Posted on 02/14/2006 3:05:20 PM PST by SJackson
Let me preface the main point of this column by saying I like Pat Buchanan.
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.
I have tried to reason with Pat Buchanan over the one critical area of disagreement between us – Israel and the Middle East.
I once had the notion of putting together a fact-finding trip to the Middle East for Pat Buchanan, certain that an intelligent and reasonable man like him would be able to clearly see the truth of the conflict if only it was presented to him as I know the facts.
I have resisted clarion calls from readers for years to dump Pat Buchanan's column from WND because of his strange and twisted views of the Middle East – views that seem incomprehensible to me based on what Buchanan says he believes about truth, right and wrong and his American first worldview.
But upon reading Pat Buchanan's column yesterday in WND, I am coming to the conclusion that there is more at work here than a simple disagreement – a moral blind spot in his view of the world.
In case you missed it, Buchanan actually turned his back on a lifetime of principled opposition to foreign aid to support it for the new Hamas government in the Palestinian Authority.
To say I was flabbergasted would be an understatement. Buchanan rails against so-called "neo-conservatives" for not being mature, for being arrogant and for not being faithful to his own paleo-conservative views. As someone who subscribes to neither the "neo-conservative" nor paleo-conservative view of the world, let me suggest that it is Pat Buchanan who is selling out on principle.
I believe foreign aid is immoral and unconstitutional. I believe it is wrong to redistribute money confiscated by force from U.S. taxpayers to any foreign government. As a freedom-loving constitutionalist who still believes in limited government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, I believe it is wrong to confiscate money by force from U.S. citizens for the purpose of redistributing it – even inside the United States. I'm incredulous, frankly, when any so-called "conservative" – neo or paleo – attempts to justify such a thing. But for someone who calls himself a "conservative" to suggest that it is appropriate to give away U.S. taxpayer dollars to a terrorist quasi-government of a non-existent state that hates everything the United States stands for defies reason.
But that's just what Pat Buchanan did yesterday in suggesting Hamas should be placed on "probation" with U.S. aid continuing to flow to the barbarian thugs and murderers who now control the Palestinian Authority – an entity, by the way, that has always been controlled by barbarian thugs and murderers.
It is flip-flops like this on matters of absolute principle by conservatives that has forced me to distance myself from all conservatives.
Bush was wrong to aid lifelong, unrepentant terrorists Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas with U.S. dollars. And Buchanan is equally wrong to defend foreign aid to the lifelong terrorists of Hamas.
Foreign aid is wrong. By defending it in this instance, Buchanan is guilty of the worst kind of moral relativism. In fact, he's so wrong that I must coin a new term to describe it. It's not "moral relativism" Pat Buchanan is employing in his defense of the Hamas regime, it is "immoral relativism."
It would be the moral equivalent of trying to buy off al-Qaida.
Al-Qaida and Hamas are kissing cousins. They are strategic allies. They are our enemies – and the enemies of all freedom-loving people.
Yet, Pat Buchanan, who as recently as December 2004 wrote passionately against foreign aid in all its ugly forms, has changed his tune.
Now, I am known as a passionate supporter and defender of the state of Israel – the largest single recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world. But I believe that all foreign aid should be ended because I, like most Americans, oppose it on principle. It is wrong. It is always wrong. And, as is the case with most things that are wrong, it is counterproductive even when justified with the very best of intentions and rationalizations.
Just as it is wrong and counterproductive to place an able-bodied American on welfare, it is madness to give welfare to nations – able-bodied or not. It is an injustice to the people who are forced to pay the bill and it is an injustice to the recipients. Wrong is wrong. And two wrongs do not make a right.
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.
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.