The American Spectator

WendyG| 4.14.09 @ 3:51PM

Pat always bring out the Jew-haters when he goes in this direction. Nothing I haven't read before. And sometimes far worse.

BTW - Ron Paul has the same effect. As anyone who read the thread about him here will recall. And Taki too! Bird-brains of a feather.

patfan| 4.14.09 @ 4:12PM

Come on, Mr. Klein,
Pat's defense of the man in not vile. Pat is saying the evidence is rather thin. Based on the link you provided, it appears to be very, very thin. While I'll grant you some of the commentators' posts repugnant, this is still the country where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. (At least if the DHS doesn't deem them rightwing extremists. ) Based on the history of this case, it appears that this man was subject to at least one which-hunt. I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that he is being subjected to another.

Red Phillips| 4.14.09 @ 4:15PM

Oh come on. Not the tired "Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite" nonsense again. Pat is clearly emotionally invested in this issue because he was nearly alone in defending JD from the original false charge. Who knows if JD is guilty of what has been alleged this time? He may be but it is certainly not a proven case. That is why we have trials. To call him a Nazi War Criminal as if the case were proven exposes your bias.
But there are jurisdictional issues all over this case that should make any fair-minded person squirm. Why does Germany get to try a Ukrainian that they conscripted into service? Why not go after Germans? But of course they can’t do that. Just as there were huge jurisdictional problems with the first trial. Why does Israel get to charge him? He didn’t live in Israel and never had. Israel gets to charge him because it is the Jewish State? Anyone who can’t see the problem with that sort of cross borders selective international justice (not to mention ex post facto) is not thinking.
If he is guilty I really don’t know what the proper way to bring him to justice would be, but this certainly ain’t it. I don’t really care for Pat’s Jesus allusion, but JD is serving as a sacrificial lamb to sooth Germany’s self loathing guilt.

David| 4.14.09 @ 4:16PM

Thanks for the comment on Pat B. article. I followed the link and read it for myself and cannot find anything hateful about it. Infact he praises the Israeli courts and is very balanced in reporting about this case. I have to say that it takes courage to defend someone accused of been a Nazi, and P.B. does have that.

Martin| 4.14.09 @ 4:46PM

Red Phillips and David, hear hear. Nothing deters moderate philo-Semites like myself more than hysteria about the Holocaust, which is just one of several 20th century atrocities, and not the worst, and attempts to wrench US foreign policy into putting Israel first, as GWB did and Giuliani lost a perfectly winnable GOP nomination by trying to do.

Lebanon is just as important as Israel and was in 2006 a fragile democracy; US support of the Israeli invasion, which did not distinguish adequately between Hezbollah strongholds and Beirut airport, was a total disgrace.

From Israel's POV, the isolationist right like Buchanan is FAR less dangerous than the Obamaite left.

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 5:09PM

Hitler and Stalin were innocent, too, framed on trumped-up charges .
Hitler liberated Jews by killing them, putting them out of their media-controlling misery.
Stalin put Ukrainians on diets during the Holodomor-- almost all lost weight, were fashion-model sveldte.

Brian Kirk| 4.14.09 @ 5:09PM

Where is the hate in PJB's column?

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 5:11PM

Pol Pot put 99.9 percent of Cambodians on a national diet.

low fat, carb, low protein.

high exercise.

jaywhite| 4.14.09 @ 5:27PM

Buchanan is at least as bad as David Duke. However, his column is taken seriously. His insane books are in plain sight in bookstores. This is someone who argued Hitler was forced to go to war, because of the British and the French, and Hitler was forced to invade Poland and accidentall killed at least 6 million Poles because they were "unreasonable" during "negotiations". There is no one who is more deserving of a padded cell.
The comments by Buchanan's supporter's are also insane. Of course, talking about the murder of 90% plus of European Jews, is obviously hysterical. It probably happens every day .. not.
Buchanan has always hated Jews , but as his senility and associated psychosis escalates, his "writings" become more insane each year.

jaywhite| 4.14.09 @ 5:46PM

I just read several pages of comments. The hatred of Jews that this worm Patrick J. Hitler, stirs up is incredible. If anyone doesn't believe me. Go to David Duke's forum Stormfront. The comments there make Stormfront look like the B nai Brith forum compared to the disgusting drivel expressed by the worms stirred up by Patrick J. Hitler.

