Gay Patriot Header Image

Pat Buchanan: Ex-Conservative

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:03 pm - July 25, 2006.
Filed under: Ex-Conservatives,Ronald Reagan,War On Terror

Last week, many conservative pundits and bloggers criticized Pat Buchanan for calling Israel’s military actions against Hezbollah “un-Christian.” John Podhoretz called the one-time Nixon aide’s comments “anti-Semitism” while the more diplomatic Glenn Reynolds declined to say what he’d “call Pat Buchanan.”

Although Buchanan still styles himself a conservative, in the years since working for the greatest Republican president of the last century, has turned from nearly every cause his one-time boss championed, including the Gipper’s strong support for Israel.

While there was a time when a number of prominent American conservatives opposed U.S. support for Israel, today, nearly every sensible conservative stands with the Jewish State. And this not merely due to the decline of anti-Semitism on the Right. Today, serious conservatives recognize that, in fighting Hezbollah, Israel is defending Western Civilization against terrorism. These conservatives see Israel’s battle as one front in the War on Terror.

Perhaps, were Mr. Buchanan not obsessed with Jews (as he is with gays), he would understand that Lebanese Christians (many Catholic like he) are also eager to see Hezbollah defeated.

I would say that Pat Buchanan represents the last of the conservative anti-Semites. Except that in 1992, Pat Buchanan made clear that he was no longer a Reagan conservative. As you may recall, in his celebrated speech to the Republican National Convention that summer, not only did he make angry statements, but he spoke far longer than the time allotted to him, thus, delaying the speech of the man who was to speak later that evening, a man whose ideas Buchanan once claimed to have championed — Ronald Wilson Reagan.

By going over his time limit, Pat Buchanan bumped that great American’s speech out of prime time. It would be Ronald Reagan’s last address to a Republican National Convention. Any true Republican, knowing that he was speaking before Ronald Reagan, would, instead of extending his remarks (as Buchanan did), have cut them short, out of respect for the then-octogenarian Gipper. And acknowledged how humbled he was to be on the same platform as that great man.

But, apparently indifferent to delaying Reagan’s speech, Buchanan, in his arrogance, rambled on and on, his angry remarks hurting his party. On that day in 1992, Pat Buchanan, in deed if not in word, abandoned contemporary conservatism and cast his lot with those on the extreme fringe, his hateful words contrasting so clearly with Ronald Reagan’s optimistic vision.

So, this month, when Pat Buchanan criticizes Israel, he does so not as a representative of contemporary American conservatism, but of a conservatism long past, whose reactionary attitudes were melted away by the velveteen voice of Ronald Wilson Reagan — and that good man’s appeal to our best hopes and the noble ideals on which this great nation was built.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!!! And I don’t dispute Glenn’s apellation for Buchanan.

Share

113 Comments

  1. What rock have you been under? Pat Buchanan has been an anti-semite for as long as I can remember.

    Comment by Matt — July 25, 2006 @ 8:18 pm - July 25, 2006

  2. Pat Buchanan has long been eclipsed as a viable and reliable voice for the conservative movement in this country. It’s about time he went the way of the Rockefeller Republicans and just fade off into the sunset.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 25, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - July 25, 2006

  3. I doubt that many people pay attention to Adolph Buchanan these days. When I step in dog shit I scrape the bottom of my shoes and forget it. That’s what I’ve thought of Buchanan for a long, long time.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — July 25, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - July 25, 2006

  4. Buchanan is on MSNBC.

    ‘Nuff said.

    Comment by Damian G. — July 25, 2006 @ 10:44 pm - July 25, 2006

  5. Eh, I always was willing to consider some of his points of view as valid and meaningful, but his anti-semetic views are just disgusting and discredit him totally.

    Comment by credo — July 25, 2006 @ 10:49 pm - July 25, 2006

  6. Buchanan a conservative? You’re joking, of course. I can’t think of a single conservative that I would characterize as an anti-Semite, except for maybe William F. Buckley, who is probably single-handedly responsible for the current public image of Pat Buchanan. Well, that and the fact that National Review is the last bastion of troglodytes like Peter Brimelow. Well, OK, you’ve made your point.

    Comment by Pink Pig — July 25, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - July 25, 2006

  7. Since when did Pat Buchanan ever had any kind of views on Jews which are different than what he has now? He’s been making extreme statements for decades.

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553

    Comment by Carl — July 25, 2006 @ 11:47 pm - July 25, 2006

  8. Say, I’ve lost count. Are William Buckley and George Will still conservatives or have they been purged too?

    Comment by Ian — July 25, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - July 25, 2006

  9. Bob Novak is another longtime Israel hater.

    Comment by Noah — July 26, 2006 @ 12:26 am - July 26, 2006

  10. [...] GayPatriot gives a good smack at him – I guess we’re on the same wavelength – and also retells something that I wasn’t aware of. At the time of the Republican National Convention of 1992, I was barely nineteen… and even though I had plenty of access to American cable channels in Puerto Rico while over there on vacation, I didn’t watch the Convention then. I should have. [...]

    Pingback by Hang Right Politics - Archives » More on Shark-Jumper Pat Buchanan — July 26, 2006 @ 12:44 am - July 26, 2006

  11. >When I step in dog shit I scrape the bottom of my shoes and forget it.

    A good analogy. But haven’t you noticed that, even after you scrape and scrape, the smell still follows you around? Sort of like Pat Buchanan’s smell still lingers over the right.

    Comment by BobH — July 26, 2006 @ 1:00 am - July 26, 2006

  12. Ian, whenever you decide to become a “conservative”, then we’ll consider you worthy of judging who fits that label.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 26, 2006 @ 1:09 am - July 26, 2006

  13. First off, let me say that I loved Ronald Reagan and think of him as an excellent example of what a president can be for America!

    Now, I know I am going to get a lot of grief for this post but I will make nonetheless. ;-)

    I think this article started well enough. But wouldn’t it be nice to go through Buchanan policies to see which one are conservative and which ones aren’t conservative?

    Just because he opposes when Israel has done doesn’t make him not a Conservative.

    Now, I don’t know if he hates Jews or not. If he does I surely condemn him.

    In addition, I support Israel but challenging Israel’s actions is not in itself a bad thing.

    It is okay to say that Israel is wrong sometimes. Let’s not get to the point where if one criticizes Israel one is automatically called anti-semitic or an ex-conservative.

    But excellent blog overall! Keep pushing for rational and polite debate!

    Comment by AShiningCity — July 26, 2006 @ 1:09 am - July 26, 2006

  14. Oh, silly me… I meant “raj” of course.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 26, 2006 @ 1:09 am - July 26, 2006

  15. Buchanan is an old-fashioned Coughlinite. And has never been anything else.

    Comment by Milhouse — July 26, 2006 @ 1:09 am - July 26, 2006

  16. A Shining City -

    I have no problem with criticism of Israel, as long as you are judging Israel by the same standard that you are judging its enemies.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 26, 2006 @ 1:11 am - July 26, 2006

  17. The Right has morphed into the Liberal Party and the Left is headed towards Fascist Socialism.

    Which is to say the Right is no longer Conservative and the Left is no longer Liberal.

