In a message dated 8/16/2005 8:40:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It's possible that she feels she's got evidence to support the claim > that Iraq was about Israel (I'm more inclined to think it's about SA, > but that's me). It's even possible to support a lot of what she's doing > *without* supporting statements that MAY OR MAY NOT BE legitimately > anti-semitic. And it's possible to carry on a rational dialogue with > those you don't agree with *without* trying to paint them as Klansmen. > (You should try it.) > You need to read some history. This is the standard anti-semitic arguement. Even thinking that someone like Wolfowitz could get us into the war to protect Israel is absurd. It is true that the neo-cons support Israel in part because they are Jews but also in part because Israel embodies many of their beliefs about democracy. But why would Bush and Chaney and Rumsfeld do their bidding. The Bushes are old new england wasps in the oil busy who are way too friendly to the Saudis. Do you really think they could be duped by a bunch of crafty jews? Even stating that "she feels she got evidence...." is a copout. There is no credible evidence. This is anti-semitic garbage and you honor it by trying to be "fair". Is Israel part of the Iraq equation? Maybe. But remember it was not the Iraqis who provided most of the support for the Palastinian fighters. It was and is Iran, the Saudis the Syrians. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
