Posted on 03/28/2007 4:14:10 PM PDT by SJackson
Is there a more unpopular man in America than Vice President Dick Cheney? After more than six years as the Bush administration's chief policy guru/hatchet man, Cheney is not only the villain in every conspiracy theory about anything that has happened during their time in office, he is also the punchline for every joke about its incompetence.
From his accidental shooting of a fellow killer of innocent quail to his long association with the ever-popular oil industry, Cheney is pretty much the incarnation of everything just about everybody seems to hate about the presidency of George W. Bush.
So who better to send to the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee two weeks ago to defend the equally unpopular war in Iraq than Cheney?
Going straight to the dilemma facing Jewish groups trying to raise the alarm about the threat from Iran while staying neutral on the war in Iraq, the vice president attempted to disabuse them of the notion that they could continue with this position.
"It is simply not consistent," said Cheney, "for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened."
This position was, more or less, echoed by two other speakers heard at the AIPAC conclave, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (who appeared via a video link from Israel) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Ind.-Conn.).
Olmert, is in the unique position of being even more unpopular in Israel than Cheney is in the United States with the latest polls showing that an amazingly low 3 percent of the Israeli public would like to see him remain in office. But he was still prepared to use his shrinking influence to urge American Jews to back the war.
Lieberman, who survived a challenge to his US Senate seat last year via an independent ticket after he was rejected by Democratic primary voters, is no longer the universally loved figure that he was when he made history as Al Gore's vice presidential running mate in 2000. The reason for that is his own continued support of the war in Iraq.
Decrying the partisan tone of the times, Lieberman noted that "some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we're in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says, 'yes,' their reflex reaction is to say 'no.' "
Lamenting the fervor of the stop-the-war crowd and the corresponding growing apathy about the war on terror, Lieberman noted "there is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism."
And there's probably no other sector of the population about which this is more true than American Jewry. Every poll shows that Jewish views about the war in Iraq are more negative than even those of the general public. Part of this can be explained by the partisanship to which Lieberman referred since the overwhelming majority of Jews are Democrats. But as the war entered its fifth year last week, weariness with the bloody stalemate cannot be dismissed as mere party bickering.
SO IT IS hardly surprising that many critics are assailing Jewish organizations like AIPAC for trying desperately to stay neutral on the war even as they continued to speak out about Iran.
Earlier this month, the Union of Reform Judaism, which passed an anti-war resolution in 2005, again broke this mold by adopting a resolution opposing the sending of more US troops to Iraq. They were joined by the smaller Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, which not only demanded a complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but upped the ante by also stating its opposition to any preemptive US attacks on Iran.
Given the growing unpopularity of both the war and Bush, there is going to be increasing pressure on other groups to follow their lead. And yet, Cheney as well as Lieberman both made a telling point that has yet to be answered by the war's critics.
It is argued that America's Iraq quagmire limits our ability to restrain or even to strike at an Iranian regime that is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and has made it clear it might use them against Israel.
That might have been, had it been put forward four years ago, a valid argument against invading Iraq. But it's not a good argument for leaving it now that the war is a reality. Having created a political vacuum in Baghdad, it is not possible to pull out of the war without Iran filling up that empty space.
The idea that an American defeat in Iraq - and like it or not, that is what the sort of a withdrawal contemplated by some in Congress will be considered in the Muslim world - would make it easier to prevail against Iran is ludicrous. Such an outcome would similarly embolden Iran's Islamist allies elsewhere, such as Hamas and Hizbullah.
After four years of slaughter and sacrifice by American troops, the notion that the toppling of Saddam Hussein is going to lead to Iraqi democracy seems far-fetched. Few seem to have any clear idea about what would actually constitute a "victory."
But we do know what defeat would mean. And for all the Vietnam analogies that are thrown about so much these days, that is the one thing that is the same about today's anti-war movement and the one that ultimately prevailed in the 1970s.
THOSE WHO successfully argued for a pullout from Vietnam to avoid involvement in another civil war thought little about the awful consequences of that defeat for the people of Southeast Asia. But they were right in that even the worst of those crimes had little impact on US strategic interests. America was able to leave its Vietnam nightmare safely behind after the last G.I. fled Saigon.
But the Iraq debacle offers us no such easy retreat. Whatever we may think about the original reasons for war, the reality of the current conflict is one in which Iran and al-Qaida stand to gain at our expense. Unlike Vietnam, merely pulling out will not end their war with us or with our more vulnerable ally Israel.
Lieberman argues that the new troop surge must be given a fair chance at success before the debate about the war resumes. Perhaps his optimism will be vindicated, but no matter what happens on the battlefield, his appeal for a more clear-headed approach to this question deserves a hearing.
