AmCon Blog

I'm not a paleocon myself (obviously) but I also think it's clear that one reason U.S. politics has gotten so out of whack over the past several years is that the balance within the GOP coalition has shifted so decisively against the paleo faction. For that and other reasons, a stronger paleo voice in the world is, in my view, a good thing and The American Conservative magazine has, over the years, published many valuable articles (also some crazy stuff) that I doubt would have seen the light of day elsewhere. This throat-clearing by way of welcoming AmCon's new blog to the 'sphere.

Comments

No comments.

Thus, not a blog.

Posted by Brautigan | April 8, 2008 9:40 AM

Blame the Civil Rights movement for discrediting paleo-conservatism to the point of annihilation.

Posted by Chris | April 8, 2008 9:44 AM

I read every post on the page, and that is some caustic stuff. Their unvarnished contempt for the Bushists is striking.

It sounds like the paleos at TAC have had quite enough of the neocon cult and are declaring ideological war.

Posted by UncommonSense | April 8, 2008 9:51 AM

Re Matthew's comment "The American Conservative magazine has, over the years, published many valuable articles (also some crazy stuff) that I doubt would have seen the light of day elsewhere"
--------------
I concur.

1) For example, Pat Buchanan's March 24, 2003 article "Whose War?" --condemming the Neocons for
the war on Iraq: http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

2) I liked his bitchy definition of "Neocon":

"Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980...
Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power. "

3) Although I think Pat overlooked the influence of Big Oil and the allure of the world's second largest oil reserve.

In the love affair between Cheney and the Neocons, it's not clear who was ..er.. in the passive position.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 9:54 AM

Blame the Civil Rights movement for discrediting paleo-conservatism to the point of annihilation.

Yeah, those stupid civil rights activists, with their pointing out that the paleoconservative racists were, you know, racist and stuff.

Posted by mightygodking | April 8, 2008 9:58 AM

Chris,
When you put it that way, the paleos had it coming. They should have read the scriptures a little better and repented their sins before the messanger blew them away.
Let us also not let Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol off the hook for being plain old evil. Men who thought they could teach a cadre of thinkers to run America behind the curtain of power. What vanity.

It's not about liberalism. The historical truth is that Liberalism is always America's road not taken.

Posted by Northern Observer | April 8, 2008 9:59 AM

1) One fallacy I found in the American Conservative was a belief that people act according to ideological systems -- hence, their passion for deciding into which philosophical bin an opponent fits and for attacking systems of thought.

2) Which is bullshit in today's America.

Face it, in our country many political actors -- ESPECIALLY in the Republican Party -- are utterly amoral whores who never heard of Trotsky, Edmund Burke or Aristotle.

It's far more reasonable to identify WHERE someone is damaging the national interest and to identify WHY -- i.e. the power group from which they get money and whose agenda they are serving.

3) I despise much of Pat Buchanan's domestic policies -- but I agree with his views that some political factions are badly damaging this country for self-serving reasons.

That , in the end, our loyalties are owed to our fellow countrymen, not to some political organization that is betraying America.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 10:07 AM

Not that I have any love for the Neocons, nor do I entirely disagree with their definition, but if you replace "neoconservatives" with "Jews" in that quote from "Whose War?" it seems as though Pat Buchanan has found a clever way to disguise and vent some pretty boilerplate antisemitism.

Posted by Ryno | April 8, 2008 10:11 AM

1) I mean , the very idea that George Bush would READ a tract on a political philosophy --much less have his actions guided by it -- is hilarious.

2) George Bush is an alcoholic who was rescued from bankruptcy by rich friends. Everything he has has been GIVEN to him.

Hence,There's not a great deal of difference between George W's political decision-making and a laboratory rat pressing a button to receive a food treat.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 10:15 AM

Matt you should have no need to apologise for recommending the AC--they have far, far, far more trenchant critiques of the neocon insanity than I can find anywhere, bar none. As soon as I saw the Sycophant Savior I knew these people were going places that nobody even seemed to know existed, and somebody needs to go there. (I am by no means anti-military and think enormously highly of people like Scott Ritter--no pacifist liberal--and Ron Paul.)

