In bid for Adelson’s millions, Rubio announces braintrust of pro-Israel old-timers

US Politics
on 23 Comments

Marco Rubio is now desperate to keep his campaign alive as the credible Republican establishment alternative to frontrunner Donald Trump and the surging Ted Cruz; and yesterday he threw a Hail Mary in a bid for Sheldon Adelson’s funding: he announced a “national security advisory council” that includes many prominent supporters of Israel. The list of neoconservative old-timers is an implicit announcement that Rubio will do everything he can for the rightwing government of Israel.

Sheldon Adelson kept Republican campaigns afloat in 2012. He has not said who he’s supporting this time around. But his number one issue is Israel.

The cravenness of the Rubio list is epitomized by the presence of Dan Senor, the former spokesperson for the US occupying government of Iraq and co-author of Startup Nation, an effort to sell Israel to the U.S. as a technological powerhouse; Norm Coleman, the former Minnesota senator who has Sheldon Adelson links; Eliot Cohen, who urged George Bush to remove Saddam Hussein because “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight;” and Elliott Abrams, the neoconservative eminence grise who said that Jews must stand apart from the society they live in except in Israel.

Another adviser, Aaron Friedberg, was a China hawk in the Bush administration and days after 9/11 called for removing Saddam even if there was no evidence that he had anything to do with the attack on the U.S. Eliot Cohen signed that letter too; it said 9/11 was all about Israel’s enemies:

“Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, … [we must] remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq…

“…any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah…

“Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control… Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.”

Coleman is a proud supporter of AIPAC and once supported the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran. His Adelson link:

A board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a rightwing “pro-Israel” group whose donors include Sheldon Adelson, Coleman has echoed common Republican criticisms of President Obama’s statements on Israel. “Israel’s position has been undermined,” he told the Weekly Standard in September 2011.

The list includes Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon official described as a strong supporter of Israel; former Bush Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff; and former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who lately advised Jeb Bush in his failed presidential bid. Mukasey says in a statement:

[Rubio] is the only candidate with the knowledge and judgment needed to confront radical Islamic terrorism.

Abrams said yesterday he is “delighted” to join Rubio’s team and portrays Rubio as a great student:
He has an innate understanding of America’s important role in supporting freedom and standing up to tyranny. As President he would ensure that our allies respect us again and our enemies fear us.
“Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart–except in Israel–from the rest of the population.”

Mother Jones says the team is the neoconservative dreamteam and points out that it includes many George W. Bush alumni.

Abrams and Cohen were members of the Project for a New American Century, an early-2000s group of neconservatives who pushed for big increases in defense spending, more American military intervention abroad, regime change in Iraq, and other policies that became Bush administration staples. Rubio’s foreign policy vision is basically ripped from the group’s platform: He wants to pour money into expanding the military, ramp up missile defense, get aggressive with both Iran and China, and expand the US role in Syria.

Commenters at MJ are on to the Zionism of the list.

Another adviser, Eric Edelman, who served on Dick Cheney’s staff, says Rubio, who has been in the Senate for five years, will have no learning curve on foreign policy!

As one of the most active members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Rubio will not have a learning curve when he steps into the Oval Office.

Bear in mind that Rubio’s claim on the establishment means less and less, as the Republican Party slowly inches away from Israel support as a core value. As Chemi Shalev wrote in a widely-circulated piece at Haaretz, Trump “is decimating the three legs of blanket Republican support for Israel: Evangelicals, Jews and interventionist hawks.”

The press has pointed out that a Koch Brothers guru in Washington has joined the Rubio staff lately. Let’s see if any of them talk about the Israel lobby in connection with Rubio’s foreign policy advisers.

Here’s the list, from Rubio’s site:

U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
Ambassador Eric Edelman, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Aaron Friedberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President
Kim Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs
Ambassador Robert Joseph, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl
John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy
Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General
Andrew Natsios, former Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development
Dan Senor, former Senior Adviser and Chief Spokesman, Coalition in Iraq
Ambassador Kristen Silverberg, former Ambassador to the European Union
U.S. Sen. Jim Talent
Dov Zakheim, former Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

23 Responses

  1. Krauss
    March 8, 2016, 1:54 pm

    “is decimating the three legs of blanket Republican support for Israel: Evangelicals, Jews and interventionist hawks.”

    This isn’t accurate. The exit polls in SC showed that Trump was beating Cruz with the evangelicals. In most other Southern states they have been fairly close.

    What is really happening is Chemi Shalev freaking out over the Israel lobby’s strangehold over the GOP. It’s the same fear that Bill Kristol has. It exposes his tribalism. He just throws in the Christian element to hide it, in the same way people talk about irrelevant groups like CUFI in order not to talk about Jewish groups like AIPAC(the ones that really matter).

    Neocons are just Jewish nationalists, with a few WASPs sprinkled between. Those WASPs are either craven opportunists or Islamophobes who view Zionism as a conduit to advance their bigotry(think Niall Ferguson or similar odious types).

    The truth is, the GOP base may not like the Palestinians but if there was ever an open debate in the GOP media about the causes of interventionism(the neocon/Zionist takeover of the conservative media), they would quickly abandon the Israel right or wrong cause.

    This is why Buchanan was purged, because the neocons/Zionists know this. It’s why you can smell the fear even at a distance from people like Kristol or his “liberal” helpers like Chalev. I saw the other day that the former ADL bigot, Foxman, was comparing Trump to Hitler. This is a man who has been uncompromising about his support for an Apartheid state(and paid no social price for it, ever).

    What we will likely now move to a contested convention. This is Rubio’s long-term play. Trump probably knows what is going on but he’s savaged at every turn now. Not just in ads from the GOP establishment but I’ve noticed the general media taking a much harder line now. This limits his responses.

    Trump’s at his strongest when talking about foreign policy. It’s why he crushed Jeb! in SC. But after all these “Trump = Hitler” attacks in the media lately, he can’t talk about the Israel lobby and the Rubio campaign, because the Foxman-type Jewish supremacists would seize the moment, aided by neocons and “liberals” like Chalev, Chait and the rest of the gang.

    For Rubio, the hope is that these influencers will grant Rubio the nod at the convention.

    A part of me kind of hopes that Rubio would get it during back-room deals at the convention. The nonsense that a young brown puppet of the Israel lobby would somehow be what America wants would be annihilated.

    Bernie’s team are, in the meantime, playing the long game:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-donors-220384

    This is what awaits these vile neocons in the democratic party. They can vote for Hillary but they know it is a one-way ticket. The base will destroy them if they even try to influence foreign policy. The rising star of the DNC is Tulsi Gabbard, loved by the base and DWS is the hated wench who is only loved by Zionist donors. Tulsi will be back when her time has come, when the Bernie generation, the post-9/11 and the post-Iraq generation fully come of age. We saw glimmers of it in 2004. In 2016 it has matured far more. With time, it will capture the whole party. Clinton’s already been pushed far to the left, getting very critical comments on her interventionism.

    The neocons are totally finished if they think this is the party that they can join over the long haul.

    This is the future now.

    • Emory Riddle
      March 9, 2016, 11:37 am

      But after all these “Trump = Hitler” attacks in the media lately, he can’t talk about the Israel lobby and the Rubio campaign, because the Foxman-type Jewish supremacists would seize the moment, aided by neocons and “liberals” like Chalev, Chait and the rest of the gang”

      I don’t think so. Trump brushed off Foxman’s attack that the pledge salute being carried out at Trump rallies is looking like the Nazi salute as ridiculous. He did not back-off or dissemble. He basically called Foxman ridiculous and it worked. Trump is taking the air out of these paper tigers who everyone else seems to fear so much.

    • MRW
      March 9, 2016, 11:44 am

      Good comment, Krauss. But who is DWS?

    • Annie Robbins
      March 9, 2016, 11:57 am

      krauss:

      “is decimating the three legs of blanket Republican support for Israel: Evangelicals, Jews and interventionist hawks.”

      This isn’t accurate. The exit polls in SC showed that Trump was beating Cruz with the evangelicals.

      the full quote was

      As Chemi Shalev wrote in a widely-circulated piece at Haaretz, Trump “is decimating the three legs of blanket Republican support for Israel: Evangelicals, Jews and interventionist hawks.” –

      so how does Trump was beating Cruz with the evangelicals, not knock down gop support for israel? also, i didn’t read the article “Trump’s Triumphs Demolish Netanyahu’s Fortress GOP Strategy” as shalev “freaking out” or “the same fear that Bill Kristol has” — i just read it as accurate reporting.

      i don’t think this show’s shalev’s tribalism

      In their Super Tuesday speeches, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio tried to use an Israel hammer to bash Donald Trump. Cruz sneeringly lambasted him for saying he would remain “neutral” while Rubio trounced Trump for trying to stay “impartial”, as his audience booed accordingly. And Trump? Trump was racking up victories, amassing delegates and laughing all the way to the top of the Republican presidential field.

      In this way, the New York billionaire is decimating the conventional wisdom, one of many, that in 2016, total and unconditional support for Israel is a prerequisite for any aspiring GOP candidate wishing to run for president; that such a pledge of allegiance to Israel, in general, and to Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular, is a threshold requirement for gaining the support of Evangelicals, who set the tone during primary season; and that the flow of sympathy for Israel from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans is inevitable, perhaps even desirable, and in any case unstoppable.

      But exactly a year after Netanyahu took this logic to its extreme and stood on the podium of Congress as Leader of the Republican opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the conception is falling apart. The notion that the Republican Party is a monolithic bastion of support that will withstand the test of time is evaporating. The belief that any Republican president who will follow Obama will be better for Israel is eroding with each passing day. Faced with the Trump phenomenon, Netanyahu’s Fortress GOP strategy is collapsing like a house of cards.

      and i never got the impression shalev was a netanyahu fan. maybe that’s why i read this different than you.

      • MRW
        March 9, 2016, 12:58 pm

        I read it your way, too, annie.

        Btw, I don’t think I’ve enjoyed an election year more.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2016, 1:43 pm

        mrw, last night was totally thrilling, i was on the edge of my seat for hours. if sanders looses to clinton i’m not sure how much i will be enjoying it. but there’s no election in my lifetime i can ever recall like this. and the handwringing over rubio is crazy. after sanders stunning upset in michigan (21 points up from the polls!) i wanted to see how the msm ws covering. so i google sanders — find a ‘live’ sander win headline at cbs and checked it out. for 15 minutes they went on about rubio! what a total waste of time. there’s virtually NO WAY he can capture the nomination but they keep talking about him. it’s like — why? give it up! and here sanders trumps hillary on a hard fought race in michigan and while the firecrackers were going off, not even a sentence about it on the newscast. they can’t utter it — nothing negative about clinton’s campaign. it’s a farce. the mainstream media is a complete farce. and cnn is worse.

      • Kris
        March 9, 2016, 4:29 pm

        @Annie Robbins: “it’s a farce. the mainstream media is a complete farce. and cnn is worse.

        Exactly. The pro-Hillary election coverage on NPR or CNN is so annoying. I have finally found a much better alternative.

        Yesterday I listened online to “The Young Turks” live election coverage, which was free, on youtube.com. and enjoyed it very much–very interesting and informative, and even, sometimes, funny.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2016, 4:33 pm

        that’s what i was watching last night too. in fact, they called michigan for bernie first, were you watching then? i even tweeted it!

      • Kris
        March 9, 2016, 4:48 pm

        Annie, I was watching then, it was thrilling! I’m so glad I wasn’t watching CNN or the others:

        3. The performance of the press has been abysmal. Watching CNN and MSNBC last night was painful, as was reading the Washington Post or the New York Times this morning. The TV coverage was of a piece with all other 2016 election coverage. Last night FOX, CNN and MSNBC kept cameras glued on Trump for 40 minutes as he delivered a bizarre, rambling rant in which he talked about himself, his opponents and some steaks he was either selling or giving away.

        As Bernie made history, CNN kept sending poor John King to its political trivia JumboTron to relate what various Michigan counties did in primaries or caucuses eight or 20 years ago. An MSNBC panel consisting of Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow, Gene Robinson, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chuck Todd dove right into a discussion of who Hillary might choose as her running mate; an actual progressive perhaps, given Bernie’s little showing in Michigan. They agreed it would probably be Elizabeth Warren, who sat this one out; or Sherrod Brown, the Ohio populist whose wife they all knew and liked. Really. The segment closed with everyone sharing a laugh about how mad Brown’s wife would be to hear them flatter her. The hour ended with Maddow summarizing the state of play this way: “The frontrunners had a good night.” This morning the Times led the story this way: “Senator Bernie Sanders’s defeat of Hillary Clinton prolongs a race she seemed to have locked up, although she won Mississippi handily.” He sure did. http://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/it_should_be_over_for_hillary_party_elites_and_msnbc_cant_prop_her_up_after_bernies_michigan_miracle/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

        That’s from “It should be over for Hillary: Party elites and MSNBC can’t prop her up after Bernie’s Michigan miracle,” by Bill Curry, who was White House counselor to President Clinton. Worth reading.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2016, 5:01 pm

        oh thanks kris! i don’t have regular reception or cable — just through my computer. so i am not accustomed to watching them anyway. but i couldn’t believe the cbs live show i was watching. just complete jibberish. even the so called ‘democratic analyst’ was all about trump and rubio. after waiting a long time listening to that crap i couldn’t only take so much and turned it off. whereas on youngturks they fed right into sanders as soon as he made his brief announcement.

  2. Keith
    March 8, 2016, 2:49 pm

    Elliott Abrams quote: “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart–except in Israel–from the rest of the population.”

    Is there anyone who truly believes that Elliott Abrams and others who share this belief of his are truly assimilated into American life? That Elliott Abrams represents the strong Jewish identity associated with multiculturalism in a pluralistic society? Are you assimilated if you can move freely throughout society, yet identify as a member of an exclusivist group, a people apart? Is one-sided sectarianism compatible with multiculturalism?

    • Mooser
      March 9, 2016, 4:19 pm

      “Is there anyone who truly believes that Elliott Abrams and others who share this belief of his are truly assimilated into American life? “

      I think “assimilation” (because it was a very problematic thing for Jews in Europe and some other places, but not in the US) should be reserved for use in the political sense, that is, being a citizen, and enjoying the rights and protections of a citizen.

      So yes, as far as I know Elliot Abrahms is a completely assimilated (no political or rights disabilities, can vote, run for office, canwork for the Gov or any private business, he’s got religious freedom, can own guns, freedom of association, travel, protection from crime and for contracts, etc) American citizen.
      What he chooses to do with that assimilation (which he was given, unlike many other places in time) is up to him. And is quite open to criticism but not on that basis, lack of assimilation.

      The idea that Jews are not assimilated in the US is dumb and dangerous. Dumb, because I don’t think there has ever even been a question about it. Remember, there was a lot of resistance to assimilating a lot of other people, so we know what that looks like.
      And dangerous, because people who are refused assimilation have the right to be, at least resentful, if not rebellious, and can posit, due to their lack of rights, a justification for lawbreaking. Remember all those 78’s?

      Yes, some Jews like to keep up a pretense of non-acculturation, or who knows, maybe they really are, and don’t use computers or smoke alarms or birth control. I wouldn’t know.
      But to say American Jews are “non-assimilated” is to give Zionists an excuse (we don’t assimilate here) they don’t deserve.

      And yeah, isn’t Elliott Abrams pretty well assimilated into the interventionist, MIC crowd in America?

      Elliot Abrams quote? Elliot Abrams is an accomplished liar. Look, he’s fooled you. Has he ever stood apart from anything having to do with the US? Heck, his whole life has been spent trying to get deeper and deeper inside its corridors of power, or influence it more.

      • echinococcus
        March 9, 2016, 5:06 pm

        Mooser, your interpretation of “assimilation” is a workable one, provided the definition is provided upfront.
        I think that in most people’s minds, considering oneself to be of an exclusive little tribe with a real homeland outside the country of origin and citizenship is the proof of the exact opposite of assimilation. Being a tapeworm, I may even use a biologic term: such people are excreted.

