Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Pat Buchanan: “If Cold War II is coming, who started it, if not us?”

posted at 2:40 pm on August 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

For a man willing to blame Britain for World War II, this is an easy call. Kevin Drum has already addressed the stupidity of the idea that the U.S., in Buchanan’s words, might have given Georgia “a green light” to invade South Ossetia, so read him for that. I’m more interested in the two strands here. One is the isolationist point that it’s foolish and dangerous for the U.S. to commit itself to defending foreign powers by admitting them to NATO; whether NATO membership for Russia’s neighbors would increase or actually reduce the risk of war is debatable, but on its own terms that point is fair enough. It’s the second strand that carries the distinctive Buchanan odor. Tell me if I’m wrong to read this — particularly the tender description of Putin as a “Russian patriot” — as a none-too-veiled attempt to defend Russian expansionism:

Should America admit Ukraine into NATO, Yalta, vacation resort of the czars, will be a NATO port and Sevastopol, traditional home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will become a naval base for the U.S. Sixth Fleet. This is altogether a bridge too far.

And can we not understand how a Russian patriot like Vladimir Putin would be incensed by this U.S. encirclement after Russia shed its empire and sought our friendship? How would Andy Jackson have reacted to such crowding by the British Empire?

As of 1991, the oil of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan belonged to Moscow. Can we not understand why Putin would smolder [Feel his pain. -- ed.] as avaricious Yankees built pipelines to siphon the oil and gas of the Caspian Basin through breakaway Georgia to the West?…

Vladimir Putin is no Stalin. He is a nationalist determined, as ruler of a proud and powerful country, to assert his nation’s primacy in its own sphere, just as U.S. presidents from James Monroe to Bush have done on our side of the Atlantic.

A resurgent Russia is no threat to any vital interests of the United States. It is a threat to an American Empire that presumes some God-given right to plant U.S. military power in the backyard or on the front porch of Mother Russia.

Whereupon he lurches into a climactic perfunctory sneer about getting Saakashvili a job at AEI and calls for Joe Biden to hold public hearings on whether Bush Knew. There’s no reason I can see why anti-NATO isolationists can’t also be pro-Georgia: Restricting the use of U.S. military force to our own “sphere” isn’t inconsistent with wanting to help fledgling former Soviet satellites protect their independence through trade, military training, foreign aid, and diplomacy. Buchanan seems to be saying otherwise, that not only should we get out of Putin’s way, we should actually informally (or formally?) recognize Russia’s dominion over those satellites. How else to read the creepy nostalgia about Yalta being a resort for Russian aristocracy or the suggestion that Putin, a guy known for bumping off journalists who cross him, reached out to the U.S. in good faith by nobly “shedding” his empire before the evil neocons slapped his hand away? (PB must be the only person left in the world who thinks Bush’s infamous assessment of Putin’s soul was correct.) To put it another way, just what does he mean by Russian “primacy” and how far exactly does its “sphere” extend? If we’re supposed to stand idly by while Moscow all but reabsorbs its neighbors, then never mind Cold War II — we’ll be right back to Cold War I. And that actually will be our fault.

What kind of isolationist apologizes for another country’s expansionism, anyway? Answer: The same kind that thinks Churchill was the chief warmonger of the early 1940s, I guess. Exit question: For people who complain so much about neocons dramatically overstating the threats from foreign powers, Birchers like Buchanan and Ron Paul sure aren’t above dramatically understating them, are they?

Update: Headlines comments imported.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

sounds about right, and back to the 1930’s disastrous period

jp on August 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM

I think we’ve now chosen tribalism over nationalism for sure (hypenated Americans) but don’t think because we aren’t militarily intervening in Georgia it means we’re back in the 30’s era of isolationism at all. All our other global actions dispute that. I think it’s realpolitik. I’d be curious to hear what Kissinger has to say about that.

HEY HENRY. CARE TO ADD YOUR $.02?

