« Democrats Investigated and Held Hearings about GHW Bush's 1991 Speech to Schoolchildren | Main | Plugging the Gap in Health Care Reform Costs »

Why Don't You Just Die Already, You Oxygen-Thieving Waste Of Skin?

I'm a bit of a fan of historic fiction and alternative history. I've dabbled in the former, and I recently discovered Robert Conroy's "1942" and "1945." (The former deals with the Japanese carrying out the fourth wave of attacks on Pearl Harbor; the latter with Japan refusing to surrender after Nagasaki. And they are both superb.) It's a fascinating genre, and never fails to stir controversy and heated debate about the plausibility and presentation.

But there are people who should simply avoid working in the genre. Some for lack of suitable credentails and ability, and others for the sheer mass of baggage they bring to the topic.

In that latter category falls Pat Buchanan.

Last week, Buchanan wrote yet another quasi-apologia for Nazi Germany. This time, he laid out his evidence arguing that Hitler didn't really want war with England, and it is the British who should be held responsible for the millions of deaths in World War II.

It's an interesting theory, but it falls apart on several grounds.

First up, Buchanan is hardly a disinterested scholar. He's made his opinions clear about the Germans of the era, the British of the era, and other interested parties. I suspect his fierce Irish heritage leaves him a bit of an Anglophobe, eager to find fault with the British at any opportunity.

He also has a remarkable history as an advocate for accused criminals -- as long as those people are accused of being Nazi war criminals.

And there is a third prejudice of his that ties in with the second flaw: his arguments overlook some very key historical points.

As Buchanan notes, the invasion of Poland and the official beginning of the European part of World War II took place in the first week in September, 1939. And the Nazi death camps and the full-blown Holocaust didn't get really get rolling until after that date.

However, the groundwork for the Holocaust started years before. The path was already set, with a steady, escalating persecution of Germany's Jews and other "undesirables" had been building for years. The death camps were not some sudden innovation, but the logical culmination of a long, long series of steps.

Does Buchanan think that, had Hitler been appeased with Danzig/Gdansk, he would have relented and gone easy on the Jews?

Of course not. Buchanan doesn't think about them at all.

This is not to say that Buchanan is an anti-Semite. No, Buchanan has found a way to apply an abstract geometric concept to poltics: the asymptote. Buchanan's words and actions get closer and closer and closer to open anti-Semitism, but never QUITE touch it.

That gives Buchanan his plausible deniability. He knows that his supporters can say "he isn't really anti-Semitic," but can wink and nudge each other and say "you know what he's really saying here, right?"

Earlier, I brought up Buchanan's Irish heritage. The other defining element of his ethnicity is his Catholicism. He's a fierce Catholic. Perhaps another element of his history of Nazi apologia is how the Catholic Church acted during World War II -- turning a blind eye to the Holocaust and other atrocities, then after the war helping wanted Nazi war criminals escape justice.

Pat, your'e turning 71 in a few months. You've had your God-promised "three score and ten." Time for you to just shut up, go home, and pray for a peaceful death.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36694.

Comments (38)

"...Buchanan doesn't think.... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...Buchanan doesn't think...."

That about sums it up.

"...how the Catholic Church acted during World War II -- turning a blind eye to the Holocaust and other atrocities...."

I don't believe that's quite a fair statement, given the times and conditions. Could Pius have been more 'up front' with Hitler? Yes. Would that have stopped anything? Probably not. You can argue either way as to whether it would have prevented anything or would have made matters worse.

Glad to hear a conservative... (Below threshold)
jim:

Glad to hear a conservative not liking him.

Buchanan's whole theory is weird. It's like saying Poland was wrong for not just handing over their land, and then Britain was wrong for actually being true to their word and defending Poland.

It's like he saw "The Onion's" fake WW-II era news story "Hitler Neutralizes Polish Menace", and thought it was for real.

I've known other authors to come out with emotionally interesting, logically failing novels as their last works, about a year before their deaths. I'll be sad on a human level for Buchanan to die, just because he's a human being. But I have to say, after honestly thinking this book is worth releasing, it won't surprise me if he dies soon.

As conservative as I am, I ... (Below threshold)

As conservative as I am, I am sick to death of Buchanan. I am convinced that his runs for the presidency were not in the least about achieving the office and utterly about getting federal matching funds to line his family's pockets.
Time for Pat to exit stage right, or left or fall into the orchestra pit, just as long as he gets the hell off the stage.

How is Pat Buchanan relevan... (Below threshold)
Dodo David:

How is Pat Buchanan relevant to anything important? If he didn't have media enablers (such as World Net Daily), then Buchanan would have faded away a long time ago.

Buchanan suggests that Hitl... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Buchanan suggests that Hitler didn't really want war.

This is true.

If the Nazis could have conquered all of Europe and Russia without fighting, and gone on to erase all of those Jews and Gypsies and the rest without any resistance, they certainly would have.

Of course, there certainly wasn't much resistance to the idea of actual warfare...

Re Pat Buchanan's staunch C... (Below threshold)

Re Pat Buchanan's staunch Catholicism and latent anti-semitism, you have to understand Catholic doctrine during papacy of Pius XII (30s,40s and early 50s) the held the Jews responsible for Christ's death. In the Church, Jews were called the "Christ Killers."

These were Buchanan's formative years. Catholic clergy and hierarchy have long since renounced this anti-semitic philosophy. I am afraid Buchanan has not.

Jay-You're right a... (Below threshold)

Jay-

You're right about Buchanan but wrong about Catholicism.

The Church didn't turn a blind eye to the Holocaust---how could it with so many Catholic priests in the same concentration camps suffering the same fate (for different diabolical reasons) than the Jews?

Indeed the Church spoke out forcefully and at great risk against it while saving many thousands of Jews. It was a fact Israeli leaders recognized and praised the Pope for.

Correcting Buchanan's historical revisionism doesn't require engaging in your own.

This might help set the record straight:

http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/dalinframe.htm

Pat's a neo-neo-nazi and he... (Below threshold)
Emerson:

Pat's a neo-neo-nazi and he's been fairly open in his opinions on Jews and Hitler for decades. As long as conservatism allows him to call himself a conservative the left can make an argument of equivalence when we talk about Ward Churchill and Rev. Wright.

I read Pat Buchanan and his... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I read Pat Buchanan and his WWII pieces never fail to leave me astounded. I am glad he is willing to go against populist history and try to look at motivations, etc but he always comes about as pretty much senile. The seizures of eastern europe were less about "former" german territories and more about siezing port facilities, natural resources, defensive buffers etc. The attacks against the western countries were also about ports and getting even for the treaty of Versaille.

Pat Buchanan is a crotchety old man that long ago stopped talking for conservatives. Only the far left still considers him a "spokesman" for the right.

By the way, mostly off-topi... (Below threshold)
jim:

By the way, mostly off-topic, but I saw "Inglorious Basterds" and I thought it was worth seeing. Rather in spite of myself, even; I tend not to like a lot of violence, and Tarantino's movies are pretty exploitative of bloody violence and this is no exception. But, the dialog is good, the acting is brilliant, and at least this time they're wasting Nazis. : )

As long as conservatism ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

As long as conservatism allows him to call himself a conservative the left can make an argument of equivalence when we talk about Ward Churchill and Rev. Wright.

Your statement would be more in line with reality if the Rev. Wright and Ward Churchill were influential leaders that were trotted out on television on a regular basis as representative of half the political spectrum, as Pat is. You can dig around and find any number of crazy leftist/left-leaning commentators and activists and professors, but the only reason we know about them is because someone dug them up from obscurity. On the other hand, lunatic conservatives are right there at the surface. Some of them even get their own EMMM-ESSS-EMMMM TV shows! (See also Beck, Glen and Coulter, Ann.)

Thank you Teflon93, was abo... (Below threshold)
David M:

Thank you Teflon93, was about to unsubscribe from this blog in google reader.

hyperbolist, Ann Coulter ha... (Below threshold)
David M:

hyperbolist, Ann Coulter has her own Main Stream Media TV show?

what exactly has Glenn Beck said that is so outrageous?

I'm going to second Teflon9... (Below threshold)

I'm going to second Teflon93's comments regarding the Nazi government and the Roman Catholic church.

Before World War II, the vast majority of German Christians were baptized either as Lutherans or Roman Catholics. Baptisms were registered with the state, and taxes and regulations were imposed on these two official state churches by the German government.

The Nazis aggressively pursued solidarity with the Lutheran church, hoping to use the structure and hierarchy of the church to aid their promotion of German heritage and nationalism. Many Lutheran clergy were impressed by the sincere, clean-cut appearance of Nazi officials, and were eager to aid them in promoting national unity through the creation of a new Nazi state church. Of course the trade-off was that the Nazi party would become its defacto administrator.

Those who were wise enough to see what was happening openly rebelled against this idea. In 1934, theologian Karl Barth and others published the Barmen Declaration, which formally renounced the attempted control of the Church by the Nazi party and laid the groundwork for the Confessing Church. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller were two prominent officials of the Confessing Church who ended up in Nazi concentration camps. Bonhoeffer was executed by the Nazis in April 1945.

In contrast to the relationship between the Nazis and Protestants, Hitler was openly contemptuous toward the Roman Catholic church. Its role in state affairs was increasingly marginalized by the Nazis as their power increased. After the war started, the Nazis deliberately persecuted and imprisoned Catholic priests, particularly those from Poland and other lands conquered by the Nazis -- here is a list of the 108 Blessed Polish Martyrs. Prominent among them is Saint Maximilian Kolbe, who sacrificed his own life to save the life of a fellow prisoner in the Auschwitz concentration camp.

There was certainly no love -- not even respect -- between the Nazis and the Roman Catholics. Hitler saw them as an obstacle to absolute power, but the Roman Catholic church was never in any real position to stop Hitler's Final Solution.

David, <a href="http://medi... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

David, here is a decent rundown of why Glenn Beck is insane. What's even more insane than Beck himself is that people watch his show, presumably not for the sake of comedy or irony. His sponsors are smartening up, though.

And as for Coulter--no, she does not have her own program, but she is often a guest. You only know who Wright and Churchill are because people tried to use them to demonize "the left" or to bludgeon a particular associate of theirs (i.e. Barack Obama). Ann Coulter is taken seriously by a great number of people, whereas everyone acknowledges that Wright/Churchill/etc. are nutcases. They don't crack shitty jokes for the red-meat retard set with Sean Hannity, and they don't make millions of dollars selling books.

Screw it - I'm 67 years old... (Below threshold)

Screw it - I'm 67 years old and I'm hanging in there - cranky and smart and experienced and clear-eyed! Watching our President like a HAWK since January 2009!

Hey hyper, when Glenn Beck ... (Below threshold)

Hey hyper, when Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter receive prominent seats at the RNC (like that leftist demagogue Michael Moore got at the '04 DNC next to Jimmy Carter), then you have room to complain, otherwise, you're blowing your usual smoke.

Also, contrary to your claim, I don't recall anyone on the left admitting that Wright or Churchill are fringe nutcases. They either just pretended they didn't exist or attacked anyone on the right who brought the subject up.

Man all day I have been bou... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

Man all day I have been bouncing around lefty websites and blogs. Even on facebook we couldn't hold a conversation during the Presidents Speech because all the leftys shouted us down with cries of Racism.

Now I read that link about Glenn Beck and I read his comments they so kindly blockquoted and guess what? I can't disagree with him.

But the comments section of that page...wow. That is why Air America failed miserably nationwide and now is barely breathing in comparison. That is why Conservative Talk radio is still alive and kicking. Our people think before they speak (normally) and normally have a basis in fact when entering a debate. The Air America crowd do nothing but spit vitriol and venom at the target of the day and usually rely on feelings to win an argument rather than facts.

If they can't win on feelings they shout you down and call you a racist for daring to disagree with a Black man! F*ck you I am not a damn Racist, the color of his skin or the tackle between his legs has nothing to do with his extreme left communist leanings. THAT is what I F*'ing disagree with.

For the most part the Conservative Talk is entertaining rather than abusive. A lot of Glenn's stuff is meant to be taken as a joke but when it is put on a transcript it doesn't translate. But nobody who reports on it would ever actually listen to his show.

I think Limbaugh is full of himself and needs to GTFO the radio. Hannity is annoying and Oreily already left. Michael Savage is being maligned and left on a list of terrorists rapist and murderers by the UK but I don't like the guy, espeically since his show has become all about that.

But I simply cannot stand to listen to Al Franken or Randi Rhodes spew forth talking points and vitriol for Bush and Republicans in general.

Glenn is proabably a bit crazy, or a prophet, only time will tell. But his crazyness is making us take a hard look at ourselves and our government and as he was correct about Van Jones we have to wonder what else he will be correct about if we only look beyond the curtain.

hype - "whereas everyon... (Below threshold)
Marc:

hype - "whereas everyone acknowledges that Wright/Churchill/etc. are nutcases."

In that case it should be easy for you to produce a list of quotes by libs/progressives stating just that.

How about you find a single... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

How about you find a single quote from a prominent liberal or progressive defending either of these two, Marc? And not defending their right to be nutcases, but rather their specific views.

If you think that by not denouncing someone, one thereby supports that person, then you're an idiot. If not, then Marc, why have you never denounced Benito Mussolini? Cuddly with the fascists, are we? And OregonMuse, why have you never said anything bad about Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban and a much worse person than either Wright or Churchill? What sort of a hard-on do you have for Islamofascists?

(See how stupid that is? And how stupid you are for making the argument in the first place?)

No Democratic politician, to my knowledge, espouses their views. On the other hand, there are a lot of knuckle-dragging GOP congresspeople who share some of Beck's views--that Obama is trying to destroy America, or that public health care is the exact same thing as the Soviet model (whatever that may have been). They refuse to categorically state that Obama is a legitimate President when asked whether they agree with the inbred birther crowd. So no, I don't see the analogy that was asserted at point #8.

And yeah, Michael Moore is sucky and fat, but he's not as bad as Ann Coulter. He hasn't advocated a violent war against anybody because of their religious beliefs, as she did, and he doesn't think conservatives are traitors--he thinks they're stupid. And for the record, lest anyone dumb as Marc assume that I'm a fan of Michael Moore, I'm not. His messaging is awful and plays to the lowest common denominator, no better than Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.

And who cares about Coulter or Glenn Beck? What about Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy?! You know, people of actual influence. Traitors, in the legal sense of the word, and yet still embraced by conservatives as good ideological soldiers. Funny!

Um, Russ: the fact that conservatives listen to the radio doesn't mean it works better for them. It just means that the people who might listen to Air America are probably listening to podcasts (or music) on mp3 players and getting their information elsewhere. And calling Obama a communist? It sucks for you that the guy running your country is further to the left than you'd prefer, but you could find a more accurate label for him than that. Suggestion: "Liberal democrat". Because, you know, that's what he is. Not a communist. And as for Beck as a potential prophet--I hope for your sake that nobody remembers that you made such a suggestion.

Hyper, you should turn off ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper, you should turn off MSNBC, obviously you are fact challenged. Your analogy is false as most everything else you spew. I have an idea, why don't you help your own countries healthcare system from imploding. Yeah! Go now. Bye. ww

MSNBC? The same MSNBC that ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

MSNBC? The same MSNBC that has Pat Buchanan on all the damn time?

