Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Revealed : "How Bill Kristol Purged the Arabists", by Patrick J. Buchanan.

Posted 1 year ago on May 30, 2012, 12:20 p.m. EST by shadz66 (17759)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"How Bill Kristol Purged the Arabists",

by Patrick J. Buchanan.

After taping John Stossel’s show on March 16 in New York, the Mrs. and I took the 10 a.m. Acela back to Washington. Once we had boarded the train, who should come waddling up the aisle but Bill Kristol.

The Weekly Standard editor seemed cheerful, and we chatted about the surge in Mitt Romney’s popularity and prospects.

I did not ask what he had been doing in New York, but thanks to the website Mondoweiss, I found out. Kristol was there for a March 16 “debate” with Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, the pro-Israel organization, at B’nai Jeshurun synagogue on the Upper West Side.

After listening to Kristol, writes Phil Weiss, “I am still reeling.”

“Kristol was treated like royalty and came off as … a Republican Party warlord,” bragging “about how all the hostile elements to Israel inside the Republican Party were purged over the last 30 years — (and) no one (now) dared to question the power of the Israeli lobby.”

“The big story in the Republican Party over the last 30 years, and I’m very happy about this,” said Kristol, is the “eclipsing” of the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realists, “an Arabist old-fashioned Republican Party … very concerned about relations with Arab states that were not friendly with Israel … .”

That Bush crowd is yesterday, said Kristol. And not only had the “Arabists” like President Bush been shoved aside by the neocons, the “Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul type” of Republican has been purged.

“At B’nai Jeshurun,” writes Weiss, “Kristol admitted to playing a role in expelling members of the Republican Party he does not agree with.” These are Republicans you had to “repudiate,” said Kristol, people “of whom I disapprove so much that I won’t appear with them.”

“I’ve encouraged that they be expelled or not welcomed into the Republican Party. I’d be happy if Ron Paul left. I was very happy when Pat Buchanan was allowed — really encouraged … by George Bush … to go off and run as a third-party candidate.”

Kristol’s point: Refuse to toe the neo-con line on Israel, and you have no future in the Republican Party.

Ben Ami seemed equally exultant: “We’ve won the war; we won the war,” he told the audience. Ninety-nine percent of Congress now votes almost 100 percent pro-Israel.

But Ben Ami appeared nervous about how this unanimity in the Congress behind Israel had been achieved:

“I very seriously and absolutely do believe that a significant percentage of American members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are intimidated on this issue (of Israel). … They worry about the ramifications of speaking out. … They are worried about the attacks that they will receive.”

Ben Ami said the 50 members who have criticized Israel are courageous, but, “Another 200 are scared to do it.” Haaretz.com reports Ben Ami as saying congressmen “live in fear” of the Israeli lobby.

Kristol laughed at this and dared Ben Ami to name them.

When Ben Ami brought up the destruction of Palestinian rights on the West Bank and said Hillary Clinton repeatedly raises this issue with Israel, writes Weiss, “Kristol sniggered.”

It’s a “myth,” said Kristol, that Arabs care about Palestinians. The Israeli occupation on the West Bank can last for 45 or 60 years more. Bill Kristol on Palestinian rights sounds like Bull Connor talking about Negro rights in Birmingham in 1965.

Another source says Kristol predicted that Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose voting record is closer to Socialist Bernie Sanders’ than to conservative Jim DeMint’s, will be secretary of state in the Romney administration.

A former head of the Israel lobby AIPAC describes Lieberman as “the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in the Congress.”

Joe led the cheers for our last three Middle East wars — and has pushed for two more, against Syria and Iran.

About Kristol’s comments, a point of personal privilege.

George W. Bush never “encouraged” me to go third party. At the Iowa straw poll in 1999, he asked me to stay in the party, and party chair Jim Nicholson came to my home to make the same request.

At the synagogue, Kristol was never asked about his role in the Iraq War that he and his collaborators pressured Bush to wage as “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight.”

