[Toddsterpatriot]

Have at Pat all you want for what he actually said, but not for what some scurrilous journalist wants you to think he said.

James Taranto is a scurrilous journalist? How did he "frame" the issue? Oh, right, he reprinted Pat's words. How sneaky!

[AndyJackson]

James Taranto is a scurrilous journalist? How did he "frame" the issue?

He excerpted Pat's words out of context, eliminated Pat's introctory and conclusory remarks and then told you how you were to read them. He even retitled the whole thing for you just to make sure that you read it the way Taranto intended you to read it, rather than the way that Buchanan intended you to read it. That is scurilous.

You fell for it in a knee jerk fashion without even thinking about it. That is idiocy. And now you are trying to cover up for the fact that you allowed yourself to be duped by these scurilous journalistic tactics.

[Revolting cat!]

I'd trust Jamas Taranto reporting what Pat Buchanan had said first, before trusting Buchanan's skewed history of WWII. He really exposed himself this time.

Oh well, some Joe Palookas come here to feel superior and to explain to us dummies what they are convinced we don't comprehend.