Posted on 11/29/2009 5:22:36 AM PST by Fenhalls555
Last week, Oliver Miles, Britain’s former ambassador to Libya and a pillar of the country’s foreign policy establishment, put his thinking cap on, put pen to paper and came up with the following thoughts in a column in the Independent newspaper about the presence of the esteemed historians Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman on the board of the UK’s latest Iraq Inquiry:
“Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism,” he said. “…if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.” (My italics)
In other words, Jews are an embarrassment. Ban them.
Hold that thought. Now consider the words of the celebrated journalist Richard Ingrams — a man who once said he does not open emails about Israel if the writer appears to have a Jewish last name — writing in the same paper today.
(Excerpt) Read more at robinshepherdonline.com ...
Director, International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society in London, has held senior fellowships at some of the world’s most prestigious public policy institutes since leaving international journalism in 2003 when his last position was Moscow Bureau Chief for The Times of London.
Shepherd’s key areas of expertise are transatlantic relations, American foreign policy, Middle Eastern(particularly Israeli) relations with the West, Russia, central and eastern Europe, NATO and the European Union. His book: “A State Beyond the Pale, Europe’s Problem with Israel” looks at the reasons for widespread hostility to Israel in Europe among the continent’s opinion formers.
Melanie Phillips writes:
“Until a short while ago Shepherd, now Director of International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society, was a senior fellow at The Royal Institute of International Affairs — commonly known as Chatham House — in charge of its European programme. After two years he left in bitter circumstances, claiming he had been forced out principally because of his publicly expressed support for Israel”
http://tinyurl.com/yfybcem
A very vocal an active minority....
I am not happy that my Jewish brethren are being discriminated against by bigots. However, I am delighted that this time the bigots are on the Left rather than the Right. They are making the same mistake as Hitler and the medieval Church by driving away a smart and hard working group of people. I welcome them to join me on the Right.
The Jews have been a blessing on every nation that welcomed them in, and every nation that has shown them evil has been repaid in kind tenfold. This has held true for thousands of years. I think that the hand of Divine Providence is at work.
“I am delighted that this time the bigots are on the Left rather than the Right.”
Unfortunately, in the UK, anti-Semitism is just as likely to come from the Right as the Left. Thus, for example, as a former stalwart of the Foreign Office and ambassador to Libya, Miles is likely to be a Tory. Another recent example relates to a blatantly anti-Semitic documentary produced for Channel 4 in the UK. The chief presenter and producer was Peter Oborne who writes for the very right-wing Daily Mail newspaper. Herewith two pieces by Robin Shepherd on that documentary:
Top British documentary makers peddle conspiracy theory about secretive Zionist lobby ahead of landmark TV show
UK TV documentary alleging Zionist conspiracy brings torrent of anti-Semitic abuse into public view
Also, this from Shepherd:
My op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the newly revealed “Jewish conspiracy” in Great Britain
By the way, just in case anyone was interested, I thought I’d point out that Robin Shepherd is not Jewish. Now that is very rare in the UK, an ardent supporter of Israel and the Jewish people who is not Jewish.
Good Day to my FRiend from the Great White North.
We did go into Afghanistan 17 months before we went into Iraq, bombing known al Qaeda training camps. and working with local rebel
Even though you might get the impression by listening to the mainstream media on the left that he had, George Bush never suggested that Iraq was involved directly in the 9/11 attacks.
Hussein, however, was supporting terrorists and terrorism in general, and was refusing UN inspectors to inspect his known WMD programs. The Bush Administration was very afraid that Hussein was going to make WMDs available to terrorists like al Qaeda, who would then use them on US soil. Therefore, after ramming through a UN Security Counsel resolution, invaded Iraq and overthrew the Hussein government.
As you may or may not be aware, for the decade between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, US and allied aircraft had been in a low level war with Iraq. Operating from bases in Saudi Arabia to enforce the Northern and Southern no-fly zones in Iraq. US and allied forces flew daily combat air patrol sorties to protect the Kurds in the north, and the Shia in the south, from Hussein's military.
These no-fly combat patrols resulted in many ground strikes against anti-aircraft batteries, the destruction of Iraqi aircraft, and at least one accidental friendly fire incident against a UN Helicopter.
9/11 and the "certainty" of an Iraqi WMD program was enough to end the Hussein regime. The Bush Administration was very afraid of an Iraqi furnished dirty bomb, low yield nuclear bomb, or poisonous gas attack against a US city, in an attempt by al Qaeda to one-up themselves after felling the Twin Towers.
And in another ironic twist of fate, bin Laden's stated reason for the 9/11 attacks was because American forces were in Saudi Arabia, the 'holy land' of Mecca. Had US forces withdrawn from Saudi Arabian air bases after the 1991 Desert Storm conflict, instead of staying for another 12 years flying many hundreds of sorties per year against Iraq from Saudi soil, the 1998 US Embassy bombings, the 2000 USS Cole attack, and the 9/11 attack may never have occurred.
