Posted on 08/01/2006 11:22:56 AM PDT by SJackson
Pat Buchanan, not satisfied merely looking like a Herblock depiction of a bigot, a man who never allows an opportunity to slam Israel slip through his fingers, has been on a rampage because Israel has finally gone after the murderous thugs and sadists of Hezbollah.
The fact that the terrorists don’t wear uniforms means that every time the Israelis kill one of them, Buchanan and his ilk get to insist that Israel is targeting civilians. Buchanan’s concern for civilians isn’t nearly so evident when it’s Jews who are targeted by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO’s suicide bombers.
One of the sillier things Israel has done in recent years was to fall for the land for peace con game. They surrendered territory and any number of settlements as a gesture of good will. Good will gestures made to terrorists and tyrants are the height of folly and cowardice, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s the Arabs or Adolf Hitler. Offer your hand to the tiger and don’t expect him to stop nibbling when he gets to your wrist.
Because Israel plays such a prominent role in the news, and because it’s managed, against all odds, to survive for 58 years, one can easily over-estimate its actual place in the world. The fact of the matter is that unless you were at the top of your geography class, you’d be hard-pressed to find it on your globe. To give you a clear idea of what Israel is up against, keep in mind that there are 22 countries in the Arab League. The League encompasses 5,200,000 square miles; Israel was 8,000 square miles before giving up the aforementioned turf. What’s more, there are 312 million people living in those 22 countries. Israel’s population is six million, more than a million of whom are Arabs.
So far as Buchanan and his friends are concerned, it would seem that the only thing that’s required to make Israel the jewel of the Middle East is for those five million Jews to disappear.
You have to wonder what it is about those 8,000 square miles that the Arabs covet. It’s not as if Israel sits on huge oil deposits. Why aren’t five million square miles enough? I mean, if you had five million dollars, would you cry yourself to sleep every night because you didn’t have $5,008,000?
Let’s face it -- before the Jews built universities, hospitals and concert halls, and planted trees and crops, the place was nothing but a desert.
So many people are happy to trumpet “No blood for oil.” How is it that we never hear them, or Mr. Buchanan, telling the Arabs, “No blood for sand”?
About the Writer: Burt Prelutsky is a humorist, movie reviewer, writer for television series and movies, and author of the new book, "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco." His website is at http://burtprelutsky.com. Burt receives e-mail at BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.
Does that include Mel Gibson?
Yes, though he's admitted his error and is working on solving his problem.
Buchanan is not a conservative, true, but he is a Roman Catholic. Since when did Catholics qualify as "not Christian?" The Apostle Peter went to Rome and founded the Roman Catholic Church long, long before the Protestant varieties of Christianity came on the scene.
If FR is going to join the PC police, then you'd best watch your own speech lest you be branded anti-Catholic. (BTW, I am revolted by political correctness, and my last sentence is a sarcastic slam at FR's PC police who are out in force these days.)
Then you and I are in agreement.
Gibson's latest apology is a good one and, if he follows through, ought to help him overcome whatever is causing his problems with Jewish people and with alcohol.
No, he disagrees with the political positions advocated by some Jews. People who actually hate Jews are the ones shooting up synagogues. It is a mark of Americans' distaste for argument that disagreement is now regularly branded as "hate," provided those who are being disagreed with are members of an accredited victim group.
>>>>>He only appears, occasionally, on MSNBC when Chris Matthews needs a "conservative" to trash George Bush.
Actually, he's on McLaughlin every week.
Thorin, if you refuse to see the bigotry in hundreds of Buchanan's comments over the last ten years, you'll never be convinced.
Most anti-semites never shoot up synagogues. Most simply hold Jewish people in contempt and blame them for the ills of the world.
Like Pat.
It bothers me that I once respected Mr. Buchanan. But of course, I am certain that he would prefer my disapproval to my praise these days, since I am a member of his despised class.
So let me say this; Go, Pat, GO! Fast, and far away....
