Slog Comments

 

Comments (32) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Puty 1
That would be "never" but this was good. Clearly the rocks Pat's always had in his head recently shook loose.
Posted by Puty on February 27, 2013 at 11:14 AM · Report this
2
I've never read anything by Pat Buchanan before. The first third or so seems quite sensible. He gets a bit histrionic later on, but most of the content is still pretty fair: "The Iraq war was not Obama's doing." "The current Iraq situation is the consequence of the war." And he has the good grace to mention Iraqi casualties.
Posted by DRF on February 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM · Report this
3
Iran is a major threat to our national security because Iran is in a position to stop oil tankers from traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. That would stop the flow of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil onto the world market and harm our economy. Pat Buchanan wrote an entire column about how Iran isn't a threat to America w/o once mentioning the reason why Iran is a threat to America.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on February 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM · Report this
4
While Buchanan holds many loathsome positions, he's been one of the sole voices of reason among mainstream conservatives regarding foreign policy going back to the beginning of Bush II.
Posted by MRM on February 27, 2013 at 11:23 AM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 5
Buchanan's a bit tone deaf on racial and civil rights issues (to put it mildly) but he's always been solid on decrying US imperialism. IIRC, he's criticized US entry into every war from the Spanish-American on (which frankly makes him more consistently anti-war than me.)
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on February 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM · Report this
OutInBumF 6
And still he prattles on and on and on and on.... Why won't Jeebus take him home already?
Posted by OutInBumF on February 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 7
Buchanan is, and always has been, an isolationist. While the takedown of Rubin was fun, it's not like neocons haven't been ignoring the man for decades, or are suddenly going to say "Hey! Pat Buchanan just punched a bunch of holes in our spin. We have to rethink this whole thing!"
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 27, 2013 at 11:40 AM · Report this
trstr 8
Don't remember. I don't usually peruse articles by fascists. (And that goes for that fucking racist Andrew Sullivan, too.)
Posted by trstr on February 27, 2013 at 11:48 AM · Report this
pointy 9
I regularly enjoy the feeling of moral and/or intellectual superiority while I read his stuff. Does that count?
Posted by pointy on February 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM · Report this
10
3, Iran is in a position to close the Straits of Hormuz if it were still the 4th century. Today, Iran could make trouble for about 3 days and then her navy and airforce would cease to exist. Oil prices would spike for a bit because the oil gougers have to bring home milk for the baby, right?
Mr. Pat is a loose canon on the GOP ship of racist fools. The whole damn crew are loose canons. They are bound to bump into each other as they careen about tilting decks. Rats are wont to jump off sinking ships only to swim to some pristine little paradise and cover it with their rat feces/urine cocktail. Pat is just positioning to get a good spot at the rail before he jumps.

Sorry for the mixed metaphors but I never can think of Republicans for long before the word "ratfuckers" screams through my brain. So I went with it.
Posted by kwodell on February 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 11
I'm glad he briefly calls her out on the use of the word "scary". No one over the age of ten should use that word to describe anything serious. A movie might be scary. the price of a jar of Cream of Tartar might be scary, but certainly not a national security issue. It's even worse than the ridiculously simple-minded "Bad Guys" (which always makes me think of the bad spy in "Spy vs. Spy" in Mad Magazine.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on February 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM · Report this
blip 12
@3 That may be true but it does not make Iran our greatest national security threat.

Iran is more likely Israel's greatest national security threat, and Jennifer Rubin's primary concern is Israel.
Posted by blip on February 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM · Report this
Tim Horton 13
@7 has it. If you like your politics isolationist with a mix of anti-semitic conspiracy theorist mixed in, Pat is your candidate.

Iran probably isn't a direct threat to American lives, but a nuclear Iran does pose a big fucking problem with regional stability in an already instable region that controls our economic lifeblood, i.e. oil and hangs gay people for sport. Pat can be fine watching Iran go nuclear. I aint. I would love to see more support for heavy sanctions from the non-proliferation left.