I agree with Brautigan; it is no blog without the comments.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 8, 2008 10:17 AM

"Not that I have any love for the Neocons, nor do I entirely disagree with their definition, but if you replace "neoconservatives" with "Jews" in that quote from "Whose War?" it seems as though Pat Buchanan has found a clever way to disguise and vent some pretty boilerplate antisemitism.

Posted by Ryno | April 8, 2008 10:11 AM"

I agree. This is a bit of a sticking point for me. Buchanan is the one guy who was right about the war for the wrong reasons, thinking is was all about the Jews. That hints at a bigger problem with American conservativism in general. Some of the better right-wing anti-neocon foreign policy minds, most famously James Baker III, are also notoriously anti-Semitic ("fuck the Jews") and can't explain the existence of gentile neocons, including ones as prominent as a certain someone who has been our ambassador to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, non-neocon non-anti-Semitic conservative foreign policy advisors like Kissinger are just plain evil. Kissinger also plays the weird role of being almost universally hated by neocons while also being kind of a career-and-ideological grandfather to many prominent members of the movement as well.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 10:29 AM

Re Ryno's comment " it seems as though Pat Buchanan has found a clever way to disguise and vent some pretty boilerplate antisemitism."
----------------

1) Strange then that Jewish American Michael Lind (currently of the New American Foundation ) was making many of the same points as Pat Buchanan over at Antiwar.com in April 2003. See
"How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War" at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

2) Also strange that Jewish American Thomas Friedman --of the New York Times -- made similar points in an interview with Israel's Haaretz. See

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

3) What is anti-semitic,in my opinion, is the idea that the Neocons' betrayal of this country is approved of by American Jews as a whole.

But that idea seems pushed more by the supporters of Likud in the Israel Lobby than by Pat Buchanan.

4) I take it that no one disagrees with Buchanan's explanation of HOW the Neocons exert their influence?

Because it's been clear for some time that the US News Media disseminates deceitful propaganda, not a truthful picture of reality. It's also been clear for some time that that media is owned by --and controlled by --a few wealthy men.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 10:51 AM

I have a lot of respect for the paleocon foreign policy perspective, but I think they are more or less in the same position of the 'old Right' that they often look back on (non-interventionist 'Robert Taft' wing of the party c. 1950) - 9/11, like the Korean War, has inflamed the base to the point that paleocon viewpoints simply lack popular grounding.

Posted by faux facsimile | April 8, 2008 10:58 AM

Praise for AmCon? I suspect some people will be taking the opportunity to smear MY with a reference to a certain pioneering aviator ...

Posted by otto | April 8, 2008 11:11 AM

Matthew just likes to wave a red flag at Marty occasionally -- the same way one toys with a hilariously aggressive little lapdog which thinks it's four times bigger than it really is.

If Marty falls for it, then Matthew gets to smack Marty across the rump with a rolled up copy of the Atlantic.

It's one way to pass a slow day.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 11:23 AM

"Not that I have any love for the Neocons, nor do I entirely disagree with their definition, but if you replace "neoconservatives" with "Jews" in that quote from "Whose War?" it seems as though Pat Buchanan has found a clever way to disguise and vent some pretty boilerplate antisemitism."

Pat Buchanin is an Anti-Semite. He's also a homophobe and a misogynist and a racist. If there is a just God, he'll burn in hell for all eternity.

I find little reason to rely on such filth to decry the lunacy of Pax Americana. If the paleo conservatives have found discomfort in American imperialism, fine. But I'd rather counter that insanity without relying on the "insaner".

"I'm not a paleocon myself (obviously) but I also think it's clear that one reason U.S. politics has gotten so out of whack over the past several years is that the balance within the GOP coalition has shifted so decisively against the paleo faction."

And to be fair, we are all a bit complicit in allowing this to happen. Fear has turned us into its willing slave but thankfully a preponderance of us seem to have recovered. BTW, the above complicity refers to the "out of whack" part. I could give a shit for the paleo faction.

Posted by Rihilism | April 8, 2008 11:25 AM

Amelia Earhart?

Posted by beowulf | April 8, 2008 11:26 AM

Once you start playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"-games, you have committed intellectual suicide.

Posted by novakant | April 8, 2008 11:31 AM

Re novakant's "Once you start playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"-games, you have committed intellectual suicide."
--------------
Same is true once you start playing "the wealthy owners of my candidate are my friends" -games.

See http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=9963

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 11:39 AM

Re Rehilism's comment "Pat Buchanin is an Anti-Semite"
--------
Evidence please?

Here is what Buchanan said in his AmCom article that I cited above:

"Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon."

Anyone remember Ariel Sharon sending Bibi Nathanyahu over in 2002 to tell the US Congress that they needed to take out Saddam before Saddam used his nukes??

So has Mossad found those nukes yet?

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 11:48 AM

"Not that I have any love for the Neocons, nor do I entirely disagree with their definition, but if you replace "neoconservatives" with "Jews" in that quote from "Whose War?" it seems as though Pat Buchanan has found a clever way to disguise and vent some pretty boilerplate antisemitism.

I agree. This is a bit of a sticking point for me. Buchanan is the one guy who was right about the war for the wrong reasons, thinking is was all about the Jews.

I must say that I find these sort of comments by our friends "Ryno" and "Reality Man" to be totally hilarious.

And "Reality Man" really needs to change his name---and fast! Imagine the potential legal damages from "false advertising" lawsuits...

Posted by RKU | April 8, 2008 12:00 PM

RKU, Pat Buchanan has been pretty adamant in trying to conflate neoconservatism with Judaism and Zionism. While a lot of neocons are Jewish, a disproportionate amount of the foreign policy elites of any major foreign policy school of thought in the US are Jewish because a disproportionate amount of Jewish-Americans are well educated. After all, black Protestants and Jewish-Americans were the two most solidly anti-war religious-ethnic groups at the time the war was launched. He also had a long track record of anti-Semitism and weird praise for Hitler long before the Iraq War. We are talking about a guy who wrote a book called "Death of the West" because we're supposedly being taking over by the children of Latino, Muslim and Asian hordes (the latter including myself). He also wrote how African-Americans should be thankful for how they've historically been treated in the US, including slavery and forced conversion to Christianity. Much of Buchanan's writing on the war seems to be little more than Mel Gibson's drunken rant with more multisyllabic words. A lot of people deserve credit for being against this war, especially people like Molly Ivons who predicted exactly why this was a bad idea, but Buchanan is simply a blind chicken that for once pecked a seed.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 12:40 PM

Use any description that you please, these guys were railing against the Bush administration's authoritarianism and imperialism well before the end of Bush's first term, and seriously endorsed Kerry as the better candidate for President. Any conservative who understands that Kerry would have been a better President than Bush is a patriot in good standing so far as I'm concerned. There are serious differences between the Left and the Right, but the more serious differnces are between supporters of democracy versus Bush-neocon authoritarians. In that more important fight, we're on the same side with these guys.

Posted by johnrobert | April 8, 2008 12:57 PM

The American Conservative endorsed every single candidate in 2004. It just published separate editorials giving the paleocon case for supporting all of them, including Nader. We don't need more people on the right thinking that UN black helicopters and Jews will force their daughters to smoke ecstasy pills and get abortions, but more people like Julian Sanchez that are conservatives in an actual small government sense instead of just being wedded to a romantic view of the 1950's and Ozzy and Harriet.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 1:05 PM

Re Reality Man's comment "RKU, Pat Buchanan has been pretty adamant in trying to conflate neoconservatism with Judaism and Zionism "
----------------
Buchanan is not saying that all Jews are Neocons. He hasn't even said that all Neocons are Jews. What he has said is that the Neocons manipulated the USA into an unnecessary war for the benefit of Israel -- and that that is a betrayal of the US, given the lives we have lost.

Again, provide evidence. If Buchanan is an anti-semite, provide citations.

Here is what Buchanan said in his AMCon article:

"President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservatives allies inside his own Big Tent.

Yet, if Bush cannot deliver Sharon there can be no peace. And if there is no peace in the Mideast there is no security for us, ever—for there will be no end to terror. As most every diplomat and journalist who travels to the region will relate, America’s failure to be even-handed, our failure to rein in Sharon, our failure to condemn Israel’s excesses, and our moral complicity in Israel’s looting of Palestinian lands and denial of their right to self-determination sustains the anti-Americanism in the Islamic world in which terrorists and terrorism breed.

