The Meaning of Pat Buchanan’s Surpising Endorsement of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense
When Left and Right come together, it usually is quite revealing. The issue that binds them this time is the campaign to have the president continue the fight for Chuck Hagel to get the nomination as secretary of Defense.
First, a group of self-proclaimed foreign policy “realists,” including the usual suspects, have endorsed Hagel’s nomination. The group is best summarized by one of Hagel’s major supporters among the pundit class – Robert Wright of The Atlantic:
Hagel has now drawn support from liberals all across the foreign policy spectrum, from well left to center if not right of center: John Judis of The New Republic, Josh Marshall of TPM, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, Joe Klein of Time, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, Jim Fallows of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic (who, like Friedman, makes a pro-Israel argument for Hagel), etc. Hagel has also been embraced by many on the non-neocon right, as evinced not only by the politicos mentioned above, but by pundits ranging from paleocons to a bunch of libertarians. A few progressives are skeptical of Hagel because of his past conservative positions on issues with little bearing on foreign policy, but by and large this fight is between some neocons (plus a few reliable supporters) and everybody else.
Most importantly, the Washington Post ran a letter endorsing Hagel by the deans of the “realist” school: James L. Jones, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and Frank Carlucci. Hagel, they wrote:
… is a rare example of a public servant willing to rise above partisan politics to advance the interests of the United States and its friends and allies.
You get the thrust: Hagel has widespread popular support among the foreign policy and media establishment. Therefore, the only ones contesting him are from the “Israel lobby,” led by the hated neocons, who are fighting a last-ditch battle to show their power against those who truly represent America’s national interest.
On the Left, the Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan — in his usual hysterical tone — leads the charge against the neocon menace:
Because [William Kristol] operates on the premise that policy toward Greater Israel is not something that a president should have any serious control over. Policy in that respect is set in Congress aided and abetted by AIPAC and batshit crazy Christianist Zionists. Like the NRA, this lethal lobby will destroy any politician it can who stands in its way. It will also try to destroy the careers and reputations of any who criticize it. Nothing exemplifies this more clearly than the chilling, and repulsive headline in Kristol’s own magazine when launching this character assassination
One has come to expect this kind of talk; it avoids substance, and its authors engage in the very smear they accuse their opponents of carrying out.
The latest endorsement of Hagel should give the aforementioned some pause. It comes from none other than the paleo-conservative, isolationist, and anti-Israel zealot whose anti-Semitism is second to none, Pat Buchanan. In his column, Buchanan echoes all of the now familiar “realist” themes, but unlike the others — who try to distance Hagel from being crudely anti-Israel (indeed, they back him by making the argument his appointment would be better for Israel) — Buchanan wants Hagel precisely because he sees him as one who would stand firm against the Jewish nation.
Buchanan, like Walt and Mearsheimer, believes in the undue power of the insidious Israeli lobby, of which he says: “Its existence is the subject of books and countless articles,” and it always gets bills it supports passed — they are “whistled through” Congress whenever one comes up.
Hagel is opposed, Buchanan writes, because he does not “treat these [AIPAC] sacred texts with sufficient reverence,” and because Hagel “puts U.S. national interests first,” especially when “those interests clash with the policies of the Israeli government.”
One must understand, when reading these words, that Buchanan always believes that whatever Israel supports should be opposed by the United States.
The history of isolationism in America is well-known, but less noticed are the lapses of prominent historians and political scientists in diagnosing modern forms of antisemitism, that impact, for instance, the diplomatic situation regarding US policy toward Israel that Ron Radosh writes about with clarity.
I attempted an analysis of “the new antisemitism” here: http://clarespark.com/2009/07/11/multiculturalists-and-wilsonians-cant-diagnose-the-new-antisemitism/.
Check out Mondoweiss, Ron, which is all atwitter at the Hagelian manuever.
It is more than enough to know that Hagel and Buchanan see eye to eye because both are inveterate Israel haters, all their protestations aside. They are hardly American patriots either, and are incapable of protecting America’s delicate interests. One sides with despots, the other with far right, skin head types. Guess which is which.
While Buchanan hangs his hat on the mantra of isolationalism, he is no less an anti-semite for it. He drips it. America’s interests are not served by allowing others to show their muscle at her expense either. Hagel, on the other hand, hearts with tyrants and Islamists who live to kill Jews!
So for all intents and purposes they are brothers-in-arms. And those who believe that the far right, and those who consider themselves less so don’t morph, well, this Israeli blogger has a bridge to sell you too.
Besides, she is more of an American patriot than Buchanan or Hagel ever hope to be. And you can take that to the bank -http://adinakutnicki.com/about/-
Buchannan also attacked the Soviet Jewry movement, one of the activities that helped bring down the Soviet Union.
Patrick Buchanan predates Hagel in his hostility to Israel. He was writing columns against Israel long before Netanyahu was Prime Minister.
Two of his points show the depth of his hostility.
