Buchanan and reality are two words that don't belong in the same sentence.
The Dakota people were chased out onto the Western prairie and into Canada. It took almost another 30 years till the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 to complete the many battles and actions.
Actually, from about 1650 till 1890 Europeans fought Native Americans for this continent. You can debate, if you wish, the rightness or wrongness of these conflicts, but the fact remains it took this long to subdue a primitive, dangerous enemy who possessed great courage and determination.
We, then, have a historical precedent for a long and bloody war. Like it or not we will have to prevail.
How did we let these unelected wonks and wierdos take control?
Can anyone figure out what Pat is saying we should be doing instead of what we're doing?
NRO's merciless spanking of Buchanan and his faux "more-conservative-than-thou" drivel is worth savoring in full. That was simply one of the many highlights, is all. :)
McNamara and his Whiz Kids had to take the fall for Vietnam.
They did? Funny, I must have missed that.
I think the great flaw in Buchanan's argument here lies in his assumption that Muslims would leave us alone if we would just back out of the Middle East. Muslims have been quite consistent and explicit about their desire for jihad and world conquest. Buchanan's attempt to slide over this rather significant issue falls flat on its face. Like it or not, we are facing a war against our very civilization, of which Israel is a member.
Still, many of his criticisms of the neo-cons are quite valid, most notably their utter hypocrisy about Tony Judt's recommendation - a multiculturalist, open-borders, liberal policy for Israel that neocons have no problem with imposing upon every single Western nation.
The neocons are quite correct that Judt's recommendation would utterly destroy Israel as a nation if implemented. Yet, when it is suggested that mass immigration is likewise destroying the very fabric of the US and other Western nations and cultures, the neocons start spouting their "proposition nation" arguments (for the US) or warmed-over leftist pap that multiculturalism (flooding the continent with Muslims and other incompatibles) is beneficial to European countries.
Frum and his buddies insist on having it both ways: "diversity" is great for the US and the West, but it would destroy Israel. It's quite OK to reduce traditonal majority populations to minorities in their own countries - except in Israel. Either it is good for all or bad for all. By arguing out of both sides of their mouth, Frum and his pals have destroyed their credibility. Their loyalty to the US is indeed open to question.
Contrary to Buchanan's idea that we should abandon Israel, there are many perfectly valid and compelling arguments that helping Israel stand against the Jihad is very much in line with our national interests from a traditional conservative viewpoint.
Pat writes well.
Followed the link. Date says March 1, 2004. What gives?
As for facing a "holocaust" we are seeing the Islamists claiming a "right" to kill 4 million American men, women, and children--that qualifies in my book as a holocaust.
--Boris
Pat was on OReilly tonight. Making no sense, he said Iran should be allowed to get nukes. Why would they give them to terrorists he says? If they did, and we found out, we would nuke them. Of course, he never told us how exactly we would find out they passed a nuke to AQ - and didn't mention which US city he was prepared to lose to test his theory.
oh him ... I saw him go up against that lightweight Bill OReilly and he couldnt even answer straight on Iraq.
Here's a clue Pat J: In 1998, Saddam Hussein offered safe haven to Osama Bin laden.
Iraq is not about 'empire', it's about defeating enemies who support terrorists.
He's clueless as to the simple fact: WE DID THE RIGHT THING IN IRAQ.