Do we need Buchanan

Good blog. But I need to politely disagree with you on a thing or two.

First, I've never seen, heard, or read any anti-Semitic comment from PJB. His stance on U.S. non-involvement with Israel is clear, but I believe that stems from isolationist rather than anti-Semitic philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong. I've only read four of his books, but I've read many of his columns and heard him speak many, many times. I never got an anti-Semite vibe from him.

I'm a Christian, too. As such, I have a powerful connection to Israel and the Jewish people. Needless to say, I disagree with Pat on his views regarding U.S. relations with said nation. And I see massive holes in his understanding of Israel's role in America's future, and I think he fails to really grasp the truth of Israel's rightful claims. Still, I don't think arguing against Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism, is it?

Second, I can't argue with your point about POTUS's role as CiC. The real question, though, is one of LEADERSHIP, as opposed to legal entitlement. Has Bush shown the leadership needed to weather this storm? He started out well, but his will seems to have flagged since initial successes in Iraq. He seems to have contented himself with letting us slog it out without the benefit of his stolid leadership (BTW, I wrote a blog that somewhat defines what I mean by "leadership", if you're interested).

But if we are to succeed in Iraq - and relations with Iran and Syria hinge upon that success - then Bush needs to become Churchill, much like he did after 9-11. Important as his CiC title may be, more crucial still is the wartime President's role as rallying point, whether he wants it that way or not.

Thanks for reading.

Pat Buchanan's worldview is obsolete- he would have been entirely comfortable with Washington's exhortation about foreign entanglements, which was fine when the oceans afforded us protection and insulation.

In today's globalized world isolationism [and that is what Buchanan espouses] is really just playing the ostrich who hopes because he can't see the danger it is not real.

The stupidest thing we can do is remove our military from the Middle East- not only because we would abdicate it to the Terrorists for a breeding ground, but also because oil is the LIFE BLOOD of modern society and we MUST protect it.

Buchanan's time has come and gone- now it's time for him to follow suit and leave as well.

If we are not worried about oil we should be. We should develope our own resources, develop alternative sources and protect our supply from abroad. It is very simple. Oil is important. Most of the countries in the world have some but that is about all the arab countries have.

"I do believe that negotiating with Ahmadinejad who is an outright madman committed to starting a global war would be the ultimate folly. There seems to be an uncommon unanimity of opinion that we cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Beyond that I'm unaware of anybody that has a workable plan. Military action may be our only option. I certainly hope not. On the other hand, the United Nations is useless and is little more than a platform for those who wish to criticize America and our allies."

Totally agree with this, negociating with a madman does not work. Gingrich came out with an interesting plan when the British sailors were hostage....I don't have a link anymore, but I think it amounted to 1st, Iran has just 1 gasoline refinery, all that oil but no other way to make it useful. Give them an ultimatum, if they choose not to comply, bomb the gas refinery (and possibly some missile sites or nuclear sites as well). Blockade the coast, seal off the Iranian and Afghan borders, and they are neutralized. It isn't perfect, but we do have some options.

As for Buchanan, you are right, even if he isn't antisemitic (which I believe) he is at very least detached from reality. We cannot isolate ourselves and barricade ourselves off from the world.

I live in Live Oak, but just moved here in 2003. Enjoyed visiting your blog.