Skip to comments.The Ten Worst U.S. Purveyors of Antisemitism, #6: Patrick Buchanan
Posted on 01/07/2014 6:49:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Heres Pat Buchanan in 1990, not long before the First Iraq War:
There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle Eastthe Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.
Here he is in 2004:
[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 dont think his father would have done this.
They captured Rumsfeld, and they captured Cheney, and I think they captured the president .
Also in 2004:
Who would benefit from these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to Americasave oil? … Who would benefit from a war of civilizations with Islam? Who other than these neoconservatives and Ariel Sharon?
Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into a war with Iran .
And here he is on December 11, 2013:
One wonders if Netanyahu and his amen corner in Congress have considered the backlash worldwide should they succeed in scuttling Geneva and putting this nation on the fast track to another Mideast war Israel and Saudi Arabia may want but America does not.
In psychological terms, this is called obsession. In ideological terms, its called antisemitism. It casts Jews as a uniquely powerful, malign, manipulative group.
Sprinkled through Buchanans writings one can find derisive references to the non-Israelis and non-Jews who were hawks on Iraq in the 1990s, or on Iraq in the 2000s, or are hawks on Iran todayDonald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, William Bennett, the Wall Street Journal, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, and Trent Franks are a few.
In Buchanans telling they are all in thrall to Israel, the source of all evil and the only threat to America emanating from the Middle East. No one, not even a president, a defense secretary, can think for himself; anyone who has ever been a hawk on any of those three issues has never had a valid argument but has instead been corralled by the Jewish lust for war.
Nothing has ever made Buchanan think otherwise. Not 9/11; not Irans 2011 attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in a Washington restaurant; not its ongoing record of anti-American terror; not its whole parliament joining in Death to America chants on November 3, 2013; not its continuing work on ICBMs; not dire warnings on its nuclear progress by groups like the IAEA and the ISIS (in the Jews pocket?); not statements by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei like our people say Death to America, and this is like saying I seek Gods refuge from the accursed Satan .
Not the fact that the U.S.-led coalition for the First Iraq War included Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Oman, the UAR, Qatar, Pakistan all members of the amen corner? Not the fact that American Jews are mostly left-liberal doves and 70 percent of them opposed the Second Iraq War. Not the fact that Ariel Sharon advised George Bush against that war.
But Pat Buchanans type of antisemitism has never been trumped by facts.
It is not a good sign when someone seems to need moral tutoring about Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Jews, and makes statements that are perilously close to, or actually cross, the boundary of the legitimate.
Back in 1977 Buchanan wrote in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat:
Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature. Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldiers soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitlers 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.
Great courage, extraordinary gifts, genius. Although Buchanan also mentions some negative traits, that has the clear ring of admirationprofound admirationfor the Führer; while it is the statesmen who evoke Buchanans real animosity.
In 1990 Buchanan penned a New York Post column passionately defending war criminal John Demjanjuk (acquitted in Israel on a technicality in 1993, convicted in Germany in 2011). From Hitler-admiration it is not a huge psychological leap to Holocaust denial, and Buchanan engaged in it here, writing derisively about the Treblinka death camp that diesel engines do not emit enough carbon dioxide to kill anybody and saying Holocaust survivors had group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.
Then there was Buchanans 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, which claimed that Hitler did not want World War II and it was really Britain that brought it about.
From such a mindset it is, again, not a big leap to statements such as this one in 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.
Could it be that those thirteen were engaged citizens who made good impressions on the voters of their respective states? Not for Buchanan, who again sees sinister power at play. Up with Hitler, down with Jews.
In 1991 William F. Buckley wrote: I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, Buchanans antisemitism has not been enough to put him beyond the bounds of decency. Unlike cruder characters such as David Duke or Gordon Duff, Buchanan writes well and knows how to use antisemitism to tweak sensibilities and provoke within a veneer of serious analysis.
So Buchanan, despite losing his gig at MSNBC, remains a star of the airwaves and the internet to this day. Though shunned by much of the conservative camp, his Jews are dragging us into war rants continue to run on major sites like World Net Daily and Townhall. But make no mistake: Patrick Buchanan is a significant voice of antisemitism.
1) On many of his points you cannot call him a liar.
2) He wrote a book on how we could have avoided WW2. Hard to believe we had that much control.
3) His choice for ‘running mate’ in the Reform Party(2000?). A communist. It tells me that he’s in it for the publicity-shock value.
Still he is a voice that should be heard.
It's not a 'war of civilizations', it's a war WITH civilization.................
He’s a vile man. William F. Buckley actually wrote the definitive work about Buchanan’s anti-Semitism. He compares Buchanan and Joe Sobran, and concludes that Sobran is psychologically obsessed with Jews, and also hates Israel, but is not technically an anti-Semite, but Buchanan is.
OK This is wrong...
Buchanan is more of an ‘isolationist’ who thinks the USA should not be poking its head into the business of every country on the planet, including Israel, but that does NOT make him an “anti-semite”
He is not a jew-hater any more than he is a muslim hatrer or anythign else.
He just disagrees that the USA has a policy to interfere in other countries (all of them, not just israel, and he has been consistent in that belief for decades)
I am not saying I AGREE with him, I think the USA has National Interests in helping to protect Israel, that he does not see. I just disagree with that making him an ‘anti-jew’ (which is what anti-semite means)
Sorry, but Buchanan opposing the Neocon obsession for perpetual U.S. war in the ME does not make Buchanan an anti-Semite.
I am not familiar with the author, but I suspect his attack on Buchanan has a lot to do with the author’s agreement with Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, William Bennett, the Wall Street Journal, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, Trent Franks, John McCain, etc., etc. in never-ending involvement in wars in that part of the world.
Instead of the author’s obsession with tarring Buchanan for not wanting to get involved in ME wars, how about the author directing a little attention to the internal rot in our country? Buchanan has been fighting that, particularly the mass importation of bottom feeders to our country by our leftist immigration policy. Which policy is supported by several of the persons that the author names as opposed to Buchanan.
The Hitler and Himmler photo is too much.
It detracts from the author’s point and undermines his objectivity.
Being an isolationist does not make one an anti-Semite, but Buchanan is an anti-Semite.
He was right with regards to the persecution of Demanjuk. A former Red Army soldier whose only choice was either cooperate with the Nazis, or face death at their hands.
The Germans went after Demanjuk, only because they were so anxious to try to tell the world that it wasn’t only Germans that participated in the Holocaust.
And there certainly are Jews who hold Israel in even more contempt than Buchanan does.
I do think he does fall too much though for the “International Jew Finance Rules the World” garbage, though.
Besides, it bothers me when our side employs the same censorship by name calling tactics of the left.
I read Buckley's essay, and as best I can recall it concluded BJP was guilty of nothing more than insensitivity.
Sobran's case, Buckley apparently concluded, was different and Buckley kicked him off the NR staff.
I just ignore those who spew vile neo-Nazi crap. Such a person wouldn’t last long on FR for sure.
The Ten Worst U.S. Free Speech Opponents, #6 ?
I recall when liberals and Rockefeller Republicans called us Goldwater supporters Purveyors of Hate because we dared to disagree with them.
I guess I recollect wrongly - it was a long time ago.
Pat was a fine Republican in the eyes of the establishment until he ran for president. Then suddenly he was an isolationist and an anti Semite.
Pat did nothing compared to a bottle of urine in a New York museum or the constant war against Christianity by the ACLU.
Pat is effective and speaks honestly to many Americans.
Mr. Buckley resists the simple conclusion that Mr. Buchanan is an anti-Semite. His own formulation is more carefully hedged, and the care with which it has been formulated is indicated in the fact that he repeats it four times: "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament."
Yep. If you criticize Obama, many on the left will call you a racist. If you criticize Israel, many on the right will call you antisemitic.
I have always found that any criticism of jews, criticism of blacks, etc. no matter how well reasoned and accurate is either anti-semitism or racism.