1-Eisenhower forcing the Israelis to leave the Sinai- This forced withdrawal where the Israelis gave up the Sinai after Egypt had violated the armistice numerous times, in return for promises that were not kept (freedom of ship passage and UN demilitarized buffer zones) are the template for why the US insisted in 1967 that this not be repeated and instead there should be secure and recognized borders negotiated for Israel. Obviously Buchanan thinks Eisenhower’s action should be repeated.
2- bisecting the West Bank with settlements- Here he is referring to the lie that E-1 will bisect the West Bank- Leaving the question of the wisdom of Israel’s wanting to connect Maleh Adumim the largest Israeli settlement of 40,000 people with the rest of Jerusalem, E1 does not bisect the West Bank. Looking at any map shows this is a lie. The New York Times admitted that when it wrote this it was not true and claimed it was an error. But Buchanan repeats it knowing it is not true.
There are many reasons to oppose Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense besides Israel, Anti-Semitism and Iran.
Thomas Friedman and Patrick Buchanon supporting Hagel are using magical fairy tale thinking not logic and facts. They believe Hagel will slay the evil ogre Netanyahu and then everyone will live happily ever after.
if you believe that
you can argue that singling out only Jews for exerting too much influence is not anti-semetic. You could argue that the US should accept an Iranian nuclear weapons program or even an Iranian ICBM program. You could argue that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 armistice lines from which it was attacked in return for nothing and still be pro-Israel.
But to me he is the stereotypical Archie Bunker type bigot. His policies have been anti gay (even now after his late and self serving apology he doesn’t support equal benefits for gay military families. He is anti-African American (with a 17/100 rating from NAACP and admires Strom Thurmond as a great role model. anti Woman (vs choice and contraception)
and
Hagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon.
“Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. Yes, Hagel wants to gut the Pentagon’s budget. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Republican Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers.
“Hagel was known for turning over staff every few weeks—within a year’s time he could have an entirely new office because nobody wanted to work for him,” said the source. “You have to wonder how a man who couldn’t run a Senate office is going to be able to run an entire bureaucracy.”
Others familiar with Hagel’s 12 year tenure in the Senate said he routinely intimidated staff and experienced frequent turnover.
“Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.”
Multiple sources corroborated this view of Hagel.
“As a manager, he was angry, accusatory, petulant,” said one source familiar with his work on Capitol Hill. “He couldn’t keep his staff.”
“I remember him accusing one of his staffers of being ‘f—ing stupid’ to his face,” recalled the source
“And one must understand, when reading these words, that Buchanan always believes that whatever Israel supports should be opposed by the United States.”
I never thought I’d be defeinding Buchanan, but this is a dishonest reading of his words.
The US is 14 trillion dollars in debt. A war with Iran could add what 4 trillion more to that.
It could mean no more money from Uncle Sam anymore because he will be even broker than he is now. No matter how many bad names you call him.
Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. The cold war with Israel is more recent. There is no reason to believe, in my opinion, that Iran would strike at Israel in a suicidal action when the US is the “Great Satan” and would be expected to come to Israel’s aid. The mullahs may be suicidal but the generals may not be. My concern with Iran’s nuclear weapon is not that they will put one on a ballistic missile they may not have, as stated by that idiot Biden, but that they will strike us in a weak spot, like New York or Los Angel;es harbor. We have no effective defense against a container which holds a nuclear weapon. I told my son yesterday that we live far enough from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor that we would probably be safe from a nuclear explosion unless it was a dirty bomb. Obama’s actions the last four years would encourage an Iranian leader that the US would not immediately retaliate, as Israel would be expected to do. Libya is a model for the muddle that would follow an attack.
All we have to do about Iran is say Flight Schools is closed for Muslims.
By contrast, what we do when China finally succeeds in provoking a war with China is going to be much tougher.
I predict that day will come and we will wonder why we didn’t just flatten a few Muslim capitals and close the borders.
I dont criticise Bush for trying to do something humane. Or Israel either.
But on the day I predict comes, I bet Israel will also find some quick if bloody means of removing the minor threats so they can worry about the real ones.
Iran. With 1945 technology is not that great threat.
China provokes a war with Japan.
The other prediction would be a lot more interesting but its not the one I am afraid of.
Hagel plus Susan Rice plus Samantha Power equals a virulent anti- Israel movement which would further inflame the Middle East, and paint Israel into a desperate corner from which nuclear war might be the only out.
Pat Buchanan has not been right in the head since he ran for the presidency with a communist as a running mate. In reality he has lost all credibility, his whole claim to fame is that he was in the Reagan administration. There is a lot of people that were in the Reagan administration that have turned out wishy-washy. Buchanan is about as much conservative as Obama.
pat buchanan is still annoyed we interfered with hitler’s onslaught and the premeditated shooting, beating and gassing murders of 6,000,000 jews including 1.5 million jewish children. that is the extent of how much of a jew hater is pat buchanan. as alan dershowitz pointed out, pat buchanan never met a nazi he didn’t like.
now, buchanan has found a soulmate in the disreputable and disgusting hagel. no wonder the Left has climbed in and become bedfellows.
this is not a surprise. the surpise is, rather, that we no longer defend or protect democracy or even make a pretense of doing that. we do, however, buy tickets to see les mis, even while the french who collaborated with the nazis, and now toady to the fascist muslims, get a free pass.