JiangxiDad on August 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM

The Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1917-21 was not successful. That was the last time the US and its allies were involved in a direct shooting war with Russia – as opposed to arming proxies – and it was not a success.

aengus on August 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM

It’s not ‘isolationism’. It is non-interventionism. Why is everyone’s war our problem? If they aren’t attacking us, we shouldn’t care. That’s not isolationism, that’s no representation without taxation.

ThackerAgency on August 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM

The Russians aren’t Commies anymore, jp.

They’re more like neocons with intelligence and a sense of proportion.

alphie on August 19, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Correct, they’re fascists, the American Left’s ideal socio-political order.

SuperCool on August 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Last I checked, he is not privy to the National Security Data that lists all the facts of this situation……. so until he does, why doesn’t he shut that hole in his face?

Seven Percent Solution on August 19, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Don’t blame old Pat. Think of him as any HA commenter. He doesn’t influence anything.

JiangxiDad on August 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM

JiangxiDad on August 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Maybe not in here :)

But when I am not commenting, I am planning the overtaking of the world nice move into my new house.

upinak on August 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM

You mean from nationalism back to a form of tribalism?

JiangxiDad on August 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Sorry, didn’t explain myself well…

Western Democracys have worked because western philosophy was already in place….

We are trying to give them Democracy, and hope they then learn western philosophy from that…

Puttin the Cart before the horse… (really bad pun intended).

Romeo13 on August 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Trade doesn’t magically happen guys, goods don’t just get from point A to point B magically… and thugs like Putin, Saddam and the Hidden Imam fruitcakes in Iran will use the Jihadist whacko’s and other rougue entities against us. They will use their power over Oil flow to control us and by extension our LIBERTY.

‘non-interventionism’ is a complete fraud and abous as anti-Liberty in this day in age as you get.

jp on August 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Puttin the Cart before the horse… (really bad pun intended).

Romeo13 on August 19, 2008 at 4:56 PM

You forget to mention where the carrot was.

upinak on August 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Russia is hard power, completely opposed to free trade, liberalism and capitalism. They are an autocracy, whose goal is to control as much of the OIl flow as possible to have the western world at their mercy…so they can seize countries and we can’t do a thing about it. Soviet Empire in short

jp on August 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM

alphie and Buchanan on the same page. Just goes to show you that if you far enough right, you end up left.

Right now the Russians can not even be bothered to live up to their own agreements.

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:09 PM

jp is right, if not for the US navy it is highly unlikely world trade could operate unfettered.

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Buchanan is a Reagan Republican…just like me, Terrye.

Nice to see he’s got you Rapture Republicans throwing hissy fits.

alphie on August 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM

And some people wanted to elect this dill weed POTUS? I’m a rock solid right wing conservative! Ronald Reagan is my hero. Pat you are a national joke!

sabbott on August 19, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Buchanan is a Reagan Republican…just like me, Terrye.

alphie on August 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM

And Pol Pot was Mother Theresa in disguise.

Aristotle on August 19, 2008 at 5:19 PM

‘non-interventionism’ is a complete fraud and abous as anti-Liberty in this day in age as you get.

jp on August 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM

So your argument is that in order to free people, we must wage war against them. . . I got ya. They are only free if we say so. They are only free if WE are the tyrants that control them through puppet ‘democracies’. If they elect someone we don’t like, we need to overthrow them (unless they are black in the mold of Zimbabwe and Mugabe).

No, the only problem here is pure hatred of Russia. They haven’t attacked us, but everyone here is all gung ho about attacking them. . . be careful what you wish for.

I’m getting my bomb shelter ready for when all you ‘liberty spreaders’ ensure that we’ll have nuclear war with the only country capable of obliterating us.

ThackerAgency on August 19, 2008 at 5:22 PM

alphie:

Buchanan is a loon, just like you. He is also a bigot who hangs out with neo nazis. Just sayin.

And btw, Buchanan and Reagan were not the best of friends. Not at all.

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Nice, Terrye,

Right into the gutter.

