Imagine my horror when I agreed with Pat Buchanan.

[arcane1]

Watch Pat Buchanan School Hannity On Iran

Whatever you think of Pat Buchanan, he was spot on in this segment, smacking down right-wing fear mongering about Iran and nailing the Bush administration for empowering the country with its misbegotten invasion of Iraq.

...


BUCHANAN: Are we going to be frightened by words from some character in Iran? …Listen to the American head of intelligence. He says Iran does not have a bomb program as of 2013. Secondly, if they start building a bomb, we will know it. Third, Iran has made some concessions, they’re not enough, it makes them less able to get to a bomb…

…Your friend Bibi’s been talking about Iran getting a bomb since 1992. In 2006, he said they’ll be building 25 bombs by the end of the decade. Are they? No.


-snip-


http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/watch-pat-buchanan-school-hannity-iran

[Downwinder]

1. Even a broken clock ....

[still_one]

2. Actually Buchanan has been consistent on this. He also was against the Iraq war. Just goes to show

that a racist, anti-Jewish bigot can sometimes get it right. Not much different than Ron Paul actually

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Yeah, but that dickhead Hannity didn't back down an inch...

and comparing Iran to Nazi Germany is way out of line, even for Hannity.

And comparing Bibi to Churchill?

[KingCharlemagne]

9. Both Bibi and Churchill are (were) notorious anti-Arab racists, although I'll bet

that's not what Hannity was basing his comparison on.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Chuchill was generally known to be an ignorant, racist scumbag, and...

made his opinions of the native populations, not just Arabs, in the Empire known. As First Lord of the Admiralty he might well have been the cause of the disaster of Gallipoli, and pretty much the only worthwhile thing he did in all his years in various offices was inspire the Brits to keep up the fight against Hitler.

That kind of thing brings forgiveness for a lot of sins.

But yes, Hannity has no clue.

[KingCharlemagne]

11. It's not entirely out of bounds to mention the old witticism that whether

one preferred Hitler to Churchill rested entirely on whether one resided in Brussels or Bombay.

[sabrina 1]

12. Yes he was an ignorant, racist and would-be genocidal maniac who thought that all Arabs were

nothing more than insects who he suggested should be annihilated with chemical weapons.

I think of Giuliani being turned into 'America's Mayor' when in fact he was a cowardly, do-nothing to stop any attacks on NYC and whose political career was over due to his nasty, hateful behavior, until 9/11.

There are people who benefit from other people's tragedies. Those are two of them.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. As bad as Chuchill was, I don't think elevating...

Giuliani to Churchill's status is the proper thing to do.

[sabrina 1]

14. Actually I was placing Churchill at Giuliani's level. Anyone who advocates the mass murder

or other human beings, doesn't have any status as far as I am concerned.

To my knowledge, bad he is, I don't think even Giuliani has sunk that low.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Ah, I see. But, one could have a lot of fun...

thinking about what Giuliani would do as a player in something like the British Empire where racism was acceptable while running the world.

Bottom line, though, yeah, both of them owe their place in history to being there at a horrible time.

[Pisces]

4. Wow, Buchanan surprised Hannity with his clear thinking analysis. I love it when he said your friend

Bibi, and then goes on to say that Israel as 350 atom bombs. Why are they so afraid of Iran.
Crazy that I sided with Buchanan for the whole argument!!

[arcane1]

6. "Why are you so afraid?" just doesn't get asked of right-wingers enough.

It was nice to see him basically call Hannity a chicken-shit

[bahrbearian]

5. That was hard to Watch. Isannity made me ill.

[arcane1]

7. I can't take more than a few seconds of him.

I posted not long ago that I totally understand why Jon Stewart is leaving: so he doesn't have to hear that voice ever again!

[Kalidurga]

8. I'm sorry

[rpannier]

15. Even O' Reilly is supporting it

The reich wing is stuck with the truly crazy of the crazy and hackish of the hacks on this

on edit: You don't agree with Pat. He agrees with you

[arcane1]

16. Thanks, that's a much better way to phrase it

[mountain grammy]

19. Yes, I like that much better also.

[GoneFishin]

20. Good. Thanks. Now I don't have to throw up in my mouth.

[nilram]

17. Yeah, I agreed with Bush II once (and not about broccoli). But just once.

Don't make a habit of it!

[hibbing]

21. Hannity

Always gets a raging hard on when there is a chance to send other parents kids off to fight some other country when he's not too busy making lovey dovey eyes towards felon Ollie North. He's such an empty headed idiot, well he's on faux, so of course he is.

Peace

[forest444]

22. Seeing Buchanan's name (which, luckily, rarely happens anymore) always reminds me of this:

it's not really related to this discussion, but bear with me.

