Scott Horton Interviews Pat Buchanan

Scott Horton, July 23, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Pat Buchanan, political analyst, columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, discusses the British politicians’ colossal blunders that led them into World War I and II and the collapse of their empire, the consequences of American intervention in WWI and imposition of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler’s motive to regain the lands lost in the east and willingness to forsake former German provinces in the west out of his desire to avoid war with England and France, what really happened at Munich, the folly of the British war guarantee to Poland during their dispute with Hitler over Danzig and the real lessons of the second World War.

MP3 here. (43:37)

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.

48 Responses to “Pat Buchanan”

  1. Scott,

    You can make all the disclaimers you wish, you and Pat are still going to be called “antisemites” or worse, so why bother? Doing so only allows the idiots and liars on the other side to play the political correctness card. Screw them.

    Other than that, the interview you conducted was simply superb and the best yet that I have either seen or heard. Unlike the previous ones which really were little more than sound bites, Pat had plenty of time to make his case without encountering the usual stupidity he runs into from people with an ideological ax to grind. I think he did a fine job while you asked intelligent, well thought out questions. I was delighted to see someone of prominence bring out the centrality of WWI in causing the problem in the first place, for neocons are the worst ones about starting in the middle of history instead of the beginning. This is one of the most dishonest tricks they play on the ignorant. Both of you shined for the occasion.

    As a person who has studied this period for roughly 40 years a lot of what Pat said I was aware of and there were a few things I wasn’t previously aware of. Very informative, and I hope this interview gets one hell of a lot of hits. People need to hear this instead of the lies put out by court historians like Newt Gingrich and V.D. Hanson.

    Well done.

  2. Here, Here! To prove that this was an unneccsary war, here’s a question. Were more people governed by tyrannical governments before WWII or after? If you said, after, you’d be correct.

  3. Always enjoy your interviews and listen to your radio show during lunch and at work when I can.

    I live in Charleston SC, neocon republicanland.

    It is amazing how fast all the Limbaugh listeners radios shut down when I play your show during lunch. They can’t even eat their mouths are hanging so widely open. They truly are stunned! I especially appreciate when you throw in a couple cuss words in as that gets all these right wingers in a huffy tizzy that is a sight to behold! The truth hurts and believe me they are in pain!

    Keep it up bro!

  4. As one who was old enough to read at the time of Pearl Harbor, too young for the war, but old enough to understand what was going on, I can attest to the fact that the country was subjected to a deluge of pro-war propaganda. Germans and Japanese were demonized at every turn. Only recently have I been able to probe the full depths of the deceptions, obfuscations and outright mendacity.
    Go Pat!

  5. I think that was your best too. I think PJB rarely gets an interviewer who has read his book carefully, understood its implications, asks intelligent questions AND lets him answer. And 45 minutes gave him time to go over it. Bit surprised to be honest (hehe – didn’t think you were a PJB fan) I think PJB is a national treasure and this type of thing is why. I found LRC and also found out what Ron Paul was really all about (although I had heard of him) through looking for Pat B’s columns.

    There is no such thing as a libertarian historian imo. I thought Thomas diLorenzo was an exception but nope he is an economist.

  6. This is absolute nonsense

  7. Stellar interview. The best that Buchanan has been given that I know of.

  8. A technical question for Scott Horton and this site: The MP3 link does not work. In downloads only a minute of introduction and that is all.

    And the direct feed is too broken up with my slow ISP connection.

    You indicate that an MP3 of 43 minutes can be downloaded. Please reapair this process. I cannot even “pause” the direct feed to the end of the download. There is no “pause” like on UTube.

    Not everybody has the latest and fastest equipment.

    Eric

  9. Buchanan seemed to forget that William Jennings Bryan resigned as Secretary of State because of Wilson’s desire to get the USA into war. I don’t know if I agree with Pat on what happened with Czechoslovakia.

  10. Dawg,

    What exactly is nonsense? Buchanan’s thesis? If it’s so ridiculous, I’m sure it’ll be easy for you to refute it. Take a stab at it.

  11. “This is absolute nonsense”, Dawg wrote.

