Buchanan: The Anti-Reagan

[BigMike619]

I must have read a different thread because I didnt see those statements once.

[Larry]

blah blah blah...

Wow. Don't know how I can possibly top such an insightful, thought-provoking, fact-filled post as that one.

[BigMike619]

Wow. Don't know how I can possibly top such an insightful, thought-provoking, fact-filled post as that one.

yep, I am completely done with your worthless dribble.

[Larry]

I think the lesson that Pat Buchanan needs to learn is that we are not always the great beacon of hope for the world. In reality we have done some pretty ****ty things, from overthrowing democratically elected regimes to supporting horrible dictators that killed and oppressed their own people.

In Buchanan's defense, I suspect he knows that.

I remember him being my favorite source of political news, back on WRC radio in DC.

I didn't always agree with him, but I listened because he (and Tom Braeden) were a lot more informed than I was, and I learned a lot of things from them.

I might not agree with him now, but I wouldn't call him uninformed.

[Larry]

It's very irritating to see some people missing the big picture and failing to recognize that a greater agenda to a plan may exist.

Instead, it's a bunch of "Obama hates America because he said we did something bad to so and so x years ago"......"Obama must be a terrorist because he's talking to so and so"....."Obama is incompetent because I don't see any change he promised so far."

I wonder how may would vote to impeach him right now?

I must have read a different thread because I didnt see those statements once.

Agreed.

Granted, the original article could be interpreted to imply some of those things.

I assume you were more "exaggerating for effect."

[Larry]

yep, I am completely done with your worthless dribble.

He said, while continuing to respond, and still completely without substance.

[Predicto]

what a great article. it says exactly what i think. obama apologizes and treats the world stage like his acting class. he doesnt know the proper way to speak or act yet he is just roaming from place to place reading off of televisions he is provided.

Funny how the entire world seems to be seeing it differently.

In a rousing speech on Thursday June 4th Barack Obama used the magnifying force of the American presidency, his own charisma and a podium at the heart of the Arab world to address the concerns of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims. Speaking at Cairo University, he sought to project an openness to Islam, a sense of shared values, support for Muslim aspirations and a determination to use American power to help fix the problems that most trouble them. It won praise as a superb oratorical performance.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788639

Maybe Obama's statements on the world stage are directed to the ears of the world, and not to the ears of conservative Republicans who have never trusted him and who refuse to give the benefit of any doubt? :whoknows:

[Henry]

Guys, it's DRIVEL, not dribble.

That drives me crazy.

[BigMike619]

Guys, it's DRIVEL, not dribble.

That drives me crazy.

how do you know im not playing basketball while talking about it?

and predicto I am sure I can find an article or 10 slamming it. but i am just one person with one point of view. i dont write columns for the economist or some web blog. doesnt make my opinion any less wrong.

[Predicto]

how do you know im not playing basketball while talking about it?

and predicto I am sure I can find an article or 10 slamming it. but i am just one person with one point of view. i dont write columns for the economist or some web blog. doesnt make my opinion any less wrong.

You are correct. Your opinion is wrong because it is just wrong, not because of any articles written by anyone else.

[Predicto]

how do you know im not playing basketball while talking about it?

and predicto I am sure I can find an article or 10 slamming it. but i am just one person with one point of view. i dont write columns for the economist or some web blog. doesnt make my opinion any less wrong.

Actually, try to find a few articles from around the world slamming that speech that are written by someone without an obvious axe to grind. I would be interested to see what you come up with.

[Jumbo]

Guys, it's DRIVEL, not dribble.

That drives me crazy.

You think such a practiced offering in the forum would be correctly named.

[Baculus]

Huh. A rather odd article considering the criticisms that Buchanan has made in the past. After all, he wrote a book called "Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart." In fact, Buchanan has used "hubris" on a number of occasion -- one of his repeated themes -- including an article he wrote in 2000 when he described, in a pre 9-11 world, that our foreign policy's "hubris" could lead to blowback and dire conequences.