How typical of your kind.

alphie on August 19, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Buchanan is a Reagan Republican…just like me, Terrye.

Not.
He supports the Ruskies because of their mutual anti-Semitism.

jgapinoy on August 19, 2008 at 5:40 PM

In fact my guess is that if Pat Buchanan had written some idiot thesis blaming Churchill for WW2, Reagan would have made a point of kicking him out of the conservative movement right then and there. And I think we all have a pretty good idea what Reagan would think of Russia threatening to nuke Poland and invading Georgia.

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Buchanan is absolutely correct about NATO expansion. In no way should NATO allow any country to be a member if it means that NATO might have to defend the country from the depredations of the Russian stoat.

davod on August 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM

How typical of your kind.

Well said, Mr. Attack-and-hiss-with-no-substance-or-logic.

jgapinoy on August 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM

alphie:

My kind? You are one of the most hateful little trolls I have ever encountered. The only reason you are here on this site is that you have a perverse desire to start fights with people, lie about and to people and in general be a pain in the ass. If you don’t believe me, just ask anyone.

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM

davod on August 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM

In other words, NATO membership for self-sufficient superpowers only!

jgapinoy on August 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Strangely enough, Pat Buchanan occasionally says and writes things that make sense, particularly concerning high birth rates among Muslims and low birth rates among native Europeans leading eventually to a Muslim majority in some European countries.

But trying to blame World War II on Churchill is just plain stupid and contrary to history, and the “conservative” (?) Buchanan places himself to the left of FDR. After the Nazis invaded France and bombed London, what was Churchill supposed to do–offer them boat rides across the Channel to Dover? No wonder MSNBC uses Buchanan as their “token conservative”–a nutcase plant used to paint all conservatives as nutcases.

Russia is a huge, proud nation accustomed to having an empire, which has disintegrated after the fall of Communism. The Russian people are accustomed to blindly following “strong” leaders who lead them to victory, either the Tsars or Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, or Putin. Putin has faced some embarrassing military failures in recent years (including their submarine whose crew had to be rescued by Norwegians), and longs to re-establish an empire, one small domino at a time, until someone dares to challenge him. While the safety of Georgia or Chechnya might not be of vital interest to the United States, or worth a military confrontation with Russia, where does the line need to be drawn where we take a stand? Ukraine? Lithuania? Poland?

Steve Z on August 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Agreed.

jgapinoy on August 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Thacker:

I don’t think anyone said anything about waging war against Russia. The truth is if they take over those countries again, chaos will ensue and chaos is not good for anyone…..least of all the people being run over.

Russia wants to be in the G8, they want to be in the World Trade Organization. They want to be respected, to be treated as if they are not thugs and liars and blackmailers…well then they can act like responsible people.

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Communism is “dead” Steve?

Then how can America keep borrowing money off them Commies to keep the backwards economy of bitter bumpkin land afloat?

alphie on August 19, 2008 at 5:48 PM

ThackerAgency:
They are only free if WE are the tyrants that control them through puppet ‘democracies’.

Man, hotair is a cesspool.

sandberg on August 19, 2008 at 5:55 PM

alphie:

My kind? You are one of the most hateful little trolls I have ever encountered. The only reason you are here on this site is that you have a perverse desire to start fights with people, lie about and to people and in general be a pain in the ass. If you don’t believe me, just ask anyone.

Terrye on August 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Yep, you are right Terrye… just ignore alphie, a troll not fed is an unhappy troll.

Maxx on August 19, 2008 at 6:01 PM

I don’t think anyone said anything about waging war against Russia.

Some commenters have counselled war against Russia, some have even suggested the bombing and dismemberment of the Russian federation. In an over-the-top hysterical way.

aengus on August 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM

“You do realize America was invaded… right? Japanese tried to take Alaska via the Alutiens Islands. Attu, Adak, Shemya, Rat Island. That was also 6 months before Pearl Harbor.”

