Speakeasy forum

General discussion

More insight on Joe Wilson?

by hh / November 10, 2005 2:58 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: More insight on Joe Wilson?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: More insight on Joe Wilson?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
How could anti-Semitism be a motive....
by Josh K / November 10, 2005 3:18 AM PST

....for leaking his wife's name?

This is not about what kinds of prejudices Joe Wilson might have. It's just more "shoot the messenger" BS.

Collapse -
I think this was more of a attempt
by hh / November 10, 2005 5:39 AM PST

to make the administration look bad, by any means, including blaming the ''neocons'' (codeword=Jews).
Ever notice how everytime neocons' names are mentioned, you have the usual suspects? Wolfowitz, Pearle, Freeh, Kristol, Adelman (notice any similarities here).
I have not read it, but according to this article, Joe Wilson's book is full of accusations that you find on the left media and with leftist intellectuals (?), blaming the neocons for the war in Iraq and war against terrorism, under false pretext and motives. If that is not anti-semitism, I don't know what is.

Collapse -
All the same....
by Josh K / November 10, 2005 5:42 AM PST

....I think suggesting that Wilson's reports on the Niger thing were the product of anti-Semitism is a stretch to put it mildly.

Collapse -
Read any of the anti-neocon rhetoric
by Evie / November 10, 2005 10:50 AM PST
In reply to: All the same....

Even you can't possibly miss the anti-semitism. Bottom line: no war for Israel. DK's favorite "conservative" (Reese) and Rob's (Buchanan) are also on board.

Collapse -
This is the first I've
by Dan McC / November 10, 2005 5:58 AM PST

ever heard neocons described as having anything to do with jews. If it's a codeword it is probably from the same code book they used to decipher the intel from prewar Iraq. In other words, inaccurate in the extreme.


Collapse -
You apparently have been living under a rock
by Evie / November 10, 2005 10:52 AM PST
In reply to: This is the first I've

... and not even paying attention to the several references to that very same insinuated slur here in SE.

Collapse -
Could you provide
by Dan McC / November 10, 2005 11:39 PM PST

any links to references to such language?



Collapse -
Here are some
by hh / November 11, 2005 12:44 AM PST
In reply to: Could you provide

From the following link (this is just a few paragraphs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

The neoconservative-influenced Project for the New American Century called for an Israel no longer dependent on American aid through the removal of major threats in the region. Moreover, some neoconservatives have long advocated that the United States should emulate Israel's tactics of pre-emptive attacks, especially Israel's strikes in the 1980s on nuclear facilities in Libya and Iraq.

Some opponents of neoconservatives have sought to emphasize their interest in Israel and the relatively large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives, and have raised the question of "dual loyalty". A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled as anti-Semites by many neoconservatives (which in turn has led to accusations of professional smearing, and then paranoia, and so on).

Many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot. Furthermore, neoconservatives in the 1960s were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became preoccupied by Israel's security interests. They promote the view that Israel is the US's strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region, aside from Turkey (George W. Bush has also supported Turkey in its efforts to join the European Union...........

Here is another link: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
(an excerpt)
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

Collapse -
One more link
by hh / November 11, 2005 12:51 AM PST
In reply to: Could you provide
Collapse -
Try here
by duckman / November 11, 2005 5:22 AM PST
In reply to: Could you provide
Collapse -
The importance of Israel's
by Dan McC / November 11, 2005 2:36 AM PST
In reply to: This is the first I've

geopolitical position to the neocons is well known. That extends to those who oppose the neocons being antisemitic only with a huge, tendon shredding, joint dislocating stretch.

Does anyone have anything reliable supporting the equating of anti-neocon with antisemitism?



Collapse -
I think the message here is
by hh / November 11, 2005 5:15 AM PST

Not everyone who is anti-neocon automatically is anti-semitic. By the same token, not everyone who is opposed to the war is an anti-American. However, in trying to describe who the neocons are and what their agenda is, always refering to Israel as being the reason US went to war in Iraq, or identifying the names of the neocons that imply a cabal (read Jewish) of people with ulterior motives trying to hijack American foreign policy, is anti-semitism. Are those people saying that the US administration is under the control of Jewish Americans? If so, need I say more?

Anyone who believes these fairytales must think so low of the USA that it is pathetic.

Collapse -
I hope I am not
by Dan McC / November 11, 2005 5:32 AM PST

alone in being able to distinguish between the geopolitics of the state of Israel and members of the jewish religion.

Statements regarding one are not tied to the other.


Collapse -
First you said
by hh / November 11, 2005 5:25 AM PST

''This is the first I've ever heard neocons described as having anything to do with jews''
Then you asked for a proof. After I posted the link now you say:
''Does anyone have anything reliable supporting the equating of anti-neocon with antisemitism?''
All you have to do is, read the statements by those people (e.g. Pat Buchanan)who are always faulting the neocons for the Iraq war and invariably you will see the connection that you seem to be missing.

