This is the worst piece I have ever read by Buchanan. Indignantly, he asks the question: “What was the higher cause McCarthy was serving?”. He should be able to supply the answer to this question without a moment’s thought. The fact that he cannot do so reveals far more about his views than a hundred opinion pieces ever could.
Furthermore, the line “Whether this war was a mistake or not, no one has a right to sabotage the war effort.” is the antithesis of the truth. I would argue that, if the war was wrong, which virtually all war is, everyone has the obligation to sabotage the war effort.
The woman is accused of exposing the fact that the CIA was running “ghost prisons” at former Soviet gulags in Romania and Poland (she denies it) and Mr. Cold War doesn’t mind/didn’t want to know that his country is turning into the USSR?
In other news, Israeli spys Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman have invoked the first amendment in their espionage case.
Well, this is the man who has dismissed criticisms of and apprehensions about the Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib, and the NSA warrantless spying as sensationalized phantoms of the left-liberal press; a man who endorsed Bush, however reluctantly, because he was supposedly good on judicial appointments and taxes; a man who has on numerous occasions and in regard to at least a couple wars declared that, once the boots were on the ground, it was our responsibility as citizens to support the war; a man who supported the rape of Fallujah and attacked Newsweek for covering the story of the desecrated Koran. He is a Nixonite, a Republican, and likely always will be.
Pat Buchanan says some really great stuff sometimes. He’s good, maybe even important, to read. I like him. But he has shown time and again that he’s just a rightwinger, and rightwingers that are generally sound on peace and liberty are far and few between.
“Pat Buchanan is a real Conservative and that’s his problem.” Well, in the final analysis it’s called Politics Gentlemen…and I’m afraid Politics are diabolic. The point being: It doesn’t take a clairyvoyant to see that Pat Buchanan still nurses fantasies of the White House; he might even see himself as Nixon in back in ‘62. Hence a public declaration–this to his perceived base–of a stern commitment to the hard hand of blind justice and on and on and on. Privately, I believe he knows Goddamn well what higher purpose the woman was serving. Sworn oath or no. Still, there’s no sense beating him in the head with Watergate. He’s gone as far as he can in Washington anyway. Meanwhile I get the idea that the Rosen-Weissman Defense will attempt to paint this business in like shades of the Dreyfus affair. But in the end they’ll probably be convicted. This as our “valiant Israeli allies” understand perfectly well the law of diminishing returns. While treachery to benefactors? That seems to be a different matter to them altogether…
This is the worst piece I have ever read by Buchanan. Indignantly, he asks the question: “What was the higher cause McCarthy was serving?”. He should be able to supply the answer to this question without a moment’s thought. The fact that he cannot do so reveals far more about his views than a hundred opinion pieces ever could.
Furthermore, the line “Whether this war was a mistake or not, no one has a right to sabotage the war effort.” is the antithesis of the truth. I would argue that, if the war was wrong, which virtually all war is, everyone has the obligation to sabotage the war effort.
The woman is accused of exposing the fact that the CIA was running “ghost prisons” at former Soviet gulags in Romania and Poland (she denies it) and Mr. Cold War doesn’t mind/didn’t want to know that his country is turning into the USSR?
In other news, Israeli spys Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman have invoked the first amendment in their espionage case.
Well, this is the man who has dismissed criticisms of and apprehensions about the Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib, and the NSA warrantless spying as sensationalized phantoms of the left-liberal press; a man who endorsed Bush, however reluctantly, because he was supposedly good on judicial appointments and taxes; a man who has on numerous occasions and in regard to at least a couple wars declared that, once the boots were on the ground, it was our responsibility as citizens to support the war; a man who supported the rape of Fallujah and attacked Newsweek for covering the story of the desecrated Koran. He is a Nixonite, a Republican, and likely always will be.
Pat Buchanan says some really great stuff sometimes. He’s good, maybe even important, to read. I like him. But he has shown time and again that he’s just a rightwinger, and rightwingers that are generally sound on peace and liberty are far and few between.
“Pat Buchanan is a real Conservative and that’s his problem.” Well, in the final analysis it’s called Politics Gentlemen…and I’m afraid Politics are diabolic. The point being: It doesn’t take a clairyvoyant to see that Pat Buchanan still nurses fantasies of the White House; he might even see himself as Nixon in back in ‘62. Hence a public declaration–this to his perceived base–of a stern commitment to the hard hand of blind justice and on and on and on. Privately, I believe he knows Goddamn well what higher purpose the woman was serving. Sworn oath or no. Still, there’s no sense beating him in the head with Watergate. He’s gone as far as he can in Washington anyway. Meanwhile I get the idea that the Rosen-Weissman Defense will attempt to paint this business in like shades of the Dreyfus affair. But in the end they’ll probably be convicted. This as our “valiant Israeli allies” understand perfectly well the law of diminishing returns. While treachery to benefactors? That seems to be a different matter to them altogether…