Posted by Tim Horton on February 27, 2013 at 12:32 PM · Report this
14
It makes me twitch all over, but I actually agree with him on this subject. Weird. *FLINCH*
Posted by JrzWrld on February 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM · Report this
Ophian 15
Well, we had to go into Vietnam or Communism! We had to go into Iran and bring down their democracy because Communism! We had to go into Iraq because Terrorism!

The hysterical shoot first and ask questions later system is working guys. I say we nuke 'em.
Posted by Ophian on February 27, 2013 at 12:52 PM · Report this
biffp 16
Citizens stockpiling automatic weapons is America's greatest national security threat.
Posted by biffp on February 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM · Report this
17
The next moron who parrots that idiotic talking point about "closing" the Straights of Hormuz needs to turn off Fox news for five minutes and actually open a fucking book on Geography and/or modern naval warfare.

At least go to a primer like Gary Brecher's War Nerd on The Exiled (http://exiledonline.com/cat/war-nerd/)

Iran cannot in any meaningful way "close" the straights. They can cause a brief little ruckus before being completely obliterated.

the last time the Irans "confronted" US Navy ships in the Straights it was basically to shake their fists from speedboats. They do not have a navy. They have barely serviceable thirty year F-15's a squadron of Chines J-10's and maybe some Russian Su-30 (though nobody seems to have seem anybody fly those anywhere near Iran). A US carrier group will cut through those like a hot knife through butter.

Even with those super cool Chinese Sunburn missiles everybody assumes they have, all they can do is sink a few tankers and make the stock market panic. After that every Iranian radar site that paints the gulf will be turned to cinders. Sunburn missiles are not satellite guided. They require very obvious, though somewhat portable, radar guidance. We have some very handy cruise missiles and aircraft that we can launch from hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away that can sniff out that shit with incredible accuracy.

But it's not going to happen. The Iranians need access to the gulf just as much as everybody else. Plus. They are not suicidal morons.
Posted by tkc on February 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM · Report this
18
Sorry. I meant " thirty year old F-14 (Tomcats)"
Posted by tkc on February 27, 2013 at 1:05 PM · Report this
19
@3 What @10 said. After Iran even threatened this (earlier last year I believe?), the U.S. moved a couple of big ships into the area, probably made a few threatening phone calls, and they suddenly changed their tune.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on February 27, 2013 at 1:07 PM · Report this
20
grrr...and maybe some MiG 29's... oh, jeez nobody cares.

The point is. Yes. Iran is not remotely at the top of the list of strategic threats to the US.
Posted by tkc on February 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM · Report this
21
@11 - I know! What is it with Creme of Tartar? Is it made of gold?
Posted by agony on February 27, 2013 at 1:50 PM · Report this
22
Pat Buchanan is wrong about 67% of the time, but when he's right, he's awesome. I can see why Rachel Maddow and Al Franken like him so much.
Posted by catsnbanjos on February 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Looking For a Better Read 23
He closes by saying that Rubin is the Post's version of conservatism, but here he's wrong: Rubin actually is everyone's current version of conservatism.
Posted by Looking For a Better Read on February 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM · Report this
ferret 24
@12 Israel's greatest national security threat is instability of its neighbors, specifically, Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Egypt and Syria.

There is a difference between fiery rhetoric, which is disturbing and Iran is very guilty of, and actual capability and strategic intention. Iran has some major problems. It also no matter their intentions with the Arab world, will be looked upon with huge worries, given the difference between Iranian culture, language, ethnicity and Arab Culture.

One of the biggest peace moves made by the Israelis that negated by far its biggest threat, was the peace treaty with Egypt. If a country of close to 80 million is unstable at it Israel's doorstep, it be a serious problem to the national security of Israel. Iran is using very disturbing rhetoric toward the Israeli for many reasons, but they don't have the capability or the GDP to carry out their idiocy.
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM · Report this
25
@12 is correct.

