Comments on: Pat Buchanan

By: churchill s mistakes

churchill s mistakes — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:07:52 +0000

[...] Scott McClellan??s allegations against Bush, the lies that Iran is comparable to Hitler??s Thirdhttp://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/31/pat-buchanan-3/What was Churchills one great flaw or mistake? – Yahoo!7 Answers&quotWhat was Churchills one great [...]

By: Abu Hatem أبو حاتم » The Best of Antiwar Radio

Abu Hatem أبو حاتم » The Best of Antiwar Radio — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:23:02 +0000

[...] Pat Buchanan [...]

By: AbuHatem

AbuHatem — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:08:05 +0000

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.

By: Eric Westhagen

Eric Westhagen — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:15:17 +0000

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.

By: Rodrigo

Rodrigo — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:16:47 +0000

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…

By: Rodrigo

Rodrigo — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:07:52 +0000

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.

By: the legendary Bill

the legendary Bill — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:01:34 +0000

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?

By: Eric Westhagen

Eric Westhagen — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:02:17 +0000

In answer to Chris on his 10:11 comment:

You don’t make sense. It seems you failed to read Pat’s piece in antiwar.com. 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.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 06:13:54 +0000

TEMP FILES STRIKES AGAIN!!!

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 06:11:33 +0000

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 antiwar.com 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…