      • Keith
        March 9, 2016, 6:12 pm

        MOOSER- “I think “assimilation”…should be reserved for use in the political sense, that is, being a citizen, and enjoying the rights and protections of a citizen.”

        I think that you are altering the meaning of the term by applying a political definition (equal rights, protections, etc) to a fundamentally sociological construct. Inherent in the definition is the notion of absorption. Has the group been accepted into the larger society, and does the group think of itself as part of the larger society. Assimilation is not a question of yes or no, there are varying degrees of assimilation. Blacks, for example, have the rights and protections of citizens, yet their acceptance within the larger society is only partial. And while Elliott Abrams could be fully assimilated if he wanted to, he doesn’t want to, preferring to give his primary loyalty to a sub-group. Assimilation is a two-way street. Some folks just don’t want to identify with the larger society. Using your definition, citizenship confers assimilation and sectarianism has no meaning among various groups of citizens. Not true. In a multicultural society the notion of the degree of assimilation of the various sub-groups is a rather important issue.

        MOOSER- “But to say American Jews are “non-assimilated”

        I didn’t say that “American Jews are “non-assimilated,” did I? I said that Elliott Abrams and those who share his beliefs (Jews are to stand apart from the nation in which they live.) are not fully assimilated. One simply cannot be absorbed into the larger society if one doesn’t want to be. And that includes those who blend in with the prevailing culture. For some reason, I am not sure why, you find the notion that fundamentalist Zionists like Abrams are not fully assimilated to be personally threatening to you. Curious. Particularly in view of the fact that a core objective of Zionism was to preserve Jewish peoplehood and was never particularly concerned about individual Jews, particularly non-Zionist Jews.

    • Mooser
      March 9, 2016, 4:22 pm

      “Are you assimilated if you can move freely throughout society, yet identify as a member of an exclusivist group, a people apart?”

      If Abrams is not “assimilated” by America, then he has a damned good reason, even an excuse, to work against America’s interests. Don’t give it to him.

      • Keith
        March 9, 2016, 6:14 pm

        MOOSER- “If Abrams is not “assimilated” by America, then he has a damned good reason, even an excuse, to work against America’s interests. Don’t give it to him.”

        Nonsense. Abrams could be fully assimilated if he wanted to but he doesn’t want to be fully assimilated. He longs for the sense of Jewish peoplehood which Zionism has successfully resurrected. Sure, he moves about freely, dresses conventionally, speaks correctly, and wanders the corridors of power. But he does so as a Jew living in America, not as an American who is Jewish. He assiduously works to expand Jewish Zionist power and influence. He is an integrated tribalist who doesn’t need an excuse to put Israel and Zionism first.

  3. chris o
    March 9, 2016, 1:04 am

    Rubio appears to be a sinking ship. He is behind Kasich on the betting market. Trump has about a 70% chance of the nomination and Cruz 20%. The two most odious choices to the Establishment are left standing. It would be pretty hilarious if it wasn’t for real. Actually, it is still hilarious.

  4. JLewisDickerson
    March 9, 2016, 2:31 am

    RE: Abrams said yesterday he is ‘delighted’ to join Rubio’s team and portrays Rubio as a great student: “He has an innate understanding of America’s important role in supporting freedom and standing up to tyranny. As President he would ensure that our allies respect us again and our enemies fear us.”

    AS TO ANY “INNATE UNDERSTANDING OF AMERICA’S IMPORTANT ROLE IN STANDING UP TO TYRANNY” AND/OR “ENSURING THAT OUR ALLIES RESPECT US AGAIN AND OUR ENEMIES FEAR US”, LET’S RECALL WHAT THE GIPPER TAUGHT US NOT LONG AGO:
    “When Reagan Cut and Run” | By Micah Zenko | FforeignPolicy.com | February 7, 2014
    The forgotten history of when America boldly abandoned ship in the Middle East.

    [EXCERPTS] Thirty years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan made perhaps the most purposeful and consequential foreign-policy decision of his presidency. Though he never said so explicitly, he ended America’s military commitment to a strategic mistake that was peripheral to America’s interests. Three-and-a-half months after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. military personnel — and after repeatedly pledging not to do so — Reagan ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Lebanon. . .