I'm Jewish by conversion, so I do care about Israel (I do not support their genocidal treatment of Palestinians), and the conservative right, particularly the religious conservative right, have been huge supporters of Israel for as long as I can remember. But why? Why should conservative Christians in the US care about what happens to Israel? They certainly didn't care about the Jews being exterminated by the Nazis, so why do they suddenly care about Israel now?

The answer lies in right-wing Christian beliefs about the "end times." They believe that Jesus cannot return until the Jews are in full control of Israel, including Jerusalem, and the Third Temple has been built. They also believe that all but a few countries will rise up against Israel during the battle of Armageddon (Har Megido). Once Jesus returns to stop the battle, all those who are against Israel will be destroyed, and all those who fought on Israel's side will be safe, except all those Jews who rejected Jesus. They will be sent to hell, and Israel and the world will then be ruled by Jesus and his Christian followers for 1000 years of peace and bliss before the "final judgment."

I know it seems strange, but I was raised as an evangelical Christian and this is what I was taught in Sunday school and the church services. The USA must support Israel because God favors those who favor Israel, and because we want to make sure we are on the "right" side when the second coming happens. It never seemed to matter that after the battle, all the Jews they were trying to protect will be sent to hell to suffer for all eternity. Oh, well, I guess as long as your own butt goes to heaven, it's all good, right?

But seriously, right-wing Christian end-of-the-world beliefs are not a good basis for foreign policy.
More...
Posted by SherBee on February 27, 2013 at 3:08 PM · Report this
26
@25 Nothing good ever comes out of sects that emphasize the Book of Revelation.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on February 27, 2013 at 4:01 PM · Report this
27
I think 'isolationist' is an overstatement of Buchanan's foreign policy perspective, but he's somewhere on that end of the spectrum, certainly compared to, say, the Neo-Cons.

He's also long been different from most on the right in terms of concern for the decline in the US manufacturing base, and the devastating impact that decline has had on working class, blue collar Americans.

He's an old-school conservative in many respect, as he is on many racial/ethnic issues: (he flirts with anti-Semitism, and his concerns about the demographic changes that are happening in the US and Europe can be construed as a sort of white Christian nationalism that bears some resemblance to the talking points of, say, the modern KKK).
Posted by Functional Atheist on February 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM · Report this
28
@25 I think a more appropriate word would be "apartheid" than "genocidal," but yeah.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on February 27, 2013 at 5:15 PM · Report this
Sandiai 29
Despite my politics, I have been a long-suffering secret fan of Pat Buchanan, at least the human being/political character of Pat Buchanan. Don't get me wrong, I would never want him elected to any office. But when he was a regular on The McLaughlin Group (when it was on PBS), I found him to be one of the funnier and less-shouty characters gracing that show. He was also one of the few politicians back then critical of Israel's apartheid regime, which was interesting in how rare a viewpoint that was on TV back in the late 80's. Now I see it for what it was (similar to what @25 explained). Still, he seems like a pleasant, gentlemanly grandpa with a pretty good speaking voice.

See what I mean? Here he is being the voice of reason as far as Iran.
Posted by Sandiai on February 27, 2013 at 11:48 PM · Report this
sissoucat 30
@8 Exactly.

And add Europe-hating European to Sullivan, too. Although, since he's also a Republican gay, self-hating is probably his kink.
Posted by sissoucat on February 28, 2013 at 12:32 AM · Report this
31
@ 28 Knowing people who worked in Palestine and witnessed first hand Israel's abuses, I'd say that to the Palestinians, it feels more like genocide.
Posted by Ricardo on February 28, 2013 at 7:57 AM · Report this
32
Pat Buchanan has always been an odd mix of lucid insightful analysis and batshit crazy conspiracy theories. I watched an interview with him once where he was ranting about white American women being selfish for getting master's degrees instead of having babies, thus opening up the opportunity for Muslims to sneak into our country from Mexico and get jobs in nursing homes taking care of old white ladies.

I wish I was making that up.
Posted by malwae on March 1, 2013 at 5:07 AM · Report this

Add a comment