloody mess” of which Tony Cordesman warns.

Yet America will not be defeated by an Arab pariah state with an obsolete air force, a dozen 400-mile missiles, a population a tenth of ours, an economy 1% of ours, and neither satellites nor smart bombs.

.. snip ..


But what comes after the celebratory gunfire when wicked Saddam is dead? Initially, the President and War Party will be seen as vindicated by victory and exhilarated by their new opportunity. For Iraq is key to the Middle East. With Iraq occupied, Syria will be hemmed in by Israeli, American, and Turkish power. Assad will have to pull his army out of Lebanon, so Sharon can go back in and settle scores with Hezbollah. Iran will be surrounded by U.S. power in Turkey, Iraq, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Arabian Sea.

This is the vision that intoxicates the neoconservatives who pine for a “World War IV” – a cakewalk conquest of Iraq followed by short sharp wars on Syria and Iran. Already Israel is tugging at our sleeve, reminding us not to forget Libya.

What is wrong with this vision? Only this. Just as Israel’s invasion of Lebanon ignited a guerrilla war that drove her bloodied army out after 18 years, a U.S. army in Baghdad will ignite calls for jihad from Morocco to Malaysia.

Pro-American regimes will be seen as impotent to prevent U.S. hegemony over the Islamic world. And just as monarchs who collaborated with Europe’s colonial powers were dethroned by nationalists in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Addis Ababa, pro-American autocrats will be targeted by assassins.

.. snip ..

Once in Baghdad, how do we get out? If the Kurds rebel to create a nation, will U.S. troops help Turks crush them? If the House of Saud falls, will it be succeeded by social democrats, or Bin Laden’s fanatics?

To destroy Saddam’s weapons, to democratize, defend and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades. Yet, terrorist attacks in liberated Iraq seem as certain as in liberated Afghanistan. For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world.

He certainly seems to have hit the nail on the head with this. Thanks for posting it.

I am reading it right now and I want to vomit. Buchanan, while he may be right on a few issues, the way a wrong clock shows the wrong time twice a day, is no friend of the left.