Buchanan on Colbert, MUST SEE
Posted June 16th, 2008 by Josh
output
This is the first time I see Colbert get so surprised (and borderline angry) that he forgot how to be sarcastic.
Pat schools Colbert (and the rest of you) why WW2 was NOT NECESSARY and the result was FAR WORSE than what Hitler could've done to Poland.
Of course, as soon as the point is made, he changes the subject.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Is Pat a historian?
Danzig was not a cause of the war it was only an excuse, a pretense. The war was to stop Germans building an empire in Europe that would be a threat to interests of other countries.
I've recommended this before ...
Anyone who wants an inside view of the 20th Century, WWI and WWII, and the agendas behind them, ought to Google Benjamin Freedman, Willard Hotel Speech, 1961. You can listen to it or read it.
Freedman was a high level American Zionist who was present at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (which ended WWI in a way that guaranteed WWII). At some point, Freedman became Christian and spent the rest of his life warning people about the Zionist agenda (NWO).
In fact, the Zionists needed WWII and Hitler (whom they helped) to create the conditions that would drive Jews out of very comfortable lives in Germany and into Palestine ... otherwise, Palestine would have remained in the possession of the Palestinians, in spite of the Balfour agreement (where, Britian promised Palestine to the Zionists in return for them bringing the US into WWI on the side of Britian). Without that agreement, Britian would have lost that war. Too bad they didn't!.
Benjamin Freedman's speech is a very interesting history course, by one who was there, in about one and a half hours.
As a czech
Czechoslovakia had an alliance with France about mutual military help. Looking backward, there was probably nothing practical that Britain or France could do, however - the idea of non-interventionism doesn't say they had to agree on anything.
As of France - it was direct breach of contract. As of Britain - they shouldn't have agreed to the Munich agreement. If they really stayed neutral, the whole thing might have been completely different. Better or worse? I don't know - the Czechs did have quite a good army at that time and given the geology (Czech republic is completely shielded by mountains from germany and most austria, at that time it had already constructed quite a very good fortified system), it wouldn't have been easy for the germans. From the practical standpoint - it is possible that many people would have died and the result would be the same. Or it could have been a blow to german resources so that their further expansion would be much slower or possibly stopped.
As a side note: much of the Poland was massacred by the Russians. If you saw the movie 'Europa, Europa' there is one sarcastic scene of Polish jews fleeing over a river eastwards trying to avoid germans, being met in the middle of the river by Poles fleeing westwards trying to escape russians...
I happen to disagree with Buchanan - Britain and France needn't have fought Hitler - however, they didn't need to agree with the invasion either. They DID.
We fire bombed an entire
We fire bombed an entire city and incinerated its people who had nothing to do with any wartime crimes. In fact, the war was already mathmatically over when we did burn Dresden and its people to ashes. It was done simply because zionists hated german people as a whole. We should have monuments in DC apologizing to the German people for incinerating 250,000 people, mostly women and children. Where is the museums dedicated to these innocent people? This act was done out of pure hatred in an attempt to destroy the German population.
Yes it was an unnecessary war. Britain was offered time and time again peace treaties from Germany but Chamberlain and Churchill were absolute idiot warmongering zionist who in fact wanted war to take place.
opinions vary
opinions vary
Ask any American
if they know about Dresden, or if they do, they must think we were killing off bad guys for what they did to Jews.
Buchanan does not allude to
Buchanan does not allude to the support of Wall Street of Hitler; at least in the interview. If he does not explore multinational corporate assistance to Hitler in his book, it is mostly a waste of time. Antony Sutton's book, 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler' comprehensively reveals how a nation without indigenous oil could wage war. It is a must read on the subject...
Wall Street's support for Hitler
was conditional to whether the war was a game with two players. Wasn't it?
Corporatism seeks
Corporatism seeks opportunity for growth in conflict and war and the anti-semite, Henry Ford was also impressed by Hitler's public and private anti-Jewish vitriol. Ford was an early backer and received public recognition from the the German government for his support...
old news
and pat is absolutely correct according to my neighbor,83yr old lt.col. who served in ww2.him and his buddies get together to play cards every Friday, they tell me the country is gone and its up to our generation to bring it back from the brink of hell.
quite a burden of responsibility
but we'll take it
Connecticut Lov, thank you...
for taking the effort to join (42 minutes ago) and enlighten us about how crazy Pat is! It is almost as bad as being in Zeitgeist.
