Where are the Christians by Patrick J. Buchanan

[BrentWill4U]

http://www.theamericancause.org/

Where are the Christians

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.

First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.

Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon -- smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy -- has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air strikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to was described by its Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.


More at link...
-----------------------------------------------

EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY 4 OR 5
PARAGRAPHS FROM THE COPYRIGHTED NEWS SOURCE
PER DU RULES.











?

[Mass]

1. Coming from Buchanan, I will pass.

[BrentWill4U]

3. Comming from him or not..

It is a good argument.

[yurbud]

37. In 1992, when he gave his kulturkampf speech at GOP Convention...

I found him a truly frightening person.

He hasn't changed much, but the Republican Party has gone so far past him into unreason and fascism that he seems reasonable.

It is also important to give credence to dissidents within the GOP, trying to pull them back to reality.

[Amy6627]

2. I never thought that Pat Buchannan would be the voice of reason!

[BrentWill4U]

4. Yeah..

No kidding..

[bigmonkey]

5. I agree.

Finding Herr Buchanan sensible is a true sign that the times are really tough.

[CottonBear]

6. I generally agree with this article by Buchanan.

However, Pat is completely off-base here:

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

I personally blame Bush for all of the war crimes committed by the US in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. Most Democrats are angry at Israel for their treatment of the innocent Palestinian and Lebanese citizens.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

12. self delete

self delete

[Briar]

22. Yes

I don't understand the argument here. How is Bush not responsible, as Commander in Chief and The Decider! (TM), for Haditha and Abu Ghraib (and a great deal more)? Does he think they are not crimes but justifiable acts of war? Or does he deny that the US is responsible?

[Minnesota Libra]

7. OMG, things are bad when I start agreeing with Pat Buchanan nt

[tularetom]

8. Al-qaeda captured two US soldiers?

Is that like "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

[snappyturtle]

9. I generally do not agree with Pat....

whoa! To answer his question: Americans are paying for *'s education with American lives and the Treasury. E-mail, call your Congressmen before the House votes on supporting Israel and for condemning Hezbollah and its state sponsors.....and, ask for a recorded vote, unlike the Senate's voice vote! Can't believe this resolution is brought up before any act of diplomacy has taken place. Sorry I'm a little off topic.

[tblue37]

10. This man whom, even as Buchanan admitted Bush is a disaster,

Buchanan endorsed over Kerry in 2004.

[Skittles]

19. proving he cares about the GOP more than he cares about America

honestly, I don't need these conservative assholes coming out of the woodwork to tell me NOW - after all that has happened and WILL happen - that bush is a f***ing disaster. GEE, YA THINK ??? Maybe they should have thought about that before supporting a guy who cannot form a decent sentence unscripted.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

11. Pat always does this.

he acts like a maverick.

(pssst. . . He's still a douchebag.)

[BrentWill4U]

17. Okay..

That still doesn't mean that this isn't one hell of an essay, whoever wrote it.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

30. it's ok. But knowing that Pat wrote it

to act like a maverick, not to mention his long documented bouts of anti-semitism, sorta ruins it for me.

[bvar22]

13. With the NeoCons in control of all 3 branches of government,

and the Democrats too terrified (or complicit) to be the voice of the opposition,
Buchanan becomes the Voice of Reason by default.

[struggle4progress]

14. Pat Buchanan, Antisemitism and the Holocaust

... 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) ...

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.) ...

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/buchanan.html

[BrentWill4U]

16. You are attack the man who brings you the argument..

Not the argument itself.

[struggle4progress]

18. I quoted a mofo with established white-supremicist ties. His past words ..

.. and history are entirely relevant to his credibility -- which, based on his record, should be approximately zilch.

There's no reason to think that PB is motivated by anything better than opportunism, no reason to think that he has any real ideas about or insight into the Middle East, and no reason to think that any argument he might advance is original. Nor is there any reason to give him any publicity.

[BrentWill4U]

20. Again..

Whatever his motivation or opportunism does not matter. It is an essay that lays down an argument. Do you find a logical fall in the argument? If so, point it out.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. So would the same words, by David Duke, be as acceptable?

[BrentWill4U]

28. Yes..

One must use Logic to determine if an argument is legitimate or not. What if David Duke said the Sky is Blue? Am I supposed to dismiss that argument, because he is David Duke?

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Then you are in the wrong discussion forum!

As a general rule, hate mongers are not considered an appropriate source, even if they say "the sky is blue!"

[BrentWill4U]

34. This isn't news..

This is an argument. Are his facts wrong in some way?

