There's no such animal.
Who is Pat Buchanan?
There's no such animal.
S-N-O-O-Z-E!!!
We know, we know....
We all went wrong by not listening to him, not voting for him for president, etc., etc.
Considering this idiot joined forces with Lenora Fulani a few years ago, I fail to see why he thinks we would consider his opinion on any topic.
They only like/review conservative books/authors that criticize other conservatives/Bush.
Another example of liberal bias from NY Slimes.
Don't rush it. His book had dropped 30% in price within 3 days of being released. It should be on the Under $2 tables soon enough.
God knows I love Reagan, but what Buchanan claims here is pure Bravo Sierra. By pulling Marines out of Lebanon, Reagan did indeed engage in a very rash action; one that validated the terrorism of the Islamists and emboldened them to further attack America without fear of meaningful reprisal. And the airstrikes on Libya were just more of the same. Libya exported far less terrorism than Iran, but we only struck Libya because Khaddafi was a loudmouth.
As for precipitate action, what the hell does Buchanan think Grenada was? If that wasn't a pre-emptive action, what the hell was it, Pat?
Reagan's legacy is great enough without piling fiction on to it. I should hope Buchanan will refrain from such nonsense in the future.
Buchanan BUMP
You don't even have to be alert. Buchanan has had it in for Jews for 20 years.
I think Pat is cute!
How does this moron know that president Bush needed no prompting??? This guy seems to think that his opinion is a legitimate critique of P. Buchanan...It reads more like an advertisement...I'm going to buy the book...
Pat, Pat, Pat. All the good gets flushed out with the bad...
"Alert readers will have spotted another troubling flaw in Buchanan's worldview. His roster of warmongers is made up exclusively of Jews. But it was Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and the president himself -- good Christians all -- who sent all those armed Americans into Iraq. Aside from Wolfowitz, the Jewish neocons could only cheer them on from their op-ed pages, think tanks and talk shows.
Buchanan thinks he can explain this discrepancy between conservatives who decide and those who merely advocate. The neconservatives, he claims, saw that George W. Bush was ignorant about world politics and cleverly persuaded him to think like them. At one point, he compares Richard Perle's ''delight at first meeting the future president'' with Fagin's ''initial encounter with the young Oliver Twist.'' After four decades of close political combat, Buchanan seems unwilling to abandon such abusive rhetoric. It may be as essential to him as God and the flag, even while it confirms his status as a political pariah. Strangely, he doesn't realize that the president, a born-again Christian, needed no special prompting after the attacks of Sept. 11 to declare a new world war between good and evil."
His title actually elecits a belly laugh.
Second term for concervative president coming up. Both houses with conservative majority.
And to this idiot it all went wrong.
And how did it go wrong. The right are not leftiest like he is.
Few bigger lying hypocrites than pat Buchanan areound these days.
Maybe its a mental thing with him, I don't know.
(To quote Samuel Goldwyn, include me out, please!)
Buchanan is Deepthroat.
He does raise a good point -- Cheney and Rumsfeld were far more central in the move to war than Kristol or Krauthammer. But this book grew a lot out of journalistic polemics and reviews of books. Rightly or wrongly, politicians and administrators are usually given a pass, in that they're allowed to disassociate themselves from their policies more than those who simply advocate, propose, or agitate for such policies. People extend more chances to elected officials than to polemicists and ideologists, who are tied to the policies that they've promoted. It's not necessarily anti-Semitism, just the age-old need to believe in the "good" but misled king.
Buchanan's ideology does have inconsistencies, as Kazin points out, and it's unlikely that any future Republican or conservative leadership would follow him in everything. The "Old Right" package never persuaded a majority of Americans and didn't provide workable answers to foreign policy. But the ability of leaders like Reagan to win over those with more realist or non-interventionist or continentalist views shouldn't be dismissed. In the past, Republicans showed much skill in uniting disparate groups under the same banner, and their ability to do so seemed to be in question in the last few years when this book was written. The outlook has gotten brighter for the Bush Administration in the last few weeks, but whether that will last isn't yet clear.
Does Buchanan know that yet?
(Bet he does, snicker, snicker).