    Comment by M. Simon — July 26, 2006 @ 1:15 am - July 26, 2006

  18. It isn’t what Pat Buchanan said at the RNC in ’92 that has this gay Republican frightened…it’s all of the cheers and whoops and “amen, brother!”s that all of the other Republicans yelled out after all of the lying, hateful things that he said about people like me that is making me seriously consider voting for Hillary in ’08! :(

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — July 26, 2006 @ 1:28 am - July 26, 2006

  19. Pat’s championed a number of neo-nazi causes. Does that make him an anti-semite? Gosh, maybe.

    Comment by Emerson — July 26, 2006 @ 2:14 am - July 26, 2006

  20. I’ve always considered Buchanan to be a Fascist, and no, I’m not name-calling. I recalling going down a list of his talking-points a few years ago while I realized they matched up well with classic Fascist principles, including:
    -glorifying the state
    -expectation that the state should exert a great degree of control over private businesses, including hiring and firing policies
    -concern over “racial purity”

    …and so on. If it makes you uncomfortable I’ll use H. Stuart Hughes’ term “clerical-corporative,” if you like. :)

    Comment by Casey Tompkins — July 26, 2006 @ 2:31 am - July 26, 2006

  21. The Gipper And Buchanan: Action And Reaction…

    Gay Patriot looks at Pat Buchanan and dubs him an ex-conservative:I would say that Pat Buchanan represents the last of the conservative anti-Semites. Except that in 1992, Pat Buchanan made clear that he was no longer a Reagan conservative. As……

    Trackback by Ed Driscoll.com — July 26, 2006 @ 2:44 am - July 26, 2006

  22. #17, this is where someone usually goes on to point out that the “left-right” spectrum of conventional politics “loops around”, as if Pat Buchanan has gone so far right that he ends up coming around far left.

    If you ask me, though, a ruler which does that is no ruler at all — it’s a noose. Time to toss this fraudulent rubber “spectrum” of conventional politics in favor of a direct look at the underlying ideological history.

    After the spectacle of Nazism was laid bare at the close of WWII, the Left rejected certain of the Third Reich’s concrete applications of their basic ideas (eugenics, racism) but not the basic principle underlying them (collectivism). Like an animal gnawing its own limb off to escape a trap, they disowned the National Socialists by arbitrarily redefining them and everything they stood for as “right wing”, as if they had *always* been opposed to them. This is when the “spectrum” as we know it took shape.

    Take the example of Canadian Tommy Douglas. He openly advocated eugenic practices such as castrating gays and also sought to “sterilize the mentally ill and physically disabled and ship them to camps.” Was he held accountable? Of course not; he was recently voted “The Greatest Canadian” for being the father of socialized medicine.

    Hitler in fact owed much to the Left of his day for his ideas; among the Left of his time he found enthusiastic infatuations with such ideas as eugenics and other such totalitarian experiments. Enemies? Competitors is more like it.

    This old lie has just about run its course, and what we are seeing now is the slow but inexorably logical repatriation of racism and anti-Semitism to their philosophical native land. The limb is growing back. Pat Buchanan (like Lyndon Larouche before him) is not “lurching” from right to left so much as he is simply coming home.

    Were I Jewish, I’d take the warning and move well away from the Left.

    Comment by Seerak — July 26, 2006 @ 4:57 am - July 26, 2006

  23. It is interesting to contrast the Republicans and the Democrats with respect to anti-Semitism. The Republicans purge Pat Buchanan, and the Democrats purge Joe Lieberman.

    Comment by HA — July 26, 2006 @ 5:34 am - July 26, 2006

  24. Buchanan continues to be an impressive writer; unfortunately his rational powers seem to be diminished.
    Can not imagine a sane person with his avowed views on Israel recent actions of self-defense!

    Comment by Kit Winterer — July 26, 2006 @ 7:11 am - July 26, 2006

  25. I guess I don’t see the term “unchristian” as the same level of slur that others do, since Christians are reflexively against war. His view on this war is not far from that of many Europeans. The point is, his viewpoint is not necessarily anti-semitic, even though his choice of words might have been better.
    Also, we could at least recognize that we’re all cheering for Israel to give Hisbollah a good ass-kicking and to send a strong message to Syria/Iran on our behalf. In that sense, surely the Israeli respone is disproportionate (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

    Throwing around anti-semitic slurs is unseemly. I don’t think it applies here. Perhaps it might apply in other situations. One thing I do know is that Pat Buchanan stood up for John Demanjuk during his extradition to Israel for war crimes, was called an anti-semitic, andwas subsequently proved right by the Israeli Supreme Court.
    Did all those people hurling invective at him then take back their words?

    Comment by gazzer — July 26, 2006 @ 7:38 am - July 26, 2006

  26. Good post, good points. To call Buchanan an anti-Semite might be “undiplomatic,” but it is also entirely accurate.

    Not only do many segments of Lebanese society want Hezbollah dealt with, but so does much of the broader Arab world.

    I was also pleased to wake up this morning to see the front page of washingtonpost.com focusing on Israeli (military) casualties in the fighting, after an excessive media fixation on the Lebanese side of the equation, without giving the context of the IDF working to avoid civilian casualties, while Hezbollah and their ilk specifically target them.

    Comment by Malcontent — July 26, 2006 @ 8:04 am - July 26, 2006

  27. Smug Inversion Heads Back North…

    I will be driving back to NYC this morning, so I’ll be mostly silent once again today.  (Actually, I’ve been having more fun wading around the brackish waters of our comments section lately.)  But I’m sure I’ll be brimming ove…..

    Trackback by The Malcontent — July 26, 2006 @ 8:25 am - July 26, 2006

  28. Pat Buchanan is a nativist populist, not a conservative. He’s got far more in common with William Jennings Bryan – who was a Democrat populist – than with any other politician that comes to mind.

    Aside from his core populism, the rest of his positions do show more conservative than liberal leanings. But take his positions on sum. When you do that, they fall completely into the nativism and populism camps.

    Comment by Michael Devereaux — July 26, 2006 @ 8:27 am - July 26, 2006

  29. Buchanan hasn’t changed at all. He’s a paleocon, and like all paleocons, he’s been irrelevant since Pearl Harbor. I’m not sure why suddenly, everybody is discovering that he’s anti-Semitic, since he’s been spewing anti-Semitic garbage for the last forty years.

    Comment by rightwingprof — July 26, 2006 @ 8:39 am - July 26, 2006

  30. Buchanan has parlayed his presence as a speechwriter in the Nixon white house into what might laughingly be referred to as a “journalistic” career. He does columns. He writes books (or somebody does, that he puts his name on). He does stints in the media on TV and, to a lesser extent, radio. He even has something in a blog–whose URL I don’t bother to remember. If he didn’t espouse controversial opinions–and that’s all they are, opinions–nobody would buy his columns, nobody would buy his books, and nobody would have him on TV or radio. He’s made a career, since leaving the Nixon white house of being controversial.

    He’s akin to an Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michelle (Ma Belle) Malkin, and so forth. And apparently he makes a decent living at it–we’ve watched him every once in a while on the really rather silly McLaughlin Report.

    Does he believe any of what he says? Probably some of it. Is he an anti-semite? I don’t know. Some of the little that I’ve read by him certainly borders on anti-semitism, but I haven’t bothered to read much by him.

    BTW, regarding the post, I was rather amused by the portion of the post

    (a)lthough Buchanan still styles himself a conservative, in the years since working for the greatest Republican president of the last century.

    I didn’t bother clicking onto the link, but it’s obvious that the link refers to St. Ronald, he of Reagan, instead of St. Richard, he of Nixon. It’s from the latter that Bucky came to fame, not the former. Regarding Bucky’s stint as communications director with the Reagan Administration, it is rather amusing that he was instrumental in getting St. Ronald to lay a wreath at the military cemetary in Bitburg, (then) West Germany, in which which members of the SS were also buried. A public relations fiasco for St. Ronald, but the faux pas doesn’t seem to have done Bucky any harm.