William R| 4.14.09 @ 6:14PM

Give it a rest Klein. There's nothing hateful in Pat's article. On the other hand your hysterical rant shows me who the real hater is. Your attempt to smear Ron Paul when he spoke out against the Gaza slaughter a few months ago tells me you don't have the maturity to be writing at a magazine like the American Spectator. Thankfully a judge stopped the deportation order and John Demjanjuk is back at home where he should be.

zombyboy| 4.14.09 @ 6:30PM

Seriously, you guys defending PB's article defend this last bit:

"It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago."

You don't see that as being very blatantly anti-Semitic in nature? Especially given that many Christians blame "the Jews" for Christ's crucifixion? If you doubt that or intend to disagree, spend a few moments reading through the comments section to see even more vile commentary that what Mr. Klein chose to share with us.

Whether his defense of the man is right or not, it is hard for me to believe that he wrote those words not knowing the way that they would be understood by the hordes of anti-Semites who read his work. Again, I refer to the comments section for anyone who would dissent.

I cannot believe that it was unintentional either as a reflection of his own beliefs or an act of rabble rousing perhaps even more despicable if he doesn't hold those same views. If he himself is not an anti-Semite, then what is the point of feeding raw, red meat to the Holocaust deniers, neo-nazis, and that particular kind of hateful Christian who finds comfort in blaming the Jews for the evils of the world?

Red Phillips| 4.14.09 @ 6:33PM

jaywhite, do you really think hyperbole (Patrick J. Hitler ha ha ha) and mischaracterizing Buchanan's book helps your case? Pat's WWII book received a mixed reception on the non-interventionist paleo right. Clyde Wilson wasn't persuaded and neither was John Lukacs for example. But the non-interventionist right would not so often need to correct the record on WWII (and no I am not talking about Holocaust denial so spare me) if the interventionist neocons didn't trot it out to justify every foreign policy belligerence they dream up. I can't tell you how many times I have been arguing with an interventionist and they bring up Chamberlain or Hitler or whatever as if they were even remotely related to the latest pre-emptive aggression the neocons are pushing. You quit using WWII as the all purpose defense of interventionism, and we will feel less need to correct the record. Deal?

Now back to the topic at hand. Anti-Semitism, like racism, has become an all purpose charge that is a political bludgeon. It is intended to stop thought rather than to communicate an idea. Any self-respecting conservative should be ashamed of himself for "first use" of this rhetorical bomb. That is what left-wing Cultural Marxist like the SPLC and ADL do.

The charge of anti-Semitism should never be based on the political or foreign policy positions a person takes. It should only be based on overt evidence of hate.

I do think there is a lot of resentment of Israel and some of Israel's supporters because of the disproportionate role they are seen as playing in US foreign affairs, but that is not hate. There is also a lot of resentment of dispensational Christians for similar reasons; that doesn't necessarily make those who resent them anti-Christian.

Roy| 4.14.09 @ 6:50PM

I'm pretty sure Chamberlain is not going to cease to be brought up. It may or may not be related to any particular case. But the fact that Chamberlain's weakness led to the most destructive war in history is not going to be papered over.

If that, in the mind of the "non-interventionist right" pushes them into the need to "correct the record" on WWII in ways that sound suspiciously like defenses of Hitler then that's more a problem for the "non-interventionist right" than for their opponents. I'm more than happy to see my opponents in an argument take that tack.

So: No deal.

