TV Alert - Sen. Bob Graham on MTP Now

[Norbert]

This may be an interesting one.

[TrueAmerican]

1. Not on 4 another hour for me. Keep us posted.

thanks.

[Norbert]

2. Pat Buchanan

Paraphrased: "The Iraq war has created a spawning pool of terrorists." Was estimated at 5000 insurgents now estimated at 20,000.

[PA Democrat]

3. Pat Buchanan said Saddam was not a threat. we flew 40,000 sorties over

Iraq, and Saddam did not shoot down a single one.

[acmavm]

4. You know you have officially entered the Twilight Zone when Pat

Buchanan is the voice of truth and reason.

[zuzu98]

6. I thought the same thing. LOL

I thnk he thinks he's on Hardball, though, he just called Russert "Chris."

[TacticalPeek]

17. Interesting.

Last night on Russert's CNBC show, Pat called Tim 'Chris' several times. I noticed Timmie actually is starting to look kinda like Tweety. Better talk to his hair dresser, check that color.

That CNBC show will be repeated I believe, and I found it very watchable. Buchanan shares the hour with Joe Klein, and Tim basically let them go with just a little steering. They elucidated their positions well, and made for a fairly rare hour of cable tv civility.

[PA Democrat]

9. But he still supports Bush for president

I cannot stand Buchanan, even though he does occasionally strike a note of truth.

[bfusco]

16. It is scarry

I saw his interview with Russert last night and thought the same thing. It shows how twisted our foreign policy when Pat is a voice of truth and reason compared to the neo-con criminals in power.

[Renew Deal]

34. He has been very anti-war.

I think he feels it's not conservative.

[Dudley_DUright]

5. Why is Graham having to work through the flack

thrown up by Newt Gingrich (and the distraction of Pat Buchanan)?

[kayell]

8. I wish he was on alone, but Pat Buchanan will get through to a lot

of people that some one with a D by their name never can. My head is absolutely spinning that Buchanan is making so much sense. He really hates the neo-cons.

I took a look through Buchanans book the other day at the book store, and almost bought it. I just can't bring myself though to spend any of my limited book budget on Buchanan, but for those of you with a decent budget, it looked worth the read.

[liveoaktx]

25. The world has ended-I agree with Buchanan

He would execute a withdrawal from Iraq.

[PA Democrat]

7. Buchanan: They hate us for our POLICIES

He said that Osama was not sitting in some cave reading the constitution and deciding that he would attack us because of what was contained in that document.

[Cats Against Frist]

14. PAT BUCHANAN JUST ROCKED MY WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The quote from his book, and the two minutes they spent talking about U.S. foreign policy, was the closest thing I've seen to the truth on TV in a long time. It correlates directly to the speeches at the GOP convention -- the veiled attacks -- "our opponents think (terror) is brough upon us by our actions."

The quote was actually, "Osama bin Laden didn't stumble upon the Bill of Rights in a cave, somewhere, sit on it, and go bananas." (or that's pretty close to what he said.)

Pat can be a nutcase, but he's one of the few people given real credibility that is "out there" far enough, that he can say stuff like that. He's right. And what he said is the crux of the problem.

[liberalcanuck]

30. I was trying to find a transcript of what I heard from Buchanan on MTP

last night. I found myself nodding in agreement to a lot of what he had to say. Especially in regards to the economy (our ridiculously huge trade deficit), Iraq, and the neo-conservative agenda. Nader and Buchanan are entering a strange world of ideological confluence. I'm particularly impressed with Buchanan's polemical skill -- I just wonder why his logical deductions still lead him to irrationally support *.

[JCMach1]

36. My head is still spinning from agreeing with Pat 100%

What new hell is this!

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. Whatever else you can say about Pat, there's no question.....

...that he NAILED the reasons for hatred of the US.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Any mention of Graham's new book or the new charges??