    Comment by raj — July 26, 2006 @ 9:45 am - July 26, 2006

  31. #9 Noah — July 26, 2006 @ 12:26 am – July 26, 2006

    Bob Novak is another longtime Israel hater

    From what I’ve read elsewhere, Robert No-Facts (as some call him) is an American of Arab descent, an American of Muslim descent, or something along those lines. So that might not be surprising. Others have also noted that he has been a longtime Israel hater, but I don’t read Robert No-Facts columns so I don’t know one way or the other if he in fact is an Israel hater.

    Comment by raj — July 26, 2006 @ 9:52 am - July 26, 2006

  32. Seerak: Personally I agree that Left / Right is too simplistic to understanding political realities.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org has a graph where X Axis (L/R) is economic (socialist / captialist) and Y Axis is a [don't know what to call it] Libertarian / Authoritarian measure.

    Comment by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion — July 26, 2006 @ 10:10 am - July 26, 2006

  33. #51: Novak was apparently born and raised Jewish and then converted to Catholicism.

    #12: “Ian, whenever you decide to become a “conservative”, then we’ll consider you worthy of judging who fits that label.”

    First, your reading comprehension is lacking since I actually asked if Buckley and Will were still considered conservative. Second, may we all assume that YOU will follow your own advice and not judge who fits the liberal/progressive label until you actually become one.

    Comment by Ian — July 26, 2006 @ 10:29 am - July 26, 2006

  34. I’d have to echo AShiningCity’s comment. I, too, hold RWR in great regard, but do not consider disrespecting him as constituting grounds to declare one not “conservative.” Being conservative or not is about the ideals and principles one believes in and propounds, not a matter of loyalty to any individual. That said, I think Buchanan today provides greater value to the Democrats/Liberals as boogeyman than to Republicans/Conservatives as a serious thinker.

    Jeffery, while I can’t fully appreciate your experience I can understand how you may have felt a bit cowed or threatened by the ’92 speech. However, I do question the apparent emphasis you are placing on an event that happened sixteen years before the election you are comtemplating. While you may feel there are valid reasons to vote for HRC (I do not), I would think anything that happened in ’92 could only be tangential or supplemental to more current matters and issues.

    Comment by submandave — July 26, 2006 @ 10:29 am - July 26, 2006

  35. The post is damn near a fact-free denunciation of Buchanan…he was long-winded in ’92…that makes him an anti-semite today?

    The “middle east” has proven to be insoluble. Buchanan (and Novak) do tilt too much towards the Arabs for my taste but the fact is that Clinton (and the rest of the World) tried a decade of appeasement and what did it get them? Zip. Too bad Buchanan (and Novak and Clinton and much of Europe) won’t acknowledge that fact. But they are not, ipso facto, anti-semites!

    Comment by noah — July 26, 2006 @ 10:48 am - July 26, 2006

  36. Web Reconnaissance for 07/26/2006…

    A short recon of what?s out there that might draw your attention….

    Trackback by The Thunder Run — July 26, 2006 @ 10:51 am - July 26, 2006

  37. Dear Submandave,
    In NO WAY do I WANT to vote for Hillary Clinton…but if the Republican party chooses to play more to the religious extremists than to more centrists like me, then I will have no choice but to send a message to my party’s leaders and vote for that God-awful little power-hungry witch. I can’t stand Hillary, but if my party doesn’t tell people like Buchanan and Robertson and Falwell to shut up and get out of politics, then I MUST vote for someone that won’t “bend the knee” to the right-winged goofballs who blame gay people like ME for things like 9/11 and Katrina.
    I hope they nominate either McCain or Guiliani to be the next president.

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — July 26, 2006 @ 11:24 am - July 26, 2006

  38. “Pat Buchanan: Ex-Conservative”…

    Pat Buchanan: Ex-ConservativeGayPatriotWest Last week, many conservative pundits and bloggers criticized Pat Buchanan for calling Israel?s military actions against Hezbollah ?un-Christian.? John Podhoretz called the one-time Nixon aide?s comments ?anti…

    Trackback by Old War Dogs — July 26, 2006 @ 11:26 am - July 26, 2006

  39. No offense to the crowd piling-on PaddieBoi –and I am not a supporter of his in any way, shape or form– but the truth is somewhere outside this post.

    On the Bittburg wreath laying ceremony where –gasp– RR is seen laying a wreath in a cemetery where some SS soldiers are buried AMONG MANY OTHER Germans who died in the war… Marvin Kalb tried to broker that event into a personal smear-fest on PaddieBoi… Kalb later had to recant his “observation” that he saw Buchanan writing anti-Semitic remarks in a journal that day and come clean. The anti-semite sting of that event is now urban legend status.

    On the issue that PaddieBoi cheered on Hitler in a ’77 column… go back to the full column and you’ll find it’s an unfair construction of the comments… Buchanan was writing about Tolland’s (sp?) biography of Hitler. Buchanan actually wrote: “Hitler was marching along the road toward a New Order where Western civilization would not survive”… not exactly a ringing endorsement. He wrote other comments –of course, PaddieBoi was never one to be short on content– but the above captures his editorial piece better than calling it pro-Hitler.

    And on and on it goes… his backers can cite deportation exercises which ultimately turned out to validate PaddieBoi’s involvement… anti-Israeli comments that don’t hold up to scrutiny… etc etc.

    To be fair, I was on the floor of the convention when PaddieBoi took the podium and I chose to leave for a hospitality suite across the street hosted by some railroad magnates (great drinks, perfect food, great jazz)… when he was done and his goon-ish paleo-con supporters were out of there, I came back to hear a great speech by RR and sensed the end of the era. I recall seeing very very few Buchanan stickers on people on the floor… those people came in for Pat, cheered him on, left. That says a lot, Dan.

    I doubt that PaddieBoi is an anti-Semite. I don’t doubt he’s a raging gay-bigot, though. And for this blog… that SHOULD be the greater crime.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 26, 2006 @ 11:40 am - July 26, 2006

  40. One thing I do know is that Pat Buchanan stood up for John Demanjuk during his extradition to Israel for war crimes, was called an anti-semitic, andwas subsequently proved right by the Israeli Supreme Court.
    Did all those people hurling invective at him then take back their words?

    Gazzer, you might want to read the WHOLE story.

    While John Demjanjuk was acquitted of being “Ivan the Terrible”, a particularly vicious guard at the Treblinka death camp, he was later found guilty of working at the Sobibor and Flossenburg death camps.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 26, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - July 26, 2006

  41. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the number 1 reason that what Pat Buchanan stands for is completely counter-intuitive to the basic principles that true conservatives represent: Free Trade Free Trade Free Trade! Pat Buchanan’s protectionism has no place in the Republican party today and it’s no accident that Bucky left the party in 1999.

    Mr. Buchanan is an enormously gifted orator, truly well educated and knows his history and I do enjoy listening to him on the McLaughlin Group as much as I disagree with him on a lot from immigration to free trade. The only true conservative on the show is Tony Blankley.

    Mr. Buchanan’s core views are consistent with the Republican Party that existed during the 1st 3 decades of the 20th century (McKinley-Harding-Coolidge-Hoover). His economic policy being protectionist (out of sympathy for management of American businesses, not necessarily labor) and his foreign policy being isloationist as opposed to today’s neo-conservative doctrines, are exactly what Republicans back then stood for. A couple bloggers did accurately label him as a paleo-conservative, nativist or populist. Today, populists exist in certain factions of both parties but mainly in the Democratic party; mainly blue-collar workers who fear that free trade and immigration are taking away jobs and social services for Americans. In the Republican party, there’s a small sliver of populist cultural conservatives who feel that liberal immigration is bad b/c many immigrants are unable to assimilate.

