XXXXXXX wrote:
Greetings Scott Horton,
Can you suggest one or two article that best sum up the facts re. the zionist role in bringing about the Iraq war, including later revelations about the OSP, Shulsky, and other facts that PJB [Pat Buchanan] did not have when he wrote "Whose war?"
Thanks
XXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXX,
I would define them much more narrowly than "zionists." The majority of zionists in Israel and in the U.S. oppose the Likud/Neoconservative foreign policy prescriptions and it was certainly very few individuals who lied us into this war.
The best articles about what happened were themselves written by "zionists": "The Lie Factory," and "Agents of Influence" by Robert Dreyfuss (the former with Jason Vest), "The Stovepipe" and "Selective Intelligence" by Seymour Hersh, "Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network," by Jim Lobe (who’s been on the neocons’ case for 30 years, btw.)
Also, please see "The Spies Who Pushed for War" by Julian Borger, A Pretext for War by James Bamford, as well as his articles for Rolling Stone, "The Man Who Sold the War" and "Iran: The Next War," Laura Rozen et al. and their piece "Iran Contra II?", Karen Kwiatkowski’s articles for the American Conservative, Salon and her C-SPAN interview with Brian Lamb, RawStory has a great timeline and Philip Giraldi has a new one in the American Conservative called "Saving Feith" that’s really good too.
Oops, I just realized you only asked for one or two… I guess that should do it then.
: )
Best,
…Don’t forget Yitzhak Rabin getting shot in the back. I’ve always thought that tragic event permanently nullified the peace process, such as it was, and started the regional war ball rolling.
I don’t regard Sy Hersh, Lobe, or Dreyfus as “ZIONISTS” though they may be Jewish. I think it is erroreous to interchange the two terms. Many orthodox Jews opposed the creation of the state of Israel to begin with on theological grounds. Many secular Jews oppose the occupation and militancy of the Likudnics and there Kadima brethren on either humanitarian or practical grounds – or both. Frankly John Hagee is a Zionist – albeit of a Christian Zionist variety. I don’t think Jim Lobe is – though he may be an observant Jew.
Rabin was probably the most level headed of the Israeli leaders since the creation of the Jewish state but two thing need to be said about the “Peace Plan.”……(1) The land to be returned to the Palestinians would NOT be contiguos – very important. You can have all the rooms in the house but I control the hallways. (2) Israel would still control the water supply – something NOT acceptable to any sovereign people. Comments welcome.
…Allow me to cut to the chase…Any person who approaches a definition of the term Realist can see that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has long been completely, and permanently, irreconcilable. You’ve fundamentally cited but two in a myriad of reasons—and I use the term fundamentally with no pejorative intent, nor in any context of the same. As an observer of this murderous, unilateral, de facto Diaspora and occupation, subsidized by US tax dollars for 40+ years, I consider the Rabin assassination a departure point, from where sprang the contemporary power of the Likud Party, and from which there will be no return, nor compromise with. Only in terms of numbers would the plight of The Palestinian not approach that of the American Indian. It is a state of affairs that in terms of Zionist Dominion will continue to worsen over time. The only positive note for Palestine is that time, which is History, has always been Partisan to the oppressed.
“I don’t regard Sy Hersh, Lobe, or Dreyfus as “ZIONISTS” though they may be Jewish. I think it is erroreous to interchange the two terms. Many orthodox Jews opposed the creation of the state of Israel to begin with on theological grounds. Many secular Jews oppose the occupation and militancy of the Likudnics and there Kadima brethren on either humanitarian or practical grounds – or both. Frankly John Hagee is a Zionist – albeit of a Christian Zionist variety. I don’t think Jim Lobe is – though he may be an observant Jew.”
Maybe it was my mistaken understanding that Zionist meant supporter of Israel in the broad sense, but you seem to be saying it means those who support continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and continued expansion.
Even still, I could be mistaken, but I think they are all supporters of there being a Jewish state in Palestine, just not a jerky one.
No, you’re not mistaken, Scott. anyone that supports the zionist state of israel is not it tune with Torah, no matter how good their intentions. they are misled or misinformed.
btw – Ron announced monday, maybe a new third?
got one drowning in the filter, again…
…I’ve been re-reading William L. Shirer’s monumental work “The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich” here of late and, in negotiating the 1249 ppgs of that black period in History, you are bound to come across, and apply examples of Santayana’s maxim to current events, i.e. “Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it.” I take some exception to this generally and would offer that, in view of the past 5000 years, mankind is moreover incapable of meeting the demands of his History. At least it’s been demonstrated to my satisfaction. Written by the victors or not; History, is the History of State Organized Political Violence…or what we know as war.
