The self-contradiction's in Pat Buchanan's latest column addressing Time Magazine's latest cop-out in their selection of The Man of the Year (YOU!) proved too tempting for gamecock to let pass without a line by line de-construction. I should say at the outset, that despite my very serious disagreements with Pat on a number of issues, that I do respect his intellect, analysis and patriotism (he recently vigorously defended Bush's refusal to surrender to the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Survey (aka Surrrender) Group).
 
However, the serious disagreements are the cause of this rooster crowing post. Below I have first printed Pat's column in italics and then entered my critiques below same, with a link to Buchanan's column at the bottom of this post.

Pat begins:

1-Since 1927, the year Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in his single-engine Spirit of St. Louis, Time has devoted its final cover of the year to the Man of the Year. The Lone Eagle was first. In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR was the Man of the Year three times. Stalin, Truman and Churchill made it twice, though the selection of Churchill in 1949 seems dubious, as he had been out of power four years, while Mao was seizing China by the throat in the bloodiest revolution of the century. Hitler was chosen in the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938. Gen. Marshall made it twice, as did Ike, in 1944 as victor of Normandy and, 15 years later, as president. In the 1960s and 1970s, JFK made it once, LBJ and Nixon twice. Nixon's 1972 designation was shared with Henry Kissinger. In 1979, the dark and brooding face gracing Time's cover was that of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. And Time got it right. For Time's Man of the Year, now Person of the Year, is the figure who, for good or evil, dominates the news. Yet this year Time could not bring itself to name the obvious choice. Instead, it chose you and me, all of us citizens of the digital democracy who create on the Worldwide Web. Why the copout?

Time has copped out many times that Pat inexplicably fails to mention: remember “Earth”, “the computer”, “whistleblowers.”? Time has very often gotten it wrong even when they pick a news figure. I agree that UBL should have been the Man in 2001. But the main issues here are threefold: The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Media; Pat’s intentional refusal to address it head-on due to his own blind spots and Pat’s limited mindset due to being a creature and prisoner inside the beltway himself.

My suggested picks on Redstate a few days ago:

2001 - UBL/Rudy
2002 - Bush or Rummy - removed Taliban/decimated al Qaeda
or Ashcroft - he prosecuted the corp ceos
2003 - Bush or Rummy or Blair - removed saddam
2004 - Ashcroft or Bush - no attacks since 911/economy booming/wins re-election despite relentless 24/7 msm-dem attacks for 18 months of bushlied
2005 - Rick Warren
2006 - members only jacket in Iran or Bush

IF, BY PAT’S AND OTHERS’ CRITERIA, IT SHOULD BE “WHO DOMINATES THE NEWS” THEN WHO ELSE BUT THE MAN THRU WHOSE PRISM EVERYTING IS EVALUATED: PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.redstate.com/redhot/mark_kilmer/2006/dec/17/time_mags_man_of_the_year

2-Perhaps it was Ahmadinejad's hosting of a conference of Holocaust skeptics, including David Duke, that caused Time to recoil. Perhaps it was fear that the face of the Iranian president on the cover of Time would repel the American people and be death for sales. Surely that was the reasoning behind Time's refusal to name Osama bin Laden in 2001, choosing Rudy Giuliani instead, though history is unlikely to conclude that Rudy, his crowded hour notwithstanding, was the central figure of that annus horribilis. Richard Stengel, editor of Time, as much as concedes he could not bring himself to choose by the traditional standard, if that meant choosing Ahmadinejad: "It just felt to me a little off selecting him." Understandably. But the refusal to select Ahmadinejad reveals an unwillingness to confront hard truths. For putting his face on Time's cover would have done a useful service, jolting America to a painful realization.

I just can’t let the irony pass that Pat suggests an unwillingness to confront hard truths and a needed jolting of America to painful realizations, when Pat has refused to face the same since 1941 and 2001 with regard to the intellectual and practical bankruptcy of his isolationist tendencies; his moral relativism and abject ridiculousness in suggesting that, post-9/11, “they are over here because we are over there” excuse and apologetics for UBL; and his refusal to put the Iraq War in historic perspective and be a part of the MSM that would actual help us with painful realizations.

3-Not only George Bush, but the United States, its Arab allies and Israel, had a dreadful year, as Iran emerged as first beneficiary of a war fought by this country at a cost of 25,000 dead and wounded. What the choice of Ahmadinejad would have said is that Iran is in the ascendancy in the Middle East and it is not inconceivable that the United States is headed for defeat, not only in Iraq but Afghanistan.

This shows his POW status to the MSM more than anything (except what he says next). Bush and the US are, well….Bush and the US. Economy is booming; never lost a battle against the jihadists or Baathists; most of Iraq and Afghanistan are free; people still trying to get INTO the US; Iraq’s economy is booming big time; Israel destroyed much of the Hezbos; and The people of Lebanon are mad as hell at the Hezbos.

Iran? Riots in the streets bi-weekly that increasingly include more than just “the Yutes.” Iran is surrounded. The “Persian” Gulf is awash in US ships, making it an “American" Lake. Yes, Iran’s BULLYING Talk dominates the news. But on the ground? Nyet. An “ascendant” Iran would only be possible if we, the USA leaves before the job is done in Iraq and before we remove the Mullahs. That has not occurred. We are still there. Iran is not Ascendant. Iran doesn't have the northern and southern borders of These United States surrounded.

4-The Taliban have come back. The Pakistanis have ceded them sanctuary. Some NATO nations are refusing to risk troops in combat. And it has been some time since guerrillas who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary in that part of the world failed to expel European soldiers perceived as imperial occupiers.