    Response:

    I an wondering what is “absolute non-sense”? It would be nice if Dawg had refuted one or two of the claims Pat Buchanen makes. Since non were refuted, we have to conclude that Dawg has no basis for his/her claim, and that he/she is just acting on emontions. Is Dawg defending the politically correct orthodoxy “explaining” the cause of world war 2 ?

  12. Scott,

    This is the best interview you’ve ever conducted. Far and away. Incredible job.

  13. The truth about british appeasement policy can be found from below source:

    …And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

    In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine.

    It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

    In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

    (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
    (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
    (3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

    The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it…

  14. The truth about british appeasement policy can be found from below source:

    …And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

    In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine.

    It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

    In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

    (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
    (2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
    (3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

    The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it…

    http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html

  15. Above Eric asks why the interview won’t play more than the first min or so.

    Answer: Clear your temp files bro, then try again.

  16. Everybody please Email Senators asking them to vote No to Resolution 580 (the same as 362 in Congress) because it´s virtually a Declaration of War as Congressman Ron Paul stated.

    Peace & All the best
    Claus-Erik Hamle

  17. A good read is Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett..I hope I’m spelling his last name correctly..The whole question of the war almost answers itself;
    At the end the Soviets had all of E. Europe and much of Central Europe..the Communists then took control of China and the Zionists took the Holy Land in a spree of bloody ethnic cleansing that continues as I type this…The only good thing that happened during that era is that Gen. Franco beat back the Communists ( and the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade” fm America-an American export on the level of pornography ). Thank God..

  18. Please!!!, Pat Buchanan or some other honest historian should explain what happened to Japan by the “West”!!! In mid 19th century American battleships at cannon-point forced the Isolationist Japan to open up. And as Japan opened up, saw all neighbors colonized and enslaved by Europeans: from India to Hong Kong belonged most of Asia to Britain, Vietnam Laos Cambodia belonged to France, the gigantic Indonesia belonged to the Dutch, the continent of “Australia” had become a British implant, Philippines had become US colony. Japan could not breathe and the moment it colonized Korea to get access to raw materials, US stood at Japan’s throat and put a war resolution (like 362 today) until forced Japan to attack pearl harbour (a military base in US occupied Kingdom of Hawaii)!!! The result was the total distruction of Japan , 2 atom bombs on it and millions of dead Japanese civilians. How many American civilians were killed by Japan??? 100? or 5? or 1? or what?

  19. Good points all…But PJB did point out how the British Empire at first saw the Japanese as allies against the Communists in the Far East..But, once again America’s wonderful “Christian” influence, at our urging they began to see the Japanese as enemies…

  20. Scott Horton,

    Giving free airtime to another con-man eh? It seems this charade of giving cover to undercover warmongers who have done everything in their power to perpetuate the war state rather than pull the plug on it is never-ending. Pat Buchannan is a joke. When the time came in 2004 to give G W Bush his pink slip who did Buchannan side with? Why none other than Bush himself. Why? Because of greed that’s why. Pat Buchannan is just another right-wing lunatic who will sell out his own country for a tax cut and a phony never to come true promise to outlaw abortion and make religion the supreme law of the land. His phony antiwar stance is similar to Obama. In public Pat Buchannan denounces the neo-cons for their mistakes in foreign policy but when the time comes to go into the voting booth he pulls the lever to make sure that they (neo-con morons and mass murderers) stay in power. This guy is a disgrace and should not be given the time of day……………

  21. All Others Who Have Posted Here,

    IF YOU THINK PAT BUCHANNAN IS SOME KIND OF HERO, THINK AGAIN:

    Giving free airtime to another con-man eh? It seems this charade of giving cover to undercover warmongers who have done everything in their power to perpetuate the war state rather than pull the plug on it is never-ending. Pat Buchannan is a joke. When the time came in 2004 to give G W Bush his pink slip who did Buchannan side with? Why none other than Bush himself. Why? Because of greed that’s why. Pat Buchannan is just another right-wing lunatic who will sell out his own country for a tax cut and a phony never to come true promise to outlaw abortion and make religion the supreme law of the land. His phony antiwar stance is similar to Obama. In public Pat Buchannan denounces the neo-cons for their mistakes in foreign policy but when the time comes to go into the voting booth he pulls the lever to make sure that they (neo-con morons and mass murderers) stay in power. This guy is a disgrace and should not be given the time of day……………

