1
   

Pat Buchanan: A Sane Conservative

 
 
Radikal
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 04:56 am
March 1, 2004 issue
Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative


Quote:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,097 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
thehamster
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 05:23 am
Boy you're pretty much into that quoting-thing, eh?
Why don't you give us a ball to play with and summarize the above text in your own words? (maximum of 4 sentences plz)
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 05:43 am
?
I found the article interesting and agree with most of it. I figured that others might find it so, also. If I get real ambitious I might comment on it. Smile
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:17 am
I think this is the first time I've ever seen the words "sane" and "Pat Buchanan" in the same sentence, at least without the word "not" in there somewhere.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 11:51 am
Radical

"Now al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. But when did Hamas attack us? And if Israel can co-exist and negotiate with Hezbollah, why is it America's duty to destroy Hezbollah? Iran and North Korea, the authors warn, "present intolerable threats to American security. We must move boldly against them both and against all other sponsors of terrorism as well: Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. And we don't have much time."

The above paragraph is from the article by Buchanan that you agree with----didn't you post some preposterous thread that al -Queda was not responsible for 9/II. Perhaps you'd like to reconcile this one of many inconsistencies in your conspiratorial lunatic ravings.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 11:54 am
Pat Buchanan has/had a lot of good ideas, and in some respects he was a nut.

He was his nuttiest I think the day he drove his Mercedes through the crowd where he was to speak at an "America First" rally.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:05 pm
I don't know, Perc, Radikal seems awful "Pissed off" about some of this stuff...
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:08 pm
thehamster wrote:
Boy you're pretty much into that quoting-thing, eh?
Why don't you give us a ball to play with and summarize the above text in your own words? (maximum of 4 sentences plz)


Good idea.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:13 pm
I'll say this for Buchanan, he's his own man. I probably disagree with 99% of what he says, but I always find him interesting to listen to. Which is more than I can say for the conservatives in charge at the moment...
0 Replies
 
thehamster
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:45 pm
Boy that Buchanan must be a personality in the States.
Is he a poltician or just a very active guy who's always on the news?
And just in case he is a politican, why do you keep on calling him a conservative? I thought you guys were from that country with two parties representing a whole federal democracy? Where did that other Conservative party spring up when I didn't look?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:46 pm
After his wife devloped breast cancer, Buchanan
left her. At this point, I lost all respect for the man.
0 Replies
 
thehamster
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 01:05 pm
Huh am I having a déjà vu?
I recently saw a man on CNN who's gonna run for a federal election in some US election and who - and that was about the most important thing about him - recently lost a kid due to...cancer?
Or was it his wife who recently deveated breast cancer?

Oooh my bad memory...hope at least you guys know who I'm talking about...
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 01:28 pm
Well, Pat did stand pat. Didn't like his racial stance, though.

I thought it was Newt Gingrich who asked his dying wife for a divorce.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 01:49 pm
It was Letty though the wife herself is the one who suggested it according to Newt's daughters.

Pat Buchanan has been married for I think 40 or more years to the former Shelley Ann Scarney.
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 02:50 pm
!
I never said Al Q. was not involved with 911 Attack. I said that there is no proof that Osoma bin Laden was responsible for it. That doesn't mean that he had none nor that Al Q. had none. It means no proof that Osoma, who has a bounty of $30 Million on him Dead or Alive, had anything to do with 911 Attacks. Understand the difference?

I also said that I don't agree with some of the things Buchanan stated in this article. I agree with the part about the US Govt. should not have invaded Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 04:08 pm
Am I getting feeble in my old age? Didn't bin Laden take credit for it?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 04:11 pm
and Gore took credit for inventing the internet (so the repubs say) does that present proof? silly logic even though I do believe he is guilty, or do you believe to be true sans verification anything bin Laden says?
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 04:37 pm
Most juries take a confession as proof of guilt but then what does reason have to do with an intellectual discussion of this depth????OK let's start with this:

Previously unseen tape shows bin Laden's declaration of war

August 20, 2002 Posted: 3:30 PM EDT (1930 GMT)
Flanked by bodyguards, bin Laden flinches as a rocket-propelled grenade passes over him during a training exercise.

From Nic Robertson
CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A never-before-seen al Qaeda video obtained by CNN shows Osama bin Laden declaring war against the United States and the West.

