I think it's more about him being an isolationist, and therefore always wanting to challenge the logic that led to us enter WWII. The idea that the Nazis were pure evil and that we would have had to fight them sooner or later is what he is trying to push back against.

In a way nothing new. Bill Buckley threw Buchanan out of National Review for his anti-Semitic tendencies and writings.

I like Pat - he's kind of like Ann Coulter - but less feisty.

Why don't you be honest JT - you hate him because he defended John Demjanjuk who was on the verge of being hanged by Israel for no crime other than being an Eastern European Catholic older than 65.

I feel even more contempt for Botox Bay Buchanan.

Bill Buckley threw Buchanan out of National Review for his anti-Semitic tendencies and writings.

I lost all respect for Patprick Buchanan the day I ran across an old treatise of his that argued we should have stayed out of the war against Nazi Germany, regardless of the facts about Nazi Germany, because Nazi Germany never openly attacked us. Japan did, so the war with Japan was acceptable. But not the European half of WW2.

Sometimes it seems as if Buchanan is two different people. One of his personalities is a pugnacious, strong-willed conservative, somebody worth listening to. The other personality is so eager to avoid international entanglements that he'll willingly hang out with the worst dregs of humanity if their position somehow supports his own isolationism. Thus his association with neonazis, anti-semites, holocaust deniers, and anybody else who can somehow hinder or confuse the moral case for war against Hitler's regime. He may not himself be a neonazi or an anti-semite, but he's been hanging around with those filth long enough that the stink has rubbed off on him.

As an entirely separate matter, I condemn Buchanan because in 2000, his egomaniacal power grab destroyed the Reform Party, perhaps the last opportunity the country will ever have for a viable third party that could threaten the Republicrat stranglehold on political power.

I also liked Pat and maybe that colors my take on this article. I take Pat as saying that Poland resisted Hitler's "offer you can't refuse" because France and England told them they had Poland's back if Germany attacked. Instead England and Frances opted to appease and Poland was sacrificed. Note that he minces no words in describing the horrific nature of Germany's attack. The lesson appears to be that you are a fool to trust the assurances of an appeaser when they promise to defend you at their cost.

Pat is so close to be ing a neo-nazi he might as well be called a neo-neo-nazi. There's yet to be a nazi-related defense he hasn't taken up as a personal crusade. He's the Henry Ford of his generation.

Re: Mike

France and Britain didn't appease Hitler when he invaded Poland, they declared war on Germany as a result. You're thinking of Czechoslovakia. You can get them for general incompetence and timidity on their military "response," but it is hard to spin a declaration of war as appeasement.

And the notion that Germany had a right to invade Poland because of Danzig, that Poland had no grounds to tell Germany to screw off without a battalion of tanks rolling across the border, is repugnant. It's similar reasoning to those who would blame the US for the attack on Pearl Harbor because we refused to arm Japan's war machine by selling Japan scrap metal. Can we deport Pat?

Its typical of Pat Buchanan's writings about history, just enough real facts to make it sound plausible, but not enough to make it true.

Yikes

Germany wouldnt't have attacked Poland if Danzig were ceded to them? They signed a non agression treaty with the Soviets to gobble up Poland and both did. We should have stayed out of a war with Nazi Germany? They declared war on us the day after Pearl Harbor with no provocationon our part to support the Japs. Every one of our ships, civilian or military was a military target whether we declared neutrality or not. How do you delare neutrality when the largest military power has declared war aginst you?

Unfortunately as people age they rewrite history in their minds. His addled mind now says Hitler good, US and GB bad. His mind rearranges history to fit that scenario.

While I laud your effort, Corky, unfortunately this is not correct:

They declared war on us the day after Pearl Harbor with no provocation on our part to support the Japs. There was quite a lot of provocation on the US' part against Germany by December of '41 - military aid to the British in materiel, as well as escorting convoys against German submarines, and attacking German submarines in the Atlantic.

That should have read:

They declared war on us the day after Pearl Harbor with no provocation on our part to support the Japs.

I like Pat even though I disagree with him on some issues. I think it's the (IN YOUR FACE) style...
That kind of style can carry over to supporters and can make civilized conduct...hard to find.
Even though it sucked that JAY was introduced to a plate-glass window, one can not help but smirk at the thought of a Kos kiddie or Berkley jerk taking the plunge.
ok ok.....I know, I haven't mastered MY uncivilized part yet...

Knight, I wasn't clear. He offered to toss me through the window; he didn't actually do it. Sorry for the ambiguous wording, but I escaped from my encounter with Pat's buddy unscathed.

J.

He is a difficult man to tolerate. His views are right on in some instances. At the 1992 republican convention he was right on about immigration. It was in Houston, Texas so he took the argument to a city full of illegal aliens. At least he had guts. ww

NO GLASS for you!!..excellent...That's good news JAY.

As for not being clear, no worries I went to the Jon Cerry skool of blog communications...
It's ALL me...

Everyone that knows Pat from the farthest left to the farthest right and in between - loves him personally - and they KNOW him. Its simple, Pat likes to get you mad. He has an intelligent, sarcastic and divisive sense of humor and is not afraid to use it to upset the politically correct crowd. He is a master at the politics of division and has been employed by past administrations to do just that. Its not nearly as deep as you make it seem.

I was one of the original limited partners who funded Pat Buchanan's conservative newsletter, "From the Right." A group of like-minded conservatives put up the seed money to initiate publication, and the newsletter was published for a little more than a year, by which time it had gotten almost to the point that it would break even and, maybe, make a little money.

At that point, Buchanan jumped into the Presidential campaign of 1992, and unilaterally walked away from the newsletter, and it ceasd publication shortly thereafter. He never once communicated to the limited partners or responded to any suggestion that he make them whole. Most of them didn't care -- they weren't making a financial investment. It wasn't the idea of the money to me either. It was the fact that he would have no feeling of obligation to us.

"I was one of the original limited partners who funded Pat Buchanan's conservative newsletter, "From the Right." A group of like-minded conservatives"

WOW---Wave your "IMAGE" would be tarnished if too many people read this....lmao

Did you see Patrick Buchanan's rendition of world war 2?!?! AHAHAHAHAH. It very cute. Check it out if your intrested here -
Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War