Running from cover: Quelle surprise?!

Ousted Army chief blasts Bush Iraq policy

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Robert Burns

Sept. 2, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Thomas E. White, forced to resign as Army secretary in May, has fired back in a book that describes the Bush administration's postwar effort in Iraq as "anemic" and "totally inadequate."

The book, which presents a blueprint for revitalizing Iraq, asserts that the administration underestimated the difficulty of putting that country back on its feet after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"Clearly the view that the war to `liberate' Iraq would instantly produce a pro-United States citizenry ready for economic and political rebirth ignored the harsh realities on the ground," White wrote in a preface to "Reconstructing Eden," which is to be published Thursday.

In a letter to news organizations announcing the book's release, White was even tougher on the administration. "Unbelievably, American lives are being lost daily," he wrote. White said the administration lacks a cohesive, integrated plan to stabilize and rebuild the country.

"We did not conduct the war this way and we should not continue rebuilding the country in a haphazard manner," he wrote. "The result will be a financial disaster, more lives lost, chaos in Iraq and squandered American goodwill."

White, who as a civilian service secretary was not in the military chain of command, served as Army secretary from May 2001 to May 2003. He clashed with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on a number of issues, including the service's plan for the Crusader artillery system, which Rumsfeld viewed as too heavy and cumbersome for the lighter, more agile Army he envisioned.

A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, said that as a matter of policy the department does not comment on books. He acknowledged that U.S. occupation authorities in Baghdad face severe problems with security in Iraq but believe they are on track toward success.

In the book, White noted the postwar spasms of violence in Iraq.

"It is quite clear in the immediate aftermath of hostilities that the plan for winning the peace is totally inadequate," he wrote.

White wrote that the administration's Iraq policy "threatens to turn what was a major military victory into a potential humanitarian, political and economic disaster." The administration's "anemic attempts at nation building" will be viewed with disdain by other countries, he said.

White is a co-author of the book with three associates of CountryWatch Inc., a Houston firm that describes itself as a provider of global information to businesses, schools and government organizations.

The authors say U.S. troops ought to remain in Iraq until June 2005, and they estimate that by then the total cost of the war and the occupation would be about $150 billion, including money to revitalize the Iraqi oil industry.

White submitted his resignation on April 25. Later it became known that Rumsfeld had forced the resignation. White left May 9; his replacement, James Roche, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

While saying there is still a chance to make a success of postwar Iraq, White wrote in his book that the record on U.S. efforts at rebuilding Afghanistan, which it invaded in October 2001, is "dismal."

Afghanistan, he said, is experiencing a resurgence of Taliban influence and rule by warlords. He criticized "artificial caps" that the administration placed on U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, where about 9,600 American forces are now engaged in combat and stability operations.

RE: Funny, I don't recall him saying that on CNN when it mattered

General blames US for Iraq 'chaos'

The former commander of Nato forces in Europe, General Wesley Clark, says American policy has "created chaos" in Iraq.

General Clark said the fundamental problem was the US tendency to fight states to get at "terrorists", rather than take on the "terrorists" themselves.

"We may have given Osama Bin Laden the recharge he needed to rebuild his arsenal and his ranks," he told the BBC's World Today programme.

General Clark is being encouraged to become a democratic candidate for next year's presidential election, but has not yet announced if he will stand.

His criticisms coincided with a warning from the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the country would need tens of billions of dollars to rebuild its shattered infrastructure.

The bill to overhaul essential services would reach almost $30bn, on top of the estimated $1bn per week the US already spends on its forces in Iraq, he said.

President George W Bush has pledged "no retreat" in Iraq, saying US-led forces are making good progress in restoring order and insisting Iraq is part of the wider war on terror.

But General Clark expressed reservations about waging war on a country that he did not believe was "particularly linked to terrorism" or an "imminent danger".

He said the war should have resulted in restored Iraqi relations with the UN and Nato, finding weapons of mass destruction and ensuring Iraq would "not become a hotbed of international terrorism".

"We are drawing in terrorists. We have created chaos in Iraq," he said.