[Behind the Aegis]

35. He is a bigot.

Why use the words of bigot to support your argument?

On edit: Should I expect David Duke articles from you as well? You do know he is also anti-Israel.

[BrentWill4U]

36. Why..

Because it is a logical argument. I am not going to defend Pat. Rather he is a bigot or you have taken him out of context is beside the point. What I will defend is an argument he has put forth that is sound and logical. Attacking the source does not discredit a factual based argument.

[longship]

15. Ruptured!

Not raptured.

[formercia]

21. Patrick J. Buchanan guru of the neo-con agenda

He wrote papers in the early 80's that echoed the neo-con agenda. He's just pissed because Fearless Leader didn't do it his way. This is just his way to make an appearance of disassociating himself from the agenda, but in fact, he was one of the architects of Fearless leader's failed policies.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. I am so fucking disgusted!

What is it with some people here?! Do you fucking hate Israel so much that you have to trot out this conservative fuck?!

BTW...here is a little info about the site you posted this bullshit from!

We believe that the strength of our culture depends on the integrity of our families and support policies that affirm traditional marriage, ease the financial strain of family life, and encourage parental involvement and accountability.

We believe that life begins at conception and that the deaths of 1.4 million unborn children each year are a stain on our nation's soul. We will fight for the appointment of pro-life judges and justices, passage of a human life amendment by Congress, and eventual reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Even better, here are their stands on the following:

Affirmative Action

Position:


Of all the needs of this nation, few are greater for our peace and happiness than racial reconciliation. But we do not alter the evil character of racial discrimination by simply changing the color of the beneficiary. No government in this Land of the Free has the moral or constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of color, and all government-sponsored prejudice - no matter how benign its purpose-belongs in the same graveyard as Jim Crow. Instead of patronizing minorities by presuming they cannot succeed without government assistance, we must work together to bridge our racial divide and rediscover what brings us together as one nation and one people.

---snip---

Immigration

Position:


During the 45 years leading up to the Immigration Act of 1965, 10 million immigrants came to the U.S. and were successfully integrated into American culture. But the onset of mass immigration since the late 60s has overwhelmed our ability to assimilate. This year, 1.3 million more immigrants will pour into the U.S. - 400,000 of them illegal aliens. If America is to survive as one nation, we must stem this tide to mend the melting pot and assimilate the 28 million foreign-born already living within our borders.

Do you hate Israel so much that you must rely on articles from bigots?!

[formercia]

32. Pat is a dyed in the wool Crusader

always has been, and irregardless of the tempered pablum he might put out as a smokescreen, he is hard core.

[Voltaire99]

24. Zounds! Could Buchanan be wiser than Russ Feingold?

As is often the case, the otherwise rabid Buchanan's sane isolationism is at odds with the warrior liberal view espoused by most congressional Dems. He also has a firmer grasp on the difference between American and Israeli interests.

Note I wrote "most" Dems. Naturally, there must be some Dem leaders who can take a principled stand on Israeli violence. Such as Russ Feingold, right? Er...yeah...well...


SATURDAY, July 15, 2006, 4:29 p.m.
By Craig Gilbert
Feingold defends Israel's attack response

Platteville - U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold today defended Israel's right to protect itself amid the escalating conflict along its borders, saying, "I don't think any country is going to let their soldiers be kidnapped, transported, killed ... without a serious response."

Feingold said he would not second-guess "whether that response was exactly as it should be."

Said Feingold: "My hope would be that Israel would use as much restraint as possible .... It's in Israel's interest and the interests of peace. But I do think Israel has not only a right but also a responsibility to respond to the Hezbollah attack."

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=7/15/2006&i...

[Behind the Aegis]

25. I'll go with the Democrat, as opposed to the bigot...but that is just me.

[unhappycamper]

27. BrentWill4U:

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

In the future, please insure your posts adhere to this standard.

TIA,

unhappycamper
DU Moderator

[BrentWill4U]

29. Okay..

Sorry about that. I will ensure I do that in the future.

[dmosh42]

31. could be strategic

-As someone pointed out, the Israelis usually just swapped prisoners prior to this. I suspect that since they see the UN won't be doing anything to stop Iran, they will need to control any areas nearby where atomic weaponry could be stored. They know Hezbollah has a large storage of rockets in south Lebanon, without any interference from the Lebanese gov't, and longer range rockets to the north of the country. It sounds far-fetched to us, but seeing the comments from Iran, they are maybe doing some delayed reacting, having waited for a provocation.