Some 4,500 Americans died in that war, 35,000 were wounded, and 100,000 Iraqis perished, leaving half a million widows and orphans.

Result: U.S. influence in the Middle East is at a nadir. Al-Qaida has spread into Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria and North Africa.

Now the neocons are worming their way into the Romney camp, dropping us hints on whether John Bolton or Joe Lieberman will be the next secretary of state.

Has Gov. Romney imbibed the Kristol Kool-Aid that caused the war and cost the party Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008?

Hard to believe, but we should find out before November.


fiat lux ...


Patrick Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.

[Article copied verbatim under "Fair Use" from : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31445.htm and please refer here to access the extensive number of embedded links.]



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Patrick J. Buchanan : "Is Romney Being Neoconned Into War ?"


Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war?

So it seemed from the declaration in Jerusalem by his adviser Dan Senor, who all but flashed Israel a green light for war, signaling the Israelis that, if you go, Mitt’s got your back:

“If Israel has to take action on its own in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision.”

“No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it.”

What does “stand with” Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while Israeli planes strike Iran?

This would make America complicit in a preemptive strike and a co-belligerent in the war to follow.

What Senor said comes close to being a U.S. war guarantee for Israel, while leaving the decision as to when the war begins to them.

This country has never done that before.

And what does Senor mean by Israel’s need to act “to stop Iran from developing [the] capability” to acquire nuclear weapons?

The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon — reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 — has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb.

Moreover, Iran’s known nuclear facilities are under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Does the government know something the American people are not being told?

Undeniably, Iran, by enriching uranium to 3.5%, then up to 20%, has a greater “capability” than five years ago of building a nuclear weapon. But Japan, South Korea, and Brazil also have that capability — and none has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Gov. Romney did not go as far as Senor, but he, too, seems to be saying that not only is Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon a casus belli for the United States, even an Iran that is capable of building such a weapon is intolerable.

“The regime in Iran is five years closer to developing nuclear weapons capability,” said Romney. “Preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority.”

Preventing what outcome is “our highest national security priority”?

Stopping Iran from building a bomb? Or stopping Iran from being able to build a bomb years from now?

The governor seems to be aligning himself with Israel’s hawks who are demanding that not only must Iran swear off nuclear weapons forever, Iran must cease all enrichment of uranium and dismantle the facilities at Natanz and Fordow.

Romney’s policy is zero enrichment, said Senor. Tehran must understand that “the alternative to zero enrichment is severe, and that’s why the threat of military force has to be critical.”

This is tantamount to an ultimatum to Tehran: Either give up all enrichment of uranium and any right to enrich, or face war.

Here we come to the heart of the issue, which may be impossible to resolve short of war.

Unlike its neighbors Israel and Pakistan, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. The ayatollah has said they are immoral and Iran will not acquire them.

But under the NPT, Iran claims the right to enrich uranium and seek the benefits of nuclear technology. And in that decision, the people of Iran stand behind their government.

Is denying Iran the right to enrich uranium a reason for America to plunge into its fifth war in that region in a generation?

That appears where we are headed. Reportedly, Obama’s national security adviser recently briefed Bibi Netanyahu on the specifics of U.S. contingency plans to attack Iran.

Has Congress been briefed? Have the American people been consulted? Or are we simply irrelevant?

A decade ago, this country sent an army up to Baghdad to overthrow Saddam and strip Iraq of a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons we were told it had and was preparing to use.

We were misled; we were deceived; we were lied to.

Before we outsource to Bibi and Ehud Barak the decision to take us to war with a country three times the size of Iraq, we need to know:

Was the U.S. intelligence community wrong in 2007 and 2011? Is Iran hell-bent on building nuclear weapons? If so, where are they constructing and testing these weapons?

Finally, if Iran is willing to permit intrusive inspections of its actual and suspected nuclear sites but insists on its right to enrich uranium, should we go to war to deny them that right?

