Why is Pat Buchanan taking the anti-war position on Iran?

[oberliner]

In aborting Iran's nuclear program, "all options are on the table."

Some version of this threat against Iran has lately been made by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Mitt Romney.

Yet, if an attack on Iran is among "options ... on the table," who put it there? Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? And when was it granted? And are all options also "on the table" if North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons?

What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070209/cm_uc_crpbux/op_33580;_ylt=Auc4VLN5Hb1sQ41i2gTUvq_9wxIF

[Book Lover]

1. Because he is an isolationist (nm)

[Critters2]

2. He's always been isolationist. Opposed the war in Iraq, too.

But is of the "now that we're there, we need to finish the job" ilk.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

3. remember when Pat Buchanan was crazy?

It sort of shows just how crazy things have gone in America when Pat Buchanan has become a voice of reason... and he isn't the one who has changed.

[sendero]

4. Isolationism..

... is looking pretty damn good right now IMHO.

[Greeby]

5. He has this Jeckyll and Hyde thing going on

Patrick J Buchanan is a fine anti-war conservative columnist for American Conservative magazine and antiwar.com. But put him in front of a camera and he becomes Pat Buchanan, the crazed right-wing nutball

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

6. Regarding nuclear weapons.

All nuclear weapons should be destroyed. No country has the right to have them.

[ZacharyG]

7. Because he is an anti-Semite

And he thinks going to war against Iran would be for Israel/Jews.

A lot of racist right-wingers believe in something called "ZOG".