Let us conclude. The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights. As a nation, we have made a moral commitment, endorsed by half a dozen presidents, which Americans wish to honor, not to permit these people who have suffered much to see their country overrun and destroyed. And we must honor this commitment.

But U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America’s best friend.”

------------
I agree. I think the US government should have knocked the Likud's teeth out long ago.

When Sharon used US-supplied F16s to bomb a Gaza apartment building in the middle of the night --killing several children -- the Islamic world blamed us-- and Al Qaeda probably got another bunch of recruits.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 1:17 PM

Evidence please?

Go google it - and if you can't find any evidence of his antisemitism, that might well be because you seem to be afflicted by similar obsessions.

Posted by novakant | April 8, 2008 1:25 PM

"Evidence please?"

My apologies, I was not referring to Mr. Buchanin's statements or lack thereof in this particular article. I was referring to Mr. Buchanin, the man, the public figure, the friggin' nut-bag. The man's statements regarding Hitler and the Holocaust are public record. As are his statements regarding women, non-whites, and gays.

It has nothing to do with whether his fears of American Imperialism are well founded. They are, of course. Even a raving paranoid lunatic can be right sometimes. It's about the wisdom of choosing such a man as the source material in such a vital argument.

novakant expressed it eloquently enough. Embracing such a hideous figure plays directly into the hands of those who dishonestly wish to make the entire issue of Pax Americana simply an issue of Anti-Semitism. How better to affirm that dishonesty than to embrace a real life Anti-Semite?

Posted by Rihilism | April 8, 2008 1:26 PM

Rihilism,

It's true that Buchanan has had a bug up his ass about Jews for most of his career, but I don't know if he deserves to "burn in hell" for that. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, no matter how objectionable you are I might find them. Acting on those thoughts is a different story.

Buchanan happens to be an excellent writer and polemicist, and is well worth reading, whether you agree with his politics or not.

Posted by Fred | April 8, 2008 1:39 PM

Considering how Buchanan has called people of mixed brown-and-white heritage like myself more or less mud people, he can go fuck his racist ass with a chainsaw.

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 1:49 PM

Here is the wikipedia entry discussing the long running dispute between Buchanan and charges of so-called anti-semitism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#Israel_and_accusations_of_anti-Semitism

While Buchanan obviously strongly dislikes the Israel Lobby , I see nothing that proves anti-semitism. (Unless we go with the definition that an Anti-Semite is anyone who wins an argument with Norman Podhoretz.)

Unless someone provides additional citations or evidence, I keep that judgment.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 1:50 PM

"In that more important fight, we're on the same side with these guys."

Like hell I am! I refuse to legitimize or endorse a single word frothing from Pat "Culture War" Buchanin's clenched teeth. May as well embrace and adore Marat during the height of the French Revolution. People like Buchanin do not operate in the normal spheres of human behavior. Their vitriol and bile is endless and once they've dimished or defeated one target, they embrace another because their entire being is based on conflict.

But not just any conflict. Conflict that he and his hyper-ego can lead and rally the "troops" around. I assure that if we were not in the midst of this global nightmare, Patty-boy would be looking for a new enemy to rail against. Some new and improved spectral threat to Western civilization that must be "cleansed before mankind can be made whole again". His decisions here is much more likely motivated by his ineffectual and dimished voice during this particular conflict and his unceasing desire to remain relevant.

The man is evil incarnate and there lies madness! Madness, I tells ya!

All right, a bit of hyperbolae. But I'm telling ya, than man is not well and not to be trusted under any circumstances.

Posted by Rihilism | April 8, 2008 1:51 PM

Re novakant's comment "if you can't find any evidence of his antisemitism, that might well be because you seem to be afflicted by similar obsessions."
-------------
novakant, all I did was ask you to produce evidence to support your strong claim. As I noted above, I checked the wiki article on Pat Buchanan. People can look at that article and decide for themselves. If you have anything to add, then add it.