I agree with Mr. Phillips on a lot of things - but not this one.

As far as Buchanan, it's true he can bring out a pretty nasty crowd. But these days, the Internet being what it is there is no way to know. It's the work of a moment for me to go over to the Human Events website and post a hundred illiterate Jew-hating messages to make him look bad. So going by comments threads is pretty ridiculous as TAS should know given the number of fraudulent trolls here.

William R| 4.14.09 @ 7:02PM

'"It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago." "

Well John Demjanjuk was ordered deported on Good Friday. Do you know why Good Friday is a Holiday?? There's nothing anti-semitic in Pat's column.

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 7:09PM

another myth is that Russians raped, tortured and mutilated millions (many children) of Prussians in 1945.

what could be further from the truth?

Red Phillips| 4.14.09 @ 8:42PM

“If that, in the mind of the "non-interventionist right" pushes them into the need to "correct the record" on WWII in ways that sound suspiciously like defenses of Hitler then that's more a problem for the "non-interventionist right" than for their opponents. I'm more than happy to see my opponents in an argument take that tack.”

That’s sleazy Roy and you admit as much. You like it when your opponent argues that way because it is an unsavory rhetorical position for them, not because it is inherently wrong. That may score points, but it doesn’t advance the truth.

“I'm pretty sure Chamberlain is not going to cease to be brought up. It may or may not be related to any particular case. But the fact that Chamberlain's weakness led to the most destructive war in history is not going to be papered over.”

That Chamberlain’s “weakness” caused the War is absurd, because the course of action that is implied is that he should have plunged England into war even earlier for the sake of the Sudetenland. What stake did England have in the Sudetenland? A better question is why Chamberlain was involved at all. But the real cause of WWII was WWI and the unjust Treaty of Versailles. Had America not intervened in WWI (which we had no business doing) WWI would have likely ended in a stalemate and a more just peace. WWI started when a single Archduke was assassinated and all of Christendom was plunged into war because of a series of unwise alliances and security guarantee tripwires. If you are going to make the case for interventionism, WWI and WWII are not the wars to do it.

Angel| 4.14.09 @ 9:22PM

I used to admire Pat Buchanan--no more. There was absolutely NO REASON to bring up the crucifixion of Christ. He's been hanging around that MSNBC garbage too long. What a disgusting SOB.

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 10:21PM

just as the holocaust is a myth, so it is a myth that 2,000,000+ Prussian women were raped by the Red Army in 1945.

it was a fairy tale.

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 10:30PM

Red,
it is also a myth that the Confederacy was in the wrong from 1861- 65. Confederates had their swords in God's hands but lost because Satan, in the form of Ulysses S. Grant cheated Daddy Robert on many a battlefield.
It was God's will that the Confederacy win the war, just as Germany was in God's graces to take Alsace Lorraine from France 45 years before WWI, and God wanted Germany to capture Paris in 1914 and then turn East to gain her rightful p,lace as Europe's premier nation.

Gott Mit Uns

Red Phillips| 4.14.09 @ 10:46PM

Alan, I really have very little idea what you are ever talking about or the point you are trying to make. You should try complete sentences.

Don Bear| 4.15.09 @ 12:40AM

Well, I read the article you refer to. It is hardly a disgusting tirade as you say. I guess you must have more info on this than I. If so, what is it?

Alan Brooks| 4.15.09 @ 12:45AM

alrighty, if JD is innocent, why cant we say OJ was innocent in '95?
He was acquitted.
You have to be consistent in law. You can't say one person is completely innocent until proven guilty, and another is completely guilty though acquitted.

I agree OJ was guilty, but he WAS acquitted by a trial of peers.

Besides, this is also a reference to PJB, he selectively and widely distorts history to his own liking-- no different in method to Johnny Cochran.

Alan Brooks| 4.15.09 @ 12:49AM

If one person can distort history why cant another? Do you like it when pro-Northerners distort history to hide Northern imposition of industrial values on the South?
PJB is a politician pretending to be a scholar.

Alan Brooks| 4.15.09 @ 12:57AM

look, its after midnight and few will read this however JD is very obviously too old and sick to be tried.

so this is a contrived issue, PJB is just causing trouble-- he is worse than any 'rabble-rousing' Jew that he would complain of.

Daphne| 4.15.09 @ 1:03AM

If some people don't 'get' the vicious Antisemitism in Buchanan's column it's because they don't want to. Buchanan knew exactly what he was doing when he included incendiary remarks about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Shame on you, Pat.

Paul| 4.15.09 @ 2:26AM

If Jews are behind getting this slimy camp guard kicked out of the country, then more power to them. Buchanan is real big on kicking all illegal aliens out of the country, except this one Nazi. Not sure why anyone gives him any credibility at all.

Bill Henry| 4.15.09 @ 2:29AM

It is Philip Klein’s comments that are vile, but that is the case with all bloodthirsty Neocons.

MT| 4.15.09 @ 2:34AM

Bigot alert--poster before me is a hater.

Bill Henry| 4.15.09 @ 2:42AM

Hey MT you Leftist Neocon, why don’t you come up with some Conservative arguments for a change? Using Left wing smear terms confirms that you and the rest of the Neocon hive are Leftists. That would actually be OK, if you were honest about it, but the last thing in the world Leftist Neocons are is honest.

MT| 4.15.09 @ 3:01AM

Shut up, loser--flush yourself for the turd that you are. You're just a nasty bigot hiding behind the Conservative moniker. You're not a Conservative--you're just a vile pig spewing your vicious lies. Garbage monger.

Sean| 4.15.09 @ 3:35AM

How many infamous prison guards can this Demjanjuk guy be?

On another note Philip Klein seems to be a sensationalist smear artist. I am going to have to put him in the same league with the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton.

Bill Henry| 4.15.09 @ 4:20AM

The mass murders that we call the holocaust are the most well known of the various horrors of the 20th century. I don’t see how hounding this dying old man makes sense. He may be guilty of what he is now accused, but was found innocent of previous charges by the Israeli supreme court, a conclusion it surely didn’t reach lightly. This particular case doesn’t really shed any useful moral light on the darkness of the past.

BTW, if Phil Klein can smear Buchanan with the unverified comments posted on a site, then it would seem more than fair to hold Klein responsible for the vulgar, nasty, dishonest and bloodthirsty comments of his supporters here.

Gerry T. Neal| 4.15.09 @ 5:30AM

Philip Klein writes "It shouldn't matter if Demjanjuk is 89 and ill, there should be no sanctuary, and no statute of limitations on exacting justice on Nazi war criminals." "Exacting justice on Nazi war criminals" has been problematic right from the beginning. There is little doubt that the Nazi commanders brought before the Nuremburg trials immediately following the end of the war, were genuine villains who deserved severe punishment. Nevertheless, it was by no means clear that any human court, much less the one operated by the Allies, had any legitimate right to impose such punishment. True justice requires not just that the party being punished be guilty and that the punishment fit the crime, but that the body passing judgement have legitimate authority to do so. The question of the authority of the Nuremburg court would not have been problematic to the Soviets with their brand of "justice". But there was no way the Nuremburg court meets the standards of Western justice - particularly the standards of the English justice system, of which the American Republic is an heir. The court was being asked to pass judgement on crimes committed prior to its having been established. Ex post facto justice is contrary to English standards. Moreover, the court was established by the countries that had just defeated Germany in battle. Victor's justice is contrary to Western standards. There is no proper way to describe the Nuremburg Tribunal other than by the phrase "kangaroo court". At the time the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party in the American Senate, Senator Robert A. Taft, recognized this and spoke out. Taft acknowledged that the men sentenced to die were evil men who deserved death - but the preservation of the English standards of justice, an important stone in the foundation upon which the American constitutional republic was built, was more important than these men getting their just deserts.

