Buchanan: Hillary has never been right on Foreign Policy.

[CapoteMonster]

I love how all of the Clinton-hacks in this thread are just using ad-hominem rather than addressing the points made in the article. They don't want to admit that Hilary has been wrong on everything she's said when it comes to these key foreign policy decisions.

You know the anti-Hillary hacks are desperate when they resort to pimping a column written by a racist Holocaust-denier.

Thanks for proving my point about no one wanting to adress the points made in the article.

Who cares what points he made?  If you want to make points about Hillary's foreign policy, perhaps you should use a column from someone other than a racist Holocaust-denier.

Buchanan is a Hitler apologist who's flirted with Holocaust denial. He has no credibility to speak on anything. I don't care what David Duke or Shirley Phelps Roper have to say about a Hillary candidacy either.

I never said Buchanan wasn't crazy on anything. He laments the "the fall of white America" and is definitely anti-Semitic. However, that doesn't mean what he said in this article is wrong. If what we see today proves Clinton was wrong on Iraq, Libya, and Syria, then why believe her now?

[Suburbia]

Buchanan may be right on some things, and he may be wrong on others. I think that Hillary's neoconservative views may be a plus with some moderate voters. We'll see. The only thing she was wrong about was voting for the Iraq War in the Senate.

[KCDem]

>>>>Buchanan

'nut said.

[GOON]

Sickening amounts of ad hominem attacks ITT.

[IceSpear]

Sickening amounts of ad hominem attacks ITT.

I don't care what David Duke or Shirley Phelps Roper have to say about a Hillary candidacy either.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Could someone actually try to refute his arguments, I'm waiting.

[bedstuy]

Could someone actually try to refute his arguments, I'm waiting.

Here are his points:

1.  She was wrong on being more aggressive in arming rebels in Syria:
Nobody knows how that would have turned out, it might have nipped ISIS in the bud, it might have turned out worse.  It's too soon to tell.  Is Pat Buchanan really an expert on Syria anyway?  Give me break.

2.  "Voted to invade Iraq"
That's sort of not true, since it was an authorization to use force, not a declaration of war.  But, most people agree this was a major mistake and that's why she's not President right now.

3.  Supported intervention in Libya
And it worked.

4. Benghazi
Sigh...

Ultimately, his only real point is Hillary's vote on Iraq, but it's old news.  And, if you're going to blame someone for Iraq, it's ridiculous to focus on the Democrats in the Senate instead of the Republicans in the White House who started the rush to war and bungled it.

[GOON]

Could someone actually try to refute his arguments, I'm waiting.

Here are his points:

2.  "Voted to invade Iraq"
That's sort of not true, since it was an authorization to use force, not a declaration of war.  But, most people agree this was a major mistake and that's why she's not President right now.

3.  Supported intervention in Libya
And it worked.

2) But she knew full well that once the Senate voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, Bush would go ahead an invade Iraq, so it didn't have to be a declaration of war.

3) It's totally working.  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/libyas-democration-dream-near-collapse-return-war

And it's not ridiculous to focus on the Democrats in the Senate, since one of those Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution is probably running for President in 2016.

[bedstuy]

Could someone actually try to refute his arguments, I'm waiting.

Here are his points:

2.  "Voted to invade Iraq"
That's sort of not true, since it was an authorization to use force, not a declaration of war.  But, most people agree this was a major mistake and that's why she's not President right now.

3.  Supported intervention in Libya
And it worked.

2) But she knew full well that once the Senate voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, Bush would go ahead an invade Iraq, so it didn't have to be a declaration of war.

3) It's totally working.  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/libyas-democration-dream-near-collapse-return-war

And it's not ridiculous to focus on the Democrats in the Senate, since one of those Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution is probably running for President in 2016.

In America, the executive branch is in charge of foreign policy.  Republicans might want to revise history to pretend the Iraq War was the Democrats' fault, but it's just false.  True, Hillary was wrong to vote in favor of the Authorization.  But, when you consider being  the NY Senator in the post-9/11 political climate, you can understand the pressure to make that mistake.  Ultimately, we've debate this issue to death, so people know how they feel already.  But, I don't want McCain voters pretending they were down with Kucinich because Rand Paul is the new Republican star.

On Libya, we had a limited involvement which toppled a dictator about to commit genocide.  We didn't invade and occupy Libya.  We weren't acting as the world police, more like the world volunteer fire department.  So, it's not our fault when Libya is a struggling fledgling state.  Nobody ever promised that Libya would become Switzerland immediately after a traumatic war ending decades of dictatorship.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

In America, the executive branch is in charge of foreign policy.

Which makes it extremely important that a warmonger isn't elected President.

[IceSpear]

Buchanan is consistently right

So you're also a Holocaust denier?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Buchanan is consistently right

So you're also a Holocaust denier?

When did he deny the Holocaust?

[IceSpear]

Buchanan is consistently right

So you're also a Holocaust denier?

When did he deny the Holocaust?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/pat-buchanan-anti-semite/

[pendragon]

Buchanan is consistently right

So you're also a Holocaust denier?

When did he deny the Holocaust?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/pat-buchanan-anti-semite/

"Ben Shapiro is a Senior Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. He is the author of the new book "The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration" (Threshold Editions)."

lol

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Buchanan is consistently right

He isn't even consistently right wing, let alone consistently right.

[IceSpear]

Buchanan is consistently right

So you're also a Holocaust denier?

When did he deny the Holocaust?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/pat-buchanan-anti-semite/

"Ben Shapiro is a Senior Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. He is the author of the new book "The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration" (Threshold Editions)."

lol

Go ahead and Google the claims made in the article yourself. Here's another one if you want.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/the-heresies-pat-buchanan

[bedstuy]

Buchanan is consistently right

So you're also a Holocaust denier?

When did he deny the Holocaust?

He's not a holocaust denier.  He may be a holocaust supporter, but I don't think he's a denier.

Buchanan is certainly a racist, an anti-Semite and a Hitler fanboy.  That's public record, not really up for debate at this point.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

So Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite because he hates the nation of Israel and it's influence on our foreign policy?

[GOON]

Being Anti-Israel doesn't make one an anti-semite.

[bedstuy]

So Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite because he hates the nation of Israel and it's influence on our foreign policy?

He's anti-Semitic because he hates Jews.  He's both anti-Israel and an anti-Semite.  

http://fair.org/press-release/pat-buchanan-in-his-own-words/

And based on what he said there, he's also something of a holocaust denier, so I have amend what I said earlier.  Let's not have this debate, Pat Buchanan is a disgusting racist, anti-Semite.  It's well known.  This is a guy who has said all kinds of fawning, approving things about Adolph Hitler.  Don't defend this cretin please.

[GOON]

And even if Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite, it doesn't and shouldn't discredit his opinion on foreign policy.  In the article posted in the OP, Buchanan listed legitimate reasons as to why Hillary Clinton's foreign policy track record should be put under scrutiny.  Instead of having a debate about these legitimate points, most partisan-Hillary supporters just went "lolantisemite" and completely disregarded his valid points. 

Ad hominem to the extreme.  Credit to bedstuy for at least addressing the points in the article.

[bedstuy]

And even if Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite, it doesn't and shouldn't discredit his opinion on foreign policy.  In the article posted in the OP, Buchanan listed legitimate reasons as to why Hillary Clinton's foreign policy track record should be put under scrutiny.  Instead of having a debate about these legitimate points, most partisan-Hillary supporters just went "lolantisemite" and completely disregarded his valid points. 

Ad hominem to the extreme.  Credit to bedstuy for at least addressing the points in the article.

No, the thread is about the article, the author's credibility on evaluating foreign policy is fair game.  It would be a logical fallacy to say, "Elliott Spitzer is wrong about taxes, he cheated on his wife."  But, if someone admires the foreign policy of Hitler, do you really care about his opinion on foreign policy? 

And, the article is a cursory rehash of old news anyway. 

[IceSpear]

Being Anti-Israel doesn't make one an anti-semite.

Yes, clearly he is just anti-Israel, and that's it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure you'll counter with how AIPAC, Hollywood, and the Jew lobby have somehow twisted his words.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Cuz Buchanan is such a respected authoritah on foreign policy.

[CapoteMonster]

And the return to ad-homie has begun.