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost
Pitty Pat is just a sneaky neo-con Hitler apologist
Don't be fooled folks, this is part of the elites' propaganda campaign to smear the Revolution with hate speech. Are we really supposed to believe that it's cool for Hitler to rape Poland? Are we really supposed to support crimes against humanity to make a point against OTHER crimes? This stuff is the product of a sick mind and should be shunned like the plague before they pull the trigger and use it against us after planting it on us.
Buchanan may be a lot of
Buchanan may be a lot of things, many of them not-so-upstanding. But he's not a Neocon.
Get your history straight.
You must think we knew Hitler was putting Jews in gas chambers before we got involved, and that justifies war.
You must be those who think Charles Lindberg was a selfish asshole who wanted the world taken over by an anti-Semite.
If so, I don't know who you're calling a neocon.
You could not be more wrong or opposite. It's exactly the neocon rhetoric that Pat is opposing and arguing against. It's the exact same idea back in 1939 that we had any business to "save" Poland or any other country that's used today for Iraq and Iran.
YES WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LET HITLER RAPE JEWS AND POLAND (if that). What we (US & UK) did was allow 50 million human beings to die in the cross fire, Poland was destroyed anyway, and US & UK paid for what?
It's important to understand that unwilling to intervene does not mean approval, but sometimes intervention makes things FAR WORSE. If you can't judge the war by simply looking at numbers, I don't see what logic you're using.
Pat Buchanan does NOT smear the Revolution, though I am disappointed by his lack of endorsement to Paul, he's with us 99%. He's an isolationist rather than a pro-trade non-interventionist, but that's OK with me. Pat is most hated by today's neocon elite, if you've paid even a little attention.
Name me ONE neocon Zionist Jew who thinks WW2 was wrong and Hitler was anything but evil. I challenge you!
No hate speech there.
Should 'we' think it is cool to let OUR OWN country rape Iraq, Afganistan, Nicaragua, etc?
I heard PB say something like.... the line should have been drawn BEFORE 50 million died, rather than drawing a line with the USSR AFTER we, us, you and me, lost fellow countrymen on foriegn soil.
The only hate speech detected was authored by you...
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost
Bah!
Pat's been called way worse by way more important people than you, and the charges never stick.
PJB is a Patriot of the first order. He and Ron Paul should be the first two faces on the next Mount Rushmore, as far as I am concerned. PJB has consistently advocated for Patriotic values such as liberty, life, and real American values (based on the Constitution) and he will never stop and has never stopped, in spite of the anti-PJB agitators from the small but vocal Israel-First lobby in the U.S.
Agreed,
Buchanan and Paul should be on Mt Rushmore.
Thanks Josh
I am glad we see eye to eye on this. I wish PJB would have been a louder, more vocal advocate for RP, but I know the constraints he was under, and I can appreciate that he did what he did for us, even if it was not the most he could possibly do.
live to fight another day
live to fight another day
Saw this when it first aired!! Buchanan was GREAT!!!!!
If you're a Nevada delegate or know someone who is, click here!!
http://nevadagopconventio...
Historic moment at WA State Convention at minute 4 here!!
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Convert a delegate here! www.dvds4delegates.com
Not surprised or angry
I thought- just a bit discombobulated to have *horror* Pat Buchanan on his show.
The only time he winced was the Yasser Arafat comment - his politically correct panic-alert went off no doubt.
If you want to see a genuinely conservative book promoted, you have to watch the Comedy Channel. Funny.
the video never played for me why?
________________________________________________________________
"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our freedoms & wealth are in jeoprady"
Ron Paul
Use this link instead
Oddly, I could not get it to play on DP or on Comedy Central BUT I was able to play it on the CampaignForLiberty.com web link, which is http://www.campaignforlib...
PJB hits it out of the park. And I love how Colbert encouraged PJB to run for Prez this year.
I love that man, Pat Buchanan.
Draft Paul/Buchanan for Prez//VP in 2012!
The german people may have been satisfied with Poland
The german people may have been satisfied with Poland, but the Nazis were not being funded by people here in the USA for that. Just as the PNAC has more in mind than just Iraq the Nazis had more in mind than Poland...
