September 16, 2010

I am pretty much sick of Pat Buchanan

Folks on this blog and elsewhere disagreed pretty strongly about the Delaware Senate primary. Good folks. People who are my [pretend internet] friends. But there's a line. And Pat Buchanan has taken a giant crap on that line.

First, he (fairly) criticized Mike Castle's record while managing to turn a blind eye to any deficiencies of O'Donnell's that might have fueled the "hysteria and nastiness" from Rove, et al. (How terribly incomplete and unoriginal.)

Buchanan then launched into his own hysterical, nasty, and paranoid drivel about the Neocons lying us into Iraq. Behold, the inane tripe of Patrick J. Buchanan:

O’Donnell’s conservative convictions and Castle’s social liberalism mean nothing to them.
They are about power and all that goes with it.

And that raises a question too long put off.

What is the Republican establishment going to do, what are the neoconservatives going to do, if returned to power?

Are not these the same people who assisted George W. Bush in stampeding the nation into an unnecessary war that got 4,400 Americans killed to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons he did not have?

Are these not the same people who misled or deceived us about Iraq’s role in 9/11?


Are not the National Review and Weekly Standard scribblers and their neocon comrades of the mainstream media not now drumming up another war for Americans to fight, against Iran?

Really, Pat? You're going to carry water for Ye Olde Media and George Soros, with this bullshit about lying us into war? Do you really think so little of Dubya and crew that they would send our men and women into certain death for no apparent reason?  Do you really think so little of Colin Powell, who to this day maintains that the evidence against Iraq, however tragically flawed, was compelling and not fabricated?

And that's really the problem with the whole "neocon" analysis. There's no real motivation for the Iraq war aside from weapons and terrorism ties.  And no, nobody said anything about 9/11 and Iraq.  (There were, however, well-documented ties to Al Qaeda -- just not 9/11 specifically, as countless news interviewers forced just about every administration official to say on the record.)

But since we're casting aspersions here, I suppose I should point out that when certain people say "neocon", they mean "Jew".  Those dirty Jews and their Jew wars. Just can't trust 'em.

Why is it that certain people take this man seriously when his bio blurbs read like this?:
Patrick Buchanan is the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback.

Oh yeah. Pat thought WWII was unnecessary. I think that says quite a bit right there.  (Perhaps the neocons traveled back in time somehow...)

So, Pat - tell me if I'm getting this right -- the Jew neocons are upset that Chrstine O'Donnell won because it might interrupt their Jew plans to bomb Iran's totally peaceful nuclear program?  Is that it?

Posted by: JoeCollins at 10:30 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
14kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.3277 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.3083 seconds, 130 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.