You lose credibility when you misinform the readers. Th attack on Peral Harbor was in December 1941. The attack on Alaska started in June 1942.

davod on August 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM

OK, I’m breaking my “ignore alphie” policy, but alphie is a “Reagan Republican” like I’m an “Osama Taliban” supporter.

funky chicken on August 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM

Buchanan should superglue his lower lip to Putin’s butt and the upper lip to Achmadinejad’s.

A world class asshat.

profitsbeard on August 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM

davod on August 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Interesting. Maybe you should come up to the museum and tell that to the Natives who lived in that area when they had the Japanese coming on their islands and using them for slaves, while they scouted out the areas and islands, as they had not “invaded” yet. But then not everything in on the internet.

Attu had been used as a set off for the Japanese. The Navy knew it… but hey it was before my time….

And the official attack started June 3rd 1942. As in documented…

I haven’t lost anything. I don’t base everything via the internet.

upinak on August 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Right now one hopes that serial numbers are being removed from large numbers of anti-tank rockets. AT4s are a lot harder to trace since they are not manufactured in the US and are not used exclusively by us. The Javelins, SMAWs, and SRAWs would need a lot more plausible deniability. Then again, no-one else was cranking out stingers back in the 80’s… We could also go with the MBT LAW from the same firm, Saab Bofors… Gotta love those Swedes. IKEA and anti tank missiles FTW!

We sort of have a succesful precident with arming hostiles re: Russian land forces and their pretty antiquted doctrines.

flashoverride on August 19, 2008 at 6:45 PM

profitsbeard on August 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM

snorts!

upinak on August 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Over the last few years Pat has lost his mind.It,s a shame too but that what you get hanging out at Msnbc for years.Look at whats has happen to Joe & Tucker the same thing all 3 have gone over to the darkside!

thmcbb on August 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Who let the fossil out?

R. Waher on August 19, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Disclaimer: Haven’t read the comments. My point may have already been covered.

What kind of isolationist apologizes for another country’s expansionism, anyway? Answer: The same kind that thinks Churchill was the chief warmonger of the early 1940s, I guess.

There’s a certain logic and consistency to Buchanan’s world view here. An isolationist America only works if there are other Great Powers to take up the slack, so to speak, of policing the world.

If and only if they don’t take up the burden, then America must. In such a mindset (and others as well), one of the reasons we are required to exert ourselves and our treasure on the world stage is precisely *because* those former powers are no longer the global heavyweights. Thus, for someone seeking to return America to a period of blessed isolationism, reconstituting, re-energizing and re-enabling those global powers is the best thing imaginable. Here, inconsistency is everything. It’s a prerequisite, actually.

(And whether those Powers are imperial Britain, France, or Old Russia, is to some degree irrelevant in this line of thought; the only kind of power that can’t be tolerated by an isolationist America is an ever-expanding cannibalistic one that eventualls threatens to cross the ocean like Communism, Nazism or political Islam – thus his feverish determination to see some of these monsters as anything but, in his own mind.)

In a way, this line of thought reflects Buchanan’s own version of American exceptionalism, where the nature of our government is incompatible with the kind of moral compromises that empires and global hegemons must reach in order to be truly effective at World Management.

I suspect he thinks that our very nature makes it impossible for us to do the job, even if we wanted to (which he doesn’t).

RD on August 19, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Why does NATO need to expand into a tinder box like the Caaucuses? Keep in mind that Turkey and Greece have nearly entered all-out war several times over the last decade. Expanding NATO into part of the world that’s bitterly divided across ethnic, religious, and any other factor that could possibly engender hatred isn’t a good policy. It will ultimately highlight all the divisions within NATO and lead the organization into policies that only a small majority of its members can fully support.

Supporting democracy in Georgia and Eastern Europe is important policy. But admitting Georgia to NATO will lead to many more problems than it will solve.

bayam on August 19, 2008 at 9:01 PM

So under the bus all the formerly free people of georgia go! No NATO expansion for you, you’re just too many problems. Must be nice, huh? America helping out only the easy countries, or the lucky ones that get the random helping hand. Don’t want to cause any divisions in NATO! After all, if there is a genocide, we can just look the other way.