  22. Scott Horton,

    To question whether you are really antiwar or not does merit debate. The assortment of con-men and con-women (who really believe in mass murder) that you parade around is astonishing. Who’s next for the encore, Bob Barr, voter of the Patriot Act and killer of civil liberties?

  23. [...] War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. You certainly ought to check out Buchanan’s interview about that book on Antiwar [...]

  24. # Pat Buchanan
    # Doug Bandow
    # David Bromwich
    # Andy Worthington
    # Gareth Porter
    # Peter Crail
    # Ray McGovern
    # Robert Gard
    # Jon Eisenberg
    # Scott Ritter
    # Philip Weiss
    # Alan Bock
    # Wade Boese
    # Michael Ostrolenk
    # James Bovard
    # Gareth Porter
    # Carah Ong
    # Robert Dreyfuss
    # Jacob Sullum
    # Robert Parry

    This is a parade of mass murder supporting con-men?

  25. “He who is without sin, throw the first stone.” People are clueless in regards to quotes like this one, but there was a time…Patrick J. Buchanan is a good man who was against the first massacre and depleted uranium atrocity called “Gulf War I”..AKA the first stage in turning my USMC into the Israeli Foreign Legion..Pat was right about that war…He was against it, he took the long view-the way a statesman would, and was vilified for it in some circles…
    Turns out he was right..From Ambassador Glasbie famously giving our ally Saddam the go ahead to take back what was once part of Iraq before being broken off by Britain..From Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields..To the niece of the Kuwaiti ruling family spreading lies before Congress about babies being thrown fm incubators-still believed by some idiots who never heard that she was never a nurse, wasn’t even in country, her story disputed by hosp personnel, etc..
    PJB probably should have voted for the Constitution Party candidate in ’04, but does that really matter? In fact he should be the Constitution Party’s candidate right now! GO PAT GO!

  26. …Any analysis of the motivations of Britain in 1938-1939 is bound to be difficult because different people had different motives, motives changed in the course of time, the motives of the government were clearly not the same as the motives of the people, and in no country has secrecy and anonymity been carried so far or been so well preserved as in Britain. In general, motives become vaguer and less secret as we move our attention from the innermost circles of the government outward.

    As if we were looking at the layers of an onion, we may discern four points of view:
    (1) the anti-Bolsheviks at the center,
    (2) the “three-bloc-world” supporters close to the center,
    (3) the supporters of “appeasement,” and
    (4) the “peace at any price” group in a peripheral position.

    The “anti-Bolsheviks,” who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate the real policy of the government in 1939. In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon, Lord D’Abernon, and General Smuts. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called “French militarism.”

    This point of view was supported by the second group, which was known in those days as the Round Table Group, and came later to be called, somewhat inaccurately, the Cliveden Set, after the country estate of Lord and Lady Astor.

    It included Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, and Edward Grigg (Lord Altrincham), as well as Lord Lothian, Smuts, Lord Astor, Lord Brand (brother-in-law of Lady Astor and managing director of Lazard Brothers, the international bankers), Lionel Curtis, Geoffrey Dawson (editor of The Times), and their associates. This group wielded great influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The Observer, the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table (founded in 1910 with money supplied by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust, and with Lothian as editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called “Chatham House” (of which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford.

    This Round Table Group formed the core of the three-bloc-world supporters, and differed from the anti-Bolsheviks like D’Abernon in that they sought to contain the Soviet Union between a German-dominated Europe and an English-speaking bloc rather than to destroy it as the anti-Bolsheviks wanted. Relationships between the two groups were very close and friendly, and some people, like Smuts, were in both.

    The anti-Bolsheviks, including D’Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany.

