Confession: I kind of like Pat Buchanan. He’s a little like that loopy and feared uncle that you only see on very special occasions, the guy who seems genial and reasonable and maybe even insightful at times and you start to wonder what all the fuss was about and why everyone avoids him and you start to make secret plans to sort of draw him back into the family fold because clearly everyone was overstating past problems and besides he seems to have changed and -
- and then somebody accidentally mentions one of his “hot button” topics and your new favorite uncle suddenly turns into a frothing, raving madman, upends the dining room table, rips off his clothes and goes running naked out the door and down the suburban streets while singing “Battle Hymn of the Republic” at the top of his lungs.
Pat Buchanan’s like that. And this “Deep Throat” business has pushed his buttons, which means that later tonight the police will be extracting his naked, shivering form from a neighbor’s azalea bush. Metaphorically, at least. (I hope.)
Pat’s column today is truly a work of art, the newsprint equivalent of your caterwauling naked uncle. All this Watergate talk has brought on psychedelic flashbacks and some truly bad craziness. It’s a cartoonish exaggeration of some of the bizarre conservative backlash against W. Mark Felt and his newly revealed role in the Nixon meltdown.
The demonization is there, yes (Buchanan calls Felt a “corrupt cop,” a “toady,” and full of “malice” and “spite”). So is the requisite absurd understatement of the scandal (a mere “escapade” and a coverup that Nixon became “ensnared” in). But then Pat ups the ante to the point where even the most unhinged young conservative pundit is going to have to just step back and whistle appreciatively. See, Buchanan goes on to win the Vietnam War for us.
Don’t laugh. This is how good revisionism starts. Take notes.
By 1973, all U.S. troops were home, the POWs were headed for Clark Field, every provincial capital was in Saigon’s hands and Richard Nixon was at 69 percent. And the establishment was beside itself with hatred.
And so they resolved to finish him… And when he went down, Southeast Asia and everything 58,000 Americans had bled and died for went down with him.
Wow! We won. We liberated Vietnam, just like we’d planned. And then Woodward and Bernstein and Felt pretty much handed the place over to the VC in exchange for 24 bucks worth of beads and trinkets and an autographed headshot of Ho Chi Minh. But until that betrayal, we were the winners.
It’s amazing how history was distorted along the way. To read the text books or the websites or the actual accounts from the time, you’d think that the Nixon administration realized that we couldn’t prevail, engineered a competent retreat aided by a peace agreement that everyone knew wouldn’t hold, and packed it in while the North Vietnamese returned to the peaceful business of utterly destroying the southern republic. Bizarrely, it’s hard to find any indication in the histories that we’d actually secured the place and that everything would’ve worked out fine for South Vietnam if that whole overblown Watergate thing hadn’t happened.
So no wonder Buchanan’s angry with Felt. The guy’s responsible for 58,000 Americans dying in vain.
It’s possible that this revision is too big for even the most fanatical Republican cheerleader to swallow, let alone mainstream America. Even if the battalions of Baby Buchanans manage to transmogrify the Watergate crisis into the story of some dirty hippies and bad cops framing the President, it’s hard to imagine that our collective memory of the Vietnam War’s tragic outcome could be remade so completely. I’m not sure Pat’s going to succeed on this one.
But you gotta admire him for trying.
Now someone, please, lend the guy some clothes and get him home.





25 comments
Stever
June 3, 2005 at 9:03 pm
1Numero uno.
Man, I want some of whatever Buchanan’s smoking. That must be some fine Vietnamese reefer.
SeattleDan
June 3, 2005 at 9:10 pm
2The Establishment,Pat? What Establishment? OHHH, the Liberal Media Establishment that hounded Richard Nixon out of office. Gotcha.
tess
June 3, 2005 at 9:59 pm
3I can see it happening. If Michelle Malkin can go about talking about the thousands of Japanese Americans were rightfully interred during WWII despite a dearth of any evidence of traitors or sabotage, then surely Mr. Buchanan can change history much like Malkin magically does in her sloppily-written book. History’s easier to rewrite if you weren’t there, and for those young Republicans who weren’t born then and don’t understand the politics of the time, it’s a fairly easy revision. I’ve heard enough swill from fellow X-geners who talk about how we “needed” to go to Vietnam to prevent the spread of Communism, and how we saved so many million more people by slaughtering villages in Mi Lai that it’s not that big of a jump.
