Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

P. David Hornik


January 5, 2014 - 8:00 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page


Here’s 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 East—the 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 don’t 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 America—save oil? … Who would benefit from a “war of civilizations” with Islam? Who other than these neoconservatives and Ariel Sharon?

In 2008:

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, it’s called antisemitism. It casts Jews as a uniquely powerful, malign, manipulative group.

Sprinkled through Buchanan’s 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 today—Donald 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 Buchanan’s 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 Iran’s 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 God’s 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 Buchanan’s type of antisemitism has never been trumped by facts.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Ah geez....if you aren't with us, yer agin us..

Buchanan is no anti-Semite.

And if you are going to catalog anti-Semites I'd suggest an honest listing, and less crying wolf.

Hitler was a monster, and he acknowledges that in the book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. But the thesis of the book was to point out the entangling alliances, starting before WW1, that created the conditions for world war - twice.

His MO is consistent, and has been for decades. It's - Is this war in America's interest, and thus worth our soldiers blood? I happen to be in favor of supporting Israel. But it's not anti-Semitic to argue the pros and cons.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Whereas Buchanan's anti-Israel sentiments are undeniable, the author has failed to produce a single "anti-Semitic" quote falling on reliable Yellow Journalism tactics as well as "black-balling" to ensure that everyone gets the message about the acceptable limits of free speech and thought. That the author failed to summarize any of the books he defamed is sufficient to prove his recklessness and malice.

It would appear that failure to grovel before the Israeli government is ipso facto anti-Semitism or, gasp, noticing that a host of American-Jewish politicians seem to feel more loyalty towards Israel than the US (case in point White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel who couldn't be bothered to serve in the Goyische military choosing instead to enroll in the IDF).

There is nothing wrong with supporting Israel. Nor is IDF service morally or legally wrong, nor should it be. However, it is legitimate to wonder whether men with demonstrably strong ties to, and loyalty towards, a foreign state are responsible stewards of American power.

The author should note that Buchanan has never denied Israel's right to exist, nor has he ever supported the "Zionism is Racism" campaign or so much as mentioned the "BDS" movement. Buchanan's Revisionist History is padded with foot-notes and includes page-length quotes. Buchanan does not evince the slightest sympathy for Hitler though he does paint a three-dimensional picture of the man and his agenda unlike the cartoonish portrait that is, apparently, the only acceptable portrait. Subtlety, nuance and historicity be damned.

Thus, Buchanan's crime is insufficient loyalty to the party line constituting fascist deviationism. Call the Commissars. It's five years in the Urals for that fascist-deviationist traitor who is wrecking the Glorious Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I really hope that the so-called "Right" or "Conservatives" stop whining about "Liberal bias" and "muzzling of free speech" since it is evident that "the Right" and "Conservatives" employ identical methods in furtherance of identical goals: ideological conformity.

I hope the irony is evident. If it isn't, it may be time to abandon writing as a vocation altogether. In fact, please go ahead and abandon it since persons of your disposition are slowly eating away at free speech by setting limits for acceptable discourse which is turning this country into nothing more than a giant echo chamber.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, that's true - but irrelevant in Buchannan's case. Anyone who will even give time to holocaust denial theories, and is able to look at Hitler with anything but pure, unqualified revulsion, is someone who crosses the line.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (71)
All Comments   (71)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Food for thought.

Justice Matthew Cooper who is Jewish, is convinced I am anti-Semitic. But, why would he conduct himself from the bench in such a way that would fuel anti-Semitism? Unless his outburst is an inspection of his own brain for his hatred of Gentile fathers of European decent.

Maybe he knows Jay Lefkowitz who said to The New York Times:

“Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the Jews – reminds them who they are" (New York Times Magazine, February 12, 1995 p. 65). These comments were made by Jay Lefkowitz, a lawyer, who served as President Bush’s Special Envoy for Human Rights. The fact that the comments originated with a lawyer is uncanny, but even more so because of his background and his status as a Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea. What the comments really demonstrate is that a desirable amount of anti-Semitism – Mr. Lefkowitz needs “a little anti-Semitism", not a lot – whenever absent, can and must be induced by provocation to perpetuate the cause for Jewish group stratagem.

Just thinking out loud.


Fanaticism is now mainstream in the legal community, that it is affecting my divorce case:
When a Judge (or the lawyers) loses his or her objectivity, then the truism applies:
Everything is religious, everything is political.

Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Sending me this about "The F--king Jews"
Mr. Santomauro: No, actually, it was the opposite of that. It was "F--k the Arabs" in the essay.
Sandra Schpoont (Attorney for my 11 year old son): Oh, that's better.
Steven Mandel (Attorney for my ex-wife): Oh, that's better.
Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Oh, that's better.

Letter from The Mandel Law Firm (Steven J. Mandel) 12-9-13

Justice Matthew F. Cooper: "Is that [Jewish] agenda to dilute the Aryan race?" On page 20:

The essay in question:
+The Myth of the Innocent Civilian

"Justice Matthew F. Cooper has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word.

"It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Justice Cooper has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction.

"Michael Santomauro promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" – where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely in order to avoid these type of distortions. Michael Santomauro treasurse his strong Jewish support just as he treasures the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share the hope for a just world." --I.S.

Michael Santomauro
Cell: 917-974-6367

"An anti-Semite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an anti-Semite."--Michael Santomauro.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I recall when Buchanan attacked the Soviet Jewry movement. That's right, he attacked an anti-Communist movement because it was too pro-Jewish.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Also his longtime friend and Reagan White House colleague Bill Safire refused to defend him from the charge.

Those who do are likely antisemitic themselves. Watch them blow gaskets claiming they are only "anti-zionist" instead.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Put Buchanan aside for a minute. What about Ron and Rand Paul?

Ron Paul has been photographed with Don Black, a Grand Wizard for the KKK and founder of white supremacist website, Stormfront. A prosecutor even tried to subpoena Ron for his alleged involvement in a planned neo-Nazi coup on the island of Dominica. Neo-Nazi groups today are less about racism than narcotics profits; they even work alongside historically black gangs, like the Bloods and Crips. Sound strange? Consider that George Lincoln Rockwell and his “white supremacist” American Nazi Party worked with the Black Muslims, a black separatist group. (The Black Muslims also worked with the Ku Klux Klan, known for their complicity in the drug trade and cooperation with neo-Nazi groups.) Wonder what they were doing. Rockwell is quoted as saying, “They want a chunk of American and I prefer that they go to Africa.” A simple spat over territorial dominance?


Another aspect to the Mises Institute’s intellectual oeuvre is their close tracking to neo-Confederate themes, including secession. One of their scholars is Thomas DiLorenzo, whose books include “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,” and “Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe.” Suffice to say that Mr. DiLorenzo would likely have fired on Fort Sumter. Then there’s Thomas E. Woods, whose book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” features a Confederate soldier on the cover. Robert Murphy, another economist at the Mises Institute, has appeared on a neo-Confederate radio program. The article advocating secession was published shortly after the election of Barack Obama, and closely tracks the prediction of a Russian Professor and former KGB analyst Panarin a few months earlier.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Also Ron Paul said American should not have fought Hitler for the Jews.

Too many Conservatives have been sucked into the Ron Paul cult not
understanding he is not Conservative but a libertarian by title but Neo Left in his views on National Security and Neo Nazi in cultural views.
Ron Paul's site of his new organization reads like a Radical Left site
and must be a joy for the haters of America and Israel to read
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"POS," "BS," "in my top 3 of people whose death I look forward to," "unable to sniff Hitler's azz,"...

My, my, you Buchanan haters are quite the fair-minded, humane practitioners of reason, aren't you?

Here endeth the sarcasm.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually, I despise Buchanan rather than hate him. Anyone who makes a big noise as a Vietnam hawk, avoids service and then tries to slime others by alleging that they are avoiding service is pretty pathetic
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Leftists and rightists are very different from liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives are in favor of freedom. Leftists and rightists hate freedom, America, and--most of all--Israel.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I would welcome evidence of instances when Buchanan moved beyond his characteristic isolationism to prejudice: I believe they exist, but these are not it. The author shamefully misrepresents Buchanan's article on Demjanjuk. You have to read the original to get the full thrust of Hornek's misrepresentation, but two important points stand out: Buchanan was in no way engaging in holocaust denial in saying that electrocution and steam, not exhaust, were the killing methods at hand, and he brought up the mass trauma experienced by survivors not to deny or mock their suffering but to talk about the possibility that the wrong man had been identified -- he simultaneously pointed out that survivors who had suffered so much were not committing perjury when they offered varied accounts of their encounters with Demjanjuk -- for the very reason that they were so profoundly traumatized.

Buchanan does not deny what happened: he questions whether they accused the right man. If elsewhere he speaks differently on this subject, by all means let us know: this charge is too important to be supported by false and misleading accusations.

Furthermore, the claim that Buchanan is "up with Hitler" is appalling. By all means read the entire essay allegedly "praising" Hitler excerpted here -- it is in fact an essay using Hitler's pre-Holocaust reputation as an object lesson in the dangers of carelessly admiring and trusting political leaders such as him.

I don't think it's difficult to find real examples of bias on Buchanan's part (on many people's part, frankly), but to say he is cheerleading for Hitler is the sort of sloppy character assassination that leftists do.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I would welcome evidence of instances when Buchanan moved beyond his characteristic isolationism to prejudice".