    Their point of view can be found in many places, and most emphatically in a letter of August I l, 1920, from D’Abernon to Sir Maurice (later Lord) Hankey, a prot้g้ of Lord Esher who wielded great influence in the inter-war period as secretary to the Cabinet and secretary to almost every international conference on reparations from Genoa (1922) to Lausanne (1932).

    D’Abernon advocated a secret alliance of Britain “with the German military leaders in cooperating against the Soviet.” As ambassador of Great Britain in Berlin in 1920-1926, D’Abernon carried on this policy and blocked all efforts by the Disarmament Commission to disarm, or even inspect, Germany (according to Brigadier J. H. Morgan of the commission).

    The point of view of this group was presented by General Smuts in a speech of October 23, 1923 (made after luncheon with H. A. L. Fisher). From these two groups came the Dawes Plan and the Locarno pacts. It was Smuts, according to Stresemann, who first suggested the Locarno policy, and it was D’Abernon who became its chief supporter. H. A. L. Fisher and John Simon in the House of Commons, and Lothian, Dawson, and their friends on The Round Table and on The Times prepared the ground among the British governing class for both the Dawes Plan and Locarno as early as 1923 (The Round Table for March 1923; the speeches of Fisher and Simon in the House of Commons on February 19, 1923, Fisher’s speech of March 6th and Simon’s speech of March 13th in the same place, The Round Table for June 1923; and Smuts’s speech of October 23rd).

    The more moderate Round Table group, including Lionel Curtis, Leopold Amery (who was the shadow of Lord Milner), Lord Lothian, Lord Brand, and Lord Astor, sought to weaken the League of Nations and destroy all possibility of collective security in order to strengthen Germany in respect to both France and the Soviet Union, and above all to free Britain from Europe in order to build up an “Atlantic bloc” of Great Britain, the British Dominions, and the United States.

    They prepared the way for this “Union” through the Rhodes Scholarship organization (of which Lord Milner was the head in 1905-1925 and Lord Lothian was secretary in 1925-1940), through the Round Table groups (which had been set up in the United States, India, and the British Dominions in T 910- 1917), through the Chatham House organization, which set up Royal Institutes of International Affairs in all the dominions and a Council on Foreign Relations in New York, as well as through “Unofficial Commonwealth Relations Conferences” held irregularly, and the Institutes of Pacific Relations set up in various countries as autonomous branches of the Royal Institutes of International Affairs.

    This influential group sought to change the League of Nations from an instrument of collective security to an international conference center for “nonpolitical” matters like drug control or international postal services, to rebuild Germany as a buffer against the Soviet Union and a counterpoise to France, and to build up an Atlantic bloc of Britain, the Dominions, the United States, and, if possible, the Scandinavian countries.

    One of the effusions of this group was the project called Union Now, and later Union Now with Great Britain, propagated in the United States in 1938-1945 by Clarence Streit on behalf of Lord Lothian and the Rhodes Trust. Ultimately, the inner circle of this group arrived at the idea of the “three-bloc world.”

    It was believed that this system could force Germany to keep the peace (after it absorbed Europe) because it would be squeezed between the Atlantic bloc and the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union could be forced to keep the peace because it would be squeezed between Japan and Germany.

    This plan would work only if Germany and the Soviet Union could be brought into contact with each other by abandoning to Germany Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Corridor. This became the aim of both the anti-Bolsheviks and the three-bloc people from the early part of 1937 to the end of 1939 (or even early 1940).

    These two cooperated and dominated the government in that period. They split in the period 1939-1940, with the “three-bloc” people, like Amery, Lord Halifax, and Lord Lothian, becoming increasingly anti-German, while the anti-Bolshevik crowd, like Chamberlain, Horace Wilson, and John Simon, tried to adopt a policy based on a declared but unfought war against Germany combined with an undeclared fighting war against the Soviet Union. The split between these two groups appeared openly in public and led to Chamberlain’s fall from office when Amery cried to Chamberlain, across the floor of the House of Commons, on May 10, 1940, “In the name of God, go!”

