Critics claim MSNBC has ‘suspended’ Pat Buchanan (ColorOfChange.org welcomes MSNBC’s decision)

Isn’t there a Rev. Al on that channel?

Van Jones—professional agitator.

Thank you, Glenn Beck, for outing this Commie bastard!

Being on MSNBC, being off MSNBC, there’s a difference?

forces Pat to sit down and pen Jew hating rants

Do you have a link to such a rant? I'd sure like to see what you are talking about.

As far as any “Jew hating rants”, site one.

If any criticism of Israel or putting American interests ahead of any other country, is the definition of anti Semitic then I guess Pat is “guilty”.

As well as the majority of Americans....

Keep the Monsters Away
Donate Monthly

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign up
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

2010: “If [Elena] Kagan [President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court] is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this Democrats’ idea of diversity?”
— Column, “Are Liberals Anti-WASP?” May 14, 2010

2008: “Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran. Bush should rebuff them, and the American people should tell their congressmen: You vote for 362, we don’t vote for you.”
— Column, “A Phony Crisis — and a Real One,” July 15, 2008

2007: “If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at….”
— On The McLaughlin Group, February 2, 2007

2005: “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.”
— Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq, P.136

2005: “They charge us with anti-Semitism…The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a ‘passionate attachment’ to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.”
— Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq, P.137

2005: “Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”
— Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq, P.142

2004: “[Richard] Perle’s depiction of his delight at first meeting the future president reads like Fagin relating his initial encounter with the young Oliver Twist.”
— Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, P.42

2004: “Who would benefit from these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America-save oil…Who would benefit from a ‘war of civilizations’ with Islam? Who other than these neoconservatives and Ariel Sharon? Indeed, Sharon was everywhere the echo of his American auxiliary….”
— Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, P.52

2004: “Israel is in an existential crisis. It can wall itself off and annex what it wants on the West Bank, and leave Palestinians in tiny truncated, nonviable bantustans that will become the spawning pools of terror. Or it can give the Palestinians what Oslo, Camp David, Taba and the ‘roadmap’ promised; a homeland, a nation and a state of their own. Israel is free to choose. But American needs a Middle East policy made in the USA, not in Tel Aviv, or at AIPAC or AEI.”
— Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, P.241

2004: “America has given up its role as ‘honest broker.’ President Bush no longer sits at the head of the negotiating table, but directly behind Sharon.”
— Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, P.242

2004: “Dissent to the neocon line on Iraq or Israel has come to be equated with treason.”
— Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, P.248

2004: BUCHANAN: [N]eoconservatives…Perle and Wolfowitz and Wurmser and the others, working with Netanyahu, had an agenda for war with Iraq that was going nowhere.

9/11 happens, and they put this agenda before a president, who in my judgment was untutored, as his father was not. Reagan would not have done this. I don’t think his father would have done this.

They captured Rumsfeld, and they captured Cheney, and I think they captured the president…

BLITZER: Did you think of the Jewish line of Fagan [sic] when you wrote that and Richard Perle being Jewish?

BUCHANAN: Well, I mean, obviously Fagan was Jewish. But the thing about it is he was a leader of pick-pockets in a fictional book. Why is it unacceptable for me to use a literary allusion when I am called routinely Father Charles Coughlin of the modern era who was alleged to be an anti-Semitic priest? That is an outrage because that’s a real character.

But I’ll tell you this. Look, my views with regard to the security of this country - I disagree with Sharon’s agenda. I think we have outsourced Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon. I think that’s a disaster for this country. It’s damaging our relations over the world.

And we cannot allow ourselves to be silenced because people call us names. My objection to the neoconservatives is not their ethnicity, Wolf. It is their war-mongering.

— CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, September 12,2004

2004: “Washington today is rife with reports the FBI has been investigating whether or not a nest of Pollardites in the Pentagon has been transmitting American secrets, through the Israeli lobby AIPAC, to the Reno Road embassy and to Sharon…

“AIPAC and the Israelis deny any spying. Cooperation between the Bush and Sharon governments is so close, they insist, there is no need to commit espionage or thieve U.S. documents. Perhaps, but the men about whom the FBI is inquiring have old, deep and questionable ties to Israel and the Likud Party of Ariel Sharon…

“Having promised him a cakewalk to Baghdad and a rose garden thereafter, neoconservatives misled President Bush. He should have fired the lot of them. Having failed to do so, he ought now, in his own interests, as well as our nation’s, name Patrick “Bulldog” Fitzgerald, now heading up the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, to head up the investigation of Israeli espionage, and possible treason, against the United States. If there has been a recurrence of Pollardism at the Pentagon, we need to know and the president needs to act, as Truman did not with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White.”

