Neoliberals: Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe

Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe
The New Democrats.

Published 08/14/2006,


"You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political
parties you have.

We have two. One is the Republican party, led by George W. Bush. Its
heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a
governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter. Do we
have a strategy for victory in Iraq? Not if one judges by Donald
Rumsfeld's testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It shouldn't be too much to ask for competent leadership at
the Defense Department in time of war, leadership characterized by a
willingness to learn from mistakes, instead of an arrogant (and oddly
defeatist) smugness.

But at least we have a president who knows we are at war with jihadist
Islam. And he is willing to stake his presidency on that fight, and to
support others, like Israel, who are in the same fight.

It's become clear, by contrast, that the Democratic party doesn't
really want to fight jihadism. It's just too difficult. Last week the
entire Democratic congressional leadership sent President Bush a letter
on Iraq. The Democrats didn't chastise the administration for failing
to do what it takes to achieve victory there. They didn't call for a
larger military, or for more troops in Iraq, or for new tactics.
Rather, they seemed to criticize the (belated) redeployment of troops
"into an urban war zone in Baghdad." And they complained that "there
has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian
differences, no regional effort to
establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a
struggling reconstruction effort"--as if these are the keys to success.

But success is not really what the Democrats have in mind. They want
retreat--under the guise of "reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq." As
they say, "In the interests of American national security, our troops,
and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have
embraced cannot and should not be sustained." So it's time to begin
getting out.

Well, one might say, at least most Democratic members of Congress
haven't criticized Bush for his support of Israel against Hezbollah.
But these members are lagging indicators. Consider the views of the
Democratic party at large.

Last week, in a national poll, the Los Angeles Times asked the
following (tendentious) question: "As you may know, Israel has
responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by
bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's
actions are justified or not justified?" And these were the results: In
all, 43 percent of respondents found Israel's actions "justified, not
excessively harsh"; 16 percent "justified, but excessively harsh"; and
28 percent "unjustified." What was the party breakdown? Among
Republicans: 64 percent justified, 11 percent justified but too harsh,
and 17 percent unjustified. Among Democrats: 29 percent justified, 20
percent justified but too harsh, and 36 percent unjustified.

The Times also asked which of the following statements comes closer to
your view: "The United States should continue to align itself with
Israel," or "The United States should adopt a more neutral posture."
Republicans: 64 percent say align with Israel, 29 percent want a more
neutral posture; Democrats: 39 percent say align with Israel, 54
percent want a more neutral posture. So even with a centrist Israeli
government that is responding to a direct attack and not defending
settlements in the territories, Democrats have adopted a "European"
attitude toward Israel.

And toward the United States. That is the meaning of Connecticut
Democrats' likely repudiation of Joe Lieberman. What drives so many
Demo crats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq
war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.

There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the
Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an
independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for
the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds,
it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory
in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating
a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed
into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became
Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008
GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or
Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps.
But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is
surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one."

-

PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe
The New Democrats.

Published 08/14/2006,


"You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political
parties you have.


Trouble is that the Dems walked in lockstep with the GOP to
vote 410-8 in favor of the aggressive, extremist Zionists
in Israel.

That tells me that even if the Dems come in, it will just
be more of the same, so...

To be shot of this bought and paid for Congress,
vote out all incumbents in November and vote in
ANYONE else. Hell, vote in the smallest, dumbass
from the People with Big Ears Party just to break
this bogus 2-party stranglehold.

Mabye SOMEONE will have the guts to stop the
lobbyists and media in their tracks.




We have two. One is the Republican party, led by George W. Bush. Its
heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a
governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter. Do we
have a strategy for victory in Iraq? Not if one judges by Donald
Rumsfeld's testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It shouldn't be too much to ask for competent leadership at
the Defense Department in time of war, leadership characterized by a
willingness to learn from mistakes, instead of an arrogant (and oddly
defeatist) smugness.

But at least we have a president who knows we are at war with jihadist
Islam. And he is willing to stake his presidency on that fight, and to
support others, like Israel, who are in the same fight.

It's become clear, by contrast, that the Democratic party doesn't
really want to fight jihadism. It's just too difficult. Last week the
entire Democratic congressional leadership sent President Bush a letter
on Iraq. The Democrats didn't chastise the administration for failing
to do what it takes to achieve victory there. They didn't call for a
larger military, or for more troops in Iraq, or for new tactics.
Rather, they seemed to criticize the (belated) redeployment of troops
"into an urban war zone in Baghdad." And they complained that "there
has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian
differences, no regional effort to
establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a
struggling reconstruction effort"--as if these are the keys to success.

But success is not really what the Democrats have in mind. They want
retreat--under the guise of "reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq." As
they say, "In the interests of American national security, our troops,
and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have
embraced cannot and should not be sustained." So it's time to begin
getting out.

Well, one might say, at least most Democratic members of Congress
haven't criticized Bush for his support of Israel against Hezbollah.
But these members are lagging indicators. Consider the views of the
Democratic party at large.

Last week, in a national poll, the Los Angeles Times asked the
following (tendentious) question: "As you may know, Israel has
responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by
bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's
actions are justified or not justified?" And these were the results: In
all, 43 percent of respondents found Israel's actions "justified, not
excessively harsh"; 16 percent "justified, but excessively harsh"; and
28 percent "unjustified." What was the party breakdown? Among
Republicans: 64 percent justified, 11 percent justified but too harsh,
and 17 percent unjustified. Among Democrats: 29 percent justified, 20
percent justified but too harsh, and 36 percent unjustified.

The Times also asked which of the following statements comes closer to
your view: "The United States should continue to align itself with
Israel," or "The United States should adopt a more neutral posture."
Republicans: 64 percent say align with Israel, 29 percent want a more
neutral posture; Democrats: 39 percent say align with Israel, 54
percent want a more neutral posture. So even with a centrist Israeli
government that is responding to a direct attack and not defending
settlements in the territories, Democrats have adopted a "European"
attitude toward Israel.

And toward the United States. That is the meaning of Connecticut
Democrats' likely repudiation of Joe Lieberman. What drives so many
Demo crats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq
war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.

There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the
Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an
independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for
the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds,
it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory
in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating
a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed
into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became
Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008
GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or
Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps.
But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is
surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one."

-


--
MikeOscarPapa
Remember Dr. David Kelly - a British Hero
http://www.rense.com/general43/kelly.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_..._of_kelly.html

"FiveTwoAlphaOne" MikeOscarPapa.org wrote in message
. ..


PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe
The New Democrats.

Published 08/14/2006,


"You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political
parties you have.


Trouble is that the Dems walked in lockstep with the GOP to
vote 410-8 in favor of the aggressive, extremist Zionists
in Israel.

That tells me that even if the Dems come in, it will just
be more of the same, so...

To be shot of this bought and paid for Congress,
vote out all incumbents in November

****in' A

PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe
The New Democrats.

Published 08/14/2006,


"You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political
parties you have.

We have two. One is the Republican party, led by George W. Bush. Its
heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a
governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter. Do we
have a strategy for victory in Iraq? Not if one judges by Donald
Rumsfeld's testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It shouldn't be too much to ask for competent leadership at
the Defense Department in time of war, leadership characterized by a
willingness to learn from mistakes, instead of an arrogant (and oddly
defeatist) smugness.

But at least we have a president who knows we are at war with jihadist
Islam. And he is willing to stake his presidency on that fight, and to
support others, like Israel, who are in the same fight.

It's become clear, by contrast, that the Democratic party doesn't
really want to fight jihadism. It's just too difficult. Last week the
entire Democratic congressional leadership sent President Bush a letter
on Iraq. The Democrats didn't chastise the administration for failing
to do what it takes to achieve victory there. They didn't call for a
larger military, or for more troops in Iraq, or for new tactics.
Rather, they seemed to criticize the (belated) redeployment of troops
"into an urban war zone in Baghdad." And they complained that "there
has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian
differences, no regional effort to
establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a
struggling reconstruction effort"--as if these are the keys to success.

But success is not really what the Democrats have in mind. They want
retreat--under the guise of "reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq." As
they say, "In the interests of American national security, our troops,
and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have
embraced cannot and should not be sustained." So it's time to begin
getting out.

Well, one might say, at least most Democratic members of Congress
haven't criticized Bush for his support of Israel against Hezbollah.
But these members are lagging indicators. Consider the views of the
Democratic party at large.

Last week, in a national poll, the Los Angeles Times asked the
following (tendentious) question: "As you may know, Israel has
responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by
bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's
actions are justified or not justified?" And these were the results: In
all, 43 percent of respondents found Israel's actions "justified, not
excessively harsh"; 16 percent "justified, but excessively harsh"; and
28 percent "unjustified." What was the party breakdown? Among
Republicans: 64 percent justified, 11 percent justified but too harsh,
and 17 percent unjustified. Among Democrats: 29 percent justified, 20
percent justified but too harsh, and 36 percent unjustified.

The Times also asked which of the following statements comes closer to
your view: "The United States should continue to align itself with
Israel," or "The United States should adopt a more neutral posture."
Republicans: 64 percent say align with Israel, 29 percent want a more
neutral posture; Democrats: 39 percent say align with Israel, 54
percent want a more neutral posture. So even with a centrist Israeli
government that is responding to a direct attack and not defending
settlements in the territories, Democrats have adopted a "European"
attitude toward Israel.

And toward the United States. That is the meaning of Connecticut
Democrats' likely repudiation of Joe Lieberman. What drives so many
Demo crats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq
war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.

There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the
Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an
independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for
the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds,
it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory
in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating
a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed
into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became
Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008
GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or
Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman? Perhaps.
But a reinvigorated governing and war-fighting Republican party is
surely an achievable goal. And a necessary one."

-



Ashamed of your source?
Well you should be: William Kristol

Once got a phone call from a "pollster"
regarding an upcoming ballot question.
The question had to do with more state
funding of environmental programs.

Q. Do you think it is right to give more funding
of environmental programs while money is taken
away from the firefighter's widows fund?

The intent was clear.
It was obvious that it wasn't a "real" survey,
and made more so by the reaction of the
"pollster", who was taken aback, when I responded
"Yes".

What intent is behind this question from the
article (hint: read the first four words seven times).

"As you may know, Israel has
responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by
bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's
actions are justified or not justified?"

As you may know, Israel is bombing Beirut and other cities in
Lebanon to coerce and intimidate the citizens and government
of Lebanon and the concerned international community to
reach terms to Israel's liking. Do you think terrorism is justified
when Israel does it?


Loved this line from the article

"What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman
is not simply his support for the Iraq war.
It's that he's unashamedly pro-American."




otto

On 5 Aug 2006 07:48:35 -0700, "otto" wrote:


PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe
The New Democrats.

Published 08/14/2006,


"You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political
parties you have.

We have two. One is the Republican party, led by George W. Bush. Its
heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a
governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter. Do we
have a strategy for victory in Iraq? Not if one judges by Donald
Rumsfeld's testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It shouldn't be too much to ask for competent leadership at
the Defense Department in time of war, leadership characterized by a
willingness to learn from mistakes, instead of an arrogant (and oddly
defeatist) smugness.

William Kristol
Speaking to Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air - April 1, 2003:

"And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain
amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that,
you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia
in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist
regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been
very secular."

The only secular thing in Iraq was Saddam...

Ashamed of your source?
Well you should be: William Kristol

Just another neo-con engineering war for profit....

Once got a phone call from a "pollster"
regarding an upcoming ballot question.
The question had to do with more state
funding of environmental programs.

Q. Do you think it is right to give more funding
of environmental programs while money is taken
away from the firefighter's widows fund?

The intent was clear.
It was obvious that it wasn't a "real" survey,
and made more so by the reaction of the
"pollster", who was taken aback, when I responded
"Yes".

What intent is behind this question from the
article (hint: read the first four words seven times).

"As you may know, Israel has
responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by
bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's
actions are justified or not justified?"

As you may know, Israel is bombing Beirut and other cities in
Lebanon to coerce and intimidate the citizens and government
of Lebanon and the concerned international community to
reach terms to Israel's liking. Do you think terrorism is justified
when Israel does it?


Loved this line from the article

"What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman
is not simply his support for the Iraq war.
It's that he's unashamedly pro-American."




otto

"otto" wrote in message
oups.com...

kirtland wrote:
On 5 Aug 2006 07:48:35 -0700, "otto" wrote:


PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe
The New Democrats.

Published 08/14/2006,


"You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political
parties you have.

We have two. One is the Republican party, led by George W. Bush. Its
heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a
governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter. Do we
have a strategy for victory in Iraq? Not if one judges by Donald
Rumsfeld's testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It shouldn't be too much to ask for competent leadership at
the Defense Department in time of war, leadership characterized by a
willingness to learn from mistakes, instead of an arrogant (and oddly
defeatist) smugness.

William Kristol
Speaking to Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air - April 1, 2003:

"And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain
amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that,
you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia
in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist
regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been
very secular."


I would say 'amazing', but nothing amazes me anymore.

That is the public face of the neocons, they knew better.

Always appreciated this one:

March 3, 2003


Richard Perle: You are imagining a U.S. general riding roughshod
over Iraqis and confirming the worst fears of Muslims around the
world that we are an aggressive, imperialist power. I have another
view. We have Ahmed Chalabi, chief of the opposition Iraqi National
Congress, to enter Baghdad. Ending the current Iraqi regime will
liberate the Iraqis. We will leave both governance and oil in their
hands. We will hand over power quickly-not in years, maybe not
even in months-to give Iraqis a chance to shape their own destiny.
The whole world will see this. And I expect the Iraqis to be at least
as thankful as French President Jacques Chirac was for
France's liberation.

source: Joe Pesci and The Iraq War
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...49961d3?hl=en&


How sad. And now he, Perle, is facing charges as a director of Hollinger.
As Oscar Wilde said about the death of little Nell in 'The Old Curiosity
Shop', "It would take man with a heart of stone not to burst out laughing".

On 5 Aug 2006 09:45:09 -0700, "otto" wrote:


kirtland wrote:
On 5 Aug 2006 07:48:35 -0700, "otto" wrote:


PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe
The New Democrats.

Published 08/14/2006,


"You fight the global war against jihadist Islam with the political
parties you have.

We have two. One is the Republican party, led by George W. Bush. Its
heart and mind are mostly in the right place. Its performance as a
governing party in time of war is, admittedly, another matter. Do we
have a strategy for victory in Iraq? Not if one judges by Donald
Rumsfeld's testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It shouldn't be too much to ask for competent leadership at
the Defense Department in time of war, leadership characterized by a
willingness to learn from mistakes, instead of an arrogant (and oddly
defeatist) smugness.

William Kristol
Speaking to Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air - April 1, 2003:

"And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain
amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that,
you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia
in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist
regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been
very secular."


I would say 'amazing', but nothing amazes me anymore.

That is the public face of the neocons, they knew better.

Always appreciated this one:

March 3, 2003


Richard Perle: You are imagining a U.S. general riding roughshod
over Iraqis and confirming the worst fears of Muslims around the
world that we are an aggressive, imperialist power. I have another
view. We have Ahmed Chalabi, chief of the opposition Iraqi National
Congress, to enter Baghdad. Ending the current Iraqi regime will
liberate the Iraqis. We will leave both governance and oil in their
hands. We will hand over power quickly-not in years, maybe not
even in months-to give Iraqis a chance to shape their own destiny.
The whole world will see this. And I expect the Iraqis to be at least
as thankful as French President Jacques Chirac was for
France's liberation.

source: Joe Pesci and The Iraq War
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...49961d3?hl=en&

otto

Good one.

There are hundreds of these kind of statements by the people pushing
the war agenda. They get away with it because they know the masses
have short attention spans and poor memories.

One of the founding principles of the neo-conservative movement is
that the masses are not smart enough to make governing decisions. This
must be done by "wiser", more "intelligent" folk like themselves.

One then has only to give the masses the *illusion* that it is they
who control their destinies. The American representative democracy is
highly susceptible to this form of abuse if the mechanisms of checks
and balances can be manipulated.

From what has happened over the last 5 years, I am thinking that the
neo-cons were right in their assessment of the masses.

Unfortunately, the neo-cons running the show in America (although they
may be 'smart') are neither intelligent nor wise. Their lack of
hindsight, foresight and an understanding of the full consequences of
their actions is appallingly deficient.

The only secular thing in Iraq was Saddam...

Ashamed of your source?
Well you should be: William Kristol

Just another neo-con engineering war for profit....

Once got a phone call from a "pollster"
regarding an upcoming ballot question.
The question had to do with more state
funding of environmental programs.

Q. Do you think it is right to give more funding
of environmental programs while money is taken
away from the firefighter's widows fund?

The intent was clear.
It was obvious that it wasn't a "real" survey,
and made more so by the reaction of the
"pollster", who was taken aback, when I responded
"Yes".

What intent is behind this question from the
article (hint: read the first four words seven times).

"As you may know, Israel has
responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by
bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's
actions are justified or not justified?"

As you may know, Israel is bombing Beirut and other cities in
Lebanon to coerce and intimidate the citizens and government
of Lebanon and the concerned international community to
reach terms to Israel's liking. Do you think terrorism is justified
when Israel does it?


Loved this line from the article

"What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman
is not simply his support for the Iraq war.
It's that he's unashamedly pro-American."




otto

PJ O'Donovan wrote:

little

After running out of the Republican party the moderate Republicans GWB
now wants to control who the Democrats run.

Support the troops, Bring them home.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:



PJ O'Donovan wrote:

little

After running out of the Republican party the moderate Republicans GWB
now wants to control who the Democrats run.

Support the troops, Bring them home.

I've been seeing more and more bumper stickers with those
sentiments, lately! (I'd have one, too, but I don't have
room - the space is already occupied with "These Colors
Don't Run - the World!", "Ignorance and Arrogance is bad
Foreign Policy", and "Save the Bill of Rights, Impeach Bush".)

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Frank F. Matthews wrote:



PJ O'Donovan wrote:

little

After running out of the Republican party the moderate Republicans GWB
now wants to control who the Democrats run.

Support the troops, Bring them home.

I've been seeing more and more bumper stickers with those sentiments,
lately! (I'd have one, too, but I don't have room - the space is already
occupied with "These Colors Don't Run - the World!", "Ignorance and
Arrogance is bad Foreign Policy", and "Save the Bill of Rights, Impeach
Bush".)


The only car stickers I have seen here in the UK recently - in the rear
window because we don't go in for bumper stickers - a

Baby on Board

Small Person on Board

Show Dogs in Transit

...... all of which seem to me to be an invitation to do damage to the car in
front.

I did see one original car sign last year, in Dublin. It said "God is alive
and well. She just can't find a parking place".

JohnT