tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post1941621594485702602..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: American Deep StateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42846525857668911272014-02-11T19:51:40.380-08:002014-02-11T19:51:40.380-08:00"Actually if you read the book "The Isra..."Actually if you read the book "The Israel Lobby", bush did not even originally want to invade Iraq. Immediately after sept 11, pro-Israel neocon Paul wolfawitz kept pestering bush with his Saddam Hussein obsession. Cheney had to tell wolfawitz to stop because it was annoying bush so much."<br /><br />Wolfowitz is not an Israeli. A neocon, an American Jew, but not an Israeli. There's a difference - for example, Israelis, unlike neocons, don't give a flying f--- about bringing "democracy" to Arabs and Muslims, and were horrified by the neocons' idiotic support for the disastrous "Arab Spring." Wolfowitz was the GWB administration's main proponent of the neocon "spread democracy" ideology, and that was his real motivation for pushing the Iraq war (although he no doubt believed the WMD claims made by the intelligence agencies).<br /><br />Israel does not control its American supporters. To state the obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82254397948567427112014-02-11T13:13:11.089-08:002014-02-11T13:13:11.089-08:00Actually if you read the book "The Israel Lob...Actually if you read the book "The Israel Lobby", bush did not even originally want to invade Iraq. Immediately after sept 11, pro-Israel neocon Paul wolfawitz kept pestering bush with his Saddam Hussein obsession. Cheney had to tell wolfawitz to stop because it was annoying bush so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8053196251127170292014-02-11T06:00:55.083-08:002014-02-11T06:00:55.083-08:00"He DID listen to them"
Does it occur t..."He DID listen to them"<br /><br />Does it occur to you that Israel was probably giving that public "advice" (if it were real "advice," wouldn't it be given privately?) because the Bush administration, which was already set on war with Iraq, asked it to? No doubt the noise from Israel helped scrape up enough Democratic votes in Congress to authorize the invasion. The Israeli government thought it was doing Bush & Cheney a favor. Alas, they miscalculated, as did we.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-11865113459476382222014-02-10T23:58:18.043-08:002014-02-10T23:58:18.043-08:00.
Also, the whole Iraq issue was quite periphera.... <br /><br /><i>Also, the whole Iraq issue was quite peripheral to Israel, which would have preferred our concentrating on Iran, the much greater danger to them. Too bad GWB didn't listen to them</i><br /><br /><br />He DID listen to them:<br /><br /><br /><b>Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack<br /><br />By DAN COLLINS CBS August 18, 2002, 2:47 PM<br /><br />http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/<br /><br />Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.<br /><br />Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.<br /><br />"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."<br /><br />The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.<br /><br />As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.<br /><br />"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Iraq told the United Nations on Friday that it will continue to discuss the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, but it insisted on conditions that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already rejected.<br /><br />In a 10-page letter to Annan, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri reaffirmed an Iraqi offer to hold a round of technical negotiations but he insisted they focus on outstanding issues related to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as well as "practical arrangements for the return of the inspection system in the future."<br /><br />Sabri was replying to a letter from Annan that rejected Iraq's proposal to have chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Iraqi experts determine outstanding disarmament issues of mass destruction and figure out how to resolve them before inspectors return to the country.<br /><br />Also on Friday, President Bush said he knows there are "very intelligent people" who doubt the wisdom of attacking Iraq.<br /><br />But he says Saddam Hussein is "thumbing his nose at the world" -- and must be ousted.<br /><br />Speaking to reporters near his Texas ranch, the president vowed to make his own decision -- based on the best intelligence available.<br /><br />Gissin also said Israel was not seeking to dictate the timing of a U.S. military campaign but said that, faced with the threat of one, Saddam was fast developing weapons.<br /><br />While the Israeli government backs U.S. action against Iraq, there is also concern in Israel that in response, Iraq would launch missile attacks against Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel.<br /><br />During the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S.-led forces pushed back an Iraqi invasion of neighboring Kuwait, Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles — none of them with chemical or biological warheads — causing few casualties but extensive damage.<br /><br />In an interview published Friday, Ben-Eliezer told the daily Yediot Ahronot that Israel would surely become a target during such a conflict and would consider retaliation in coordination with U.S. forces.<br /><br />"We will be one of the main targets," he told the newspaper. "What I told the Americans, and I repeat it: 'Don't expect us to continue to live with the process of restraint. If they hit us, we reserve the right of response.'"<br /><br />Iraq has few chemical and biological weapons, Ben-Eliezer said. "We are taking this into account and we are prepared. But we are so far away from this right now that all this hysteria is simply unnecessary," he said.</b>Uplatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66128369792450014422014-02-10T21:19:34.063-08:002014-02-10T21:19:34.063-08:00"Hunsdon wondered: What is it with the neocon..."Hunsdon wondered: What is it with the neocons and the Marine Corps? Admittedly dealing with a small sample size, but of the three children of prominent neocons serving in the military, all are in the Corps.<br /><br />"Maybe they just wanted to be the best? (It is my completely objective and unbiased conclusion that, while all the branches of the US armed service have made valuable contributions to various missions, the Corps is where it's at.)"<br /><br />It impresses me that of the U.S. armed forces, the Marine Corps comes closest in character to one of those grand old British regiments that prides itself on a long and highly distinguished history and in its own peculiar traditions. My late father, who was a Marine (WWII vintage), once remarked to me that the Corps, when he was part of it, reminded him of Wellington's army, in that it was a force of accomplished ruffians led by the sons of the aristocracy. To what extent this is true today, I have no idea.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2831058518236923082014-02-10T20:23:56.339-08:002014-02-10T20:23:56.339-08:00James Kabala said: Joseph Kristol, son of Bill an...James Kabala said: Joseph Kristol, son of Bill and grandson of Irving, is a Marine. <br /><br />Hunsdon wondered: What is it with the neocons and the Marine Corps? Admittedly dealing with a small sample size, but of the three children of prominent neocons serving in the military, all are in the Corps.<br /><br />Maybe they just wanted to be the best? (It is my completely objective and unbiased conclusion that, while all the branches of the US armed service have made valuable contributions to various missions, the Corps is where it's at.)Hunsdonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65612678323316880482014-02-10T19:38:14.734-08:002014-02-10T19:38:14.734-08:00"Interesting to see that the Ledeens, unlike ..."Interesting to see that the Ledeens, unlike so many other neocons, are not chickenhawks."<br /><br />Joseph Kristol, son of Bill and grandson of Irving, is a Marine. This is surprisingly little known - I guess because it was not yet true at the time the Iraq War began. (He became one upon Harvard graduation in 2009.) James Kabalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02335302113772004687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38463178719305316292014-02-10T19:30:19.781-08:002014-02-10T19:30:19.781-08:00"with all these Jews in the government under ..."with all these Jews in the government under all these administrations, they'd make a successful effort to have Jerusalem recognized as Israel's capital."<br /><br />The US controls the UN?<br /><br />.<br /><br />"That's not to excuse the actual actions of the neocons, but you should expect them to have very smart children."<br /><br />The high IQ isn't the problem. The low/zero stewardship is the problem.<br /><br />.<br /><br />"Australia getting a taste of diversity:"<br /><br />This is happening everywhere and on a scale most people wouldn't believe because they wouldn't be able to believe how much the media is lying.<br /><br />It doesn't stop once all the white people are driven out either as the gang culture created becomes self-perpetuating.<br /><br />In the neighborhoods in the process of being conquered the victims are mostly white but after white people are cleansed it carries on but with mostly non-white victims.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37317406616310639012014-02-10T19:17:21.370-08:002014-02-10T19:17:21.370-08:00"I think that Libertarian dogma is as wrong a..."I think that Libertarian dogma is as wrong as Communist dogma...I think that the chief motivation for the birth of these twin ideologies was the desire of their inventors to make their audience blind to ethno-racial competition."<br /><br />Correct.<br /><br />.<br /><br />"You state that it's impossible or prohibitively costly to close the borders. Of course it's possible. It's not even hard."<br /><br />It is spectacularly easy. All you need to do is punish employers of illegal labor. If there's no demand the supply will go down.<br /><br />Whenever the elite are serious about stopping something they go for the demand as much as the supply e.g. anti-smoking campaigns. When they are pretending they just go for the supply.<br /><br />.<br /><br />"Just a very few days ago you were arguing strenuously in favor of marriage, and children within marriage, and objecting to those who believe that its benefits were peripheral. Now marriage and children within marriage is the doom of the Republic."<br /><br />The argument was that the people accruing the benefits of marriage themselves - including the ability to be nepotistic - were actively seeking to deny those benefits to others thus giving their group a competitive advantage.<br /><br />So this post is a perfect example of the previous point.<br /><br />.<br /><br />"What is it with you people? Yes, people have children, some of their children go into trades similar to or adjacent to their own, and people often have political views similar to their fathers."<br /><br />The MSM constantly attacks eurowhite people on the basis that disparate impact is de facto racism.<br /><br />Both the MSM and the neocon foreign policy establishment display spectacular disparate impact so if the MSM apply to themselves the same standard they use to attack eurowhite people the spectacular disparate impact displayed within the MSM and neocon foreign policy establishment is the result of anti-eurowhite racism.<br /><br />Simple.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24288629445705118992014-02-10T18:53:02.415-08:002014-02-10T18:53:02.415-08:00"21. David Wurmser is the husband of Meyrav W...<i>"21. David Wurmser is the husband of Meyrav Wurmser."<br /><br />And who’s ever heard of either one?</i><br /><br />I would expect that everyone who comments at this blog has heard of David Wurmser. What's more, most will *remember* hearing of him. That's quite a memorable name.<br /><br />He was a major PNACker and one of those "25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened."ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39635449338860845862014-02-10T18:38:18.052-08:002014-02-10T18:38:18.052-08:00Art Deco said: Ask me a non tendentious question ...Art Deco said: Ask me a non tendentious question relevant to the point, and you might merit an answer.<br /><br />Hunsdon said: The reason we oppose the Kagans is not so much that they are clannish, but that they are wrong, and that when they are wrong, the consequences are high, and the consequences are paid in American blood and treasure, while the Kagans sail merrily along.<br /><br />It is not tendentious to ask if the Rask family has advocated policies with such a cost.Hunsdonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50447117455278907622014-02-10T18:35:58.865-08:002014-02-10T18:35:58.865-08:00Anonydroid at 2:41 PM said: The seriousness of th...Anonydroid at 2:41 PM said: The seriousness of this writer is indicated by his telling us we should take Obama's word for it when he says (to make his dim-witted Jewish donors feel better) that he is "pro-Israel." <br /><br />Hunsdon said: I'll have you know +1SD! How dare you slur our Ashkenazi overlords with the phrase dim-witted.Hunsdonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13510530698840111142014-02-10T18:08:32.610-08:002014-02-10T18:08:32.610-08:00Don't hate...
http://diaryofahollywoodstreetk...Don't hate...<br /><br />http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5869373365525447362014-02-10T17:38:07.511-08:002014-02-10T17:38:07.511-08:00Or the Nobel Prize, where those determining select...<i><b>Or the Nobel Prize, where those determining selection lack any nepotistic influence whatever.</b></i> <br /><br />Sure.<br /><br />The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html%22" rel="nofollow">members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90383346998232546832014-02-10T16:51:46.473-08:002014-02-10T16:51:46.473-08:00"The whole point" is inane. Why not stic...<i>"The whole point" is inane. Why not stick to the friggin' issues and lay off the cruddy little ad homs?</i><br /><br />You clearly miss "the whole point". This is sticking to the issues, it just happens to be an issue that you'd prefer people not notice.<br /><br />Those superficial differences you point to like party affiliation are just that: superficial differences that conceal shared concerns and interests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32618354539179006542014-02-10T16:16:48.117-08:002014-02-10T16:16:48.117-08:00Never heard of Rask. What unnecessary wars resulti...<i>Never heard of Rask. What unnecessary wars resulting in the unnecessary death and maiming of thousands upon thousands of Americans (never mind the other guys) did he promote? </i><br /><br />Ask me a non tendentious question relevant to the point, and you might merit an answer.Art Decohttp://wwrtc.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62510326765041054602014-02-10T16:02:28.880-08:002014-02-10T16:02:28.880-08:00I think the NYT hates Putin as much as the neocons...I think the NYT hates Putin as much as the neocons do. Both it and the neocons hate China, but not as much as they hate Russia. I really don't see the differences between them as being all that large. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52493843319912073872014-02-10T15:11:01.921-08:002014-02-10T15:11:01.921-08:00"As I remember, the NYT championed the Iraqi ..."As I remember, the NYT championed the Iraqi WMD claim."<br /><br /><br />http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/nyt-editors-briefly-flagellate-themselves-for-their-role-in-fomenting-iraq-war-then-move-on.html<br />(...)<br /><i>Brooke Gladstone of “On the Media” asked Bill Keller about the May 2004 editor’s letter apologizing, but oh so properly, for the Times coverage that had paved the way for the war in Iraq.<br /><br />Keller [solemnus voce]: I think both Jill and I would probably put that at the top of our list of things we wish we’d done differently, that is to say, things that we wish we’d done sooner. I think it would have been wiser and healthier for the paper and its credibility if I’d taken that bull by the horns first thing and said, you know what, we screwed up here, and the way we screwed up was we fell too hard for the conventional wisdom about Saddam Hussein and we let some of the reporting run a little wild.<br /><br />Abramson: I completely agree.<br /><br /><br />My wife was enraged. She said, We’re in three wars right now, and no one knows what they’re about, and This is all the Times editors give us by way of apology.<br /><br />They supported the war, I said. Keller did. Should they step down? Nick Lemann (dean of the Columbia School of Journalism) spoke at Columbia a couple of years ago and said that of all the people writing at the New Yorker in 2003, he was the only one to oppose the Iraq war</i><br />(...)<br /><i>P.S. After Larry Eagleburger died the other day, they had Leslie Gelb formerly of the Times now of the Council on Foreign Relations eulogizing him on NPR, and Gelb said that Eagleburger had been brave to oppose the Iraq war in the face of all the establishment pressure to support it. But this is precisely why Gelb supported the war, out of careerist instinct</i><br />(...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-999920162370791472014-02-10T15:03:50.142-08:002014-02-10T15:03:50.142-08:00"As I remember, the NYT championed the Iraqi ..."As I remember, the NYT championed the Iraqi WMD claim."<br /><br />http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/nyts-keller-infers-iraq-war-aimed-to-save-israel-from-a-holocaust.html<br /><i>NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller pens a tortured mea culpa about his support for the Iraq War, stopping short of a full apology because he “couldn’t have known better at the time.” Along the way, he drops this stunning revelation about where his and his colleagues’ priorities lie:<br /><br />That leaves the elusive weapons of mass destruction. We forget how broad the consensus was that Hussein was hiding the kind of weapons that could rain holocaust on a neighbor or be delivered to America by proxy.<br /><br /><br />Which neighbor fears a “holocaust,” I wonder?</i><br />(...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81389566903461887992014-02-10T14:49:33.318-08:002014-02-10T14:49:33.318-08:00This one's special, Steve. I've quoted an...This one's special, Steve. I've quoted and linked to it, but it has also inspired me to do a "Deep State" cartoon here;<br /><a href="http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/02/deep-doo-doo-in-deep-state.html" rel="nofollow">Deep Doo-Doo In The Deep State</a>Baloohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08245765878554696634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33232409193868768502014-02-10T14:48:18.465-08:002014-02-10T14:48:18.465-08:00"As I remember, the NYT championed the Iraqi ..."As I remember, the NYT championed the Iraqi WMD claim."<br /><br />That was 12 years ago, in the news columns, not the editorials. The reporter whose work you're referring to left the Times soon thereafter, and is not fondly remembered.<br /><br />Also, the whole Iraq issue was quite peripheral to Israel, which would have preferred our concentrating on Iran, the much greater danger to them. Too bad GWB didn't listen to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86761899220583631902014-02-10T14:43:07.479-08:002014-02-10T14:43:07.479-08:00Art Deco Said ....
"Ever heard of Norman Ra...Art Deco Said .... <br /><br />"Ever heard of Norman Rask? He is an agricultural economist at Ohio State University. His daughter, son, and daughter-in-law are all economists. Is that less sinister because they're Danish and not Jewish? Or is it only sinister if you're a historian? How 'bout the van Doren clan? Can an academic family get a break if they cross disciplines?"<br /><br />Never heard of Rask. What unnecessary wars resulting in the unnecessary death and maiming of thousands upon thousands of Americans (never mind the other guys) did he promote? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4910192202879986562014-02-10T14:41:39.877-08:002014-02-10T14:41:39.877-08:00"You implied that Obama is anti-Israel. He..."You implied that Obama is anti-Israel. He's more pro-Israel than he is pro-Arab or pro-Muslim. He says so and I think that his actions testify to it. He's not as pro-Israel as GW Bush was or as McCain or Romney would have been, but that's a difference of degree."<br /><br />How is Obama "more pro-Israel than he is pro-Arab or pro-Muslim"? Demanding that Israel give up its ability to defend itself (by getting out of the Jordan valley) and instead rely on "guarantees" from the ever-so-reliable US and its PC-addled military does not sound very "pro-Israel" to me. Nor does demanding that Israel give up any right of Jewish access to the Temple Mount. Or our tacit sponsorship of Iran's attaining nuclear status, which Iran objects to only because Obama is trying to keep it tacit rather than explicit.<br /><br />It is pretty idiotic to say that the difference between the general "liberal" positions on Israel (as manifested by the putrid Obama administration and NY Times editorials) and the "neocon" position on Israel (as manifested, say, in the Weekly Standard) is "not enormous." Unless, of course, the speaker is someone who believes the Jews should just be driven out of the land or made to live under Arab rule in a one-state solution (pretty much the same thing). Then, I suppose, the differences between Obama and Bill Kristol on Israel would appear trivial.<br /><br />The seriousness of this writer is indicated by his telling us we should take Obama's word for it when he says (to make his dim-witted Jewish donors feel better) that he is "pro-Israel." That's as believable as Obama's claim that the IRS does not have even a "smidgeon of corruption."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38170338065750584392014-02-10T14:02:37.796-08:002014-02-10T14:02:37.796-08:00That's the whole point. They're not repres...<i>That's the whole point. They're not representative of the population at large and they concentrate in these centers of power.</i><br /><br />"The whole point". 'Neo-conservative' is pretty much a nonsense term when not referring to a specific collection of publicists associated with the Committee for the Free World, etc. That aside, Phillip Weiss' list of 'neo-conservatives' includes four prominent Democrats (only one of whom was known to have an affinity for Henry Jackson's politics), a mainline Chamber-of-Commerce Republican of the sort for which Norman Podhoretz did not have any affinity, several academics (most of whom did not publish on topical political questions0, a politician in Israel, a manufacturer in Philadelphia, a career Treasury official, and a law student who used to write copy for Condoleeza Rice. If your definition of 'neo-conservative' is a first degree relation of someone who wrote opinion pieces for publications x, y, and z between 1968 and 1992, listing the 1st degree relationships as if it were indicative of anything is lame.<br /><br /><br />"The whole point" is inane. Why not stick to the friggin' issues and lay off the cruddy little ad homs?Art Decohttp://wwrtc.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61964144579867244182014-02-10T13:56:26.282-08:002014-02-10T13:56:26.282-08:00"What this commenter means by "pro-Israe...<i>"What this commenter means by "pro-Israel" is being opposed to annihilation of all Israeli Jews, but supporting the Palestinians' other goals."</i><br /><br />You implied that Obama is anti-Israel. He's more pro-Israel than he is pro-Arab or pro-Muslim. He says so and I think that his actions testify to it. He's not as pro-Israel as GW Bush was or as McCain or Romney would have been, but that's a difference of degree. <br /><br />Just to make clear, I'm against anyone who supports the annihilation of any group of people. <br /><br />Is the NYT neocon? No, it's liberal, but the differences between these two positions aren't enormous. As I remember, the NYT championed the Iraqi WMD claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com