If by "the truth," you mean, "a contemptible load of crap."
You may disagree with the policy recommendations of these individuals. That's one thing. But instead you assent in accusing these men -- all stalwart patriots with a long record of service, including trusted positions in the Reagan administration -- of treason. That's something else entirely. And it does not reflect on Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz; it reflects on YOU.
OK, so why then did Bush shift priorities away from Afghanistan, to Iraq, before the job was finished there?
Who provided most of the information about Saddam’s “vast” WMD arsenal - Israel. And how many of those “widespread” WMD’s were eventually found in Iraq?
The reasons for dealing with Iraq were adequately summarized in the reply you received from Yo-Yo, just upthread. I'll add just a little below.
Who provided most of the information about Saddam’s “vast” WMD arsenal - Israel.
Do you have a basis for that assertion, or are you just so Israel/Jew obsessed you ASSume it's the case? IOW, does it come from somewhere other than out your clymer?
I'm far from infallible. Maybe I missed something. But I followed the Iraq war debate reasonably closely, and the fact is I don't recall Israel ever chiming in or being cited. (Which in retrospect seems kind of odd. Although there are possible reasons that make sense. For one, opinions in the Israeli intelligence community may have been mixed. And if they had a differing view they probably wouldn't have wanted to gainsay Bush. Even more likely, they would have simply assumed that anything they offered would be dismissed, and so thought it better to stay out of the debate.)
As far as I am aware, most of the information came from American, French and British intelligence, although I'm not well versed in what agencies they may have drawn information from in return. Jordan? Turkey? In any case I don't recall ANY information being source to or through Israel.
Also, I don't recall anyone characterizing Saddam's potential arsenal as "vast". Again, do have an actual source for this, or are you just publicly abusing a dead horse? I mean, sorry to seem rude, but you put quotes around the word, which generally means someone actually said it. But possibly in your case it means something else. Like, "I pulled this out of my clymer."
Again, sorry for the tone. It's just irritating to have to correct this record yet again, and especially for a conservative!
Anyway, during the debate it was all along entirely clear, at least to me, notwithstanding this or that suggestive fact or bit of intelligence being touted here or there along the way, that the overwhelming problem is that we did not know the status of Saddam's WMD programs and capabilities. In the post 9-11 context, this lack of knowledge was intolerable, especially considering that Saddam had explicitly obligated himself to provide this information, but had repeatedly refused to do so.
It was also entirely clear, at least to me, that the main concern on the part of Bush and his advisers was not so much what usable remnants of Saddam's former WMD capabilities might have remained in place as of 2002 or 2003. (Most apparently thought some, but again, troublingly did not KNOW.) The primary concern was due to the fact that the sanctions regime imposed on Saddam was steadily deteriorating, and predictably would fail completely in the near future.
IOW, the fear, entirely rational in light of Saddam's stubborn refusal to fully disclose his WMD programs, was that, even if those programs were not currently active, they were being maintained such that they could be rapidly revived when sanctions were inevitably lifted.
IOW, Bush was thinking ahead, and taking advantage of a present, but then rapidly receding, window of opportunity to take action that would make us safer in the future.
And, yes, THAT kind of strategic thinking, IS INDEED very "neocon" in nature.
BTW, the kind of knee-jerk "blame the neocons" attitude you're displaying, irritates me not because I have a problem with disagreement, criticism and argument. Those things are essential. It's rather that neocons are so often blamed for things that are as much, if not more, the result of their prescriptions NOT having been followed, or having been adopted weakly or belatedly.
For instance, if we'd really been listening to the "neocons," there either wouldn't have been an Iraq War at all, or it would have gone far better.
It was largely "neocons," who argued back in '91 that we should remained longer in Iraq. For example, one of the men you named, Paul Wolfowitz, while not pressing, as some others did, for an advance on Baghdad, did argue that we should hold our occupied territory in Iraq until the anti-Saddam forces got their feet under them, and in order to prevent Saddam reconsolidating his power. Instead, Saddam was allowed to put down the uprising and restore control of Iraq under our noses.
Even that opportunity having been missed, it was neocons who, later in the 1990's, lobbied for and secured the passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. The intent of this measure was to support the development of a Free Iraqi government, initially outside Iraq, but then transferred to the "no-fly" zones, and then the creation of a Free Iraqi army there.
Unfortunately the State Department and the CIA, the agencies principally tasked with implementing the act, instead colluded in systematically undermining it. (BTW an utter, borderline treasonous, outrage, with tragic consequences, that the media and the intelligentsia, never exposed, and indeed often colluded with, possibly due to the same knee-jerk and unreflective "anti-neoconism" that you've apparently bought into.)
But what if the Iraq Liberation Act had been seriously implemented?
In the best case, it might have prevented the Iraq war entirely. It's not too difficult to imagine a viable Free Iraq government in the no-fly zones steadily siphoning away power from Saddam, to the point where he might have been successfully overthrown.