Sorry Georgia! You’re too much of a tinderbox. Hope you enjoyed your freedom while it lasted. The Russians won’t murder and rape your people too much! We could have helped out, but hey – We don’t want to get on Putin’s bad side. SORRY!!!

*kisses*!/

wise_man on August 19, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Russia is a huge, proud nation accustomed to having an empire, which has disintegrated after the fall of Communism. The Russian people are accustomed to blindly following “strong” leaders who lead them to victory, either the Tsars or Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, or Putin.

That’s all very true. But it’s not the complete picture.

Buchanan is correct on one other point: over the past 8 years, the US has treated Russia with nothing other than contempt. Across a range of issues, from unilaterally canceling the anti-ABM treaty to establishing missile bases in E. Europe, America has treated Russia like an insignificant power that hardly deserves recognition. Want to cancel a treaty? No reason for discussions or negotiations that allow Russia to save face and claim an advantageous outcome and mutual decision to cancel the treaty. Instead, simply announce to the world that the treaty has been terminated, a gesture similar to kicking a two bit hooker out of a bar. You have to realize that to any nation that sees itself as a power, this kind of treatment is ultimately humiliating. Our actions are seen as attempts to disregard and undermine Russian’s sphere of influence in Europe, and thwart Russian national security goals. When your nation has faced multiple, massive invasions over the last century by foreign powers (and more before that), keeping a few friendly neighbors along your borders will be integral to national security policy.

This point by no means justifies Russian actions in Georgia. But it does suggest that perhaps there’s room to avoid a second Cold War. It’s not as if Russia owes the US any favors based on recent history.

bayam on August 19, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Pat Buchanan appears to be a former American nationalist so sympathetic with nationalists everywhere that he’s ceased to be nationalistic himself. I think he’s slipped into international nationalism.

Kralizec on August 19, 2008 at 9:42 PM

keeping a few friendly neighbors along your borders will be integral to national security policy

Russia, as a major energy supplier and strong cultural influence in the region, can easily have friendly neighbors along its borders. All it has to do is refrain from poisoning their politicians, threatening to nuke them, and the like.

The world is begging to be Russia’s friend. They just have to stop acting like psychopaths.

Russia’s actions brought on the world’s mistrust, not the other way around. You are completely reversing cause and effect.

sandberg on August 19, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Russia’s actions brought on the world’s mistrust, not the other way around. You are completely reversing cause and effect.

I never claimed that there’s a cause and effect or any other way to justify Russian actions. Russia is basically run by a group of bureaucratic thugs closely tied to the mafia. Only its massive energy resources prevent it from economic decline.

The US policies toward Russia were implemented before its actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.

bayam on August 19, 2008 at 10:10 PM

Should America admit Ukraine into NATO, Yalta, vacation resort of the czars, will be a NATO port and Sevastopol, traditional home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will become a naval base for the U.S. Sixth Fleet. This is altogether a bridge too far.

Yalta ceased being the vacation resort of the czars 91 years ago; the Americans can scarcely make Yalta any less a possession of the czars than it already is. My weak sentimental attachment to the extinct royalty of Russia’s former inhabitants doesn’t extend at all to the Russian Black Sea Fleet; nor am I aware of some distance beyond which the U.S. Sixth Fleet simply must not establish a base. If Buchanan wants Americans to respect traditions, then let me observe that the Americans have a tradition of establishing bases according to those bases’ strategic value to the Americans’ strength and liberty.

It’s pretty funny that Buchanan invokes A Bridge Too Far to describe the Americans’ working together to further their own common advantage. Here, Buchanan is the one constructing a rationale on behalf of one of the Americans’ enemies, yet he seems unconscious of having gone a bridge too far.

