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.
Let me repeat:
It is the liberals who use the term "neocon" as a pejorative codeword. To them, it means "conservative Jew".
Hmmmmmmmmm. Yep, it says what it says. Seems clear to me.
I'm more worried about the strategic threat. I do not want a successful WMD attack against our people of our allies.to succeed in hitting us. I think preemption is the right strategy. We should wage a relentless campaign against the entire Axis of Evil.
The advice of some to leave Hussein in power was properly heard and disregarded. Bush understood the message in September 11th.
A CINC got into the details of ship's security?
Hardly, he made the decision to allow refueling in Yemen
Partly for logistical reasons (Lack of Navy Tankers)
Partly for diplomatic reasons (Show the flag - mil to mil engagement)
Kind of hard to write Yemen off considering where it is
Like it or not guy a lot of these countries have splt personalities and have factions vying for their souls
You'd rather we just ran?
Go to Pakistan sometime. THERE is a country we can't afford to lose that is really wrestling with itself.
You insist on seeing everything in Black and white
I wish it was that simple
It ain't
All the best
Qatar-6
I do think WMD is the ball we have to keep our eye on.
However, I don't see how OSD has helped
The strategic decisions were the president's and he made the right ones.
The operational execution has been hampered by excessive and inexpert civilian micromanagement
The gist of this article was to call a retired general, who dared question the operational judgement of these deeply flawed men, anti-semites.
Lame and untrue. I know Gen Zinni and he is not an Anti Semite
Even a Marine general should be bright enough to know that maneuvering is the first defense for a ship, something it cannot do tied up to a pier in a hostile port.
Second, he should know that the port itself would not provide a security zone around a US Navy ship, which it didn't.
Lastly, he should have known that without a security zone or the ability to maneuver the ship would be a ripe target for attack.
Yes, the CINC sure didn't get involved with the ship's security...he just made sure they couldn't defend themselves.
Nothing black and white about the dead from the USS Cole.
They were good people and their souls are with god now
Pray for their families and continue the mission
The ship was refueling in stream away from docks for force protection reasons
Any reluctance to shoot on the part of deck sentries is attributable to the ship's chain of command not Zinni
Yeah they got blown up and 17 of them died. It's a shame
But do you honestly believe a CINC sat in his HQ and did nothing but track the USS Cole and issue it orders personally?
He was responsible for the Cole just like I was responsible for everything as a company and Battalion level commander
I wise old captain told me right before I took the flag that on any given day in my command something was ahppening that I was responsible for, didn't know about and could get me relieved.
All you can do is create a decent command climate, give the unit a good azimuth to work along and trust your people.
Zinni did that, his decision was fundamentally correct. It didn't work out. That's all. People died.
I'm sure it troubled him deeply, I'm also sure he had the hardness of characterto realize that he was not wrng and that Yemen is important to our national strategy in the middle east
So you want us to never go to Yemen again because there are terrorists there and they might strike us?
Even a young seaman knows that tied up in port a ship is basically defenseless, that is why our ports provide security for the ships within them.
" It's war, we take casualties."
That wasn't war, it was gross incompetence.
" Any reluctance to shoot on the part of deck sentries is attributable to the ship's chain of command not Zinni."
Shoot what...a harbor FULL of boats and people. Get real, there is no way a handful of people on the deck with small arms and no security zone could protect the ship...and that is Zinni's fault. He put them in that position.
"Yeah they got blown up and 17 of them died. It's a shame."
No, it should have been criminal. What's a shame is how some folks are attempting to gloss over Zinni's incompetence and political nature.
"All you can do is create a decent command climate, give the unit a good azimuth to work along and trust your people."
What? Not just make them a sitting target with no means of protecting themselves.
He is taking the offensive against the President and singling out Jewish members of the administration with a thinly veiled label of neocon. It is reasonable to translate it as Jewish Republican.
His public attacks on the President would make sense if he were a Democrat like Clark, but he is not. I think he is dismayed because he thinks the Bush Administration was not contained by SoS Powell, Sen. Hagel, and Sen. Lugar from toppling an Axis of Evil regime. He probably wants to form an alliance with various Arab regimes at the expense of Israel and pursue a calculated strategy of containment, appeasement, and lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents. I think that is where he is coming from.
After September 11th I don't think the American people will stand for that kind of policy.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/
You've never had to make these decisions, or likely, work for people who did
It's always war in the Mid East Chief. Sometimes it's fighting, other times it's positioning and influence operations
The Cole was there to further a strategy of engagement with Yemen
Tactically, it didn't work out.
But that doesn't mean the idea of maintaining influence in Yemen is wrong
Element of risk to young Americans, you betcha
Bad guys turned out to be better than we thought
We took a hit, people died, we're still in Yemen and it's paying us dividends in the war on terror.
You'd have us take our ball and go home
Franks only took over from Zinni a year before 9-11
All the basing plans, all the prepositioned site construction, all the agreements with those pesky Arab nations you seem to so despise, the relationship with Pakistan that allowed us to prosecute OEF and a lot more, that was all done on Zinni's watch. He set us up for success
You malign a good man
G'night chief, Happy new year
Qatar-6
You've never had to make these decisions, or likely, work for people who did
It's always war in the Mid East Chief. Sometimes it's fighting, other times it's positioning and influence operations
The Cole was there to further a strategy of engagement with Yemen
Tactically, it didn't work out.
But that doesn't mean the idea of maintaining influence in Yemen is wrong
Element of risk to young Americans, you betcha
Bad guys turned out to be better than we thought
We took a hit, people died, we're still in Yemen and it's paying us dividends in the war on terror.
You'd have us take our ball and go home
Franks only took over from Zinni a year before 9-11
All the basing plans, all the prepositioned site construction, all the agreements with those pesky Arab nations you seem to so despise, the relationship with Pakistan that allowed us to prosecute OEF and a lot more, that was all done on Zinni's watch. He set us up for success
You malign a good man
G'night chief, Happy new year
Qatar-6
Yes, I was fortunate to never work with an incompete arse who would put his people into harms way for political points...how very fortunate for me. How utterly unfortunate for the crew of the USS Cole.
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.