This is an article, "Blowback from Moscow," that Buchanan wrote in 2007:

"...the hubris of Bill Clinton and George Bush I, and the Russophobia of those they brought with them into power, has been a primary cause of the ruptured relationship."

He continues:

"Blowback is a term broadly used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. The revolution that brought the Ayatollah to power is said to be blowback for the U.S.-engineered coup to overthrow Mossadegh in 1953 and install the Shah.

The nationalism and anti-Americanism rife in Putin's Russia is blowback for our contemptuous disregard of Russian sensibilities and our arrogant intrusions into Russia's space."

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2007/11/30/blowback_from_moscow

But then he comes out with this article? So I guess only Buchanan can criticize the US?

Buchanan: Answer: Obama cannot, because at heart he buys into the anti-American narrative that ours is a deplorable history -- of genocide against the Indians, of slavery and segregation, of robbing Mexicans of their land and of disrespecting our Latin neighbors.

These are all part of our history and it is a discredit to our past to ignore these events. Are we going to rewrite history so that the Trail of Tears never happened, or the events leading up to the dubious pretext for the Spanish-American war are forgotten? An event which led to the imperialism that Buchanan himself has decried in the past?

Buchanan himself said the following in an piece titled, "Crown Jewel of the American Empire":

"Defeating Spain had been as easy as crushing Iraq. But holding the Philippines would require three years of Vietnam-style fighting against the guerrillas of Aquinaldo, which cost tens of thousands of Filipino lives. And many more Americans died fighting the Filipinos to keep the islands than had died fighting Spain to take them."

He continues his historical exploration with, "Our new imperialists view Iraq much as McKinley’s generation of imperialists saw the Philippines, as an outpost of empire and a strategic base-camp for the projection of American power."

Buchanan, after drawing upon historical comparisons, finishes the article with this question: "Meanwhile, how do you like the empire?"

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-crown-jewel-of-the-american-empire-560

So, among with hubris, "empire" is another theme in Buchanan's writing. And to demonstrate these criticisms, he uses past historical examples.

But, according to Buchanan, the President of the US cannot do this as well?

[Larry]

Baculus's post:

Wow.

Can't think of a thing to say, other than "Thank you".

[BigMike619]

Actually, try to find a few articles from around the world slamming that speech that are written by someone without an obvious axe to grind. I would be interested to see what you come up with.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-05/the-arab-world-reacts

Compared to Bush, Obama “is much harder to decipher,” one editorial said. “He must’ve confused America’s enemies by giving ‘the Great Satan’ a much more attractive face.”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1814734/obama_cairo_speech_to_muslims_negative.html?cat=62

Sajid Mahmoood Qazi, a student of law and international relations who works for the Pakistani government says,"President Obama's description of the Iraq war as a "war of choice" struck him as hypocritical."

"This vision is so out of touch with reality. ... You can have your speechwriters find every good thing a Muslim has ever done. But more modern history is that the Muslim world is at war with the Western world." — Aliza Herbst, 56, a spokeswoman for Yesha, the West Bank settlers' council.

here are mixed reactions

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jekm5GTU8QamBomd5ElPQm2S1b9QD98JULA81

[Jeeb]

man I suck at posting pictures, oh well

[Predicto]

some stuff

Mike, I'm serously beginning to wonder about you. I asked you to find people without an axe to grind, and you quoted me two right wing blogs (the Daily Beast and Associated Content) that list a couple of quotes by Arabs saying that they wanted to see more than fine speechmaking.

None of them said it was a bad speech, none of them said anything like Obama doesn't know what he is doing, or is embarassing himself, or he "doesnt know the proper way to speak or act yet he is just roaming from place to place reading off of televisions he is provided." They all just complained that Obama didn't tell them exactly what they wanted to hear.

Only bitter American rightwingers cling to the illusion that Obama is an empty suit, helpless without a teleprompter in front of him.

