Dan Minette wrote: > > I just read all of Zimmy's posts in this thread and > couldn't find any > > statement which could be construed to mean that the only > reason Perle > > and Wolfie get attention/are known to people is because > they are Jews. > > So, yes, I would like if you could point out the relevant > portions of > > his mails. > > It wasn't that exactly, it was the neo-con/Jewish link.
Well, I was asking for that exact statement, for that is the one Nick responded to. > That is the core of the argument: the neocon caused us to go > to war for the sake of Israel is a anti-Semitic argument. > Gautam, Zimmy, and I are in full agreement on this. Yes, I gathered as much from the mails in this thread. But that argument is not the same as saying that the only reason people have heard of Perle and Wolfie is because they are both Jews. > Turning back to where you got your information, the question > is not so much why someone who gives an interview in Vanity > Fair is well known, its why an undersecretary of defense > would be in a position where Vanity Fair would think he's > newsworthy. His profile was originally raised by his > opponents, with anti-Semitic innuendo. Wolfie was the Deputy Secretary of Defense when he gave that interview to Vanity Fair. Which made him the second highest-ranking official in the US Department of Defense. I submit the [probably shocking] proposal that there is nothing strange or inexplicable about wanting to interview the second highest ranking official in the DoD when a magazine or a newspaper wants a piece on a recently concluded invasion. I also think you are doing Wolfowitz a great disservice here. He has been active in US politics for the last 33 years [except for a period of 4 years in the 1990s, or so Wikipedia informs me]. I'd assume that his profile was raised by his own hard work and ideas. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