There’s nothing exceptionally profound in that observation either. Hell, walk into any bar and sooner or later you’ll something to same effect competing with the din of the juke box and ambient noise. If that’s not enough? Hollywood’s scripts have said the same thing in hundreds of 2nd rate War Movies. In other words it doesn’t take a genius. But that notwithstanding, let’s give Mr. Santayana his due.
While this observation cannot be viewed as a moral analogy to the situation the Bush Administration now finds itself in; i.e. its credibility and moral authority being reduced on a daily basis in a protracted, no win war war of occupation in Iraq. It is nonetheless I believe, perfectly applicable in regard to the manner in which the American public was so callously deceived. And applies synonymously to the contrived situation that drove the 2003 Invasion.
Shirer was a tireless researcher with access to National Socialist and OKW archives directly after the Nuremberg trails. Thus, I came across one of Hitler’s many elocution’s to his diffident General Staff and the following before the 1 September 1939 Invasion of Poland…In reading it—One clause stood out among the rest: When questioned as to the rationale of the Invasion Hitler remarked: “I shall give a propagandists reason for starting the war—Never mind whether it is plausible or not! The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory!”…I ask you in all civility? What does this treachery remind you of?
…Me too Mud, but I think they can both swim
I think Scott is right, I don’t like it when people seperate into Jew and Zionist, this is simplistic, and I think also, makes the impression that every Zionist is Likud nut. Zionist really means support for the state of Israel, even religous Jews from what I gather, support a state of Israel, just not the secular way of bringing it about.
While I do support a non-occupying state of Israel, for me anyway, it is not so much because I think it should exist, it is more like it would be impractical for it to not exist now that it does. I think though, one has to ask oneself, if one is a Zionist, can one say he supports individualism? What is a Jew? Is it a race, a religion or a mind set? It’s really all. Individualism means being in favour of the autonomous being, it also, in it’s inception will lead to said individuals being seperated from culture and race, because it is an emphasis is now on the individual rather then race or gender.
I think also, one has to ask if this is natural? Or is it only the pressure of the state that can bring this individualist utopia about? I was just in Japan recently, and it really struck me, one naturally gravitates to at the least… I would say, people who speak the same language as you.
One last thing thing, I would also say being a practicing Jew, is also about embracing a culture, it focuses on a people, which is fine. But there is a contradiction, it is somewhat at odds with individualism
Differentiating between Jew and Zionist is not simplistic. It is the right, proper, and correct, thing to do. While there is certainly an overlap between Jewish people and Zionists not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews.
http://www.nkusa.org/ These are JEWS, they are not ZIONISTS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee This man is a ZIONIST, he is not a JEW.
This is all the more important considering one of the criticisms we make against the MSM is that they lump all the “Insrgents” into the Al Qaeda camp, as opposed to Shiite and Sunni factions (and sub factions within, and also those who are more Nationalistic the religious (such as certain Iraqi Shiites who don’t want to take orders from Iranian Shiites).
Let us not be guilty of what we accuse the opposition of doing.
I wonder if you even read my response. Or Redrum’s http://thestressblog.com/2007/03/11/letter-to-the-editor-2/#comment-24858
…Well Red, I would say that being a practicing Redneck—Or for those of you familiar with the term “Okie” in the derogatory context it was formerly used, this thanks to Mr. Steinbeck’s Novel—One richly qualified for the title, who went to the 10th grade and was weaned on Coors, layed drunk in the Army, had 2 wives and was fired from 56 low paying jobs… Is, also about embracing a culture, this too focuses on a people…which in the contemporary, center left mainstream American Political class…is not fine at all…We are offered nothing but contempt and accusations of ignorance.