Those who ask the Jewish community to join the anti-war bandwagon must do better than merely bash Bush and Cheney and assail the original rationales for war. They must explain to us why a world in which America bugged out of Iraq will not be a safer one for Iran and al-Qaida, and a riskier one for America and Israel. Until they do, Lieberman's courageous appeal to reason should be heeded.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Well, organizations aside, EVERY Jewish Member of the House and Senate minus the lonely Lieberman and (maybe) Specter has come out in favor of American defeat in Iraq. Some--Waxman, Schakowsky, Nadler, Schumer, Feingold, Boxer--seem to actually relish and welcome a strategic humiliation of America. And they don't stop there--Jewish members of Congress, including Specter, also want to call off the War on Terror, closing Guantanamo, ending NSA intercepts and repealing the Patroit Act. An appalling vista.
Is there a more unpopular man in America than Vice President Dick Cheney?
Regrettably, all but three of the Jewish members are Dummycrats and those three Republicans include RINO Specter. You left out the fact that the other two Jewish Republican congresscritters, Norm Coleman in the Senate and Eric Cantor in the House, are not in the "surrender now" category.
Still, quite "an appalling vista," as you put it.
As for RINO Specter, his treachery is particularly disgraceful because the Bush Administration pulled out all the stops to enable him to squeak through to a narrow win in the PA GOP primary in '04. He has certainly not returned the favor.
Ping!
I heard that Specter will be running again. Ugh! I am so sorry that Rick Santorum lost. I wish him the best and miss his voice in the Senate. People should not forget about Congressman Eric Cantor, who is Jewish and conservative.
As does that nice Jewish boy, Ted Kennedy. Why are people focused on what Jews in Name Only say? Let's not forget that Eric Cantor is a stanch conservative. Coleman, while not initially supportin the surge, has come around also. And I am Jewish and support the President. These "establishment" types don't do it for me.
Frankly, all the reform and reconstructionist players are interested in is more homosexual penetration of mainstream culture. The rest of their politics is incidental to that aspect.
I don't think that's true, the view that as an extension of the "tolerance" shown Jews in the US. Though I admit it's been going on for over 350 years, virtually all of them without embracing homosexuality., but IMO foreign affairs are beyound their pervue. Other than true humanitarian or moral concerns, like the Suday, they shouldn't be commenting on what are essentially foreign policy decisions. Or domestic issues like gun control or gay marriage. Committment ceremonies are fine, do them all week long, but there's no reason the state has to recognize them as anything but a celebration. Which is what they claim is their essence. Personally, I think it's about taxes and insurance.
Jews of the left need to decide if they are more leftist or more Jewish.
To bash Jews. No one considers Ted representative of Catholics or Catholic values. The idea would be laughable. If you hate Madeline Albright, suddenly she's a Jew. Interestingly, particularly when you look at the Senate, many of them are elected from states virtually devoid of Jews, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont. Even states like California, less than 3%, what does that matter. Sad to say, this is a conservative obsession.
I think they're mistaken on the war, but in my vidw there's no conflict between opposing the Iraq war and being Jewish. You're simply wrong on a political issue.
apparently you never heard of Sen.Norm Coleman(R-MN) or Rep.Eric Cantor(R-VA)-the only two Jews I'd vote for at this time-Cantor wants the US out of the UN and gets high ratings from the NRA and GOA and low ratings from the ACLU-Coleman ditto except he hasn't asked the UN to leave....yet-the rest all suck on gun control and I needn't look further than that
It goes deeper than that. The people the US is fighting are the
mortal enemies of Israel and Jews everywhere.
Yes they are. And enemies of Christians, Hindus, pretty much any non-Muslim, as well as Americans, Europeans, pretty much citizens on any non Islamic state.
People disagree how to combat this. Until, not if, we're hit again in a serious manner, this might not change.
The distinction is that Jews would not be given an opportunity
to convert to Islam and live in peace. If Israel was overrun there would be mass slaughter. Jews would be singled out in other countries if Islamists got power.
Would there have been a conflict between opposing war against Nazi Germany and being Jewish? (Rhetorical question, yes, but very pertinent because both Nazi Germany and the Islamofascist axis have as proclaimed goals the destruction of the Jewish people!)
A great many Jews in 1930s America opposed war, as did most Americans. They didn't feel it was in America's interest. Other Jews pointed out the evil of Hitler, and suffered the typical conspirital accusations of anti-Americanism. Things don't change. It's not a Jewish thing.
But they'll still vote dem.
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.