    Outside these two groups, and much more numerous (but much more remote from the real instruments of government), were the appeasers and the “peace at any price” people. These were both used by the two inner groups to command public support for their quite different policies. Of the two the appeasers were much more important than the “peace at any price” people.

    The appeasers swallowed the steady propaganda (much of it emanating from Chatman House, The Times, the Round Table groups, or Rhodes circles) that the Germans had been deceived and brutally treated in 1919. For example, it was under pressure from seven persons, including General Smuts and H. A. L. Fisher, as well as Lord Milner himself, that Lloyd George made his belated demand on June 2, 1919, that the German reparations be reduced and the Rhineland occupation be cut from fifteen years to two.

    The memorandum from which Lloyd George read these demands was apparently drawn up by Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), while the minutes of the Council of Four, from which we get the record of those demands, were taken down by Sir Maurice Hankey (as secretary to the Supreme Council, a position obtained through Lord Esher).

    It was Kerr (Lothian) who served as British member of the Committee of Five which drew up the answer to the Germans’ protest of May, 1 919. General Smuts was still refusing to sign the treaty because it was too severe as late as June 2 3, 1919.

    As a result of these attacks and a barrage of similar attacks on the treaty which continued year after year, British public opinion acquired a guilty conscience about the Treaty of Versailles, and was quite unprepared to take any steps to enforce it by 1930. On this feeling, which owed so much to the British idea of sportsmanlike conduct toward a beaten opponent, was built the movement for appeasement.

    This movement had two basic assumptions: (a) that reparation must be made for Britain’s treatment of Germany in 1919 and (b) that if Germany’s most obvious demands, such as arms equality, remilitarization of the Rhineland, and perhaps union with Austria, were met, Germany would become satisfied and peaceful.

    The trouble with this argument was that once Germany reached this point, it would be very difficult to prevent Germany from going further (such as taking the Sudetenland and the Polish Corridor).

    Accordingly, many of the appeasers, when this point was reached in March 1938 went over to the anti-Bolshevik or “three-bloc” point of view, while some even went into the “peace at any price” group.

    It is likely that Chamberlain, Sir John Simon, and Sir Samuel Hoare went by this road from appeasement to anti-Bolshevism. At any rate, few influential people were still in the appeasement group by 1939 in the sense that they believed that Germany could ever be satisfied. Once this was realized, it seemed to many that the only solution was to bring Germany into contact with, or even collision with, the Soviet Union.

    The “peace at any price” people were both few and lacking in influence in Britain, while the contrary, as we shall see, was true in France. However, in the period August 1935 to March 1939 and especially in September 1938, the government built upon the fears of this group by steadily exaggerating Germany’s armed might and belittling their own, by calculated indiscretions (like the statement in September 1938 that there were no real antiaircraft defenses in London), by constant hammering at the danger of an overwhelming air attack without warning, by building ostentatious and quite useless air-raid trenches in the streets and parks of London, and by insisting through daily warnings that everyone must be fitted with a gas mask immediately (although the danger of a gas attack was nil).

    In this way, the government put London into a panic in 1938 for the first time since 1804 or even 1678. And by this panic, Chamberlain was able to get the British people to accept the destruction of Czechoslovakia, wrapping it up in a piece of paper, marked “peace in our time,” which he obtained from Hitler, as he confided to that ruthless dictator, “for British public opinion.”

    Once this panic passed, Chamberlain found it impossible to get the British public to follow his program, although he himself never wavered, even in 1940. He worked on the appeasement and the “peace at any price” groups throughout 1939, but their numbers dwindled rapidly, and since he could not openly appeal for support on either the anti-Bolshevik or the “three-bloc” basis, he had to adopt the dangerous expedient of pretending to resist (in order to satisfy the British public) while really continuing to make every possible concession to Hitler which would bring Germany to a common frontier with the Soviet Union, all the while putting every pressure on Poland to negotiate and on Germany to refrain from using force in order to gain time to wear Poland down and in order to avoid the necessity of backing up by action his pretense of resistance to Germany. This policy went completely astray in the period from August 1939 to April 1940.

