we're on the same page
I don't have a problem with zionists either ... as long as their
belief in jewish myths doesn't effect US ME policy.
On Sep 6, 8:43 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl'!
>
> As we have discussed previously, I have no problem with Zionism. None,
> nada. If Jews (or anyone for that matter) want to go prop up in the
> desert, more power to them.
>
> My concerns are similar to yours however. I want the allegiance question
> resolved with anyone who chooses to "Zionate". We cannot have politicians
> (or anyone for that matter) put the welfare of Israel ahead of this
> Nation's interests, and we have seen this happen before, (*See* The Senator
> From Tel Aviv, Joe Liebermann)
>
> I do believe that Israel is an ally of the United States, and should be
> treated accordingly. There is a distinction between placing Israel's
> interests ahead of our own. Just as important, it troubles me that we can
> support some of Israel's policies, when they are clearly in conflict with
> our own interests.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:01 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that you won't accept that the US interventionist policy is a complete
> > failure and supports israel is evidence that you just might be a
> > zionist
> > how's that working for ya?
> > ever had a zionist minister preside over a dead relative who served in
> > the middle east?
>
> > On Sep 5, 9:30 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:09 AM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > neoconservatives remain a large part of the foreign-policy
> > > > establishment that will wind up staffing any future Republican
> > > > administration
> > > > ---
> > > > Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex
> > > > interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish
> > > > publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies
> > > > of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the
> > > > United States in the service of Israel. As such, neoconservatism
> > > > should be considered a semicovert branch of the massive and highly
> > > > effective pro-Israel lobby, which includes organizations like the
> > > > America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the most powerful
> > > > lobbying group in Washington—and the Zionist Organization of America
> > > > (ZOA). Indeed, as discussed below, prominent neoconservatives have
> > > > been associated with such overtly pro-Israel organizations as the
> > > > Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Washington
> > > > Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and ZOA.
>
> > > > On Sep 4, 6:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > Grand Old PeaceniksWill austerity turn Republicans away from war?By
> > W.
> > > > James Antle III | August 31, 2011
> > > > > Fairly or not, Mitt Romney's approach to national security during the
> > > > 2008 presidential race can be captured by a single phrase: "Double
> > > > Guantanamo." When asked about the U.S. prison camp for terror suspects,
> > the
> > > > eager-to-please former Massachusetts governor's first instinct was to
> > > > propose super-sizing it like a McDonald's value meal for hungry
> > Republican
> > > > primary voters.
> > > > > That was when Romney was trying to compete with John McCain and Rudy
> > > > Giuliani, both more natural national-security hawks than he. But even
> > as he
> > > > launched his second campaign in 2010 with the release of his bookNo
> > Apology:
> > > > The Case for American Greatness, Romney endorsed in its pages what
> > William
> > > > Kristol and Robert Kagan described in a 1996Foreign Affairsessay as
> > > > "benevolent global hegemony"the idea that if the United States is not
> > the
> > > > world's dominant military and ideological power, the void will be
> > filled by
> > > > countries advancing values that are much worse for peace and human
> > freedom.
> > > > > So it was surprising when at a June GOP candidates' debate in New
> > > > Hampshire, Romney said of the war in Afghanistan, "It's time for to us
> > bring
> > > > our troops home as soon as we possibly can." With this pale imitation
> > of
> > > > "Come home, America," Romney found himself drawn into a critique by his
> > > > former rival McCain and other hawks that the Republican Party was
> > becoming
> > > > too "isolationist."
> > > > > "There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican Party,
> > that
> > > > Pat Buchanan wing of our party," McCain lamented, irritated by
> > Republican
> > > > diffidence over Afghanistan and Libya. "But now it seems to have moved
> > more
> > > > center stage, so to speak."
> > > > > McCain's ally, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham,
> > concurred.
> > > > He worried to theHillthat it "doesn't take long before the [GOP] finds
> > a
> > > > war-weary nation and exploits it." He fretted about an alliance between
> > Ron
> > > > Paul on the "far right" and Dennis Kucinich on the "far left," though
> > he was
> > > > apparently unbothered by a left-right interventionist coalition
> > consisting
> > > > of himself, McCain, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.
> > > > > Some of this was overblown, even by McCain and Graham's
> > > > characteristically elastic definition of isolationism. TheWeekly
> > Standard's
> > > > Stephen Hayes admitted on Fox News that Romney's mild Afghanistan
> > comment
> > > > "had Republican hawks, policy analysts emailing one another, what does
> > he
> > > > mean? Is he calling for immediate withdrawal?" But Hayes reassured
> > viewers
> > > > at home, "I talked to people who are familiar with his thinking. And
> > they
> > > > said no, look, he misspoke. That's not what he intended to say."
> > > > > TheWashington Post's Jennifer Rubin, quick to spy "unseriousness" in
> > the
> > > > form of incipient dovishness upon the part of Republican aspirantslike
> > such
> > > > notorious McGovernites as Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbourabsolved
> > Romney of
> > > > any foreign-policy heterodoxy. While Rubin was initially concerned that
> > "the
> > > > entire GOP field was now hopping on the isolationist bandwagon in some
> > odd
> > > > attempt to scrounge votes from the Ron Paul contingent," Romney and Tim
> > > > Pawlenty ultimately passed her "strong foreign policy" test. (As later
> > did
> > > > Michele Bachmann, who "firmly planted herself at the grown-ups' table"
> > by
> > > > telling theWeekly Standardwe must "stay the course" in Afghanistan.)
> > > > > Pawlenty had taken to lecturing the rest of the Republican field
> > about
> > > > their disturbing "move more towards isolationism," as he toldPolitico.
> > > > Meanwhile, Romney foreign-policy adviser Mitchell Reiss was quick to
> > tell
> > > > Rubin that Romney felt the United States was "under-investing" in
> > national
> > > > defense.
> > > > > It is nevertheless significant that Romney, his finger ever in search
> > of
> > > > the primary voter's pulse, has had to defend himself against the charge
> > of
> > > > isolationism. Much of his double-Gitmo chest-beating last time around
> > was
> > > > overcompensating for the perception that he wasn't as gung-ho as the
> > other
> > > > candidates for George W. Bush's foreign policy. At the time,
> > conservative
> > > > journalist David Freddoso pointed out that Romney "is unique among the
> > > > serious Republican presidential contenders because he has never said he
> > > > would do [the Iraq War] all over again, and they all have."
> > > > > In one debate, Romney twice refused to answer when asked if the Iraq
> > > > invasion was a mistake. He called the question "an unreasonable
> > > > hypothetical," a "non-sequitur," and even a "null set," as if it simply
> > did
> > > > not compute. At another debate he drew McCain's harsh rebuke for saying
> > the
> > > > surge was "apparently" working. "Governor, the surge is working,"
> > McCain
> > > > snarled. When Romney protested that was what he had just said, McCain
> > shot
> > > > back, "Not apparently. It's working."
> > > > > In theNew Republic, Eli Lake has reported that Romney's
> > foreign-policy
> > > > advisers are divided. Lake described Reisswho ironically was the man
> > > > dispatched to convince Jennifer Rubin of Romney's hawkishnessas a surge
> > > > skeptic, while Dan Senor, a former spokesman for the Coalition
> > Provisional
> > > > Authority in Iraq who later sent a distress signal to Republican hawks
> > about
> > > > the dovishness of senate candidate Rand Paul, was pro-surge. Reiss and
> > Senor
> > > > still advise Romney today and are similarly at odds over Afghanistan.
> > > > > Yet Reiss's doubts about Hamid Karzai's Afghan government are a far
> > cry
> > > > from mythical isolationism, or even real-world non-interventionism.
> > Other
> > > > than Ron Paul and fellow libertarian Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman is the
> > only
> > > > Republican presidential candidate who has come close to calling for a
> > > > fundamental reevaluation of American foreign policy. But as Lake notes,
> > "the
> > > > penny-pinching mood among Republicans" has made GOP leaders "less
> > inclined
> > > > to sound the kinds of grandiose and expensive notes about foreign
> > policy
> > > > that were considered par for the course in 2008."
> > > > > Nowhere was that clearer than in this summer's debt-ceiling battle.
> > In
> > > > their eagerness to identify spending reductions that would offset an
> > > > increase in the federal debt limit, congressional Republican leaders
> > were
> > > > willing to put the Pentagon on the chopping block. House Budget
> > Committee
> > > > Chairman Paul Ryan had long been a skeptic of trimming the defense
> > budget,
> > > > preferring to reinvest any savings from eliminating waste or from
> > > > procurement reform in other military expenditures. But Ryan included
> > former
> > > > Defense Secretary Robert Gates's requested defense cuts in the official
> > > > Republican budget for fiscal 2012, reinvesting some of the savings and
> > > > applying the rest to deficit reduction.
> > > > > The eventual debt ceiling compromisewhich passed the House with more
> > > > Republican than Democratic votescaps security spending at $684 billion,
> > > > about $4.5 billion below the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment