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 <plainolamerican@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?
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Sep 5, 9:30 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:09 AM, plainolamerican
> ...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 enacted 2011 amount. The law also sets up a
> > joint "super committee" tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in deficit
> > reduction for the next decade. If the committee flunks its assignment or
> > Congress fails to pass its recommendations, another $600 billion in cuts to
> > defense and other security spending kick in. Romney, Pawlenty, and Bachmann
> > all cited the defense cuts in their opposition to the legislation, with
> > Bachmann saying the armed forces "will be the ones who take the biggest,
> > most severe haircut."
> > > McCain, ever on the watch for isolationism, swallowed hard and supported
> > the deal. So did House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon,
> > despite warning, "Our senior military commanders have been unanimous in
> > their concerns that deeper cuts could break the force." Yet fiscal
> > conservatives like Sen. Tom Coburn were willing to contemplate $1 trillion
> > in defense cuts. Coburn argued that knocking defense spending back to levels
> > seen before the surge in Iraq was hardly isolationism.
> > > Penny-pinching is one thing. Rethinking the projection of American
> > military power is another. Republicans didn't want to pay for the wars
> > launched under President Bush either, but barely a handful voted against
> > waging them. Yet a large number of Republicans opposed President Obama's war
> > in Libya, going so far as to vote for defunding it and invoking the War
> > Powers Resolution to question its legalitythe latter move putting 87 House
> > Republicans on the same page as left-wing Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich.
> > > This would have been unthinkable under Bush. TheWall Street
> > Journaleditorialized that it should still be unthinkable now, predictably
> > decrying an "isolationist turn" in the GOP and designating those 87 "the
> > Kucinich Republicans"which included Bachmann and other Tea Party favorites.
>
>
> read more »
>
> crackpot.jpg
> 9KViewDownload
--
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.
--
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