We are mocked, ridiculed, insulted with impunity if not despised as a people for our former sins as defined, and offered for public consumption—and Political coup—by Hollywood, Cultural Mavens, The Political Academicians of American Left etc., etc…Not that I mind being despised…Not that I mind that we still villains in the eyes of them above the division of labor. I done an’ larned a man kin git strownger by being hated…I just wouldn’t recommend undergoing the process…
In any case…There was a Southern Comedian sometime back, who said, just as serious as a man going to court in his act, that “I’d like first for y’all to understand that we don’t date our cousins in the South, I don’t know where in theee hell people come up with those notions, but I’m here to tell ye that it just doesn’t happen…I never once dated my cousin…I fucked her 3-4 times, but I never dated her.” Only he didn’t say fuck.
…Hagee reminds me of Rush Limbaugh with a Oxycontin hangover
I think Scott is right, I don’t like it when people seperate into Jew and Zionist, this is simplistic,………
Per your original comment, it was my understanding that you were equating the terms JEW and ZIONIST since the original writer drew reference to the “Zionists role” in leading us into ware……and you then mentioned that not all Zionists were for the war and specifically referenced Hersh, Lobe, and Dreyfus. It took this as an equation of Zionism w/ Judaism.
Frankly (and this is only a guess on my part) if you were to ask these three Jewish (and anti – war) writers/reporters whether they were Zionists – I doubt you would get a straight YES or NO answer – but rather a qualified one, meaning they either ARE or AREN’T depending on how you DEFINE the TERM………This reduces essentially to a question of DEFINITION and as such it would probably be prudent to DEFINE the term (or at least the contextual usage) at the outset.
I did not mean that every Jew was a Zionist, I would break it up into three terms: Jew, Zionist and Crackhead Zionist. The third being most of the ones in power in the government (jews and gentiles) and on the T.V representing the church …. there you go.
[Amy Goodman interviews Andrew Cockburn on DemocracyNow! (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/07/1436239)
Here is a most revealing exchange which occurred at the end of the interview:
-------
AMY GOODMAN: In 2006, you write that George W. Bush said to his father, "What's a neocon?"
ANDREW COCKBURN: That's right. One of the rare moments of sort of communication between the two. Bush said to -- they were out at Kennebunkport, and Bush Jr. says, “Can I ask you a question? What's a neocon?” And the father says, “Do you want names or a description?” The President says, “I’ll take a description.” He says, “I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel,” which is interesting on all sorts of levels, including the confirmation that our president doesn't really read the newspapers.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean when you say that. And how do you know that this conversation took place at their vacation home?
ANDREW COCKBURN: Well, I can't really say who told me, but it's someone who was -- I have absolute confidence in both in their -- that they’re telling the truth and also in their position to be aware of this conversation.
-------
I find this exchange most interesting. From my own observations of the power elites in Washington DC (I was very close to them in the 1986-1991 years) I became aware of an highly significant albeit very covert struggle taking place: the old Anglos were being pushed out by Zionist Jews. Here is what I was told, under strict secrecy, by one of the 'old Anglos' in 1990:
"When Ronald Reagan was elected Jews realized that the Democratic Party would not see power for one hell of a long time. So what they did is switch allegiance to the Republican Party. In various think tanks they began by contributing large amounts of money and, pretty soon, they were in the position to impose their own executive directors and research fellows. This is what happened at the Heritage Foundation and this is what is happening here (sorry - I cannot name this institution, VS)"
At that time I did not make too much of this, and I soon left the USA only to return only a decade later. Now I am observing how the Anglos are fighting back using the upcoming attack against Iran as their chance to discredit the 'neocons'. Hence the Mearsheimer, Walt, Scheuer (and pretty much most of the old CIA guard), Carter, Bzrezinski,Buchanan, Kwiatkowski, Scott Ritter, & Co, overtly attacking the 'neocons' and Israel (does anyone believe that all these guys suddenly and miraculously aquiered an anti-imperial conscience?!)
The neocons are not blind to the real nature of the attack. Here is what Jonah Goldberg says about that here:
"The term [neocon] does more damage than good because it allows people to hide their real intent. People who want to denounce the influence of Jews get to use the word ‘neocon’ when they really mean ‘Jewish conservatives’ without being held accountable.”
My best guess is that is what happened with baby-Bush’s election. Papa-Bush was firmly in the ‘old Anglo’ camp (Baker & Co.) and he tended to despite the pro-Israeli ‘neocons’ calling them the “crazies in the basement”. He had to compose with them because of their power and money, but his real loyalties were always with the Anglo oil lobby. The climax of this takeover came with the presidential election in which Baby-Bush decided to run and the Zionist Jews clerverly pushed the candidacy of Dubya which, on the face of it, appeared to be an Anglo and being Papa’s boy the Anglos backed him. But being the semi-litterate failure that he is Baby-Bush became a perfect pawn in the hands of the Zionist lobby and the neocons. After 911 however, the neocons took him under total control and the lame attempt of the Anglo camp (Baker & Hamilton) to get him “back on track” failed. The neocons easily overcame this challange.
