Pat Buchanan

Was WWII Really ‘The Good War’?


Pat, Buchanan, politician, author, syndicated columnist and broadcaster discuses his new book, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Scott McClellan’s allegations against Bush, the mistakes that Winston Churchill and other British politicians made in dealing with Hitler, Churchill’s desire for war against the Germans, the destruction of the British Empire and the creation of the Cold War, Bush’s admiration of Churchill, comparison of today’s and previous dictators to Hitler, the false comparison of today’s Iran to Hitler’s Third Reich and the reduction of the American standard of living and the U.S. dollar.

MP3 here. (8:58)

YouTube here.

Pat Buchanan is an American politician, author, syndicated columnist and broadcaster. Buchanan was a senior adviser to American presidents, Nixon, Ford and Reagan, and was an original host on CNN’s Crossfire. He sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996. He ran on the Reform Party ticket in the 2000 presidential election. He co-founded The American Conservative magazine and launched a foundation named The American Cause. He has been published in Human Events, National Review, The Nation and Rolling Stone. His new book is called Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

16 thoughts on “Pat Buchanan”

  1. Methinks that Antiwar Radio Pat Buchanan is much more pleasant than Fox News Pat Buchanan. I guess Pat doesn’t think anyone who listens to him hear or reads his articles pays attention to the MSM, or what he says when he is on TV.

    I read Pat’s latest article. Is Mr. Buchanan going to be calling Bush “the Zionist that he is”, which is true, on his net Fox News appearance? Lawl, yeah right. He tows the lines on TV and plays ball with the Obama/McCain left/right sham. Buchanan is cool on the Internet, but once he gets on Fox you get to see which side his bread is really buttered on. I’ll always remember him as praising Ron Paul one day, then going on Fox and pretending he doesn’t exist the next. Typical politician shyster.

    Has Pat read Jesse Ventura’s book? Ventura has some words for Pat, Plunderer of the Reform Party. It is hard to respect Buchanan or give a crap about anything he has to say when he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and plundered the treasury of the reform party to pay off his campaign debts.

    What a class act…

  2. I notice that is having another one of their “do or die fund raisers”

    “$70K, a modest goal”… so they say. Well you tell me about all of the $70K jobs that are just sitting around out there for the taking. And let me know when you get one.

    Multiply that quarterly fund raising amount x 4 and you are beyond chump change… And why hasn’t ever posted an accounting of their expenditures in order to justify these numbers? If they expect people to support them then they should at least do that. Or are they like the USG and we the people aren’t supposed to really know where all of the money is going?

  3. Don’t begrudge these people enough money to live on..this is a good website for vital info. and an almost open forum…
    Isn’t Pat on MSNBC and not Fox? ?Yeah, he shows up on Chris Matthews and Dan Abrams…The Reform Party was like a herd of cats anyway…I remember when Pat talked about Christianity for 30 seconds out of a 30 minute speach and one those indep types gave him hell for it..Buchanan and Nader should have been in those 2000 debates and the fact that they weren’t shows what a sham of a democracy we have..

  4. My question is why cannot one download the MP3s generated on this site? The download to file pauses and truncates nearly at the start. Does one have to use special capture software to store or maybe just plug in a “tape recorder?”

    And why wasn’t Pat’s own book review of WWII which appeared on Lew Rockwell–linked to Certainly his unabashed criticism of Churchill as the man of a life of failure is appropriate for “” But maybe not during fund raising time?

  5. In fact, here is a quote from Pat on may 29th, when he appeared on FOX:

    “I’ve always believed that George Bush’s real motive in going into Iraq … was an invasion in order to establish a democracy in Iraq as part of this utopian idea that we’re going to democratize the Middle East, liberate Baghdad, Iran will see how well we have done. They will overthrow that regime. They’ll be peace between the Palestinians.”

    Then the next day this is published in his article:

    “When Bush went to the Middle East to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel as the Zionist he has become”

    So did he originally do it for PNAC, then switch to Zionism? What’s the deal? Pat Buchanan saying different things to different audiences? NO WAI!! This is somthing that, like, totally hasn’t happened before or anything!

    I guess Pat “King of Duplicity” Buchanan leaves the word Zionism on the pages on the interwebs…

  6. In answer to Chris on his 10:11 comment:

    You don’t make sense. It seems you failed to read Pat’s piece in The comments about BushII which you link are separate events. Pat’s views as to why Bush signed on with the neocons is separate from his avowed Zionism expressed on his last visit.

    Certainly Pat has had to live with a “bad rap” from Zionists and The Lobby for comments he made about thirty years ago. I presume Pat’s original comments, offensive to those groups were taken out of context then, much like those of the Iranian leader’s are today.

  7. It seems hard for this thread to keep to the point. I have read and heard Buchanan during his career and he has remained consistent in my view. He might not have the punch and bombast in his utterances as–say, Justin Raimondo. But he gets to the point quietly and nearly as effectively in an understated way.

    Unfortunately for Pat, the undertone that I alluded to in my last post in this thread dogs him as somehow being "anti-semitic." Just as the concept of being "anti-semitic" is designed to promote paranoia, those criticizing Pat in groundless ways makes me "paranoid" of the actual motives.

  8. Sorry Chris, I don’t watch Fox..I stopped when it began making me nauseous…PNAC and Zionism is a distinction w/o a difference…Inside the head of the neo-con you’ll find thoughts such as: ” the poor stupid goyim actually think they’re benefiting fm killing OUR enemies…but they’re too stupid to see that it just makes OUR enemies THEIR enemies..”
    But getting back to…yeah, that was pretty bad…What is a decent paleo like Pat doing on fox anyway?

  9. Buchanan can never bring himself to the point of making a clean and total break with the establishment meso- and neo-conservatism of which he was a part for much of his public career. Maybe he thinks he can convert some of the mainstream conservatives through being friendly with them. Whatever…it’s a failed strategy–he should be using the vindication of his paleo-con non-interventionism to totally gut the zio-cons, neo-cons, and their lackeys in the mainstream of the conservative movement.

  10. In re: the Reform party fiasco. If Jesse Ventura wanted to prevent a Buchanan takeover he should have campaigned harder to prevent the Buchananites from winning. the Buchananites showed up at an open party and open convention and won…whatever winning the nomination of such a party means…

  11. I watch MSNBC daily, and I usually see Pat Buchanan there along with the McLaughlin group. I do think there does exist a gap between Buchanan on Antiwar Radio and in his books and columns and Pat on TV. However, this is not always the case. Remember that the TV audience is a different audience. Pat usually criticizes these policies but with less candor or verbal attack.

    The day of the “appeasement” speech in Israel by Bush, Buchanan totally attacked him on Morning Joe and said that we were forming U.S. foreign policy with the advice and consent of Tel Aviv. He has also gone out and attacked the Iraq war from the beginning. You can find that during Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon, Buchanan completely attacked Israel while on TV.

    However, on TV Buchanan rarely says things that are blatantly anti-Israel or anti-neoconservative as he does in his website interviews and columns. In fact antiwar non-interventionist Robert Novak spoke more against the war and the neoconservatives more than Pat did. Yet, Pat is an intelligent man who’s commentary is brilliant no matter if you agree with it or not, and the fact that he is out there speaking out is a good thing no matter if he tries to blunt his rhetorical sword when on television.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.