[BigMike619]

Mike, I'm serously beginning to wonder about you. I asked you to find people without an axe to grind, and you quoted me two right wing blogs (the Daily Beast and Associated Content) that list a couple of quotes by Arabs saying that they wanted to see more than fine speechmaking.

None of them said it was a bad speech, none of them said anything like Obama doesn't know what he is doing, or is embarassing himself, or he "doesnt know the proper way to speak or act yet he is just roaming from place to place reading off of televisions he is provided." They all just complained that Obama didn't tell them exactly what they wanted to hear.

Only bitter American rightwingers cling to the illusion that Obama is an empty suit, helpless without a teleprompter in front of him.

like I said man, they are from both sides and you can get the quotes from both sides. that was MY point to YOU. you posted that article like it was the be all end all to prove me wrong. but when I posted "right wingers and people with an axe to grind" I get told I am way off base and you "wonder about me". why is it any different that my articles are now considered to be wrong and yours are all mighty? is it because it is about obama and you believe that anything said about him is just someone with an axe to grind?

and like i also said, i am one guy with one opinion. i dont work for some fancy magazine or web blog but that is how i feel. and thats how they feel. whether you dismiss it or listen to it and actually give it some validity is up to you.

for the record though..one of them said he was no different then bush. and we all know how much liberals hate bush. but dont wonder about me predicto, when have we ever agreed politcally?

[Predicto]

like I said man, they are from both sides and you can get the quotes from both sides. that was MY point to YOU. you posted that article like it was the be all end all to prove me wrong. but when I posted "right wingers and people with an axe to grind" I get told I am way off base and you "wonder about me". why is it any different that my articles are now considered to be wrong and yours are all mighty? is it because it is about obama and you believe that anything said about him is just someone with an axe to grind?

and like i also said, i am one guy with one opinion. i dont work for some fancy magazine or web blog but that is how i feel. and thats how they feel. whether you dismiss it or listen to it and actually give it some validity is up to you.

for the record though..one of them said he was no different then bush. and we all know how much liberals hate bush. but dont wonder about me predicto, when have we ever agreed politcally?

Your articles were from right wing American blogs. Mine was from the Economist. I could have posted from Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Times of London, whatever, and the results would have been the same. Obama made a very positive impression all over the world. The Daily Beast might say something different - so would WorldNetDaily. So what?

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you stick your opinion out there, we are entitled to comment on it, aren't we?

[BigMike619]

Your articles were from right wing American blogs. Mine was from the Economist. I could have posted from Der Speigel, Le Monde, The Times of London, whatever, and the results would have been the same. Obama made a very positive impression all over the world. The Daily Beast might say something different - so would WorldNetDaily. So what?

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you stick your opinion out there, we are entitled to comment on it, aren't we?

of course you are entitled to it and i always welcome it. i think you know that as well but if not i hope you do now.

so because of where they come from you just discredit them? so you only read what caters to what you like and discard the rest? do you read the ingredients and when you get to calories and fat just skip over it?

point being you should read both sides and listen to both sides. i dont know why both sides are just so quick to discredit the other just because of what "site" or "lean" they have. these are people in the world that i quoted who didnt like what obama had to say. people like me.

and i get you think im way off base here and i get that you probably think im just being stubborn and missing your point. could be that i am but i think i am making my own here that both sides should be listened to. not just the fluff piece that says how good obama is doing. he needs to know that there are a good amount of people out there who dont like what he had to say. muslim and christian alike.

[Baculus]

Baculus's post:

Wow.

Can't think of a thing to say, other than "Thank you".

I try my best.

[Baculus]

man I suck at posting pictures, oh well

Watcha trying to post?

Use the URL of the image and insert it via the "Insert Image" tool via the Advanced options.