    Chamberlain’s motives were not bad ones; he wanted peace so that he could devote Britain’s “limited resources” to social welfare; but he was narrow and totally ignorant of the realities of power, convinced that international politics could be conducted in terms of secret deals, as business was, and he was quite ruthless in carrying out his aims, especially in his readiness to sacrifice non-English persons, who, in his eyes, did not count…

    http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#42

  27. At the beginning of the interview I was skeptical mostly bcs of the whole “lebensraum” theory that didn’t fit. Well, not anymore. Scott Horton really we did ask the right question there, and Pat Buchanan had a convincing answer.

    But now I wonder, was the whole thing about racially superior Aryans and “lebensraum” just for Hitler’s internal propaganda ? Bcs that’a huge part of what people know/remember about WWII.

  28. Excellent interview! Buchanan is a talented writer and pretty good historian. I read his book with great zeal and found it to be very entertaining. Buchanan’s doesn’t offer anything in the way new scholarship but has gathered together work of other historians and buids a strong case for his thesis. The Unnecessary War is a great antidote for all those forced fed the conventional view of the war. For those really interested in this topic I recommend William Chamberlin’s ‘America’s Second Crusade’ and Harry Elmer Barnes ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.’

  29. SCOTT HORTON,

    I don’t expect you to take my word for it. The question thus remains, who did Pat Buchannan support in 2004? Apparently you have never seen Pat Buchannan’s appearances on the McLaughlin Group newscast. He is the consumate rightwinger, he says one thing and then does another. If Pat Buchannan can come on your program and say with a straight face that he DID NOT SUPPORT AND VOTE FOR G W BUSH IN 2004 then I shall stand corrected. Otherwise you and the rightwingers that you parade around will be exposed as the ultimate hypocrites.

    ————————————————————————————————
    Scott Horton Says:

    July 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
    # Pat Buchanan
    # Doug Bandow
    # David Bromwich
    # Andy Worthington
    # Gareth Porter
    # Peter Crail
    # Ray McGovern
    # Robert Gard
    # Jon Eisenberg
    # Scott Ritter
    # Philip Weiss
    # Alan Bock
    # Wade Boese
    # Michael Ostrolenk
    # James Bovard
    # Gareth Porter
    # Carah Ong
    # Robert Dreyfuss
    # Jacob Sullum
    # Robert Parry

    This is a parade of mass murder supporting con-men?

  30. Tim,

    Pat Buchannan is a money grubbing con-man and hypocrite who does not deserve the time of day.

  31. Scott Horton,

    I personally do not care if you have warmongering idiots like Pat Buchannan on your program as I am a firm believer that all voices deserve to be heard, good or bad. What I don’t like is that they and you like to bill themselves as “antiwar” or “antimperialist” when their track record is anything but……………

    There is simply no way in all of Hades that you can call yourself anti-war and anti-imperalist and then support a Bush-Cheney ticket for president and vice president.

  32. Well I gotta say that grousing about Mr. Buchanan’s choice to support GWB in 04 is irrelevant on two fronts: first, it does not address any of the arguments he makes in his must-read book or this excellent interview. Second, given the fact that Kerry promised to expand the war at that time, a vote for Kerry was no more an anti war vote than one for Bush. You can call someone a warmongering idiot all you like but you just look silly given the facts. Howsabout actually trying to refute a particular statement or two? C’mon, it’ll be fun!

  33. If there was ever a double-talker and a hypocrite Pat Buchanan is it. Buchanan is also a fine racist as well. Pat Buchanan has had no problem criticizing Obama for opposing the Iraq War and supported Bush over Kerry for “Bush’s tough stand against terrorism.”