    It is no accident that the Mr. Buchanan’s magazine, The Amercan Conservative actually endorsed Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 general election and Mr. Buchanan, while ultimately endorsing the President , spent the 1st half of his endorsement op-ed chastising the President on his “neo-conservative” initiatives before coming back to explain why he’s still better than his opponent. Although I could classify myself as a neo-conservative, I must credit Mr. Buchanan for presenting some powerful arguments against our belief that spreading democracy globally will help curb terrorism. He does present some powerful facts and examples disproving the correlation between the two. While many neo-cons like my self believe that AMerica with it’s might and resources has a responsibility to try to advance its idealistic vision at least while we remain the world’s lone superpower, Mr. Buchanan believes that America should simply think strategically in its own interest, whihc in his view doesn’t necessarily intertwine with the world’s interest or greater good and feels that it would unrealistic to think that we have the resources to do any more than that.

    Comment by polanalyst-Philadelphia — July 26, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - July 26, 2006

  42. I have laughed when I was told that Lieberman is not a democrat becuase of his stance on Iraq. Not to be outdone in this comedy, the right is now seeking to purge itself of Pat based upon the selection and emphasis that will be given to his ‘disagreements’ with the most conservatives.

    Understanding Pat is simple.

    His loyalty is completely to this country, and no one else.

    Comment by paul — July 26, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - July 26, 2006

  43. Interesting column, but the greatest republican President of the last century was Theodore Roosevelt! he smashed the trusts and started conserving the American wild areas that most Republicans have tried to exploit.

    Comment by Dick Greenleaf — July 26, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - July 26, 2006

  44. Understanding Pat is simple.
    His loyalty is completely to this country, and no one else.

    Not exactly. He is a nationalist in the collectivistic, chauvinistic sense. He claims to be pro-American while being against virtually every principle America stands for. Most fundamentally, he is against individual rights, which form the bedrock of this nation’s founding philosophy. (See the Declaration of Independence.)

    Comment by Dana H. — July 26, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - July 26, 2006

  45. Pat logic is simple, easily understoodmaybe not correct-but concrete.

    He is offended by the gop championing fiscal responsiblities, and proving otherwise.

    Comment by paul — July 26, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - July 26, 2006

  46. I remember a time when I was still registered Democrat and basically considered myself a moderate Libertarian. Even then, he never struck me as conservative; certainly not in any of the ways that mattered to me.

    Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 26, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - July 26, 2006

  47. There is still room for Pat in political disacourse.

    While I disagree with him on some points, he is saying what needs to be said.

    Our support of Israel has good points AND bad points. I weigh the good points greater than the bad points. Pat is obsessing over the bad points, jsut as those who hate Pat are refusing to give acknowledgement to the bad points. Has all the lements of what a debate and discussion must be had.

    I’m 60-40 on the war, and appreciate those who provide a well-stated argument against Iraq-something which does not apply to most democrats.

    Is Pat a conservative? fiscally-YES.

    Is our congress or president conservative? Fiscally-NO.

    Guess which one I like better.

    Comment by paul — July 26, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - July 26, 2006

  48. Pat Buchanan is a typical, old school Catholic who has a damned hard time hiding his anti-Semitism. He has been an outspoken critic of Israel for as long as I can remember and gets more and more unhinged with each passing year. He and Pat Robertson should stop giving interviews and just call each other to rant from now on.

    Comment by Scott — July 26, 2006 @ 7:47 pm - July 26, 2006

  49. Paul,

    In what way can you consider a politician who advocates “economic nationalism” (his term), a fiscal conservative? Buchanan’s economics essentially amount to warmed-over mercantilism.

    Comment by Bill — July 26, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - July 26, 2006

  50. I’d be more comfortable in a shift to mecantilism, than see any more advancements towards socialism.

    Comment by paul — July 26, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - July 26, 2006

  51. My God you are (mostly) a bunch of fools – Pat Buchanan is a great man, a patriot through and through, I challenge any one of you to read through his archive of material (linked from my blog) released since 2001 and see for yourselves exactly how brilliant he is when it comes to foreign policy.

    If not for AIPAC defaming him we might have had a real President when 9/11 occurred instead of Duh-bya.

    Thanks a lot Israel.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 26, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - July 26, 2006

  52. Ummm….

    Had Buchanan been elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996, he would have left office on January 20, 2001.

    And he would have done not a damn thing about Islamist terrorism, other than to encourage it.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 27, 2006 @ 1:50 am - July 27, 2006

  53. Buchanan finally shoots self in mouth with foot…

    GayPatriotWest cites Pat Buchanan’s latest idiot remark, and makes a strong case that the Patster shouldn’t be considered a conservative any more. Good stuff. Go read it…….

    Trackback by The Gantry Launchpad — July 27, 2006 @ 5:21 am - July 27, 2006

  54. So – you people would rather have the Whores of Israel in charge of the United States rather than an American?

    BTW -Buchanan was the Reform Party candidate in 2000 and he was the best choice of the 3 who ran.

    It’s obvious to all who aren’t comatose or retarded that Duh-bya has been the worst president in our lifetime.

    You people better open your eyes.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 27, 2006 @ 11:19 am - July 27, 2006

  55. #47)

    Is Pat a conservative? fiscally-YES.

    Wait a second. Isn’t Pat a big supporter of unions? Try this little thought experiment. Imagine you get naked, squat down, and place your testicles firmly within the grip of the government employee unions. Now attempt to be fiscally conservative. I think it might defy the laws of physics.

    Of course my memory could be bad but I seem to recall he was a union guy. Someone correct me.

    Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 27, 2006 @ 11:19 am - July 27, 2006

  56. Buchanan was the Reform Party candidate in 2000 and he was the best choice of the 3 who ran.

    Funny, the American voters didn’t think so – he was, at best, in fourth place, behind, Bush, Gore and Nader, and received ZERO electoral votes.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 27, 2006 @ 11:58 am - July 27, 2006

  57. I tend to agree with those who say he’s been anti Semitic for a while. And God Bless the Republican Party, when he went off the rails, they distanced him from the party. Anyone can write and talk on TV, but he has no part in the Republican party any more.
    Unlike the Democrats who make excuses and embrace the likes of Cynthia McKinney. Or invite Micheal Moore as a guest of honor to the convention.

    Comment by Leah — July 27, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - July 27, 2006

  58. I don’t believe there’s any reason to personally condemn him as an anti-semite. I do give him the benefit of the doubt that like any of us, he wants to see what’s best for the country and will fight for it. As someone who does support Israel with my heart and someone who IS disappointed with Putin for his recent actions within Russia, I must acknowledge that Mr. Buchanan certainly makes some powerful point to the contrary. It is true that I also (like Paul) am about 60-40 on the Iraq decision but absolutely no Democrat has provided me with a credible argument as to why we should not have gone in or what the alternatives were (and YES, there was definitely a problem as much as some liberals want to think that everything was fine and dandy with the status quo before the war). Mr. Buchanan and some of the more old-fashioned conservatives such as George Will, William Buckley, etc are the only ones to offer genuine arguments against what I believe. It is debatable as to whether every culture and every society is compatible enough to live and operate under a democratic society. The President believes that every culture’s natural instinct IS indeed democracy and freedom.

    One really has to define fiscal conservatism before concluding whether Mr. Buchanan qualifies or not. If fiscal conservative simply means everything supply-siders stand for, then no, it doesn’t exactly describe him. If fiscal conservative simply means being anti-spending (especially against social spending) or insisting on a balanced budget at all times (making it a higher priority than curtting taxes), then a case can be made that he is (moreso than Pres. Bush or Reagan ever were). But he’s no free-market supply-sider. He is against free trade, doesn’t see the virtues of immigration towards our economy, etc. So this combination certainly doesn’t turn him in the socialist direction of liberals but as one blogger pointed out, you could call it economic mercantilism.