The tape of a May 26, 1998, news conference is among 64 obtained in Afghanistan from a source, who said the tapes were found in an Afghan house where bin Laden had stayed. Experts say the collection of tapes sheds new light on al Qaeda's training, capabilities and mindset.

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."
CNN NewsPass Video
• Face of Evil: Tapes offer evidence of al Qaeda's global reach and links to other groups
• Explosive Force: Training tape reveals al Qaeda's expertise in using easy-to-get ingredients to fashion deadly high explosives
• Roots of Hatred: Osama bin Laden declares war on the United States
• The Meeting: Osama bin Laden and top al Qaeda aides arrive at a pivotal summit
• Chemical Tests: Exclusive video obtained by CNN shows lethal chemicals testing on dogs. (Note: This video is very graphic and difficult to watch and is not recommended for children and some adults. Viewer discretion is advised.)
• The Journey: How CNN obtained the tapes
• Al Qaeda complex: CNN's Matthew Chance visits the rubble of camps in eastern Afghanistan
MORE STORIES
• Tapes give evidence of al Qaeda's global reach
• Bomb-making video reveals scope of al Qaeda threat
• Tapes show al Qaeda trained for urban jihad against West
• Terrorism analyst: al Qaeda's quantum leaps
• Bin Laden's call to war
• Tapes shed new light on bin Laden's network
• Disturbing scenes of death show capability with chemical gas
• CNN analyst: Tapes a how-to terrorism manual
• White House official: Tapes 'disturbing'
• Nerve-racking trip brings tapes to light
EXTRA INFORMATION
• Timeline: Bombing attacks, suspects and plots linked to al Qaeda
• Interactive: A revealing look at al Qaeda documents
• Timeline: A history of chemical weapons
• Gallery: Caught on tape
• Interactive: Understanding chemical weapons
• Profile: Osama bin Laden

"And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen, who interviewed bin Laden a year earlier, believes the tape depicts a key moment for al Qaeda.

"They're going public," Bergen said. "They're saying, 'We're having this war against the United States.'"

Accompanying bin Laden on the video are Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's right-hand man and inspirational ally, and military adviser Mohammad Atef, who died last November in coalition bombing.

Although a select group of Pakistani journalists and one Chinese writer were invited to witness as al Qaeda launched its jihad on the West, the event never got wide exposure because no independent videotaping was allowed.

Ismail Khan was one of the journalists there that day.

"We were given a few instructions, you know, on how to photograph and only take a picture of Osama and the two leaders who were going to sit close by him. Nobody else," Khan said.

Rohan Gunaratna, an international terrorism expert and author of "Inside Al Qaeda," suggests security was a key reason for keeping the video under wraps.

"Making that tape public would compromise the security of al Qaeda and of Osama bin Laden," he said. "They did not release that tape."

Among those who appear with bin Laden are the two sons of Sheik Abdul Rahman, the spiritual leader of those convicted of blowing up the World Trade Center in 1993. He is now in a U.S. prison for planning other attacks on New York.

Bergen says the significance of the sons' presence at the press conference "can't be underestimated." They distribute what they claim is the will of their father, which calls for attacks on Americans.

"The purported will states, 'Attack them on the sea. Attack them on the land. Attack them everywhere. Attack their economy,'" Bergen said.

The connection to Rahman, Bergen said, is key for bin Laden, who uses the sheik's spiritual guidance as a religious fig leaf from behind which bin Laden broadens his terror groups' appeal to radicals.

With hindsight, the important moments on the video are easy to pick out, including bin Laden hinting at an attack on U.S. targets.

Within 11 weeks of the declaration, al Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in bombings that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

And perhaps almost as chilling, because it didn't happen, al-Zawahiri appears to justify an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 04:47 pm
Quote:
Most juries take a confession as proof of guilt but then what does reason have to do with an intellectual discussion of this depth????

trying to measure the depth but I can't seem to find my micrometer
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 04:50 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
Most juries take a confession as proof of guilt but then what does reason have to do with an intellectual discussion of this depth????

trying to measure the depth but I can't seem to find my micrometer


That was exactly my meaning-----for the first time ever we agree on something.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Pat Buchanan: A Sane Conservative
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 04:39:41