Buchanan Is a Nazi

You wonder why I referred to Pat Buchanan yesterday as "little Hitler?" Here's something that was on his website today:

"... the 9/11 attack ...was... carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,”

Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,”

Understand now? Yet he continues to be presented by our "liberal" press as an acceptable, reasonable political commentator.

Comments

Poll P. said…
A raving, dangerous, lunatic.
dmarks said…
No quotes needed around "liberal" when referring to left-wing media sources such as CBS, CNN, etc. They see Buchanan as a acceptable conservative to consult.

I don't recall seeing Buchanan on Fox News. Maybe has been there for all I know. Or maybe Buchanan considers it to be controlled by those evil "zionists and neo-cons" and stays away.

I am a conservative. It is rare when I find something in a Buchanan column I agree with. I've been railing against him for a long time. A couple of years ago, he came out with a book on WW2 in which he claimed the Holocaust was a justified reaction to the allies attacking Hitler.

In his columns, he once ranted about how Churchill was the true villain of WW2, and Hitler was just a nice guy minding his own business.
Green Eagle said…
You bet- and yet at one time he was a viable possibility as Republican candidate for President.

You are probably right about Buchanan and Fox- I don't watch Fox, so I'll take your word for it. Still, he has been treated as a responsible spokesman for Conservatives for decades now, and I don't remember any of them really saying that they don't want to be associated with him (other than you.)
dmarks said…
Come to think of it, I don't recall others criticizing him on that. Yet again, I rarely encounter conservative web sites that use him as a source.

I did find a liberal one recently once, but they were careful to put the quote in context, even if the quote was being used to support their argument.

Lots of things from Buchanan come to mind, like his opposition to immigrants coming from Africa and support of immigrants coming from Eastern Europe in one column. He took care to list the reasons that Africans should not be allowed compared to Europeans.... but he never mentioned that his opposition was race-based. He just skirted around it.
dmarks said…
I also don't think Buchanan was ever viable. He might have looked viable for a brief time due to his deft playing of the early primary game, but he was really a joke/vanity candidate like Nader and Sharpton.

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

If a Tree Falls In the Woods