Willie, you shouldn't assume that people who are smarter than you get their news from a television set.

You've been posting here longer than I have, and with more regularity, and yet you haven't made a single substantive contribution to any discussion that I've ever been a part of.

Now, spit out the paint chips; go look up the word "substantive"; and then make yourself useful and build a birdhouse or something.

And who cares abou... (Below threshold)
And who cares about Coulter or Glenn Beck?

You do. You're the one who keeps bringing them up! Especially Coulter, who causes you to wet your pants on a regular basis. One would think you're secretly smitten with her.

What about Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy?! You know, people of actual influence. Traitors, in the legal sense of the word, and yet still embraced by conservatives as good ideological soldiers. Funny!

Good lord, there's just so much stupid in this one paragraph, it's a wonder how you got it all in there. In the first place, what sort of "actual influence" do you suppose these guys have, other than writing a weekly column or (in Liddy's case) a radio show? Answer: not much. Second, "traitor" is a stupid word to use to describe them, as neither of them advocated the overthrow of the US goverment to replace it with some sort of socialist utopia as the wackos on your side of the aisle routinely do. Funny, huh? The word you're looking for is "criminal", for committing crimes for which Liddy paid for with a jail sentence. North's "crime", if you could call it that, was trying to implement the foreign policy of the executive branch that congress didn't agree with, so they attempted to criminalize his activities, so desperate were they to thwart Ronald Reagan.

So you'll need better examples.

No Democratic politician, to my knowledge, espouses their views

Heh. I don't know about that. We've got some real idiot knuckle-dragging progressives in the House of Representatives who think Castro is peachy-keen and there's nothing wrong with the United States that nationalization of everything wouldn't solve. Also, Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of loony-tunes progressives and some of them are being outed, which is why they've issues a fatwa against Glenn Beck, their current object of hate.

And yeah, Michael Moore is sucky and fat, but he's not as bad as Ann Coulter. He hasn't advocated a violent war against anybody because of their religious beliefs, as she did,

No, she didn't. You're really obsessed with her, aren't you?

If you think that ... (Below threshold)
If you think that by not denouncing someone, one thereby supports that person, then you're an idiot...OregonMuse, why have you never said anything bad about Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban and a much worse person than either Wright or Churchill?

Haven't had the opportunity, but now that you've brought it up, I will say that Mullah Omar is Islamofacist scum whom we should have killed when we had him in our sights.

Happy now?

My point is, progressives have had all sorts of opportunities to distance themselves from demented loons like Wright and Churchill, but they've never done so that I have seen. Instead they call conservatives who who bring them up racists and to shut up. For progressives, it's always "no enemies on the left" and thus it's more important for you guys to denounce conservatives than to distance yourself from the crazies on your side of the aisle.

Maybe Buchanan and Jimmy Ca... (Below threshold)

Maybe Buchanan and Jimmy Carter can get together over a pickle barrel and trade war stories.

Some people age well. Clint Eastwood, for one. Some just don't. Buchanan and Carter, for two.

Isn't it possible to have a... (Below threshold)

Isn't it possible to have a political discussion without calling for someone's death? Or is that all that's left after calling someone a Nazi sympathizer?

Isn't it possible ... (Below threshold)
Isn't it possible to have a political discussion without calling for someone's death?

Not for the progressive left, it isn't. For them, death threats, name-calling, and ad hominem attacks are pretty much a requirement for membership. Oh, and all the while accusing the other side of "hate". That's my personal favorite lefty trait.

Or is that all that's left after calling someone a Nazi sympathizer?

Like I said.

Yes she did, dipshite. She ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Yes she did, dipshite. She got fired from the National Review for arguing that the United States ought to go into Afghanistan and convert Muslims to Christianity at gunpoint as a response to 9/11.