Many on DU no doubt remember that the other beneficiary of the butterfly ballots at the heart of the Bush v. Gore debacle was one other than our buddy Pat, because the line from Gore's name pointed straight to the hole you'd punch to vote for Buchanan. Buchanan, you'll recall had done surprisingly well in South Florida's majority-Jewish precincts - especially given the recent flap over his comments to the effect that Hitler "was misunderstood and underrated."

During the subsequent coverage on msnbc, a group of senior citizens from a Miami-area nursing home were on hand to relate how they inadvertently voted for the Libertarian also-ran, only realizing this while watching the news in the following days. I'll never forget the anecdote shared by one lady in particular:

I lived in Germany when the Nazis were in power. I was taken to Dachau with the rest of my family, as were all my neighbors and friends; and I never saw them again. Do you think I would vote for Pat Buchanan!!?

Like most other Democrats, I laughed, yelled, sneered, and scowled at the news coverage during the whole mess.

That was the only time I cried.

[merrily]

24. We were writing our posts at the same time and thinking similar things about Pat.

[forest444]

25. They do say great minds think alike.

Thanks for letting me know.

[merrily]

26. Then, we must both have great minds on this issue.

[forest444]

29. I'd like to think so, sure.

The 2000 debacle was probably the most emotionally painful memory I've ever had related to politics. But it was a useful reminder of this much: that we should learn from the losses because they are many; but savor the victories, because they are few.

And today was a day to savor, no doubt about it.

[merrily]

30. No doubt, most posters would like to think so.

I think we should try to learn from everything, but also to be careful to learn the correct things from each experience.

I think I personally spent a good part of my life taking away the wrong lessons from political events, starting with the arrival of white people on this continent and, to be fair to me, I had lots and lots of help in that.

[forest444]

31. I hear you.

As you may know in many countries in Latin America, Columbus Day (Día de la Raza, as it's usually known there) has been or is in the process of being renamed Indigenous Peoples Day (Día de los Pueblos Originarios).

Not surprisingly, the political debate around this has been both heated and predictable: the left favors it; the center needs time to consider it; and the right thinks it's the worst thing since Noah's Flood.

An interesting facet of this debate is that most white people in Latin America (which are about 30% of the region's population, but can approach 80% in countries like Argentina and Uruguay) support Columbus Day not only because they identify with him; but also because, as they'll often tell you, "what would Latin America be without white people?" (verbatim).

I have numerous Latin acquaintances, and once told someone who said that this: that no one denies or should deny the contribution of Europeans to the region; but don't forget almost all white Latin Americans descend from 19th and 20th century immigrants - not from Columbus or any other conquistador or adelantado (colonial-era colonizers from Spain).

On the other hand, almost every person of native descent in the region (about half the population, and most of Mexico's for example) has lost forbears to Columbus himself (his tenure in San Salvador resulted in 4 million deaths) or to the colonial pillage that followed (untold tens of millions). Surely their sweat and toil built the region too (to say nothing of Afro Latin Americans).

My personal preference thus is that both Latin America and the U.S. not only substitute Indigenous Peoples Day for Columbus Day; but that, in the case of Latin America, the early Spanish settlers be remembered by Fr. Bartolomé de la Casas - probably the first European settler in the region to speak out against the atrocities, and thus one of the few early Spanish settlers fit to redeem the rest of them.

[merrily]

32. I'm not sure you did hear me.

I was not trying to make a point about First Americans. I just did not want to lump them, prior to 1607, in with all the wrong things I've been taught and thought about America, the political parties, etc.

But your post is very interesting so I am glad you made it.

[forest444]

33. A misunderstanding then.

I'm sorry about that.

What's on your mind?

[merrily]

34. But a felicitous one. I loved your post. No apology needed. Just say "Merrily, you're welcome for

my great post about indigenous people."

What was on my mind would probably take a book. Things I was never taught. Things I was taught that were wrong. Subtle brainwashing. Untrue memes. And not just during school. Not enough energy for all that right now.


Thanks for asking.

[forest444]

35. Well, thank you - and you're welcome.

If you haven't already, check out Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States. A fresh and richly-researched perspective not only on those we in the U.S. have put up on a pedestal; but on overseas sacred cattle like Winston Churchill as well. http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home

A bigger headache for the U.S. during World War II than we were ever told and one of the great elitist snobs of the ages, Churchill was fond of saying that "the best argument against democracy, is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

I would say, "...with those who still lionize Churchill himself."

[merrily]

37. Ancient Athens had democracy. Ancient Sparta too, maybe. We have representative government.

Some DUers get angry when I say that. Hope you are not one of them. good night or good morning, or whatever this is for you. I enjoyed our exchanges.

[forest444]

38. I'm with you there.

My attitude on history is this: We should redeem the past when we can, with the same fervor we condemn it when we must.

Considering Athenian democracy took place 2400 years ago, it was a remarkable feat of egalitarian, pragmatic, and progressive governance - and in some ways more responsive to its people's needs than ours is now.

Did you know that, for example, public officials could be exiled from Athens for years not only for malfeasance, but also upon popular demand?

And here we are, 24 centuries later, with the likes of Dick Cheney and Tom Cotton committing treason and Mitch McCocaine profiting from his father-in-law's drug-running - without a thing we could ever do about it.

Some progress.

Good night, merrily. It's been an education, and above all it's been fun.

[merrily]

23. He's a Nixon/Kissinger guy. Nixon got a lot of crap for going to "Red" China.

Besides, I would not be a bit surprised if Buchanan were a major anti-Semite since he is bigoted about other groups.

His poignant lament, "I cry every time I hear The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down," said on an MSBC program while he was still their commentator, made me nauseous and angry at him and even more at MSNBC. And he is anti immigrant, documented or not. And, like Senator Webb, Buchanan speaks of "white culture."

[Jamaal510]

27. I wish PB was level-headed like this more often. nt

[Historic NY]

28. That had to hurt some...

now the other networks need to get him on.....

[davidn3600]

36. Not surprising at all. He's libertarian. Most are anti-war.

Libertarians largely are against offensive wars.

[Faryn Balyncd]

39. Take a look at Daniel Larison in Pat's old American Conservative Magazine;

(Unfortunately, these traditional conservatives have no place in today;s Republican Party.And the Senior Editor supported Obama in 2009 and 2012.)

The Nuclear Deal Framework and the Ensuing Hawkish Panic

By Daniel Larison • April 2, 2015, 6:53 PM

.....It is too soon to say that the deal is complete, but a major hurdle has been overcome and the best efforts of the saboteurs of diplomacy with Iran have so far failed. Credit goes to the diplomats and officials of all governments involved that made sure that the talks weren’t derailed. Despite the increasingly desperate attempts from hard-liners to undermine the negotiations, diplomacy with Iran has once again delivered results that Iran hawks claimed to be impossible when the talks first began. If the negotiations had fallen apart this week, it would have been fairly easy for hard-line opponents of any deal to pretend that their approach would have yielded better results. The success of the negotiations clearly deprives them of that.

Here are some of the details of the agreement reached this week: According to European officials, roughly 5,000 centrifuges will remain spinning enriched uranium at the main nuclear site at Natanz, about half the number currently running. The giant underground enrichment site at Fordo – which Israeli and some American officials fear is impervious to bombing – will be partly converted to advanced nuclear research and the production of medical isotopes. Foreign scientists will be present. There will be no fissile material present that could be used to make a bomb. . . . . A major reactor at Arak, which officials feared could produce plutonium, would operate on a limited basis that would not provide enough fuel for a bomb. All of these represent significant Iranian concessions, and all of them are an improvement over the status quo in terms of restricting the Iranian nuclear program. If followed up by a final agreement in June, this should ensure the peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. Naturally, this has alarmed and angered Iran hawks. Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk’s reaction was especially unbalanced: The Illinois Republican trashed a deal struck by global powers with Tehran, concluding in a phone interview “that Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” a reference to a top State Department negotiator on the deal. But Kirk wasn’t done, forecasting that lifting any more sanctions on Iran “dooms the Middle East to yet another war,” one that Israel will have to clean up, perhaps in a nuclear fashion“We should be a reviewing presence to see how this unfolds,” Kirk said of Congress’ role, adding: “Which we all know is going to end with a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran.”

Kirk’s views on Iran and the nuclear issue have been like this all along. Back in 2013, he was warning against reaching even an interim deal with Iran because he assumed that it would be “appeasement,” and now he has concluded that a non-proliferation agreement that imposes limits on Iran’s nuclear program is even worse than appeasing Hitler. That by itself should remove him from any serious policy debate, but we know that it won’t. As an original co-sponsor of new sanctions legislation aimed at derailing the negotiations, Kirk has more invested in the failure of diplomacy than most, and so the success of diplomacy in spite of his effort is undoubtedly frustrating to him. Hence all of his loose, ridiculous talk about nuclear explosions in Iran. I’m not sure whether he meant that he thinks Iran would soon be testing a nuclear weapon or that a nuclear weapon would/should be dropped on Iran, but either way he has proved that nothing he says on this issue should be taken seriously.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-nuclear-deal-framework-and-the-ensuing-hawkish-panic/