[Iwo Jima]

What's wrong with this article. I couldn't find a single thing to disagree with. So I'd say that Pat Buchanan has far from outlived his usefulness.

Have you ever written anything half as worthwhile as this article?

[K-oneTexas]

Guess you got the wrong idea. I AGREE with the article. I whole-heartedly AGREE with Pat Buchanan on this. These institutions need to be gone ... most especially the U.N. [I do not look forward to Secretary General William Jefferson Clinton.]

[r9etb]

What's wrong with this article. I couldn't find a single thing to disagree with.

What's "wrong" is statements such as this one:

Why should the United States, now the world's largest debtor nation, go out into the capital markets and borrow billions, so the World Bank and IMF can continue to subsidize the most corrupt and least competent regimes on earth? Does this make sense?

What's the problem with that?

For one thing, even if we're the largest debtor nation, we're not in that state because of our support for the World Bank and IMF. He's comparing apples and oranges.

This particular aromatic nugget tells us a lot about Pat's own isolationism, and very little about anything useful.

[untrained skeptic]

I'm not the isolationist that Buchanan is, so I disagree with his assertion that we should bring all of our forces that are arguably part of NATO home.

It's also worth pointing out that our allies in NATO joined us in going after Afghanistan, so NATO hasn't outlived it's usefulness for us (though I'd boot out the French).

However, I also agree with the vast majority of what Buchanan wrote in this article, which is extremely rare.