Matthew posted the link to AmCon. If you are going to say we shouldn't even read AmCon then tell us why.

if I have ever posted anything false or unfair, then point it out and I will consider it. If I'm wrong I will acknowledge it.

Otherwise, take your dirty little smear and go fuck yourself.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 1:58 PM

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553

"In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)

Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction.

Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was "running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87)

Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests -- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were "Americans first" -- and repeatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)

After Cardinal O'Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote: "If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." (New Republic, 10/22/90)

The Buchanan '96 campaign's World Wide Web site included an article blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad -- and alleging that Foster and Hillary Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/21/96.)

In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan declared: "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." (ADL Report, 1994)"

It's also worth checking out his views on just about every other group that is not a straight WASP male at the link. Molly Ivons summed up Pat Buchanan best when writing on his culture war speech at the 1992 RNC: "It probably sounded better in the original German."

Posted by Reality Man | April 8, 2008 2:07 PM

Don Williams,

See here: Pat Buchanan's Skeleton Closet.

It's an old site, but worth reading nonetheless. And the author isn't some inveterate Buchanan-basher. For example, he writes of Buchanan,

He is very smart, a brilliant polemicist and strategist, an excellent stump speaker, and surprisingly funny (much funnier than Rush Limbaugh, who is overrated).He seems to have had a genuine conversion to concern for the declining wages and lost jobs among blue collar workers, which fuels his economic nationalism.

Here is the site on allegations of Buchanan's antisemitism (more accurately, anti-Jewism. The characterization here of Wall Street being "WASP-dominated" is a little dated):

Buchanan knows his words, and even his most outrageous statements always fall just short of blatantly going over the line. But one group always seems to bother him -- Jews.

Anti-Semitism isn't cut or dried: Lots of Americans grew up hearing anti-Jewish slurs, and many keep some of that with them. William Safire (Buchanan's colleague on the Nixon speechwriting team) put it this way: Buchanan is an extremist whose anti-Semitism would rank at level four or five -- on a scale that has Adolf Hitler at 10 and Black Muslim leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan as a seven.

When he attacks the Supreme Court, he always names "Ruth (pause) Bader (pause) Ginsburg", though she is the newest and least influential member. When he attacks Wall Street investment firms, he always names Goldman Sachs, the only major Jewish-run firm in a WASP dominated industry.

He described Congress as "Israeli-occupied territory", and opposed the Gulf War by saying only "the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States" wanted to fight Saddam Hussein. (Which was crazy, apart from any Jewish angle. Desert Storm was one of the most popular wars in U.S. history.)

And Brock Meeks, reporter for Hotwired, broke the story that Buchanan included in his official World Wide Web page an article claiming that Hillary Clinton is a spy for Israel. After ABC News ran the story, the Buchanan campaign pulled the article off their site. You can see the article, exactly as it appeared on Pat's web site, by clicking here.

Buchanan also seems to relish Catholic vs. Jewish antagonism, one part of pre-Vatican II Catholicism that most Catholics don't miss. During the controversy over a proposed Carmelite convent at Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote some of his most frightening words:

"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him, 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic...it's deep within them,' when he declares this 'is not a fight between Catholics and Jews,' he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume role of defender of the faith."

Appeasement means trying to stall an attacker by making concessions -- what attacks were Catholic groups "appeasing"? What did Pat think the faith should be defended against? The only issue was that Jewish groups thought it disrespectful to build a convent right next to a major Holocaust death camp. The man clearly has a king-sized chip on his shoulder.

Then, of course, there is Buchanan's defense of Nazis, his praise for Hitler,, and his Holocaust revisionism.

It isn't a statement here or there that reveals Buchanan's fixation with Jews -- it's the consistent theme of it that appears in his statements over the years. Even William F. Buckley reluctantly concluded that Buchanan was an anti-Semite after carefully reviewing dozens of his statements about Jews in a very long National Review article. And John Muravchik, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, concluded a similar review in Commentary Magazine by saying that "Taken cumulatively, Buchanan's rhetoric about Jews pretty clearly betrays an underlying sense of grievance or irritation."

Posted by Fred | April 8, 2008 2:14 PM

Sigh.

