Replies

>> BTW Siding w/ what’s best for America is not siding w/ Islamicists. <<

Apparently, Buchanan will side with anyone who wants to kill as many Jews as possible, no matter how great of a threat they pose to the United States. If you want to explain why it’s in the United States’ best interest to allow an Iranian-backed death cult to bomb the only democracy, I’m all ears. But Buchanan’s logic of “They have to be evil... they’re JOOOOOZZ and they rule the world!” doesn’t impress me.

>> Talking this way about the president is BDS. <<

Yes, Buchanan does have BDS.

>> Or it’s true, which is worse yet. <<

Or, it has seeds of truth, which are being feverishly spun.
Put it this way: If Richard Nixon found out that the British Foreign Minister were about to vote for a resolution declaring that the United States were criminal to have bombed Cambodian targets in Viet Nam, we would be very grateful to hear that the Prime Minister or Queen interrupted a local speech to stop it. And if there were some Republicans griping that the British didn’t have our back, we’d think it quite proper for the President to point out that the PM interrupted the speech to do something about it. And we’d all sneer at anyone in the Guardian who called the PM the American President’s lap dog.

With the derogatory language Buchanan tells the story, sure it sounds like Ohlmert is boasting that Bush is acting like a lap dog, but that’s Buchanan’s language, not Ohlmert. If an unbiased listener REALLY though Ohlmert was speaking offensively, Buchanan wouldn’t have had to resort to inserting language like “Bush did as told,” “Bush was clueless,” etc.

Ohlmert never said that; Buchanan did. Wouldn’t you like to know why Buchanan couldn’t put quotes around “Ohlmert’s remarks” when he relates Sean McCormack’s response? Maybe what McCormack called “totally untrue” was the sort of characterization of the remarks that Buchanan is relaying?
After all, the U.S. did NOT vote in favor of what Rice had drafted.

As for your logic, it’s equivalent to me saying, “The National Review wrote that Pat Buchanan is a Nazi.” Gee, if it’s false, then the National Review is a liar; if it’s true, that’s even worse! The third option is that the statement is a gross mischaracterization of what the National Review wrote.