Article attacks the loyalty of some of the neocons

[_Jumper_]

This is from Al-Jazeera so take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/Feb/28%20o/Neocons%20With%20Dual%20Agendas%20and%20Divided%20Loyalties,%20Michael%20Saba.htm

<Green’s article begins by pointing out that neoconservatives in the Bush administration have effectively “gutted” traditional American foreign and security policy. He states that notable features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force and the undermining of the principal instruments and institutions of international law including the UN all in the cause of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.

Green asks whether the neocons, many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and the Office of the Vice President, had dual agendas while professing to work for the security of the United States against its terrorist enemies. He then proceeds to review the internal security backgrounds of some of the most prominent neocons and concludes that by looking at their security backgrounds, one can answer the questions that he poses in the article.

Paul Wolfowitz was brought into the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) in 1973. He was known, according to Green, for his “strong attachment to Israel’s security”. In 1978 an investigation was conducted after, according to Green, Wolfowitz was “found to have provided a classified document on the proposed sale of US arms to an Israeli official through an AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) intermediary.


Douglas Feith has long been a major supporter of Israel. In 1982 Feith was a Middle East analyst for the NSC initially working under NSC head Richard Allen in the Reagan administration. When Allen was replaced by Judge William Clark, he fired nine staff members including Feith. According to Green, Feith was fired because he had been the subject of an FBI inquiry into whether, without authorization, he had provided classified information to a representative of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.>

[ikojo]

1. The dual loyalty canard...

I don't agree with the neocons but there are others involved in the movement that are not Jewish.

Why single out only the Jewish neocons...

[Journeyman]

3. Check the source. . .

neocon attachments to Israel would mean more to al Jazeerah's readers than other involvements. . .

[_Jumper_]

5. Attachments?

Did you read the article? Wolfy, Perle, Leeden, and Feith are more than attached.

[_Jumper_]

4. I agree

However, it is clear that some of them--a minority of them--are not loyal to America. Read the article.

[mac2]

17. You're right some Neo Cons are.....

Catholics like Justice Scalia. Others are Rev. Moonie, Pat Robertson...Evangelical Protestants, etc. They come in all races and religions...countries.

Justice Scalia wants a Catholic theocracy in America. Sharon wants a world nation under Israel with it's capital in Jerusalem, GW Bush wants world unions under fascism, Moonie wants to rule the world religions, etc.

If you want to follow the money (and they do bankroll both sides) four of the five richest World Bankers are Jewish. Do you not think that influences their agenda for power and wealth? I know one non-Jew on the board is David Rockefeller. Good god..how much wealth and power does one need?

The problem with GW Bush is, he is not keeping these guys from power grabbing..he encourages it. This is why things are such as mess. He should be protecting our democracy from these forces (that are always there to get rid of democracy).

[_Jumper_]

19. "The Jews" are not behind this

Most Jewish neocons are loyal Americans but are just misguided thugs like Rummy and Cheney.

[mac2]

22. I just stated some are...Zionists for Sharon's vision of world rule.

Most Jews oppose this but Bush and Sharon are very serious about it.

[Leilani]

2. This issue has been the subject of much debate

in Conservative circles.

Pat Buchanan, opposes the NeoCons & has been marginalized because he has been accused of anti-Semitism.

[_Jumper_]

7. He is an anti-Semite

As well as a racist. Most of the Jewish neocons are loyal to America. However, a few of them, including Wolfy and Perle aren't.

[mac2]

18. And most the media aren't?

I'd say, there are many Jewish patriots and political action heros. But even they are silenced by their own.

We shouldn't call everyone Anti-Semitc because they blast a Jew or Israel. Sometimes, you don't even identify it as a religion but a country or person. There is a difference between ideology and ethnic group. How can we get this on the table and remove it from our society otherwise?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

8. Most of that stuff is nonsense

n/t

[waterman]

11. Why?... Because you say so? Can you do any better than that?

[_Jumper_]

14. WW I

What was the "Zionist" interest in WW I? Did Zionism even exist back then?

[waterman]

16. Yep, do some reading pal. like I said, I'm trying to find my info and when

I do I'll post it.

[waterman]

20. Start here. I'll put some more up later:

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/sep01/msg00006.html

<...>
> > What few Americans understand is that there has been a long historical
> > alliance--from the end of the 19th century until today- between Zionism and
> > real anti-Semites--from those who planned pogroms in Czarist Russia to Nazi
> > Germany itself. The reason for the affinity many Zionist leaders felt for
> > anti-Semites becomes clear as this history emerges.
> >
> > When Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, served in
> > Paris as a correspondent for a Vienna newspaper, he was in close contact
> > with the leading anti-Semites of the day. In his biography of Herzl, The
> > Labyrinth of Exile, Ernst Pawel reports that those who financed and edited
> > La Libre Parole, a weekly dedicated "to the defense of Catholic France
> > against atheists, republicans, Free Masons and Jews," invited Herzl to
> > their homes on a regular basis.

[Aidoneus]

26. it did exist then

the possible Zionist interest is more periphery than central. I don't subscribe to this theory as a whole, but with respect to Palestine it is somewhat plausible in a sense. They wanted Britain to go to war with the Uthmani Khilafah, so that the British imperialists may occupy Palestine; it was assumed that Britain would assist in Jewish colonization and invasion of the land, which indeed happened (but the British made too many promises to too many people and had to waffle a bit).

I would, however, be cautious at this line of argument. There is a tendency on occasion to attribute far more to "the Jews" than is due to them, for a variety of either unsavory or unknown reasons. (I like that answer, because it'll piss off both the anti-semites and the ADL, neither of which do I really have any use for) I suppose that the mutual usefulness of Zionists & anti-semites exists and is somewhat plausible, but only to a point (and that point lies somewhere between mutual propaganda campaigns and cattlecars).

[mac2]

21. No it isn't..

It's public record.

[_Jumper_]

23. Pehaps

But they were hardly the driving force behind the wars. Every group has had members involved in making profits off of war.

[waterman]

24. Ok....I don't even know if you're still around or if this thread is still

alive but here is one of the sources I went looking for:

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.org/stranger_than_fiction.htm

Hope this gets you and anyone else up the road a little. It's a long one, so try to hang in there. This guy did an awful lot of work. I originally found it on a site called jihad unspun. A site I found quite fascinating and enlightening. Some of it seems like a reach, but a lot of it is probably pretty close.

[_Jumper_]

25. Thanks

But can you post it in another thread? It may cause this thread to be locked.

[Aidoneus]

9. while it is a useful page, this is NOT the al-Jazeera you're thinking of

[_Jumper_]

10. What is the difference?

n/t

[Aidoneus]

12. well,

one is the internet (Arabic & English language services) version of the Qatari satellite network, another is a news/oped collection page based out of Atlanta--different people involved..
http://english.aljazeera.net/ & http://www.aljazeerah.info

[_Jumper_]

13. Thanks

Do these people support Palestinian terrorists?

[Aidoneus]

15. funny question..

I was going to ask about that "grain of salt" remark above, but I don't think it as ambigious now.

at any rate, aljazeerah.info isn't the original publisher of the piece here.