Sounds interesting but not for every one….

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.

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.

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?

In fact you are about as illiberal as they get.

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

“Divide and Conquer.”
–Sun Tzu

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.”

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.