Just remember that high school American history usually glosses over that little section in history because it’s at the end of the year and all the teachers and kids just want to go on vacation.
dee
June 4, 2005 at 12:17 pm
4And when we suffer the same ignominious end in Iraq as we did in Vietnam, it will because of Newsweek and Jon Stewart.
(I figure it just saves time if we pre-revise.)
JB
June 4, 2005 at 1:29 pm
5What do you mean “the same ignominious end in Iraq”? I thought we’d already won the Iraq war. I distinctly remember a “Mission Accomplished” banner, or was that another example of pre-revision?
David
June 4, 2005 at 5:12 pm
6As someone who lived through the Viet Nam War and Watergate as a college student and then a teacher, when I heard some of Pat Buchanan’s remarks on MSNBC (I was surfing in search of the Florida-Stetson baseball score), all I could think was, “What in hell parallel universe did I just slide into?”
Adam has captured Pat Robertson better than anyone else I’ve heard or read. The Felber (Leader of the Pack?) continues to amaze. His mother really done good.
Pete IVDL
June 4, 2005 at 6:07 pm
7Whoa! Uncle Pat’s got a blog? I could have sworn he’d think the Internet was some kind of internal fishing mechanism.
Like many of the rest of “them” (various current administrations who will remain nameless - ahem), maybe Uncle Pat hopes he can say something loudly and colourfully enough that some folks will believe him - and then, it’s just a matter of repeating it until it’s true. Hey, it worked for WMD - even when it was proven untrue, it coulda been true, right? Right?
Linkmeister
June 4, 2005 at 6:30 pm
8You did notice that Peggy Noonan has concluded that it was Mr. Felt’s fault that Pol Pot killed millions of Cambodians?
Where’s Harry Turtledove when you need him?
Leo Kronkite
June 4, 2005 at 9:16 pm
9Ok, I gotta say it, I hate people. Was it always this way? Were people doing this lame ass song and dance when Washington was in office (or leaving office)? These people are freaking crazy…and somewhere in Afghanistan tonight, some person my age is fighting for freedom…oh wait….
where’s my beer.
Leo
Ibid
June 4, 2005 at 9:26 pm
10I totally understand, Adam. I remember reading his stuff from time to time as I grew up and thinking he’d missed his medications or something. But in recent years I’d see him talking on TV and wonder if this was truely the same man. I wanted to pat him on the back and say “good job. That was clear, well reasoned, and well thought out. We’re proud of you.” Then he turns and says to me, in an off hand sort of way, “Satan is going to suck the marrow from your bones.” Then you just want to put him in the padded cell next to Ann Coulter.
He’s quite mad, but in this political climate he’s a moderate.
Murray
June 5, 2005 at 12:40 am
11Once again I’m kinda confused. It’s OK for the perpetrators of Watergate to cash in big time on their crimes with book deals and radio gigs, but it’s immoral for someone who helped expose the crimes to make a few bucks, 30 years later?
So it’s anyone else’s fault that we lost Viet Nam except Nixon and his henchmen. What makes me think that we will hear the same thing in 30 years from Bush and his cronies?
Ever wonder how people who are convinced of their pure God-directed actions react when what they do leads to complete disaster? Look around at the Neo Cons of the 70’s. These are people who will deny their death from beyond the grave.
Bob
June 5, 2005 at 3:10 pm
12Nixon was driven from office, then Vietnam fell.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Of course, by the same reasoning, Mark Felt was also responsible for the rise of disco. I’d say the man has a lot to answer for.
Mary
June 6, 2005 at 9:44 am
13This revisionism of the Viet Nam war is driving me nuts. As is the revisionism of Watergate. I’m beginning to think Robin Williams is right, “If you remember the 60s (and 70s) you weren’t really there.” Unfortunately, I was and still do.
