About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

MSNBC promoting Buchanan's Hitler column on its own website

September 03, 2009 1:37 pm ET by Media Matters staff

From MSNBC's website:

UPDATE: It appears that the column has been removed from the MSNBC website. MSNBC, however, has yet to offer any explanation on why it was posted in the first place.

UPDATE 2: An MSNBC spokesperson has responded.

Previously:

MSNBC's Pat Buchanan defends Hitler.  Again.

How much Nazi persecution is too much for Pat Buchanan?

MSNBC's Buchanan problem: Is he blaming Great Britain for WW2?

Tags: MSNBC, Pat Buchanan

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (September 03, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
      1 1
      Put Buchanan, i once heard that he attacked a Cop.
      But there was no Conviction, You see you have to be of a certain complexion to get popped.
      I like Pat but i'm not sure why?
      Maybe he's like that Crazy Uncle that everyone has that makes you feel a little Shy.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by manofmystique (September 03, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
        2 5
        Maybe you like him, because you are just like him. NUTS
        Report Abuse
      • Author by zamfir273114 (September 03, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
          8
        You're not alone. A lot of people like Buchanan. I had a few professors in grad school that asked the same questions Buchanan is asking. To think the United States and England are always the "good guys" is crazy. Hiroshima? South Africa? Vietnam? Native Americans? Slavery? Besides, how many genocides are going on right now in the World and nobody really gives a damn?

        Buchanan is putting a question out there with some facts. I like the way he is not afraid to talk about subjects that are usually taboo in academia.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (September 03, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
          7  
          Facts? You mean like the one where he claims 50 million christians and jews died when the actual number is over 70 million? Conveniently ignoring the deaths of 26 million russians because he thinks they are all godless commies isn't factual. Nor is rewriting history to push some radical right wing agenda.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (September 03, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
          5  
          >>Buchanan is putting a question out there with some facts.

          No he's not. He's misrepresenting the historical record, and thereby again acting as an apologist for Hitler.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pbeat (September 04, 2009 10:47 am ET)
          4  
          Nobody said US and England are always the good guys. Pat is saying Hitler was the good guy. That is crazy. There is no fact that says Hitler was not a war monger. Your point is contradictory. US and England are also bad, therefore Hitler is good. What the hell kind of logic is that?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by historygeek001 (September 04, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
          4  
          "Buchanan is putting a question out there with some facts." SOME facts, not all of them, because if he uses all of them he destroys his own argument. That's dishonest. He has a decades-long history of bigotry. Bringing up other horrific events does nothing to reduce the horror of Hitler and WWII. Defending Hitler is inexcusable.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by pbeat (September 04, 2009 10:44 am ET)
        3  
        Why would an uncle that intimidates you, make you like him? There is nothing likeable about Pat Buchanan. He is a hypocrite and instigator. He is a liar who would defend Hitler like Bush and Nixon because they think war brings on peace. Hey, Hitler wanted peace if everyone would just lay down their arms and let him come in and kill all the Jews and make this a better world, we could sit back and let this "benevolent dictator" make the world a better place. No thanks Pat. Crazy insane dictators like Hitler, Nixon, Bush have never convinced anyone that they should roll over. Pat is more like the crazy uncle that is not given national network time to spew his views, instead spews them in some nursing home (Medicare funded of course).
        Report Abuse
    • Author by lordblankfiend (September 03, 2009 2:45 pm ET)
      4 1
      He's just a crazy old man who's clearly obsessed with clearing Hitler's name. It's, "What's the deal with MSNBC for giving him a forum?" that's the real question.

      Maybe it's part of their strategy for discrediting Republicans. As in; "See, we TRIED to give equal time to them; we TRIED to give them a voice... but the guy started making excuses for HITLER, for Christ's sake. Can you believe these Republicans?"

      If so, it's pretty genius.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Red XIV (September 04, 2009 1:02 am ET)
        3  
        I've always felt it's a good thing for MSNBC to give air time to crazies like Buchanan, for exactly that reason.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (September 03, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
      5  
      So I guess this means that Rush, Beck, etc are really complimenting Obama whent hey compare him to Hitler?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (September 03, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
        4  
        So how does this new re-write of history jibe with their scorn of neville chamberlain? I thought they claimed he was appeasing a mad man, now we're being told by these same people that he was appeasing a sane man who didn't want war? And actually, it wouldn't be appeasing anymore, because if hitler didn't want war, that would mean chamberlain was trying to help him!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (September 03, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
        7  
        It should be obvious to any logical mind that fascism is a system of the far, far right because, among many reasons, their only fans these days are the likes of Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy.

        The ones that desperately try to somehow equate anyone on the left with fascism are illogical, ahistorical, and just plain nuts.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (September 03, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
          6  
          But; I am sure that I heard Pat, G. Gordon, Bill'o, etc specifically say that Obama was a facist!?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Roman A (September 03, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
      5  
      So the Question is "Did Hitler want War?"

      Yes.