See:

Two hijackers had help in the U.S., Graham says in new book

:shrug:

[Cats Against Frist]

15. Russert said "to be continued"

I seriously think that this was because the media likes "compacted" stories, so they can sensationalize it. My theory is that NBC plans to break out the story big, next week, when the book comes out.

I think.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Gad, these next fews days will be dangerous...

Graham's explosive charges are coming out Tuesday...

Ben Barnes exposing Dubya's TANG favoritism Wednesday...

And a warning by Bush to expect a terra attack late August, early September. :scared:

[leftchick]

19. That was the very last word Se. Graham....

about the 2 highjackers funded by SA.

[AnnInLa]

23. You know, Michael Moore has said that for a long time!

Before senators and other limelight people started talking up these points, Michael Moore had the facts....please read, "Dude, where's my country?" He details Saudi connections and asks pertinent questions about why we can't or won't manage to find a sick terrorist.

[Junkdrawer]

26. from Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country":

I would like to throw out a possibility here. What if 9/11 was not a "terrorist" attack, but rather, a military attack? What if the 19 were well-trained soldiers, the elite of the elite, unquestioning in their duty to obey their commander's orders? That they lived in the US for 2 years and were not discovered...that takes a certain amount of discipline, the discipline of a soldier, not the erratic behavior of some wild-eyed terrorist. George, you were a pilot once...how hard is it to hit a 5-story bldg at more than 500 mph? The Pentagon is only 5 stories high. Had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit filght training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force. The Saudi Air Force? What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission


And the behavior of the terrorists has always been puzzling:

Islamic fundamentalist playboys with a taste for women, booze and cocaine. :wtf:

Seems more consistent with Kamikaze pilots who were given lots of money to fuel their final days. Has anyone checked to see if their families were later "taken care of", one way or another?

[Tatiana]

52. Exactly! But everyone wanted to call Moore crazy at the time.

Honestly, he was only thinking critically about what happened on 9/11 and WHY. It's something the rest of the nation outside of New York needs to be doing because any one of us in Chicago, L.A., Seattle or numerous other places could be next if we don't pay serious attention to this issue.

[wellstone dem]

48. This book is now in the sale section

at Barnes and Noble, I got my copy yesterday.

[TacticalPeek]

11. "Dangerously close to the "T" word" - Buchanan

Bwaahahaha!

[kayell]

13. That was great!

[zuzu98]

12. WTF?!?!?!! Did Newt Gingrich just complain

about Chalabi being unjustly smeared and that the story of his bieng "cleared" (?) didn't get the same press as the accusations against him?!?!

Gee, I wonder what that would be like...

[leftchick]

21. just so you are aware....

gingrich is part of the PNAC neo-cons. Of course he is defending his old pal Chalabi. He is part of the cabal that brought Chalabi and the other liars in the INC into the WH circles in the first place. The insanity is they are STILL thinking their plan for occupying Iraq and control of ME oil will work.

[liveoaktx]

27. Imagine! Someone out SMEARING someone else.

[GiovanniC]

47. And Then Getting CLEARED

But the media ignores it.

That never, ever, ever happens to Democrats.

*cough* Sandy Berger *cough*

Oh, what? Excuse me.

[Killarney]

20. Did they talk about Bush blocking the investigation into SA?

[LizW]

22. Ick. Mary Matalin's on too.

Michael Ruppert's forthcoming book is about to indirectly implicate her in a 9/11 plot run by Cheney.

[AnnInLa]

24. huh? please explain more...sounds interesting...n/t

[LizW]

28. Ruppert has a book coming out

where he names Cheney as the person who was behind MIHOP.

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2304478

Ruppert will say that Cheney was in charge on 9/11. (And this I believe, based on the 9/11 Report and Richard Clarke's book.) Cheney was running things on 9/11, there is no doubt. Mary Matalin was in the White House bunker with him on 9/11. No one has ever mentioned why she was there or how she happened to get there. There were lots of people in the White House on the morning of 9/11. Most of them were evacuated, but Mary Matalin was in the bunker with Cheney.

