Please point out something specific in the article that is Jew baiting. I'm not here to defend Buchanan, I'm here to debate policy as it is critical that such grave matters are analyzed. Policies that Buchanan advocates are not logically dissected. They have been ridiculed and disparaged as anti-semetic though. Buchanan addresses this phenomenon in this article in detail.
Here are some points made in the article:
Washington warned against having a passion attachment to a foreign nation as it would imperil America
Neocons (both Jew and gentile versions) have a very long paper trail (which you could google) outlining their support for Israel and not just Israel but the Likud Party vision of Israel (which is factionalism, another thing Washington warned against). Many have actively worked for Likud Party. This support for Likud is not merely an academic side hobby but forms the basis for their world view and they actively try to influence American policy to suit their priorities.
The neocons see only war as an option and do not like other's desire to negotiate peaceful settlements. And they quickly smear any opposing policy suggestions in a viscous manner - again there is a long paper trail to attest to this.
One can not discuss our current foreign policy without mentioning neocons because they hold influential positions in this administration and in the media. Remember this article is a book review of An End to Evil. A book written by two prominent neocons.
All these things are verifiable facts. If you can specifically point out that any or all are not then please by all means do so.
How does Buchanan dismiss 9/11? Please explain that.
> "The continuing festering of a dysfunctional Middle East is a tremendous threat to the United States, as Sept. 11 proved."
Yes. The question is how did the festering dysfunctional mid east problem come to involve us? Your take on that would be enlightening.