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.
Islam accepts Jewish converts. But Israel can't be overrun. A nuclear strike, that's the Islamic worlds chance. It's been awhile, but Pakistan was once lauded as the possessor of the Islamic bomb, not a defensive move against India, but an Islamic bomb. Presumably to be used on infidels. Something Iran aspires to, though I suspect they're likely to use it, thus may not get it.
Good point. The danger from the Nazis was more acute because they were killing Jews, en mass, during the war. The Islamists do not have control to do so, but should
they ever get control or Nukes they certainly would kill as many Jews as possible.
"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 granting a Palestinian statehood that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel dangerously weakened."
Well, that's what he SHOULD be saying...
Israel can't be overrun? In the Yom Kippur War they very nearly were and only President Richard Nixon's authorization of massive resupply kept that from happening.
Jews are leaving France because of Islamist persecution.
Jews opposing efforts to fight them in Iraq and elsewhere are deluding themselves and are ungrateful.
Israel can deal with conventional threats. I give Nixon a great deal of credit for his actions, resupply was important, and I think it was the most courageous pro-Israel action of a US President, because it was unpopular. Depending on whether you believe representations about Soviet intentions, as in troops in the air, a grave risk, though that part in America's interest. Many sources would say the resupply while important, wasn't vital, most supplies, particularly artillery shells were at about 50%, and the Arabs weren't going to last another couple weeks on their own.
France is France's problem. IMO French Jews under persecution should go to Israel, or go through the regular process to immigrate to the US.
Jews who oppose the war aren't ungrateful, they're wrong. Any more than American Jews who support the war are disloyal neocon Zionist traitors.
Really? With the USSR supplying Egypt & Syria, the US resupply was crucial. Where did you get that? That was really off the wall.
Stupid Jews.
First, let me note again Nixon's actions were courageous.
The Soviet issue wasn't supplies, there were reports of Soviet troops in the air, the first wave, which were turned back in the face of Nixon's worldwide defense condition escalation. Haven't a clue if they were in the air, but there were several, reports are 6 or 7, Soviet airborne divisions prepared to intervene. They backed down.
The supply issue, certainly important, one of the major issues Israel confronted in the post-war inquiries, they always do that over there. Fired a few Generals over that war.
Sharon describes the resupply as an important factor mentally, it convinced Israelis, and the world America was committed. He also contends that in terms of most critical supplies, ammunition, Israel was at 60%-75%, the only real shortage being 175mm artillery. Peacetime ammunition dumps were emptied, but largely because of Israel's tactical policy of moving ammunition to forward facilities.
That's not to minimize Nixon's actions, but the most important was facing down the Soviets who were prepared to enter the war.
Dude, that's uncalled for.
Hey, in reference to your tagline, have you ever noticed that most Americans believe in restoration of people's native homelands, as long as their last names are Running Water, Dove Warrior, and Great Elk, and not Rabbinovich, DeSilva or Goldstein? (I thrown in a Spanish Jew last name because there isn't a lot of love given to the Spanish Jews IMHO.)
And I meant to say "American liberals", not "Americans". Sorry, brainfart :D
It was a big deal. Raising a Def-Con level is no small matter, yet I have heard faint praise for Nixon over the years.
"the Union of Reform Judaism"
"the Union of Deformed Judaism"
I fixed that minor typo for you
;-)
There are plenty of NON-Jewish congresscritters who want defeat too, including that nice Catholic orca, Ted Kennedy. I don't understand the constant battering of Jews who are liberal--what about the Christian groups who represent themselves at these so-called anti-war (anti American!) protests? Label me a proud conservative who supports the troops and their mission wholeheartedly (that I am Jewish by birth is secondary!)
There are more Jews voting against Democrats than ever before and as the left turns to islam more every day, there are more Jews turning to the right. It would be nice if non-Jewish conservatives would welcome us, but even if you don't, we'll still turn to the right. So, you can't say that "they" will vote dem, because I am "they" and I will never never vote dem.
That was really out of line. Taking a break from Stormfront to pay us a visit, are you?
Lighten up, do you disagree that as a demographic voting block, the majority of Jews vote dem and that most continued to do so in the '06 midterm?
It's like calling someone a racist because the observe that most blacks vote dem.
Yes, when I see these "polls", I think the intent is to bash Jews to middle America and set us up for discrimination or some kind of attack in the future.
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.