The late, great Molly Ivins famously said Pat Buchanan’s speech at the 1992 GOP convention “probably sounded better in the original German.” If only she were alive today to read Buchanan’s defense of Hitler.

Buchanan’s explanation for the invasion of Poland: They were askin’ for it!  --

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate.

The dirty bums! (And as for those Jews. . . .)

If you think what Pat Buchanan wrote was a, “defense of Hitler” you have a reading comprehension problem.

What he was advocating for was the use of diplomacy, even with people who our government doesn’t like. Pat accurately points out that diplomacy is but one of many tools that should be used and to ignore a diplomatic path to a solution would be to forgo a chance to reach an agreement without resorting to war.

Why is it that whenever someone uses an example from the Nazi era to illustrate a point, you ignore what the point actually is and immediately dive into calls of Antisemitism, Jew-hating, or pro-Nazi?

There were some very strong lessons derived from the WWII era, especially that appeasement doesn’t work. However, that does not automatically exclude the use of all forms of diplomacy, as Pat Buchanan was trying to point out.

Stalin a gullible leftist ? That’s funny.

It may be true that leftists tend to expect too much out of diplomacy.

Of course Buchanan is a hardnosed conservative. He is not saying to go along with, accomodate, or appease. He is saying to keep the lines of communication open. Sell snake oil. Never buy it.

I’m not sure history will fault Bush for having supported Israel. After all, Bush’s policy viz a viz the Middle East is no less effective than any other policy. None of them have any chance of success in that poisonous atmosphere for the time being.

So, his legacy there is secure. His cheap shot at Obama long since ignored if not forgotten. His insinuation that the Dems are weak on foreign policy already a long established and well known myth, or truth, as the case may be.

If Bush is judged harshly it will be for other reasons, not a hardline policy with regard to the Middle East. Unless he invades Iran in the next coupla’ months. That might cause a stir.

Who knows. Might even be the right thing to do. History will judge.

My favorite Polish invasion quip came from Dave Barry when he said Hitler invaded Poland for the flagrant and provacative act of being next door!

Stalin, BTW, was the original gullible leftist. Apparently he was actually surprised when Hitler broke their non aggression treaty. Stalin spent the first critical weeks of the invasion secluded, disoriented and impotent before finally ordering his army into mass suicide charges to save the political class and the state.

Excellent points by Buchanan. Negotiations or visits never hurt the process towards ending differences. The problem is that nothing ever happens. No verification of nuclear sites. No improvement of human rights. No opening of the borders. Nothing. Unfortunately the US has reached a point of trying to accomodate all parties, especially the liberals at home. Agreement is impossible when one tries to make everyone 100% pleased with every decision.

Very little satisfies the DEM liberals. It made no difference what Bush has done for the past 8 years. All of their dissent is due to DEMs refusal to accept the outcome of Election 2000.

The US is going down the road to second-class status in the world. Only our distance from other continents and natural resources prop us up. Leadership is our greatest enemy. ObamaSama is not the answer, neither is Hillary or John. Goodbye Teddy!

Pat Buchanan is a journalist, a professional gadfly, which is not to say he is an ax murderer just for that one failing.  Hear the man out. Give him a fair hearing.

Then lynch him, or play the Hitler-Jew card, whichever comes first.

As much an irrelevant zit to the GOP than Buchanan is a lame duck president. They compliment each other on their relative uselessness, even if both make decent points for the unheeding audience.

Bush was trying to nail Obama by saying Obama is a peacenik who can’t deal effectively with rogue nations because Obama will negotiate and thus undo all the hardliner progress that only a true leader like Bush could possibly provide.
Pardon me while I gag on this Bushshit. Worse, what if ?

He was also trying to seal up his legacy by making it clear in no uncertain terms that he stands by his allies and disses his enemies. That is his legacy, or that is what is left of it, take your pick.

His claim to seal a Mideast Pact by the end of the year was so ridiculous no one saw fit to attack it even if no one at all I know of thought it even remotely possible. The situation in the Mideast is so tragic it has just become sad, beyond political.

Bush’s worries over appeasement are as genuine and real in the context of Mideast instability as they are disingenuous in the arena of politics and Democrat contenders.  That is why I say he made good points, even though some think he may have insulted Arab leaders a bit. Never mind. By all accounts they are painfully aware themselves of how unstable the region is. They know the score.

Buchanan is correct of course that engagement with evildoers goes on all the time, and is one way to lead them away from the abyss of evil. Of course you negotiate with terrorists. It’s just a question of whether you do so with the wussifed clueless skirtclinging Dems or the true blue patriot Reps. Or so Bush would have us believe. I imagine more than one of us has already worried about that issue without Bush’s guidance.

Buchanan may even have a point in his politics of war era Poland.  Who cares. In the larger context, you only have a lame duck president making political jabs before a largely disinterested but semi-friendly and polite audience of sophisticated Israelis and potentially hostile Arabs. Their remarks fall flat because they are only gadflys, useless, pointless, zits on the face of the Grand Old Party. 

His true intent and purpose was to beg for oil from the Saudis, which makes his rebuke of the Saudis particularly poignant and pathetic. To have to beg and then be sent packing, at least a good speech to lick his wounds as he slinks away.

Both he and Buchanan make good points. Perhaps they should take up blogging.

Post Your Comments: