← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Jack Cassidy
Thread ID: 16874 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2005-02-21
2005-02-21 17:09 | User Profile
[size=3][font=Times New Roman][u][color=blue]http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=4894<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
| **[color=black][font=Georgia]Baiting a Trap for Bush? |
| [color=black][font=Georgia]by Patrick J. Buchanan |
| [font=Georgia]**I**f |
[color=black]
2005-02-21 17:30 | User Profile
Pat probably didnt want to say it, but i suspect he thinks it was a mossad hit to goad the US into a war with syria and possibly iran.
If Syria's Bashar Assad was behind the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon, he is, in the edited version of Gen. Tommy Franks' phrase, "the dumbest ... man on the planet."
In a round-about way, Pat again points out who the real benefactor is
There is no vital U.S. interest in Lebanon. There is no vital U.S. interest in the Gulf other than oil, which the Arabs and Iran have to sell to us and wish to sell to us. No Arab nation has attacked the United States since the Barbary pirates, and none wants war with America. Only Osama, Sharon and the neoconservatives look longingly to a "World War IV" and a "clash of civilizations" between America and Islam.
2005-02-21 18:09 | User Profile
Pat probably didnt want to say it, but i suspect he thinks it was a mossad hit to goad the US into a war with syria and possibly iran.
If Syria's Bashar Assad was behind the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon, he is, in the edited version of Gen. Tommy Franks' phrase, "the dumbest ... man on the planet."
In a round-about way, Pat again points out who the real benefactor is
There is no vital U.S. interest in Lebanon. There is no vital U.S. interest in the Gulf other than oil, which the Arabs and Iran have to sell to us and wish to sell to us. No Arab nation has attacked the United States since the Barbary pirates, and none wants war with America. Only Osama, Sharon and the neoconservatives look longingly to a "World War IV" and a "clash of civilizations" between America and Islam.
2005-02-23 00:22 | User Profile
Cui Bono? Syria was welcomed by the Lebanese majority as a counter-force to restrain the pro-Zionist Phalangist thugs.
Only Tel Aviv gains.
2005-02-23 17:31 | User Profile
To double one's energy when one has lost sight of his goal is a definition of fanaticism. For America's good and his own legacy, President Bush must cease listening to those who have an agenda ââ¬â ideological or otherwise ââ¬â other than the national interests of the United States.
Yes Pat. And I just saw a pig soar past my window on white, angelic wings.
Buchanan seems to be living in a fantasy world where George W. Bush is an honest, noble, and patriotic man who has been lead slightly astray by a few rogue handlers. The fact is that he and Cheney hand-picked the team of neoconservative handlers to begin with. If, like the Reagan administration, there were individuals on board who acted as a counterweight to the neocons, one could excuse Bush's actions as naivete. The fact that there are no non-neocon voices left that have his ear says more about Bush than it does about the neos.
2005-02-23 22:42 | User Profile
Now more than ever it is crystal clear "who benefits".
It's far too long to post here but everyone...certainly everyone here...should download the following to hard disk and READ it.
[url]www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf [/url]
The events of this still-new century.....yes, [I]including [/I] 9/11....have all been orchestrated by [I]the only players with something to gain in all this[/I]: Jews, and those in their thrall.
Pat won't say it, Sam only hinted at it and Sobran has come closer still. But pragmatism aside, they [I]all [/I] know it down to the soles of their shoes. [U]It's the Jews, stupid[/U].
2005-02-24 05:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Now more than ever it is crystal clear "who benefits".
It's far too long to post here but everyone...certainly everyone here...should download the following to hard disk and READ it.
[url]www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf [/url]
The events of this still-new century.....yes, [I]including [/I] 9/11....have all been orchestrated by [I]the only players with something to gain in all this[/I]: Jews, and those in their thrall.
Pat won't say it, Sam only hinted at it and Sobran has come closer still. But pragmatism aside, they [I]all [/I] know it down to the soles of their shoes. [U]It's the Jews, stupid[/U].[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the link.
I think nearly everybody knows this in their hearts. But as Orwell so brilliantly described, the great majority of us hide this truth from our conscious minds - we lie to ourselves - for fear of the Inner Party.
2005-02-24 06:09 | User Profile
By blaming the Tribe 100% you let the Regime's other dominant factions: the Plutocracy; the Dispensationalist "Left Behinders" and the feudalist Arab states off the hook.
Recall that in 1984 Emmanuel Goldstein was on the outs with the Inner Party...
2005-02-24 06:23 | User Profile
Look again.
"Jews, [B]and those in their thrall[/B]."
One can be used by another while believing all along he is in an alliance or partnership yet pursuing separate goals.
And really, by now "Jews" doesn't mean [I]just Jews [/I] but corporate oligarchs, one-worlders, crazed Xian Zionsts, etc, as well. What puts "Jews" at the top of the list is the [I]who benefits [/I] factor. If 100,000 crazed Southern Babtists send $ to Israel and pressure their legislators to toe the Likudnik line, who benefits?
Southern Baptists?
2005-02-24 06:35 | User Profile
There's more than one thrall at work here...though geo-politically the Zionists would certainly gain most by a neutered Damascus. I'll grant you 85%--just not 100.
Junior's deracinated WASPs aren't entirely marionettes of Abe, Inc.
2005-02-24 08:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]Pat probably didnt want to say it, but i suspect he thinks it was a mossad hit to goad the US into a war with syria and possibly iran.[/QUOTE]
On the McLaughlin Group, Buchanan speculated that Al-Qaeda may have been behind the assassination, in the hope of luring the United States into yet another suicidally insane war of aggression in the Middle Eastern Tar Baby.
[quote=Patrick J. Buchanan]Only Osama, Sharon, and the neoconservatives look longingly to a "World War IV" and a "clash of civilizations" between America and Islam.
Here Buchanan correctly notes that Al-Qaeda and the Likudiks have identical aspirations with regard to the future direction of U.S. foreign policy, which taken with PJB's McLaughlin Group comments, could easily be construed as him saying the Mossad is just as likely as Al-Qaeda. And considering Mossad's history in Lebanon, and the proximity of their base in "Israel"/Occupied Palestine, and the lack of any such history of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon, and the absence of any proximity to their main bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, tends to suggest that the Mossad is actually a far more likely source of these attacks. But Buchanan doesn't want his syndicated column dropped by nearly every major newspaper, the way Sam Francis's column was dropped by nearly every major newspaper when he essentially endorsed the program of Jared Taylor at an American Renaissance conference. He's probably correct to suspect that would happen, if we were to start blaming acts of Middle Eastern terrorism on the Mossad's desire to goad Bush into a wars with Syria, Iran, etc.
2005-02-24 08:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Buchanan seems to be living in a fantasy world where George W. Bush is an honest, noble, and patriotic man who has been lead slightly astray by a few rogue handlers..[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. Pat's been around these blocks more than a few times in his distinguished career. All he's doing is calculatingly picking his target(s) to get the most bang for the buck. Like it or not, Bush is untouchable, but his Israel-first advisors may not be, at least to the GOP/Middle America rank and file. Pat's trying to drive a wedge in between said advisors and Bush and he's been pretty consistent in this tack since nine eleven.
2005-02-24 09:34 | User Profile
This may be a variation of the [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/lavon-affair]Lavon Affair.[/url]
It is possible al-Qaida did this. They certainly would benefit by another Zionist inspired invasion and so would the Zionists. (for the short term) It is funny to note how often al-Qaida objectives and Zionist objectives coincide with one antoher. Right now I lean towards the Israelis by a nose.
2005-02-24 10:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]Pat probably didnt want to say it, but i suspect he thinks it was a mossad hit to goad the US into a war with syria and possibly iran.
In a round-about way, Pat again points out who the real benefactor is[/QUOTE]I suspect you are correct. He has always danced around certain issues to some extent, but he seems to be getting more outspoken about these things. I am starting to gain more respect for him every time I read one of his articles.
[font=Georgia][QUOTE]
[font=Georgia]There is no vital <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />
[QUOTE]If an independent investigation points to Syrian complicity, Assad must be held accountable. But President Bush would be wise to suspend judgment and take no rash action. For this atrocity has the look of a false-flag operation to goad a volatile president into an attack on
:thumbsup:
[QUOTE] Buchanan seems to be living in a fantasy world where George W. Bush is an honest, noble, and patriotic man who has been lead slightly astray by a few rogue handlers. The fact is that he and Cheney hand-picked the team of neoconservative handlers to begin with. If, like the Reagan administration, there were individuals on board who acted as a counterweight to the neocons, one could excuse Bush's actions as naivete. The fact that there are no non-neocon voices left that have his ear says more about Bush than it does about the neos [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, I do agree with this somewhat, as well.[/font]
2005-02-24 11:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]And considering Mossad's history in Lebanon, and the proximity of their base in "Israel"/Occupied Palestine, and the lack of any such history of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon, and the absence of any proximity to their main bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, tends to suggest that the Mossad is actually a far more likely source of these attacks.[/QUOTE]
The Rafiq Hariri carbomb assassination is eerily similar to that of [URL=http://www.answers.com/topic/elie-hobeika]Elie Hobeika[/URL] back in 2002, just when the Phalangist leader was just about to testify in Ariel Sharon's war crimes trial about his involvement in the Sabra/Shatila massacres of 1982.
[QUOTE]Elie Hobeika was killed, along with his driver and bodyguards, by a car bomb in Beirut, Lebanon on 24 January 2002. 22 pounds of TNT was placed in a nearby sedan which was detonated; four oxygen tanks in Hobeika's car amplified the explosion. A previously unheard of group calling itself "Lebanese for a Free and Independent Lebanon" sent a fax claiming responsibility, calling Hobeika a "Syrian agent"; the group has not been heard from since.
Elie Hobeika was scheduled to testify against Ariel Sharon about his involvement in the massacre in a Belgian court's trial for crimes against humanity. A Belgian senator, Josy Dubie, was quoted as saying that Hobeika had told him several days before his death that he had "revelations" to disclose about the massacres and felt "threatened". When Dubie had asked him why he did not reveal all the facts he knew immediately, Hobeika is reported to have said: "I am saving them for the trial". Lebanese Interior Minister Elias Murr has accused Israel of being behind the act, citing a trace on the license plates of the sedan; this was staunchly denied by Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres.
As one critic suggested at the time, "Hobeika was a Syrian agent, working for the Syrian government at the time of the Massacre. Any testimony he might present against Sharon in Belgium would never have been taken seriously in a court of law, and it is likely that if he tried to testify, he would be arrested. It is likely that the Syrian security services feared that he would reveal their complicity in the massacres and simply killed him to shut him up."[/QUOTE]
2005-02-24 11:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]By blaming the Tribe 100% you let the Regime's other dominant factions: the Plutocracy; the Dispensationalist "Left Behinders" and the feudalist Arab states off the hook.
Recall that in 1984 Emmanuel Goldstein was on the outs with the Inner Party...[/QUOTE]
The Jews are a "necessary, but not sufficient cause" of our difficulties.
They're not the only problem we face, but their presence makes dealing with them nigh unto impossible.
2005-02-24 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Jews are a "necessary, but not sufficient cause" of our difficulties.
They're not the only problem we face, but their presence makes dealing with them nigh unto impossible.[/QUOTE]
Chip away at their weakest points and most fragile alliances. The Third Temple/Red Heiferist nexus is a good place to insert an anti-NWO wedge.
The Tribe has never been monolithic...plenty of "Righteous Hebrews" among the good guys.
2005-02-24 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't think so. Pat's been around these blocks more than a few times in his distinguished career. All he's doing is calculatingly picking his target(s) to get the most bang for the buck. Like it or not, Bush is untouchable, but his Israel-first advisors may not be, at least to the GOP/Middle America rank and file. Pat's trying to drive a wedge in between said advisors and Bush and he's been pretty consistent in this tack since nine eleven.[/QUOTE] I think this is accurate, but I also think Pat does tend to give Dubya a little too much credit. Remember his prediction that Bush would clean house if he won the election, and turn the neocons out? I thought that was wishful thinking at the time, and events have shown I was correct.
2005-02-24 18:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't think so. Pat's been around these blocks more than a few times in his distinguished career. All he's doing is calculatingly picking his target(s) to get the most bang for the buck. Like it or not, Bush is untouchable, but his Israel-first advisors may not be, at least to the GOP/Middle America rank and file. Pat's trying to drive a wedge in between said advisors and Bush and he's been pretty consistent in this tack since nine eleven.[/QUOTE]
His strategy has been working well, hasn't it? I mean, just any day now Shrub will take Pat's advice and replace Chertoff with Joe Sobran. The idea that sparing Bush direct criticism will get Buchanan and his faction a seat at the GOP table is fantasy at best. The fact is that the people who are receptive to the truth about Israel-firsters are also anti-Bush, while almost everybody who is pro-Bush is also pro-Israel. So what does Buchanan gain strategically by never attacking Bush? It isn't as though attacks on Bush are some great taboo that would cost him his column and TV slots either, unlike racial remarks.
Which leaves us with two possibilities. Either Buchanan knows that Bush is an idiot and an opportunist and just won't say it, in which case talk of "driving a wedge" is wasted breath, or else he's naive and genuinely believes that Bush is "a good man" and something other than a neocon tool at heart.
2005-02-24 20:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE]His strategy has been working well, hasn't it? I mean, just any day now Shrub will take Pat's advice and replace Chertoff with Joe Sobran. The idea that sparing Bush direct criticism will get Buchanan and his faction a seat at the GOP table is fantasy at best. [/QUOTE] His strategy has been working as well as anything we've been doing. It's important to understand the psychology of Bush supporters; they support him because he appears to be one of them. An attack on Bush produces irrational anger in them, which is naturally directed at the messenger. And it is worth remembering that Jewish fears are not always irrational. Ginsberg's warnings reflect historical events; from time to time gentile elites have consolidated their power by forming a top/bottom alliance and cutting the Jews out of the loop. Buchanan seems continually to push for this result, and a central feature of his strategy is to assure the current corrupt elite that it will be forgiven if it mends its ways.
2005-02-24 20:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]It's important to understand the psychology of Bush supporters; they support him because he appears to be one of them. An attack on Bush produces irrational anger in them, which is naturally directed at the messenger. [/QUOTE]
All true, but I would say that somebody who thinks Bush is "one of them" is too far gone politically to be reasoned with anyway. Somebody who thinks that Bush is "one of them" is anti-"racist" and pro-Israel to begin with, so appealing to them on the grounds that the special-ed President has been misled by anti-racists and Zionists will fall on deaf ears. By attacking neocons, Buchanan is alienating such people anyway, so why not just be honest about it and attack the enabler Bush as well? All PJB's strategy does is alienate those people who oppose both neocons AND Bush.
Don't believe me? Take a look at Free Republic, and see if sparing Bush his attacks has won PJB any friends among the Bush-admiring rank and file. They hate him just as much for attacking Sharon and Wolfowitz as they would if he just told the truth about Bush himself (assuming, of course, that Buchanan isn't deceiving himself as to Bush's actual nature). Better still, show me a single victory (or, as il ragno would point out, even one minimized defeat) that the "drive the wedge between Bush and neos" has won? If anything, Bush is even more impervious to reason today than he was in 2000.
2005-02-25 06:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Ginsberg's warnings reflect historical events; from time to time gentile elites have consolidated their power by forming a top/bottom alliance and cutting the Jews out of the loop. Buchanan seems continually to push for this result, and a central feature of his strategy is to assure current corrupt elite know that it will be forgiven if it mends its ways.[/QUOTE]
That's a very astute observation. I think that's exactly what PJB's game plan is. Not that I think it's necessarily a winning strategy, but I think it's legitimate to try.
I think that Jews must be worried their coalition partners abandoning them. The recent film "People I Know" was an explicit warning from the "left" that white gentile liberals can break with Jews and blacks if this crappola continues. Rising "anti-Semitism" both here and in Europe on the left is a very healthy sign.
Jews have placed heavy hedge bets on what amounts to a "Trotsyite right" (yes, it really does get that strange), but one can only wonder how long that can last without a major backlash.
I sure hope it blows up in their faces.