'Rethink strategy'

America should have concentrated its efforts on the "fundamental problem" of fighting "terrorism", he argued.

"What I have seen again and again is a tendency to want to attack states to get at terrorists rather than dealing with the harder problem of getting the terrorists themselves."

He said America should rethink its strategy on Iraq, and work to ensure Iraqis could take back control of their borders, security and reconstruction.

General Clark said he would announce in the coming days if he would stand as a democratic candidate in next year's presidential elections.

The situation in Iraq is fast becoming an issue for next year's presidential election, the BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington.

Mr Bush's speeches have been branded "empty rhetoric" by opposition candidates, and his popularity ratings have fallen.

The number of American deaths since the end of major combat operations on 1 May has now surpassed the number killed during the war - 139 compared to 138.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3186971.stm

Published: 2003/08/28 01:53:24 GMT

I think the expression you're looking for is "running for cover," not "running from cover." The former phrase refers to someone seeking shelter from some danger, while the latter refers to the opposite.

I only skimmed the article you posted. Did it mention that White was fired because he allied himself with members of Congress who opposed the cancellation of a major Army weapon system that Rumsfeld, his boss, wanted to de-fund? I think it's not that unusual for someone to be fired when he does the exact opposite of what his boss wants.

I also didn't notice that it mentioned that before accepting the Army appointment White had been the head of a subsidiary of Enron that later became notorious for falsifying its operating results. As I recall, White made about $10 million on the sale of his Enron shares before the truth came out.

That may be true, but it doesn't make what he has to say about Iraq inaccurate!

There was also an article today (I think in the NY Times, but maybe I saw it in the SF Chronicle) about the number of wounded since the supposed end of hostilities. According to the article, the Pentagon isn't releasing information about the wounded except when they're asked for it, and the press doesn't always remember to ask. So far they've had to evacuate close to 1,500 seriously wounded service members from Iraq. Why would you suppose the Bush administration wouldn't want people to know about that? x(

We're in a quagmire, folks; the Bush people went into Iraq without a clue to the reality of the country and the region, and now there's no way out. The rest of the world, which we contemptuously ignored, now is watching with more than a certain degree of schadenfreude as Bush now is trying to suck up to the U.N. he so cavalierly flipped off. Needless to say, nobody is rushing to help bail him out of this mess that everyone warned him against.

Batten the hatches, kids, because it's going to be looong, and it's going to be messy in the extreme, regardless of who wins next November's election. By then, the situation is likely to have deteriorated dramatically in Iraq. If Osama and Saddam are still at large, and we're still up to our necks in Iraqi quicksand next November, does anyone here really think people are going to turn out in droves to vote for our appointed President? Of course, the Supreme Court isn't likely to bail him out of election troubles TWICE. So prepare for a coup d'etat, because these creeps are true believers who are convinced only they know what's best for the U.S. and will stop at nothing to obtain and keep power and control.

>That may be true, but it doesn't make what he has to say

>about Iraq inaccurate!

No, it just means that if the nation needs advice about foreign policy there are better places to get it than from a thief and con artist like Thomas White.

>According to

>the article, the Pentagon isn't releasing information about

>the wounded except when they're asked for it, and the press

>doesn't always remember to ask. So far they've had to

>evacuate close to 1,500 seriously wounded service members from

>Iraq. Why would you suppose the Bush administration wouldn't

>want people to know about that?

I think the American people should know the number of wounded, but I can't resist pointing out how silly it is for you to imply that the administration is concealing information simply because they don't provide it UNLESS someone ASKS for it. LOL!

>We're in a quagmire, folks; the Bush people went into Iraq

>without a clue to the reality of the country and the region,

>and now there's no way out.

What do you mean, no way out? What would happen if we simply left? If, as the war's opponents insisted, Iraq was never a threat to us with Saddam in charge, why would it be MORE of a threat to us with him in hiding and the forces that kept him in power destroyed? That doesn't make any sense.

> The rest of the world, which we

>contemptuously ignored, now is watching with more than a

>certain degree of schadenfreude as Bush now is trying to suck

>up to the U.N. he so cavalierly flipped off. Needless to say,

>nobody is rushing to help bail him out of this mess that

>everyone warned him against.

