Posted on 05/04/2003 8:01:34 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
The late comedian Jim Samuels once said, "The United States is like the guy at the party who gives cocaine to everybody, and still nobody likes him."
I started reading the newspaper during the Munich Olympics. Since then, this is what I see when America goes out into the world: No matter how much cocaine we give away, we are weak, we are humiliated, and we are despised.
In Paris on Jan. 23, 1973, we surrendered the Vietnam War even though we had never lost on the battlefield. Mostly we were defeated by our own reporters — the "nattering nabobs of negativism," as they were aptly labeled by Vice President Spiro Agnew in September 1970.
On Nov. 4, 1979, nutcase Iranians seized 60 members of our Tehran embassy staff and held them for more than a year. On April 11, 1980, the feeble President Carter finally worked up the courage for a rescue mission. It failed, killing eight of our servicemen. The Iranians reveled gleefully at our impotence.
On Oct. 23, 1983, Hezbollah blew up 241 of our peacekeeper Marines as they slept in their barracks in Beirut. Soon thereafter, President Reagan pulled us out of Lebanon.
In the Clinton era, the president allowed the Chinese to steal the secrets to our neutron bomb while he played doctor with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.
Then came 9-11. The attack was bad enough. Worse were the politicians and "intellectuals" — George Galloway, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag, to name three — who saw this as our comeuppance. Too bad about the dead people, they said. But America had it coming.
Not only I saw America as spineless. So did our enemies. Osama bin-Laden watched our response to terror in the 1980s and '90s and decided we were a "weak horse." Then he plotted 9-11.
Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," says our withdrawal from Somalia in October 1993 taught the world's thugs that "killing a few American soldiers, even at a cost of more than 500 of your own fighters, is enough to spook Uncle Sam."
But now, with the successful invasion of Iraq, President Bush has destroyed the pattern. Now when the bully attacks, America hits back. And so the next time some thug gets the idea to kill a few of us, he's going to think twice, wondering what ever did happen to Saddam anyway.
In short, we are no longer a nation of cowards. This gives me immense satisfaction.
Sounds simple enough, right? Well, a lot of people out there think I don't know what I believe. I'm really just a dupe of the cabal of suspicious Jewish neoconservatives who have taken over Bush's empty head.
The crackpot theory goes like this: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice — they don't run our foreign policy. The neocons do. And they run it for the benefit of Israel. The fall of the Twin Towers was their lucky break: their chance to commence the conquest of the entire Middle East.
Who are these men? The conspiracy theorists have ferreted out the names: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, David Wurmser, among others.
Fortunately, a few alert people in the world are wise to the cabal:
Two months after 9-11, the French ambassador to London, Daniel Bernard, blamed the scary state of the world on the "(expletive) little country" of Israel. "Why should we be in danger of World War III because of these people?" he complained.
This year National Public Radio asked a New York City councilman, Robert Jackson, why an anti-war resolution had stalled in the city council. He replied: "New York City is the home away from home for most Jews, and (the resolution) is not in the best interest of Israel."
Warming the heart of Pat Buchanan, newsman Tim Russert asked Mr. Perle on network TV: "Can you assure American viewers … that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"
A sign at an anti-war rally in March in San Francisco read: "I want YOU to die for Israel. Israel sings, 'Onward, Christian Soldiers.' "
In the same month, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, told fellow French politicians, "The hawks in the U.S. administration are in the hands of (Ariel) Sharon."
U.S. Rep. James Moran, a Democrat from Virginia, recently complained: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."
Let me explain something to the Morans (and morons) of the world. There is a reason America and Israel are on the same side. It's not that hard to figure out. The same people who hate Israel also hate America. And the same people who hate America also hate Israel.
Who do they hate us? Because we are successful and they are not. It's simply the most powerful of all human emotions at work: resentment.
What is the proper response to this hatred? It is to do what the neocons have advised for years: Stay strong. Hit back. Stop apologizing for being free and successful.
Thus, rather than resent the neocons, I am indebted to them. They have done a wonderful service to the country. I say, "Great work, guys!"
In fact, I want to do more than congratulate these men — I want to join them. Seriously. I want to be a Jewish neocon too. Why would I not?
Carter had his chance, and he gave us 444 days of abject humiliation.
Clinton had his chance, and he left us a legacy of disgusting, sleazy sex.
Now the neocons have had their chance. And in just 575 days — the period from 9-11 to the fall of Saddam's statue on April 9 — they have made us strong and proud again.