    . . . Upon the request of the government of Lebanon, the United Nations authorized the Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF) in 1982 to help the government regain control over the country. . .

    . . . In October 1983, after five Marines were killed in three separate incidents, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane convinced the president to authorize the USS New Jersey to launch attacks against the Druze militia and Syrian forces on land. According to Powell, once the naval attack commenced, the Shiites “assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides against them. And since they could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target: the exposed Marines at the airport.” Within one week, Hezbollah-linked militants drove two truck bombs containing a half a kiloton of explosives into the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport, killing 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members.

    In the months that followed, the Reagan administration discussed a range of options including striking back and fully withdrawing the Marines. Reagan never retaliated against Hezbollah or their Iranian and Syrian sponsors responsible for the bombings, a position widely endorsed by senior military officials. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Vessey declared: “It is beneath our dignity to retaliate against the terrorists who blew up the Marine barracks.”

    The Reagan administration also considered the pluses and minuses of withdrawing from the MNF. On the day after the barracks bombing, however, the president reaffirmed his commitment: “The reason they must stay there until the situation is under control is quite clear. We have vital interests in Lebanon. And our actions in Lebanon are in the cause of world peace.” Over a month later, on Dec. 1, Reagan stated that the Marines were in Beirut to “demonstrate the strength of our commitment to peace in the Middle East…. Their presence is making it possible for reason to triumph over the forces of violence, hatred, and intimidation.” Nine days later, he told the nation: “Once internal stability is established and withdrawal of all foreign forces is assured, the Marines will leave.” Finally, on Feb. 4, 1984, Reagan stated something frequently heard in debates over Afghanistan and other theaters of conflict today — if the United States withdraws, “we’ll be sending one signal to terrorists everywhere: They can gain by waging war against innocent people…. If we’re to be secure in our homes and in the world, we must stand together against those who threaten us.”

    Yet, just three days later, on Feb. 7, Reagan ordered the Marines to “redeploy” to their ships offshore — which was actually a full withdrawal achieved in three weeks. Although the Marine’s mission in Lebanon was not clearly defined and, subsequently, not achieved, Reagan’s tacit admission of failure and withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon limited America’s further involvement in foreign-policy disaster — saving money, lives, and time. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/

    P.S. LESSON TAUGHT BY THE GIPPER: Speak sternly, put on a real manly show and try not to get your dick caught in a sausage grinder.

  5. Ossinev
    March 9, 2016, 8:19 am

    “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart–except in Israel–from the rest of the population.”

    Wow he recommended an up front in your face fifth column in the US population – this from a man who later became a National Security Adviser under GWB Junior.

    Ilustrates just how blind and f….d up America has become under the control of the Elders.

  6. ckg
    March 9, 2016, 11:03 am

    Last night on PBS Newshour, Tom Friedman essentially said that Clinton’s election priorities will prevent any Obama push toward peace.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: In the meantime, you have American politicians, many Republican prominent politicians running for president who are praising Benjamin Netanyahu, saying Barack — President Obama has been — has made all the wrong moves when it comes to Israel.

    Is the U.S. a player or not? There’s a story today in The Wall Street Journal saying that the White House is trying to come up with a U.N. resolution maybe or some other gesture to get the peace process moving again.

    THOMAS FRIEDMAN: Well, that story is a bit of an evergreen. Maybe it’s true now. But it’s always, we’re going to tell them. We’re just — we’re going to tell them we’re tired of this. We’re going to — and then it never happens, because a Democrat comes along, like Hillary Clinton, and says, geez, I wish you wouldn’t do that. Now that’s going to affect Jewish voters.

    What’s going on in the campaign, that’s a gravity-free zone. It has nothing to do with the reality of the Middle East whatsoever. That is people looking for votes and funding. It has nothing to do with the region.

  7. MRW
    March 9, 2016, 11:47 am

    I really hope Trump wins the nomination.

    EDIT: Read Why GOP Bigwigs Fear Trump by Paul Pillar.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/08/why-gop-bigwigs-fear-trump/

Leave a Reply