Posts Tagged ‘buchanan’

…I’m sure he would have been perfectly happy if Poland and the rest of Europe submitted to his every whim and territorial demand every time without dispute. What else was he to do when they refused? (Sarcasm off)

Buchanan has two huge unhealthy obsessions (his anti-communism is a good obsession) the first is the middle east where I suspect he has never forgiven Israel for the USS Liberty incident during the six day war. (The best book on the subject of the 6 day war is Michael Oren’s bar NONE, my review here).

Now I can’t say I blame guys who were on the ship and attacks for being sore and suspicious, I might be the same after that experience, but when it comes to the fog of war you’d be surprised what is possible. One interesting example:

Polk rode across the intersection and found the colonel of the mysterious regiment. Polk, “in angry tones,” asked the colonel why he was firing upon “his friends.” The colonel replied, “I don’t think there can be any mistake about it. I am sure they are the enemy.” “Enemy?” Polk huffed. “Why I have only just left them myself – cease firing, sir; what is your name, sir?” “My name is Colonel [Keith], of the [22nd Indiana], and pray sir, who are you?” Polk now realized the startling fact that he was in the rear of the Federal line.

Polk decided that “there was no hope but to brazen it out,” with his “dark blouse” and the darkening night concealing his true identity. Polk rode up to Keith, shook his fist in the colonel’s face and said, “I’ll soon show you who I am. Cease firing at once.” Polk then rode down the Union line, shouting for the men to cease fire. As he trotted through the enemy regiment, he wrote, he “experienced a disagreeable sensation . . .calculating how many bullets would lie between my shoulders every moment.” When Polk reached a grove of trees he spurred his horse back to Liddell’s line.

If someone asked you what was more improbable; a Jet flying at high speed misidentifying a flag and a ship during strafing runs or An OPPOSING GENERAL in uniform literally riding up to a colonel, admonish him in person and ride up and down the battle line of enemy troops without them figuring out that he is not on their side? Cripes the guy is right next to you. That regiment paid for that error in blood and only propriety forbids their Commanding Officer from being nominated for a Darwin Award.

His second is his obsession with Churchill’s “culpability” for World War II from his book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” (full disclosure I haven’t read it) and a recent debate where he argued the proposition that Winston Churchill was a liability to the free world.

To call this historical revisionism or even interpretive revisionism is an understatement and a half, I love a good debate but C’mon, the fact that he and his partners in debate managed to persuade 10% of the crowd doesn’t say much for the crowd, the good part:

Roberts said the debate was an overwhelming success, adding: “You have to be 76 years old to have voted for Winston Churchill in a general election. This was a very special night which enabled a lot of people who previously couldn’t to vote for Churchill.”

Earth to Pat; The statements: “The Polish government on 1939 was corrupt” and “England should defend a free Poland against a German Invasion in 1939” are not mutually exclusive.

Now the Liberty you might give some slack, mistake or no Israel was culpable (and apologized and paid an indemnity over it), The Churchill thing, a historian might have an odd view on an accepted subject.

However now we go to Pat’s web site today and what is on the front page. A full blown truther article by Paul Craig Roberts (no relation to the Roberts in the debate who defended Sir Winston above) which I won’t bother to quote.

Now in fairness Pat didn’t write this article but he chooses or whoever works for him choose to put this on his front page without a disclaimer such as “an opposing view”. This article is posted under his name. That’s just crazy.

Other disagreements not withstanding Charles is right about this one. I can’t see how MSNBC can or should ignore this. If I was on the left I’d be all over em, but then again the left might like an easily discredited conservative on MSNBC.

I would point out however there is a big difference in the standard for an administration czar, in charge of taxpayer money and a pundit on TV, for me if I was in charge at MSNBC I might decide this was a good time to put him out to pasture.