    Comment by polanalyst-Philadelphia — July 27, 2006 @ 12:47 pm - July 27, 2006

  59. a bunch of neo cons are trying to call buchanan out? hahah desk weenies. first of all, buchanan is anti-gay because he’s a devout CATHOLIC. It’s their RULE. still, he contributes to antiwar.com which is run by a gay libertarian, justin raimondo and wrote the forward for raimondo’s last book.

    His running mate in 96 was a black woman. he is not an anti semite. Israel is a country not a religion. there are plenty of non jewish neo cons and jewish non neo cons.

    also- robert novak was jewish and converted to catholicism.

    neo cons did this exact same thing in the run up to the iraq war. Yeah, I’m sure pat is really regretting that move. He’s more influential than ever. the neo cons are gonna be begging for spare change in a year, buchanan will be on MSNBC 5 nights a week and reaping the rewards of another best seller.

    Comment by lester — July 27, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - July 27, 2006

  60. Let’s face it the moment anyone raises the slightest suggestion that Israeli policies are counterproductive or or perhaps contrary to the interests of the USA, the first word on the lips of all the usual suspects like Podhoretz, Kristol. etc is anti semitism. All I saw Buchanan do was raise a few perfectly sensible questions about whether Israel was capable of eliminating Hezbollah without producing a tidal wave of anti Israel sentiment in Europe and the middle east, and just how wise was it for us to become isolated along with them and thereby further diminish our diplomatic leverage. The usual suspects along with not a few posters on this site immediately have him trying on a field grey uniform with black riding boots. These are legitimate questions. I have been a supporter of Israel all my life but it is becoming increasingly apparent that the chances of them eliminating Hezbollah are negligible. It would also appear to me these are not the Arabs they defeated in 1947, 1956, 1967 and 1973. For the first time I am coming to the conclusion that in the long term Israel is incapable of imposing its settlement on the middle east. Meanwhile we have discovered the same thing in Iraq, while as an unintended, but fairly widely predicted side effect, have succeeded in making Hezbollah’s main patron the pre-eminent power in the region. The sooner Americans get beyond the emotional and narcissistic claptrap which masquerades as considered analysis the better it will be for us all. The fact is that at the moment Hezbollah is sustaining some tactical damage but winning strategically. The Israelis themselves obviously appear uncertain at the moment, as they can sense world opinion turning against them while they come up against the realities of dealing with Hezbollah on the ground. Buchanan actually predicted this, he’s not a Nazi, he is a conservative American populist who one may or may not agree with most of the time, but he is raising totally legitimate issues which need to be answered by logical responses no hysterical rants about anti semitism.

    Comment by John — July 27, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - July 27, 2006

  61. john- unfortunately conservatism IS hysterical rants these days

    Comment by lester — July 27, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - July 27, 2006

  62. I wouldn’t worry so much about those who are openly speaking of their disdain for all things Israeli.

    The progressive dems are the ones you should be worried about. Dean using the term ‘anti-semite’ is laughable.

    Rabid dems see an assertive US foreign policy in the ME as the limiting factor on their success. They attribute the policy to oil and support of Israel-and accurately so.

    For the same reasons they wish to break our dependence on foreign oil, they are willing to cede our support of Israel to the Europeans. Pat is openly an isolationist and while that may offend some, the same people who are worried about what is openly being said, ignore the silent movement of progressive dems at their own expense.

    Pat is willing to defend his ideas in public-even if they are incorrect-while the real powers remain silent about their unspoken disapproval of Israel. Pat was wrong on Iraq, just as he is wrong on Israel, but his arguments must be heard-if he is saying it openly-you can be sure that there are other ‘cockroaches’ whispering it in the dark.

    Comment by paul — July 27, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - July 27, 2006

  63. Pat’s is a supporter of Unions, or is he one who opposed NAFTA?

    There can be little doubt that the high rate of GDP is a direct result of nafta, but that the success has been at the expense of manufacturing jobs.

    As with Israel now, Pat played devil’s advocate and pointed to the negative effects that nafta would also yield. I guess by his oppostion to nafta, one could label Pat as being anti-mexican as well.

    I’m starting to think that Pat only loves the US and other nations need not be considered in his world. His sin? He’s pro american at the expense of all other countries.

    Comment by paul — July 27, 2006 @ 3:19 pm - July 27, 2006

  64. Frank IBC: when you put it that way, I suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy for Ralphie…

    Heh.

    They do the same thing when I say I’ll seriously consider voting for Hillary if McCain gets the 2008 nomination.

    Talk about a RINO; the man’s a card-carrying devotee of the nanny-state.

    Comment by Casey Tompkins — July 27, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - July 27, 2006

  65. pat was wrong on Iraq? What was he wrong about? that it would be a disaster? that it wasn’t in our intersts? seems he was totally on the money. and most americans agree.

    we’ve given israel at least 100 billion of the years, not including the Iraq war. that’s far more than we’ve done for any other ally. personally, I’ve just about had it with them. between jonathon pollard, the USS LIberty and their current cowardly attack on lebanon, they can fend for themselves as far as I’m concerned

    Comment by lester — July 27, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - July 27, 2006

  66. and glenn reynolds was an isolationist too. check out the stuff he wrote during during bosnia an kosovo

    Comment by lester — July 27, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - July 27, 2006

  67. All I saw Buchanan do was raise a few perfectly sensible questions about whether Israel was capable of eliminating Hezbollah without producing a tidal wave of anti Israel sentiment in Europe and the middle east, and just how wise was it for us to become isolated along with them and thereby further diminish our diplomatic leverage.

    Let us put this a different way: do we care about the countries of the world who support Hizbollah?

    What Buchanan does is gloss over the fact that the casualties in Lebanon are precisely because Hizbollah is putting weapons, troops, and bombs to be used against Israel in civilian areas.

    Furthermore, Hizbollah is not a legitimate arm of the state of Lebanon in any way, shape, or form. It is a parasite organization that wants to use the state of Lebanon as a hiding spot and shield, and is bullying the government and civilians of Lebanon into allowing it to do so, with the connivance of Iran and Syria.

    Civilians will die whether Israel does anything about Hizbollah or not. However, both Buchanan and Europeans want Israeli citizens to die rather than Hizbollah be taken out and, in the process, others die.

    Leftists are whining that they support Israel’s right to defend itself. Then tell us: how exactly is Israel supposed to “defend itself” against missiles, armaments, and troops that have been placed in and around civilian villages and UN outposts, well within range of and able to strike Israeli towns and cities?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - July 27, 2006

  68. north dallas- wow. you have a really in depth understanding of exactly ONE side of this issue!

    Comment by lester — July 27, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - July 27, 2006

  69. #67: And what book would you recommend to NDT to understand the other side. I heard “Mein Kampf” sums up what the Arabs want pretty well.

    Comment by Attmay — July 27, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - July 27, 2006

  70. Casey Tompkins, I don’t understand why you’d see McCain as a RINO. If you look at his actual positions, he’s pro-choice, pro-gun-rights and the whole 9 years. He is also a deficit-hawk, whihc is traditionally a Republican position. You see, there are two cnservative economic policies at conflict with itself here. Conservatives believe in lower taxes and conservatives believe in lower spending. The President clearly stands by the lower-taxes faction but not so much on the spending side. McCain on the other hand has been staunchly against spending but has not been a good advocate for tax cuts (I disagree with him). Buthis reason is not to raise money for social spending like a liberal but it was his way of protesting the heavy spending and wanting a balanced budget. Again, I don’t believe that is a good solution but he represents a very conservative fiscal position there. On foreign policy, he’s been as loyal as anyone can be to the President.

