Anyone who thinks of another as "jew-boy communist" is clearly an anti-Semite.
So, if someone uses the term "neocon," do you think they are an anti-Semite?
Posted on 07/13/2003 5:14:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday.
MI6 had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission.
US intelligence sources believe that the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are run by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission.
A further factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the US administration's willingness to publicise intelligence might lead to sources being inadvertently disclosed.
US sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with Iraq and so suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the intelligence.
British sources yesterday dismissed suggestions of a row between MI6 and the CIA on the issue. However, they admitted being surprised that George Tenet, the CIA director, had apologised to President George W Bush for allowing him to cite the British government and its claim that Saddam had sought to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union speech last October.
The apology follows the International Atomic Energy Authority's dismissal of documents given to it by the CIA, which purported to prove the link, as fakes.
Those documents have been widely identified with last September's British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from an unnamed country in Africa.
British officials admitted that the country was Niger but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said.
They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment."
The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the Americans that they were fakes.
There had been a number of reports in America in particular suggesting that the fake documents - which came from another intelligence source - were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But this was not true.
"What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to anyone else."
There's a shocker.
Anyone who thinks of another as "jew-boy communist" is clearly an anti-Semite.
So, if someone uses the term "neocon," do you think they are an anti-Semite?
Well, let's just say that the Federalists, like Hamilton, Madison, etc. did not think that taxation was theft. But to paint with this broad brush all founding fathers is incorrect as the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry thought unlimited taxation was the route to the destruction of American liberty. I quote:
"...A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited—an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them..."
"...Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent: even that they should strike us out of the Union and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States. more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress..."
--Patrick Henry
From a speech made on June 5, 1788, in the Virginia Convention, called to ratify the Constitution of the United States.
As someone once asked, "Are you over-taxed, under-taxed or taxed exactly the right amount?"
If you feel you're over-taxed, then you have the Federalist faction of the Founding Fathers to thank because the Anti-Federalists were dead set against the strong central government with the attendant unlimited taxation the Federalists were trying to construct. As it turned out, Henry's predictions about the gun control and activist judiciary were right on the money. (pardon the pun)
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. It would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." --Franklin Pierce 1854
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." -- Grover Cleveland 1887
"We will have affordable prescription drugs for our seniors" --George W. Bush 2003
(an interesting progression)
The sad part is, I see some elements of truth in what JR posted, and your #206 OWK was outstanding.
Take care, both of you. I am hoping that no one get ZAPPED as a result of these comments. Too damn much of that in the last two years, IMHO...
You cannot fail to have noticed that I attributed the opinion to those who rail against "neo-cons." There does seem to be an apparent anti-semitism among those who rail against "neo-cons," and Pat Buchanan is a prime example.
So please stop with the scurrilous slander, and perhaps discuss the topic of this thread -- which, in case you didn't notice, seems to validate some of the positions taken by those nasty neo-cons in the run-up to the war.
Someone used the word "neo-con", and the first thing out of your mouth was "jew-boy communist".
You stand indicted by your own words.
Not necessarily. However, I happen to think that Pat Buchanan -- whose opposition to "neo-cons" has a long history -- is in fact an anti-semite.
And I think those who tend to use "neo-con," as a perjorative tend also to be anti-Israel, though that does not necessarily equate to anti-semitism. But there does seem often to be a "Jewish Cabal" element to their complaints.
For an interesting take, much better stated than mine, see this article about the supposed Jewish Neo-con Trotskyites (about whom Ron Paul had so much to say, the other day).
ZOT!!!
(whew, good thing I wasn't standing there... huh?)
Which is why I avoid them.
There's no racism in my post, nor is there anti-semitism.
Here we go with the denials.
You cannot fail to have noticed that I attributed the opinion to those who rail against "neo-cons." There does seem to be an apparent anti-semitism among those who rail against "neo-cons," and Pat Buchanan is a prime example.
Yes, I noticed that you resorted to an attempt to use racist language in an attempt to control the discussion. The fact that you thought you could get away with it is sad. Understandable, but sad. It may not be your fault at all, however. Perhaps you simply weren't raised right.
So please stop with the scurrilous slander, and perhaps discuss the topic of this thread -- which, in case you didn't notice, seems to validate some of the positions taken by those nasty neo-cons in the run-up to the war.
We can get back to the topic as soon as you apologize for your attempt to throw the racist epithet at me. I won't make you apologize for being a racist, because that is your right, however ignorant and ugly. But, there's no reason for you to resort to it on this thread.
Are you really this stupid, OWK? Must you really resort to abject lies?
Reprinted for your perusal (perhaps you'll actually read it this time):
"Judging from the people they apply it to, I think it's a polite way for them to say 'jew-boy communist.'"
The "them" is, of course, those who use "neo-con" as an insult. Even you can see that. Yes, even you.
But then, given that your boy Ron Paul has taken to going after the "neo-con Trotskyists," I can understand your sensitivity.
Oh, and what was that you were saying about who gets to ZOT?
I didn't necessarily throw it at you. But I stand by the assertion that there's an element of anti-semitism among those who dislike "neo-cons."
The point of this thread, BTW, is that the supposedly flawed unranium intel, was perhaps based on real intel, and thus justified.
Care to comment?
The discussion had nothing to do with matters of race.
The discussion was going "not so well" for you.
When the words "neo-con" (words which seem to describe you fairly well as near as I can tell) came into the discussion, you inserted the words "communist jew-boy" in an attempt to make the discussion about race instead of politics or philosophy.
In so doing, you exposed yourself... not others.
Neo-cons suck.
They suck because they place the notion of "state" in a much higher value than the notion of rights.
It has nothing to do with race for me.
Why it does for you, is your own private demon.
Just can't help it, can you? You keep throwing it out there hoping it will stick. Unfortunately, every attempt just further besmirches you and makes it obvious how deep seated the bias really is.
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.