Jewish Homeland Security Nominee Tied To 9/11 Financiers
Bernard Kerik may have been a corrupt adulterer, but according to damning citations in the Texas Sate University Star, homeland security chief nominee Michael Chertoff has served as counsel for accused terrorist financier Dr. Magdy Elamir. According to quotes attributed to Republican Senator Ben Gillman, Elamir “had financial ties with Osama bin Laden for years.”
The lawyer who has defended him is going to be our homeland security chief? I’d rather have the corrupt thieving adulterer. Heck, if the toughest thing they had to do (according to Mr. Ridge) was deciding the terror threat color codes, they might as well appoint one of the Bush twins.
why is this surprising? bush one made bin laden.
This wreaks of trying to pin the whole 9/11 thing on Jews and Israel. Meanwhile, the Bush family still continues to have serious financial ties to the Bin Laden – Saudi Arabian royal terror family. I don’t like the idea of a Jew being Secretary of Homeland Security. Its too suspicious. Why would a historically antisemitic family (and their cohorts) want so many Jews (Wolfowitz, Perle) and so on in control of these policies. Often I have been hearing these days by so called progressives, “Its not Bush. Its the people around him.” We know what that means.
In a way, this is a good qualification for the job: it means he got up close and personal with the intimate details of how Islamist terrorist networks function.
Often I have been hearing these days by so called progressives, “Its not Bush. Its the people around him.” We know what that means. Yeah — as in Adbusters. Judging American Jews by a small group of neocons makes no more sense than, uh, judging American Jewish filmmaking by a small group of Hollywood filmmakers.
8opus, then you would agree that Hillary Clinton embracing Suha arafat during a diplomatic greeting was a good thing as well?
“Whether or not Chertoff had prior knowledge of Elamir’s alleged connections to Diaa Mohsen and bin Laden is UNKNOWN.”
when the bush twins win er are given political offices im making aliyah.
I like the idea of a defense attorney being the Sec’y of Homeland Security. Who else would be better acquanted with the civil liberties issues involved?
Daniel Rosen: “Often I have been hearing these days by so called progressives, ‘Its not Bush. Its the people around him.’ We know what that means.”
8opus: “Yeah — as in Adbusters.”
Is it progressive when Buchanan or Novak say it? And what’s new over at Justice’s AIPAC probe? Never would have thought Adbusters was so powerful.
Zionista – I agree with you full heartedly. Just the “socialism of fools” really gets to me. I sort of expect this kind of thing out of Buchanan or Novak.
have the corrupt thieving adulterer. “Yep sounds like Israel to me”.
8opus, then you would agree that Hillary Clinton embracing Suha arafat during a diplomatic greeting was a good thing as well?
No, I do not think that Hillary Clinton gained special insight into Islamist terrorism by embracing Suha Arafat.
To reiterate, Chertoff’s “good thing” comes from having — he’d have to have — delved deeply into the details of how the terrorist networks are structured, presumably including access to privileged information he wouldn’t have otherwise had access to.
You seem to think that defending the guy means that Chertoff personally supports him, his politics, his crimes, whatever. Where did you get that idea, though?
Is it progressive when Buchanan or Novak say it?
Um, no. Nor is it progressive when self-entitled progressives say it. But what are you driving at, exactly?
Never would have thought Adbusters was so powerful.
Where did you get the idea that Adbusters was so powerful?
8opus: “Um, no. Nor is it progressive when self-entitled progressives say it. But what are you driving at, exactly?”
I’m saying that, while antisemitism can be found in varying degrees wherever politics happens, the antisemitism on the left is hardly as potent or dangerous as it is on the right. In case you haven’t noticed, the left is quite impotent (sorry if the sarcasm of that “powerful Adbusters” comment was too subtle). The right, on the other hand, has a firm grip on the levers of American political power and the ability to exploit the twisted rhetoric that makes “neocon” a synonym for “Jew.” The Bush administration’s aversion to accountability makes for an unfortunate recipe in which guys with names like Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, or Kristol become something more than the individual conservative hacks that they are.
Check this out for more
http://tinylink.com/?nINxN4zhPt
Ah. We were talking about being annoyed with left-wing antisemitism. You’re saying that (1) one should stay mum about left-wing antisemitism, because (2) the left-wing doesn’t really matter much.
I disagree with both propositions. The left wing matters a great deal, for instance, to me.
“The right, on the other hand, has a firm grip on the levers of American political power and the ability to exploit the twisted rhetoric that makes “neocon” a synonym for “Jew.” ”
Ability to exploit = exploitation?
Looks to me that the right’s main role thus far has been to promote the neocons to power. Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!
Maybe it has to do with the trade deficit.
8opus: “You’re saying that (1) one should stay mum about left-wing antisemitism, because (2) the left-wing doesn’t really matter much.”
I am? Show us where, please.
J: “Looks to me that the right’s main role thus far has been to promote the neocons to power. Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!”
Check it out. Jew=neocon.
“Check it out. Jew=neocon.”
I’ve been hearing that coming mostly from the left. With the exception of fringe paleoconservatives (like Buchanan), almost entirely from the left.
J, you said it yourself: “Looks to me that the right’s main role thus far has been to promote the neocons to power. Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!” You use the administration’s promotion of neocons as evidence against antisemitism. And now you say the equivalence only comes from the left? (Doesn’t that make you something of a useful idiot in Stalinist terms?)
So, tell us how the left controls the FBI counterintelligence probe of AIPAC. Tell us how an editor at Adbusters has an echo chamber to the extent of a Buchanan or Novak from NewsMax and Townhall, through talk radio and newspaper syndication, to MSNBC and CNN?
“J, you said it yourself: “Looks to me that the right’s main role thus far has been to promote the neocons to power. Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!” You use the administration’s promotion of neocons as evidence against antisemitism. And now you say the equivalence only comes from the left? (Doesn’t that make you something of a useful idiot in Stalinist terms?)”
Can anyone explain what the above means? (And a word to the tone-deaf: When I said “Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!” I was being sarcastic.)
“So, tell us how the left controls the FBI counterintelligence probe of AIPAC.”
Did I say that EVERY instance of anti-semitism (if that’s what the AIPAC probe is) comes from the left? And are we assuming that every government action is a right-wing initiative?
“Tell us how an editor at Adbusters has an echo chamber to the extent of a Buchanan or Novak from NewsMax and Townhall, through talk radio and newspaper syndication, to MSNBC and CNN?”
You must be getting tired of typing the names “Buchanan” and “Novak”. Obviously many other right-leaning commentators have the ear of the conservative media consumer, and nearly all of these are pro-Israel. I know nothing about Adbusters, but small, obscure media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, CNN, CBS and ABC tend to lean left.
You that (1) responded to my comment about left-wing antisemitism by labelling it irrelevant because omnipresent, arguing that the subject should be changed to right-wing antisemitism, and grounding all this in the idea that (2) in case you haven’t noticed, the left is quite impotent.
I wrote: You’re saying that (1) one should stay mum about left-wing antisemitism, because (2) the left-wing doesn’t really matter much, and disagreed.
I am? You are what, exactly? Show us where, please. Well, I’d love to help you out, but you’ll have to be more specific.
In case it’s not obvious, I think J is absolutely right in criticising the trope of Jew=neocon, and absolutely right that those who claim to be left-wing have really to learn to be capable of criticising their fellow travellers if they’re to have any credibility it all.
I think the new topics that Zionista has brought up regarding antisemitism in and around America’s right wing — Buchanan, Novak, AIPAC, FBI, etc. — are important, too. I’m not sure how they’re related to the conversation, though.
The fact is, the people who insist ‘neocon’ is what people say when they really mean ‘Jew’ are right wingers like Joel Mowbray at right wing soapboxes like TownHall.com
“The fact is, the people who insist ‘neocon’ is what people say when they really mean ‘Jew’ are right wingers like Joel Mowbray at right wing soapboxes like TownHall.com”
Yes, because the right-wingers are criticizing the anti-semites. It would be nice to see the left-wingers do that. But since many of the left-wingers ARE the anti-semites, I won’t hold my breath waiting.
It’s such a shame today’s left thinks so little of the Jews. Why can’t they be more like the old left, led by philosemites like Marx and Stalin? Oh, wait…
J: “It’s such a shame today’s left thinks so little of the Jews. Why can’t they be more like the old left, led by philosemites like Marx and Stalin? Oh, wait…”
Are only Communists leftists? Or can any old liberal join?