    McCain’s problem is that whenever he does have a disagreement with the President, rather than sorting it out by talking to him or to the Rpublican leadership, he showboats it too much to maintain his standing as the media-darling for future political purposes. But believe me, he’s no Hillary Clinton!!

    Comment by polanalyst-Philadelphia — July 27, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - July 27, 2006

  71. What it comes down to is, people like Pat Buchanan and his new fan-base on the left are willing to throw Israel to the Islamist dogs to appease them. Just as Neville Chamberlain was willing to throw the Sudetenland to the Nazis in order to appease them.

    As for McCain, I will definitely vote for Hillary if he is the nominee. Anyone as hostile to “so-called First Amendment rights” as McCain is unfit to be president. Couple that with the pettiness he has displayed on the SASC … putting soldiers’ lives at risk to settle personal scores… and he is not a man I would trust as CinC.

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - July 27, 2006

  72. ^ Blah, blah, blah – there you go with that Hitler nonsense again. (where’s the rolleyes icon)

    Your Hitler straw man is based on the incorrect translation by Christopher (whore of Zion) Hitchens of Imadinnerjackets speech – Memri has a more accurate version of those remarks.

    http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305

    The facts are that Israel has the 5th largest miltary in the world, there is no country in the immediate area with a military capable of threatening Israel.

    Period…

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 27, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - July 27, 2006

  73. There is no country in the immediate area with a military capable of threatening Israel.

    So, those missiles raining down on Haifa and Natanya are just, what, some kind of Zionist trick?

    Hezbullah may not be a country, but it is a proxy actor for countries like Iran and Syria, who do want to destroy Israel. And the aims of radical Islam do not end with the destruction of Israel, no matter how much Hezbullah’s apologists would like us to believe they do.

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 6:07 pm - July 27, 2006

  74. attmay- “the palestine question” by henry cattan

    Comment by lester — July 27, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - July 27, 2006

  75. Let’s see, the Palesitinians:

    1. Routinely strap bombs onto their children and send them to blow up Israelis.

    2. Have squandered billions in foreign aid from the US, EU, and oil ticks and used it to arm the people who strap bombs to their children and send them to kill Isrealis.

    3. Condone the “honor killing” of young women.

    4. Condone the brutal killing of homosexuals.

    5. Danced in the streets on the 9-11.

    6. Swarm the cars of terrorist leaders who’ve been blown up to collect body parts as souvenirs.

    7. Pack their missiles full of ball bearings to maximize civilian casualties and aim them at schools and hospitals.

    8. Hold up terrorists who brutally murder children as national heroes.

    9. Indoctrinate their children into hatred and violence beginning at a young age.

    10. Support terrorism by large majorities and elected a terrorist organization to govern them.

    Now, what could any book ever tell me to make me sympathetic to “their side”?

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 6:42 pm - July 27, 2006

  76. There is no such place as “Palestine.” It is a make-believe country, like Oz.

    Hitler’s attitudes towards the Jews are IDENTICAL to those of the terrorists.

    Hitler had widespread support in the Middle East during his reign.

    The Muslims are the Nazis of the 21st Century.

    Comment by Attmay — July 27, 2006 @ 6:51 pm - July 27, 2006

  77. v to the k – “the palestine question ” by henry cattan

    Comment by lester — July 27, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - July 27, 2006

  78. Umm guys – don’t look now but the Bush cabal is using the exact same playbook they used to get us into Iraq and we all know how well that’s turned out.

    There are bad people all over the world, there always have been, there always will be, as long as they do not attack the United States they are not our problem.

    As I pointed out above Israel has the 5th largest military in the world and is more than capable of handling anyone stupid enough to try and push them into the sea.

    To perpetrate an event as large as the Holocaust requires not only the desire, but also the industrial infrastructure and a leader with the political will to carry out such a horrendous action.

    Sure, there are some with the desire – but as a percentage of population they are hardly a blip on the screen, they have no Salahidin to rally behind, they have no infrastrusture to carry out industrialized warfare or genocide, and if they did the Israelis would destroy it long before they could carry out such a plan.

    You are being propagandized by AIPAC – plain and simple.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 27, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - July 27, 2006

  79. Goalposts are thus moved from “threatening” Israel to “wiping Israel off the map.”

    A capability Iran is developing with great enthusiasm, with the acquiescence of the UN and EUrotopia, and the eager assistance of China and Russia.

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - July 27, 2006

  80. And, yes, Israel has a capacity for self-defense. And when they use their capacity for self-defense, Pat Buchanan and his Arabist brethren seethe, “how dare they not roll over and die like good little Jews.”

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - July 27, 2006

  81. ^ Which one are you, fundamentalist Christian or Jewish – or are you a regular viewer of Faux News infommercials?

    How many of America’s children is Israel worth, you do realize that is the direction we are being lead don’t you?

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 27, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - July 27, 2006

  82. Say hi to your pals at Stormfront-dot-org for me, JW.

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - July 27, 2006

  83. How typical, try to have a discussion about Israel and get called a Nazi – this demonstrates how weak your argument is that you resort to personal attacks so quickly.

    Somehow I don’t think the scum at Stormfront would accept a racially mixed person into their group – especially since I am a mix of Polish (Jewish), Cherokee, African, Irish, and German.

    I only asked your religion to get a handle on where you are coming from – being that you are so quick to judge me it is no wonder that you don’t understand Pat Buchanans view point.

    Time will prove he is right – the term neoconservative will be an epithet before long, the people behind the movement will be as despised as todays liberals within the next five years – just as they should be.

    There’s an link called Black Propaganda on my page, it’s a very interesting read, especially if you are interested in WWII or how people are manipulated by propaganda.

    I urge you all to read it and keep it in mind as events unfold.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 27, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - July 27, 2006

  84. No one who makes cheap rhetorical shots like “Oh, you support Israel. Are you Jewish or a Christian fundamentalist” and “How many of America’s children is Israel worth?” and attributes support of Israel to “AIPAC propaganda” and “Faux News” is capable of serious argument. If you wonder why I support Israel over the Islamists, read my comment 74.

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 11:31 pm - July 27, 2006

  85. And as it happens, I have a son who is considering military service (in a few years, when he is of age) and he would gladly fight and die for Israel. Not because of religious conviction, or “propaganda,” but simply because the Israelis are the good guys. Democracy, basic freedoms, civilization. The Islamists are the bad guys, feudalist, oppressive, barbarians.

    Comment by V the K — July 27, 2006 @ 11:44 pm - July 27, 2006

  86. A mixed-race Nazi is still a Nazi, and you are most definitely a Nazi, and so is your Buchananite cohort (mo)lester. And apparently you have ignored all the articles written by Christopher Hitchens that are critical of Israel. So why don’t you just goosestep on out of here and take your paranoid conspiracy theories with you.

    Is “Wenzel” a German name? Figures.

    BTW, it was the Mufti of Jerusalem who convinced Hitler of the “final solution.”

    Comment by Attmay — July 27, 2006 @ 11:44 pm - July 27, 2006

  87. ^ Weak

    You can lead a man to knowledge but you can’t make him think.

    “Conspiracy theory”

    OK smart guy, here’s a little exercise for you – compare the authors of “A Clean Break” (a policy paper written for Israel) to the members of PNAC, and then cross check that list with current and past members of the DoD and the Vice Presidents staff.

    A significant number of these people hold dual citizenship in both Israel and the United States and by all rights should be barred from government service, they are Likudniks and Trotskyites whose loyalty is suspect. They are the people who handed Bush “a pre-cooked meal” (Iraq) they were wrong then and they are wrong now.

    AIPAC is the 2nd most powerful lobby in Washington DC, they have enormous influence and should be treated as an agent of a foreign government – I don’t blame them for what they do, but I do recognize that what they do is not always in the United States best interest – use your common sense people.

