And even if Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite, it doesn't and shouldn't discredit his opinion on foreign policy. In the article posted in the OP, Buchanan listed legitimate reasons as to why Hillary Clinton's foreign policy track record should be put under scrutiny. Instead of having a debate about these legitimate points, most partisan-Hillary supporters just went "lolantisemite" and completely disregarded his valid points.
Ad hominem to the extreme. Credit to bedstuy for at least addressing the points in the article.
Ok, why don't you tell us what you think Buchanan's foreign policy credentials are?