— “Pollardites in the Pentagon,” Creators Syndicate, September 12,2004

2004: “We also need to investigate whether there is a nest of Pollardites in the Pentagon who have been transmitting American secrets through APAC, the Israeli lobby, over to Reno Road, the Israeli embassy, to be transferred to Mr. Sharon. Now, I did not know until this weekend’s stories in The Washington Post that this is exactly what is being talked about; that certain individuals over there in Mr. Feith’s shop or beneath him have been transmitting these secrets.

“Now, the FBI have been asking questions. There are no conclusions. No one should assume guilt on anyone’s part. But if this has been going on, Tim, we are getting dangerously close to the T-word.”

— Meet the Press, September 5,2004

2004: “I believe the mistake the president is making is outsourcing American Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon.”

— Real Time with Bill Maher, September 3, 2004

2003: “Tony Blair has assured his countrymen the United States does not intend to attack Syria or Iran. Colin Powell has assured the Muslim world the United States does not intend to attack Syria or Iran.

“But did the British prime minister or U.S. secretary of state clear their statements with Richard Perle? For the War Party has blood in its nostrils and is headed for Damascus….

“We are fighting ‘World War IV,’ said [former CIA Director James] Woolsey….

“’World War IV’ is a term popularized by militant Zionist Norman Podhoretz, who has been shrieking for war on no fewer than six or seven Arab countries. But why should anyone care what Woolsey says?

“Because James Woolsey is slated for a position of power in the U.S. reconstruction of Iraq. Moreover, Woolsey echoes John Bolton at State and Israel’s Ariel Sharon, who has also been howling for the United States to take down Iran and Syria, as soon as Baghdad falls.

“This is the neocons’ hour of power, and they do not intend to lose this chance to remake the Middle East in their own image.”

— Column, “On to Damascus?”, April 9, 2003
2003: “The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged.”

“Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group.”

“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.”

“A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and ‘militant Islam.’

“Cui bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

“Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”
“What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.”

“The principal draftsman is Richard Perle....In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu....In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish ‘the principle of preemption,’ has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.”

“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 neoconservative allies inside his own Big Tent.”

“Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.”

— “Whose War? The Loudest Clique Behind the President’s Policy,” The American Conservative, March 24, 2003.
2003: “Sharon was first elected on a pledge to ditch the Camp David and Barak plans. His new cabinet contains militant Zionists who consider the West Bank sacred Jewish land. They will not give it up. They will not permit Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state even if Bush, triumphant in Iraq, tells them it must be done. They will fight him as they fought his father. And they will have the War Party in their corner....

“Where will...President Bush go after Baghdad? If he seeks to pressure Israel into what the Israeli Right and the War Party think are premature and foolish negotiations, he will court a savage backlash in an election year, and fail. If he embraces the Sharon Doctrine and puts military pressure on Syria and Iran, he will do so without Tony Blair, without NATO and without U.N. backing, and he will be seen world wide as the leader of a rogue superpower.”

—”After Baghdad, where do we go?”
townhall.com, March 3, 2003.
2003: “Israel, recipient of $100 billion in U.S. aid, is demanding another $15 billion to hold our coat as we fight her war against Iraq.”

—”With friends like these,”
townhall.com, February 24, 2003.

1999: “After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders.”

- A Republic, Not an Empire. P. 336.

1999: “I know the power of the Israeli lobby and the other lobbies, but we need a foreign policy that puts our own country first.”

- Meet the Press Interview. September 12, 1999.

1991: “Even if his veto of the (loan) guarantees is overridden, he will have won high marks for his courage, and exposed congress for what it has become, a Parliament of Whores incapable of standing up for U.S. national interests, if AIPAC is on the other end of the line.”

- Syndicated column, December 18, 1991

1990: In an August 25,1990, column, Buchanan criticized commentators urging military intervention in Iraq, naming Abe Rosenthal, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthamer and Henry Kissinger. On August 29th, he wrote the following:

“’The civilized world must win this fight,’ the editors thunder. But, if it comes to war, it will not be the ‘civilized world’ humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.”

- Washington Times, August 29, 1990

1990: “There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.”

- The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990

1990: “Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory.”

- McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990

1990: “That the United States would sit still for anything was brought home to the Israelis, long ago, on the third day of the Six-Day War, when Lyndon Johnson ordered a coverup of an Israeli rocket-and-machine gun attack on the U.S. intelligence ship Liberty off the Sinai, an attack costing the lives of 37 brave American soldiers.

When it suits them, our Israeli allies launch air strikes on Tunis, Baghdad or Beirut; they invade Lebanon; they even enlist U.S. traitors, like the Pollards, to loot the secrets of a nation that has manifested toward them an extraordinary indulgence.”

Is he related to that other Anti-American racist,Randall Robinson?

There are things Pat is right about, but I can’t understand why he can’t see that Islam is the threat, not the Jews. Jews should be our natural allies in this fight. It’s called ‘Judeo-Christian’ for a reason.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

All are VALID political points, whether you disagreed with them or not, in which Pat's view that America's interests are not always aligned with Israels.

Not once did he use language such as “HymmieTown” (Rev Jackson”) or accuse Jews as a whole (Like Hitler and the Nazis)

We Conservatives as a whole have been called much worse for much less.

I don't agree with Pat on alot of the issues he spouses but I admire his bulldog stance on his beliefs and his stanch defence of America's values

Politics is hard ball.

Either develop a thick skin or get out....

RedMonqey is right. You haven’t found one racist quote. Don’t you realize that?

You haven’t found one racist quote. Don’t you realize that?

Seriously? You want something like "God, my Irish Catholic brothers and I, that grew up hating Jews, really hate those Jews and their fake little country?". And what I posted is what it took me about 30 seconds to come up with. Read the man's columns. It is as clear as can be that he has nothing but contempt for Jews in general, and Israel in particular. It isn't objective criticism of the specific actions of the Israeli government at certain times. It is blanket support for the savages that are seeking Israel's destruction. It is contemptible and, unlike his inability to understand free trade, is bigoted and morally contemptible and bigoted, not just stupid.

Show me just once where Pat has defended Israel's right to exist against the hoards trying to destroy it. Good luck with that project. All you will find is Pat expressing the sentiment that everything would be fine if those damn Jews hadn't been given a country. If he isn't a Jew hater, nobody is.

You’ve been shown to be wrong. Just apologize and move on.

You’ve been shown to be wrong. Just apologize and move on.

It took another 30 seconds or so to dig up this non-bigoted gem. Wanna try with a straight face to tell us these aren't the words of a man that has a dogeared copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his breast pocket?

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

And what would a guy so fond of Jews think of the Holocaust? Anything to say on the topic, Patrick?

Since the war, 1,600 medical papers have been written on "The Psychological and Medical Effects of the Concentration Camps on Holocaust Survivors."

This so-called "Holocaust Survivor Syndrome" involves "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics." Reportedly, half the 20,000 survivor testimonies in Jerusalem are considered "unreliable," not to be used in trials.

Finally, the death engine. During the war, the underground government of the Warsaw Ghetto reported to London that the Jews of Treblinka were being electrocuted and steamed to death.

The Israeli court, however, concluded the murder weapon for 850,000 was the diesel engine from a Soviet tank which drove its exhaust into the death chamber. All died in 20 minutes, Finkelstein swore in 1945.

The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody. In 1988, 97 kids, trapped 400 feet underground in a Washington, D.C., tunnel while two locomotives spewed diesel exhaust into the car, emerged unharmed after 45 minutes.

Demjanjuk's weapon of mass murder cannot kill.

Yep, digging into the technical aspects of whether or not diesel exhaust fumes are really that lethal in an enclosed environment is an activity worth the time of what kind of person? We all know the answer, even you. But Pat's just scientifically curious, right?

It seems that you don’t understand the definitions of the words you are using.

Can you explain what you believe is not factual or is not a proper opinion to have?

Minn

Your argument rests on taking quotes out of their proper context.

Like the “Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.”

It wasn't an attack on Jews but the Democratic Party's use of buying favors of certain interests groups, one of just happens to be Jewish Liberals(Secular ones at that)

As for Pat's defense of Demjanjuk, an (naturalized)US citizen charged by zealots in the US and Israeli government as “Ivan the Terrible” at Terbinka.

The Israel Supreme court released him, partly because of faulty memeories of Holocaust survivors, the use of forged papers provided by the USSR against anti Communist Ukrainians and because he was proved not to be not “Ivan the Terrible”.

Pat was proved right in the defense of a wrongly charged US citizen.

Sorry that sets a burr under your saddle, pilgrim but that doesn't make him anti-Semtic.
.

Minn
“Show me just once where Pat has defended Israel’s right to exist against the hoards trying to destroy it.’”

So THIS is the definition of being anti Semetic?

Good luck with looking for “anti Semetics’” under every bed....