    There is no conspiracy theory, there is only the truth, it’s all in the common domain – don’t take my word for it.

    See for yourself.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 28, 2006 @ 12:15 am - July 28, 2006

  88. You better watch your backside, Imam Lester. J Wenzel seems to be trying to shove you aside as our resident apologist for Islam’s Shiite fundamentalists.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — July 28, 2006 @ 1:27 am - July 28, 2006

  89. polanalyst-Philadelphia, in comment #69: I’m wondering if you made a typo in calling John McCain “pro-choice”. He’s actually anti-choice, which is one of the reasons I can’t support him. McCain has a reputation as an independent rebel but in reality he has one of the most “conservative” voting records in the Senate. At times, McCain’s independence (stubborness) has had negative impact on our armed services. Thanks to McCain’s pettiness, France’s AirBus is in the running to build the United States Air Force’s next generation of air refueling tankers.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — July 28, 2006 @ 1:41 am - July 28, 2006

  90. J Wenzel, lester, and (from another thread) Umm, which is probably short for Ummah, three apologists for Islamo-fascists, cowardly appeasement monkeys willing to throw 5 million Jews to the dogs in the vain hope that it will be enough to satisfy Global Jihad, or simply willing dupes of slick Islamist media manipulation. Probably some of all three?

    I am reminded that the first gay person I met at college was a big time anti-semite. In public, he’d make frequent Jewish jokes and refer to all Jewish girls as ‘JAPs,’ and when he would go too far anyone called him on it, he would insist it was just a joke. When he was among close friends however, he would become much more explicit and discuss God’s Chosen People in terms that would have done a klansman proud. (He also, incidentally, hated Christians, wasn’t too fond of blacks, and loathed Republicans most of all.)

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 8:06 am - July 28, 2006

  91. #88 Trace Phelps — July 28, 2006 @ 1:41 am – July 28, 2006

    …France’s AirBus is in the running to build the United States Air Force’s next generation of air refueling tankers.

    I might find this hard to believe but I don’t for a variety of reasons that I won’t go into. When I was heavily involved in the computer hardware industry, it became clear that some of the components of military hardware–memory chips, and, to a lesser extent, microprocessors–that were absolutely vital to the US military were largely being manufactured abroad. This was in the late 1980s and into the 1990s. At the time, it struck me as appalling that the US government would allow itself to become hostage to the vagaries of international relationships to provide such important components.

    Of course, since then, it has become clear to me that the US is dependent on resources from a number of foreign countries for its defense industry. I could go down the Periodic Table to recite them all, but I’ll refrain. So, it appears that the US military is willing to take a calculated risk on components that it is dependent on from foreign suppliers.

    Comment by raj — July 28, 2006 @ 10:48 am - July 28, 2006

  92. VdaK writes: “I am reminded that the first gay person I met at college was a big time anti-semite” At U of M?

    Now, that is pretty much impossible. How did they get past the Admissions Office staff? Oh wait, it’s because he hated Christians and GOPers… got ya. That explains why he was given a pass.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 28, 2006 @ 10:55 am - July 28, 2006

  93. Yes, at Michigan. They not only let him in, they made him an RA.

    We found out later he was also very into the T-Room/glory hole scene.

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 11:05 am - July 28, 2006

  94. #89: My father is a doctor, and when he was doing his internship at St. Mary’s Hospital in Waterbury, Connecticut, a patient who was gay said in no uncertain terms that he didn’t want any Jews (like my father) treating him.

    Comment by Attmay — July 28, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - July 28, 2006

  95. To perpetrate an event as large as the Holocaust requires not only the desire, but also the industrial infrastructure and a leader with the political will to carry out such a horrendous action.

    And most importantly, the will of the other great powers to stand by and let them do it.

    Hitler’s “final solution” was no surprise to anyone who’d read Mein Kampf or even early Nazi party literature.

    Jews who had seen the handwriting on the wall started emigrating in the decade BEFORE World War II even started, and were freely telling the stories of what was happening to them. The Nuremberg laws were passed in 1935, for heaven’s sake.

    Hitler had announced the enlarged Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe in 1935, both of which were violations of the Versailles Treaty — which would have justified military action on the part of the other Powers against Germany. Nothing.

    Furthermore, both Britain and France allowed Hitler to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia without protest.

    What I am struck by, J Wenzel, is the similarity between your rhetoric and that of the America First Committee, especially of Charles Lindbergh.

    As it turns out, no amount of pandering and isolationism could protect the United States, for this simple reason; anyone who kills people simply because they’re Jews is just as likely to kill people because they’re Americans.

    You’ll never understand that, mainly because you can’t get past your hatred for Jews — just like Pat Buchanan. In your fantasy world, Hizbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, and Osama bin Laden would have no beef whatsoever with the United States if it wasn’t for Israel. That is why you openly attempt to sabotage any attempt for Israel to USE its military to defend itself, and why you constantly whine for American isolationism.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 28, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - July 28, 2006

  96. I don’t hate Jews, fuck off punk.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 28, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - July 28, 2006

  97. “I don’t hate Jews” is exactly what my gay acquaintance in college would insist… publically. In private, whole ‘nother story.

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - July 28, 2006

  98. J Wenzel, I am amazed at the level of hatred, bigotry and downright hostility that is evident in your blog entries. After looking at it I can only imagine a career for you in Nixon’s old Dirty Tricks Department.

    I can see you do indeed hate the Jews –but like many liberals who comment here– you are also an equal opportunity religious bigot… you hate Christians, you hate Jews, you hate Muslims, your hate Native Americans… damn, there aren’t many people you don’t hate it seems.

    My question is simple: what on Earth (I exempt writing “God’s green Earth” out of deference for your bigotries well noted) ever made you so frickin’ mad to cross the line into pathological hatred?

    As a interventionist therapist, I’d encourage you –nay, command you– to seek some professional help immediately. Your hate consumes you, it motivates you, and when you don’t receive 100% validation from strangers it seems to motivate you to abuse and violence.

    You need special help J Wenzel. Maybe as a script writer for HowieDean?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 28, 2006 @ 2:47 pm - July 28, 2006

  99. Hate?

    Look in the mirror, (sigh) and suddenly I’m also a liberal too?

    My political philosophy IS America First, I am no different than the inhabitants of other countries who are nationalists – do you really believe (for example) that Israeli citizens don’t put their national interest above all others?

    I don’t hate any particular religion, I think you are confusing ridicule of those who believe in fairy tales to hatred, and my distaste for the U.S. sponsored Israeli welfare state as anti semitism – you are wrong on both counts.

    Save your internet psychological evaluation for your fellow deviants, I’m pretty sure that given the level of discourse displayed so far by the residents of this blog they need it a whole lot more than I do.

    PS:

    I had a CLEET psych evaluation 6 months ago and passed with flying colors.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 28, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - July 28, 2006

  100. Not only anti-semitic but anti-gay as well.

    Comment by Attmay — July 28, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - July 28, 2006

  101. http://www.spa.gov.sa/English/details.php?id=378151

    http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/07/27/10055382.html

    One of duhbyas masters has spoken, he will now bring the Israelis to heel.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 28, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - July 28, 2006

  102. Supposing we took Wenzel at his word (contradictory though they are) and assumed that is not an anti-semite, but simply sees no reason for the USA to support Israel. Let’s consider the implications of that position.

    First off, it would mean that the US would be turning its back on its only reliable ally in a vital region of the world, the only free democratic state in that part of the world (Afghanistan and Iraq still have a long way to go), and the only country in that part of the world where the rights of gays and religious minorities are protected. What would that say about us and our values, not to mention, our reliability as an ally? Why should any nation support us when we would sell-out an ally in its time of need?

