Posted on 12/31/2003 3:05:52 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Discussing the Iraq war with the Washington Post last week, former General Anthony Zinni took the path chosen by so many anti-Semites: he blamed it on the Jews.
Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney—nor for that matter Zinni’s old friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell—was to blame. It was the Jews. They “captured” both Bush and Cheney, and Powell was merely being a “good soldier.”
Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say “Jews.” He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: “neoconservatives.” As the name implies, “neoconservative” was originally meant to denote someone who is a newcomer to the right. In the 90’s, many people self-identified themselves as “neocons,” but today that term has become synonymous with “Jews.”
And if anybody should know better, it’s Gen. Zinni. It is well-known that those who are labeled “neocons” within the administration—whether the number-two official at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, or undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith—are almost always Jews.
Sadly typical is a Business Week article this May that identified Wolfowitz, Feith, Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official Ken Adelman and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol—all Jews—as “neocons,” yet Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—neither one Jewish—as simply “key allies.” Policy beliefs and worldviews were not different between these two groups; only religion distinguishes them.
Given that the “neocons” do not control the Departments of State or Defense nor the National Security Council—gentiles all head those agencies—and given that the White House is clearly run by non-Jews, how is it that Zinni claims that the “neocons” were responsible for the U.S. liberating Iraq? As he explains to the Post, “Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.”
And the Post piece uses dramatic language when discussing Zinni’s views on the “neocons”:
“The more he listened to Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist ‘neoconservative’ ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn’t understand.”
Zinni’s comments are eerily similar to those made by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit this October. In a speech that drew a standing ovation from the leaders of Muslim nations in attendance, Mahathir remarked, “Today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”
Since Jews make up roughly 2% of the American population and less than a fraction of one percent of the world’s—yet attract disproportionately more of the world’s bigoted venom—the only way to perpetuate the hatred of Jews that has existed for centuries is to blame them for controlling vital industries, “ruling the world by proxy,” or by “capturing” the leader of the free world and his likewise freely elected vice-president.
Let’s suppose for a moment that Zinni, who could not be reached for comment, had no idea that “neocon” has become code for “Jew.” At best, his statements were simply ludicrous. Both Cheney and Bush had full knowledge of the unabated evil of Saddam Hussein—the former even having helped lead the Gulf War as the Secretary of Defense—and neither needed to be “captured” by anyone to understand the need to rid the world of Saddam’s tyranny.
But now let’s suppose Zinni has at least minimal common sense and at least passively follows Washington politics. In that instance, Zinni’s comments are not much different than Mahathir’s—and just as inaccurate. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of the administration can tell you, the president and the vice-president were probably the two biggest advocates for liberating Iraq. Even at the staff level, the majority of the leading “hawks” were gentiles such as National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and White House chief of staff Andrew Card.
It’s a shame that someone who so honorably served his nation for three decades would tarnish his legacy with such idiotic remarks. If he didn’t mean to use “neocon” as a code word for “Jew,” he should say so. But if he meant to, then he should just shut up.
What makes people think that just because they don't understand something it means that no one else does either?
It's just too easy throughout history to blame the Jooz.
Pre frontal lobe for sure.
What bothers me about this is that it's as if they're trying to make neoconservatives a protected class that can't be talked about negatively. If you oppose neoconservative policy, you're a closet racist? C'mon, save the race card for the people without arguments.
PATHETIC!
If you only mention Jews by name, as Zinni did, and Buchanan often does, what is one to think?
There are LOTS of "neoconservatives" who aren't Jews, yet it is always Perle and Wolfowitz who are mentioned by the critics.
Get creative, or risk the accusation.
Not only is such an assertion factually incorrect, it's racist as hell.
I guess that's what Zinni might say, leaving out the word scumbag. I'm not saying that Dog Gone is anything like Zinni, or that he is wrong, just that Zinni might say that.
In my opinion, the heart of Zinni's remarks is as follows: Zinni thinks that the United States is run by these idiots, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, who are controlled by a small cabal of smarter people. Now, if Zinni wasn't thinking Jew, then it would not have been anti-semetic. However, it still would have come out of the same kind of paranoid socialism-of-fools thinking.
What about what Dog Gone says about the Jews? That's just plain true. Why is speculation; hopefully it is on the road to ending, but I have my doubts.
But Perle and Wolfowitz are in positions of power and are the ones crafting and implementing (neoconservative) policy. Of course they're getting mentioned by name. Until this article I honestly had no clue Kristol was Jewish (is he actually?). But he's definitely in the fore of our political culture, and I'd like to think I can disagree with his neoconservative policy views concerning American hegemony (Pax Americana, whatever you want to call it) without being called a racist. That's the kind of distraction the Left engages in, when you critize someone like Jesse Jackson or Julian Bond for the policies they advocate and get called a racist. It lets the accuser dodge responding to the policy arguments and instead divert focus to ad-hominem attacks on the opponent.
Perle is not in the administration in any position.
Look, you are free to criticize neocons. But when people go out of their way to mention certain neocons by name, and they are all Jews, you can be pretty sure what underlies some of the criticism.
If Joel Mowbray isn't a neoconservative, nobody is. Why can't he defend himself? If you stay away from nastiness and insults, you can say whatever you want, and, as Zinni shows, you can probably even get away with insults and nastiness when you keep it a bit ambiguous.
I try to be precise, I said, "But Perle and Wolfowitz are in positions of power and are the ones crafting and implementing (neoconservative) policy." Richard Perle is the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon made up of leading figures in national security and defense, at least according to the info available to me. I consider that a position of power, and one crafting policy. Certainly more so than any of us posting here on FR.
Ambassador to Palestine,maybe? I wish I understood this.It makes me think Zinni had some juicy notes in his FBI files.
There is nothing in the least racist about this comment. However, it doesn't seem all that pro-American either. The US is the most powerful country in the world, and as most powerful nations go historically, we are the least colonialist. The US wants nothing better than to turn over Iraq to the Iraqi people, so long as they don't bring back the terrorist training camps complete with 707 (and I haven't heard there's any controversy over that one).
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.