This is pure MSM BS. Notice the skillful use of vague language that tells us nothing, ie “come back”, “sanctuary”…

The fact is that the Taliban openly control no territory and every time they raise their heads they lose hundreds if not thousands of fighters.

There is no sanctuary in Afghanistan or Pakistan that US troops and planes and spy satellites don't monitor (some sanctuary). The model for the sanctuary was Afghanistan and Iraq in the 90s and early 2000s. That was a sanctuary. The US destroyed them and they remain...Destroyed! Sounds like a qualification for Man of the Year to me! Even if the NYT doesn't see fit to print it!

5-Islamists control Somalia.

Pat is right on this and I’m sure Bush will move on it. Of course, every hour that he doesn’t Pat and others will harp on it. Then when he does, he will get no credit. Just as Bush gets no credit now for removing the regime that brought us 911 and the regime that defied us for a decade. Those threats are gone.

Wasn’t that worth Man of the Year!!

6-Anti-Americanism is rampant in Lebanon – after Condi Rice blocked a U.N. cease-fire resolution to stop Israel's bombing last summer in what was supposed to be a campaign to clear Hezbollah from her northern border. The Beirut government could fall at any moment or be forced into a coalition with Hezbollah

Pat has gall to even bring this up when he cares not a whit for Israel. Mike DeVine’s ears shut down when Pat speaks on this subject and prays for Pat’s soul.

7-Even Bush's defense secretary concedes we are not winning in Iraq. It may take a "surge" of 20,000 to 40,000 troops to stave off defeat before the end of Bush's term. On the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas and Fatah appear on the brink of civil war. The elections Bush demanded produced dramatic gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

Pat conveniently leaves out that Bush said we weren’t losing either, with all this sophomoric talk of “-ings” insulting my intelligence. Were we “winning” at Iwo Jima?

Pat should appreciate that the elections produced CLARITY!! That was good. Later elections when Gazan and Lebanese barber shop owners vote for candidates that don’t want barber shop bombing wars no more, will produce what democracy promises over time.

Yes, let’s get Mookie in Iraq.

8-Eighteen months ago, Ahmadinejad was the unknown mayor of Tehran. Today, he is the visible face of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, both a cause of and the personification of our failures. He has defied Bush's demand that he give up the enrichment of uranium, split the Security Council, mocked the Holocaust, called for the end of the Zionist state and the expulsion of America from the Mideast, terrified the Sunni monarchs, and united the Arab and Islamic masses behind his defiance.

What “failures” of the US has Iran caused? None

Does Iran have the US surrounded in Mexico and Canada? Iran has no one unified. Not even the specially elected opponents  of the Mullahs in his own country!

9-His trip to the United Nations, where he ran circles around U.S. journalists, was a diplomatic triumph. And he has done it all not with military power – Iran would not last a week in an all-out war with the United States and has no defense against Israel's nuclear weapons – but with theatrics and rhetoric.

Diplomatic triumphs? Like the ones UBL and Saddam had before we removed them from nation-state sanctuary? Whoopee, the NYT lauds them.

10-He inspires all who hate Israel and Bush's America. And, according to the Zogby polling yesterday, that is a majority which, in some once-friendly nations, is approaching near unanimity.

The liberated peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t united with Iran or UBL. They are united with the USA. They despise the extremists.

11-Ahmadinejad, a man of words without real power, is the big winner of 2006, because Bush, America and Israel were the big losers.

Losers of what? Sticks and stones Pat, sticks and stones.

Pat puts too much importance on what he and Eleanor say on The McLaughlin Group…

12-Why do a billion Muslims prefer Ahmadinejad to America? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

Earth to Pat. They don’t prefer members-only-jacket. Most Iranians hate him. See the riots in the streets.

Pat's whole article:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53426

Rush Limbaugh's brief comment:

He thinks Ahmadinejad should have been the Man of the Year and TIME Magazine copped out. He's got some interesting points in his piece. A year and a half ago, Ahmadinejad was the never-heard-of mayor of Tehran. Today, he dominates the world with words. He doesn't fire a shot. He's got proxies that do it. He has proxies in Lebanon, proxies in Syria, and he's got proxies in Iraq. But he has totally dominated the news and the world. He has an army. If we decided to take care of Ahmadinejad militarily, there's no way he could compete with us. He would lose a war inside of a month with the United States of America. He is saber rattling. He is threatening practically weekly to blow Israel off the map, to end the United States as we know it. What are we doing? We're sitting around doing nothing! We're practicing words. We're trying to beat his words with our words in the form of diplomacy, but it isn't working. He's not intimidated; he's not shutting up. But in a contest of actual warfare, I mean this guy couldn't beat the Iraqis in eight years back in the 1980s! It would be no contest for us, and yet we're sitting around and apparently doing nothing. Well, we're not, actually, doing nothing. We're beefing up the Navy in the Persian Gulf, if you haven't heard that, in a response to his words, which is a helpful sign.

Gamecock thinks Rush may be guilty of a bit of what Pat and many Americans are guilty of, i.e. falling for the MSM meme that we are "doing nothing". Rush of course admits one something at the end. But we are doing a lot, and prior to all our doings of somethings, same is preceded by not somethings. Before D-Day, Normandy Beach was empty.

Moreover, Pat is simply a bevy of contraductions when it comes to recognizing the good guys and the bad guys in the Middle East, even with respect to his own country, and especially with respect to Israel. Pat mistakes media talk for facts on the ground.

Patience, and not letting the MSM meme's be one's reality are what's called for. Because Dubya is still The Cowboy with a spine and...

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/