Posted on 05/20/2008 12:59:30 PM PDT by EveningStar
Is Herr Obergruppenfeurer Buchanan actually attempting to compare Achmadinejad with Gorbie ... and Cho en Lai?
Not to mention his statement that Hitler didn't want to invade Poland? Really??? Maybe he should read The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich rather than simply morn it's demise, attempting, in his own demented way, to sanitize Hitler's Germany along the way.
The classics never get old
I almost posted an IBTJ (in before that joke) before it.
I used to refer to Buchanan as Pat Bu-Can’tWin-An. And I see that he still can’t.........
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Given the fact that Pat has advocated aid for Hamas, it's only fair, and validated Putin's description of the US as the evil Comrade Wolf, that he's be offended at any suggestion that appeasement is a negative isn't surprising. 'Comrade Wolf' and the mullahs, Patrick Buchanan
Buchanan defends foreign aid - for Hamas, Patrick Buchanan
Buchanan defends foreign aid [For Hamas-he's wrong],Joseph Farah
Pat may be the original Bitcon...... Bitter Conservative
His sister is 32 degree
Yes, see #22, in addition to being an anti-Semite, Pat Buchanan is incompetent to discuss history. He is an ignorant babbling fool, if that makes you feel any better.
Well, for one, Buchanan implies that if Poland had merely given Hitler Danzig, WWII would likely not have occured.
That is insane.
Yeah...he’s a delusional anti-semite.
Absolutely he was. George H. W. Bush left Saddam Hussein in power because he couldn't get permission to remove him from the UN and Arab allies like Assad. He subjected US foreign policy to a Kerryesque "global test" and ensured that Saddam Hussein would remain in power for 12 more years, plotting revenge against us and giving safe haven to our terrorist enemies. George H. W. Bush sold out America's interests for his globalist "new world order" and left a huge mess for his son to clean up.
Pat is bitter because it Israel, whom he does not care for.
Also, his article is stupid. I often agree with Pat, but he is missing the mark here, just like Obama.
Here's another — bye!
Since Buchanan views Hitler "as a man of great courage", we argue his point, while understanding that he is, in fact an anti-Semite. Sorry if that bothers you.
I wonder, too, how Buchanan can write good columns sometimes, and awful ones at other times. The only hint I can find is that he also writes for “The Wanderer” a German Catholic newspaper out of Minnesota. They are the same way. On some Church matters they are brilliant and at other times they are not, like the current essay about why the Vatican wants us to get rid of Capitalism! I don’t read Buchanan’s column in the Wanderer because everyone else who writes for the paper is an “America Firster”. If anyone can figure it out, let me know.
Looks like Cyclone Conservative wasn’t around long enough to become a “Typical Freeper.”
Read the (entire) article then read the posts. Although I am not in total agreement with Buchanan, the "ignorant, babbling fool" moniker would appear to apply more to the posts than the article.
Plenty, if your actually read the thread. ...which evidently you didn't.
Oh, you're now banned? How many incarnations so far?
i stopped reading Buchanan years ago, he’s a loon
Buchanan has a forthcoming book, “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War” in which he claims (”argues” would give Buchanan too much credit) that Britain’s decision to fight Hitler over Poland ended up costing the West fifty years of Soviet domination over Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans.
In a nutshell, Buchanan claims that Hitler would have stopped at Poland if only the British hadn’t declared war. So, Pat, what about other historical claims by Germany to parts of Czechoslovakia, France, etc?
I did read the article, thank you. While I never could endorse every post on FR, I am not discussing other posts, I am talking about the (very low) quality of Pat Buchanan’s “thought” and not what any particular FReepers may say about him.
Look, to write about the Danzig and Sudetenland issues without even acknowledgement that Hitler himself PROVED he was up to much more than simply uniting German-speakers with the Fatherland is preposterous (naturally PB fails to interest himself in the fates of all the millions, both German-speakers, and non-German speakers, who did NOT want to be absorbed into Hitler’s Germany). To fail to confront the fact that Hitler invaded and annexed Czechoslovakia far beyond the Sudetenland in March 1939 proves that PB is either too ignorant or too dishonest (or both) to be taken seriously.
PB tries to pretend that “oh, if only they’d given Hitler the Sudetenland and Danzig, there would have been no WWII”
The March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia proves how idiotic PB’s position is, so of course he does not confront that obvious stunning counter-example.
The 1930s “appeasers” at least had the excuse that they could (pretend to) not see what Hitler was up to, even though he had laid it out in “Mein Kampf” and Churchill had discussed it extensively in his writings and speeches. PB has NO EXCUSE after the fact for being such a pitiful appeasement-monkey and ignoring major facts such as the fate of Czechoslovakia AFTER they’d already given up the Sudetenland.
Is PB dishonest or incompetent? Take your pick..... I’ll say both.
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.