So what does that mean, that other countries want the U.S. to fail and Iraq to be left to its own devices? If you believe, as you implied above, that the consequences of that would be disastrous for Iraq and the region, then why would any of the Security Council members take that attitude? Do you really think that any of those countries would like to see the region plunged into chaos just because it would make the U.S. look bad? That is what you seem to be saying.

>

>Batten the hatches, kids, because it's going to be looong, and

>it's going to be messy in the extreme, regardless of who wins

>next November's election. By then, the situation is likely to

>have deteriorated dramatically in Iraq. If Osama and Saddam

>are still at large, and we're still up to our necks in Iraqi

>quicksand next November, does anyone here really think people

>are going to turn out in droves to vote for our appointed

>President? Of course, the Supreme Court isn't likely to bail

>him out of election troubles TWICE. So prepare for a coup

>d'etat, because these creeps are true believers who are

>convinced only they know what's best for the U.S. and will

>stop at nothing to obtain and keep power and control.

>I also didn't notice that it mentioned that before accepting

>the Army appointment White had been the head of a subsidiary

>of Enron that later became notorious for falsifying its

>operating results. As I recall, White made about $10 million

>on the sale of his Enron shares before the truth came out.

Funny, none of that seemed to lead either the President or his jewish "Neo-con" hawkish advisors to question his judgement when he prosecuted the war? Is it only relevant now that he no longer wants to do the bidding of the Israelite lobby?

>Funny, none of that seemed to lead either the President or his

>jewish "Neo-con" hawkish advisors to question his judgement

>when he prosecuted the war? Is it only relevant now that he

>no longer wants to do the bidding of the Israelite lobby?

You know, Auntie S, you had me up until, once again, you had to bring in your passionate hatred of all things Jewish. If you want to be taken seriously, leave the anti-semitism at home.

>... once again, you had

>to bring in your passionate hatred of all things Jewish. If

>you want to be taken seriously, leave the anti-semitism at

>home.

This was a war bought and paid for by your Jewish neo-con friends. Now that it has been a colossal failure, they are nowhere to be found or heard. Where did all that smug, arrogant Warsaw Ghetto swagger go to? The Israel lobby made its bed with a war in Iraq, now they must lay in it and pay the consequences. It's a bit late to start screaming about anti-semitism now. Next time you must condemn your co-religionists before the war not after the war.

>You know, Auntie S, you had me up until, once again, you had

>to bring in your passionate hatred of all things Jewish. If

>you want to be taken seriously, leave the anti-semitism at

>home.

Maybe some day soon you'll question how it can be that your political views and philosophy are COMPLETELY IDENTICAL to someone whom even you recognize to be a viciously bigoted anti-Semite.

I recall so fondly an extremely long post you authored (or, more likely, copied and pasted without attribution to the actual author, i.e. plagarized) which contained your views on virtually every single political issue, big and small, in existence. I also recall axehebia, in reply, writing, in essence: "I agree with everything you just wrote."

You and he are peas in a pod - total agreement on everything. The fact that he reveals his anti-semitism now and then is something you treat as an embarrassment. What you should actually do is wonder why it is that someone whose views are so deeply rooted in such an extreme form of bigotry has - with the exception of that one issue -- exactly the same political world-view as you do.

>You and he are peas in a pod - total agreement on everything.

>The fact that he reveals his anti-semitism now and then is

>something you treat as an embarrassment. What you should

>actually do is wonder why it is that someone whose views are

>so deeply rooted in such an extreme form of bigotry has - with

>the exception of that one issue -- exactly the same political

>world-view as you do.

Actually, his views are right on the mark, but he allows his religion and ethnicity to blind him from the actions of the Zionist lobby. It is an unfortunate but common element among progressive American Jews who seem incapable of standing for human rights and justice for the Palestinan victims of the genocidal Israeli apartheid regime. One hopes that these diasporic types will one day see the illogic and inconsistency of their position.

There is unquestionably an element abroad that would like to see America stew in the mess it has created in Iraq. Fortunately, wiser heads are prevailing in Europe in particular. They realise that while America has created this mess, the mess affects the whole world now, and we all have to work out a way of fixing it up.

