1) On many of his points you cannot call him a liar.
2) He wrote a book on how we could have avoided WW2. Hard to believe we had that much control.
3) His choice for ‘running mate’ in the Reform Party(2000?). A communist. It tells me that he’s in it for the publicity-shock value.
Still he is a voice that should be heard.
It's not a 'war of civilizations', it's a war WITH civilization.................
He’s a vile man. William F. Buckley actually wrote the definitive work about Buchanan’s anti-Semitism. He compares Buchanan and Joe Sobran, and concludes that Sobran is psychologically obsessed with Jews, and also hates Israel, but is not technically an anti-Semite, but Buchanan is.
OK This is wrong...
Buchanan is more of an ‘isolationist’ who thinks the USA should not be poking its head into the business of every country on the planet, including Israel, but that does NOT make him an “anti-semite”
He is not a jew-hater any more than he is a muslim hatrer or anythign else.
He just disagrees that the USA has a policy to interfere in other countries (all of them, not just israel, and he has been consistent in that belief for decades)
I am not saying I AGREE with him, I think the USA has National Interests in helping to protect Israel, that he does not see. I just disagree with that making him an ‘anti-jew’ (which is what anti-semite means)
Sorry, but Buchanan opposing the Neocon obsession for perpetual U.S. war in the ME does not make Buchanan an anti-Semite.
I am not familiar with the author, but I suspect his attack on Buchanan has a lot to do with the author’s agreement with Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, William Bennett, the Wall Street Journal, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, Trent Franks, John McCain, etc., etc. in never-ending involvement in wars in that part of the world.
Instead of the author’s obsession with tarring Buchanan for not wanting to get involved in ME wars, how about the author directing a little attention to the internal rot in our country? Buchanan has been fighting that, particularly the mass importation of bottom feeders to our country by our leftist immigration policy. Which policy is supported by several of the persons that the author names as opposed to Buchanan.
The Hitler and Himmler photo is too much.
It detracts from the author’s point and undermines his objectivity.
He was right with regards to the persecution of Demanjuk. A former Red Army soldier whose only choice was either cooperate with the Nazis, or face death at their hands.
The Germans went after Demanjuk, only because they were so anxious to try to tell the world that it wasn’t only Germans that participated in the Holocaust.
And there certainly are Jews who hold Israel in even more contempt than Buchanan does.
I do think he does fall too much though for the “International Jew Finance Rules the World” garbage, though.
The Ten Worst U.S. Free Speech Opponents, #6 ?
I recall when liberals and Rockefeller Republicans called us Goldwater supporters Purveyors of Hate because we dared to disagree with them.
Pat was a fine Republican in the eyes of the establishment until he ran for president. Then suddenly he was an isolationist and an anti Semite.
Pat did nothing compared to a bottle of urine in a New York museum or the constant war against Christianity by the ACLU.
Pat is effective and speaks honestly to many Americans.
I have always found that any criticism of jews, criticism of blacks, etc. no matter how well reasoned and accurate is either anti-semitism or racism.
This is a vile article. It equates Judaism with Israel and thus lack of support for Israel with antisemitism. Both are untrue. While Buchanan has often expressed concerned with what he considers an unbalanced support for the State of Israel that is detrimental to U.S. interests, he has never made any attacks against Judaism. His opposition to support for Israel comes from a desire for an isolationist foreign policy not antisemitism. To equate the two is malicious and beyond the pale.
A desire for a return for a more traditional, detached American foreign policy is not anti-semitism. A lot of conservatives still revere George Washington’s advice to keep the world at arm’s length.
I’ve never liked Buchanan.
PJ Media, like its founders Glenn Reynolds, Ed Morrisey, Bill Whittle, et al, has a firmly neoconservative foreign policy perspective.
Along with the neoconservative foreign policy, they have adopted the neocon mode of attack against the old right- accusing its members of being isolationist and antisemitic.
So, how does one state that AIPAC has too much influence on US foreign policy without opening oneself to the charge of antisemitism?
I pointed this out at another site a few years ago about him and boy was I jumped on. I pointed out his own website where he has his book online. You can quote chapter and verse and there were still people who did not believe me about him. He thinks Hitler should have been left alone by us!
Buchanan has a corner in the salon of the commentariat, a unique position like each and everyone of them. If he abandoned it, he’d either have to find himself another hobby horse or lose the gig altogether. It’s little more than a game. Giggling all the way to the bank, bank on it!
Oh, and the anti-semitism angle is another profitable corner and gig out there.
By the way, is Pajamas Media Pajama Boy’s tribune?