He seems further to reduce the issue to two options, either a limited "Get binLaden and AlQeida' position, or a broad-brush "Get international terrorism the world over start a World religious War." And, simplistically, nothing in between.
This is always Buchanan's failing: a static, black-and-white world view with definite answers independent of the flow of subsequent events.
In fact, the equation changes daily. Right now, the tide is being taken at the flood through the visible leadership of Bush, and the world's perception of America's awesome potential being stirred in wrath.
Why else would all these cheesy Mideast dictators be falling all over themselves to kiss up to the U.S.? They believe George Bush means it. They know he's no candy-ass BillyBoy, and suspect he might just be Reagan II.
And they believe he won't be as genteel as his father was. Sharon, for example, got introduced to Texas plain talk just today. If GW talks like that to our friends, how do you think he comes across to craven on-the-fence cowards like the satraps of Syria and Sudan and the rest? Why do you think Saudi's suddenly collapsed and welcomed us back to our command center on Saudi soil after posturing in opposition for a short time?
Point is, the editors of opinion mags are irrelevant to GW, and Buchanan's reference to them as if they were a force reflects only his own limited pundit worldview. Bush is on the world stage creating history before our eyes, and Pat can't see it--he's too busy worrying about what little Billy Kristol thinks.
However, I do believe that list was well salted with other than pundits, including some in his administration. I think Buchanan had them in mind also. This is a battle for the mind and heart of G.W.
You might think that these folks have no influence but his Dad was taken in my the likes of Rudman and Sununu on Court appointment Souter. Bush needs more people, in additon to Buchanan, to speak out for his position. Otherwise these 'pundits' press megaphones will stampede his Texas plain talk.