I'm not particularly bright, but even I am not stupid enough to take on the Sisyphus-like job of defending every stupid thing Buchanan has said in his long career.

I will address some of the above indictments:

1) Re Buchanan's comment THIRTY YEARS AGO that Hitler "was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)

a) Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross in WWI -- they didn't hand those out with corn flakes.

b) Buchanan was not the first person to note that Neville Chamberlain was not a pillar of strength, that French politicans are pleasure-loving whores, and that the British elites feared the damage to their extended empire from war. A fear that was well-founded -- witness how many different people in the Empire relieved the WHite Man of his Burden in post-WWII rebellions.

c) I would argue that it is in the interest of America -- and of the Jewish people -- for us to gain as clear an understanding of how Hitler rose to power and how the Holocaust came about as possible. So that we can recognize similar conditions if they arise again --and forestall a similar catastrophe. The bullshit that passes for history for that period --because of political pressures from various sources -- has hampered research in that area.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 2:56 PM

2) Re "William Safire (Buchanan's colleague on the Nixon speechwriting team) put it this way: Buchanan is an extremist whose anti-Semitism would rank at level four or five -- on a scale that has Adolf Hitler at 10 and Black Muslim leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan as a seven. "
---------
I'm afraid that I'm not prepared to accept UNSUPPORTED character judgments from "Guardian of Zion" Safire -- who I regard as a dishonest propagandist and one of the "Bad Zionists" --as opposed to the "good Zionists". I think it's obvious why Safire would go out of his way to blacken Buchanan's reputation, given Buchanan's opposition to the Israel Lobby.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Safire#Politics and
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/24/opinion/24SAFI.html?ex=1385096400&en=675f702fa2295ecc&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

An excerpt from the latter:

"Missing Links Found
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: November 24, 2003

WASHINGTON — Two blockbuster magazine articles last week revealed evidence that Saddam's spy agency and top Qaeda operatives certainly were in frequent contact for a decade, and that there is renewed reason to suspect an Iraqi spymaster in Prague may have helped finance the 9/11 attacks.

On weeklystandard.com, you can find chunks of a 16-page letter by Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, responding to a Senate Intelligence Committee request for evidence of Saddam-bin Laden collaboration. Fifty specific instances from C.I.A., N.S.A., F.B.I. and Pentagon files are described, many from "sensitive reporting" never made public. "

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 3:08 PM

Anyone doubting that Don Williams has an unhealthy obsession with "Jewish billionaires" and their "whores in congress", which is one of the commonly acknowledged indicators of antisemitism, should just type the name "Saban" in the little search box on the top right and look through the comments.

It's bait and switch, just as Steve Sailer always pops up when race is discussed, though the latter fortunately tends to stick to blog entries where the issue is mentioned explicitly while Don Williams has no such qualms, mentioning Saban etc at every occasion possible, which is testament to the magnitude of his obsession.

Don, maybe you're not an antisemite, but if you don't want to be mixed up with antisemitic nut jobs, then stop acting like an antisemitic nut job.

Posted by novakant | April 8, 2008 3:23 PM

I think Don Williams has it about right-- the campaign against Pat began when he began criticizing the Israel lobby, in the run-up to the first Gulf war. Before that, he was just eloquent, right wing, lovable (for some) Pat--who probably had all the prejudices of conservative American Catholic born in the 30's and 40's, and which weren't really very important.

Posted by TACreader | April 8, 2008 3:29 PM

One of the reasons "the balance within the GOP coalition has shifted so decisively against the paleo faction," Matthew, is that liberals so viciously demonized paleos like Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, et al.

Go thou and sin no more.

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain | April 8, 2008 3:56 PM

One of the reasons "the balance within the GOP coalition has shifted so decisively against the paleo faction," Matthew, is that liberals so viciously demonized paleos like Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, et al.

Go thou and sin no more.

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain | April 8, 2008 3:57 PM

Re novakant's comment "Don, maybe you're not an antisemite"
--------------
1) Oh, so now it's not just Pat Buchanan but also Don Williams who's the anti-Semite.

Damm, this stuff's like Avian flu.