    Second, what would it gain us to turn our backs on Israel? Some seem to think that we should instead support the “moderate” regimes in that part of the world. So, instead of supporting a free, democratic state the Islamists hate, we would end up supporting the corrupt, despotic Arab regimes the Islamists hate. That has been the European approach, and it does not seem to have earned them a respite from terrorism. Perhaps, by abandoning Isreal, they think we might make some friends among the Islamist radicals in the region. This, in the parlance of the State Department, is known as “even-handedness.” The radical Islamists don’t hate us because we support Israel, they hate us because we are not Muslims. And, re-read my #74 if you think the radical Islamists are honorable men we should be negotiating with.

    So, why not justBuchanan and his ilk are essentially isolationists, who think nothing of throwing Israel to the dogs because we can hole up here in our Fortress and not be bothered by them. This, again, naively assumes that the jihadists have no ambitions beyond Israel. It also naively assumes that in a world where Iran has the ability to produce nukes, the will to use them, and the terrorist infrastructure to send them anywhere in the world they want, covertly… simply walling ourselves off will not protect us from the conflagration while the rest of the world is consumed.

    In short, the Buchanan/Wenzel view is based on isolationism, selfishness, and a naive, Arabist view of Middle East politics. Selling out Israel would make America, essentially, into France… a cowardly, selfish, callow nation selling itself out for the false illusion of security. We would be selling our soul, and getting nothing in return.

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - July 28, 2006

  103. Trace Phelps, good eye! Thanks for correcting my comment #69. That’s exactly what I meant-that McCain is PRO-LIFE (not choice) and in effect, he is certainlt very conservative in his positions; therefore Republicans who would choose to support a Hillary-type over him would be doing it out of spite against McCain’s often-media ass-kissing at the expense of party unity. But in substance, they would certainly get what from their perspective would be much better consequences from a Pres. McCain than almost any Democratic president.

    Comment by polanalyst — July 28, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - July 28, 2006

  104. Republicans who would choose to support a Hillary-type over him would be doing it out of spite against McCain’s often-media ass-kissing at the expense of party unity.

    No. Not true.

    I oppose McCain because of his open contempt for the First Amedment, because he is a vain opportunist, because he supports Amnesty for illegal immigrants (and, “Mr. Straight Talk” denies that it is amnesty when illegal immigrants who dodge their taxes and commit social security fraud are rewarded with citizenship, and US citizens who did the same things would be sent to prison), because he hold the safety of American soldiers hostile to his ego and uses his position in the senate to settle personal scores.

    Hillary would be preferable to McCain because congressional Republicans would be in a better position to stop her liberal initiatives than they would McCain’s.

    And the fact that so many libs who want Republicans to lose are mad about McCain is just something that makes me go “Hmmmmm.”

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 7:54 pm - July 28, 2006

  105. ^ Blah, blah, blah – you are such a cliche. “Liberal this & liberal that…”

    The American public are being played, using the oldest trick in the book.

    “Divide and Conquer.”
    –Sun Tzu

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 28, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - July 28, 2006

  106. No one here considers you to be liberal, Wenzel.

    In fact you are about as illiberal as they get.

    Comment by Attmay — July 29, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - July 29, 2006

  107. Actually I’m quite liberal on social issues, if gays (I’m not) desire to get married I have no problem with it – everyone has the right to be miserable AFAIC. ;)

    I am a mass of contradictions – just like everyone else, the difference being that I recognize this and try not to think of, or catagorize a person using sweeping terms like liberal or conservative.

    It’s just not that simple, though in terms of political effect such a mindset has now become the ultimate wedge issue and does us all a great disservice.

    Well, all of us except the Republicrats seeking or holding office…it boggles my mind that I’m reading arguments over which turd in the Presidential sweepstakes stinks the most – people…they all stink.

    Oh, for one real hero, circa 1776 (revolution?), or, better, 1787 (nation of laws?).

    John Adams. Benjamin Franklin. Alexander Hamilton. John Marshall…or somebody else.

    Some 21st-Century Lincoln, Churchill, or Roosevelt.

    Just one, one authentic American hero.

    Just one…is that too much to ask?

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 30, 2006 @ 1:25 am - July 30, 2006

  108. old topic, but… this is probably the worst-argued post i’ve seen relating to Buchanan. ironic that it links to a blog post calling Buchanan an “idiotarian.”

    why is Buchanan an anti-Semite? because he’s generally opposed to Israeli policy? i think some of that opposition may be very well misguided. and perhaps some of that opposition is rooted in conservative Catholic anti-Semitism, though i’ve yet to see evidence of that. Buchanan has never advocated the destruction of Israel — he most likely thinks that a two-state solution would work best in the end, which pretty much everyone who’s serious about eventually solving the conflict does. it’s only a matter of when the Palestinians will accept it.

    also ironically, this post blasts Buchanan as anti-Semitic _based on_ his opposition to Israeli policy. this type of “criticism” is why certain people get very much annoyed by pro-Israeli stalwarts — because instead of making serious arguments, they resort to the anti-Semitism canard. everyone opposed to specific Israeli policy must be an anti-Semite. i don’t rule out that Buchanan may be anti-Semitic in other ways, but the post didn’t make that clear.

    getting away from anti-Semitism, the fact of the matter is that on foreign policy, Buchanan is much more intelligent than the prominent neoconservatives in the Republican Party today. he’s a bit too much of an “America-firster” for my tastes, but he is much closer to smart Kissinger-type realism than the democratic idealism (idealistic idiocy) of the neoconservatives. even if you disagree with him, he makes much more cohesive arguments in this regard than do most neoconservatives. and he realizes that neoconservatism worked in the ’80s while failing us now. in the ’80s, with the U.S. pulling ahead of the Soviets, democratization was very possible in countries that had faced years of both socialist and right-authoritarian governments. The same does not apply so easily in the Middle East at this time, as we have found out.

    hateful words? well OK, but it was from a culturally conservative perspective. the fact that it was angry doesn’t make it un-conservative.

    anyway, i disagree with Buchanan on some things — most notably his hardline positions on trade and immigration — but in terms of foreign policy, he’s much smarter than today’s Republicans. and i should note that there is nothing un-conservative about his foreign policy, just like there was nothing un-conservative about Kissingerian realism.

    Comment by Trey Stone — August 15, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - August 15, 2006

  109. and obviously, the “un-Christian” remark means he thought Israel’s actions were not compatible with Christian morals — morals plenty in the U.S., Israel’s primary ally, share. to treat it as if it was some kind of nefarious anti-Semitic remark just further proves how overused that word is on the Right with regards to criticism of Israel.

    could’ve phrased it better, probably. but all he meant was that he viewed Israel’s actions as immoral. i don’t know about that, but they certainly fucked up massively in their response.

    Comment by Trey Stone — August 15, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - August 15, 2006

  110. and to the guy who slimed Buckley as an anti-Semite — what?

    Comment by Trey Stone — August 15, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - August 15, 2006

  111. [...] You mentioned Bob Barr; he, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Sullivan, have been demonized as liberals or “ex-conservatives” for criticizing the president. Now that you’re getting a little bit of that, what’s [...]

    Pingback by Joe Scarborough on why he toasted Bush on his show: at Memnison Journal — July 27, 2007 @ 2:45 am - July 27, 2007

  112. [...] I’ve noted before, he showed so little regard for the leader of American conservatism, Ronald Reagan, that he chose [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Pat Buchanan: Nazi Sympathizer? — May 22, 2008 @ 2:41 pm - May 22, 2008

  113. naked gay guys having fun…

    Sounds interesting but not for every one….

    Trackback by naked gay guys having fun — July 6, 2008 @ 9:07 pm - July 6, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.