      Next Question.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tompaine (September 03, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
        4  
        Some of you are too young to remember that back during WWI, a number of the lace-curtain Irish, such as the Buchanans supported Kaiser Biil. An then Pat from his earliest political days always had a warm spot in his heart for Nazis or crypto-Nazis. Remember his support for the Polish prison guard (who moved to Cleveland Ohio after WWII) who helped the Nazis imprison and gas Jews at Treblinka Concentration Camp; you know, good old John Domenachek (sp).
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tangaroa (September 03, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
          1  
          EVERYBODY here is too young to remember who supported whom during WWI. But I would imagine that any Irish support for the Kaiser could have more to do with distaste for an alliance with England than any great love for Wilhelm.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tompaine (September 04, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
            3  
            Well I am not too young to remember who supported whom in WW I and there are history books available for the rest of you.

            The point is that people with a liking for authoritarianism are also likely to support authoritarian governments; consequently, it should not surprise anyone that Pat has a special fondness for Adolph and the National Socialist Party of Gernmany from the 1930s through the 1940s.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (September 03, 2009 6:48 pm ET)
      5  
      I wrote a letter to MSNBC and I guess others did also and the pressure MMFA and others brought to bear has caused them to remove the article from it's website. Keep up the good fight. As was asked by MMFA now what will it take to remove Buchanan from the station?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hrhc13 (September 04, 2009 2:40 am ET)
        4  
        ...now what will it take to remove Buchanan from the station?


        I would say, since I've seen Buchanan most often on Hardball, that we boycott Hardball until MSNBC announces that Pat is no longer under their employ. It would suck for Chris, and I do occasionally enjoy his show, but I guess that's the price you pay for associating with a Nazi sympathizer.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by What9000 (September 03, 2009 7:33 pm ET)
      4  
      I'll go out on a limb here and try to play devil's advocate.

      Arguably, it could be said that Hitler just wanted to take over the world, he didn't really -want- war. From a logical standpoint, it would have been much easier to just take over whatever he wanted without war, and from that point start to nix off the 'undesirables', i.e. jews, blacks, gays, anyone who opposed him. You get the picture.

      That being said, war with Nazi Germany was inevitable, and Pat is just an apologist for Hitler. I laugh everytime I hear someone say that Pat has courage to say what he says. In my opinion these are people who don't know the difference between courage and stupidity.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jack alexander (September 03, 2009 8:03 pm ET)
      2  
      The only thing that's good about MSNBC is Keith and Rachel.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by evans5811 (September 04, 2009 12:35 am ET)
        3
      Interestingly, fascism seems to be a construct of the far, far right andthe far, far left. True conservatives find Buchanan's comments repulsive as well.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by webmaster983 (September 04, 2009 5:24 am ET)
      5  
      I guess it's Once a Nixon speechwriter, ALWAYS a Nixon speechwriter.

      There's a whole lot of retired underground newspaper columnists who aren't surprised in the least that old Pat stands with Adolph.

      Ayn Kampf and all that.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by roninkannushi1711 (September 04, 2009 8:12 am ET)
      1  
      Fellow Matterers,

      Something, anything, and everything for attention. Mr. Buchanan is being himself, and that invites discourse. MSNBC wants to gain viewership, and what better voice than that of a controversial personality. Is it the best, or worse that America can offer? That depends on your perspective.

      Is Pat Buchanan telling the truth? It may be truth, from his standpoint, and followers heil(sic) his persona. Detractors have undeniable historical evidence, to the contrary, yet some people actually believe him.

      Perspective can be applauded or reviled, depending on which group you communicate with. I prefer evidence, not fantasy.

      It be it,
      Ronin Kannushi.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pbeat (September 04, 2009 11:07 am ET)
      4  
      Pat uses the logic of a madman, when he poses the question to the reader, "How could Germany invade Russia, when there wasn't a clear border with Russia?" I don't know Pat but he did. The fascists were always friends of people like Pat and Nixon and Bush, whose grandfather sold them weapons to kill people with or as Pat would claim, to defend poor Germany against aggressors.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Don Quixote (September 04, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
      4  
      We should be thankful for Buchanan, Dobbs, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, etc., etc. They provide the very useful service of constantly reminding us that we still live in a free and open society where idiots making ignorant, hateful, racist comments have free reign. Would you really want it any other way?

      Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by reggieperrin (September 05, 2009 7:30 am ET)
           
        Buchanan's analysis of hitler's foreign policy prior to the war is absolutely correct, Hitler most certainly did not want war with the British empire or the US, it was a war he knew he could not win, his foreign policy was geared up to the east, not the wast, at the start of the war germany didn't have a navy worthy of the name (2 battleship to be precise), so to conclude that he was "hell bent on world domination" is absurd .

        If Britain hadn't given the insane (that's how Lloyd George described it) war guarantee to Poland, and then foolishly honored it,then there would have been no world war, Hitler was trying to reclaim the port city of Danzig (the polish corridor which was stripped away at Versailles under the harsh reparations), a place where most of the population considered themselves German, even British officials conceded that it should have been returned to Germany.

        No war guarantee to Poland = no war
        No war = no holocaust/60+ million dead .


        To say the above is NOT to be a "hitler apologist", it's just plain historical fact, Hitler did not want war with the British Empire in 1939 .
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blueseahorse (September 05, 2009 9:18 am ET)
         
      Buchanen is a liar.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.

Weekly Columns

Feed Icon