The conservative echo-chamber’s leftist du jour Barbara Boxer cosponsored the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act in the Senate last year.
John Kerry, who Dick and Dubya often attacked as the “most liberal Senator” has a perfect pro-Israel voting record (Jewish Virtual Library — http://tinylink.com/?wfQV69Lcav ).
Meanwhile over in Europe, French socialist Francois Zimeray and German Ilke Schroeder of the United European Left led the effort in the European Parliament to audit EU funding of the Palestinian Authority. And every red blooded American’s rhetorical punching bag, Jacques Chirac leads France’s conservative party.
8opus: “You that (1) responded to my comment about left-wing antisemitism by labelling it irrelevant because omnipresent, arguing that the subject should be changed to right-wing antisemitism, and grounding all this in the idea that (2) in case you haven’t noticed, the left is quite impotent. ”
You seem to believe that the greater threat from antisemitism exists on the left. I maintain that the greater threat emanates from the right. At your introduction of Kalle Lasn’s antisemitic “neocon enemies list” editorial (I traded a few angry emails with Adbusters too back then), I questioned your sense of perspective. In my opinion, the left is quite impotent (would you like to argue otherwise?) and there is an issue of priorities.
J: “I know nothing about Adbusters, but small, obscure media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, CNN, CBS and ABC tend to lean left.”
Sure. That explains difference between “Rathergate” and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth [sic].
8opus: “I think the new topics that Zionista has brought up regarding antisemitism in and around America’s right wing — Buchanan, Novak, AIPAC, FBI, etc. — are important, too. I’m not sure how they’re related to the conversation, though.”
It was in response to your and Daniel Rosen’s tangent on the whole “blame the Jews” approach to foreign policy discontent. I think it’s pretty important stuff to discuss too. Which brings us back to perspectives on what’s good and not so good for the Jews, and the implications of his defense of Magdy Elamir on Michael Chertoff’s qualifications for Homeland Security czar.
You seem to believe that the greater threat from antisemitism exists on the left
I find that strange. Why do you think I believe that the greater threat from antisemitism exists on the left?
It was in response to your and Daniel Rosen’s tangent on the whole “blame the Jews” approach to foreign policy discontent.
No; “blame the Jews” is too general. This was more specific: “label the Jews neo-cons”. As in: hiring a Jew to head homeland security will only exacerbate the tendency in some corners of the left to equate Jews with neo-cons. That’s no good, so maybe — independently of all the other pros and cons, and there are lots on either side — Chertoff’s appointment isn’t “good for the Jews”
I’m sorry you think that that’s off-topic. That said, there’s a difference between introducing a new topic as a conscious tangent, and introducing a new topic as a response to the topic at hand. The Jew/neocon thing is the former. The Buchanan-not-Adbusters thing is the latter.
t your introduction of Kalle Lasn’s antisemitic “neocon enemies list” editorial (I traded a few angry emails with Adbusters too back then), I questioned your sense of perspective. Luckily, in this world we’re allowed to talk about both. And more! Because we’re allowed to talk about both, “sense of perspective” only applies if left-wing antisemitism is completely irrelevant.
In my opinion, the left is quite impotent… I see. Is the point here that it’s pointless to talk about left-wing antisemitism, since the left wing doesn’t matter? That it’s pointless to talk about anything that isn’t the mostest, the biggest, and the baddest? Or is there some other point I’m missing?
there is an issue of priorities. Sure. Luckily, we all have different priorities, so are not automatons.
I mean, yeah. Some people think that the daily massacres being perpetrated by the Chinese government means that there’s no point in doing anything about crimes committed by Israeli soldiers: there’s an issue of priorities. Some people think that the massacres being perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists means that there’s no point in doing anything about crimes committed by Israeli car thieves: there’s an issue of priorities.
On the other hand, those people are wrong.
8opus: “Is the point here that it’s pointless to talk about left-wing antisemitism, since the left wing doesn’t matter? That it’s pointless to talk about anything that isn’t the mostest, the biggest, and the baddest? Or is there some other point I’m missing?”