A decade and a half later, a man who had escaped the Allies and went into hiding in South America, Adolf Eichmann, was captured by the Israelis, taken back to Israel, put on trial, and executed. At the time, National Review magazine took the position that Israel's capture of Eichmann was illegal (it was, they kidnapped Eichmann without the permission of the government of Argentina) and that Israel had no right to try Eichmann, because the acts he was being tried for were committed outside of Israel's territory, and prior to her becoming a sovereign state. Eichmann, was the SS official in charge of the transporation system that brought the Jews to the camps. Yet William F. Buckley Jr. and James Burnham argued, correctly, that no matter how heinous his acts, Israel was overstepping her authority, and that justice at her hands would not be true justice at all.

The man Pat Buchanan is defending is no Adolf Eichmann. Ukranian born, he was conscripted into the Soviet army, and then taken into the German army following his capture. He was never a high ranking SS officer, at most he was a guard at one of the camps. If that is what qualifies a man to be a "Nazi war criminal" today, then we might as well retire the phrase "Nazi war criminal" as a term of opprobrium for it has become utterly meaningless. Pat Buchanan is absolutely right to have written what he did. Demjanjuk's actions during the war do not warrant his being treated this way, and the fact that he is being dragged through this now, at 89 years of age, having already been falsely accused once, makes this not just an injustice, but an unspeakable crime. Kudos to Pat Buchanan.

CH| 4.15.09 @ 11:45AM

Billy, Sean and Gerry, shame on you for trying to defend the indefensible. Pat Buchanan has turned into the same vicious Antisemitic monster as you.

MT| 4.15.09 @ 11:48AM

Bloodthirsty Billy is the pot calling the kettle black. Hypocritical moron.

Jack Edwards| 4.15.09 @ 12:03PM

If Buchanan brings out the worst form of anti-Semitic nut cases, then does Klein's response bring out the worst form of right-wing ethnic cleansing settlers in Israel whose goal makes the Nazi's smile. Should Klein be held accountable as a hate monger against anyone who disagrees with Israel? The goal of the Klein's of this country is to stop all speech that does not fit the geo-political security and goals of the State of Israel by using McCarthy style tactics. American Jews and non-Jews should support organizations like JATO and J Street. They know exactly what is going on.

CH| 4.15.09 @ 12:08PM

Like I said--Buchanan brings out the haters. Shame on you.

Sue| 4.16.09 @ 10:46AM

Solomon Morel ran a concentration camp for Germans. They tortured, raped and killed them. He was a monster but was protected from prosecution by Israel.

Justin Huber | 4.16.09 @ 3:32PM

The American Spectator: Zionist fish wrap for the Jewnited States of America!

Bernard| 4.16.09 @ 9:00PM

The Nuremberg trials also sentenced to death a completely innocent man named Julius Streicher. His only crime was being the publisher of an anti-semitic magazine, "Der Sturmer" which featured lurid cartoons of bloodthirsty, money grubbing, war mongering Jews.

Streicher wasn't even a member of the Nazi Party, never gassed or shot so much as a single Jew but the court (which was over-represented by Jews) decided to kill Streicher anyway.

I see the same monstrosity at work in the 35 year long persecution of John Demanjuck. Back in 1980's when he was tried in Israel he stood behind his bullet proof glass in the dock laughing as the Israeli Judge asked if he could be shown a Photograph of Treblinka where it is claimed 870,000 Jews were killed.

Eventually he was shown something he immediately saw as strange: He asked what it was. It was, he was told, a photograph of a MODEL based on a survivor's MEMORY. The Judge asked if this survivor could be caused to appear in his court. He was not able to appear on account of him being DEAD, was the reply. So, 'Who made the model?' asked the Judge.

The Israeli POLICE made the model.