2) I hope that readers here will look at my past posts. If they do, they will see that I focus not on "Jewish billionaires" -- but on an Israeli
billionaire who:
a) Has stated he's a one issue man and that issue is Israel
b) Who --at near $14 Million --was the largest donor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002
c) Who has stated that America is one of the two pillars of Israel's security and that it is his responsibility to use his great wealth/power to ensure that nothing interferes with America's protection of Israel
d) Who boasts of President Bill Clinton fetching soft drinks for him whenever he visited the White House
e) Who set up a think tank whose Directors were telling us in 2002 that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear bombs and was probably close to success (Kenneth Pollack) -- and that we should attack Saddam before he got a chance to use his WMDs (Marti Indyk, Kenneth Pollack)
f) Who now thinks Iran's nuclear program must be taken out --but unfortunately, good friend Bush has no political capital left
g) Who thinks Hillary, on the other hand, can handle the job and will be "good for Israel"
h) Who also bought the Hispanic TV network Univision last year. Because, while media purchases are problematic financial investments, they do bring influence.

3) $3 Trillion has been stolen out of my Social Security Trust Fund, I'm several $Trillion deeper in debt for no good reason, I see another Great Depression coming because of Bush's stupidity and my son had to register for the draft several months ago.

So yeah, I'm interested in this asshole -- and in where he picked up his duty-free dual US citizenship.

Posted by Don Williams | April 8, 2008 4:17 PM

Anyone doubting that Don Williams has an unhealthy obsession with "Jewish billionaires" and their "whores in congress", which is one of the commonly acknowledged indicators of antisemitism...

Well, personally I don't know about that "Ninja Turtles" Saban guy, but wasn't there that big story in the NYT a couple of months ago about the gambling-casino billionaire and some of his friends who planned to spend $250M on advertising during the Presidential campaign to persuade the American voters to back a war against Iran. $250M is pretty serious advertising money.

Now admittedly, the New York Times is just some fringe anti-Semitic newsletter that no one takes seriously, but still...

Posted by RKU | April 8, 2008 4:27 PM

It's quite possible that Buchanan, based on his apparent like for Catholicism - which is not only known for its anti-Semitism, it in fact created it to cover its hijacking of a Jewish prophet for its own ends, tends to dislike Jews, but that's not relevant to his criticism of either Israel or the neocons. When he writes about those topics, he's right as much as anyone else who has criticized the Bush/Cheney/neocon/Zionist crowd.

It's not relevant that some neocons are not Jews. Dick Cheney is neither Jewish or a neocon. He's a war profiteer. The Israelis are not neocons, even though most neocons fixate on supporting Israel even to the point, like Richard Perle, of passing classified information to Israel.

The reality is that all these people are a "perfect storm" of self-interest: the neocons want to control the world (and line their pockets), the Israelis want to control the Middle East (including the oil), Cheney and the military-industrial complex want to make money, the oil companies want to make money, and Bush wants to be President. They all work together fairly harmoniously to produce a disaster of the worst sort. That doesn't mean they're all the same or even that their underlying motivations are all the same. But their efforts are all aimed at achieving the same thing - power and money for themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

As for AmCon, I've seen plenty of very good critical articles about Iraq and Iran on their Web site. I'm by no means ANY kind of "conservative", but Antiwar.com and AmCon have been in the forefront of criticism of the Iraq war and US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, and you really should keep track of what's available on those sites if you're interested in US foreign policy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 6:27 PM

Would that be the Award-winning columnist, reporter, editor, author, bon vivant and raconteur, Robert Stacy McCain?

Yes, Pat Buchanan is an absolute sweetheart. No psychopathic megalomania to see here. Damn liberals and their vicious tirades! He's just a sweet Archie Bunker type awaiting a gentle Danielle Brisebois to melt his golden heart and soften those crusty edges.

And not a person on the planet would know more about vicious demonization (as well as feigned victimization) than that martyr to the "cause", a laugher and a lover, good to his mother, ,... San Patricia Jose' El Buchanita…

Go thou Robert, go. And double post no more of pauvre, pauvre Mademoiselle Buchenelle’

Posted by Rihilism | April 8, 2008 8:36 PM