    History books will show that the longest-held American hostages happened under the joint Republican administrations of Republican presidents Reagan and Bush (41), in Lebanon. History books will also show that 9-11-2001 happened under another Republican president—Bush. When a president takes the path of offfice on January 20, 2001 as Bush did, you can no longer “blame” the pther guy, unless yoiu want to look like a weakling. Americans are so dumb they forgot that when the Repukes blamed Clinton for 9-11, it is they who are weak and ineffectual at that point. Buchanan equivocates so much on MSNBC its laughable at this point. Buchanan needs to retire. Hey, remember the “spy-plane” incident in China long before 9-11-2001? and how Bush acted like a weak president with that response too? Yet, Buchanan sticks up for every last slimy Republican out there. Face it you libertarians and conservatives, Buchanan is often siding with the neocons even though he claims its not the case. On election day I am sure Pat Buchanan and the neocons will all be pulling the lever for John Insane “let’s Bomb Iran” McCain. So save me the b.s. already, okay? All you so-called anti-neocons at the end of the day will be voting for Insane McCain and that “war party” you say you cannot stand.

    And, no the Democratic Party is not equal to the Republican Psrty when it comes to starting wars since Vietnam. The war party and the party of empire and keeping the bad things about America alive today are the Republican scum from the preachers like John Hagee and Pat Robertson to the slime ball Repugs in the House and Senate, who want more and more wars. The Republicans bow just as much to to AIPAC and the Jewish lobby as anyone else these days, so spare me when you just day its “just the fault of the Democratic Party.” The Israeli lobby loved Reagan and so too, did Jerry Falwell. Falwell and the Israeli lobby picked ip its greatest speed under Reagan and then in this present Bush administration. So, you Republicans have no room to talk when it comes to AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. And if you choose to criticize AIPAC and the Israeli lobby you are just plain blind or hypocrites, and perhaps, both.

    Bush started the war that Kerry wanted to “expand” to bring about some order and so that reconstruction of Iraq could actually get done which was failing under the Bush regime. There are international obligations the U.S. has inside Iraq due to the invasion which no matter what, cannot be just ignored. Bush deceived the Congress and the Senate regarding the war vote and Bush was gonna attack Iraq no matter what the Congress did or did not do. Bush and Chdney remember, did not even think they needed the approval of the likes of John Kerry to launch a war on Iraq. So that argument about Kerry being equal to Bush in “wnting war” is pure rubbish. The scummy Republicans held that vote as a litmus test for the November 2002 elections so they could call any Democrat up for re-election “soft on terrorism” if they voted against giving Bush the go-ahead if the UN found WMD in Iraq. Bush did not allow the UN inspectors to finish their six-month job, but instead pulled them out way ahead of time to launch his war. The accusations against Kerry when you have the real facts is WEAK just like the b.s. arguments that all you conservarives make. You Republicans are scum and have nothing to offer humanity but your wars and hatred.

    Finally, yu libertarians and so-called “conservatives” are a joke. This law-breaking started with Watergate and then Iran-Contra. What Clinton did as far as “law-breaking” was chump change compared to Watergate and then Iran-Contra.

  34. to some of the above guys. In 2004 BOTH Kerry and Bush supported the Wars. Kerry voted for the war and stated that had he known the truth about the WMDs he STILL would have voted for the war. And he has been voting to fund it ever sice then as has Obama and Clinton. You guys ned to get over this left vs Right bullshit.

    We have two war parties one tat want to pay for it with high taxes ad the other who wants to pay for it through going ito debt and printing new money.

  35. If the proposition is that the slaughter, bitterness and chaos produced by WWI sowed the seeds of WWII, only an ignoramus could disagree.

    If you want to add that Britain, and in turn the USA, did not need to involve themselves in the first war, I’ll buy that too (although I don’t seem to recall Mr Buchanan mentioning Britain’s guarantee of Belgian neutrality — the trigger for Britain’s entry into the war).

    As for Hitler’s supposedly benign motives in the 1930s, I’m not so convinced. Everything else I have ever read suggests that he had long-held aggressive designs on the east, and in particular wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. To do that, Poland had to go. (Poland, as John McCain might say, was the ‘German-Soviet border.) And Czechoslovakia was a dry run for the main event.

    My feeling is that WWI was not inevitable, but in its aftermath, WWII probably was, given Hitler’s racial and ideological obsessions.

  36. To Oscar Jones and Reed Richards:

    I don’t know what you guys are smoking, but I have no intention of voting Democratic OR GOP in ’08. I’m putting Ron Paul down as a write-in candidate.