Meanwhile feisty old John Demanjuck stood in the dock behind the bullet proof glass, grinning like a goat in a garden.

Chas Jones| 4.16.09 @ 9:10PM

Philip Klein is on a par with the eyewitnesses in Israel who swore Demjanjuk was "Ivan the Terrible". Pat Buchanan as a devout Catholic comes from a tradition encouraging mercy and forgiveness. These concepts are apparently foreign to Klein, who wants to hang Demjanjuk based upon a photo which could be of Demjanjuk or a million other slavs.

xexon| 4.16.09 @ 10:11PM

Zionism is to the Jews what nazism was to the Germans.

Something that needs to be stopped before it spreads.

Let this old man die a natural death, and may the movement which keeps this old hatred alive do likewise.

x

Orest Slepokura| 4.17.09 @ 7:08PM

In John Demjanjuk's first trial in Israel, the star witness for the prosecution, Treblinka inmate Elyahu Rosenberg identified Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible. Rosenberg had signed two sworn affidavits in December 1945 and December 1947 testifying to the killing of Ivan by Jewish inmates during the 2 August 1943 uprising. In the first affidavit, Rosenberg described witnessing the killing of Ivan, alleging Ivan was beaten to death with shovels. If a prosecution star witness could be so compromised and still be called on to testify, then we know how compromised the whole case against JD was. We have no reason to believe that same cynical mindset is not at work now.

A year before the 1st case against Demjanjuk was begun in 1977 - speaking of cynical - the Israeli government had warmly welcomed the South African prime minister, John Vorster, to Israel. Although Vorster had been jailed during World War II as a Nazi collaborator, he was still warmly welcomed by his Jewish hosts. By law, they should have arrested him, put him on trial. Did I mention that Vorster was an unabashed racist, implacable white supremacist, and staunch proponent of the South African system of racial apartheid? The "Lessons of the Holocaust," anyone?

phil enggate| 4.17.09 @ 7:35PM

The bottom line is: Whether the injustice is real or perceived, the jew is vindictive to the nth degree.

TRUTH| 4.17.09 @ 10:54PM

EVERYONE is vindictive--including you, Phil.

Daphne| 4.17.09 @ 10:56PM

Haters everywhere.

Mike| 4.18.09 @ 5:46PM

What a pathetic blog.... you quote the comments and not the article. People cannot be held responsible for what other people say. I could pick comments on your blog and attribute them to you. Many of them are antisemitic; so can I call you an antisemite?

jon| 4.22.09 @ 6:57PM

We live in frightening times when people act as apologists for those who took part in the murder and genocide of a group of people.

To those defending Pat Buchanan's article and the subsequent comments made by the kooks who claim they are clearheaded thinkers; you are part of the problem in terms of the hate that is defended in this world today.

60 years after the largest single genocide in world history and the most shallow in our society have no shame in spewing nonsense about Jewish or other peoples they don't like.

These folks wave the flag of stupidity, ignorance and hatred because not enough people have yet to realize the importance of speaking out and if necessary ridiculing these stupid hate filled morons who try to pass themselves off as regular clear thinking Americans.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 5.1.09 @ 3:41PM

This column is disgusting.

Patrick Buchanan said nothing remotely anti-Semitic. Unless the truth is "anti-Semitic," now.

Ron| 5.8.09 @ 8:40PM

I have seen the photos of this guy, he dont look like he will live till next week. Why not just let him die. quit wasting time on him. He will most likely be dead in a few months.

FREE tea| 2.1.11 @ 7:42AM

---STOP falling for these tired distractions!

Buchanan's entirely a Rockefeller creation and meant
to soft sell the RED China sellout and even neutralize
all objections to MAO and their own announced agenda of MASS incremental extermination
(-90%) by 2100.

Warm 'eugenics realism' is the prime aim of
everyone from Bush to Oprah, to that other Rockefeller creation, eugenist Bill Gates ---and beyond.

------RELAX!