Even in the worst case, hindsight suggest the vast difference it would have made, in prosecuting the Iraq War, if we'd had significant numbers of native Iraqi forces participating in the liberation of their own country, and if there had been a viable Iraqi government in exile to which sovereignty could have been transferred almost immediately.
In short, the neocons for years were urging us to take actions that could have either prevented a war with Saddam, or at least have sensibly prepared for it. The war was as difficult as it was not because neocon prescriptions WERE followed, but rather because they were NOT followed, or because they were undermined by the foreign policy "realists" who thought they knew so much better, and remarkably, despite the evidence of reality, still think that.
not all neoCons are Jewish..but a lot are I agree
very few Jewish Cultural Conservatives...Levin, Savage...sometimes Kristol...sometimes not.
I’m not sure this is anti-Semetism.. there is quite a long path from being anti-Zionist to being a proponent of camps.
personally I’m a Zionist.
difference is that here in the US very little criticism of Jewish things is tolerated in public life but in the UK due to the fact that many folks do not support Israel over the Terrorists, more criticism of Israel is brooked.
Europe in general is more causual about Jews. Here in the US, Jews have two great advantages which help them to quell dissent...one is their large presence in the aggregate media, academia and entertainment and a pretty strong voice in government...the Senate in particular.
The other bigger advantage is that white Christian conservatives like me are the largest single demographic in the nation and we almost 100% fully support Israel for many reasons..some Biblical, some not.
Isn’t it funny that while we make staunch support for Israel possible here that most Jews loathe what we believe in and organize and vote for initiatives to thwart us.
It sucks..wish they would come around but I ain’t holding my breath, I think it’s providential
Why do you think Hitler was a rightist?
Do you listen to Savage or Rush or Hannity?
Read Mark Levin.
Why do you make it so complex?
Let’s apply a little common sense to this mystery, just like detectives would do in solving a crime.
“M-O-M” is a tried-and-true technique - Method, Opportunity, Motive.
We know what the Method was for removing Saddam, i.e., an invasion led by the US.
The Opportunity was the aftermath of 9-11, when the US wanted to get even with the terrorists. What better way than to claim Saddam was about to team up with them?
Which brings us to Motive. It’s a classic formula - if you want to know who was behind something, simply ask: Who stood to profit?
So - who stood to gain the most from Saddam being gone? (Hint: not the US, because Saddam was only a minor threat, far way).
Just because you have Jews on the brain doesn’t mean they controlled GW Bush’s brain and manipulated him to go into Iraq. All it means is that Jews control your brain. You are their victim due to your weak mind.
I see a big Golem puppeteer behind you pulling your strings
Yes we went into Iraq because of shadowy nefarious Jews. Not because we have legitimate oil interests in the Middle East
Not because of
GW Bush — not Jewish
Dick Cheney— not Jewish
Don Rumsfield— not Jewish
Colin Powell— not Jewish
Tony Blair— not Jewish
You are Canadian and out of the loop. You have gotten a free ride for years from the US defense establishment. You have plenty of oil so don’t need to be concerned about the Middle East the way America is
BTW, you may be interested in knowing that the US is not as dependent on ME oil as in the past. The largest supplier of imported US oil is now, um, Canada (18%), having surpassed Saudi Arabia (13%), and our percentage is only going to go up, what with the Athabasca Oil Sands’ production ramping up significantly. (Canada also supplies an even bigger share of US natural gas imports).
That’s Canada - providing a safe, secure supply of oil and gas so the US can wean itself off the unreliable ME.
You’re welcome.
Sure we get oil from Canada.....
We also have to rely on drug ridden Mexico and Muslim Arabs and Hugo Chavez.....UNLIKE YOU DOPES up north. You get all your oil from Canada where you just happen to live
So you can moralize and spout crap about Jews and wars in Iraq because you supply all your own energy... MORON! Unlike you cowards we deal with the world and do things. You can just sit on your asses and meditate and drink Molson’s and Labatt’s
I guess your were so caught up in your insults that you didn’t understand my post - so let me try again.
Every country’s share of US oil imports is going down - except Canada’s. Canada now supplies more than the entire Middle East - and there’s more, a lot more, to come. That’s a good thing. (and Mexico’s production is rapidly dwindling)
BTW Dennis, since you seem so concerned about “gratitude”, has Israel ever thanked all those troops who fought and died in Iraq to eliminate one of Israel’s biggest threats?
What the hell do you care? You live up in Canada
You are playing in your version of a fantasy football league except its geo-politics
But have Jews on your brain which has degraded your IQ as much as the Koran degrades Muslim IQ an automatic 30 points
And for your dimwitted information I have known for years that Canada is #1 oil seller to USA
Mexico is #2
Then we get down to Chavez and Arabia
BTW did Canada ever send any troops to Iraq?
I know you are in Afghanistan
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.