You’re trying way too hard to put words in my mouth. Again, I’m not saying it’s pointless to talk about leftist antisemitism. I mean, look around. There is no shortage of opportunities to talk about leftist anstisemitism. Again, antisemitism will occur wherever politics happens. From my perspective, the greater threat emanates from the right. Your lack of any reply beyond a weird censorship complex suggests that you believe it’s pointless to talk about antisemitism on the right, and the circumstances lining up whereby a conservative leadership could be on the verge of fingering a traditional scapegoat for their own failed policy.
Did I miss something? Where is the right -wing anti-semitism? Anyone want to make the case? (Let’s see if we can go beyond the ubiquitous and all-encompassing Buchanan and Novak.)
“Again, antisemitism will occur wherever politics happens.”
Yeah, it’s all equal. What a copout.
“and the circumstances lining up whereby a conservative leadership could be on the verge of fingering a traditional scapegoat for their own failed policy.”
Remarkable. Pure speculation, backed by no evidence, about what some people MIGHT do. All while the left blatantly spews anti-semitism and supports terrorism against Israel.
“Your lack of any reply beyond a weird censorship complex …”
Great diagnosis, Doctor. Why make arguments when you can question people’s sanity?
It’s nice Boxer and Kerry do good things occasionally. You seem to be answering a nonexistent argument – an argument claiming that the Democrats are always anti-Israel. But this is not the argument being made. I argue that the Dems are less consistent in support of Israel than the Republicans. They also tolerate from each other what shouldn’t be tolerated – for example, Democratic Senator (!) Fritz Hollings’ little rant.
“Meanwhile over in Europe, French socialist Francois Zimeray and German Ilke Schroeder of the United European Left led the effort in the European Parliament to audit EU funding of the Palestinian Authority.”
Good for them. But why is auditing funding such a major concession? Shouldn’t we expect it?
“And every red blooded American’s rhetorical punching bag, Jacques Chirac leads France’s conservative party.”
What they call “conservative” in France is not what we call conservative in the USA. It’s naive to be caught up in names.
“Sure. That explains difference between “Rathergate” and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth [sic].”
Could be the difference is between partisan advocates using paid ads on the one hand, and a supposed pillar of the “objective” journalistic establishment using a news show (not a paid ad) to pass off fraud, on the other. Could be.
There is no shortage of opportunities to talk about leftist anstisemitism. Um, yeah. Here, for instance.
From my perspective, the greater threat emanates from the right. This isn’t about “greater threats”. We were talking about leftist antisemitism. What does “greater threats” have to do with that?
You’re trying way too hard to put words in my mouth. Not at all. But I am pointing to what I think is the logical implication of insisting that discussions of leftist antisemitism turn to discussions of Buchanan et al mixed with cries of how unimportant the left is. Speaking of putting words in people’s mouths though, I must say I’m curious about how you arrived at the conclusion that you seem to believe that the greater threat from antisemitism exists on the left. Not true, obviously; but the idea must have come from somewhere.
From my perspective, the greater threat emanates from the right. Your lack of any reply beyond a weird censorship complex… Weird censorship complex? I’m afraid you’ve lost me. Who is being prevented from speaking about what, where?
…suggests that you believe it’s pointless to talk about antisemitism on the right. No, it certainly does not. You’ll note that I haven’t talked about the Taliban, the Dalai Lama, or the Jedi, either. Now, I don’t want you to jump to conclusions: I do think they’re important. Word has it the CBC — that’s our PBS, here — will have Return of the Jedi on next week! But they really don’t have much to do with Michael Chertoff.
But, then, I already addressed this above. I wrote: Chertoff’s appointment isn’t “good for the Jews”. I’m sorry you think that that’s off-topic. That said, there’s a difference between introducing a new topic as a conscious tangent, and introducing a new topic as a response to the topic at hand. The Jew/neocon thing is the former. The Buchanan-not-Adbusters thing is the latter.
J: “Pure speculation, backed by no evidence, about what some people MIGHT do. All while the left blatantly spews anti-semitism and supports terrorism against Israel.”
Did you bother reading the Edwin Black article I linked to above? Or any of the series of articles by Ori Nir in the Forward? (And do you have any evidence that Bush-Cheney & Co. will ever take responsibility and hold itself accountable for any of its promises that it has failed to keep?)
And what is this “left” you are so frightened of, J? Where is the manifesto? Give us a real reason we should be as paralyzed with fear and loathing as you are.