Any list of neocons will includes several non-Jews such as Bolton or, for that matter, Cheney himself who, while missing on this list, is certainly a major neocon player. This goes to show that equating Jews=neocons is as wrong as equating any Anglo person with what I call here the ‘old Anglo’ camp. While ethnicity does play an important role here (principally by making any attack on neocons subject to accusations of anti-Semitism and by making any criticism of Israel and the unconditional support of it by the USA as total ‘crimethink’) it is not the key element. They key thing is two mafia cliques fighting for power and these cliques are composed of people from the same ethnicity just as the Italian or Irish mafias were. Necons do not speak for Jews any more than Joseph Stalin spoke for Georgians or Putin for ethnic Russians. However, there can be little doubt that Stalin did try hard to promote supporters from non-Russian (and non-Jewish I would add) stock while today Putin is promoting Russians over the Eltsin era people (who were often Jews),
It is in fact a very sad but real danger that people disgusted with the neocons will blame ‘Jews’ for what is happening in the USA today. This is why it is essential to separate these two concepts and keep reminding people of the many Americans Jews who are at the forefront of the struggle against the neocons today (Chomsky, Fingelstein, Neumann, Goodman, etc.) and who have to put up with constant accusations of being ‘self-hating Jews’.
Dubya was clearly chosen by the neocons not in spite of, but *because* he is so utterly clueless about pretty much any issue, including the behind-the-scenes power politics in the USA. Speaking of which,
The CIA and the FBI seem to have been bastions of the old Anglo guard, which is why there was this truly huge purge at the CIA over the past years. This is also one of the main sources of leaks to the press about the planned war against Iran. As for the FBI the upcoming trial of the AIPAC officials for espionage goes to show that the FBI still is trying to hurt the Zionist power. Ditto for the Scooter Libby trial which is a non-so-subtle attempt to get at Cheney and his office.
As for the Pentagon, my best guess is that the top brass there is totally neocon coopted, but that the middle-top layer is fighting back, again with leaks about Iran and all the stuff about the (now defunct) Office of Special Plans.
How to deal with Iran is the issue which brought these two camps in an overt confrontation. Simply put, the Anglos have *nothing* to gain form a war with Iran (and everything to loose) while the neocons clearly realize that Dubya’s presidency is the last chance to get the USA to fight one more war on Israel’s behalf (and deliver a final blow to the old Anglo guard in the process).
So who will prevail?
My guess is that the Anglos are ‘out’ and have lost power for one heck on a long while. Even if the Republicans loose the Presidency in 2008, the conference in Herzilia and the recent speeches of all the main Democratic Presidential candidates at the AIPAC meeting clearly show that the Democractic Party is even more pro-necon that the Republican one.
Only a ‘third party’ (really a *true* second one) which would eject *both* the Anglo-Oil and the Neocon-Israeli lobbies from power would be an alternative and this, I sadly have to say, is not something I see happening anytime soon.
The USA is really,really in very bad shape and its foreseeable future look very bleak
Context: Bush asked the question in 2006?
you know, I am not sure here. I did not read the book, but you can email cockburn and ask him to clarify.
either way – that this is quite a question coming from Dubya, ain’t it?!
According to this it happened in August 2004.
It is August 2004, and the president is taking time off from his re-election campaign to visit his parents at their summer house in Kennebunkport, Maine. [and further along]
Notwithstanding this episode, Bush 43 still sometimes drew on his father’s wide knowledge of the world. Though he refused to read newspapers, he was aware of criticism that his administration had been excessively beholden to a particular clique, and wanted to know more about them. One day during that holiday, according to friends of the family, 43 asked his father, “What’s a neocon?”
“Do you want names, or a description?” answered 41.
“Description.”
“Well,” said the former president of the United States, “I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.”
Jesus, it would have been better if he’d asked for the names. He probably still doesn’t know.
