Poor old Pat has really dove off into the deep end of an empty pool!
The MSM delights in portraying Buchanan as a "conservative". After all, what better way could they possibly find to make conservatives look bad?
I don't understand why Buchanan's screeds even get posted on FR. It's not like we need more proof that he's lost it.
I see plenty of hate on this thread, but not in the article at the top.
Buchanan really needs to stay abreast of the news before he starts spouting off. It looks as though Hezbollah might have destroyed the building in Qana that had been shelled by the Israelis. After all, the building stood for eight hours after being hit by Israeli fire. Moreover, only 37 dead have been confirmed, not the 57 Buchanan cites. In fact, this whole Qana episode is starting to look like something that Hezbollah has staged. But Buchanan is too busy ranting and raving to pay attention to what is actually going on.
Gillerman, at a pro-Israel rally in New York, thundered, "[T]o those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You're damn right we are."
Thumbs up from me.
The solution is to ignore him.
What a jackass....
But I'm sure the Buchanan jackals will be along soon enough to defend their "fair-haired" boy.....
Pat's not anti-semitic, he's anti-zionist. The distinction is important to understanding Pat's article. He is also anti-dispensationalist and an isolationist. Now, we can argue with his stance re: international terrorism post-9/11, that he needs to heed the warning presented by a Neville Chamberlain in the face of a nazi-like threat coming at us. But I think one need take this viewpoint seriously, not so dismissively. Look at history: English, although buying properties in the new colonies, basically stole the native's properties, not least of which was Jackson's Trail of Tears and Polk's Mexican-American War. Well, now the followers of Theodor Herzl ("Zionists") have done much as the settlers here did: start by fairly settling/buying mostly unutilized property, then slowly encroaching on other's properties, then wontonly grabbing by sheer force that property of others, claiming "Manifest Destiny". --I'm not against the modern state of Israel--any democratic state we need as a friend in this world!--but I think one needs to keep in mind the hypocrisy involved in taking natives' territories in very disingenuous ways, whether this process take place circa 1760-1912 in N. America, or in 1948-1973 Israeli/Palestinian territories. Manifest Destiny as a justification for what any fair law would deem theft needs to be understood in both contexts.
Pat needs to have his head examined.