Buchanan’s running mate, Ezola Foster, was not a communist or anything like that.
However, Buchanan did get the endorsement at one point of Lenora Fulani, who was a communist.
I am sure that the ayatollahs have been pretty happy to read Buchanan’s column.
Congrats Pat. The axis muslims-communists-antisemites is now out of the closet.
May G*d protect us.
Perhaps this is tangential to your point, but it is quite a shame that you dismiss foreign policy “realists” as being “the usual suspects.” A realist consensus about US national interest successfully guided the US through the cold war. What was most remarkable was that the realist consensus transcended political party. Among Presidents, Ike was a realist, JFK was a realist, LBJ not so much. LBJ blundered into Vietnam because he ignored realist analysis of US interests. Indeed, the father of contemporary foreign policy realism, Hans Morgenthau was an early opponent of Vietnam. Nixon brought realism back to the White House. Carter split the baby. Carter relied somewhat on Zibignew Brzezinski, but also dithered about with the idealist wing of the Democratic Party. Reagan restored the national interest as front and center to US policy. Bush I, even though he went wobbly on taxes, was a realist on foreign policy. Bill Clinton stayed on the realist path. Bush II was an abject foreign policy failure. No sense of realism in the Bush II years, or really since that time. If President Obama wants to come to Jesus and put foreign policy realism front and center in his foreign policy that is not a bad thing. To call the Deans of US foreign policy realism the “usual suspects” and to dismiss their thinking out of hand is a bad thing. Those are really smart people. They have years of experience. They tend to think about foreign policy as disconnected from domestic PARTY politics–though they recognize that all foreign policy is politics. If you want to call the Deans of foreign policy realism the “usual suspects” perhaps you should at least explain how their analysis of US national interest is mistaken. That would be a fruitful debate.
Harry, these guys are “realists” like Pelosi and Reid are “liberals”.
Again, more often then not, Pat Buchanan is a useful idiot.
It’s mistaken because of where we now find ourselves and the World.
If they are such geniuses, what the hell went wrong? This country hasn’t made a decent strategic decision (except for Reagan) since Eisenhower.
Zbiggy in particular, I loathe. Big Mouth, everything he touched or forecast turned out the opposite, to our detriment. Yet people treat him like a sage.
Intellectuals judge by the way things sound. They talk and talk, never actually looking to see whether their plans ever work. Realists? Who the hell would call them that?
Conservatives judge by the way things ARE. Anyone who cannot see that the Muzzies are nothing at all like the Communist Bloc obviously can’t see out the window.At that, it was only when Commies thought Reagan actually crazy enough to nuke ‘em first, right at the moment they were economically ruined, that they responded. Fear works.
The Muzzies aren’t afraid of death. We must make them afraid.
NUKE Mecca and Medina. End of problem for at least two hundred years.
If that’s too much, can’t we just nuke Iran’s governmental facilities?
Tonight is quiz show night: let’s start with question number 1, name the only country on the planet ever to use nuclear weapons in anger? (game show music plays)
Answer: The United States. That is right! The US bombed Japan TWICE to prove it could! In May 1945 Japan offered the surrender terms to which is ultimately agreed–but the US waited until after it had nuked Japan to accept.
We do not need to travel back down the bad road from WWII and engage in terror bombing like we did in Dresden or Tokyo, much less nuclear bombing, of anyone. The “muzzies” (your words) are rational people like anyone else. There are no countries today who are planning to invite the US to bomb them. Deterrence still works. There is zero evidence that is wrong. To the contrary, Iran has not (in recent history) ever invaded or attacked a neighbor nation. Iran has not ever attacked the US.
The US has attacked Iran. The US has shot down Iranian civilian aircraft. The US has sunk Iranian navy ships.
Where does this balance sit?
It tells me that Iran is content to be patient and work with the US.
Harry, who has been underwriting the Islamic attacks on US personnel in the middle-east through proxies for the past 40 years without encountering any retaliation from us? In fact, we go to great lengths to keep our troops from responding to those attacks as we should. We fight with one (or sometimes even both) arms tied behind our backs) too many times since WWII, and we end up prolonging the problems and letting them grow.
Answer to the question, in case you didn’t know….Iran.
Bill
Do you have personal knowledge of these Iranian activities? If so, have you shared this with the proper authorities? Or to ask it this way, if you have shared those facts alleged in your post with proper authorities why are you putting them online for the world? Bad operational security.
I prefer to think you are blowing smoke. For my part, I trust the proper folks to act based on the facts. No one has yet to say why I should not trust them.
Actually that attack was aimed at the Druze, in the Chouf mountains, not against Amal, besides we know from Admiral Lyons, that Hezbollah, itself an Iranian proxy
had been planning attacks on Americans, for nearly two years, To conflate the downing of Iranian Air 855, with a deliberate attack, either in Beirut and/or Buenos Aires, is odious,
Your knowledge of history is faulty.