…While Cockbburn’s Political skills and equilibrium in the above pronouncements are remarkable, I would remind him that the term “anti-Semite,” and all it’s accompanying, pejorative connotations, that which John J. Mearsheimer has termed as The Weapon, is beginning to suffer from the Law of Diminishing returns. There is a place where redundant, and patent ad nauseum accusations of anti-Semitism end…and Political realities, and Security questions begin…This rhetorical business of Bad Zionists vs. Good Jewish people, is more than indicative of what I contend. It once again boils down the The Orwellian adage “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” On an increasing basis; to be accused and convicted of anti-Semitism are no longer one in the same. The irony is that we may, in terms of polemic against such obvious double standards, owe this to the Left of The 90′s. Those crusader’s of so called Political Correctness who neglected to take the long view. “Heretics” if you will, to their own vicious Doctrines.
I am not at all sure that for those who make the difference between neocons, Zionists and Jews this is a matter of rhetorical business. I know that for me it is not. First, being a neocon or a Zionist is a matter of choice, being a Jew is a matter of birth. Second, by implicating directly or indirectly that these concepts are interchangable we stick Amy Goodman and Richard Perle in the same group. Third, by doing so we prove all the paranoid ravings of the AIPAC, ADL and AJC true by showing that ‘anti-Semitism’ is truly some mental disease which is somehow inherently present in all Gentiles. Lastly, at least for a Christian as myself, *any* form of racism is a grevious sin of the worst kind directly banned by the Scriptures (how so many so-called ‘Christians’ managed to miss that for so long is beyond me).
Interestingly, Norman Finkelstein even argues that the thugs of AIPAC, ADL, AJC & Co. and the rest of the “Zionist Lobby” who claim to be, well, Zionists, are not even that. He makes a very convincing case that they are just thugs and that the real Zionists (he mentions Abba Eban) whatever one may think of their beliefs were at least truly committed to their cause. That is, I submit, also an important distinction.
I think words matter, and letting others either frame the discussion, or re-define key concepts sets them up for victory and everybody else for failure. So whatever our personal beliefs are, I think that we should use words with the utmost care and, when needed, define what we are talking about. If we fail to do that, our message (whatever it is) will be shot down on a ‘technicality’ and we will be dismissed with some ugly label hanging around our necks.
…You, will never have to worry about some ugly label hanging around your neck; as your verbal dance recital impresses me as something you’d find in the comment section of Time Magazine. To be blunt: The Center in the American Political spectrum is beginning to unravel, and your patent attempts to be conciliatory are to my mind living proof of it. But, like war, it’s hardly anything new. Throughout Western History equivocation has always proven the undoing of the Moderates…Witness the fate of Girondists, and The Mensheviki, respectively caught between the same extremes we presently see…I give it 5 to 7 years until we see such ambivalence produce a similar polarity in the US…The symptoms are already obvious…In the interim, you should consider running for Congress as you juggle duplicity very well; that, and I would also conjecture that you’re probably a young woman…No offense if it later proves that you are not.
Holy cow!!
I have been called many things but centrist or moderate is not one of them. Heck – I am not even American! So being put into the “Time-mag kind of US center” is a rather new, and amusing, experience for me. Thanks for that moment!
As for being a woman – I do not have this priviledge, but I sure have the utmost appreciation for the better gender! (and 12 years of marrige and having a daughter – besides two boys – only makes me admire them more every day).
As for the substance: if my posts here make give you the feeling that I am of the American-center female well, any further discussion would be futile.
Have a super-wonderful day!
VS
…Well…always better to amused than offended, which I was somewhat concerned you might have been. I try not to act like the uncouth sonofabitch I am all the time…In any case, I for one, am sick to death of having to measure words and weigh thoughts in order to negotiate a mine field of subjective accusations when it comes to discussing “Will the real Zionist please stand up?” The instant anyone has to strenuously deny that he; or she is…let’s say a “neo-Heretic,” is, to my way of understanding things, suffering the effects of Cultural and Political oppression, and their purposes are at best compromised, and at worst defeated…Professor Mearsheimer does not use the term weapon in this regard lightly. Weapons are for acts of destruction…and ideas are the most potent weapons of all…The unilateral legislation to halt so called “hate speech,” which shows every indication of worsening, is the handwriting on the wall for the future of autonomous reason…Many will rue the day they dismissed it as progress.