    All of which doesn’t mean I can’t agree with the basic theses of Pat Buchanan in this book. Unlike some people, I do sometimes manage to focus on one thing at a time.

  37. “woulda-coulda-shoulda”

  38. Hitler didn’t really want lebensraum in the ost. He just wanted a bloc of anti-Comintern states.

    Pat interprets most of the events he describes in a simplistic manner. Not annexing some territory right away means it was only a protectorate? Mass killings of civilians began with the invasion of Poland, and there’s no reason to believe it would stop at shootings if Britain nicely let the Germans have the ost.

    Hitler made it very clear in Mein Kampf that he wanted war with France. This is an instructive passage from chapter 14:

    “Much as all of us today recognize the necessity of a reckoning with France, it would remain ineffectual in the long run if it represented the whole of our aim in foreign policy. It can and will achieve meaning only if it offers the rear cover for an enlargement of our people’s living space in Europe. For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the total area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude.”

    But it’s not only Mein Kampf. John Toland and William Shirer’s work contain many details of the Nazi plan to make the whole east an Aryan empire free of undesirables.

    If we extended Buchanan’s logic to the Nuremberg Acts, they would be a non-sequitur because Hitler rarely mentioned Jews in public in the early 30′s. But it’s obvious that behind the scenes he had it all planned, he just didn’t advertise it when Germany’s economy was the big issue.

    And I don’t buy that “WWII was the good war” any more than he does, it’s just that the road he takes to get there is full of holes.

  39. Mike Burns,

    First off, I don’t “smoke anything, including cigarettes”. Two, facts are facts. Buchannan is a rightwing mongering fool who makes money by pretending to be against the neo-cons when in fact he supports their policies. Similar to Joe Klein who is now supposedly in a dogfight with the hard right luantic fringe and the leaders of the Israeli Lobbhy. For years this man along with Cokie Roberts and the rest of the D.C. slime have put down the true antiwar, anti-imperialist types as being “weak on defense” and other such drivel. While you focus on “one” thing at a time some of us and I commend Oscar Jones for focusing on the big picture which is exposing Buchannan and others like him for the human trash that they are……………

  40. [...] listened to this great interview with Pat Buchanan, who’s a  political analyst, columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler and [...]

  41. Scott,

    If you can try to interview David A. Andelman author of A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today

  42. In hindsight it sounds like PJB knew what he was talking about when it came to Georgia. If this conflict was inevitable, thank God it happened before Georgia got into NATO! Maybe that’s why it happened when it did… Pat’s the man. You guys don’t like Pat because he’s anti-immigration. Right? Be honest. C’mon, let that go. He might not be an anti-war purist but he sure as hell has some historical and political sense. Far more than your typical blind loud-mouthed ideologue.

  43. Mattrix – yes – Pat is often right – when was the last time we had a president with Pat’s knowledge of history and geopolitics? I doubt we ever have.

    All of PJB’s detractors don’t add up to one Pat Buchanan. I disagree with him on some subjects; the War on Drugs, other nazi-like domestic impulses, etc.

    He seems to not recognize that the United States ceased to be an independent nation with the introduction of the Federal Reserve system. In fact, don’t ALL the politicians eschew that topic, except for Ron Paul? Hmm.

  44. Scott, there is no need to bring up the clichéd “evil” term at 10:40…

  45. Ok now here it is.NO ONE WANTS A WAR. To defend is the be at war or lay down and let it happen.You will always get the nations wanting more and wanting to destroy to get. THE ROMANS, the BRITISH EMPIRE, THE GERMANS, then AMERICA, now that america has started to go down the pan it looks like china will be the ones to look out for.

  46. You forgot the soviet empire.

  47. I’m gone to tell my little brother, that he should also pay a visit this webpage on regular basis to take updated from most recent news update.

  48. Excellent submit, very informative. I’m wondering why the other experts of this sector do not notice this. You should continue your writing. I am confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!|What’s Taking place i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve found It absolutely helpful and it has helped me out loads. I’m hoping to give a contribution & aid other users like its aided me. Great job.

Leave a Reply