Apparently I'm (almost) a paleoconservative

If Martin Cothran is to be believed (and naturally he isn't):

The paleocons, almost as a matter of definition, opposed the war [in Iraq], and opposed it harshly.

I opposed the war in Iraq, and opposed it harshly, so "almost as a matter of definition," I'm a almost paleocon, just like Pat Buchanan, and unlike William F. Buckley, who only opposed the war tepidly, and that was only after it actually started.

In my newfound (almost) paleo-conservative state, I can say with (almost) no underlying political animus that Pat Buchanan, (almost) ally though he may be, is an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier, and the rest of my paleoconservative kin would do well to avoid citing him, or at least to skip citing him on Holocaust Remembrance Day (or Israeli Independence Day, for that matter).

I note with interest that Conservapedia does not list William F. Buckley as a neo-conservative. Probably because Buckley, while happy to ally with neocons when it was politically useful, regarded them as wrong on their central issue, foreign policy. In a 2005 interview, Buckley denounced "[t]he neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy." Despite this disagreement, Buckley worked with neocons because his goal was not to divide the conservative movement, but to unite it for maximum political effect.

Thus, he had no political advantage to gain by charging Pat Buchanan with anti-Semitism, unless it were a valid charge that might weaken conservatism by association. In fact, in 1991 Buchanan's anti-Semitism was already stunningly obvious, and failing to denounce it would have left Buckley and conservatism writ large to be tarred along with Buchanan. So, just as Buckley distanced himself from anti-Semitism at the American Mercury, and just as he parted ways with the lunatic fringe of the John Birch movement early on, he called out Pat Buchanan on his anti-Semitism. In doing so, he hoped to prevent the taint from Buchanan's Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism from spreading to the rest of his movement.

This is a project Cothran has no interest in. He's content to wrap himself up in defending Buchanan's anti-Semitic and Holocaust denying comments. Cothran continues to ignore the basis of Buckley's assessment of Buchanan's anti-Semitism, as he ignores ADL's denunciation of Buchanan's anti-Semitism, and extensive reporting by historians and reporters close to Buchanan which shows him happy to repeat and elaborate upon Holocaust denial, shows him to have defended Nazi war criminals whether they protested their innocence or not (NB, this involves more than just Demjanjuk), and shows him to misrepresent history in order to absolve Hitler of responsibility for what Jewish deaths he cannot denying having happened in Nazi Germany (all the while denying that they were gassed).

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Republican Party of 2009: desperate to embrace the anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial of Pat Buchanan, but unwilling to tolerate any dissent on tax rates from Arlen Specter.

More like this

Martin Cothran's difficulties with basic reading comprehension continue. I'm putting most of this response below the fold, because sometimes someone on the internet is just wrong. All you need to know about Cothran's commitment to the truth is this reply to my claim that "I find [William F.]…
Martin Cothran is upset wroth. I pointed out that his defense of Pat Buchanan against charges of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are fallacious, and he replies with a post that show no actual signs of having read what I wrote. Cothran's continued defense of Pat Buchanan against charges of anti-…
Martin Cothran, presumably upset that I keep pointing out that the supposed logic teacher prefers logical fallacies to honest data, has now sunken to defending Holocaust denial. In replying to his repetition of a screed by Pat Buchanan, I noted that not only was Barack Obama rightly dismissive of…
Martin Cothran takes a break from defending Pat Buchanan's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial to pick a fight over the definition of the Holocaust. All you need to know is that the definition employed by Yad Vashem, the Anti-Defamation League, historians at the Holocaust History Project, and…

Well, Josh, let's see where you are on THIS issue:
"Defense lawyers Abbe Lowell and Baruch Weiss said their clients had met frequently with those officials. As witnesses, the officials would help prove that the Bush administration, like prior administrations, routinely discussed sensitive information with AIPAC as part of a sanctioned, back-channel relationship between the United States and Israel."
Sanctioned? Who sanctioned this? I didn't. No American did. Just the politicians who suck up to AIPAC and Israel instead of looking out for American interests.
This judge needs to be investigated for ties to AIPAC.
If these two guys had been working for a Muslim lobby group or any other foreign lobby group instead of a Zionist one, they would have been hung already.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-aipac2-2009may02,0…

I am neither a holocaust denier nor an anti-semite but I bet you bring up both of those accusations.

FWIW, we have all sorts of "sanctioned back channel relationships" so that we can communicate with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and friendly governments we want to work with informally. Theodore Roosevelt did a lot of his diplomacy through such channels. So I don't think it's proof-positive of nefarious intent that such channels exist.

I do think there's substantial evidence that AIPAC or its staff have crossed the line into criminal behavior, and their influence is substantial and worrisome. That's why groups like J-Street are so valuable, and why I support them, Tikkun, and other groups that represent pro-peace Jews in the US and Israel. AIPAC doesn't speak for all Jews, nor for all Israelis.

And no, I see nothing anti-Semitic or Holocaust denying in what you wrote.

Sorry for my "sensitivity". There is a certain blogger named Orac (I think it was Orac - could have been PZ) who likes to jump to those exact conclusions against anyone who dares to criticize Israel.

The problem of peace in the Middle East is difficult and complex. It is not possible to criticize Israel without being constantly bombarded by those who believe the overgrown fireworks that Hamas shoots into the Israeli desert is justification for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Or to pretend that the constant encroachments of settlements by the "legal" excuse that Palestinian homes do not have the proper permits so it is ok to bulldoze them does not incite Hamas. The cycle is never ending and the current rulers of Israel will do nothing to help the situation.

It made me want to puke that Obama felt he had to vet himself with AIPAC just as it made me want to puke that he felt he needed to vet himself with right wing Fundies. No President of our secular nation should ever feel the need to do that.