Regrettably, my own country, Australia, made its contribution to the mess by sending in troops as part of the coalition of the willing. At the moment all our troops have been withdrawn for some months, and that is likely to remain our position for now.

The problem seems to be that those in America who were putting forward the policy of invading Iraq assumed that there would be a lot more support from ordinary Iraqis for the invasion than has occurred. Most Iraqis are heartily sick of the whole catastrophe, most particularly the failure of the interim administration to restore power and water to large parts of the country months after Saddam's regime was toppled. While most Iraqis don't appear to support the terrorist bombings in Iraq, nor do they appear to support the Americans either.

But for good or ill, America is now running Iraq, the country is descending into chaos, and this can't continue - even the US knows that. Somehow, peaceful and sensible Iraqi government has to be restored. If it's not, Iraq will turn into the terrorist centre for the middle east that America alleged it already was under Saddam, although the evidence for that allegation looks decidedly feeble now. The risk of terrorists exploiting chaos in Iraq is so great that the rest of the world, through the UN, now knows it has to do something to extricate the US from this mess, for the future security of the planet.

It would be nice to think that a few months after the Iraq war, countries like Australia, the US and Britain are sadder and wiser than they were in February. Somehow, though, I doubt it.

>If

>you want to be taken seriously, leave the anti-semitism at

>home.

Is this Israeli Jew an anti-semite too? Hnmh, perhaps you'll have to rethink your reflexive lexicon!

A failed Israeli society is collapsing

Avraham Burg IHT

Saturday, September 6, 2003

The end of Zionism?

JERUSALEM The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state in the Middle East, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.

There is time to change course, but not much. What is needed is a new vision of a just society and the political will to implement it. Nor is this merely an internal Israeli affair. Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out. If the pillar collapses, the upper floors will come crashing down.

The Israeli opposition does not exist, and the coalition government, with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at its head, claims the right to remain silent. In a nation of chatterboxes, everyone has suddenly fallen dumb, because there's nothing left to say. We live in a thunderously failed reality.

Yes, we Israelis have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvelous theater and a strong national currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or antimissile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed.

It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun.

It is very comfortable to be a Zionist in West Bank settlements such as Beit El and Ofra. The biblical landscape is charming. From the window you can gaze through the geraniums and bougainvillea and not see the occupation. Traveling on the fast highway that takes you from Ramot on Jerusalem's northern edge to Gilo on the southern edge, a 12-minute trip just west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it's hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied.

This cannot work. Even if the Arabs lower their heads and swallow their shame and anger forever, it won't work. A structure built on human callousness will inevitably collapse in on itself. Note this moment well: Zionism's superstructure is already collapsing like a cheap Jerusalem wedding hall. Only madmen continue dancing on the top floor while the pillars below are collapsing.

Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated.

We could kill a thousand ringleaders and engineers a day and nothing will be solved, because the leaders come up from below - from the wells of hatred and anger, from the "infrastructures" of injustice and moral corruption.

If all this were inevitable, divinely ordained and immutable, I would be silent. But things could be different, and so crying out is a moral imperative.

Here is what the prime minister should say to the people:

The time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world's only Jewish state - not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.

Do you want the greater Land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let's institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages. Qalqilya Ghetto and Gulag Jenin.

Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse - or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements - all of them - and draw an internationally recognized border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish Law of Return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.

Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater Land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box.

That's what the prime minister should say to the people. He should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire, roadblocks and suicide bombers, or a recognized international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.

But there is no prime minister in Jerusalem. The disease eating away at the body of Zionism has already attacked the head. David Ben-Gurion sometimes erred, but he remained straight as an arrow. When Menachem Begin was wrong, nobody impugned his motives. No longer. Polls published two weeks ago showed that a majority of Israelis do not believe in the personal integrity of the prime minister - yet they trust his political leadership. In other words, Israel's current prime minister personally embodies both halves of the curse: suspect personal morals and open disregard for the law - combined with the brutality of occupation and the trampling of any chance for peace. This is our nation, these its leaders. The inescapable conclusion is that the Zionist revolution is dead.

Why, then, is the opposition so quiet? Perhaps because it's summer, or because they are tired, or because some would like to join the government at any price, even the price of participating in the sickness. But while they dither, the forces of good lose hope.

This is the time for clear alternatives. Anyone who declines to present a clear-cut position - black or white - is in effect collaborating in the decline. It is not a matter of Labor versus Likud or right versus left, but of right versus wrong, acceptable versus unacceptable. The law-abiding versus the lawbreakers. What is needed is not a political replacement for the Sharon government but a vision of hope, an alternative to the destruction of Zionism and its values by the deaf, dumb and callous.

Israel's friends abroad - Jewish and non-Jewish alike, presidents and prime ministers, rabbis and lay people - should choose as well. They must reach out and help Israel to navigate the road map toward our national destiny as a light unto the nations and a society of peace, justice and equality.

The writer was speaker of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, from 1999 to 2003 and is currently a Labor Party member of the Knesset. This comment, which first appeared in English in The Forward (New York), was adapted by the writer from an article that appeared in Yediot Ahronot and was translated by J.J. Goldberg.

>I recall so fondly an extremely long post you authored (or,

>more likely, copied and pasted without attribution to the

>actual author, i.e. plagarized) which contained your views on

>virtually every single political issue, big and small, in

>existence. I also recall axehebia, in reply, writing, in

>essence: "I agree with everything you just wrote."

And once again, we'll bring up this little nugget. It's already been welle stablished that more often than not I quoted my source and on a few occasions neglected to include the link, but of course, you'd rather try to spin things your way instead of dealing with reality.

But, what else would we expect from someone who posts as Doug69 and FinFangFoom, and then vehemently LIES about being FFF?

>And once again, we'll bring up this little nugget. It's

>already been welle stablished that more often than not I

>quoted my source and on a few occasions neglected to include

>the link, . . .

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's the most novel, and pitiful, defense offered by a plagarist that I've ever seen: "I didn't ALWAYS plagarize; sometimes I admitted that what I was posting was written by someone else."

There are people on the Internet who spend hours of their lives, and substantial amounts of their brain power, writing articles and essays and then publishing them. You come along and simply steal their work by copying what they wrote and then posting it here under your name, without any attribution, leading others to believe that you wrote it.

You do this not once, but on multiple occasions. There is no excuse for this behavior, plagarist.

Look on the bright side, though: people lose their careers and livelihoods over this misconduct, are publicly humiliated, and never again trusted. Since you are nothing, and have nothing, you have nothing to lose other than being exposed and feeling shame on an Internet prostitution board. So at least that's something to console you.

>But, what else would we expect from someone who posts as

>Doug69 and FinFangFoom, and then vehemently LIES about being

>FFF?

The hallmark of a plagarist is dishonesty. You keep repeating this lie even though I've repeatedly offered to bet you money, using verifiable means, that what you are saying here is a lie. And yet, while you are unwilling to back up your lie, you keep repeating it, indifferent to whether or not it's true.

But hey, you're a convicted, admitted plagarist - why would anynoe expect better from you?

Doug/FFF,

You remind me of all the other members of the Reborglican collective. When confronted with anything that remotely goes agaisnt the Collective's directives, you immediately respond with blaming it all on Clinton. The same principle applies here. you hope that somehow, by constantly bringing up something that isn't true and was an issue settled long ago, that you can distract from your own bad behavior. Specifically here that you are FFF and Doug69. Of course, this isn't the first time you've gone the multiple personality route. Besides the last time where Hoo "No Commented" your alias out of existence, you posted using Jason Coxx's name. Much like then, you can try NOT to be FFF, but the purse always falls out of your mouth.

>jewish "Neo-con" hawkish advisors

>do the bidding of the Israelite lobby?

Eva Braun, go back to Germany where you belong. And take your boyfriend Adolf with you.

>to question his judgement

>when he prosecuted the war?

White didn't "prosecute the war" you fucking idiot. If you knew shit about the military, which you don't, you would know that the service secretaries are administrative officials, they are not in the chain of command.

>There is unquestionably an element abroad that would like to

>see America stew in the mess it has created in Iraq.

>Fortunately, wiser heads are prevailing in Europe in

>particular. They realise that while America has created this

>mess, the mess affects the whole world now, and we all have to

>work out a way of fixing it up.

I don't think so, at least, I hope not, uless the U.S. agrees: (a) that it was wrong in the first place to go to war without international consent and without clear evidence that Iraq WMD posed an imminent threat to anyone; and (b) that it will ever again go to war without international consent and without clear evidence that a country actually posesses WMD poses and poses an imminent threat to nations other than the Zionist entity in Palestine. Otherwise, the rest of the world will be constantly bailing out the U.S. with blood and money.

So I don't see any significant foreign troops or cash going to Iraq unless or until: (a) the U.S. cedes political control to the UN with a clear timeframe to end the occupation and transfer power to the Iraqi people in a real way; (b) military command of the operation is put under the control of the UN. Since I doubt very much that the U.S. will agree to either condition as evidenced by the recent comments of Shrub, Colon Powell and Candy Rice, for the time being the poor American schmucks are going to die in Iraq and/or pay for the Zionist-inspired folly throuh their American tax dollars.

>for the time being the poor American

>schmucks are going to die in Iraq and/or pay for the

>Zionist-inspired folly throuh their American tax dollars.

Hey, axe - I'm seriously just wondering if you ever think about the following:

If the Jews are so smart, clever, powerful and supreme that they are able - even though they comprise a tiny, minute fraction of the world's population - to take secret control of the world's greatest nations again and again; dictate the policies and actions of those nations for the benefit of the jews; and hide their influence from most of the world by leading them to believe that other people are making the decisions motivated by the "good of the people" rather than the good of the jews - on some level, don't you harbor some admiration for these accomplishments, and dno't you think that these achievements are so great and so impressive that, from a Darwinian perspective, the jews deserve the fruits and rewards of their extraordinarly improbable world domination?

>...and hide their influence from most of the world by

>leading them to believe that other people are making the

>decisions motivated by the "good of the people" rather than

>the good of the jews

Who said they are hiding - just open a newspaper, turn on the tv, read a news magazine and listen to the neo-con think tank "experts"? And no, I think if you travel the world and listen to media sources that are not jewish owned or controlled or listen to politicians who are not bought and paid for by a jewish minority, you would see through the crap too. So no, I don't admire them for abusing a multicultural secular democracy to defend a militiaristic theocratic zionist apartheid regime.

>...and hide their influence from most of the world by

>leading them to believe that other people are making the

>decisions motivated by the "good of the people" rather than

>the good of the jews

Who said they are hiding - just open a newspaper, turn on the tv, read a news magazine and listen to the neo-con think tank "experts"? And no, I think if you travel the world and listen to media sources that are not jewish owned or controlled or listen to politicians who are not bought and paid for by a jewish minority, you would see through the crap too. So no, I don't admire them for abusing a multicultural secular democracy to defend a militiaristic theocratic zionist apartheid regime.

>Who said they are hiding - just open a newspaper, turn on the

>tv, read a news magazine and listen to the neo-con think tank

>"experts"? And no, I think if you travel the world and listen

>to media sources that are not jewish owned or controlled or

>listen to politicians who are not bought and paid for by a

>jewish minority, you would see through the crap too. So no, I

>don't admire them for abusing a multicultural secular

>democracy to defend a militiaristic theocratic zionist

>apartheid regime.

OK - forget the hiding part; they are exerting this great power out in the open. In your world-view, this tiny, tiny sub-group has taken over control of the world's most powerful nation and many of the Western World's most significant and influential institutions.

I'm not asking you whether you admire this achievement from a moral perspective. I'm asking you whether you think it's an impressive feat for a group so tiny to be able to exert such great power. What does it say about the abilities - not the morality, but the abilities - of this group that, despite being so tiny, they are able to wield such immense power?

>What does it say about the abilities -

>not the morality, but the abilities - of this group that,

>despite being so tiny, they are able to wield such immense

>power?

I think what it says is that money talks in the U.S. so I suppose that viewed from that light they aren't so tiny after all. I think what you have is a group who are able to abuse systematically the American political process in terms of campaign finance laws to a degree that no other group would or could try. You know you have a problem when Senate candidates in Utah or Idaho have to go to NY and LA for donations.

So countries that have public campaign finance laws don't have this problem. Tony Blair reduced the union financing of the Labor party with private money, and now we see the same pattern developing in English politics. (Of course, this is just a return to the past because it was the famous letter fromm Lord Balfour to Lord Rothchild that created the mess in Palestine, and at that time the issue was also one of electoral finance.)

Also it is difficult to imagine a situation where only Asians would report on Asian matters on American tv, or only Blacks report on African mattters, but try to find a non-jew reporting on Israel on American tv. Apart from the obvious jewish financial control of the American media, in part this is also due to the chameleon quality of an "invisible" minority whose members can pick and choose when and where they want to be regarded as part of a jewish minority or part of the white majority in a way that is simply not open to Blacks or Asians.

The other factor is that just as Germans, French and other Europeans feel smug about racism in the U.S. and ignore their own past nazi sympathies, Americans by embracing Israel and the jews can ignore its historic crimes against Blacks and Native Americans. So it often seems that one finds a Holocaust museum on every street corner in the U.S. like a Planet Holywood or Hard Rock Cafe, but where are the museums to slavery and the atrocities committed against Native Americans? Go to Washington and look at the Holocaust Museum on monument land on 14th street. Imagine the outcry if someone were to try to erect a monument to slavery in Aushewitz? When you have a minority group that is corrupt and amoral, and a majority population in denial about its own past, I think the combination can give rise to the kinds of political distortions that one sees in the United States.

So no, I am not impressed. I think what it says is that we all need to study more about the Weimar Republic in Germany to learn more about the limits of this kind of smug and arrogant behavior.

Thank you for indulging my questions. I am seriously fascinated by people who think the way you think, and am eager to understand the foundations of this thought. So, hopefully, you'll be so kind as to elaborate a little further on your interesting observations:

>I think what it says is that money talks in the U.S. so I

>suppose that viewed from that light they aren't so tiny after

>all.

Even if power is a function of money, you still then have a tiny, tiny group who has amassed great economic power. How did that occur, and isn't that a tribute to the ingenuity, drive and productivity of that group?

When it comes to determining which groups should wield power (and, given human nature, some group or another has to), isn't it better to have the group that has thrived and prospered and succeeded wield that power, rather than have groups which have failed and produced nothing and which have been stampeded do so?

>I think what you have is a group who are able to abuse

>systematically the American political process in terms of

>campaign finance laws to a degree that no other group would or

>could try.

This makes no sense at all. As James Madison observed, every society is driven by competing factions eager and desperate to have power and to promote their agenda. Do you actually think Jews are more interested than other groups in promoting their agenda?

>So countries that have public campaign finance laws don't have

>this problem. Tony Blair reduced the union financing of the

>Labor party with private money, and now we see the same

>pattern developing in English politics.

But Jews overwhelmingly supported Al Gore over George Bush, and have traditionally supported Democratic candidates. Why would any Republicans be beholden to them?

Also, most of the GOP donations come from industries such as oil and manufacturing which are not Jew-controlled in the sense that I'm sure you believe that, say, entertainment and investment banking are. So why would those groups continue to support the GOP if it's been hijacked by Jew money?

>Also it is difficult to imagine a situation where only Asians

>would report on Asian matters on American tv, or only Blacks

>report on African mattters, but try to find a non-jew

>reporting on Israel on American tv.

I watched the Fox News Channel for the third time in my life last week, and saw Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Greta whoever. They were all quite pro-Israel, and none of them seemed Jewish to me. I also know that the 3 networks have as their anchors Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw. I'm sure you'll check your Jew List and correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them seem to have Jewish names either.

In fact, although I don't have a television and thus may be somewhat misinformed, it seems that a huge percentage of the most prominent people reporting on television are non-jews. So really - what the fuck are you talking about when you say: "but try to find a non-jew reporting on Israel on American tv"?

>So no, I am not impressed. I think what it says is that we

>all need to study more about the Weimar Republic in Germany to

>learn more about the limits of this kind of smug and arrogant

>behavior.

I'm glad that you at least admit that you see the treatment of Jews that grew out of Weimar Germany as your model for what you view as the Solution to this grave societal problem.

>I think what it says is that money talks in the U.S. so I

>suppose that viewed from that light they aren't so tiny after

>all. I think what you have is a group who are able to abuse

>systematically the American political process in terms of

>campaign finance laws to a degree that no other group would or

>could try.

Yeah? Ever heard of Cubans?

The fact is there's a long list of ethnic minorities that have exerted an influence on certain foreign policy issues out of all proportion to their numbers at various points in our history. Cuban-Americans, for example, are a much smaller minority in this country than Jews. And there are children who enter this country illegally and are returned to their home countries all the time. So why did the immigration status of Elian Gonzalez become such an important issue that the President and the Attorney General had to become personally involved? When Bush told the nation after 9/11 that he was declaring war on all terrorist groups of international reach, why wasn't the IRA included? Jews haven't done anything that other groups haven't done. And for some strange reason I don't see any complaints from you about those other groups. You simply have a problem with Jews.

>You know you have a problem when Senate candidates

>in Utah or Idaho have to go to NY and LA for donations.

What percentage of hard money donations come from Jews? Since individuals and PACs are severely limited in the number and amount of such donations they can make, I'd find it mighty hard to believe that a minority group numbering less than 5% of the population manages to make a majority of the donations.

>Also it is difficult to imagine a situation where only Asians

>would report on Asian matters on American tv, or only Blacks

>report on African mattters, but try to find a non-jew

>reporting on Israel on American tv.

Tony Snow. Brit Hume. Sean Hannity. See how easy that was?

>So it often seems that one finds a

>Holocaust museum on every street corner in the U.S. like a

>Planet Holywood or Hard Rock Cafe,

Yeah? So where is the Holocaust museum in Detroit? Or Denver? Or Atlanta? Is there one in Dallas? Houston? Seattle? Portland? Milwaukee? St. Louis? Seems to me we have a slight problem of exaggeration here.

>When you have a minority group that is corrupt and

>amoral, and a majority population in denial about its own

>past, I think the combination can give rise to the kinds of

>political distortions that one sees in the United States.

I think it's probably a good thing that you have finally stopped denying your hatred for Jews as a group and are letting it come out into the open. Trying to pretend that you aren't anti-Semitic while at the same time seizing every opportunity to bash Jews can't be easy.

>Even if power is a function of money, you still then have a

>tiny, tiny group who has amassed great economic power. How

>did that occur, and isn't that a tribute to the ingenuity,

>drive and productivity of that group?

It depends on how the money is attained and how it is used.

>Do you actually think

>Jews are more interested than other groups in promoting their

>agenda?

No, it is a question of the range of acceptable tactics, and the context in which it occurs. I dealt with both extensively in the last post so if you want my explanation you can re-read it. As for the Miami Cubans, I think my analysis applies equally to them.

>But Jews overwhelmingly supported Al Gore over George Bush,

>and have traditionally supported Democratic candidates. Why

>would any Republicans be beholden to them?

Do you recall, Florida? I suggest you re-read the headlines and op-ed pieces in the Jerusalem Post from November 2000 if you can't think of any answers to your questions. Then when you are finished take a gander at the top 10 donors to either party. It is publicly available data. Let me know if you still can't find any answers to your questions.

>>I watched the Fox News Channel for the third time in my life

>last week, and saw Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Greta

>whoever.

Interesting, but that does not respond to what I said. Who reports from Israel and about Israel on those networks, and who are their invited "experts". Then compare what you see to BBC, CBC or France 2 or TV5 and let me know if you see no differences.

>I'm glad that you at least admit that you see the treatment of

>Jews that grew out of Weimar Germany as your model for what

>you view as the Solution to this grave societal problem.

No, it is more like what the behavior of that group in the Weimar years may have led to. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Never forgive, never forget!