Posted on 02/01/2007 11:51:08 AM PST by SJackson
When Congress finally decides on just the right language for its "non-binding resolution" deploring President Bush's leadership in this war, it might consider a resolution to keep us out of the next one.
For America is on a collision course with an Iran of 70 million, and the folks who stampeded us into Iraq are firing pistols in the air again.
At the annual Herzliya Conference, U.S. presidential aspirants, neoconservatives and Israeli hawks were all invoking the Holocaust and warning of the annihilation of the Jews.
Israel's "Bibi" Netanyahu, who compares Iran's Ahmadinejad with Hitler, said: "The world that didn't stop the Holocaust last time can stop it this time. ... Who will lead the effort against genocide if not us?"
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
'Comrade Wolf' and the mullahsIn the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing.
We invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, we occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked us. Then, we put troops into Kosovo.
After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia.
Under Bush II, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11.
Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor.
Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point? And when Russian President Putin calls Bush's America "Comrade Wolf," does he not have at least a small patch of ground on which to stand?
Israel's "Bibi" Netanyahu, who compares Iran's Ahmadinejad with Hitler, said: "The world that didn't stop the Holocaust last time can stop it this time. ... Who will lead the effort against genocide if not us?"
Hey, Pat you f*****g moron, why don't you quote Ahmadinajad from any dozen speeches from the past 2 years. He is a hitler. Problem is Pat, you are a hitler fan. Those evil neocons (jews) are up to no good again.
Pat won't be happy until Iran amasses enough peaceful nuclear energy to destroy Israel.....
How did this Cindy Sheehan with a better vocabulary even get a job with Richard Nixon?
The idjit oughta be wearing a turban.
You have nailed it. "Neoconservative" is the code word for Jew.
Buchanan is a nativist anti-semite who shares the leftist view that the world's problems would go away if those damned dirty Jooos would just quietly get in the boxcars and take their showers.
He has become a despicable parody of a 'conservative' - a real-life incarnation of a parody that Jon Stewart (or for that matter Trey parker and Matt Stone) couldn't conjure up in the midst of a tequila-induced nightmare.
Go away Pat!
As Pat notes in the article excerpted in post 1, the problem in the middle east is the United States and it's colonial ambitions, not peace loving Iran. Israel excepted, of course, as they're the root of our problems.
Why is it that the only acceptable Jew to both 'paleocons' like Buchanan and the Commies is an angst-ridden, hand-wringing, neurotic, self-hating wimp like Woody Allen portrays?
I much prefer the self-reliant, industrious, confident type with a yumulke on the head and an Uzi over the shoulder like Israel USED to have.
There are plenty of harsh characterizations of Pat out there, I'll post one of the gentler ones in the next post.
| Pat Buchanan, His Fans, and Anti-Semitism |
MY RECENT REVIEW of Pat Buchanan’s new book, The Death of the West, has triggered some angry letters from Buchanan supporters. Offended at various remarks that I made, my critics are mostly upset at my implication that Buchanan is a racist. One reader writes to me, "Your paranoid feelings are coming out. I read Buchanan’s book, The Death of the West, and I do not get out of it any racial feelings." For a person to read The Death of the West and not "get out of it any racial feelings" is unquestionably quite a feat. This is like spending an entire day hanging around with members of the flat earth society and never getting the hint that something might be a little bit, well, not altogether right. I have studied Pat Buchanan’s philosophy of life for quite a while. Aside from his anti-communism and Catholicism, both of which I deeply respect, his views on other issues do more than just raise my eyebrows. There is one particular realm of Buchanan’s world vision that troubles me the most. I would like to take this opportunity to offer all the Buchanan supporters a summary of this realm. It will probably serve as a great inspiration to them. Let’s begin with an illuminating fact: if you read the criticisms of my review in the Go Postal section, you will find that several Buchanan supporters keep accusingly inquiring if I am a Jew. What does this say about them? Let me give you a clue: Buchanan wrote a real charming book before The Death of the West. In A Republic, Not An Empire, he denied that Adolf Hitler had any malicious intentions toward the West, let alone toward the Jews living there. He also argued that Hitler was forced into pursuing the Final Solution because of British and American intervention in the war. Buchanan’s implication, in other words, was that Hitler wasn’t really responsible for what he did.
