Posted on 02/14/2006 3:05:20 PM PST by SJackson
I have always liked Pat Buchanan.
I have always considered him to be a thoughtful, moral man.
I voted for Pat Buchanan in his failed 1992 primary bid against President Bush.
I have defended Pat Buchanan against charges that he was an anti-Semite.
Shame on you. But you know better now, don't you?
Pat Buchanan will betray every "principal" he has in order to be against Jews and Israel. That is the only real "principal" the man has.
This is the bastard who rails and screams about Mexican co-religionists because they are racially alien to North America ("aryan" territory) but then turns around and supports Arabs and moslems everywhere, including making campaign speeches to them promising them all kinds of goodies. "Palaeos" love the "mud" moslems because they kill the race-mixing Jews who are filling aryan America with Catholic Mexicans.
What would motivate a man to turn his back on lifelong, principled opposition to that kind of wrong by defending the indefensible idea of aiding our sworn enemies with money picked out of the pockets of hard-working Americans?
I guess we'll have to ask Pat Buchanan for the answer.
Oh come now. If you don't already know the answer you are way too dense to have anyone's respect, Mr. Farah.
Lot's of inconsistancies. The aversion to Mexican Catholics is certainly one of them.
It's simple, really. Mexicans are a weapon used by "Zionist Jews" to water down "aryan" America. Arabs kill Jewish Zionists. Therefore Arabs and "aryans" are on the same page and the sooner the Zionist State disappears the sooner the Mexicans flood back to where they belong.
Pat Buchanan, contrary to popular belief, is not an orthodox Catholic but a racialist (albeit his racialism does not include the traditional aversion to American Blacks). To him Catholicism is the tribal religion of Western European Man and he has no co-religionists outside that ethnic community. Mexicans are simply a different tribe with a different civilization and a different "gxd" and J*sus.
This utter failure to live up to its theoretical universalism seem endemic to chr*stianity (traceable ultimately to incarnationism and the introduction of plurality into G-d, has vechalilah). I've actually written an essay on the subject at my web site, if you're interested.
In a nutshell, he makes the point that Bush's policies got us in this pickle by saying that they wanted democratic elections, and now that the elections did not go our way, you can't be bad sports at the expense of our enemies making great propaganda hay of it.
Buchanan recommends that rather than cutting off aid, to put the new government on probation. Make the conditions clear so that they lose the aid through their noncompliance, not through our reneging on the deal.
People, read it for yourself! Post number 1 of this thread has a link to it.
Why don't you read the frickin artilce for yourself and find out? There is a link to it in post number one.
Calling Buchanan a Nazi is cheap slander.
Some Bush idolaters just can't handle criticism of "His Majesty".
Let's face it folks. Bush is a human being. And, sometimes he screws up just like you or I sometimes screw up.
Do you call your critics Nazis?
You might have missed it, but post number 1 is mine.
Pat is proposing financial support for a designated terrorist group. By the government, not personally, I know, that would be a crime.
You support a man who has embraced the values of Islam over "Hillary and Hollywood", and who would be pleased to be seeing Sadaam entering his 15th year in control of upwards of 50% of the world's oil.
I don't.
To you he's a prophet, to me he's Dan Rather light. With a big touch of Cindy Sheehan.
I've seen your posts for a long time here on FR, and I respect you. But, you've got to read what Buchanan is saying. Not what is being said that he wrote.
He is not advocating that we support Ha mas. He is saying that because of our preexisting policy, we are already supporting the Palestinian government.
We support free elections in the Islamic world. Big surprise! The Paestinians voted in a bunch of terrorist. Who would have thunk it? Well, apparently the Bush administration didn't.
And, that's all Buchanan is pointing out.
Once you state a policy that you're supporting democracy and the democratic process blows up in your face, you can't just take your marbles and stomp home without looking like a real ass.
Bush is in a pickle. And, Buchanan is proposing a plan virtually identical to what Bush said in the state of union address. That is to demand that the Palestinian government meet conditions to remain eligible for aid. Put it upon their shoulders. And, if and when they don't live up to their end of the deal, pull the aid.
For that, Buchanan is called a Nazi by the ignorami on this site who won't even take the time to read what he wrote.
What a crock.
BTW, His name is spelled Jesus. It has five letters. Don't treat it like a four letter word.
In my view, he's a newsperson. Nothing more.
Bush made a mistake in allowing Hamas to run, in violation of the Oslo Accords. However, as you put it, democratic process blows up in your face, yes, you can pick up your marbles and go home. The US has no obligation to Hamas, supporting a government in which Hamas participates is in violation of our commitment to Oslo. I'll leave the Road Map nonsense out of it. I'm not thrilled with the Bush administration on lots of things, including this one, but it's perfectly legitimate to withold aid from a terrorist state. We have no existing policy to support terrorists. IMO a terrorist state for at least a decade, if the Bush admisistration is just getting clued in, so be it. Remember, if you or I were to support Hamas, we'd go to jail. Pat is way off base here.
A day's old thread, but I read your essay and you're on target.
I did not say you called Buchanan a Nazi, but that there are people posting on this thread who have.
And, if he has issues with Israel, so what? Israel is a foreign government that acts in their own best interest, which in MANY cases are not in the best interest of the United States.
...but it's perfectly legitimate to withhold aid from a terrorist state.
Of course it is. And we will. All Buchanan is saying is that the new Palestinian government has to demonstrate its terrorist nature before the aid can be pulled. He said virtually the same thing as Bush in his state of the union speech.
I suggest you reread his article.
I've read his article. The nature of the state is defined by the majority party, Hamas, a designated terrorist group. One, I might mention, with ambitions beyond the middle east. Beyond Europe, having threatened attacks in the US. Acknowledged to have operative cells and financing arms in the US. The most recent busted yesterday in Ohio. We have no "obligation", legal or moral, to continue aid. Though we will clearly provide "humanitarian" aid. As to Pat, the concept flies in the face of his opposition to all foreign aid.
1.) I didn't post the question to which you're responding. You're whining to the wrong poster.
2.) Learn how to spell the word "article" correctly.
Pretend I was referring to the Mexican J*sus, the arch-foe of your and Buchanan's "aryan" J*sus.
Hey! Move all the Mexicans to the Middle East and fill Mexico up with your and Buchanan's "honorary aryan" Arab/moslem buddies! That'll forever protect "aryan America" from the "muds!"
There were SS officers that were probably polite and gentlemanly.
You can't be an antisemite AND a "good guy". They are mutually exclusive.
If you don't know who a man's enemies are, you are incapable of accurately judging his character.
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.