Well. turns out neither of us is offeded by anything the other one said, and both of us are fed up with the enforced ban on discussing Jews/Zionists/Neocons/Likudiniks etc. I also understand that you are sick to death of having to measure words, but I sincerely believe that there is no other option. First, by pointing the finger at the wrong people, we risk pointing the finger at innocent people and thereby allow the real sons of bitches to hide behind the back of the innocent ones. Second, it is a fact, however sad, that this is a war of ideas, of values, and if we oppose somebody we need to make sure our hands are clean from the same ugliness which we see in our opponents. We cannot be politically right without being ethically and morally right also. Third, and this is really important – WE NEED ALL THE JEWISH ALLIES WE CAN GET to fight the ‘necons’. These ‘neocons’ are not only our enemies (whoever ‘we’ are) but they are also totally illegitimate pseudo-representatives of millions of Jews who had nothing to do with their agenda. Let me give you a historical example:
The vast majority of Bolshevick cadre were Jewish. Something in the range of 75-80% on the top. And the ancestor of the KGB, the Cheka, was over 90% Jewish. But while it would be correct to say that a majority of Bolshevicks were Jews, it would be FALSE to assume that means that a majority of Jews in 1917 were Bolsheviks. Some where, but certainly not the majority who had sympathies with the Socialist-Zionist ‘Bund”, with the Mensheviks, with the Social-Democratic parties around Kerensky and many other small parties.
Same thing with the neocons. Sure the vast majority of them are Jews, but that does NOT mean that the majority of Jews are neocons.
Look at this rather interesting article:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=830250
Kind regards,
VS
I would recommend listening to Paul Gottfried:
http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=319
and Ralph Raico lectures Thoughts on Fascism and World War I: A Failure of State Elites are good:
http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=showname&ID=344
Their descriptions of the ideologies, the movements and the times are very interesting.
Here is some interesting info on Moses Hess, a person many people have never heard of:
http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Gallery+of+People+%28Biographies%29/Hess+Moses
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/hook/1934/12/hess-marx.htm
One of my thoughts on possibly why the neocons came to the right was because many on the left were becoming too critical of Israel for them to do as they wanted. I don’t believe really any of them to be conservative at all. Wolfowitz , I believe, was still registed as a democrat when he was in the administration!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Look at the Names and Corporations, scroll down half way. When you look into these corporations at Yahoo finance, under major shareholders, top institutional holders, the same groups come up over and over. Barclays bank is almost always on or near the top:
http://finance.yahoo.com/
I thought Paul Bremer and his relation to Henry Kissinger was very interesting, as regards to Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer
Can we really say with absolute certainty that there are two different ideologies at work here? Also, look in the back of the Iraq study group report:
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html
Looks pretty interesting.
…Your arguments are both very well posed and reinforced by substantive links…Yet all of this is beginning to take an ominous tone that is, even as we speak, gathering momentum. To comment objectively on Jewry, whether it be generally or pertinent to individuals, and moreover their ideas and actions in the present Political climate The United States find itself in, is to my mind running a very considerable risk of being identified, and recorded as an anti-Semite for future…uhhhh, well, let’s say deterrent action. That which will worsen contingent upon legal opinions and decisions rendered by those Judicial mechanisms as the State deems them necessary to ensure uhhh…OK, Domestic Tranquility…To paraphrase Professor Mearsheimer, anti-Semite is a title that no responsible person would care to assume. Again, we are attempting to negotiate a mine field here Gentlemen…To quote Justin Raimondo “…All your sins on the Internet are permanent.” Thus I do not consider the aforementioned without the realm of possibility…Worse than that I’m a Redneck…a Steinbeckian Okie…An’ hit’s causein’ me to fret a’might.
just something funny I read on the net recently:
an Anti-semite used to be a person who hated Jews, not it is any person Jews hate
)
…I’ll drink to that…some wine I reckon in honor of yore pseudonym. That an’ I’ll be go to hell if you don’t cut one fine line Mister Vine-yard. Or as they say in the Ozarks. ” ‘At man’s sharp as the ayss on’a weasel.” Which, as I’m sure you can imagine is purrty damn sharp. So oncet more, I’m sorry I thot you wuz a womun.
Re: All your sins on the Internet are permanent
What sins?
Oh, right. That…
Nah, just kidding. This isn’t antisemitism of any flavor. This is the blog of an individualist – not a racist.
Mace – you are one cool dude!
Cheers!
VS