The U.S. did not nuke Japan “because we could.” We did it to end the war on our terms without a U.S. invasion of the Home Islands, since we were the aggrieved party. The U.S. insisted on unconditional surrender of Japan. After the Bataan Death March and other Japanese atrocities, the American people would not have been satisfied with less.
Japan was putting out peace feelers, but they were a long way from unconditional surrender. The Japanese militarists were insisting on three VERY major conditions: One, that the Japanese government be left intact and in power; Two, that Japan be allowed to try her own war criminals (which of course meant they would all be acquitted); and Three, Japan was not to be occupied by Allied troops.
IOW, Japan wanted the war to end the same way World War I ended for Germany: With the defeated nation intact, licking its wounds, itching for revenge someday–and maybe someday getting its revenge.
The U.S. quite properly refused. We wanted to fix Japan’s wagon once and for all so they could never again rearm and embark on a new march of conquest. The Japanese government would not have caved in on this without suffering a major blow in the Home Islands.
As for what the U.S. and Iran have been doing: The possession by Iran of nuclear weapons will put the final nail in the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation. It’s not just Israel that fears an Iranian bomb. So do many of the Arab Sunnis. And seeing how the U.S. keeps retreating and retreating, they would demand their own nuclear deterrent rather than feel protected by ours. The result would be a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. Regional nuclear war would become a real possibility.
But Iran wants the bomb for another reason: Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah continue to foment terrorism, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere. The ability of the West to call Iran out on this will evaporate if Iran gets a nuclear deterrent. Then they can sponsor terrorism with impunity. No nation with a nuclear deterrent has ever been successfully attacked by another nation.
The U.S. has a nuclear deterrent for the same reason. But that doesn’t mean that Iran is just as responsible a nation as we.
In military history, nations may adopt the same tactics, but that does NOT mean that they are equally guilty of aggression. Aggression is not a tactic. It’s a policy.
Buchanan unfortunately is a lot like Newt.
80% of the time he’s a brilliant guy makes good sense and makes conservatives proud.
Of course this is one of those dreaded 20% times when you hang your head in disgust or hide under the bed…..again.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and executing Saddam Hussein, as I see it is George W. Bush`s finest achievement.
And remember, Neville Chamberlain himself was a “realist” . As I see it we must stand up against Radical Islamism. It is a moral duty. To think and do that We must appease evil is a policy af shame and dishonor.
Many of these so called realists does not seem to understand that a policy that might have been somewhat useful during the Cold War is not very useful against
fanatics directed by Allah.
Let me see if I follow your logic. You believe that Cold War style calculus of national interest and the understanding of “deterrence” no longer works because “Radical Islam” (your words, and whatever you think that means) is not a self-interested rational actor. Thus the most basic realist principle, that all nations and non-nation state group actors, are self-interested rational actors does not apply. Using your logic, extermination of the “enemy” becomes the only viable option.
You may recall that we fought World War II against a country that was bent on “extermination” as the “solution” to its problem. We rejected any philosophy that called for “extermination” as being immoral and we called its practitioners war criminals. Indeed, one of the most vital US national interests is an absolute rejection of “extermination” as a national policy. One of the best examples of the US protecting this vital interest is the US support for Israel. Another example of this US interest at play is current US policy in support of Syrian opposition groups who face extermination at the hands of their national government.
Realism counsels, however, that you cannot back your enemy into a corner. Winston Churchill reminded folks during the height of the Cold War that (and this may be a paraphrase) “it is always better to jaw-jaw, than to war-war.”
The old realist tools for dealing with atheistic communism can work quite well to deal with so-called Islamic foes (whoever those might be).
Cold Warriors like Reagan were interventionists. Reagan was all over Central and Latin America, intervening even with US troops (see Grenada and Panama).
We were also in Angola and Afghanistan, for example. Not to mention Israel and Egypt and Lebanon. Iran-Iraq war. Alliance with Turkey and of course after Carters disaster in Iran, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf Carter Doctrine.
I thought that Turkey is a NATO member. You have a problem with NATO?
I think NATO may be past it’s sell by date.
I dont have a problem with allying with Turkey during the Cold War, and including them in NATO. I think Turkey wont be an ally in the emerging post Cold War geo-political landscape. In fact, I see them as an emerging enemy. They should be booted out of NATO. NATO may find a use again going forward, as a defense cooperation umbrella of Christian Europe (and Israel and Russia) against the newly re-emerging/ed agressive Islam.
I write only to correct your factual mistakes. Don’t want the children misled.
The US put no boots on the ground in Asia or Africa while Reagan was President. The one “aberration” was Lebanon. After the Marine barracks bombing, the Marines came out and no US boots went back in the ground in Asia ever.
The US intervened in Angola, Afghanistan, etc. with material. But the US supported local forces and left leadership up to local allies. Under Reagan, the US opposed Sovieet adventurism and intervention where it was advantageous to US national interest.
