As to your summary of his remarks, well, yeah, the Nazis did “cook their own goose” when attacking the Soviets, but only because the Americans got into the war. Had we not gotten into the war, he could have diverted troops to the eastern front.

You may think I was offering ad hominem attacks, but I was quoting his words. And he said that if Poland had given up Danzig, all would have been hunky-dory, but that ignores his own stated goals, expressed regularly in the 30s and even before.

You fault me for engaging in ad hominem attacks and not attacking his logic. I didn’t even need get to his logic as I was addressing his ignorance of Hitler and the suggestion he made in his article that we could have negotiated with such a man (as Mr. Obama believes we can negotiate with the Iranian president.

Honestly, the ad hominem attacks in this article seemed a little unnecessary, too. If you want to prove a point, attack his logic, not his character; its what conservatives have always been good at .

Worth repeating:

The reason there is so much incoherence about what war we’re in is because the President does nothing to define it.

Trying to defend half the things Bush has done on the war front requires a great deal of projection , role-playing, and mind-reading. And Bush’s triangulations of Democrat-associated things has torn asunder the Republican Party nationally just as Clinton’s triangulations of Republican things did to the Democrats.

After reading it I made my own comment there, what do you think ?

Pat and many “paleocons” have absolute confidence that they are the spiritual heirs of men like Burnham. Some of them were mentored directly by him and others of his generation. This is the intellectual turf that has to be crossed in order to be claimed.

With any “movement” leader – of any movement, mind you (and in particular of movements that vie for influence rather than state power) – I am often curios as to how soundly they traffic between their stated core values, the mood of the masses, and dynamics of governmental (or bureaucratic) power. In this sense, Pat is an interesting study.

Buchanan takes it as a given the the Nazi idea of uniting all German territories under one regime [was] a good thing.

…or at least “reasonable”. Similar to Ramsey, the left-liberal commentator who very recently apologized for Chamberlain’s and Hitler’s actions at Munich, and praised the Nazi conquest of Austria as “bloodless”.

But it’s bull. What cosmic law says that putting all speakers of a certain language, any language, under one nation is a good thing? Much less, under an evil, totalitarian and anti-Semitic dictator? If Buchanan truly believes the former: does he think the U.S. should invade and annex Canada?

The majority of Austrians never considered themselves Germans, and still don’t. Nor did they want to live under Nazi dictatorship. In reality, the “bloodless” Anschluss of 1938 involved massive street-level intimidation of the Austrian people by Nazi brown-shirts and was followed by repression, executions, the rounding up of Jews, etc. Evidently, stuff like that doesn’t bother Ramsey, or Buchanan.

Also, he is Irish American Catholic in the most traditional meaning of that world… and so he is (like his predecessor, Joe Kennedy Sr) anti British Empire. Thus, he is kinda sorta not on Britain’s side in the WWII thingy, and is kinda sort on Hitler’s side in that conflagration, which did, after all, destroy the British Empire.

Sounds arcane, this analysis, doesn’t it? But then, Buchanen is arcane.

Not only did he bump President Reagan out of prime time at the 1992 convention, I always felt the tone of that long and almost-hateful tirade seriously damaged President Bush 41’s re-election bid. I was at that convention in Houston and remember how uncomfortable and embarrassed a lot of people were by the time Buchanan finished. I was sitting next to a distinguished Republican conservative in the U. S. Senator who said that after listening to Pat Buchanan he needed a shower.

A question for number 4: do you also think Adolph Hitler would have gone down in history as a great man if he just hadn’t had that thing for Jews?

He’s one of the smartest American political minds of the past generation – and should be read at length before being criticized. I’ve read The Death of the West, also his sister Pat’s The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton.

Pat, I always thought (or the part about him I find most appealing), is about: God, borders, and procreating-heterosexual-married families. As long as he’s “what you see is what you get,” I’ll give him the time of day, put my money on the counter for his books. I find a number of his arguments relevant, salient, prophetic almost.

Even if the “true face” of Pat Buchanan is now showing, conservatives have a duty to make the case for him in ways that Blue Ghettoed liberals won’t – and can’t.

That he was only driven to evil because the West prevented him from achieving this goal.

It is very clear that when one moves to the far extremes of either left or right – they tend to meet.
We have been hearing for 7 years now how it’s the fault of the west for not capitulating to Islam – that we now have suicide terrorists, and murdered Iraqis and American soldiers.

So now we know the true meaning of WWII. If only all Germans were united under the Reich, there would have been no war. I understand that Hitler felt this to be a noble goal. But did the Germans, who lived under Czech or Polish rule feel they’d be better off under Hitler?
Of course why ask the little people – of course the leaders know best.