[PeterMP]

Buchanan of course forgets that Reagan did apologize for some things. And Obama has no problems touting America's accomplishments when the venue is appropriate.

http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/iran_contra.cfm

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/06/obamas-d-day-65th-anniversary-remarks/

Picking and choosing a few incidents makes it easy to draw false conclusions.

Any chance I can bring this thread back to something actually somewhat constructive?

1. What was the venue of the points that Buchanan made that made defending our past inappropriate? Is the only appropriate place outside of America to speak about the virutes of America at a place where many Americans gave their life to free another country and come to the aid of the rest of the world?

2. There's a difference between the Reagan comment and the Obama's comments. Reagan was apologizing to the US for HIS actions. Are there any examples of Reagan going over seas and publically criticizing the actions of former administrations.

I'll admit, I'm not sure if it was his point, but it is certainly the way I read, and I don't think emphazing or allowing others to emphasize our negative history helps our world image or even the American people's of ourselves, which particularly at this time might not be the best idea.

[deejaydana]

Any chance I can bring this thread back to something actually somewhat constructive?

Wow, a moment of sanity. In the Tailgate? Reasoned, even handed debate? Here?

[DjTj]

Any chance I can bring this thread back to something actually somewhat constructive?

1. What was the venue of the points that Buchanan made that made defending our past inappropriate? Is the only appropriate place outside of America to speak about the virutes of America at a place where many Americans gave their life to free another country and come to the aid of the rest of the world?

First of all, I think it's a complete lie that Obama doesn't speak about the virtues of America abroad. Buchanan and the Heritage Foundation are focusing on a few negative comments out of a few of Obama's speeches, and ignoring the rest.

This portion of his Cairo speech is salient:

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

2. There's a difference between the Reagan comment and the Obama's comments. Reagan was apologizing to the US for HIS actions. Are there any examples of Reagan going over seas and publically criticizing the actions of former administrations.

It wasn't overseas, but when Reagan spoke about Central America in 1983, he said something very similar to what Obama said in Trinidad (but from the opposite side of the political spectrum):

What we oppose are negotiations that would be used as a cynical device for dividing up power behind the people's back. We cannot support negotiations which, instead of expanding democracy, try to destroy it; negotiations which would simply distribute power among armed groups without the consent of the people of El Salvador.

We made that mistake some years ago -- in Laos -- when we pressed and pressured the Laotian Government to form a government, a co-op, with the Pathet Lao, the armed guerrillas who'd been doing what the guerrillas are doing in El Salvador. And once they had that tripartite government, they didn't rest until those guerrillas, the Pathet Lao, had seized total control of the Government of Laos.

The thousands of Salvadorans who risked their lives to vote last year should not have their ballots thrown into the trash heap this year by letting a tiny minority on the fringe of a wide and diverse political spectrum shoot its way into power.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/31083a.htm

Reagan regretted the American withdrawal from Southeast Asia in the same way that Obama regrets the interventionism of the United States in Central America. When there is political change, Presidents will naturally criticize the policies of their predecessors.

I'll admit, I'm not sure if it was his point, but it is certainly the way I read, and I don't think emphazing or allowing others to emphasize our negative history helps our world image or even the American people's of ourselves, which particularly at this time might not be the best idea.

I think that the insinuation that Obama is emphasizing the negative side of history is a complete fabrication that Buchanan and the Heritage Foundation have created by selectively choosing facts.

The Turkey speech is probably the most egregious example. The Heritage Foundation criticizes Obama for talking about the United States's historical problems without criticizing Turkey, but he actually criticized Turkey's handling of the Armenian situation in the very next paragraph of the speech:

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there's strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Obama-To-The-Turkish-Parliament/

Now I'm not going to claim that Obama is exactly like Reagan, and I think that anyone would admit that Reagan was more bombastic in his patriotism. Obama is going to equivocate a lot more in all of his speeches on any topic. But I think you are trying to create a dichotomy that really only exists in shades of gray ... Obama might provide a little more counterpoint, but the point is still that it's morning again in America.