She's so evil and stupid that even the National Review fired her! And they still pay Jonah Goldberg to fill the internet with stupid.

And if what Oliver North tried to do in Central America isn't treasonous--didn't circumvent Constitutional channels in order to act against his nation's interests--then the word is meaningless. Nice, though, that you take the time to defend felons.

Yes she did, dipsh... (Below threshold)
Yes she did, dipshite. She got fired from the National Review for arguing that the United States ought to go into Afghanistan and convert Muslims to Christianity at gunpoint as a response to 9/11.

A weak attempt to move the goalposts. Your original accusation was that she advocated killing people. based on their religious beliefs. Well, since those "religious beliefs" include waging continual jihad against the United States, which means targeting and slaughtering American men, women, and children, your accusation is disingenuous at best.

And if what Oliver North tried to do in Central America isn't treasonous--didn't circumvent Constitutional channels in order to act against his nation's interests--then the word is meaningless

You're full of shit, hyper. What North did was to go against something called the "Boland Amendment" which was a congressional attempt to dictate to President Reagan how to run foreign policy -- something which is the province of the executive branch, not congress. So, the bottom line is, North violated an illegal rule. Pardon me while I don't lose any sleep over it.

And accusations of treason from the progressive left, whose members have been aiding and abetting treason ever since the days of Alger Hiss, always make me laugh.

SHE ADVOCATED CONVERTING MU... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

SHE ADVOCATED CONVERTING MUSLIMS TO CHRISTIANITY AT GUNPOINT. So yes, she did advocate killing people based on their religious beliefs. That some Muslims in Afghanistan were directly and/or indirectly responsible for 9/11 is beside the point, and is no justification for what she said. Even Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry realized that! Are you dumber than Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry? Or are you just an asshole?

Reagan tried to wage an unconstitutional war and North tried to help him do it. Congress was right for trying to prevent them from interfering in Latin American regional politics. You're a douchebag for defending that kind of heavyhanded interventionist statesmanship. No way to run a country, even if St. Ronnie Raygunz thought it was.

Oh, and since with you nothing can ever go without saying, I don't like Alger Hiss. Or Hitler, or Franco, or Pinochet, or Chavez, or Ramses III...

Hyper - "[Ann Coulter] ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Hyper - "[Ann Coulter] She got fired from the National Review for arguing that the United States ought to go into Afghanistan and convert Muslims to Christianity at gunpoint as a response to 9/11."

Excuse me? She left of her own accord.

Of course you'll dismiss that due to it being written by Jonah Goldberg who you've already claimed "fill[s] the internet with stupid."

SHE ADVOCATED CONV... (Below threshold)
SHE ADVOCATED CONVERTING MUSLIMS TO CHRISTIANITY AT GUNPOINT. So yes, she did advocate killing people based on their religious beliefs.

She didn't say this in a vacuum, dimwit. Considering this was within a month of 9/11 and that the "Muslims" she was writing about were in the process of trying to slaughter Americans, and encourage their fellow Muslims to do the same, I think all your pants-wetting over this is nothing more than your usual faux outrage, this time over a little hyperbole.

You do know what "hyperbole" is, don't you? Coulter makes use of it a lot in her columns. Perhaps you don't understand it.

And her column was back up at Townhall in a couple of months or so, so apparently Lowry and Goldberg changed their minds.

Reagan tried to wage an unconstitutional war and North tried to help him do it. Congress was right for trying to prevent them from interfering in Latin American regional politics. You're a douchebag for defending that kind of heavyhanded interventionist statesmanship. No way to run a country, even if St. Ronnie Raygunz thought it was.

Heh. This paragraph is one continuous stream of stupid. "Unconstitutional", was it? According to whom? The House Democrats? Please. Since when are questions of constitutionality decided by House Democrats? Contrary to what you may believe, our constitutional questions are decided by the judicial branch of the US government, not by Tip O'Neill.