Collapse -
It is just that connotation
by Dan McC / November 11, 2005 5:35 AM PST
In reply to: First you said

that I have not seen. Do you have any examples that extend negative statements regarding neocons past the geopolitics to include jews in general?

That would be more of an indication of what was accused earlier in the thread.


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Does the charge of "dual loyalty" count?
by hh / November 11, 2005 5:38 AM PST
Collapse -
Perhaps, do
by Dan McC / November 11, 2005 5:45 AM PST

you have many examples of that?


Collapse -
I am sure you can find many...........
by hh / November 11, 2005 5:54 AM PST
In reply to: Perhaps, do
Collapse -
It seems that
by Dan McC / November 11, 2005 6:22 AM PST

many are confusing the state of Israel with the jewish religion. I've seen nothing in your offering to support any claim that attaches antisemitism to anti-neocon sentiments.


Collapse -
No matter how much evidence I show
by hh / November 11, 2005 7:59 AM PST
In reply to: It seems that

if you don't want to believe it, you won't.
Some of us may have a better understanding of certain issues and some of us may find certain issues as non-issues. Thats what makes life interesting. I am not trying to convince you, only you can do that, but having followed this issue for many years I think there is more to it than what appears on the surface.
And I am not the only one.

Collapse -
I certainly hope that
by Dan McC / November 14, 2005 2:09 AM PST

there is more to it than is in the evidence you've offered so far, which is close to nil. Based on such evidence I would be hard pressed to believe that the sky is blue, as would any reasoning person.

It just seems that this is a most scurrilous accusation to make without some pretty firm evidence.


Collapse -
Anti-Semitism would be irrelevant to what he says & does
by Kiddpeat / November 10, 2005 11:39 AM PST

with respect to the Iraq War and President Bush? Wow!

Collapse -
Why does everyone gloss over the statement
by duckman / November 10, 2005 5:54 AM PST

the he thought WMD's and nuke-u-lur material would be found?

Collapse -
Boy does he have his history wrong. Lindbergh continued to
by Ziks511 / November 10, 2005 5:58 AM PST

be a force into 1941, despite possibly losing a few Jewish supporters. There was a significant anti-Semitic component to the America First anti-war movement and it this anti-jewish sentiment was frequently stated by Senators and Congressmen that "America will not go to war just to save a few Jews". In fact the Roosevelt administration was criticized as being too sympathetic to Jewish causes, and too beholden to "New York Jews", also a common phrase at the time in both Republican and newspaper commentary. Father Coughlin, a Catholic radio broadcaster often addressed diatribes naming "Franklin Double-Crossing Rosenfeld", or Rosenberg or any number of variations, and these occurred right up to December 6th 1941.

Despite all this the United States disbelief of clear evidence, and their refusal to accept refugees above a certain small yearly quota was appalling, and this was from an Administration supposedly controlled by "Jews". For a German Jew to emigrate to the United States, they had to produce a valid passport (outlawed in 1938) and a certificate of good conduct from the local police. since all Jewish affairs were the purview of the SS and the Gestapo, that meant getting a good conduct from the very people intent on exterminating them.

Perhaps you all know this in detail, if you do you are the largest number of people in one group I have found outside the Jewish community itself.


Collapse -
Father Coughlin
by EdH / November 10, 2005 8:20 PM PST

Though you don't say it you sort of imply that Father Coughlin was a Republican. He was indeed a bigot and anti-semite, he was also a Democrat and to the left of FDR in many ways.

Collapse -
Thanks sooo much for the history lesson.
by Ziks511 / November 14, 2005 12:59 PM PST
In reply to: Father Coughlin

If I didn't say he was a Republican, you can be pretty sure I didn't intend to imply it. When have I ever shied away from calling a Republican a Republican, or better yet, a Republican extremist?

I assume that since you had to fabricate or work hard to misconstrue something in my post to disagree with, you are willing to agree with the rest of it, at which point that makes it a high point in the history of SE. In the past I've had the grace to agree with you on occasion, perhaps you'd like to extend the same courtesy.

By the way, and speaking of bigots, FDR was deeply dependent upon Dixiecrats the children of whom are now the backbone of the Republican South. Now as a Democrat I'm glad to be rid of them.


Collapse -
I guess you didn't like being caught out...
by EdH / November 14, 2005 8:23 PM PST

trying to mislead people. Too bad, so sad.

If I didn't say he was a Republican, you can be pretty sure I didn't intend to imply it.

Are you saying that if you wanted to IMPLY he was a Republican you would have SAID he was? Quite an admission. Clearly you WERE trying to imply it. Anyone reading that post would come to that conclusion.

BTW I don't agree or disagree with anyone as a meatter of courtesy. I agree/disagree if I agree/disagree. Anything else would be dishonest not to mention insane.

As for the Dixiecrats, I suggest you direct your comments to Robert Byrd.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.