Re: Grand Old Peaceniks

How convenient that it is a "Jewish" problem. This is how it all
started 80 years ago in Austria and Germany.
---
and 100 years ago in Russia

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a
January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most
of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care
little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and
they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."14

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same
point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud
immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe
and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no
nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the
existing order of things."

"The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish
community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking,
Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."

Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-
Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of
the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia],
particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia
who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."

On Sep 6, 3:40 pm, Coach <coachl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How convenient that it is a "Jewish" problem.  This is how it all
> started 80 years ago in Austria and Germany.
>
> On Sep 6, 11:44 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > great response!
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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.