But if we are going to go to war again, this time with Iran, the decision should be made in America, according to our Constitution, not by any other country.


fiat pax ...


(© 2011 Creators Syndicate & article copied verbatim under "Fair Use" from : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32032.htm .]

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

"Adelson's Pro-Romney Donations Will Be 'Limitless,' Could Top $100M", by Steven Bertoni :

multum in parvo ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

"Congress Pushes for War with Iran", by Stephen Zunes :

cave - bellum se ipsum alet ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

"Abe Foxman’s ADL Lets Its Bigotry Slip : In its view there are no Palestinian citizens of Israel & “Israelis” support military action against Iran ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31620.htm

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

"Peres to present Obama with signed petition for Jonathan Pollard's release : Israeli President to be awarded the Medal of Freedom by U.S. President; intends to discuss fate of convicted Israeli spy and nuclear talks with Iran.", by Natasha Mozgovaya (June 12, 2012, "Harretz") ;

fiat justitia ...

[-] 4 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Yes, just saw that as you copied it on jart's thread. Thanx for your strong point & link. Laws and international treaties becoming enacted above the heads and beyond the purview of what is left of organised labour bodes ever ill for The 99% and needs Labour Solidarity & Organisation worldwide.

Ergo, Globalise Resistance !!!

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

"Pro-Israel Activists Break New Ground : An Anti-Arab Hate Video : This video has to be seen to be believed. Although it has long been known that AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee and other pro-Netanyahu groups have ties to groups promoting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate, this video represents a new low.", by M.J.Rosenberg : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31680.htm .

multum in parvo ...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Some pretty fucked-up individuals in government.

The people need to regain government ASAP.

Or we are all going straight to a real Hell on Earth World Wide. The demons will be real they will be the corpoRats.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

"Romney aide to Haaretz : After he’s elected, Iran will see there’s a new sheriff in town", by Chemi Shalev (June 09, 2012, "Haaretz") -- "In wide-ranging interview, Former ambassador Richard Williamson says U.S. Republican candidate will make military threats against Tehran credible, arm Syria's rebels, and visit Israel before going anywhere else." :

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

"Norman Finkelstein on Why Obama Doesn't Believe His Own Words on Israel-Palestine" (Video) : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31535.htm .

fiat pax ...

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Pat Buchanan while still an 'old school' conservative does have some good points. He is very much anti-Free Trade. I still wouldn't vote for him or Ron Paul.

[-] 1 points by lkindr (58) 1 year ago

I DID vote for Buchanan in 2000, because he's antiwar and I'll probably write in Ron Paul this year for the same reason. If Paul is good enough for Kucinich, he should be good enough anyone else.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

If Paul is good enough for Kucinich, he should be good enough anyone else.

As an independent thinker I view Paul as a right wing Libertarian.... not my style.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Pat Buchanan or Buch Patanan - "what's in a name" ... it's what the bloke says that American Citizens need to hear !!!

ad iudicium ....

[-] 2 points by lkindr (58) 1 year ago

So you folks don't really mind that the U.S. is immorally warring against other nations etc, and you'll only support pretended antiwar candidates like Obama. I, on the other hand, voted for Buchanan in 2000, Kerry in 04 and Obama in 08, because they all seemed more antiwar. It's ridiculous to be loyal to a Party. The alternative political method at http://GOOOH.com makes much more sense then a Party. That's how the 99% may be able to collaborate effectively.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Most folks here mind Very Much "that the U.S. is immorally warring against other nations" and tho' not really my 'cup of tea' politically, Pat Buchanan has integrity and consistency.

The Faux-Binary ; Two-Factions ; One Corporate WAR Party ; "Demoblican or Republocrat" system really makes little difference internationally, tho' there may be an argument for some (albeit meagre) differences within The U$A. A New Third Party representing The 99% Working People and also True Independents (cf. Bernie Saunders, I-Vt.) is Urgently Needed & The Work Must Start 'B4' Xmas 2012 !!!

fiat lux et fiat pax ...