Posted on 02/29/2008 5:37:29 AM PST by SJackson
Wonder how that's working out.
My background is very similar. Yikes, what people.
I guess I respect straight talk which is said with respect.
While I realize that Baker did not say this in a public forum, I see this a little like the Dixie Chicks: "Americans are stupid! Especially Country Music fans! Oh, and by the way, please by our new album!" It's just dumb to alienate the people you ought to be trying to attract.
For someone in politics to say "eff them" to an important demographic is dumb.
I lose more respect for Kemp every day.
The US has strategic interests in the Middle East. Yes, we do not want the world's largest exporter of oil and with the largest oil reserves to be taken over by Saddam or Iran. It is in our national interests to keep an uninterrupted supply of oil from the region and to maintain a good bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Israel was and is capable of defending itself against the Iraqis, Iranian, Syrians,. etc. Israel wisely stayed out of the Gulf War despite being hit by Iraqi scuds [as was Saudi Arabia.] It did so because it realized that its national interests were best served by doing so. To suggest that Baker and Bush 41 "could not have cared less about Iraq's threats to Israel" is patently false.
In my opinion, we should give support first to Israel. With that said, Mr. Baker needs to be retired out of government work unless he becomes a democrat.
Also in the running, it appears, is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. Years before Baker’s hostile remark about American Jews, Brzezinski, then an adviser to candidate Carter, was reported (by Marvin Kalb) to have said to an Israeli official, “How will you like the idea of working with a new president who owes nothing to the Jews?”
In March 1980, Koch caused a major controversy when he criticized Brzezinski and three other top Carter Mideast advisers as a “Gang of Four” who were trying to turn the U.S. against Israel. (The reference was to a group of Chinese leaders who had been pushed out of power by their rivals.)
“During his years in the Carter administration, Brzezinski did indeed push for a tilt against Israel, as he acknowledged later in his memoirs of that period. More recently, he and several colleagues issued a statement urging the U.S. and its allies to engage in “a genuine dialogue” with Hamas. Brzezinski has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president and reportedly is part of Obama’s circle of foreign policy advisers.”
Obama would definately ‘CHANGE’ our foreign policy! Brzezinski has actively undermined our efforts in the WOT!
However, a GOP anti-Semite is no different than a DNC anti-Semite. Any anti-Semite, regardless of party...is no supporter of the WoT...because they will be want to pander to the Islamic Terrorist states
I am not a defender of McCain nor will I be voting for him. However, the idea that McCain will be weak in dealing with the WOT is pure, unadulterated BS.
Anyone who does not want to secure our borders is not in support of national security....McCain will be weak on the War on Terror as he is an open borders liberal
McCain will “go to the gates of hell” to capture Osama bin Laden....but will let him cross the open Mexican border and give him a Z Visa
Our national security begins at home.
With the passage of the generations, however, the socialists are taking their foolishness to the next world. Their children, though still not devoted to Israel, seem more mainstream in their US politial ideology. FWIW.
I’ve never understood Jewish voting patterns, other than the socialist instinct. Particularly in the 04 election, in which they sided 87% against the man who liberated Iraq.
But you’ve helped to explain it a lot better than from anything else I’ve read.
I expect McCain to do much better with the Jewish vote this election cycle. Particularly with an Obama candidacy and his passive Farrakhan tolerance on the other side. And I say that knowing that Baker endorsed McCain just yesterday.
I am not voting for McCain or Obama or Hillary because of their positions on amnesty and immigration. Still, I think McCain is stronger on the WOT than the Dems, especially as it relates to Iraq.
So what you're saying is...McCain will start bombing Iran, Syria, and the biggest sponsor of real terrorism both here and abroad....SAUDI ARABIA???
Because that's the real WOT. This other stuff is just a facade to placate the American people that these globalist bastards are actually protecting this nation. Hah! I'll believe it when the borders are actually closed!
Baker Institute at Rice is all funded with Arab money. He’s always pursued a RealPolitik that says, the Arabs have the oil, so why should we give a shit about Israel?
Baker hates Jews. Deal with it. He is an Arabist in the lingo of the State Department. He sides with the arabs on any issue because he doesn’t like Jews.
And he is also incredibly wealthy from his ties to arabs and his anti-semitism makes him a very popular american diplomat and has enabled him, with and without his Bush family connections, to become very powerful in the Middle East and equally rich.
Baker is also a country club republican. He doesn’t like religions people of virtually any type from most accounts. But he doesn’t treat evangelicals like enemies as much as he treats them like stepchildren who need to show up each November but should be quite the rest of the time.
If Baker had said the same statement about somebody black or hispanic, it would clearly sound like he was a bigot. It’s because he is. And if John McCain put him in his cabinet in some way it would be another big F-U to Israel and an inside man for the Saudis and Iranians (remember, Baker and his commission wanted us to solve Iraq by ‘talking to Iran and Syria’). Baker is perfectly willing to give up most anything to keep the arabs either happy or at least quiet. But Israelis don’t have the option of giving up their existence to appease Baker and Americans should be incredibly suspicious of why we would be wanting to trade democracy for ‘stability’.
Ping!
The biggest state sponsor of terrorism is Iran. Militant Islamic fundamentalism started in Iran with the hijacking of the Iranian Revolution by Khomeini. The government of Saudi Arabia is not sponsoring terrorism.
I doubt that any US President will start bombing Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia without an overt provovation and direct link to an incident. The lumping in of Saudi Arabia with Syria and Iran is just nonsense. We have a large military mission in Saudi Arabia. We sell them arms, aircraft [including AWACS], etc. and train their military personnel. There are 35,000 Americans working in Saudi Arabia, many of them working for ARAMCO. There is nothing comparable with Syria or Iran. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran.
Well... at least temporarily, although Koch later slipped back into unconsciousness in endorsing Her Thighness for president.
Another reason to be glad to have left the Republican party. Their brand of conservatism is seldom based on principle and more often than not for sale to the highest bidder.
Yep, Baker is scum, and shame on President Bush for even associating with that Saudi butt-licker.
I saw on the news last night that Baker officially endorsed McCain. If McCain gives Baker any type of cabinet or staff position if he wins in November, I’d bet McCain’s Israel policy will be like that of Bush I (not a whole lot better than it would be if the Witch or Obama win).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.