“Did you bother reading the Edwin Black article I linked to above? ”
Did you? According to the article, the conflict is between neocons and the intelligence services. At worst, members of the intelligence services are playing dirty. Why are you assuming that the intelligence services are right-wing? These people run the gamut from liberal to conservative. Few of them are associated with the conservative movement – this is part of why they have a problem with the neocons. They serve under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and their foreign policy views tend to be of the realist variety (check with your handlers for more info). Realists come in conservative, centrist and liberal flavors. These people are not, as a group, right-wing, and have often been at odds with the Bush administration.
“Or any of the series of articles by Ori Nir in the Forward?”
Got a link?
“(And do you have any evidence that Bush-Cheney & Co. will ever take responsibility and hold itself accountable for any of its promises that it has failed to keep?)”
Why don’t you tell us which promises these are? (Or does this also speak to trade deficits?)
“And what is this “left” you are so frightened of, J? Where is the manifesto? Give us a real reason we should be as paralyzed with fear and loathing as you are.”
Paralyzed with fear and loathing? More like disgusted with half-educated, spoiled, self-hating (both American and Jewish) brats who get off on posing as prophets who “speak truth to power”.
“What is this left”? Are you implying that the anti-Israel, anti-American left is a figment of my imagination? Anyone think this is a real question, or just more sophistry from Propagandista?
8opus: “… Weird censorship complex? I’m afraid you’ve lost me.”
Perhaps I misunderstood your comments:
“… I see. Is the point here that it’s pointless to talk about left-wing antisemitism, since the left wing doesn’t matter? That it’s pointless to talk about anything that isn’t the mostest, the biggest, and the baddest? Or is there some other point I’m missing?”
If I misunderstood, then please clarify your meaning for me. Because I never said anything like “it’s pointless to talk about left-wing antisemitism,” but I do argue that right wing antisemitism has a greater potential of being a real threat than left wing antisemitism at this point, and base my argument on the accessibility of the American right wing to a government already dominated by conservative (anti-tax, deregulatory, faith-based) fellow travelers. But if you can’t argue your position without pretending that any counterpoint amounts to a dismissal of it, then how solid is your position to begin with?
J: “What is this left’? Are you implying that the anti-Israel, anti-American left is a figment of my imagination?”
I say you oversimplify when it suits you. You distance Novak and Buchanan from conservative ideas, despite the sustained popularity of either, while you reduce “the left” to “half-educated, spoiled, self-hating (both American and Jewish) brats who get off on posing as prophets who ‘speak truth to power’.” And when I ask you to explain yourself, we get the usual blustering bullshit out of you, like “Anyone think this is a real question, or just more sophistry from Propagandista?”
“I say you oversimplify when it suits you.”
I oversimplify because I have limited time and because no one wants to read a 20-page post. I can’t list every exception and caveat. However, I simplify as fairly as possible, presenting the “average” or general rather than the exceptions.
“You distance Novak and Buchanan from conservative ideas, despite the sustained popularity of either, ”
Your’e not paying attention. I did not distance Novak. I did distance Buchanan, because he has distanced himself. He became a populist in the 90’s, and is today a paleoconservative. He gets little support or approval from conservatives (conservatives did not support his presidential runs, for example). His claim to fame today is as editor of a small magazine which opposes mainstream conservatives as much as it opposes anyone else, and as a loud, entertaining TV figure. He has only a small following, and these are not conservatives as such are known-and elected- today.
Regarding Novak, I never said that every single conservative out there is pro-Israel. I do say that the great majority are, that it’s pretty much become a platform of conservatism to support Israel, and that the support is not just in quantity but in quality. Since the Intifada, even I was pleasantly surprised with the vehemence and vigor of conservative support for Israel.
Novak is a well-known commentator, but he’s just one of maybe two dozen others of equal or greater stature. Not to mention the radio hosts, editors of and contributors to conservative magazines, scholars and think tanks, writers, and elected officials and their staff and advisors. National Review, Weekly Standard, George Will, Buckley and the Heritage Foundation are all far more influential than Novak. All are pro-Israel.
“while you reduce “the left” to “half-educated, spoiled, self-hating (both American and Jewish) brats who get off on posing as prophets who ‘speak truth to power’.”