I have not seen any evidence that Buchanan "holds the Jewish people in contempt and blames them for the ills of the world."
I have seen evidence that Buchanan is skeptical that the alliance with Israel is good for America. Which is not synonymous with your definition of anti-Semitism, the fulminations of Abe Foxman and AIPAC to the contrary notwithstanding.
This is not an "An Open Letter to Pat Buchanan".
It's an open letter to everyone except Pat Buchanan. The writer makes some good points. I disagree with Pat concerning these issues, but it would seem that the writer would address this to in addition to the rest of us, if he's going to term it an open letter to Pat.
Buchanan has stated in the past that Israel has every right to defend itself. Sadly, he's bought off on the 'over reaction' claims. Doing so, he is wrong. Dead wrong.
Pat wouldn't allow people to send missiles into his home without kicking the crap out of them. For that reason, I think he should come to grips with the fact that this is exactly what Israel is doing.
Israel is willing live peacefully in the Middle-East. It's just that nobody else is willing to let them do so, unless Israel proves that it will kick the living hell out of them if they try to prevent it.
Pat, you're wrong.
The right to free speech protects the right to make a total ass of oneself.
Pat's not even drunk!
what? like a hit?
I'm sure you don't. That's why, whenever he criticizes our foreign policy, he only mentions the "neo-con" Jews (like Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams) who have influenced the discussion.
Pat spent three or four columns back in the late 90s arguing that a certain kind of gas or exhaust used by the Nazis (Xyclon-B or something like that) could have killed as many Jews as survivors of the death camps said. Why would he do that? As an academic exercise?
You really do need to read ALL of Buchanan's writings, for the last 20 years. If you don't see a pattern, you're willingly blind.
Pat reads ? Who knew.........
Inner peace? He's one constant stream of rant after rant.
He doesn't base his rants on solid facts or carefully constructed reasoning. He simply believes what he believes and usually relies mostly on rhetoric to support it.
He appears to honestly believe what he's saying, but the logic that he uses to support it is inconsistent and often contradictory to things he's said in the recent past.
He has the "inner peace" of a fanatic. He believes what he believes regardless of the facts or the evidence, and he will not be swayed in those beliefs.
The other political figure he reminds me the most of is Jimmy Carter.
Yes, Buchanan criticizes neocons, but he criticizes gentile neocons as well as Jewish ones.
I wasn't aware that disagreement with a particular faction--the neocons--meant hatred of an entire race of people. I'll admit, though, that that faction would be given a tremendous rhetorical advantage if it convinced everyone that criticism of it was ipso facto racist.
Pat is like Barry Goldwater; their minds turn to mush with age.
At one time, Pat was somewhat respected; but he has gone completely looney.
I invite you to find some examples where he mentions neo-cons that he criticizes any gentiles at all, or that the number of gentiles (who are more numerous in the movement and in government) he mentions out number the Jews he mentions.
"Neo-con" is code word for "Jews." Rush says it is, Medved says it is, and many others say it is.
You don't. Oh, well.
They keep trying. McCain and Fred Barnes are neocons--
The neo punditry manage the "racist" card much better than they manage the "chickenhawk" accusations they also have to deal with.
They maintain a certain plausibility (in equating criticism of neocons=racism) because it's largely through family connections that this insularity presents itself--so many are pink diaper babies of the Partisan Review. If you dare to notice, you'll find yourself called an antisemite, though clannishness is not something the Jews invented, as any Irishman knows. This is why a "conservative" publication like NRO, supposedly representing the spectrum of conservative thinkery, is Jewish and Catholic and not an evangelical in sight. Just Not Our Kind, deah, even though the evangelicals make up a huge constituency among conservatives. For now, anyway. I think they're beginning to resent the patronizing and condescending way they are treated.
My chief gripe about the neocons is that they are not held accountable for all the good help they gave in turning the Balkans over to the Islamics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.