I'm not to the point where I can completely believe MIHOP. However, I do believe that Cheney was acting as President on 9/11, and he clearly separated himself from the Situation Room where all the Principals were connected by video. He surrounded himself with his inner circle political operatives, and Mary Matalin was there.

[AnnInLa]

32. thanks for the info.....eom

[Cush]

29. lol, poor Newt

"the FBI & CIA are tying to smear people and ruin their careers"

[goddess40]

35. Weapons labs

Newt said 12 (biological?)mobile weapons labs were found in Iraq and no one challenged him on that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. The balloon trucks again??

The ones that came from the British government?

[liberalcanuck]

31. Kick!

:kick:

[milkyway]

33. Shit! Graham's charges against bush coverup of Saudi complicity in 9/11

were not addressed. As the half-hour segment was coming to a close Graham was able to bring this up, but Russert had to rush to a close and go to commercial (Russert was not deliberately avoiding a discussion). The segment with Graham, Buchanan and Gingrich was a discussion of Iraq, but I would hope that one of the guests accusing the President of the United States with what could be called treason would have got some airtime (Buchanan also said we're getting dangerously close to the "T" word in regards to the passing of intelligence to Israel).

Buchanan made perhaps the most clear and powerful argument against bush's war on terror that I have ever heard anyone spoken. I haven't found a transcript yet. His main point was that the terrorists don't hate use for our principles, they hate us for our policies: military presence in Saudi Arabia, wars in Iraq, and unquestioning support of Likud and Israel. An incredulous Russert looked at Buchanan as if he had said the earth was flat. "You mean they don't hate us for our culture?"

Here's a DU thread of the Miami Herald's article on Graham's book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=802727&mesg_id=802727&page=

[JCMach1]

37. Anyone who lives or knows about the Middle-East could

tell you this... Pat is the first American politico to STUMBLE onto the truth...

[Cats Against Frist]

40. Buchanan gets it from his paleocon roots

Buchanan is *almost* a libertarian, except I think he thinks it's OK to legislate Christian morality. He hasn't made the logical jump to social freedom, because of his religion. Pat gets his views from the three tenets of classical liberalism -- that's also why he said he would withdraw all the troops. According to the tenets, the people have a right to peace, but this doesn't mean pre-emptive war, or using our government to secure natural resources in soverign nations, for our own use. Also "humanitarian" intervention goes against classical liberalism -- so, in effect the GOP is actually making an argument for liberalism (not classical liberalism) when they try to justify the war for humanitarian reasons. Philosophically, it follows: if we believe that we have a duty to "save" the Iraqi people, then we also have an obligation to "save" our own -- the justification for the Welfare State.

That's what scares me about the GOP -- their new philosophy seems to be a pastiche of philosophies, not rooted in logic -- which becomes magical thinking or manifesto, which leads to totalitarianism. It could be (and I've heard it) argued that Bush is very much a big government president -- the prescription drug bill, No Child Left Behind, federal funding for marriage promotion, increased resources for space exploration, AIDS funding (though it is underfunded, as NCLB) to Africa -- these are all "big government" programs of the liberal vein. Combined with pre-emptive war and "humanitarian" intervention, Bush is drawing much of his policy from the thread in the creation of our nation that seeks a "just society." Also, note that the GOP is not really SERIOUS about dismantling the welfare state, and these privately owned Social Security promises, are really just a joke (which it wouldn't be, if managed correctly, but it won't be).

