If you are going to ask me to do your reading for you, I will have to insist on also being given the power to do your thinking for you.
And when people with Jewish-sounding names accuse the Muslim-y sounding writers of being anti-Semitic (or just having shitty reporting skills), it’s even easier to peg the J00s as running the media, especially when the J00ish donors are in play.
<shrug>
I also don’t believe that most Jews believe a guy who calls Israel an apartheid state to be just another ‘progressive journalist’. :dubious:
But it was the topic of the quote in the OP:
The latter quote is from Charles Lindbergh, in a speech on September 11, 1941 charging Jews with being major agitators for war and warning that if conflict came, they’d be among the first to feel its consequences.
I read through the article and I didn’t see any references in it to AIPAC pushing for war with Iran.
Were you thinking of a different article.
Anyway, please produce some evidence to prove AIPAC is pushing for war with Iran.
Thanks
Then what is the reason?
Really glutton? If it’s not a conspiracy masterminded by AIPAC, you’re stumped?
How about the fact that support for Israel and opposition to the Palestinians is broad and deep on both sides of the political spectrum in America and that anti-Israel sentiments aren’t a rallying cry for most folks beyond the lunatic fringe in America? And that’s just for starters.
Immediately falling back on conspiratorial nonsense about how powerful forces are subverting American democracy, especially when there is a wealth of information strongly suggesting alternate hypotheses, is probably not your best bet.
He did not ask you to read for him, buit to point out the stuff that you claim makes your point. The stuff in the OP’s link is mostly concerned with the fight among the bloggers and the references to Israel wanting a war with Iran are vague and unsubstantiated.
If you think there is any seriuous meat in the article, quote it, otherwise your snide remarks appear to be a way to avoid actually responding to the question posed to you.
I would not claim that Cheney and Rumsfeld were “led around by the nose,” but only because they were neck deep in neo-con beliefs and were often out leading the charge.
The section regarding the Clinton years on the linked Wikipedia article gives a modestly accurate description of the way that the neo-cons shaped Bush’s desires to go attack Iraq on the least provocation, (or, as actually happened, with no provocation). Bush announced in 1999, during the earliest months of his run for the presidency, that he thought attacking Iraq was a good idea.
I would largely agree with this post. Fear Itself had said they were “led around by their nose” and I was asking for examples of this.
Also, I’m really not sure how much “the neo-cons” really did shape the foreign policy because the real drivers for it, Cheney and Rumsfeld, generally haven’t been considered “neo-cons”(admittedly a relatively vague term that has often been used haphazardly comparable to the way many on the right use the term ‘liberal’).
The Neo-con movement is not that vaguely defined and Cheney is a part of it. I would not put Rumsfeld in the middle of that pack, but he did (to my surprise) sign on with several of the PNAC letters to various other politicians.
As to its shaping of foreign policy, a HUGE aspect of the Bush actions against Iraq were based on Wolfowitz’s ideas and Wolfowitz is as much a Neo-con as Leo Strauss, (even having been a student of Strauss).
By the way, readers who are interested in an actual scholarly analysis (as opposed to Walt and Mearsheimer’s potboiler) of The Israel Lobby is Hiding Under Your Bed hypothesis, might be interested in this PDF from a Columbia University professor of political science.
from the article I cited:
(bolding mine)
There are other places in the article where it is alleged that AIPAC favors war with Iran, but no hard support along those lines. However, the Web has enough references that a reasonable person could reasonably draw that conclusion.
Here’s an article on "AIPAC’s War with Iran Bill"
Hell, check out AIPAC’s own website and look at all the alarmist articles about Iran
There are a lot of weird-ass right wing groups like Stormfront who are also keen on calling AIPAC pro-war as part of their general dislike of all things Jewish. But you can scratch all those and still get a pretty good idea that AIPAC has a “lets you and him fight” attitude wrt the US and Israel.
I’ll grant you there’s no hard evidence in the article that AIPAC is pushing for war with Iran, but there are several allegations in that they were, which Ibn said he did not find. To wit:
I cited one with the relevant portion bolded.
The article is accusing the pro-Israel lobby (Jews with money) as controlling American foreign policy, but there is no evidence of this. Rosenberg is well-known for his criticism of Israel and making as many unfair remarks as possible to get himself publicity. The -bergs of the world tend to get more press when they go off on anti-Israel rants.
PEE ESS: There is nothing exaggerated about the alarm of Iran having a nuclear weapon (re: your use of the word ‘alarmist’). It isn’t good for Israel or the U.S. In case you haven’t noticed, IR wars are usually done by proxy first. Maybe you want Iran as a world leader, but I don’t.
No you didn’t.
You cited a sentence where the author claims that “accusers”, whom he doesn’t name, want a war with Iran. He does not say that they are AIPAC officials.
I’m sorry, but that statement is utterly moronic. AIPAC must be pushing for war with Iran because “the Web has enough references that reasonable person could reasonably draw that conclusion.”
You can find lots of references on the Web to Obama being a Muslim or that he was born in Kenya. That hardly makes it reasonable to believe so.
Calling that bill a “War with Iran Bill” is utterly stupid.
The bill is regarding imposing new sanctions on Iran. We don’t consider tariffs against Apartheid South Africa, “War on South Africa” bills.
Moreover, nowhere in the article is there even presented any evidence that AIPAC actually pushed for the bill.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that the US government and Iran have a long history of hostility towards each other and the US government has reasons to be hostile towards Iran and overreact regarding Iran that have nothing to do with Israel.
For example, I’m sure you remember when Iran stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and held several hundred Americans hostage for a year-and-a-half. Similarly, many in the US have very strongly believed that the government of Iran was behind the blowing up of over two hundred US soldiers in the Beirut Baracks bombing and many also strongly believe that Iran was behind the Khobar Towers bombing.
Additionally, during the Iraq War Iran almost certainly was supplying the insurgents with weapons they needed to kill American servicemen, kidnapped a number of members of the UK Royal Navy, and may or may not have had members of the Revolutionary Guard attack American soldiers and most certainly did kidnap some American hikers from Iraq.
In short, there are lots of reasons while American politicians, particularly hawkish ones, would want to impose sanctions on Iran that are not related to any desire to get money from Jewish donors.
Having “alarmist” articles on Iran on their website is hardly proof that they’re pushing for war with Iran. Lots of gay rights, women’s rights, and even plenty of Iranian American websites regularly display and link to “alarmist” articles on Iran but that hardly means that they’re pushing for war with Iran.
I think I’ve made a reasonable conclusion based on what I’ve read, but if you want to believe otherwise, go ahead. To be fair, I do have one reservation about the notion that AIPAC is pushing a war with Iran, which is that, as I said before, I see that Israel has little to gain and a lot to lose if a war with Iran breaks out. Perhaps they think war with Iran is inevitable and they’d rather fight them now than later. Still, there is no doubt that they do everything they can to pump up Iran as the latest Big Bad Whom We All Must Fear And Not Think Rationally About. You know, like Iraq was in the build-up to the Iraq war.
Well, given that the Bush Admin’s major propaganda tool in the build up to the Iraq war was claiming that “OMG Iraq has weapons of mass destruction! Nukes! They gonna nuke us!” I tend rather to think that whenever people trot out this line they are trying to provoke an irrational response. That is, that such alarm IS precisely and completely exaggerated.
No, you didn’t.
Do you really not have any cites to substantiate your claims?
Do you really not spot the massive fallacy underlying that?