However Osama bin Laden is not a Germany... not even close. Any comparison to WWII and the "war on terror" is irrelevant. Al Qeada should pay for its crimes and their ignorant hopes of religious dominance over the world should be ignored for the foolishness that such dreams has always been for all religions for the past several thousand years... many Christians would like to Christianize the whole world also, but I am not about to start looking for war with Christians to stop them... they are just being religious bigots and their rediculous dreams of a one world religion should be considered a joke.
Crimes were commited by AlQeada and they should pay for it... however to prevent future such CRIMES we should go after the "hearts and minds" of the people of the Middle East which means acting with honesty for peace... If any of those countries do something so stupid as state sanctioned war with the USA then we should give them the WWII treatment, but AlQeada is not a state. Though the Saudi people supporting AlQeada does come very very close to being war worthy.
how about....
al-Qaeda is not Iraq or Iran either?
buchanan
methinks.....Buchannan.....in his heart of hearts....is a Paulite
so what?
He didn't "endorse" him when we needed him to.
Oh really?
So the editorial in his magazine, The American Conservative, which came out just in time for Super Tuesday, in which the magazine endorsed Ron Paul, was not enough of an endorsement for your liking?
PJB's current job as a syndicated columnist and as a political analyst on MSNBC does not allow him to "endorse" anyone. Therefore, in those media, he does not endorse. But, in his own magazine, of which he is a founding editor, an endorsement was published, of Ron Paul, just before the big day.
And his official website is plastered with Ron Paul articles.
What more do you want from the guy?
ohhh , I see
So he wants to keep his job...gotcha.
Just before the big day is....a little late, ain't it?
Even so, it's a preach to the choir.
What more do I want? Open endorsement since day one (I didn't notice until he actually openly said "I haven't endorsed him but I like him"). But I guess that's asking too much.
You are sort of correct: yes, it is good to stay employed
Josh, I know you seem to be a solid PJB fan, and I think it is fair to say I felt a bit disappointed with him myself, early on in the campaign. But then I realized we all have our roles. I tried not to get too worked up about it.
From everything he has ever said, we know PJB is an ally of Ron Paul. Very early on, I think it was the very first MSNBC debate last summer, one of the moderators asked Pat Buchanan who, of the credible candidates on the stage, best represents the ideals and values of the republican party. Without any hesitation, PJB said "RON PAUL." That is analysis. And it is correct. And it is basically an endorsement, without coming right out and saying it. I would say that is pretty much since "day One."
But, PJB's job on MSNBC is not to endorse candidates. That's not what he was hired to do. He did happen to found a magazine, though, that allows him to do that. And he did, through his editorial position in his magazine, endorse Ron Paul. And yes, it was just before Super Tuesday....which is when pretty much every body makes their endorsements. Why? Because then they are fresh on the minds of the readers.
As for preaching to the choir? I guess if the choir is the republican party, who else would you want to preach to? It was the GOP faithful that could make or break Ron Paul. So endorsing Ron Paul before a republican audience was the only obvious way to endorse him. It would make no sense if Pat wrote a guest editorial in the "World Weekly Socialist News", whose readers would never even consider Ron Paul.
Now, about jobs:
If my job is to make widgets, it is because I took a job as a widget maker and promised to spend my paid time making widgets. It's a contact between me and my employer: I make widgets, my boss pays me an agreed upon salary in exchange for my work product. Now, if instead I spend all of my time campaigning for Ron Paul at the widget factory, my boss, the widget factory foreman, will fire me. Why? Because I have neglected my duty to make widgets.
If Pat Buchanan's job is to ANALYZE politics for MSNBC, it is because he took a job as a political analyst (not an editorialist) and promised to spend his paid time analyzing politics, not editorializing, not doing a cooking show, not doing a variety show, and not picking his nose: his job is to analyze politics. It's a contact between Pat and his employer: Pat makes political analysis, and his boss pays him an agreed upon salary in exchange for his work product. Now if instead he spends his time on the job doing something other than his job, often talking about how he personally prefers one candidate over another, then his boss, at MSNBC, probably would fire him. Why? Because he neglected to do his job.
As a person who has hired and supervised employees, I appreciate that my employees generally want to do their jobs while they are on the clock, instead of sitting around the water cooler, picking their nose, taking excessive smoke breaks, pushing their religion or politics on others, etc. If you hire or supervise people, or pay their wages, you expect them to do the job they agreed to do. This is common decency and it is what is expected when two parties contract for employment.
