Less is more
By Capt. Fogg
There's a lot of diminishing going on - in the mind of Pat Buchanan, that is. When Pat Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank agreed with that former Nixon speech writer who helped the previous pinnacle of corrupt and demented presidencies divide the country with scurrilous arguments, that President Carter's characterization of Dick Cheney as "a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military" is not appropriate for a former president and "diminishes" Carter. Sure, it's the same old argument that obedience is freedom but it's also irony; Buchanan having avoided service by faking a bad knee.
Why is it not appropriate? Beats me. Most Americans dislike Cheney and his intransigence in the face of constant error, constantly contradictory facts and failures of policy. There must be some reason why someone with foreign policy expertise and experience can't say what most people would agree with. (and please take note Ann: he's a committed Christian.) I guess it's the same reason Obama has to wear a tawdry flag pin to prove the required degree of mindless allegiance; or the reason decorated veterans can't give back their medals because of matters of conscience and for the same reason that no one can criticize a general for fudging the figures when there's evidence he has.
Poor Gerald Ford is apparently "diminished" post mortem for criticizing Cheney and Rumsfeld as well, even though I don't think any sane person can argue his right to apply his insight or his right and indeed duty as a public citizen to advocate for better government. But he's diminished, says the man who never thought to diminish the felons he worked for in the Nixon White House - so diminished that the shop worn effigy of Michael Moore can be brought out of the warehouse and propped up against the wall. That's diminishment!
I don't expect much different from that lying old Nixonian hack and supporter of disastrous and bloody wars. I expect that the same old patriotic nonesuch to be performed ad infinitum and I expect the United States, like some angry, lonely and delusional teenager with his diminished ability to deal with reality to reach for the weapons and go out in a blaze of violence.
Cross posted from Human Voices
There's a lot of diminishing going on - in the mind of Pat Buchanan, that is. When Pat Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank agreed with that former Nixon speech writer who helped the previous pinnacle of corrupt and demented presidencies divide the country with scurrilous arguments, that President Carter's characterization of Dick Cheney as "a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military" is not appropriate for a former president and "diminishes" Carter. Sure, it's the same old argument that obedience is freedom but it's also irony; Buchanan having avoided service by faking a bad knee.
Why is it not appropriate? Beats me. Most Americans dislike Cheney and his intransigence in the face of constant error, constantly contradictory facts and failures of policy. There must be some reason why someone with foreign policy expertise and experience can't say what most people would agree with. (and please take note Ann: he's a committed Christian.) I guess it's the same reason Obama has to wear a tawdry flag pin to prove the required degree of mindless allegiance; or the reason decorated veterans can't give back their medals because of matters of conscience and for the same reason that no one can criticize a general for fudging the figures when there's evidence he has.
Poor Gerald Ford is apparently "diminished" post mortem for criticizing Cheney and Rumsfeld as well, even though I don't think any sane person can argue his right to apply his insight or his right and indeed duty as a public citizen to advocate for better government. But he's diminished, says the man who never thought to diminish the felons he worked for in the Nixon White House - so diminished that the shop worn effigy of Michael Moore can be brought out of the warehouse and propped up against the wall. That's diminishment!
I don't expect much different from that lying old Nixonian hack and supporter of disastrous and bloody wars. I expect that the same old patriotic nonesuch to be performed ad infinitum and I expect the United States, like some angry, lonely and delusional teenager with his diminished ability to deal with reality to reach for the weapons and go out in a blaze of violence.
Cross posted from Human Voices
Labels: Bush Administration, Republican corruption
posted by Libby Spencer at 5:37 PM
7 Comments:
It's the clueless con rule. Speech is free, as long as you agree, otherwise - STFU.
speaking of clueless, Pat Buchanan is not a supporter of stupid and bloody wars. Do you know at all of which you speak? read his columns at, wait for it, antiwar.com to get a good look at his opinions on wars past and present.
read especially "whose war" written on the eve of the invasion of iraq. The war the democrats authorized and he and others including ron Paul on the anti war right were opposed to from the start.
please educate yourself.
http://antiwar.com/pat/
Lester, from what I have read recently, you are correct about Buchanan's anti-war positions. And I also recall his challenging Bush41, a sitting president, during the 1992 primaries. Buchanan has never been a fan of the Bush family (I don't know why, to be honest).
Nevertheless, one cannot excuse Buchanan's role as speech writer for Spiro Agnew, the most bellicose and belligerent Veep prior to Cheney. Remember such lines as: "Nattering nabobs of negativism," and "effete intellectual snobs" ?? These are Buchananisms.
Buchanan is a link in the chain among those who invented the fine art of smear-and-jear politics, and Karl Rove learned a lesson or two from him.
These days, there are a great many folks who would like to improve the quality of political discourse. But neither Buchanan nor Rove deserve a place at the table.
weak. because he came up with a couple slogans doesn't make him on the level of a Karl rove, and politically he is on an entirely different planet. it was his job to write that stuff. He also wrote a speech for Nixon to give to CHAIRMAN MAO!! if that doesn't solid up his leftist credentials nothing will.
So he was only following orders during the Nixon years and therefore he can't be accused of supporting useless wars?
What is he supporting then if he supports Dick Cheney against valid criticism with smears and denunciations? We're talking about a hypocrite, I think and if someone says one thing and does another you don't excuse what he does because of what he says.
So it's the Democrats' war because the administration gave false information? The people who lied share more blame than those who couldn't believe a President could lie like that.
reread comment 3
Post a Comment
<< Home