[Rembrandt_fan]

The article read, "Neocons, though, have no real historical attachment to America, and could care less about its wellbeing."

Although cagey and oblique, the reference here is clearly aimed at the supposed 'Zionist-centric' nature of neoconservativism--the old calumny that Jewish people 'have no real historical attachment to America'. The paleos are molded in the image of their founder, Pat Buchanan, that great admirer of Adolf Hitler, that staunch defender of concentration camp guards, that altogether narrow, despicable man who wears a conservative disguise to hide his true, rabidly antisemitic face. Paraphrasing Teddy Roosevelt, I could carve a better man from a banana.

A neoconservative myself, fully supportive of the President's attempts to reshape the Middle East, I believe Buchanan and his ilk are the political equivalent of a chancre sore. The Republican Party would be best served, I think, by an utter and complete repudiation of Buchanan and all of his like-minded pals. Let them form their own party, where they can wear snappy uniforms and have big rallies and salute each other with enthusiasm.

[gcruse]

"no real historical attachment to America'

I missed that. You're correct in seeing it as backdoor Jew-bashing. This article could easily be isolationist, xenophobic, anti-semite Pat Buchanan riding to the sound of his gums.

[ninenot]

You're just a little too sensitive...

The paleo-con group was around long before PJB was BORN, for crying out loud.

The author's reference was to Libertarian "corporate interests" which would be happy to sacrifice all for the sake of a few more pennies/share.

As to Israel, see my post above.