[MJY1288]

"ensnare" ?

[steve50]

I read where Perle was calling for the removal of Tenet over the intelligence problems. I think there's have a word for that.

[jnarcus]

Ah BUchannan wants Fortress America but doesn't want to recognize the truth of us being at war...it is the Islamofascists against the rest of the world. The reason we haven't been attacked recently is because we are fighting else where to keep them disrupted and diminshed...I gave up on old Pat a while ago

[MJY1288]

"Fear is what Perle and his co-author David Frum are peddling to stampede America into serial wars. Just such fear-mongering got us into Iraq, though, we have since discovered, Iraq had no hand in 9/11, no ties to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, and no plans to attack us. Iraq was never “the clear and present danger” the authors insist she was."

Pat Buchanan is a clueless idiot,

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.

This is rather like having Helen Keller refer to you, dismissively, as "nearsighted."

Good grief.

[AppyPappy]

To the neocons, however, Zionism is second nature.

Pat sees Jews lurking in every one of his dark allys

[Atlantic Friend]

Wow, definitely food for thought.

[roses of sharon]

Pat's friend Chrissy Matthews started this name calling of "neo-con", ie, a cabal (Jewish interests).

They are both drama-queens, very un-serious, and conspiracy oriented men.

Along with Pat's defense of Saddam and Sons, I'd say he sounds more like a Deanie-baby at this point.

[Prodigal Son]

I knew from the title Pat wrote this one.

[u-89]

Select bits from Arguments versus Fallacies

>"colleges and universities today courses are taught in basic reasoning, introductory logic, and clear thinking...

"There are also many informal fallacies that are discussed in these courses, ones that are a definite no-no when it comes to discussing issues rationally, with the aim of getting things right....

" informal fallacies appeals to emotions, argument by authority, reliance on popularity, pleading one’s case (which is to say, never looking at contrary evidence), the genetic fallacy (which means, considering where someone comes from who argues a point), begging the question (that is, assuming a conclusion before one has argued for it) and ad hominems (attacking the person) are the most widely studied.

"One should abandon all such phony methods and try to reason things out, debate issues based on getting the premises right and then arguing from those premises in a reasonable fashion, by means of valid, logical steps.

"...resort to the fallacious methods because, in part, those methods are a kind of short cut and offer quick fixes as opposed to requiring one to do hard work...

" if the popularity of my views clinches my point with gullible people, again, why bother doing the hard and often tedious work of laying out a serious argument? Or, if I can smear someone’s reputation with whom I disagree, I may win against the adversary without any further effort.

" Another approach...one that also violates the standards of rational argumentation, is to question an opponent’s motives.

"For my money, I simply assume that those who support views and policies I find wrong actually believe that those views and policies are sound ones. They are wrong, I am convinced. And my job, if I care to get involved in the discussion, is to show they are wrong – not that my view is more popular, that they are crooks, or that their motives are suspect. None of that matters, really, except if it’s been shown, already, that they are wrong and then one might wish to learn why they are wrong. But whether they are or are not wrong about any of their ideas or policies has absolutely nothing to do with such fallacious charges."

[A. Pole]

The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.

Bump.

[JimRed]

GO, PAT, GO...(AWAY)

[JohnGalt]

"In temperament, too, neoconservatives have revealed themselves as the antithesis of conservative."

[Unam Sanctam]

I find Buchanan's casual dismissal of September 11 offensive, as well as his crude Jew-baiting (and I'm not Jewish!). The continuing festering of a dysfunctional Middle East is a tremendous threat to the United States, as Sept. 11 proved. I'm glad we have a president that has the guts and wisdom to do something about changing it for the better in the long term, both for the good of the peoples of the region and for our security.

[gcruse]

Quiet Murder

[realpatriot71]

and the rich get richer . . .

[thoughtomator]

Buchanan is losing his mind... he has been completely unable to adjust to the reality exposed by 9/11... he's still stuck in Clinton-era fantasyland.

[Joe Hadenuf]

In the worst of terror attacks, we lost 3,000 people. Horrific. But at Antietam Creek, we lost 7,000 in a day’s battle in a nation that was one-ninth as populous. Three thousand men and boys perished every week for 200 weeks of that Civil War. We Americans did not curl up and die. We did not come all this way because we are made of sugar candy.

The government has people doing the chicken every time a fertilizer truck comes up missing, or authorties shut down an international airport because some guy left his bag unattended for five minutes.

Germany and Japan suffered 3,000 dead every day in the last two years of World War II, with every city flattened and two blackened by atom bombs. Both came back in a decade. Is al-Qaeda capable of this sort of devastation when they are recruiting such scrub stock as Jose Padilla and the shoe bomber?

Right in the ten ring Pat. Many choose to forget or simply ignore the obvious, real threats to America.

[mr.pink]

Bravo Pat. It's nice to read someone so nicley lay out just what dangerous little vipers both Perle and the Canadian are.

These are sick and twisted folks.

[Ohioan]

Pat has basically anihilated the argument of the book he was reviewing. But was anyone really taking it that seriously?

The way to fight terrorism is not to challenge the world. The way to fight terrorism is as outlined in War 2001!. Nothing could be more counter-productive than insulting much of the world, by announcing that we are going to go around and remake many of their societies.

Those who applaud this silly, sophomorish concept, need to face the reality. The American people will not long support such a policy, once they realize that it depends upon getting Americans killed to pursue the illogical theories of certain academics; and has nothing to do with hunting down and destroying the actual terrorists, who are as much a threat to some of the nations whom Perle and Frum would threaten, as they are to us.

If it isn't insanity to insult those who have the same enemies as you have, because you think you know better what their values should be, it is close enough to be rejected by rational men and women.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site