David
June 6, 2005 at 11:05 am
14“No matter how cynical you get, it is hard to keep up.”
–Lily Tomlin
Jerry
June 6, 2005 at 1:51 pm
15Yep…we had achieved an “honorable peace” in Vietnam. Withdrawn all our troops. Nixon had finally, belatedly, pulled our feet out of the swamp of sticky red mud, less a few pairs of boots that got caught in the mess. And then Woodward and Bernstein and Felt did that damn story. And in North Vietnam they read these stories, changed their mind and instead of peacefully co-existing with the South, as they had planned, invaded and took over.
But worse, Pol Pot took over in Cambodia and began a nightmare out of Dante. And if Nixon hadn’t been layed low, he would have turned around hurried a half million US troops back into SE Asia to stop it!
It’s so clear.
And none of it was the fault of anything the Nixon administration did! It was the fault of people who revealed what they did!!
Auros
June 6, 2005 at 6:21 pm
16Buchanan has been defeated, in the contest to write the most grotesque Watergate-revisionist attack on Felt, by G Gordon Liddy. But that’s hardly surprising, since Liddy was the looniest member of the Nixon cabal, as he proved, conclusively, in an interview published originally in Playboy, and excerpted by Elementropy.
Ben Stein’s also put in a worthy effort.
Auros
June 6, 2005 at 6:23 pm
17BTW, Jon Stewart put a great line into Liddy’s mouth the other night. “Because of this man’s leaks, I had to serve hard time for crimes that I committed. Doesn’t that seem unfair to anyone?! Uh… anyone?”
Murray
June 6, 2005 at 6:27 pm
18One thing I’ve gotten used to as a substitute teacher is that if you WATCH a kid do something wrong and say his name, his first (and it appears involuntary) response is to point his finger (at random) and say “No, he did it!
Sad, this administration doesn’t seem morally much beyond 7th graders.
Jerry
June 6, 2005 at 7:19 pm
19“…not much beyond…,” Murray? I bet you have at least one honest kid in your class. Which makes a vastly greater occurance of honesty there than in the whole administration.
“S’pose he opened his mouth — what then? If he didn’t shut it up powerful quick he’d lose a lie every time.”
Huckleberry Finn
Murray
June 7, 2005 at 12:27 pm
20Jerry,
I stand corrected.
Pete IVDL
June 7, 2005 at 7:42 pm
21Vizzini said it best. Never get involved in a land war in Asia. (And that was in 1982!)
hedera
June 7, 2005 at 11:37 pm
22Asia, my foot. In 1776 the biggest standing army in the world took on a ragtag collection of guerrilla weirdos (”they won’t stand and fight! they shoot from behind ROCKS!”) in a multi-year fight on the guerrillas’ home turf, and lost. Of course, we had George Washington on our side… You can not win a guerrilla war on the guerrillas’ home ground; they have too much to lose to let it happen.
Murray
June 8, 2005 at 7:32 pm
23Hedra,
We also got a big hand from the French navy which prevented the British from re-supplying their troops.
When ever a big army fights a small one you get guerrilla warfare which is either brilliant or dirty depending on which side you are on.
hedera
June 8, 2005 at 11:43 pm
24Actually, I believe the name “guerrilla” dates from the Peninsular Campaign during the Napoleonic wars - I think the Spanish irregulars who supported Wellington’s army from the sidelines, as it were (I don’t think they ever took part in the pitched battles), were called “guerrilleros”, which later morphed into “guerrillas”. I’m not sure of this and I’m quite sure that someone here will correct me if I’m wrong! “Guerro”, of course, is Spanish for “War”…
Joe
January 4, 2006 at 11:41 pm
25I suppose you didn’t fight in the Vietnam War. It’s just an amusing side note to people like you. For some of us it is on our minds every day and not because we’re guilty over our college deferrment.Having read the Buchanon quote you referred to I’d have to agree with him .It was politics of the day that caused Gerald Ford to renig on promises made to South Vietnam in the Paris Peace Accords. If you fail to understand the dynamics of the time I won’t help you.