Why? If it weren't for the so-called "neo-cons" we likely would have another 10,000 Americans dead.
al-Qaeda is virtually dead, and nobody, but nobody, is going to challenge the United States.
In addition, any regime that fosters terrorism knows that it risks being destroyed.
The era of Bill Clinton "patty-cake diplomacy" is over.
Yeah...
You hear alot of that from the out of work Loserdopian clique that loiters around FR [especially on the weekends].
It's only fair. As Pat Buchanan; etc., claims the neo cons; read Jews, have brought us into this war (untrue btw.), then it's only fair that the Jews should take credit for the success of this war.
I asked Chris Matthews if he will at least apologize to the neo Cons/Jews since the war was a success and he was wrong. As of this writing I have not received a reply from him.
2003: "The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A list of the Middle East regimes that Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Netanyahu, and the Wall Street Journal regard as targets for destruction includes Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and 'militant Islam.'
"Cui bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
"Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The principal draftsman is Richard Perle....In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," for Prime Minister Netanyahu....In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel's enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish 'the principle of preemption,' has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"President Bush is on notice: Should he pressure Israel to trade land for peace, the Oslo formula in which his father and Yitzak Rabin believed, he will, as was his father, be denounced as an anti-Semite and a Munich-style appeaser by both Israelis and their neoconservative allies inside his own Big Tent."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives' agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect."
-- "Whose War? The Loudest Clique Behind the President's Policy," The American Conservative, March 24, 2003.
2003: "Sharon was first elected on a pledge to ditch the Camp David and Barak plans. His new cabinet contains militant Zionists who consider the West Bank sacred Jewish land. They will not give it up. They will not permit Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state even if Bush, triumphant in Iraq, tells them it must be done. They will fight him as they fought his father. And they will have the War Party in their corner....
"Where will...President Bush go after Baghdad? If he seeks to pressure Israel into what the Israeli Right and the War Party think are premature and foolish negotiations, he will court a savage backlash in an election year, and fail. If he embraces the Sharon Doctrine and puts military pressure on Syria and Iran, he will do so without Tony Blair, without NATO and without U.N. backing, and he will be seen world wide as the leader of a rogue superpower."
--"After Baghdad, where do we go?" townhall.com, March 3, 2003.
2003: "Israel, recipient of $100 billion in U.S. aid, is demanding another $15 billion to hold our coat as we fight her war against Iraq."
--"With friends like these," townhall.com, February 24, 2003.
1999: "After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders."
- A Republic, Not an Empire. P. 336.
1999: "I know the power of the Israeli lobby and the other lobbies, but we need a foreign policy that puts our own country first."
- Meet the Press Interview. September 12, 1999.
1991: "Even if his veto of the (loan) guarantees is overridden, he will have won high marks for his courage, and exposed congress for what it has become, a Parliament of Whores incapable of standing up for U.S. national interests, if AIPAC is on the other end of the line."
- Syndicated column, December 18, 1991
1990: In an August 25,1990, column, Buchanan criticized commentators urging military intervention in Iraq, naming Abe Rosenthal, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthamer and Henry Kissinger. On August 29th, he wrote the following:
"’The civilized world must win this fight,’ the editors thunder. But, if it comes to war, it will not be the ‘civilized world’ humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown."
- Washington Times, August 29, 1990
1990: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States."
- The McLaughlin Group, Aug 26, 1990
1990: "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
- McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990
1990: "That the United States would sit still for anything was brought home to the Israelis, long ago, on the third day of the Six-Day War, when Lyndon Johnson ordered a coverup of an Israeli rocket-and-machine gun attack on the U.S. intelligence ship Liberty off the Sinai, an attack costing the lives of 37 brave American soldiers.
When it suits them, our Israeli allies launch air strikes on Tunis, Baghdad or Beirut; they invade Lebanon; they even enlist U.S. traitors, like the Pollards, to loot the secrets of a nation that has manifested toward them an extraordinary indulgence."
- January, 1990
1999: "Senator Joseph McCarthy, in his career fighting communists, did nothing to their collaborators, sympathizers, and defenders to compare with what was done to the patriots of America First. But the acolytes of FDR won the great debate as decisively as America won the war. To this day, any who oppose U.S. commitments to fight wars in Europe or Asia, or new global entanglements, must first answer to the intimidating charge that they are nothing but ‘isolationists.’"
- A Republic, Not an Empire, P. 250
1990: "The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
- NY Post, March 17, 1990 (from a column about the trial of accused Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk)
1990: "Whatever Rudolph did during World War II, his quarter century of service to the United States entitles the old man to a public hearing before he goes to his grave."
- NY Post, July 14, 1990, on Arthur Rudolph, Nazi rocket scientist investigated by OSI who aided the American space program
1983: "Perhaps this endless search for Nazi war criminals, these endless re-enactments, on stage and screen, of Hitler’s concentration camps are good for the soul. To what end, however, all this wallowing in the atrocities of a dead regime when there is scarcely a peep of protest over the prison camps, the labor camps, the concentration camps operating now in China and Siberia, in Cuba and Vietnam."
- Washington Times, August 24, 1983
1977: "Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature…Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
- St. Louis Globe – Democrat, Aug 25, 1977
1990: "In the late 1940’s and 1950’s…race was never a preoccupation with us, we rarely thought about it….There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘Negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
- Right From the Beginning
1983: "Rail as they will against ‘discrimination,’ women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism…The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is."
- Washington Times. November 18, 1983
1991: "David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft."
- Manchester, NH Union Leader, December 15, 1991
1990: "Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country? Because that is our destiny if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores…..
"The Negroes of the ‘50s became the blacks of the ‘60’s; now, the ‘African-Americans’ of the 90’s demand racial quotas and set-asides, as the Democrats eagerly assent and a pandering GOP prepares to go along.
"Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the U.S.A.? …Is it not time to take America back?"
- NY Post, June 20, 1990
1991: "I think God made all people good. But if we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them in Virginia, which group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?"
- This Week With David Brinkley, December 8, 1991
It would be tough--no, it would be impossible--to improve on this concise summary of both of these failed presidencies.
Don't be. Paleocons are isolationists of the pre-WW2 variety. No conflict outside of our borders is worth the committment of American troops, they assert. Neocons, on the other hand, realize that American security doesn't stop at our borders. It's pretty much that simple, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jews or Israel.
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 bet he doesn't complain that the same Jewish community
votes Democrat election after election. He should think of
it as servicing his constituency.