This is why I want to join the cabal. There is a hitch, though. I cannot pass the faith test. So as soon as I am done here, I will write to Mr. Perle. I'm hoping there are membership provisions for people of varying religious status.
I would be a lapsed-Catholic neocon.
Michael Bowers is a member of The Star's universal copy desk. He can be reached via e-mail at mbowers@starnewspapers.com.
Yes, but "anti-Semite" historically meant just people of Jewish descent (not necessarily the religion, but the ethnic component)
That's not fair. Pat Buchanan's uncle died in a Nazi concentration camp.... He fell out of a guard tower and broke his neck! </kidding>
Well,.......almost nobody.
About the only thing I've seen some 'Republicans' truly disagree with Democrats on lately is abortion and that's even starting to crumble. They may disagree on the size of the tax cut, but you won't hear them disagreeing on how good government is for us and the fact that we need even more
1873: The term "antisemitism" is first used in a pamphlet by Wilhelm Marr called "Jewry's Victory over Teutonism."
from this site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers2.htm
So-called 'neocons', to the very last man, venerate Ronald Reagan. Do you disagree with them about this as well?
Religious bigotry was considered politically incorrect at the time, so Mahr coined the new word ("anti-Semitism") to mean being against Jews as a race.
I'm sure Uncle Joe got up one morning and said "Damn these Russian winters are cold".
Until the past year, I thought that the relationship between Democrats/liberals/Jews was so intwined, it was practically melted solid. In the mid-1960's, a book entitled "The Real Majority" showed that Catholics were more likely to change their voting loyalty from the Democrat party than other associated blocks (at that point, blacks voted basically evenly for both parties). Jews were the most entrenched and most loyal to the Dems. Reagan proved this theory right. Catholics switched in droves and became "Reagan Democrats" and pro-life Republicans. Blacks became more dependent on social programs and grew solidly Democrat. Jews not only voted liberal but gave significant amounts of money.
From this affiliation, one would assume that the Dems would be Israel's best friend. Studies of Jewish voter affiliation showed "tradition" (my immigrant dad voted for the Dems so I will, too) was a key factor in Jewish voting habits. In fact, I have always been amazed at the support that the Dems in Michigan got from the Arab community because high-profile Jews were also affiliated with those same Democrats. Other than Jacob Javits, Jewish Republicans were in the background helping formulate policy, notably Irving Kristol (Bill's dad) and Herb Stein (Ben's dad).
Everything changed with the Clinton's. Hillary's hug of Arafat's wife was a big deal. The assumption of a pro-Israel Democrat party was undermined. The pro-Israel bias in the press also shifted, and I cannot figure out why. Jews in America control a disproportionate amount of American assets relative to their percentage of the population. Similarly, there is over-representation of Jews in the media. Given the fact that there are as many (if not more) Arabs in the US as there are Jews, were the Clinton's just playing both electoral sides against the middle? Does it really represent some resentment of the monetary success of their loyal Jewish Democrat contributors? Was it just an anti-Christian gesture as many conservative Christians are deeply committed to the survive of Israel?
Like the blacks, the Jews need to look at what their loyalty to the Democrat party really got them. At this point, one of the most important points to remember about Israel and its defense is that if a small independent nation like Israel cannot survive, other weaker nations cannot survive independently either. What hope is there for a Taiwan if Israel cannot make it? If there are suicide bombings at pizza parlors in Tel Aviv, when will the same type of person do the same thing at a mall in London or LA? Nine-eleven changed everything.
NPR recently ran a debate between Bill Kristol and another man who claimed that the Bush agenda of imposing democracy on Arab countries was wrong. If the Iraqi's wanted a democracy, they should earn it and fight for it like we did three hundred years ago. Wolfowitz is the new Rasputin to a dumb W. and, is consequently, the most dangerous man in the world. Of course, to him, Arafat, Hussein, and the other cast of dubious characters had no malevolent agendas of their own which needed watching.
In the end, the whole "neocon" argument is the ranting of Clinton-loving, elitest, arrogant, Ivy-League ideologues who are united in their hatred all of things Republican, particularly Bush. They reflect the soul-less nature of a Democrat party which has not only lost the majority, but has also lost a guiding philosophy and focused political agenda. Ultimately, they are also going to lose the lemming-like electoral support of groups they took for granted.
Europe has always needed the Jews as cash cows and scapegoats.
I don't think that's necessarily odd, that's what the term "semites" really means.
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.