How neoconservatives conquered Washington - and launched a war (Jewish conspiracy barf alert)

Salon ^ | April 9, 2003 | Michael Lind

[liberallarry]

There is another argument - advanced by "paleo" conservatives - which Lind was too dumb to propose.

It goes; Saddam is too poor to afford an atomic weapons program. Such a program also leaves a very large trail. Deterrence and inspection would have been sufficient to control Iraq. Invasion - especially without U.N. approval is overkill and may be more destabilizing than the status quo.

I don't believe it - but it's a lot better than Lind's crap.

[Asher]

"If Bush fails to appease Blair in this endevour then one could indeed say that the interests of Isreal are put above the US at the expense of an ally like Britain that stood by us and fought with us."

If Bush does appease Blair it can be said that once again the U.S. is selling out Israel and the Jews. Time and again, America has compromised Israel's security by appeasing other interests. Inter alia: It has pressured Israel not to fight back when Israel's vital security interests are at issue as during the Gulf War; it condemned Israel for the bombing of the Iraq nuclear reactor despite the fact this one act probably saved the entire West; it pressured Israel into the Oslo Accords which has cost Israel the lives of many hundreds of its citizens. This, of course, mirrors perfectly how the U.S. also sold out the Jews during the Holocaust, from its anti-Semitic immigration policy to not lifting a finger to prevent the genocide; the U.S. fought the war despite the Jews and not because of them.

So selling out Israel is really to be expected despite the fact Israel is America's only true ally. If you believe that the UK cares a damn for any interests other than her own you are gravely mistaken. I live there. For the most part Americans are despised in the UK. Blair was on America's side simply as a matter of political expediency. Israel was prevented from entering the war because the US was again appeasing her Arab "friends."

So you have it the wrong way around. The question should not be whether America would put Israel's interests above her own, but why, when the chips are down she always places Israel's interests below everyone else's, including the America and Jew-hating Labour left of the UK?

[tictoc]

Yesterday I was jubilant and ecstatic, today I'm feeling deeply cynical.

So take the following comment with a grain of salt.

What if Gulf War II in fact is, as the anti-war crowd kept telling us, "all about oil"? Right now, there are still hundreds of billions of barrel in the ground, but new deposit discoveries are dropping off year by year.

Nuclear fusion as a practical source of energy, if it ever can be made to work, is still decades away. At some point years from today, it will become more and more expensive to get the oil out, and there will be increasingly less of it to go around.

Oil reserves in the Gulf are generally thought to be good for several more decades, unlike North Sea oil and the oil in the Americas.

A prudent policy would be not to wait until it is almost too late to secure the longest-lasting oil for the United States, when competition for a scarce resource will make other consumers far more determined, even desperate.

If that is too bleak a scenario, tell me please where I am wrong.

[Truthsearcher]

I don't think it's correct to say Blair sided with US for "political expediency", given that his choice was a very unpopular one in his country up until very recently when it became apparant that the campaign is going so well.

As for Israel, I think it's ridiculous to say that America is selling out Israel. I don't know if Israel is America's only ally, I do know that America is Israel's only ally, and that latter is far more important to Israel than the former is for America.

[frosty snowman]

Gulf War I was more "about oil" than this war. Gulf War II was about Saddam Hussein's long standing non-compliance with the treaties set after his 1991 defeat. Though you can say oil was a factor by extension. The middle east isn't the only large reserve left. There are large reserves in Venezuela and untapped oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico. Some former soviet republics have large reserves, their production is slow because of inefficient means of moving oil... not due to a lack of supply.

[frosty snowman]

Blair sided with the US because he see Britain's national interests as being closely linked with those of the US. The fact that Blair has a more dovish Israel-Palestinian policy than Bush is not relevant to why the UK entered the conflict. I think the charges of the US selling out Israel are being leveled prematurely here, to say the very least.

[arthurus]

I hope he does "sell out Blair". We certainly do not need to erect a purely terrorist state in the ME.

[Catspaw]

Are you sure this is from Salon? I thought it was from Spotlight or whatever rag Willis Carto is putting out these days.

[liberallarry]

Stratfor: War and GeoPolitical Analysis

This was written in January. It still looks good to me.

No I don't think your scenario is too bleak. It touches on the central issue (I think); earth is finite, has finite resources, and can only support a finite number of people at any given level of civilization.

The good news is the current pace of technological advancement. It's fantastic. I wouldn't want to bet against it.

I know I'm speaking in crude generalities. Can't be helped if I want to be brief. Each sentence represents thousands of pages of contentious argument and opinion (or maybe it all belongs in the trash) :)

[americanbychoice]

Don't short change technology. Just look at the last 10 years, we will find better ways to provide energy. A lot of break-throughs are coming soon.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Damn - this one could have been written by that "triumphant champion of Western European values", Paddy Buchanan (or by any of his other race baiting, anti-semite buddies).

[Poohbah]

couldnt beleive my eyes, everybody write to salon about this... very disturbing.

Please, we're "deeply, deeply saddened."

[hchutch]

You're right.

It's amazing, quite frankly, why anyone pays any attention to the paleo-cons on their pet issues any more.

[Poohbah]

Lind is an ex-conservative turned left-wing nutball.

All we have to do is make sure that the Dems adopt this guy as their mainstream view :o)

[Luna]

I didn't get past the third paragraph. Excuse while I go wash out my mind with soap for exposing myself to such garbage.

[Dog Gone]

George W, raised in west Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity.

That does it. I'm not going to invite Michael Lind to my next barbecue.

[stands2reason]

Michael Lind is an ex-conservative turned liberal.

*Shudder* How does that happen? Ice pick lobotomy?

[KC_for_Freedom]

Then they had a stroke of luck – Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition

Yeah, and that lucky dog Cheney even found a way to get himself on the ballot, (Lucky for him he was able to move his registration back to Colorado. This is so smart that a liberal probably helped him.) (end sarcasm)

If he (Lind) believed this crap I would suspect he caught Rep "Pete" McClosky's fatal illnesss of seein a Jew under every bed in Washington. It does not wash. It is much easier to believe that Bush put together a cabinet of advisors who give him ideas and options and then he picks the one he thinks will work. With Iraq he picked a winner, if he can continue to create a muslim democracy in the middle east.

Israel will benefit, because every arab dictator has to raise the bar to avoid having people wonder what a democracy in their country would look like.

[Timesink]

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Salon Deathwatch, click below:
	click here >>>	Salon Deathwatch	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Courier]

>which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel<

That is when the Jews drug you with wine, women and song and then plant that microchip in your head. Happened to Bush also on his trip to Israel.

>Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," as he calls him)<

Here is proof. Bush's microchip is defective. It's an early version pre-programmed for Wolfie only.

Sarcasm