JSenta provided numerous examples. Also, see my challenge just a few comments below. To recap, please advise how the following Buchanan comments are not anti-Semitic (an also vile and pathetic, coming from a Vietnam War hawk who failed to serve):

"... Buchanan didn’t merely oppose the American-led effort to repel Saddam Hussein’s absorption of Kuwait; he implied that those who supported the war were doing so at the behest of a foreign power.

“There are only two groups that are beating the drums … for war in the Middle East,” Buchanan said at the time on the McLaughlin Group, “the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.” Buchanan was playing on the trope—deployed by anti-Semites around the world from the Crusaders to Mel Gibson—that Jews are the cause of the world’s problems. Lest there be any doubt about to whom he was referring, days later he wrote a column naming four people from that “amen corner,” then-New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal; former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle; columnist Charles Krauthammer; and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. All, needless to say, Jews. And then, in case the point still wasn’t clear, he followed up with a column specifying just who would be doing the fighting and dying in the amen corner’s war: “Kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.” Buchanan was unfazed by the outcry. “I don’t retract a single word,” he told Time. “The reaction was simply hysterical and is localized to New York.” Not Washington or Los Angeles or Peoria. New York (".

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Good G-d. Yeah Pat writes that Britain should never have gone to war with the nazis ('cause the Bavarian corporal was such a swell guy, and Churchill was such a war monger -- that is the thesis of Pat's book.) and why did Pat B get fired from MSNBC? (Look it up.) Pat uses, routinely, antisemitic tropes (Jews "capture" unsuspecting Gentiles for nefarious Jewish plots of the war-mongering variety; Jews are a fifth column out to destroy Amerika; Jews control Washington, why it's ZOG I tell ya!; Jews make up, manufacture, Holocaust stories so as to defame nazis; etc, etc. if someone fails to recognize what Pat B is all about, then (for me) you are deaf, dumb, and blind).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
March and Senta -- perhaps we could start with you bothering to reply to what I wrote. You can't possibly argue that the Buchanan columns linked to by the author demonstrate the sorts of pernicious views ascribed to them.

And that's the whole problem.

I've been hearing for years that Buchanan is an anti-semite, and as I said, I'm open to being convinced. But if the columns cited are the type of proof offered, the fault lies with the interpreters who claim that he is practicing Holocaust denial when he is not. There is a world of difference between believing that US diplomacy is "succumbing" to pressure from an Israel lobby (I think they're a good influence, BTW) and being a Holocaust denier.

Who cares? Because these sorts of charges -- character assassination -- are tools the Left uses. You two are just citing other people's interpretations of Buchanan's words. Give me the direct quotes -- and for that matter, use your real names as a sign of integrity, and we can talk.

I have been in the crosshairs of this sort of accusation, unjustly, and I still cannot quantify the destruction it wrought in my life. After opposing the implementation of hate crime laws in an op-ed in Georgia, I received an early-morning phone call from the ADL telling me I was now "Abe Foxman's enemy." Direct quote, and a scary thing to be, with real-life consequences for my career and personal life. The A-S charge was used against me to try to silence me and punish me for stepping out of line regarding a law that most people here oppose. And there are others I know who have been similarly, unjustly smeared and have lost their jobs because of the ADL -- they have an ugly, vicious record, and I don't see many people on the Right standing up to Abe's vigorous thugocracy.

These sorts of accusations matter, not because Buchanan merits defending, but for anonymous people unjustly victimized by false accusations of anti-semitism.

I will read the Buckley book. Meanwhile, it would only be ethical to extend this conversation to the issue of the ADL and others levying false A-S charges. Several articles here have denounced false racial and sexual accusations -- why not false A-S claims too?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I've been hearing for years that Buchanan is an anti-semite, and as I said, I'm open to being convinced. But if the columns cited..." For starters the original article was not just citing P. B, "columns". Buchanan's book on WWII was also cited -- remember? The one in which Buchanan alleges Britain should not have gone to war with the nazis (and defames Churchill as the warmonger, not Hitler). Again, if you cannot understand what a Pat Buchanan is all about, then (in my book) you're blind.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You did not reply to what I wrote the second time -- that's enough. You're not engaging seriously.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well precisely the same can said about you -- you refuse to address the multiple antisemitic claims made by Buchanan. Are you aware where the claims about diesel fuel use at Treblinka originate? It is a standard pernicious claim made by Holocaust deniers which goes back decades. Standard, predictable Modus operendi.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Whose line?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"In 1991 William F. Buckley wrote: 'I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge [of] ...anti-Semitism."

Buckley wrote an entire book carefully analyzing what Buchanan wrote. Devastating.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here as elsewhere any criticism of anything that Jews might be identified with is anti-Semitic.

This sort of mindless triumphalism is self-defeating and makes more enemies than anyone can put to good us, even if they are necessary to group survival.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That's BS, Denver Bob. Just BS.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All