VIDEO: Pat Buchanan says “both sides” were right in the Civil War

8:21 pm EST April 8th, 2010 | Conservative | 13 Comments

This is on the supposed “liberal” cable news network. Not only revising civil war history, but now elevating the defense of slavery to the right thing to do.

Topic: , , , ,

Related Posts

«
»

13 Responses to “VIDEO: Pat Buchanan says “both sides” were right in the Civil War”

  1. mambochicken23 says:

    Really? Pat… really? I mean, really? Really really?

    Geez.

    You know what? Fuck ‘em.

    (Apologies to all liberals and sane people in the South. But I repeat myself.)

  2. abanterer says:

    Dear Pat,

    You suck.

    You are a fatuous blowhard with a bullies heart. In a just world, you’d have spent a nickel in prison in the 70′s, left to work a call center because that’s all you could find, retired to a tiny apartment, and died of cirrhosis.

    And again, you suck.

    Have a blessed day,
    Me

  3. SteveCo says:

    Coming from a Catholic Nazi-apologist, that’s pretty funny, in a very twisted dark-humor sort of way.

  4. Pryme says:

    He’s just getting closer and closer, isn’t he?

  5. Repack Rider says:

    No one ever fought harder trying to agree.

  6. Parthenon says:

    “They both had a moral position.”

    Why do people keep paying this guy for stuff like this?

  7. jr says:

    Pat’s writing another of his “Hitler was misunderstood” books

  8. calling all toasters says:

    If Pol Pot only killed Jew or blacks Pat would defend him, too.

  9. Robert says:

    Calling All Toasters,
    don’t forget, when the Vietnamese went to war with the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, _we sided with the Khmer Rouge_ – because they were fighting the REAL bad guys (i.e., the ones we didn’t like). I’m not saying the Vietnamese were angels of mercy – they weren’t – but really, now.

    That said – this is simply noxious. He should be a pariah for this.

  10. Kevin says:

    Here’s a question I’d like to pose to the group which kind of touches on a previous thread.

    Should all veterans deserve honor regardless of the cause of war?

    -If you feel Iraq was an unjust war, should those vets be honored?

    -If you feel the South’s reasons in the civil was were unjust, should those vets be honored?

    -If you feel the Republican Guard were doing disgraceful acts for
    Saddam, should they still be honored?

    -If you feel Germany’s role in WWII was unjust, should their vets be honored?

    Isn’t it a good governor on the run-away use of military force by tyrants that troops know they may not be honored if they pick up arms for the wrong reasons? Or should everyone who answers the call to fight, not matter what the reason, and for who, be honored?

    Defining honor is a tricky thing here. I’m not necessarily talking about being dis-honored like the Nazis were. But certainly no parades and laurels. And possibly questionable assurance and level of veteran’s benefits.

  11. Dr. Psycho says:

    Nah. In a just world, even minimum-wage ex-convicts like Pat Buchanan would have access to decent health care.

  12. But certainly no parades and laurels. And possibly questionable assurance and level of veteran’s benefits.
    Yes, Kevin, for the Korean War Veteran, the Vietnam Veteran , and the “Cold War Veterans,” who were stationed in Germany, and knew it was their job to die holding off the Russians, if they came pouring over that border from Poland, that is exactly what WE got.
    I’m a Viet Nam veteran, and I got no parades, no laurels , and a crappy GI bill when I got home.

    Kevin, lemme take a wild guess: You’re not a veteran, are you? You have never been to a Veterans’ Hospital, have you?

    The idea of gauging veteran’s benefits based on whether or not they fought in a good war is the most coldblooded, soulless thing I have ever heard. You do realize that decreasing veteran’s benefits because they were in an “unpopular war” , at the time of their discharge , could affect the rest of their lives, even if the popular tide changed a decade later, and we decided it was a good war? It also encourages people not to join the military, knowing that they could end up in pretty bad shape, mentally or physically, as a result of combat and as the war rages on, if it becomes unpopular, they can lose any chance for a decent postwar life. People would be less inclined to want spending on veterans’ benefits, if they knew they could oppose the spending by opposing the war.

    Nah, I doubt you gave that idea of yours any thought. You’re like those people who say, “Why should we pay out Veterans’ Benefits? After all, they did volunteer, didn’t they? They knew they might get wounded, or suffer severe mental disorders, or become addicted in some far off corner of the world.”

    It’s no skin off your nose if they offered their lives for their country, and only lost a limb or two, right, Kevin?

    The liberals’ capacity for cruelty, while preaching compassion and tolerance, never ceases to amaze me.

  13. Steve B. says:

    Well we cannot help but put up with the media giving a platform to people like Mr. Buchanan and Beck. Even people like Chris Matthews (a loud mouth blow-hard) can be considered ‘over the top’. (at least Matthews bases most of what he bellows on factual information, although slanted as it is. I suppose it is splitting hairs and deciding to what degree things are skewed)

    Does anyone really think that a racist would admit to being a racist? A bigot to really being a bigot, or anyone hiding behind their extreme rationalization or dissonence to make their lives easier to live?

    The truth is a hard thing to accept for most of us – no matter what side of the fence we are on.