Even the economic system of the GOP is not "free market." Since their economy relies on disproportionate tax cuts for the wealthy, and a war economy, as well as laws made in favor of corporations, it's really, sorry to say, more of a fascist policy, than free market. If it were a free market, they wouldn't be shifting the bulk of the taxes to the middle class, the corporation wouldn't have human status, there would be no corporate bailouts/subsidies, and we wouldn't be using our troops to clear the way for industry. NONE of those things are about the free market, and Pat Buchanan knows that (However, Buchanan doesn't support NAFTA, which is about free trade with other nations). All of Bush's rhetoric is double talk. In addition, in a free-market economy, abortion, prostitution, obscenity/pornography, sodomy, gambling, drug use, et. al., would be de facto legal. When you start asking the question -- "should we criminalize drugs," you're also opening the door for, "should we regulate monopolies?" or "Should we tax the wealthy more, for the good of society?"

The neocons responsible for this war, are former leftists, and take their roots both from Trotsky and Strauss, neither of whom advocated the kinds of things in which Buchanan believes.

The question is, though: why does Buchanan support Bush? Fuck if I know. The only thing that I can see is that he believes in Christian cultural supremacism, which really sucks. If he could let that go, he'd be a powerful advocate for shaking up this society. He and Nader, together, will be natural allies, because both of them are sort of "extremists" in their parties -- each of which has a serious stake in classical liberalism -- but for different reasons: Nader, social, Buchanan, economic. Under normal circumstances, they would NOT be allied, and would be adversaries. But, and this is a good clue to the extent of the GOP's pre-fascist narrative -- Nader and Buchanan, in the face of, a movement that treads over each of their classical liberal stakes, would become united -- like they are, in a sense, anyway.

I think this is very interesting, and I am curious about Mr. Buchanan, because I agree with some of his positions. The chink in his program (where it loses its logical roots in philosophy) is that he is still very NATIONALISTIC -- of the protectivist vein, not the empire vein -- and he does believe in Christian cultural supremacism, and he is against free-market concepts abroad. So he's not consistent -- and is still "picking and choosing" his philosophies.

[liberalcanuck]

42. Great post. I agree with most of it and thought that I disagreed with

the part about necons being former leftists until I found this article at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

(snip)
The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense intellectuals. (They are called "neoconservatives" because many of them started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right.)

(snip)
Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.


I love this part about the media in the U.S.

(snip)

The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots – odd as it seems – in the British Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard – edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) – acts as a mouthpiece for defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.

Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times – owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon – which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. Through such channels, the "gotcha!" style of right-wing British journalism, and its Europhobic substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.

The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique pioneered by their Trotskyist predecessors, the neocons published a series of public letters whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another favorite).

(/snip)

I'm sure all this stuff is old hat to DU'ers, because I've read bits and pieces of it before. I feel so much more enlightened after reading this whole article. Very fascinating, albeit disturbing stuff.

* to me is only big government, not through any altruistic motive, but because it provides him with a good cover to hand out money to his corporate donors (i.e., the Prescription Drug Bill).

I find myself agreeing with even some of Buchanan's espousal of protectionist ideals -- we need a level playing field or else globalization will lead to more de-industrialization.

[TacticalPeek]

43. "Why does Buchanan support Bush?"

I believe he has said it is because he expects the next four years to see the appointment of up to four Supremes, and I can understand why he would not want Kerry to be the one doing the nominating.

So, everybody, DO SOMETHING TODAY TO HELP KERRY!

[K-W]

44. Buchanan is a facist, he just isnt a neoconservative.

And unlike most of his ilk hasnt given in to the neoconservative foriegn agenda in order to push the conservative domestic agenda. It might also have something to do with the fact that many of the top neocons are Jewish, and Buchanan is something of a horrible anti-semite.

I wouldnt call Buchanan a paleocon or a libertarian. His roots are with the movement conservatives, not the traditional conservatives. I think the main reason for his being an outsider on occasion is just him making career moves, trying to stay relevent. He used to be notable for being so very hard right, now that the republican party has gone full tilt to the right and hasnt given him a position of power, he keeps himself relevent by becoming more moderate.

Buchanan is not a libertarian, not by a long shot, but like much of the right he uses libertarianism as an economic distraction.

