Buchanan on Imus - Twisted Logic

[Justice]

I heard Pat Buchanan on Imus this morning - here is his twisted logic -- Bush not at fault.

Kerry, Edwards and "Mrs" Clinton didn't do their job by vetting Bush's request for a war resolution. Bush wanted to go to war, you cannnot blame him, but the ones that supported the resolution can be blamed because they didn't do their job and investigate the basis of Bush's demand for a war resolution. The members of Congress who believed in the war, you can't blame them because they believed in the war. But the democrats who questioned the war, but voted for the war resolution -- you can blame them (and essentially ONLY THEM).

He did offer very tepid positive thoughts for Kennedy and others who voted against the war -- but really said not Bush's fault, he asked congress for permission, and they gave it to him - so they are at fault for not questioning him.

Of course, while I appreciate genuine anger (Buchanan's anger is not genunine, it is political) at those in congress who supported the war, how you could, as a Catholic and a human being, completely ignore the fact that Bush Lied and Lied and Lied and Lied is beyond me.

[rusty charly]

1. and with republicans...

isn't it all about "the lying"?

[lovedems]

2. I appreciated Imus giving it to Bush regarding the Saddam/Al Queda

connection lie that he and Cheney have been pushing and wondering why in the hell this guy isn't being impeached!

I heard Buchanan respond that those who voted for war couldn't vote for impeachment.

That's all I saw of the show but appreciated Imus questioning why Bush is still "in power" and calling him on his lies.

[Justice]

3. That must have been the tail end of Buchanan's Time

because he said that at the end - couldn't vote for impeachment if voted for the war because didn't do your job either/bush had the authority to act because of the vote.

Very twisted, circular logic. If I secure your consent based on false information, which is later revealed to be false, you cannot sue me because you consented. Try telling that one to the judge!!!

[Zolok]

4. Peerless Pat has an authoritarian mindset

which means he hates and fears democratic institutions like congress...hence his logic that asserts that if you agree with Bush just once, YOU ARE HIS SLAVE FOR LIFE.
It's childish reasoning to be sure...but thass whut it is...


www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

[3rdParty]

5. I think his point was....

that Bush has been set for an iraq war since 2000. For right or wrong, he has been consistent.

But many in congress voted along with bush because they were scared of not going along with him since he was so popular at the time. People should vote according to their principals instead of simply worring about getting re-elected. It looks real cowardly to come out against it now that its unpopular, yet voted for it back when they feared voting against a popular president.

Congress should have had the guts to vote their beliefs. What standing does a person have when they only vote for whats popular. So I agree with Pat. Congress holds the larger blame.

[Justice]

7. That Was His Purported Point, Not His Real Point

I agree with what you said -- but what Pat's real point was - Bush is not responsible for what has happened, the democrats are responsible.

If Pat had said what you said, and then also said - you know, we are between a rock and a hard place, congress didn't do their job, and the president lied and didn't do his job - I would be fine.

But Pat ONLY blames the democrats. It is like the RW talk show host Jay Severin in Boston who says - Bush doesn't deserve to be reelected, he has mismanaged financially and on national security, but Bush is better than Kerry so vote for Bush.

[3rdParty]

8. I didn't hear Imus today but...

in the past Buchanan has gone after bush over iraq, so that was what I was basing my feedback on. Maybe he was probably being an instigator since Imus goes after the prez all the time over this, he didn't want to play pile-on and instead show that congress deserves blame. (which you never hear)

But I personally blame congress more than bush. They never stood up to the prez when it counted. It matters very little now to do so. The office of president has gotten too powerful over the past few decades while congress's has diminished. This is their own fault. (they recently gave up their constitutional duty to the president for full authorization to sign trade deals - pathetic) Stand up and stop this party line crap (both sides), grow a backbone, and stand up for beliefs for a change.
sorry for the rant...

[spooky3]

9. By that logic, Hitler was superior to people who were uneasy with his

actions. He REALLY believed in what he was doing, and was very consistent. So that makes him better than others weren't sure if they should intervene?

I don't put belief in one's actions at the highest stage of moral reasoning OR good management. And what is that quote about consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds?

[3rdParty]

10. You raise a good point. hitler was superior...

to all of the lemming followers that did whatever he wanted. Who is worse? - the person telling you to torture someone? - or the person who performs the action with glee since it pleases their 'leader'?

Of course it really doesn't matter all that much. If no one is going to take a stand against something they believe to be is wrong (like the congress refused to do), then are the two really all that different?

[spooky3]

11. In my view, yes, the person who has the power and orders the wrongdoing

is worse. But you are drawing a different analogy than I was, and I don't think yours is parallel to that of the Congress vs. Bush.

[RafterMan]

6. It's hard to disagree too much

It was like handing a gun to a child.