by Linda
Here’s the radio show clip that gave the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] a reason to get all fired up against Pat - again. I’m sure the ADL will use this as a key issue in their next several fund raising letters. Listen here….
SOURCE: The Political Cesspool
by Tom Piatak - Taki’s Magazine
Over at NRO, Jonah Goldberg has ventured into the Corner to promote his column. Now that NRO has set up an entire blog for Goldberg to engage in self-promotion, he no longer promotes every column in the Corner, so it is fair to guess this is a column of which he is especially proud. Goldberg’s target, unsurprisingly, is the neocons’ bete noire, Pat Buchanan. The gist of Goldberg’s column is that Buchanan is inconsistent because he wrote columns expressing sympathy for the Croatians and the Lithuanians when they were under attack by their neighbors nearly twenty years ago, but later turned a deaf ear to the Kuwaitis and Bosnians, and rather than have a foreign policy based on “objective national interest,” as Buchanan now advocates, “America should be a good country and do what’s right.”
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Did Hitler’s crimes justify the Allies’ terror-bombing of Germany?
Indeed they did, answers Christopher Hitchens in his Newsweek response to my new book, “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War“: “The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities.”
Atheist, Trotskyite and newborn neocon, Hitchens embraces the morality of lex talionis: an eye for an eye. If Germans murdered women and children, the British were morally justified in killing German women and children.
by Paul Gottfried - LewRockwell.com
Without wishing to talk to death certain issues raised by Churchill, Hitler and “The Unnecessary War,” I have been noticing the obsession of Buchanan’s critics with German blame for World War One. This fixation has recently come up with particular force in one truly egregious article in Newsweek that global democratic atheist and part-time Teutonophobe Christopher Hitchens prepared in response to Pat’s blockbuster. Hitchens counterfactually ascribes to the Germans exclusive blame for the “odious” Franco-Prussian War. But, curiously, he produces no proof for this blanket assertion. He then claims that the German government merely pretended that the Franco-Russian alliance (a development to which Hitchens vaguely alludes) was an attempt to “encircle” Germany. If that alliance was not intended to have this effect, I’d like to know what sources Hitchens could cite for his opinion. And so would George Kennan, if he were still alive, who wrote the authoritative study of the Franco-Russian alliance. Hitchens also castigates the Kaiser for having sided with the South African Dutch against the English aggressors in the Boer War. But that was also the position taken with some justification by other European government leaders at the time.
by Michael Stahl - Nolan Chart
I read Buchanan’s book. I also read Hitchens critique. I recommend the book.
I actually read Pat Buchanan’s book-Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War a unique thing to do before commenting on it, I realize. I claim to be no Historian, but I am a buff, and read the news of the past every chance that I get. I liked Buchanan’s book, and must say I agree with the central point, that the unenforceable guarantee to Poland just before the War all but ensured its beginning. I will say, of the things that you will find in the book, you will not find any adulation for Nazism, Hitler, or the slightest whiff of anti-antisemitism, implied or otherwise-it’s not there. But this is not a book review.
I also read the review that Christopher Hitchens wrote in Newsweek and was, to be blunt, astonished. To begin with Hitchens asserts that the Holocaust excuses any and all moral qualms about things like “carpet bombing German cities” Even though when the doors opened to turn Dresden into an oven no one outside of the SS, and of course the victims of their fell work, knew the Holocaust was taking place.
Try that defense in a court room sometime.
by John Zmirak -Taki’s Magazine
Neocons think in news cycles, the Vatican in centuries—and Patrick J. Buchanan? In the body of worthy, provocative books he has produced, his thought ranges over decades. Having nobly failed to affect American elections and nudge our policies closer to prudence, it’s clear that Buchanan has withdrawn from the dismal business of trying to sober up the Republican party—and decided instead to work at dismantling the historical myths and moral fetishes of the center-left publicists who now dominate the “conservative” movement. His books are clearly written and remarkably persuasive—which explains the hysteria they have occasioned. His genial public persona, the ease with which he can engage the likes of Stephen Colbert and Ali G (remember “I don’t think Saddam was a threat even if he had BLTs”), guarantee him a broad readership. Indeed, his works are bestsellers and hence impossible to dismiss. They make an impact, and threaten to shatter the groupthink so carefully cultivated over the course of the 1990s, when dissenting voices of the Right were systematically purged and persecuted. They are a species of samizdat.
by Tom Piatak - Taki’s Magazine
Victor Davis Hanson has taken umbrage at Pat Buchanan’s description of him as “the court historian of the neoconservatives,” and even more umbrage at Buchanan’s book. Unfortunately for Hanson, Buchanan’s description of Hanson is accurate, and Hanson’s review of Buchanan’s book shows all the care and intelligence we have come to expect from one of the biggest cheerleadersfor Bush’s disastrous scheme to bring democracy to the Middle East by force of arms.
NEWSWEEK’s Tammy Haddad catches up with Pat Buchanan to discuss this week’s NEWSWEEK cover story on appeasement and Christopher Hitchens’ review of his new book.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
“What Would Winston Do?”
So asks Newsweek’s cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.
Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill’s career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.
Revisionists say that World War II was unnecessary. They’re wrong.
by Christopher Hitchens - NEWSWEEK
Is there any one shared principle or assumption on which our political consensus rests, any value judgment on which we are all essentially agreed? Apart from abstractions such as a general belief in democracy, one would probably get the widest measure of agreement for the proposition that the second world war was a “good war” and one well worth fighting. And if we possess one indelible image of political immorality and cowardice, it is surely the dismal tap-tap-tap of Neville Chamberlain’s umbrella as he turned from signing the Czechs away to Adolf Hitler at Munich. He hoped by this humiliation to avert war, but he was fated to bring his countrymen war on top of humiliation. To the conventional wisdom add the titanic figure of Winston Churchill as the emblem of oratorical defiance and the Horatius who, until American power could be mobilized and deployed, alone barred the bridge to the forces of unalloyed evil. When those forces lay finally defeated, their ghastly handiwork was uncovered to a world that mistakenly thought it had already “supped full of horrors.” The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities.
Read more… »
New Email List
Is Finally Here!
Subscribe Now!
Get it at Amazon!
Order now from Amazon...