Kralizec on August 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM

It is encouraging to see so many posts critical of Buchanan. I have been highly critical of Buchanan because his articles on foreign policy subjects in recent years have reflected an increasingly strident isolationsism that maintains common ground with left wing isolationsists. Buchanan’s views are like George McGovern’s expressed in McGovern’s “Come Home America” speech to the 1972 Democrat National Convention. Buchanan should not be considered as a conservative.

The problem with Buchanan’s isolationsism is that it was shown to be wrong by the events that culminated in World War II. Buchanan knows it, and that is why I think he wrote his revisionist “history” of World War II that idiotically blames Chruchill. It is bad stuff. Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens tear apart Buchanan’s false revisionism in a published interview that can be found on National Review Online.

Too much attention is given to Buchanan. Buchanan is wrong about World War II. Buchanan is wrong about Georgia.

Phil Byler on August 19, 2008 at 10:37 PM

Americans have a tradition of establishing bases according to those bases’ strategic value to the Americans’ strength and liberty

How does a presence in the Caucuses make the US or NATO stronger? How does it give Americans more liberty? Should we try expanding into Sudan or other parts of the world in the name of democracy or better military bases? Georgia may be in the spotlight this month, but you need to have a consistent strategy.

Look at the causes of WWI and think about how many treaty commitments the US should make in the name of the most recent struggle for democracy and freedom.

bayam on August 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM

Should we try expanding into Sudan or other parts of the world in the name of democracy or better military bases? Georgia may be in the spotlight this month, but you need to have a consistent strategy.

Look at the causes of WWI and think about how many treaty commitments the US should make in the name of the most recent struggle for democracy and freedom.

bayam on August 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM

The Georgians seem to be democracy and freedom loving people. I doubt that the Suddenness are. I don’t think that the Iraqis are. Democracy and freedom on the one hand and Islam on the other are not exactly natural fits to say the least.

MB4 on August 19, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Buchanan is a Reagan Republican…just like me, Terrye.

Nice to see he’s got you Rapture Republicans throwing hissy fits.

alphie on August 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Seems like you said you were on the left; which is it?

Johan Klaus on August 20, 2008 at 2:09 AM

alphie on August 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM

And your obsession with bashing Christians does not sound like Reagan.

Johan Klaus on August 20, 2008 at 2:14 AM

Putin, a guy known for bumping off journalists who cross him

Allah, I am no fan of Putin or Russia for that matter, but I don’t think that anyone has ever proven that Putin was involved in ” bumping off journalist”.

Johan Klaus on August 20, 2008 at 2:24 AM

Buchanan seems to be saying otherwise, that not only should we get out of Putin’s way, we should actually informally (or formally?) recognize Russia’s dominion over those satellites.

This is sufficiently ridiculous to merit reasonable comparison to Buchanan’s idiotic “we should have ignored Hitler” tripe. He’s not stupid – he’s crazy.

Jaibones on August 20, 2008 at 7:39 AM

Putin doesn’t understand that the missile defense system has nothing to do with him. The Cold War was supposed to be over, after all. The system has Ahmadinejad, not Putin, written all over it. Furthermore, I am sure that, if we saw a missile headed Russia’s way, we’d have our finger on the trigger trying to shoot it down before Putin could even get to the red telephone.

If Putin can’t see all of those things for what they are, then he is an idiot. Buchanan went off the deep end apologizing for him.

flutejpl on August 20, 2008 at 9:07 AM

I am ashamed to admit that I once thought of VOTING for this WACKO… There I said it, admitted it, and now I feel much better…

pueblo1032 on August 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM

It is not worth arguing with a fool. Others may not be able to tell who the fool is.

Wildcatter1980 on August 20, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Buchanan, who used to exhibit occasional flashes of sanity and lucidity long ago, is apparently off his meds again…

landlines on August 20, 2008 at 1:54 PM

‘non-interventionism’ is a complete fraud and abous as anti-Liberty in this day in age as you get.

jp on August 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM

That is ten tons of BS.

Every well-raised five year old child is aware of the concept of Minding Your Own Bloody Business. Why whole nations can’t grasp that idea is beyond me.

Dark-Star on August 21, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.