99 out of 100 people would understand that I’m not literally reducing the Left to what I said above, just presenting an archetype. Some leftists are not even half-educated.
“And when I ask you to explain yourself, we get the usual blustering bullshit out of you, like “Anyone think this is a real question, or just more sophistry from Propagandista?”
It was a bullshit question. Are you looking for a list of writers, magazines, political figures, websites, think tanks, historical figures? What’s your point?
And have you figured out the trade deficits yet?
J: “It was a bullshit question. Are you looking for a list of writers, magazines, political figures, websites, think tanks, historical figures? What’s your point?”
You had asked, in characteristically nasty rhetorical fashion, “Are you implying that the anti-Israel, anti-American left is a figment of my imagination? Anyone think this is a real question, or just more sophistry from Propagandista?”
And my point is that you will not have made a convincing case that an “anti-Israel, anti-American left” is a real and urgent antisemitic threat, or even much more than a figment of your imagination, until you show us what it is. You’ve thrown out a few names, like Al Sharpton and Cynthia McKinney, but you have failed to show how they have any real power to constitute the threat you insist they present. Again, antisemitism can be found anywhere that politics happens. You can also look into the USS Liberty conspiracy theories that never go away thanks to the tireless efforts of antisemitic right wingnuts. Are all conservatives antisemitic? Of course not! But if you want to convince us that there is a real leftist or liberal or Democratic threat to Jews, you have to take the next step and show us how they have and use the power to actually be a threat to Jews, Zionism or Israel. I maintain that the conservative government leadership we have today affords greater access to right wing antisemitism, and such access seldom goes unchallenged. You want more names than Buchanan and Novak, fine. Grover Norquist is a good start, and there are conservative sources, like Frank Gaffney’s series in FrontPage Magazine* for support. But so far all we know about the leftist threat you find so urgent is that you would rather come up with goofs on my screen-name than to take the time to explain it.
*
http://tinylink.com/?G9Cb6PVRxq
“You had asked, in characteristically nasty rhetorical fashion…”
Do you read your own posts?
“But if you want to convince us that there is a real leftist or liberal or Democratic threat to Jews, you have to take the next step and show us how they have and use the power to actually be a threat to Jews, Zionism or Israel.”
OK, that’s a real question. Just off the top of my head (and addressing only the American Left):
The Left poses a threat to Israel and Zionism in that:
It dominates the universities (there are exceptions), and uses this dominance in part to poison students’ minds against Israel, in Mid-East studies departments and in general; it strongly influences the media, publishing and arts worlds (I say influence because a lot of these people are somewhere on the liberal-Left continuum rather than purely Left), which in turn leads to a negative portrayal of Israel in the news and other media (particularly the New York Times, CNN and NBC); it slanders Israel through its own websites and public gatherings. The cumulative effect is to diminish Israel’s image in the eyes of most Americans, who are (understandably) not well informed regarding middle east issues. (Although support for Israel is fairly broad among Americans, I have doubts about how deep it is outside Jewish, Evangelical, old-fashioned-style liberals or conservative circles.) As Israel depends upon the US in many ways (financially, weapons, last-resort defense assistance, etc.), to damage its standing with the American voter is to damage it severely.
Regarding liberals, it depends on which kind. For the liberal/ left, see above. The old-style (New-Deal, pre New Left) kind are less of a problem, though they have a tendency to cave in to pressure from the Left.
The Democratic Party is clearly influenced by liberals and the Left. Though few real Leftists hold office, the Dem’s activist base is far to the Left of the average Democrat voter. The Democrats, even when well-intentioned, have to placate this base at all times.
Aside from this, the worldview of the Left is anti-American and anti-Western. If the Left had its way, the desire on the part of Americans to see themselves as Americans and to take pride in their unprecedented accomplishments would disappear, along with American military power and/or the will to use it. The disintegration of the USA would endanger American Jews, Israel, and everyone else in the world.
Concerning American Jews, Foxman forgive me, but I don’t see any immediate threat from any political direction.
“I maintain that the conservative government leadership we have today affords greater access to right wing antisemitism, and such access seldom goes unchallenged. ”
Heh. I think you meant “challenged”. But you wrote it right the first time. What impresses me about conservatives/ Republicans is that tend to come down on anti-semitism within their ranks pretty consistently. Compare this to the Dems, where any black demagogue gets carte blanche (as if it’s that’s a sign of respect for the black community).
