<p>All you’ve done is cut-n-paste from a secondary source. As I said, if you are going to accuse people of anti-Semitism or child-molestation, you’d better have more than rumors and gossip. </p>
<p>David Horowitz and Front Page please! This is your authority to make such a claim? </p>
<p>Im a conservative and know the former editor of Ramparts to be a whining wolf in sheeps clothing–whether he is arguing for the right or the left he is always a disingenuous wannabe-victim capable of making the most outrageous statements known to political discourse. </p>
<p>My point stands.</p>
<p>Heres your source, “Front Page,” on Rev Martin Luther King Jr:
<p>I am no fan of either David Horowitz, or Front Page. However, these were Buchanan’s own words, from television and newspaper media, as well as Buchanan’s own books. Many of his “comments” from been transcribed from interview tapes. All Horowitz did was compile them. Sorry if you don’t believe them, FS. That really isn’t my concern.</p>
<p>Personally, I have not sat face to face with Buchanan, so that I could provide you with more “intellectual clarity” in the form of a primary source. I am afraid you will have to believe sources such as the Washington Post, etc. although you may be loathe to do so.</p>
<p>Should I believe the quotes and innuendo on MLK, as well? </p>
<p>If so, MLK was a wretched human being, not a great civil rights leader, as I believe him to be; and Buchanan is an Anti-Semite, as you believe him to be.</p>
<p>I’m afraid I must believe that the intent is to smear: Both in your post and in Front Page. It is not always the politics of the person…it is as often as not the relationship to “truth”–or even if there is one.</p>
<p>The MLK comments were not his own comments, but those of someone else calling him a wretched human being. Show me some bigoted comments of King’s that are from a primary source. “Said to have uttered duing one of his sexual romps” is not a source like a taped interview or book excerpt. But I know you know that, up there in Hanover.</p>
<p>The Buchanan words WERE his own, unadulterated. This was not Horowitz simply calling Buchanan an anti-Semite, but letting Buchanan implicate himself with his own words. If you do not read those comments as anti-Semitic and in the camp of the Holocaust deniers, again, there is not much more that I can do, aside from wonder if you share those views yourself.</p>
<p>Your comparison of the two, just because both were printed in the Front Page rag, shows some intellectual laziness of your own.</p>
<p>Buchanan’s angry speech at 1992 at the RNC in Houston gave me pause, but it didn’t stop me from reading his works and listening to his interviews. He’s has been prone to exaggeration in the past, and even W.F. Buckley chastised Buchanan and told him to choose more neutral language when it comes to his disagreements with American Jews and Israel. Nevertheless, Buchanan’s book on the decline of the west is fascinating reading. And his mantra from the recent past, “Fortress America,” undeniably resonates with many conservatives and liberals today in light of the fool’s errand in Iraq.</p>
<p>What a shameful state of affairs; it’s disheartening and ugly…and, I guess, to be expected.
-You should have simply cut your loses, AM. </p>
<p>If your fellow liberals had the courage, integrity and heart to do it they would not only distance themselves from this hateful maneuver, they would condemn it. </p>
<p>So you cut out and ran, because you are unable to provide primary sources for your comments about MLK, as well as equating what was written about King in Front Page to what Buchanan said himself.</p>
<p>I am ashamed of nothing, but do question your lack of rebuttal against the Buchanan comments. It might take the same courage and integrity and heart that you claim liberals lack to stand up to the bigotry, xenophobia and hatred of the likes of Buchanan. This hatred is well beyond Jews, but against gays, women, African Americans, Hispanics…actually ALL immigrants, who he claims will ruin America.</p>
<p>I remember Buchanan’s speech at the 1992 convention. I was horrified when he used the term “culture wars.” I felt it was the first time I witnessed the speech of a true demagogue. I think if I met him in person and got to know him I’d find him very distasteful. But I have to admit that the term “culture wars” has become part of our lexicon–he was right about that. Maybe there’s a bit of truth to what he’s saying about this subject now, who knows? I haven’t yet looked into his book.</p>
<p>In 1991, Buchanan wrote: “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.” Buchanan specifically named Abe Rosenthal, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthamer and Henry Kissinger. In a later column, he wrote that “If it comes to war, it will not be the ‘civilized world’ humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.” </p>
<p>William F. Buckley, Jr. responded in an essay, writing “There is no way to read that sentence without concluding that Pat Buchanan was suggesting that American Jews manage to avoid personal military exposure even while advancing military policies they (uniquely?) engender.”</p>
<p>I have been doing some reading about Israel, the Rapture, and how they are connected. When reading the writings, what I have discovered is, when supporting Israel, the word Jews or Jewish are seldom used. The writers refer to the inhabitants often only as Israels, unless they are talking about being “saved” What that signifies (and yes, I am aware that not everyone is Israel is Jewish), what that signifies is a support for the land, not the people in it…two very different things, and a support for the biblcial proffecies that can only come true if Israel still exists.</p>
<p>That is to say, whle it APPEARS some people are not anti-semites because they support Israel, that support of Israel often is for other reasons. And it is not supprting the Jewish people because they like Jews, no it is supporting the Israel because it is necessary for the rapture, the second coming.</p>
<p>Reading about he Rapture, well, that is interesting to say the least, but as our President consults often with the believers in the Rapture, and the “requirements” for it, it is important to understand what is motivating these interesting relationships.</p>
<p>I believe Israel has a right to exist, I may not always agree with the methods, but those are two seperate issues.</p>
<p>I do feel it is imperative to understand the motiviation behind all the players, and they are not all alturistic</p>