Posted on 07/18/2006 7:46:06 AM PDT by NYer
Pat Buchanan would write something against Israel even if Israel gave all the land from the Med to the Jordan to the Philistines and the Israelis departed for other lands (may Heaven forbid it ever happening). Jesus, Mary, St. Joseph, St. Peter, and St. Paul (Jews each one of them) could stand in front of this character and he would write something against them for being Jewish.
That great philosopher, Bugs Bunny, had Pat in mind when he coined that wonderful phrase - "what a maroon!"
Go Ahead Pat, just take another big juicy bite of that S#&% Sandwich you've been chewing on since America resoundingly told you NO!! WE DO NOT WANT YOU FOR PRESIDENT, SENATOR, GOVERNER, OR EVEN DOG CATCHER, you bloviating bafoon.
So, Pat Buchanan is running for President....of Iran?
**********
LOL! Good one.
In some villages, there is support for the insurgency. In American protest rallies, you will also see protest signs that proclaim support for the insurgency.
Anyone who sides with the insurgents is THE ENEMY and should be dealt with accordingly.
Them's the breaks.
Yet another marginally-coherent rant by Peyote Pat.
For some reason this reminded me of a church in our town years back that had a prominent sign in the front saying "CHRISTIANS MEET HERE".
Across the street someone tacked up a handwritten sign on a tree saying "LIONS MEET HERE".
It stayed there for years.
Don't leave out the radical right wing "Amen Corner" Christians. They deserve some credit too.
Where are the Christians?
... well, in most of the rest of the world, getting their throats slit..
Where is the Patty Buchanan barf alert?
I don't read his bullsh!t anymore, but thats just me I guess.
No joke, just Buchanan's normal despicable anti-Israel perspective.
When it comes to certain issues, Pat, like a lot of people, has chosen to conflate the concept of Christian personal morality of loving one's enemies and striving to be a peacemaker, a path to lead one to a holy character development, with national policy, which cannot follow the exact same concept, or one's nation will cease to exist.
IMHO, the reason the pope spoke out against the conflict is it is his job to remind us of the morality of the issue. He is also a person who was a child during WWII and saw the devastation that war can produce first hand. He's also not calling for Israel to roll over for Hezbollah, either, like some people do. He is grieving over the pain this is causing, the hatred this will no doubt create in some people, and the fact that it is something that has yet to be fought to win. Part of the just war concept is that a war must be winnable...and in his opinion, I suspect he thinks this is just one more battle in an unceasing conflict. Of course, a lot of this paragraph is my opinion, but it is based on what I have seen him do and read of his writings.
Pat, on the other hand, has a political agenda, using this as an excuse to beat his own political drum, using the Christian card as a tool, like a lot of people who pull it out when it suits their purposes.
'Comrade Wolf' and the mullahs
Worldnet Daily
5-12-06
Pat Buchanan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632603/posts
In the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing.
We invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, we occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked us. Then, we put troops into Kosovo.
After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia.
Under Bush II, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11.
Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor.
Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point? And when Russian President Putin calls Bush's America "Comrade Wolf," does he not have at least a small patch of ground on which to stand?
Which brings me to the point. There is no reason to believe Iran wants war with us. If she did want war with America, she could have had it any time in the last 27 years. If she did want war with America, all the old ayatollah had to do was continue holding those American hostages after Ronald Reagan raised his right hand. He didn't. As Reagan recited the oath, the hostages were clearing Iranian air space.
In all those years, Iran has never attacked the United States and has been tied to but one terror attack against us: the Khobar Towers 10 years ago. No evidence has been found that Iran had any role in 9-11, the first attack on the World Trade Center, the suicide attack on the U.S.S. Cole or the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
Comes the reply. Iran was almost surely behind the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and the hostage-taking of the Reagan era. Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas and plotted the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, and Herr Ahmadinejad routinely promises the eradication of Israel.
But if he wants a war with Israel, he could have it tomorrow by launching rockets. If he wants war with America, Bush and Cheney will accommodate him. He has done neither.
Ahmadinejad is behaving like a man provoking us to hit him, but not too hard, so he can play the "victim" of U.S. "aggression" without winding up in the hospital or the morgue.
For while Iran's regime might benefit from heroically enduring U.S. strikes to destroy its nuclear facilities – none of which is near producing atom-bomb material – a major war would be a disaster for Iran. Not only would the regime be denuded of modern weapons, it would be set back decades to where the Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis and Kurds might try to break the country up, even as Iraq is breaking up.
But this would be a disaster for the United States as well. For an attack on Iran would unify Persians in hatred of America, the way Pearl Harbor unified Americans. And a breakup of Iran could create a new archipelago of terrorist training camps across the Middle East.
What we are getting at is that there is common ground between the United States and Iran. Neither of us would benefit from a major war. Both of us benefit if there is a reliable flow of oil and gas out of the Gulf and Central Asia. Neither of us wants to see the return of the Taliban or rise of al-Qaida, which is anti-Shiite. In his 18-page letter, Ahmadinejad powerfully condemned the massacre of 9-11.
And Tehran must be having second thoughts about whether to go nuclear when that could mean Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt might follow suit, and the United States and Israel would put a hair trigger on their missile arsenals, and target them on Tehran.
Better to talk. To test the waters, President Bush might take up Ahmadinejad's missive, manifest the same respect for Islam that he showed for Jesus of Nazareth, rebut his attacks on America and lay down what Bush would like to see in a future relationship with Iran.
We have much to talk about: terror, nuclear power, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, oil, what we owe Iran and what Iran owes us.
It's because you're very short-sighted.
he is shameless.
Pat I've been a staunch supporter of you in the past. On this issue, kindly shut the hell up.
In reading it, I was reminded of the following, which appears in a story in today's NY Times from Tyre, Lebanon:
"At the Amel Hospital, Dr. Ali Mroue took stock of what he had seen in recent days: decapitated bodies, severe burns, disfigured faces. The hospital has lost 25 patients, he said, but saved 100.
But most of all, he lamented the death of a 2-year-old girl, whom he tried desperately to save. She had severe burns on half her body, internal bleeding and her eyes were perforated, but she fought to live, he said.
“She was a mere child,” he said, as his voice cracked. “She had nothing to do with this. Maybe you can accept the death of an adult, but she had so much ahead of her.’’
Modern war inevitably produces horrors such as the death of this two year old girl. Which is why both John Paul II and now Benedict XVI always urged great restraint before any nation went to war, and why Pat Buchanan wisely wants Americans to avoid the bloodshed of the Middle East.
He can be. I respect true pacifists like Stephen Hand more than Pat pulling a stunt like this, and I think Hand went around the bend a while back...
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.