Pat Buchanan is the Hal Lindsey of politics.
Posted on 09/16/2002 5:17:48 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Some rather distinguished Jews that disagree with you on Pat's anti-semitism leap to mind, Dr. Kissinger, for instance.
Take 2 aspirin and try to avoid CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN as much as you can.
That would be a pretty wild guess since Pat was a kid, as was I at that time, and I would venture to say you weren't even a gleam in your old-man's eye. What we do know about Pat is that he was a virulent anti-communist and war hawk till that threat evaporated.
We do not suffer fools gladly here
Sadly, we do (at times I think the forum would dry up if we didn't).
I like your name and your first and last are appropriate, though your middle pains me as I am mostly of Irish extraction.
I always considered him a great American, this kind of thing makes his detractors more believable.
Dang. The very first sentence in the article has a blatant factual misstatement -- A new world’s record.
Bad premise = bad logic, but that’s all 1% Pat has delivered for a few years now.
Ah, another of my previously noted pungent posts.
Keep 'em coming you thoughtful analysts!
To Die for Taiwan? ................. Mr. Bush now wants to walk the cat back. He has warned China the U.S. will do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself." But what exactly does this mean? U.S. ground troops, cruise missile strikes on the mainland, tactical atomic weapons? We have a right to know. ... And before we get into a shooting war, Congress should tell us where the president got his authority to commit America to war over an island-province of China we have no diplomatic relations with, and no defense treaty with. If Taiwan is "part of China," U.S. intervention to block its reunification with China would seem to be tantamount to Queen Victoria threatening Mr. Lincoln with war if he should use force to bring South Carolina back into the Union. ... On Capitol Hill are many hawks willing to send U.S. pilots and carriers into a war to the death in the Taiwan Strait, but who would not dare antagonize their corporate contributors who have grown fat in the China trade. America must decide if she is going to fight this tiger, or feed it. Threatening China with war, while handing her $84 billion trade surpluses, as we did in 2000, is not only an incoherent policy, it is an immoral one. The Shane Osbo rns and sailors of the U.S. Pacific fleet should not die for such a policy.... While the Beijing regime is crude, brutal and arrogant, China represents no threat to us. And before we declare it our duty to "contain" China, and defend free Asia in a new Cold War, we ought to find out why free Asia cannot provide the ships, planes, guns and men to defend itself. As Lyndon Johnson said in 1964, "We are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away to do what Asian boys ought to be doing to protect themselves." America is a republic, not an empire. Mr. Bush has no right to take us to war with China, unless so authorized by Congress. Where is Congress? Having stumbled our way into three Asian wars in one lifetime is enough. This time, tell us the truth, before the war.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
May, 2001
------------
Pat is right, of course. One of the hired guns for war, Frank Gaffney, debated Ritter on Blitzer Sunday. Gaffney has a chance to present evidence that Saddam had nukes to treaten the USA to justify our troops and blood. Gaffney was fact-challenged, all he could do was give a Lanny Davis performance on how to kill-the-messenger.
Are you ever right, buddy!
But most Pat-people don't even try on here anymore. I just didn't have anything better to do this afternoon. ;o)
Can't quit though without stating the opinion that Pat is a true, if rare right-wing intellectual of the Bob Taft school and has more intellect and knowledge of history in his little finger than the sum of the entire Bush clan. (Gads, they reproduce like rabbits!)
Pat Buchanan is the Hal Lindsey of politics.
LOL - that's about right. And his friends here will agree with him.
As usual, you don't know the difference between hard evidence and heresay.
Like the OJ jury, you're willing to swallow any cock & bull story that reinforces your biased evaluation.
The problem is that the "hard evidence" may very well be a blinding white flash in an American city.
No, by wooden crate to the uninspected american seaport of your choice.
Why does that concern you?
You're the wimp who won't deploy our military to defend our southern border.
I guess you are willing to swallow Pat's line- "By most opinion surveys, the majority that supports the president's resolve to invade Iraq has been shrinking." [Pat obviously hasn't read any papers since Bush's UN speech.]
Pat is just as wrong here as he was about 'the 10,000 American bodybags.'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.