SNAPSHOTS-TOP.jpg

« More Accolades for Young Palestinian Media Star | Main | IHT Closes Out 2012 With Erroneous Headline »

December 30, 2012

Pat Buchanan Rants Against "Wolves" Opposing Hagel, Cites E 1 Canard


buchanan0819.jpg

President Obama's possible nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense has prompted various pundits and analysts to weigh in for or against the move. Among those vehemently in favor of the candidate is Pat Buchanan who asked in a December 28 Townhall column ("Why the War Party Fears Hagel)":

If a senator or defense secretary believes an Israeli action -- like bisecting the West Bank with new settlements that will kill any chance for a Palestinian state and guarantee another intifada -- what should he do?

Defend the U.S. position, or make sure there is "no daylight" between him and the Israeli prime minister?

There WERE a lot of inaccurate media accounts of the E1 settlement developments to which he refers that may have confused Mr. Buchanan. But there were also lots of prominent corrections in places like The New York Times that clarified the issue and made clear the area would not be bisected, nor would a Palestinian state be prevented. Mr. Buchanan must have glided over the full, accurate story for some reason.

In an excellent piece in the February 2012 Columbia Journalism Review entitled "Pat Buchanan and His Enablers" journalist Jamie Kirchick recounted the departure of the commentator from left-leaning MSNBC in the wake of his recent book lamenting the decline of "White America." Kirchick also recalled William F. Buckley Jr.'s painstaking analysis years earlier of Buchanan's statements at the time of the first Gulf War when, among other things, he said:


“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."

Kirchick notes Buckley concluded that it was “impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism.” And he "wrote his old friend...out of the conservative movement."

Buchanan's latest rantings against "neocons" and "bellicose" Israelis and the "wolves" who want to throw Hagel overboard are a reminder that Buckley's moral leadership is sorely needed today.

Posted by AL at December 30, 2012 09:44 PM

Comments

Buchanan is just like all the Israeli bashers who are jealous of the Jews and Israel and take every chance to lie about what Israel does. They want nothing better than to see Israel disappear and Jews under the power of racist christians and muslims. I say to him " Kish meir tuchus" moron.

Posted by: Don Rosenberg at December 31, 2012 01:28 PM

"This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material." In other words, we will not post any comments that are not consistent with our Israeli-First agenda.

Posted by: Fredo at December 31, 2012 04:22 PM

Mr Rosenberg [comments about racist Christians & Muslims] you are the reason Christians have to jump hurdles through mud such as the NYTimes agenda.
Please do not put Christians - who recognise temselves as Judao-Christianity in Western countries - under the hateful mire of deception.

Posted by: LivvyPritchard at January 1, 2013 05:34 PM

Mr. Buchanan "glided over the full , accurate story for some reason." Are you kidding? Some reason??? I will tell you the reason: Pat Buchanan is the most prominent anti-semite in the conservative movement and has been his entire life. He is an apologist for Nazi Germany and an admirer of Adolf Hitler and a long-time defender of Nazi war criminals. He comes from a family that were pro-German admirers of Father Coughlin in the 30s. There is no mystery about the reason: he does not like JEWS!

Posted by: elliot j. stamler at January 3, 2013 01:13 PM

Guidelines for posting

This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)