Posted on 09/30/2005 10:00:18 PM PDT by churchillbuff
SHow me an article that proves that. He wrote vicious attacks on her, that's all I know.
That's interesting - considering as Reagan hired Buchanan as his White House communications director - - - while Hitchens (as this article documents) never had a good word for REagan, and apparently continued to denounce Reagan on his death. You're some "Reagan supporter" to support somebody like Hitchens, who hates Reagan/
Needs a strange bedfellows alert.
The Communist Parties worldwide protested to save Saddam Hussein's regime.
And paleo-cons cheered them on.
Now they are dissing Hitchens for standing up for the oppressed of Iraq.
Why dont they save their red-baiting for, say, ANSWER or William Kunstler, or Cindy Sheehan roving band of leftist fellow travellers?
Well put!
Face it. You just can't stand the fact that he is right on Iraq and you and George Galloway and Howard Dean have been wrong. It just gets under your skin, doesnt it?
Pat Buchanan's running mate in 2000 was Ezola Foster, who was a conservative and a member of the John Birch Society. You must have been thinking about Lenora Fulani, who was a known Marxist.
The fact that he's a communist and spat on Reagan's name is fine with you - as long as he's "right on Iraq". Hillary Clinton is also "right on Iraq" by your perspective. I'm proud not to stand with either Hillary or the communist anti-Christian Hitchens.
But that's fine with you, as long as he's "Right on Iraq"
Hitchens understands western civilization's war against Jihadist Islamicism better than Pat Buchanan does.
Post 9/11, where has Pat buchanan been? AWOL!
He hates Israel, the one ally we've had in the mideast, and he was wrong on Iraq - TWICE - both times descending into near anti-semitism with comments about the "Israel amen corner" etc.
It may be that Hitchens hatred of religion is actually useful in more accurately apprising the Bin Laden mindset and realizing its threat to us. Meanwhile Buchanan is locked into a mindless arabist/anti-israel isolationism that is the wrong answer for the global war on terror.
where do you get the nutty idea that hillary is 'right' on Iraq? She's been a weathervane, nothing more.
What you are engaging in is 'ad hominem' against Hitchens. It's clear why.
Hitchens has been right on Iraq and you hate him for it.
That's why the hit-piece on Hitchens and not, say, on leftists like John Conyers.
I can decide to agree with Hitchens on some things and disagree on others.
Hitch reminds me of the commies in WWII. They were useful as co-belligerents against the nazis.
Uh, Hitchens supported the Soviet Union in the cold war. (I take it you didn't read the well-documented article in this post, but skipped it and simply launched into you ad hominem attacks on me). If supporting tyranny means support for "western civilization," then you must consider Hitler and Stalin great heroes of "Western civilization"
If Hitchens had got his way, Western Civilization would be buried and trampled by soviet jackboots.
If you feel comfortable lionizing somebody who despises your religion, that's your business, but don't lecture me because I'll have no truck with anti-christian bigots like Hitchens. If somebody wrote with bigotry against Judaism the way he writes against Christianity, everyone would rightly shun him. Why is sneering bigotry against christianity excusable in your book?
Then you should allow people to decide to agree with Buchanan on some things but not on others. If Buchanan is a bigot on some things (which I won't concede - but which you allege) his bigotry pales compared to Hitchens. Show me anything Buchanan has written that is as bigoted as Hitchens' screeds against christianity.
Hitchens isn't a "neo-con", or any kind of a Con for that matter.
He is hawkish on foreign policy and terrorism,period.
He is still a Trotsyite at heart.
He wrote a vile book about Mother Theresa and an even worse one about the Pope.
However, I can understand being extremely bitter toward him for many things he has said in the past on other issues.
I won't trust him until he says he was wrong on those things. He has done much harm in the past. Until he repents he is not to be trusted.
I doubt any are Bolshevike, but those calling themselves atheists on here are not a unified group. Some are courteous and respectful of those of us who believe differently, and others are very abusive. Some go all over FR and post valuable stuff, while others just stick on a particular topic, like crevo threads. I can't say I'd be surprised if someone somewhere on here did support the persecution of Christians, but they'd undoubtedly be a tiny, tiny minority. There's a few of them in every town, if you will.
Hitchens is useful in some regards. Of course, 95% of the time he is utterly reprehensible. Then again, I don't really care all that much for Bill O'Reilly, either (who supported the Assault Weapons Ban and loves to hobknob with Arianna Huffington, Robert F Kennedy Jr, and Bill Maher). Some of Savage's tactics bother me. I don't much care for being labeled a Buchananite whenever I think the GOP is wrong on something.
That all being said, who says you have to agree with someone 100% of the time in order to have respect for them? Life doesn't usually work out that good. So, if Hitchens does good on the war, I'll listen. When he goes into the realm of anti-religious bigotry, I'll break out the reamer and go at it. Love the sinner but hate the sin, if you will.
I hate him because he's a communist. I hated him when he was a writer for the Nation and opposed the first Iraq war. Don't tell me why I "hate" him/ His position on Iraq happens to be another of his misguided positions -- one he shares with Hillary Clinton, Biden and most Democratic senators. IT's not the reason he deserves to be denounced. (And every day, more and more Americans are realizing that the Hillary-Hitchen position on Iraq is wrong. Polls show a majority of Americans believe the invasion was a mistake -- but that's another issue for another day)
It's interesting how this bloodthirsty leftist can win your applause merely because you share a position on Iraq. Are you also applauding HIllary for that reason?
If you can respect someone who 95% of the time is reprehensible (your words) then your standard of respect is quite different from most people.
It was a bad choice of words, and I am sorry for that. No, I am not exactly fond of much of what Hitchens has to say.
However, if the man is right on a point, I will not nail him on that particular point simply because I don't like all of his other strange positions. That is all I meant, nothing more.
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.