Grenada was Reagan and it was to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. The US kept the Soviets out. Panama was Bush I, not Reagan, but it was also a Monroe Doctrine event.
Your other comments are incoherent. The US maintained its NATO commitments. The US supported Israel’s peace efforts with its neighbors.
Most significantly, Reagan’s realism was defined by the Weinberger Doctrine. That doctrine laid out clear rules for engagement of US forces. The US followed the Weinberger doctrine for years — until Bush II and his neo-con friends tossed it out the window as inconvenient.
Reagan’s genius may have been most evident at Reykjavík. Reagan proposed banning all ballistic missiles. This move ultimately led to the INF treaty. Reagan was a genius. He taught that you can negotiate with evil–or at least the old Soviet Union.
Im sorry, Clinton in the Balkans and Somalia wasnt the Weinberger Doctrine.
Reagan’s Central American policy wasnt Monroe Doctrine, but rather Cold War Policy of Containment ala Vietnam.
Reykjavik is an interesting pivot point with regards to Reagan. Of course the nuclear armed medium range Perhing cruise missiles deployed across Europe, which enraged the local Commies, Sympathizers, Fellow Travellers, and Useful Idiots on the Left was the bargaining chip.
I only replied quickly to you, so that the kiddies wouldnt be fed false and misleading information.
PS – Bush I’s invasion of Kuwait was an execution of the Carter Doctrine, not Weinberger.
Likewise Bush IIs can be seen as finishing the business that Bush I left unfinished….and therefore related to the Carter Doctrine.
You are very confused.
Huntington: “We rejected any philosophy that called for “extermination” as being immoral and we called its practitioners war criminals.”
What do you suppose the U.S. would have done, if the Japanese refused to surrender even after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki?
As for comparing Islamists to the Soviet Communist bloc:
The U.S.S.R. didn’t test-fire its first nuclear bomb till 1949.
If in 1947-48 before the U.S.S.R. had nukes, it had launched a conventional attack on New York City comparable to the 9-11 attack by al-Qaeda, the U.S. would have obliterated the U.S.S.R. with nuclear weapons in retaliation.
In 2006 Hegel complained on national television that Israel was bombing Lebanon a US ally. Everybody knows Israel was attacking Hezbollah, a known terrorist organization. Everybody knows it was doing so in self defense, everybody except Mr. Hegel. I cant believe this man is going to be named secretary of defense.
Hegel died in 1831.
The best reason to oppose Hagel is that he is a buffoonish, lying hack. Thank God he isn’t in the Senate anymore. He was a disaster.
Isn’t it amazing how many of these RINOS end up with Teh Won? Kinda makes the RINO tag more and more appropriate, doesn’t it? Tell me again why we have such scum being endorsed by our party?
Tell me again how we need “electable” candidates?
Fix the voting fraud, and you won’t need RINOs screwing things up.
That same show of support for Lebanon in ’06 is the reason why ray lahood and Darrell issa know better than to run statewide. Issa would even have Michael savage vote against him if he ran for guv or senate in cali.
At least Buchanan was never a communist like you neocons, Ron.
Nah, just a racist who missed the old South and a Jew baiter
Ron came to his senses, Pat took leave of his.
Better a Communist past than Buchanan’s present. Which man’s life was more respectable in its first act–St. Paul’s or Judas Iscariot’s?
Buchanan used to have a rational, populist side, and then every so often he’d go bender on a racist or antisemitic rant. Even then, his racism or antisemitism was right out there, or close enough. Ever since Buchanan’s goofy revisionist book on WWII, I have to figure he’s just nucking futz, he no longer knows truth from fiction, and while his fictions may be amusing to some, at this point if it comes from Buchanan’s mouth (or pen), the only question is WHAT is wrong with it, not whether it’s OK or not – it’s 100% not.
What is really disgusting is the list you give of (mostly Jewish) Hagel supporters. It seems like every day now, the left gets crazier, more like something from 1984 or Brave New World. The only mitigating argument is that they do this out of slavish sycophancy to Obama rather than out of any kind of rational argument, they are bought and paid for and terrified to the depths of their shriveled souls to think their own thoughts or express a dissent.
Buchanan used to have a rational, populist side, and then every so often he’d go bender on a racist or antisemitic rant
His antisemitism goes hand in hand with his populism.
they do this out of slavish sycophancy to Obama
Jews who defend antisemites usually do it out of cowardice, which antisemites perceive and which increases their contempt.
Yep, same with the European Christians. Many groups have contempt for them, because they wont stand up for their interests and well being. Self hating doormats rarely inspire affection and respect.
Cowardice, I dunno, that might be something of the origin of the behavior but after a while it just becomes such a habit they do it for virtually no reason at all.
We may not view Hagel as ideal, But we could do farf worse. John Kerry as SoS is horrendus.
Further the War Party had best understand a few things. The wars are not popular. Good men and women are getting killed for no good reason. We have stayed in the field for too long for no discernable reason. After OBL was killed, there’s no point. We shouldn’t give a 2nd thought who rules these Islamic hellholes. Right now we are propping up an Iranian client Islamic junta in Iraq and the Karzai opium cartel in Afganistan. The two sets of people who did welcome us into Iraq were Christians and Kurds, who we’ve done little good and much harm to both.
The idea we could ever change either place with fraud Petreaus’ COIN was laughably dangerous. Let me get this straight; this guy and his egghead Pentagon deep thinkers took their cues from the French failure in Algeria and sold this old moldy bagette as a great new idea? What were we thinking? Were we thinking at all?
We are broke.We cannot afford any more military adventures, like Obama putting troops in Africa.Former SecDef Gates stated as much. Perhaps a former grunt would at least give Obama another perspective he won;t here from the Beltway was establishment.
If Iran tries anything against Israel, let Israel off it’s leash to defend itself with out support. And perhaps once the ODF wipes them out ina few days the rest of the Islamists will get the message. But it’s not our fight and there is no political support for more war. Washington warned us about entangling alliances, Eisehower about the military industrial complex. Instead of taking wise advice we blunder on. Go figure.
As a side note, while it is popular for many, to note that General Eisenhower, US Army Ret., did warn about the military-industrial complex, but most are unaware that in the same speech he also warned about what has become a bigger problem that is, in part, involved in Obama’s management of the government, which is what is driving this discussion. Ike said “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” We do have a lot of politicized science affecting actions by this administration.
Anti-Semitic Birds of a Feather Flock Together. Nuff said.
What’s sick &sad are some of the conservative sites &talking heads who can be spot on on some issues yet pander to Buchanan and treat him like he’s not a Nazi’s dream come true. But, then, who said all low information voters are on the left?
Obama says what he has to say, and ALWAYS does what he intends to do. His word is worth shit.
The mistake, you are making Harry, is that you think that the radical Islamists are rational people. They are not rational people. They are fanatical warriors of Allah totally devoted to the destruction of people like gays, jews and secular people et cetera. The Eastern European Communist leaders were at least
smart enough to back off from their imperialist expansionist policies when the West read the Riot Act to them.
I also find it amusing that you call Reagan an realist. He would not have taken seriously bufoons like you making excuses for the genocidal Iranian regime. A regime that murders it own people on the streets when these brave heroes protests electoral fraud does not deserve to survive. It must surely be annihilated and its leaders hanged in the lampposts like the scum.
You do not talk with Evil, you destroy it.
When Reagan saw 241 Marines blown up in a pointless deployment in Lebanon he decamped from Crazytown forthwith, after a serious battleship shelling. When Reagan invaded Grenada he also didn’t hang around after deposing the bad guys. d in central America he sent a few advisors, not divisions,leaving the heavy lifting to the locals.
There are lots of bad people in the world. We have neither the lucre nor the stomach to solve all these problems. Fully expect Obama will make a mess of it. But if Hagel can be a cautious voice, good for him. And for American soldiers avoiding endless deployments in the service of unachievable goals.
“…after a serious battleship shelling”
As I recall, it wasn’t very serious. It didn’t seem to bother the Amal milita, or their sponsors.
Having a ballistic shell the size of a Volkswagon fired at you from 8 miles away would tend to cause some consternation. Alas accuracy was an issue.
This is likely not the best forum to engage fully what you wrote. Suffice to say this: take the time to study Tarawa and Iwo. Or maybe, Pont Du Hoc. The Marines and soldiers who stormed those beaches were the bravest on the planet. The first wave on any of those beaches had to be crazy. The enemy was well placed. Fire from pill boxes was crazy. Storming those beaches was not like a vacation on some Disney cruise. Which leads to this point: the person who wears a suicide bomb on a Jihadi mission is no crazier than a Marine who stormed a pillbox on Tarawa. Both soldiers believe in their cause. Both soldier are intense patriots. Both soldier know the crazy risk. Both soldiers act out of extreme courage. Every US boy who was in the first wave on any operation in the Pacific in WWII knew that his chances of living were very low. The first wave made life better for the second and down the line. At Pont du Hoc, those first Rangers up the cliff made life better for who came next. The “other side” today thinks the same thing.
The enemy is just as rational as were the US boys who stormed beaches in WWII. Get real. War stinks all around. No one wants to die. Heros step up.
Those were brave men indeed. But they fought a defined enemy with a clear purpose.
By contrast we are now well into the 2nd decade of what ever it is we are doing in the Middle East. We have rules of engagement that would’ve gagged the WWII generation. We pretend we can pacify these people with happytalk and coddling nonsense. We have to respect their group psychosis/religion under great pains. Witness Fort Hood(and why has that POS Nidal not faced a firing squad after a quick trials?). And for our trouble and big piles of money we get our brave men and woemn blown up with IEDs and scumbag Islamists that betray us.
If you want to speak ill of Hagel because he realizes these wars are beyond insane, knock yourself out. But it could be the one appointment Obama has made that many across the political spectrum may view as quite sensible.
Clearly reading skills in modern schools have declined. My posts criticized Ron Radosh. I have written nothing to oppose Chuck Hagal. I have not written to support him either. I wrote to say that neo-cons improperly criticize foreign policy realists. I defended foreign policy realism. Perhaps try to be sober when you read. Or maybe read all of the posts, not just one. Context is key.
Responding to you is not necessarily opposing you.Seemed a logical place to say my piece. Carry on, and Happy New Year.
Harry, the arrogance from your posts is leaking out of my monitor, so I would like to make this fairly obvious observation.
You say. “No one wants to die.”
Where have you been for, oh, say, the last couple of decades?
Have you not seen the Muslim suicide bombers and the countless other Muslims who readily profess their willingness to die to destroy Israel?
Buchanan is right on a lot of things but when he says “… Hagel “puts U.S. national interests first,” especially when “those interests clash with the policies of the Israeli government.” he is 180 degrees off.
I would like to see where the policies of the Israeli government clash with U.S.interests.
Much, MUCH more often than not, opposing the policies of the Israeli government clashes with the interests of America. There is no hope, and that means a ZERO probability of the so-called “Palestinians” accepting Israel. None.
Says who? The “Palestinians” and the book Obama insists on referring to as “The Holy Quran.”
So what is the “realist” view? Support our friends(Israel) and oppose our enemies, meaning those whose sworn goal is the destruction of Western Civilization after they have eliminated Israel. That meaning Islam. Not “Radical” Islam or the latest euphemism Islamism, not Islamic extremists but Islam.
This reality is not at all difficult to see, but to name it and deal with it takes more courage than any one in Washington has.
Why does anyone care about what Pat Buchanan thinks?
Because stupid people needs to be put in their place, and to be made an exampe of
what political stupidity looks like.
No doubt G Bush, and John McCain, and Mitt Romney were also all code-word anti smemites judging by the fact all the jews voted against them.
Im sorry. I wish Israel well. But I am angry to my core reading all of these internet essays about anti semitic Americans.
American Jews went out and voted for Obama. Twice.
George Bush broke the republican party because he thought it was important to stop Saddam Hussein. Sadam , who was bankrolling terrorists, who was forming a division with the express intention of invading Israel.
I still havent seen that much evidence the IDF is all that eager to get into a war with Iran that could kill literally millions of people.
Maybe their anti semitic too.
It is interesting that people who believe in moral foreign policy like myself is called Nazis by ignorants like Harry Huntingdon. A moral foreign policy that dares to call Evil by its right name is the only true “realist” policy.
And if you, Harry, says that such a policy is popular with the people, I retort to you ; Just because something is popular does not mean it is morally right.
Please do not mislead people about what I said. I have made zero comments about you or your beliefs. I have spoken about facts. In particular, I have said realism is a good thing.
So does everyone else. The difference is, your side has presumptuously dubbed itself as the “realists,” no matter how wildly UNREALISTIC its assumptions or prescriptions.
Pat and Louie sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G!
actually, i’m pretty psyched to be called ‘batshit crazy’ by andrew sullivan.
Anyone who cannot identify the enemies of the US is not qualified to be Secretary of Defense
A realist View from a secular Jew
The only conventional weapon in the world that can currently take out Fordow Iranian enrichment facility is the American 30,000 LB GBU 57 a/b ultra large bunker buster.Only America’s B52 or B2 are capable of carrying such an enormous bomb. The B2s have been retrofitted to carry two each of these monsters. I think by picking Hagel Obama is telegraphing the fact that he will not in the end attack Fordow and Natanz with the B2s. If, as reported, the Fordow facility is buried over 200 feet deep inside a mountain and surrounded by reinforced concrete. that will leave the IDF with one option for success in taking out this bunker – a deep burrowing tactical nuclear bunker buster.Since a Jew, Leo Szilard, first patented the concept of of the atomic bomb (He donated the patent to the British Government at beginning of WW ll) and so many other Jewish scientists worked on the Manhattan project this use by Israel would be rather poetic. Hopefully they will take out the Ayatollah rat nest at Quom at the same time. The world would be better off if Obama used his conventional option, but my bet is he won’t. An attack by anyone on Israel after they take care of the Iranian sites would be national suicide for the attackers. The Jericho 3 ICBM can reach any city in the world. Along with “NEVER AGAIN” goes We will not go to the ovens alone again. Happy 2013 one and all.
“…whose anti-Semitism is second to none, Pat Buchanan.” Really? Read David Duke lately? Or how about the Marxist crowd whose anti-Semitism makes Buchanan look like a piker? I have a lot of respect for you Mr. Radosh. But when you make comments like that you sound hysterical.
I think he means among people who are taken seriously. Although Al Sharpton should be ahead of him.
BTW, I’m not convinced he IS an anti-semite. But it doesn’t much matter; it’s the upshot of his policies that do,
I seem to remember William F. Buckley saying Pat was anti-semitic. Pat is an excellent writer and I have read just about all of his works. But then again, I have also read most of W. Shakespear’s works, especially The Merchant of Venice, and you know how anti-semitic that play is.