[RevCheesehead]

45. Bill Maher had Buchanon on last week.

Bill said, "Pat, you're so far right, that many of us think you're really on the left."

Bucky gave a long list of Bushie failures.
then Maher asked him "so why aren't you voting for John Kerry?" Poor Pat was a little surprised, then said "look, based on those two, Bush is better..but I don't know. I don't even know if I'll be voting at all."

(these are my paraphrases from a very tired mind, and are probably not accurate.) my reaction was "Good Lord, I NEVER thought I would agree with Pat!!"

[K-W]

46. It seems like he's just treading water waiting to see what happens.

He was one of the big forces behind the movement cons at the beginning, this administration is, to some extent his baby. But somewhere along the line the movement and him stopped getting along. He is still a rabid reactionary. He still, most likely, harbors facist ideals. But I think he sees this administration as soo inept and tied up to bad ideas in foreign policy and other areas, that it will never accomplish the goals Buchanan truely cares about. I think he also sees a high likelyhood of a huge backlash and possibly a leftist counter movement. So I think he wants to ensure he continues to have a career, by acting the moderate, riding the fence, and sympathizing with liberals.

[atre]

49. Buchanan is anti-fascist in at least one respect

Military imperialism is a halmark of the 1930s-1940s brand of fascism. While he is a backer of the same sort of nationalistic, xenophobic zeal also common among fascist states, he has made it clear that he prefers protectionism to imperialism.

[K-W]

50. indeed, though I wouldnt call it anti-facism

It shows that imperialism and facism can be seperated. Facist governments tend to be imperialistic, as Buchanan appears to have discovered for himself. Its hard to hand right wing wakkos total control over a government and not have them use the military the first chance they get.

And really, can we trust a word the man says? Can we honestly think that what he says reflects what he thinks? Its possible, but who knows.

[Cats Against Frist]

51. You're mostly right

I made a mistake in calling Pat Buchanan a "libertarian," though he flirts with the libertarians, and draws a lot of support from them. I also forgot about the immigration thing, which Buchanan is VERY against, which would definitely not make him a libertarian. I get mixed up with the Justin Raimondo thing, and I'm also wondering if Pat's changed a bit, since his firebrand days. It seems he's in bed with the paleolibertarians, and most sources I've read call him a paleoconservative -- but you might be right about the "movement conservative," -- I've just never read or heard that.

Pat has definite flirtations with fascism -- but for me, his views don't add up to fascism, as it takes more than just being a racist and a Christian zealot ultranationalist to be a fascist -- at least the definition that I'm thinking of, which isn't just Naziism. Buchanan is against corporate control of government (or so he has said in the last several years), and against corporate-based foreign policy, which, I think, sets him apart from real fascists. I still think that Buchanan is more of an extreme nationalist, than a fascist -- but, according to many definitions, that could be fascist, if you want it to be, I guess.

You could very well be right that aligning with the Libertarians is "changing his position" to keep himself in the spotlight. He's always been against war, though, as far as I know -- he says the reason people say he "defended" Hitler wasn't because of racism, but because he thought the Russians and the Germans would kill each other without American intervention.

So, we have Pat Buchanan, the fascist:

Holocaust Revisionism
Racism
pro-theocracy
nationalistic

Pat Buchanan the Moderate (or at least some kinds)

Pro-Medical Marijuana
Against NAFTA
Against Outsourcing

And Pat Buchanan the Libertarian:

Against the Welfare State
Against corporate control of government
against empire-building/pre-emptive foreign policy
Pro free Market (Domestically)

Actually -- maybe you're right. If Pat got enough power, this combo is not logically sound enough to be anything BUT a fascist...:)

[librechik]

41. Don't defend that cowardly whore Russert

You can bet your last dollar that he was doing everything he could to delay and block Graham from talking about the issues in his book. Russert is one of THEM!!

If her were a REAL journalist actually doing his job, do you think he would let a story like that slip away?

He is bought out like Malibu beachfront property.