And I don't believe that there was any Supreme Court decision that ruled that sending aid to anti-communist forces in Central America was unconstitutional.

And again, foreign policy is the province of the executive branch, not the legislative. Reagan's foreign policy vis a vis Central America was certainly disliked by the more liberal Democrats, since their commie peeps down south were getting hammered pretty hard, so they attempted to criminalize their disagreement. This was a corruption of our political system. If the congressional Democrats didn't agree with it, the way for them to solve it was to work for the election of a Democratic president, who would then implement a foreign policy more congenial to their political preferences.

You're a douchebag for defending that kind of heavyhanded interventionist statesmanship. No way to run a country, even if St. Ronnie Raygunz thought it was.

Heh. For the record, I fully supported Reagan's foreign policy, and given the Cold War context, and the Soviet Union's own intervention in that part of the world, his aid to anti-communists in Central America was fully justified. So you can take your faux outrage and shove it up your ass.

So because she said it righ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So because she said it right after 9/11, and because some Muslims are bad people, she didn't say it. Or, she said it, but she didn't mean it.

And yeah, Marc, she quit like Donald Rumsfeld "quit":
http://archive.salon.com/politics/red/2001/10/02/blue/

And because St. Raygunz wanted to circumvent the proper Constitutional channels to fight communism, he was so justified? Really? So laws be damned when the ends justify the means? If Congress is controlled by Democrats, then a President would need to persuade Democrats that the country needs to go to war, or to arm one side against another. So what if Reagan failed to do that? That makes Democrats the bad guys? Quit pissing on the Constitution, moron. Just because the Soviets did not bind themselves by a decent set of laws, doesn't mean it was alright for Reagan and his cockroaches to act illegally. Oliver North committed a felony. I thought conservatives cared about the 'rule of law', but I guess that's a fake principle, adhered to only when it comes to poor people and minorities.

If Congre... (Below threshold)

If Congress is controlled by Democrats, then a President would need to persuade Democrats that the country needs to go to war, or to arm one side against another. So what if Reagan failed to do that?

Not necessarily. I don't see any constitutional requirement that the executive branch has to get congressional approval in order to arrange for military aid to be sent overseas. Hell, the Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson did it all the time; in fact, they made Reagan look like a piker by comparison.

So by the time Reagan was elected, the precedent had long since been set. So it's patently dishonest for you to complain about what your own side had been doing for years.

And again, progessive lefties make it a standard practice to ignore constitutional requirements whenever they want to push their agenda, so being lectured to by one on this subject is abso-fucking-lutely hilarious.

Oliver North committed a felony

Oliver North lied to congress. Pardon me while I get all choked up with anguish about it.

And again, progessive le... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

And again, progessive lefties make it a standard practice to ignore constitutional requirements whenever they want to push their agenda, so being lectured to by one on this subject is abso-fucking-lutely hilarious.

Tell me how you aren't doing the exact same thing by defending Oliver Felonious North?

Here's your view, in fewer words: I hate Democrats and progressives. The Constitution ought to apply only to them, not to Reaganite manly-men waging proxy wars against backwater states funded by the bankrupt and defeated Soviet non-empire.

Tell me how you ar... (Below threshold)
Tell me how you aren't doing the exact same thing by defending Oliver Felonious North?

OK, I'm not doing the same thing by defending Oliver North.

Happy?

And by the way, Oliver Nort... (Below threshold)

And by the way, Oliver North's felony convictions were dismissed back in 1990. So even though it obviously gives you great personal pleasure to call him names like "felon", "felonious", etc., it's simply not correct and evidence of your usual dishonest hackery.

You can't "dismiss" a convi... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

You can't "dismiss" a conviction, OregonMuse. That's not how the legal system works. You are so far removed from the ballpark of knowing-what-the-fuck-you're-talking-about that you should pick up your toys and go home. Olly North: scumbag. That's written on the fabric of the universe. Positing the contrary is like questioning the theory of gravity. Move on.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy