Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pat Buchanan: Why the War Party Fears Hagel
Townhall ^ | 12/28/2012 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 12/28/2012 5:18:27 AM PST by SeekAndFind

In the fortnight since Chuck Hagel's name was floated for secretary of defense, we have witnessed Washington at its worst. Who is Chuck Hagel?

Born in North Platte, Neb., he was a squad leader in Vietnam, twice wounded, who came home to work in Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, was twice elected U.S. senator, and is chairman of the Atlantic Council and co-chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

To The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, however, Hagel is a man "out on the fringes," who has a decade-long record of "hostility to Israel" and is "pro-appeasement-of-Iran."

Lest we miss Kristol's point, Standard blogger Daniel Halper helpfully adds that a "top Republican Senate aide" said, "Send us Hagel, and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite."

The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens continued in this vein.

"Prejudice ... has an olfactory element," he writes, and with Hagel, "the odor is especially ripe." Stephens is saying that Chuck Hagel reeks of anti-Semitism.

Hagel's enemies contend that his own words disqualify him.

First, he told author Aaron David Miller that the "Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up there" on the Hill. Second, he urged us to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. Third, Hagel said several years ago, "A military strike against Iran ... is not a viable, feasible, responsible option."

Hagel has conceded he misspoke in using the phrase "Jewish lobby." But as for a pro-Israel lobby, its existence is the subject of books and countless articles. When AIPAC sends up to the Hill one of its scripted pro-Israel resolutions, it is whistled through. Hagel's problem: He did not treat these sacred texts with sufficient reverence.

"I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator," he told Miller. "I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath ... to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."

Hagel puts U.S. national interests first. And sometimes those interests clash with the policies of the Israeli government.

In 1957, President Eisenhower told Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to get his army out of Sinai. Would that disqualify Ike from being secretary of defense because, to quote Kristol, this would show Ike was not "serious about having Israel's back"?

If a senator or defense secretary believes an Israeli action -- like bisecting the West Bank with new settlements that will kill any chance for a Palestinian state and guarantee another intifada -- what should he do?

Defend the U.S. position, or make sure there is "no daylight" between him and the Israeli prime minister?

As for talking to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, what are we afraid of?

Harry Truman talked to Josef Stalin and read Vyacheslav Molotov the riot act in the Oval Office. Ike invited Nikita Khrushchev to tour the United States three years after he sent tanks into Budapest.

Richard Nixon went to China and toasted Mao Zedong, 20 years after the Chinese were killing U.S. solders in Korea and brainwashing our POWs, and at the same time they were conducting their maniacal cultural revolution and shipping weapons to Hanoi.

Israel negotiated with Hezbollah to retrieve the remains of airman Ron Arad and traded 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in a deal with Hamas for the return of Pvt. Gilad Shalit. And we can't talk to them?

If Hagel's view that a war with Iran is not a "responsible option" is a disqualification for defense secretary, what are we to make of this statement from Robert Gates, defense secretary for Bush II and Obama:

"Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as Gen. (Douglas) MacArthur so delicately put it."

If Hagel were an anti-Semite, would he have the support of so many Jewish columnists and writers? If he were really "out on the fringes," would national security advisers for presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Obama be in his camp?

Neocon hostility to Hagel is rooted in a fear that in Obama's inner councils his voice would be raised in favor of negotiating with Iran and against a preventive war or pre-emptive strike. But if Obama permits these assaults to persuade him not to nominate Hagel, he will only be postponing a defining battle of his presidency, not avoiding it.

For Bibi Netanyahu is going to be re-elected this January. And the government he forms looks to be more bellicose than the last. And Bibi's highest priority, shared by his neocon allies, is a U.S. war on Iran in 2013.

If Obama does not want that war, he is going to have to defeat the war party. Throwing an old warrior like Chuck Hagel over the side to appease these wolves is not the way to begin this fight.

Nominate him, Mr. President. Let's get it on.

-- Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chuckhagel; defense; patbuchanan; pitchforkpat; pukeannan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 12/28/2012 5:18:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

One Jew-hater backing another Jew-hater.


2 posted on 12/28/2012 5:27:06 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Bump.

(looking forward to this thread)


3 posted on 12/28/2012 5:30:05 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

On th list of things I am happy for, “Never hitching my wagon to this idiot” is pretty high on it.

Too bad. PB seems to have some seriously good ideas. But his fixation on the Jews makes the rest suspect in my view.

And Pat? Back them or don’t. But it’s not up to us to tell them how to run a war. And it does not matter if it’s Ronaldus Magnus or Bronco-Bama telling them what to do.


4 posted on 12/28/2012 5:33:30 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Putting all of that aside, there is a dirty little rumor that he has a drinking problem.


5 posted on 12/28/2012 5:34:53 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Nominate him, Mr. President. Let's get it on.

Keep pushing it, Pat. Can't wait until we are void of any blessing? You will witness God's Wrath soon enough.

6 posted on 12/28/2012 5:35:08 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
Mmmmmmm.....I just l-o-v-e throwing this in on neocon threads---b/c it drives the stupid n/c's to distraction.

RON PAUL SAID (snix), "We should not be over there, b/c Americans do not understand the Mideast mindset."

How right RON PAUL was.....RON PAUL was proved right many many times.

Not to worry---this RON PAUL tidbit won't interfere with the pukeneos sipping chilled Cristal and eating imported Brie at their Four Seasons luncheons---where the pukes formulate US foreign policy (cackle).

7 posted on 12/28/2012 5:46:15 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Actually your post sounds unintelligent. Smarten it up a little and it might be a little more effective in offending the target audience.


8 posted on 12/28/2012 5:48:58 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

pat buchanan is a moron


9 posted on 12/28/2012 5:58:04 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Looks like somebody pushed Pat’s ‘Jew Hate’ button again. He really comes unhinged on the topic.


10 posted on 12/28/2012 6:23:38 AM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
I suspect there are more and more conservatives who support Israel to the max, but on the other hand don't want to see any American boots on the ground in the ME, ever again, unless we get a real declaration of war and fight with nothing tied behind our back.
11 posted on 12/28/2012 6:25:23 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liz

The Mideast Mindset or the Islamonazi imperialist mindset?

If you think it “stays there” then you suck at world history where Spain and Indonesia are now considered “muslim territories”.

Such is the problem with theocratic rule.


12 posted on 12/28/2012 6:26:01 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Liz

repost that when you’re sober please.


13 posted on 12/28/2012 6:26:14 AM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Amen!


14 posted on 12/28/2012 6:27:05 AM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
I dont think Buchanan hates Jews.I think he hates the fact Israel has too much control over our Congress.
15 posted on 12/28/2012 6:41:47 AM PST by ricoshea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Just to clarify my position, neither do I. Israel is totally capable of handling itself.

My deal is that as our friends and partners in the free world, we can do a lot to aid them without risking a single human life. And IMO we should.

Israel has been the scapegoat for America in that the Muzzies cannot as ‘easily’ strike us here as they can lob rickets and blow up busses in Israel. And they do. An excuse to be sure, but they do. And for us to stand by and do nothing, or worse prevent the Jews from defending themselves under threat of cut ties/support is the height of evil. And WE do (We meaning American Libs in power and the idiot Antisemites in the GOP that go along with it)

So much of the basis of our history is there. Which is another reason the left wants it gone.


16 posted on 12/28/2012 6:43:49 AM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
I do not think Buchanan hates Jews,He seems to hate the control they have in Congress,the media etc.
17 posted on 12/28/2012 6:44:55 AM PST by ricoshea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That’s funny, usually Pat Buchanan would oppose a board member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Why would he then support Chuck Hagel? Of course - Hagel hates Israel!


18 posted on 12/28/2012 7:00:36 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In the fortnight since Chuck Hagel's name was floated for secretary of defense, we have witnessed Washington at its worst.

Or best. What's the deal, Pat? You have written so brilliantly on immigration and the U.S. demographic crisis. Hagel is, and has always been, an absolute, useless p@$$y on immigration.

But I guess that for Pat, in judging a potential cabinet pick who refuses to protect America from invasion at home, his "correct" position opposing the Jews in the Middle East is more important. Even though the same Moslems in the Middle East who bankroll the endless war against Israel obsessively persecute Christians like Pat (and me) everywhere in the world, including on American college campuses.

And by the way, long before this notional nomination, the crowd at Pat's The American Conservative always loved Hagel, complete with his left-wing immigration positions.

Is there a better definition of "crank"?

19 posted on 12/28/2012 7:14:58 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Every now and again Pat and Newt show why, as smart as they can sometimes seem, they should be rejected.


20 posted on 12/28/2012 7:15:28 AM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Here, here!
Somehow we should avoid any and all intervention that does not have any clearly defined plans. How we keep getting dragged down this road we’re on is beyond me.


21 posted on 12/28/2012 7:33:09 AM PST by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Q: The Democrats control the Senate, which decides the next SecDef - so how can any candidate the Dems put forward possibly be stopped?

This whole “nomination” process is just a formality, right?


22 posted on 12/28/2012 7:38:02 AM PST by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Now now...Pat lost a dear relative in a Nazi Concentration Camp....he fell out of the guard tower.


23 posted on 12/28/2012 7:48:43 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
The anti Semitic version of “Frau Blucher”...
24 posted on 12/28/2012 8:02:58 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Hope and Change has become Attack and Obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I agree. We do not need to attack Iran. Give Isreal the green light (which we haven’t done) and let them attack if they need to.

We don’t have the men, money, or morale to do it.


25 posted on 12/28/2012 8:04:35 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Liz

>> RON PAUL SAID (snix), “We should not be over there, b/c Americans do not understand the Mideast mindset.”

Pretense. Paul is an isolationist.


26 posted on 12/28/2012 8:05:15 AM PST by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
The anti Semitic version of “Frau Blucher”...

*Neigh*

27 posted on 12/28/2012 8:05:22 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

HA!


28 posted on 12/28/2012 8:06:12 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Hope and Change has become Attack and Obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Pat Buchannan is a patriot. Can’t say the same for so many who’re so deeply confused about which country has their loyalty.


29 posted on 12/28/2012 8:32:39 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Buchanan is a great man, except for his anti-Semitism.
Hagel: "I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator," he told Miller. "I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath ... to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."
If Hagel had made this remark about Taiwan, Pat would have seen the issue.
30 posted on 12/28/2012 8:48:32 AM PST by UnwashedPeasant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Neither Kerry or Hagel should be affirmed.

It’s high time we showed we can Bork people too, and this time for good reason.


31 posted on 12/28/2012 9:26:17 AM PST by DoughtyOne (How about a waiting period for putting crazies out on the streets, say a million years or so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If a senator or defense secretary believes an Israeli action -- like bisecting the West Bank with new settlements that will kill any chance for a Palestinian state and guarantee another intifada -- what should he do?

Mr. Buchannan, without Judea and particularly Hevron, Israel is not Israel. It's that simple.

32 posted on 12/28/2012 9:30:59 AM PST by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
don't want to see any American boots on the ground in the ME, ever again, unless we get a real declaration of war and fight with nothing tied behind our back.

Totally agree—and I'll bet Israel would agree too. Talk about "Get some!"

33 posted on 12/28/2012 9:58:11 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Evidently Buchanan wants an Iranian nuke too. Has he moved out of the DC suburbs?


34 posted on 12/28/2012 10:51:21 AM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricoshea

Most “Jews” in the Media are non-observant at best. And many hate Judaism and Israel. Grievance rots the mind and soul and leaves Patty to get in bed with communists attacking Israel, and liberal internationalists like Hagel. It also leaves to treasonous support for an Iranian nuclear weapon.


35 posted on 12/28/2012 10:55:18 AM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

That might be the only good line Molly Ivins ever wrote.


36 posted on 12/28/2012 11:01:03 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty; Liz
"Actually your post sounds unintelligent."

Actually just the opposite. That phrase "chilled cristal" is a play on words for Bill Kristol, King of the NeoCons and of the Davidic Bloodline, who inherited the throne from his father Irving.

This past spring Kristol acknowledged that the NeoCons had successfully purged the isolationists such as Paul and PB from the GOP and were moving to purge the Realists, especially the older realists such as Hagel, Scowcroft, Baker, Kissinger, Schultz, Lugar etc.

37 posted on 12/28/2012 11:15:09 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
"so many who’re so deeply confused about which country has their loyalty."

They are not confused at all. Their loyalty is to another state.

They are fifth columnists perhaps being paid by their government to post their opinions so that it would seem that the majority of American agree with their views, which is pure BS.

38 posted on 12/28/2012 1:07:05 PM PST by PatHimself
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj

Who is Chuck Hagel? He’s a RINO pus bag, that’s who he is, Patty.


39 posted on 12/28/2012 2:24:00 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
LOL------good stuff there. Love the Krystol/Cristal parody. Taxpayers even got the "Bill" for the stuff. ROTFLOL.

(Cackle---and here I thought dinoparty was the one that sounded unintelligent).

==========================================

This past spring Kristol acknowledged that the NeoCons had successfully purged the isolationists such as Paul and PB from the GOP and were moving to purge the Realists, especially the older realists such as Hagel, Scowcroft, Baker, Kissinger, Schultz, Lugar etc.

And let's not forget the pukeneos' very fave sport---kicking social conservatives to the curb----as they squat in the Repub party.

================================================

FYI---EXCERPT How did the neocons – a small group at odds with most of the US foreign policy elite – manage to capture the Bush administration---and be given the WH Office of Special OPs?

Few neos supported Bush during the presidential primaries. They feared Bush II would be like the first – a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the first Gulf War and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace process – and that his administration, again like his father's, would be dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. Neos supported the maverick senator John McCain until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.

Then neos had a stroke of luck – VP Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition (the period between the Nov election and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's right-wing network of neos, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.

The neocons took advantage of GW Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father---a Second World War vet, onetime ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and VP---GWB was a thinly-educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power).

The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave GWB something he had lacked: a life's mission other than following in dad's footsteps. There were signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: in 2002, veterans of the first Bush admin--including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the UN.

It is not clear that George W fully understood the grand strategy that neo Wolfowitz and other aides were unfolding. GWB seemed genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the US from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons said in public but were far too intelligent to believe themselves.

The Neo's "Project for the New American Century" urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the USto invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with US attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism.

Claims that the invasion was not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious anti-Semitism.

Yet (in 2003) Syria, Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor targeted Israel rather than the US. The neocons urged all-out war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the US, a far greater problem. (Michael Lind circa 2003)

40 posted on 12/28/2012 2:58:50 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Unfortunately, we see more than a few FReepers who revel in their anti-Zionism.


41 posted on 12/28/2012 2:58:59 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
This past spring Kristol acknowledged that the NeoCons had successfully purged the isolationists such as Paul and PB from the GOP and were moving to purge the Realists, especially the older realists such as Hagel, Scowcroft, Baker, Kissinger, Schultz, Lugar etc.
1. I'm not sure that Hagel is a realist. He and Lugar are liberal internationalists.
2. Why are realist idealogues (so delusional that they believe that theirs is not an ideology) an better than delusional neocons? Both assume a world that does not exist, especially in the middle east.
42 posted on 12/28/2012 3:32:11 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Yet (in 2003) Syria, Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor targeted Israel rather than the US. The neocons urged all-out war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the US, a far greater problem. (Michael Lind circa 2003)
Actually, Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. And the Bushes never forgave Saddam's assassination attempt on President George HW Bush.
Neoconservatives and some of the oil lobby wanted to go after Iraq. Israel didn't come into play, except as a shield for the Oil Lobby to yell "Jew, Jew" and hide their goals. The actual Israelis were and are worried about Iran. And in so far as Iran is a terrorist state, and has promised to destroy the US, we have a clear national security reason to stop their nuclear program.
Chuck Hagel, would rather hope that expositions on "prisoner's dilemma" and other college level "realist" thought games will protect us.
43 posted on 12/28/2012 3:36:36 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Bork was borked by a rat Senate.

We’d have to fillibuster to stop Kerry or Hagel so that’s a little different.

Frankly I have little interest in stopping Kerry so as to open up his Senate seat for RINO Brown to take.


44 posted on 12/28/2012 4:24:33 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I noticed there were a couple rambling idiots on this thread, one calling Hagel a “realist”.

Wha’TEVER.


45 posted on 12/28/2012 4:26:06 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Yet (in 2003) Syria, Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor targeted Israel rather than the US. The neocons urged all-out war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the US, a far greater problem. (Michael Lind circa 2003)
I forgot to mention something important. Michael Lind is a complete idiot on the Payroll of Soros. Syria and Iran were not bitter enemies in 2003, but allies. And what measures would Lind have us take on North Korea given that the ChiComs protect them, and that even without nukes they can level Seoul. The only thing worse that a delusional ideologue is a soulless political hack like Lind.
46 posted on 12/28/2012 7:11:38 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: driftless2; Norm Lenhart; presently no screen name; dinoparty; joe fonebone; pgkdan; ...

/bingo


47 posted on 12/28/2012 10:01:11 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Israeli Ambassador Michael Aron recently told CBS’ 60 Minutes that throwing-out Christians from Israel was necessary-—b/c “Israel has to defend its own interests.”

Well, good for them. So when will Americans be allowed to defend our interests-—by staying out of frickin’ Mideast mudholes?

Every two-bit Mideast hellhole puts THEIR interests first—particularly over American interests.

Time to acknowledge over years of savage Mideast history-—every Mideast hellhole is a threat to Americans. These
bullies and savages are collecting trillions of our tax dollars to remake the Mideast into some kind of make-believe LaLa Land.

Americans are struggling survive in Ohaha’s economy——and are paying plenty at the pump, as well as being forced to
pour trillions into these useless mudholes. Our “reward” is violence, killings, and stratospheric gas prices.

Americans are little more than pawns in the trillion dollar Mideast con game.....most of it orchestrated by Cristal-swilling neocons.

The Mideast con job continues—— “victimizaton” is a cottage industry over there-—and is very profitable——trillions of US tax dollars paid out in order for “self-styled victims” to “feel good about themselves.”

The stupid Mideast con artists know where they can put their lack of self-esteem.


48 posted on 12/29/2012 8:09:14 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The stupid Mideast con artists know where they can put their lack of self-esteem.

Uhhm, 50+ years of pulling a global con hardly makes them stupid. They rely on the mass stupidity of others to keep the con going.

49 posted on 12/29/2012 8:19:35 AM PST by TADSLOS (I took extra credit at the School of Hard Knocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Your point is correct. It would be different. It would be playing hardball for a change, and that’s the real connection tit for tat.

The dems play hardball, and we’re still playing with a rubber ball painted to look like a hardball.

1. There’s no focus
2. There’s no coordinated effort
3. There’s no agreement on what game we’re playing, or by what rules
4. There’s no determination to win
5. There’s no dedication to win

We’re simply a pee-wee league level team on a professional baseball field facing the New York Yankees.


50 posted on 12/29/2012 9:08:38 AM PST by DoughtyOne (How about a waiting period for putting crazies out on the streets, say a million years or so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson