Buchanan: Hillary has never been right on Foreign Policy.

[bedstuy]

I love this argument.  "Pat Buchanan might be a racist, anti-Semitic Hitler fanboy, but..."

Once that's on the table, who cares what this creep thinks?   Nobody has less credibility on foreign policy than someone who wrote a book trying to rehabilitate Adolph Hitler's reputation.  Do you actually take Pat Buchanan seriously?

[bedstuy]

I love this argument.  "Pat Buchanan might be a racist, anti-Semitic Hitler fanboy, but..."

Once that's on the table, who cares what this creep thinks?   Nobody has less credibility on foreign policy than someone who wrote a book trying to rehabilitate Adolph Hitler's reputation.  Do you actually take Pat Buchanan seriously?

Buchanan was very, very influential in the Nixon White House. His role was mostly focused around domestic political events, but the Nixon foreign policy achievements are among the greatest of the last century, and he was a senior advisor, so you know, maybe he does have a bit more street cred than you claim.....

Great...  Not only is this guy a rabid anti-Semite, racist and Hitler lover, but he worked in the Nixon White House too!?  Seriously, if you're angry at Obama for foreign wars, civil liberties violations and such, wasn't Nixon 800,000 times worse?

[bedstuy]

I love this argument.  "Pat Buchanan might be a racist, anti-Semitic Hitler fanboy, but..."

Once that's on the table, who cares what this creep thinks?   Nobody has less credibility on foreign policy than someone who wrote a book trying to rehabilitate Adolph Hitler's reputation.  Do you actually take Pat Buchanan seriously?

Buchanan was very, very influential in the Nixon White House. His role was mostly focused around domestic political events, but the Nixon foreign policy achievements are among the greatest of the last century, and he was a senior advisor, so you know, maybe he does have a bit more street cred than you claim.....

Great...  Not only is this guy a rabid anti-Semite, racist and Hitler lover, but he worked in the Nixon White House too!?  Seriously, if you're angry at Obama for foreign wars, civil liberties violations and such, wasn't Nixon 800,000 times worse?

Just about even. Nixon's use of bugging was a continuation of Kennedy/Johnson policies. Nixon also at least made an effort to end the Vietnam War where as Obama has dragged his feet in Afghanistan (though, to his credit, he got us out of Iraq), and finally, Obama is just generally incompetent.

That's just bonkers.  I think either you don't know your history or we just have wildly different worldviews.  And, Beet's concern trolling about Obama is pretty unimpressive if you ask me.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.