“You want more names than Buchanan and Novak, fine. Grover Norquist is a good start, and there are conservative sources, like Frank Gaffney’s series in FrontPage Magazine* for support. ”
Do you read your own links? Gaffney wrote the story about (condemning) Norquist. So, in addition to Novak (you didn’t answer what I wrote about Buchanan above, so I’ll assume you agree he’s no conservative), you’ve now added Norquist. Total of two. And where did you get the Norquist story from? FrontPage. So isn’t Norquist the exception to the FrontPage rule? And haven’t you provided an example of the right policing itself?
That’ll do for a start.
J: “So isn’t Norquist the exception to the FrontPage rule? And haven’t you provided an example of the right policing itself?”
Yep. But if there wasn’t a threat, Gaffney wouldn’t have written the article and Horowitz wouldn’t have published it, right? Meanwhile, you’re not suggesting that Gaffney and Horowitz are even close to the level of influence on GOP leadership as Gover Norquist are you?
And if it really is a matter of self-policing, then by your own standard you must aquit the left. Check it out….
http://tinylink.com/?SUeVf4lQdo
J: “Aside from this, the worldview of the Left is anti-American and anti-Western. If the Left had its way, the desire on the part of Americans to see themselves as Americans and to take pride in their unprecedented accomplishments would disappear, along with American military power and/or the will to use it.”
Without having established any facts, statements like this are nothing more than empty rhetoric.
And more self-policing from the left….
http://tinylink.com/?Mp4uoGjflI
“Yep. But if there wasn’t a threat, Gaffney wouldn’t have written the article and Horowitz wouldn’t have published it, right? ”
Why would it have to rise to the level of a threat? Wouldn’t Horowitz and Gaffney be disgusted enough on principle about Norquist’s behavior to present an article denouncing him? Wouldn’t they also be concerned about the reputation of conservatism?
“Meanwhile, you’re not suggesting that Gaffney and Horowitz are even close to the level of influence on GOP leadership as Gover Norquist are you?”
I said nothing about the relative ranking of the three. Norquist probably has more influence than the other two, but is regarded as a crank by many in the Republican/ conservative world. Lots of other, better people outrank Norquist.
“And if it really is a matter of self-policing, then by your own standard you must aquit the left.”
You seem to have trouble following the argument. I made a general statement concerning self-policing. I pointed out that you yourself provided an example. I did not say or imply that one example – or five – was determinative of the relative self-policing of the right and left. Showing me two examples- or 50 – will not negate my point. Tell me why, in 2000, Joe Lieberman was pressured to kiss up to Farrakhan. Show me the response to Fritz Hollings and Cynthia McKinney.
“”Aside from this, the worldview of the Left is anti-American and anti-Western. If the Left had its way, the desire on the part of Americans to see themselves as Americans and to take pride in their unprecedented accomplishments would disappear, along with American military power and/or the will to use it.”
Without having established any facts, statements like this are nothing more than empty rhetoric.”
Are you denying this? A look at any website, magazine, book or rally by or from the Left will confirm what I said.
J: “A look at any website, magazine, book or rally by or from the Left will confirm what I said.”
Please…. What have these rallies accomplished? The largest antiwar rallies are now removed by a good two years into history, and even those failed miserably because they were incoherent demonstrations of any ideas and principles at all, let alone liberal ones. The only thing any of this confirms is your motivation by an irrational fear of pathetic undergrads playing cops & hippies. Good luck with all that.
How do you keep missing the point?
I was responding to your disingenuous question re the intentions of the Left. I was not addressing their level of success.
In any case, you focused on the rallies. In fact I largely agree that these rallies were impotent, but I mentioned books and magazines as well. Earlier, I addressed Leftist influence in the academy, the arts and the media, which is what I believes makes the Left a threat.
And regarding the rallies – we could say the same about neo-Nazi and white supremacist rallies, but I doubt that that you don’t find these disturbing anyway.
” let alone liberal ones”
Ahhahahaha. Check out the “no Scotsman” fallacy.
“The only thing any of this confirms is your motivation by an irrational fear of pathetic undergrads playing cops & hippies. ”
Yeah, I’m real irrational. How are those trade deficits coming?