“I’m not convinced he IS an anti-semite”
Let’s see …
Praises Hitler
Mocks Holocaust survivors
Pulicizes Holocaust deniers
Claims to support “Western values” but pimps out any Islamofascist savage – Ahmedinejad, Sheik Yassin, etc. ad nauseam – as long as they have murder in their heart for the Jews
What would it take to convince you? Does he have to pop a Jew out of his home oven?
Its possible Buchanan is an anti semite. But I have not read anything from Buchanan praising Hitler. He said Hitler did not seek war with England or the United States. And he pointed out that the war the west began to keep Poland out of German hands (and China out of Japanese hands) saw both countries ultimately fall to communist dictators rather than fascist ones.
Those are true statements so far as they go. Buchanan’s cardinal sin is he does not support war.
And to tell the truth I find it hard to condemn a man who questions the need for a war in Iran that will surely kill 100 000 human beings. Its a big price to pay.
I
My opinion on this is clear : Obama`s foreign policy is not a moral foreign policy.
“who are fighting a last-ditch battle to show their power against those who truly represent America’s national interest.”
Which is, of course, the interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to whom many appear to owe their first loyalty.
A true monarchy. George Washington is turning over in his grave.
It doesn’t man anything really. Pat Buchanan is a commentator and he likes this nomination.
“Buchanan, like Walt and Mearsheimer, believes in the undue power of the insidious Israeli lobby,”
They do have undue power. AIPAC is a powerful lobby and lobbying by it’s nature is back channels and that sort of thing. They are all insidious.
” that Buchanan always believes that whatever Israel supports should be opposed by the United States.’
So if Israel supported a real two state solution people like Buchanan would oppose it? I doubt that.
“Therefore, the only ones contesting him are from the “Israel lobby,” led by the hated neocons, who are fighting a last-ditch battle to show their power against those who truly represent America’s national interest.”
Also true. the anti gay remarks have been apologized for and groups with those concerns have largely moved on. Just look at Den Senor or Republic Jewish Coalition twitter accounts, it’s all anti Hagel memes being thrown against the wall to see what sticks. It’s plain to see.
“(After all, as others have argued, the mullahs need a bomb to protect themselves from Israeli aggression!)”
Here’s a list of wars started by Israel in the last 30 years:
1982 Lebanon
2006 Lebanon
Besides which Israel has been a direct combatant in another *3* wars that it did not start over the same period. They’ve averaged a war every 6 years.
Now how many wars has Iran started in the last 30 years?
0.
How many wars have they been a direct combatant in over the same period?
1, the Iran-Iraq war that Saddam started. That’s 1/5th the rate at which Israel has found itself dropping bombs on people.
So yeah, between the two I’d much rather have the bomb in the hands of the country that has been a sly political manipulator instead of the country that time and again feels the need to embroil itself in open warfare.
Generally, when a person or nation is attacked without any provocation, decent people call that “self defense”, rather than “feel[ing] the need to embroil itself in open warfare.”
Of course, when you consider the ENTIRE picture, your count is off. For Israel, it’s ZERO wars started.
You see, again, decent people recognize that in some cases, it shooting back first IS self defense.
Who did Pat Buchanan endorse for President in 2012? Oh, yeah, that Romney guy — you know, the fellow that Sheldon Adelsen and Bibi Netanyahu loved. How could they support someone endorsed by Buchanan?
http://washingtonlife.smugmug.com/2009-photos/J-Street-Gala-Dinner/10513158_nzPfg2/729949426_RkzyW#!i=729949426&k=RkzyW
The comments here are exactly like those you’d find at ThinkProgress. What a strange website this has become.
Instead of refuting based on logic and reason, the vast majority of comments have resorted to emotional name calling. If you disagree with someone, just call them a racist, sexist, antisemite, homophobe. How Pathetic.
Honestly, when anybody uses those terms, I know they’re full of shit.
Excellent job by Buchanan and Hagel for telling the JIDF and AIPAC to mind their own business.
Did you see my list above? All that stuff has been *on record* for decades, right out of his columns. Buchanan is quite obviously a fanatic, dyed-in-the-wool antisemite and has shown it for a long time.
You want to know how antisemitic Pat Buchanan is? He’s *almost* as antisemtic as Jimmy Carter.
More often then not Pat Buchanan is a useful idiot.
More often then not, Pat Buchanan is a useful idiot.
Mr Buchanan became irrelevant in the past decade just as Mr Hagel morphed into a turncoat leftist elitist without Republican credence.
No surprise.
Pat Buchanan’s antisemitism has been obvious for at least a decade now.
The only people he hates more than Communists are Jews.
No big surprise, more attacks from the diminishing Jewish Lobby.
Exactly. 98% of the articles written trashing Hagel are written by Jews. Yet they claim there is no Jewish cabal that is anti-Hagel.
What other explanation could there possibly be?