Buchanan has described Hitler as a "genius" and "an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War." What feelings or beliefs would motivate a person to make such a tribute to Hitler? Buchanan’s words have always implied that, if Hitler had only entertained designs on Eastern European Jews for his Final Solution, and that as long as this did not affect American interests, then America had no obligation to intervene on purely humane grounds. That’s what Buchanan’s "America First" policy is all about. I can’t help from wondering: what exactly is Buchanan saying about the Holocaust? Buchanan has also shown an obsessive predilection for defending accused Nazi war criminals, every one of whom somehow appear to be innocent in his eyes. What rests behind a man’s passion to distinguish himself in this light? During his infamous defense of John Demjanjuk, Buchanan claimed that Demjanjuk was not the guard he was alleged to be at Treblinka. Buchanan turned out to be right: Demjanjuk was a guard in a different concentration camp. The non-existence of a forthcoming Buchanan apology on Demjanjuk implied that Buchanan believed that he had actually won on this issue. During his defense of Demjanjuk, Buchanan made the intriguing statement that the diesel gas fumes used at Treblinka could not have killed anyone. These diesel gas fumes were used not only at Treblinka, but also at a number of other death camps. Hundreds of thousands of Jews died in these camps. If these victims did not die from diesel gas fumes, then how and why did they die? Would Buchanan be willing to expose his family members, as well as himself, to the same fumes in order to demonstrate his point? During Ronald Reagan’s presidential visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, Buchanan wrote, for Reagan's controversial speech, that the Germans buried there, who included members of SS units and Nazis who participated in Hitler's extermination of the Jews, were "victims of the Nazis just as surely as the victims in concentration camps." Fascinating. Buchanan has also compared the Nazi camps with those set up by Gen. Eisenhower for German prisoners of war. This is a comparison between POWs being held because they are an enemy in war and a group of people who are liquidated because of their race. Buchanan has drawn a parallel between Andrei Sakharov, the great Soviet dissident who was persecuted for, among other things, his courage in standing up for human rights in a totalitarian regime, and Arthur Rudolph, a German rocket scientist who admitted his involvement with slave labor and other atrocities of the Nazi regime. Why would Buchanan do this? During the Gulf War, Buchanan charged that the American intervention was caused by a Jewish conspiracy, which consisted of American Jews conspiring with the Israeli Defense Ministry. On other occasions, he has talked about the "Holocaust survivor syndrome" which, in his view, involves "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics." During these particular interpretations, he put himself in the same league with Holocaust deniers and Holocaust perpetrators by using their favorite vocabulary. Holocaust deniers consistently talk about the "Jewish conspiracy," that pathological fantasy that involves the Jewish control of the media and the banks, the Jewish assault on culture, the Jewish poisoning of the Aryan race, etc. We've heard this all before: in Mein Kampf and in the terminology of Nazi spokesmen who engineered Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald and, yes, Treblinka. What is it that possesses a man to use this vocabulary when he knows full well the ugly context in which it has already been used? After being confronted about the anti-Semitic implications of his words, Buchanan has stated, several times: "I don't retract a single word." Not a single word? Not even a single one? Why? Perhaps Buchanan’s fans can enlighten me.
We have no colonial ambitions in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.
All we want to do is buy oil we need for our lifestyle, at the market price, from people anxious to sell it. We get nervous and sometimes take action when it looks like people interested in stopping the free flow of oil at market prices are likely to get a dominant position in this vital area.
We found the oil, which the natives had no idea was there, drilled for it, set up the production mechanisms, and then acquiesced when the natives essentially confiscated it for themselves.
Why this is colonial is quite beyond me. Find me another example in history of a similar voluntary transfer of such immense wealth from a powerful nation to a group of militarily helpless nations, simply because it fit the powerful nation's legal/moral worldview.
I'm sure pat is NOT really a hitler fan. But he consistently aims far more disparaging remarks at the jews and the "neo-cons" (as if old GOPers Cheney and Rummy and blue blood GWB could ever be considered such) than he EVER would dream of aiming towards Saddam, Mad Mahmoud, baby Assad or any other evil pile of excrement. He would be happy with the destruction of Israel, because he certainly does not believe they have a right to take out overtly hostile regimes.
That was my paraphrasing of Pat's and Putin's "Comrade Wolf" characterization of the US in post 1.
Personally I think protection of the flow of oil is legitimate, for the world not just us, is a legitimate interest, one worth going to war for, and certainly not colonialization. Of course Pat would disagree that even the first Gulf war was related to protecting our oil supplies/suppliers.
I wouldn't call him a fan. In view of his consistant defence of Nazis facing deportation, contrasted with his otherwise tough immigration stance, as well as his dabbling in Holocaust denial would suggest he doesn't see any particular evil afoot in 1930s, 1940s Germany. Just another European war we might have better not gotten involved in.
No, though he was quite willing to turn a blind eye to Nazi conduct and ambitions, not viewing them as much different that the Brits. Or presumably the Czechs and Poles. Unlike todays anti-war movements, the America First movement made an effort to dissociate itself from radical groups like the Bund and, amazing today, they disbanded once the war began. You'll also note a conviction that the war, then thought of as a single front European war, was one America couldn't win.
As a note of interest, Lindburgh's famous 1941 Iowa speech was given on September 11.
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.