From this perspective, I can understand why Pat in his role on MSNBC did not do more Paul-advocating. On the other more emotional hand, from the perspective of a man who has worked almost full time for 10 months on the Paul campaign, I too wish PJB--a natural ally of ours--would have or could have done more. But I will not hold it against him.
So yes, I imagine that PJB wants to keep his job. You see, if he is not on TV, no one gets to hear anything he says. So what would be the point of losing his job? So he can silently endorse Ron Paul with no media outlets to do so?
Buchanan is Right
I respect Pat and would have liked him to run as a Republican with the anti war stance.
Of course only if Paul did not run, I would have voted for him.
Sadly
Sadly, after three prior presidential campaigns, Pat Buchanan has concluded that there is just not the sort of vote needed to get himself elected.
I proudly supported Pat in the 1992 and 1996 GOP Primaries, and in 2000 when he was a third-party candidate against Boosh Jr.
PJB is my hero and will always be. It is no mistake nor coincidence that he and Ron Paul are 99% in agreement. Both are what you would consider the "Old Right"--the old-fashioned sort of libertarian conservative, rather than the neo-con evangelical religious right.
Go Pat Go! I can't wait to get his new book.
I agree...
Next to Ron... Pat's the man.
To bad the country is full of idiot's, huh?
Imagine a Paul/Buchanan presidency. Man, we might actually get our country back.
I always was hoping that if RP got the nomination
that PJB would become the VP. Or at least Secretary of State.
PJB is truly a great American, and the next Mount Rushmore ought to include RP and PJB side by side.
Any nominations for the other heads on Mount Rushmore II? LOL.
Did you notice all the RP stuff
Did you notice all the RP ads on the right? His book is being promoted and there is another ad. Pretty neat.
Healthnut4freedom
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6
well Pat Buchanan has always been for Non Intervention
He was against the Iraq War, he was against the war in Kosovo, and he basically states that by governments pushing us into these things we find ourselves in needless wars.
Its well known that FDR pushed the US into WWII, and that Pearl Harbor was part of that including cutting off Japan's Oil supply, trade embargo's etc - basically anything to make Japan strike the US.
From what I can tell, Buchanan's book says WWII was begun for various reasons, including for bankers to make money, as well as the military industrial complex. Buchanan is basically saying that Iraq and the war with Germany has many parallels and war was unecessary with both.
yes, but also
Pat is less of a free trade, pro-trade person. Thus more of a Charles Lindberg isolationist.
Pat believes in something approaching free trade
He would not want us to NOT trade with any countries, but if we do trade, he advocates fair trade. Trade with other nations, but fairly. No "most favored nation" for China. No engineered trade deals that produce huge trade deficits for the U.S. and billions in unfair profits for megacorporations.
Free trade that is fair is what we need. Neocon-inspired "free trade", which is really just deals like NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO, etc., is not in the least bit free.
In a Pat Buchanan world, there would be no "most favored nation": all nations who wanted to peaceably and on good terms, trade with us, would be welcome to do so as long as doing so did not cause direct harm to our national sovereignty. PJB is solidly against Empire building and globalism, which is what neocon "free" trade relies upon.
I dont get it?
Colbert was his typical self, funny.
No he wasn't
He's normally able to ask questions like "are you saying...." and actually expects an answer he's prepared for, but he looked like he was way too surprised a human being can say we should've let Hitler have the other side when it's none of our business.
Get an IP blocker Atrickplay
To scramble your IP address. Proxy server is a good free one. I had the same problem, I think youtube can actually block your IP. I couldn't watch videos until I hid my IP after that I could see everyone.
oruval can you give us a website? ip blocker?
________________________________________________________________
"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our freedoms & wealth are in jeoprady"
Ron Paul
Do you think that would work with a non-Youtube vid?
Cause this Buchanan one is a Comedy Central video.
cant wait to see this thnks
________________________________________________________________
"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our freedoms & wealth are in jeoprady"
Ron Paul
Dammit, I can't get the video to play!
I tried it in both Firefox and IE.
Anyone else experiencing this?
atrickpay same thing here both ff and ie but it didnt work
________________________________________________________________
"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our freedoms & wealth are in jeoprady"
Ron Paul
First time I have seen this.
www.dvds4delegates.com the newest and possibly the greatest weapon the Revolution now possesses.
I commend him on his stance on John McCain. Keep up the great work.