We covered these topics:

Why Jews vote Democratic	Who Controls the Democratic Party	Democrats and National Security	Democratic Platform
Israel, Iran and North Korea	Who Hates the Bush Family	China and North Korean Nukes	Pounding on President Carter
Pox on the GOP

Cliff's original statement on why Jews vote Democratic:

Aslom, Herod and the money changers were Jewish and I'm sure they'd vote for the GOP and tax cuts.  Most Jews, however take the Torah to heart and their obligations to their fellow man and society.  So of course they vote Democratic.  Before the right wing reversed the bases of the parties, adopting the segregationist southern conservatism and driving out the Jacob Javitz humanists, more Jews were Republicans.
 

                                               
 KKK                              Ladies Garment Workers                    Union Picket Line
 

Poorer Jews from eastern Europe were laborers and many joined unions.  The GOP has always been antagonistic to unions.  Hence working Jews leaned Democratic.

The GOP aggressively opposed Roosevelt's desire to get into World War II.  Jews noticed that too.

 

The GOP establishment coincided with the white Christian elite that kept Jews from management, banks, country clubs and expensive neighborhoods.  Jews noticed that too.

 

Israel is an important issue, just not the only issue.  And while we're comparing Democrats with Republicans remember Eisenhower did nothing for Israel, Nixon was stalling until Golda Meir threatened a nuclear attack, Ford did nothing.  Regan gave the Iranian mullahs weapons.  Bush 41 did nothing, Bush 43 egged Israel to attack Lebanon and then pulled the cease file card.

 

Bush 43 is letting Iran get the bomb, just as he did let North Korea get the bomb.  I don't know why Bush wants North Korea and Iran to have nuclear weapons.  Results count. 

 

Bush 43 is forcing Israel to act unilaterally to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Carter brought peace between Israel and Egypt.  Jordan recognized Israel during Clinton.  Clinton tried mightily to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israel (Camp David). Scuttled by Arafat.

 

The end of days evangelicals support Israel so that the rapture will be hastened -- which would mean the end of Israel. 

Whose side are you on?

Then comes the dialogue:

Amos responds: 
The first few arguments you make about Jews feeling more comfortable with humanistic organizations and Unionized labor is historically correct. However this does not equate into blindly supporting the Democratic party. Jews marched and died during the 60's to advance black people's civil rights. Does that mean that I should support Rev. Jackson?  

 

Cliff answers in bold. 

 

Amos rebuttal in bold Italic red 

 

Cliff rejoinder in blue.  

 

Amos revisit in Green 

 

Cliff come-back in fuchsia

 

Amos counterpunch in brown 

 

Cliff:  What amazes me is that we exchange thoughts in separate universes.  You make assertions, but don't provide evidence.  It's like arguing with zombies.  You can't kill them; they keep coming.

 

 

 

Amos:  I can say the same about you but what is the point. I'll try to show some examples below.

 

Who Controls the Democratic Party

Amos:  With people like Jackson, Pelosi, Moore, Sheehan defining the Democratic party I have nothing to do with it. 

 

Cliff:  Jackson, Moore, Sheehan are faction leaders not leaders of the Democrats.  They are just as likely to form their own party. 

 

Amos:  Bull, they feel very good in pulling the strings behind Pelosi and Dean. You may disagree but the left have taken control of the Democratic party.  People like Scoop Jackson who I admired will turn in their graves to see what happened to their party in the last 40 years. 

   

Cliff:  You have no evidence of Jackson, Moore, Sheehan pulling strings on Pelosi and Dean.  If you do, please give details.  I don't expect an answer, just another assertion.

 

Amos:  Look no further than the Connecticut Primary. If that was not a left wing in control, what is?  

 

Cliff:  Lieberman was defeated by the majority of the democratic voters because he supported "Stay the Course."  Now even Bush doesn't support "Stay the Course".

 

Amos:  Lieberman was defeated by the concerted effort of  the left wing of the Democratic party. He voted in support of the war as many high ranking Democrats did. While he was against Kerry "cut and run" philosophy, he was also critical of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld in particular, conduct of the post war operation in Iraq.

Lamont would not have won the primary without the massive support of the far left. Where was the support to Lieberman? A pure political expediency.  What irks me most is the way that Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats abandon him during the primary in spite of his record in the senate. Did she hold a grudge against him for speaking on the floor of the Senate against Bill affair with Monica? Is the war in Iraq the only item on the Democratic agenda? Was he the only one that supported the war? I hope Connecticut voters are smarter than that.  

 

Cliff:  No, most Democrats don't support Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.  Did you notice neither Jackson nor Sharpton got above single digits in any primary.  The primaries speak for the Democrats. 

 

Amos: They, together with  Michael Moore, Sandy Sheehan and the rest of the Moveon.org organization are the voices I hear (Dean and Pelosi included). The democrats may want a big tent, however, the one they choose is too inclusive for me. I do not want to be associated with Jew haters and pro Palestinians demagogues. 

 

Cliff:  Funny, I read the LA Times, listen to NPR and Air America.  I have never heard Moore or Soros.  You listen to right wing radio and FOX-TV and you do.

  Ken Melman, Chairman of the GOP National Committee  George Soros

Amos:  I do not read the LA times, I do not listen to NPR, Air America or any other radio show, The only radio I have is in my car and is being used to listen to music. I read the Washington Post and the NY times and watch CNN, NBC, ABC and Fox news. I seldom see GOP Chairman on the TV news and talk shows but I do see a lot of Dean. Only this morning I was listening to his ranting and raving on CNN. Sheehan is featured prominently on all the channels any time she opens her mouth to either curse Bush or support our enemies.

 

Cliff:  My point is that you watch FOX, who always puts up the weakest opposition people.  If Ken Melman isn't on, he's hiding or writing racist ads against Rep. Ford, who otherwise could win in Tennessee. 

 

Amos:  I suppose watching Fox is taboo. The fact that I watch other channels does not matter - right? As to GOP Chairman, he is not in the business of screaming and shouting like the mad man from Vermont.  Dean's venomous speeches and interviews are not likely to encourage a more civil tone in Washington.  

 

Amos:  Hillary was hugging Arafat's wife (10 years ago) before she realized what it can do to her aspiration to become a NY senator.

 

Amos:  She is smart and learned from her mistake. However, she would have used the Photo Op.  If she was campaigning in Detroit .

 

Cliff:  Condi Rice kissed Mohammed Abbas last week.

 

Amos:  Diplomatic decorum/protocol  is not the same.

 

Amos:  Jesse Jackson's Hyme Town remark (12 years ago) is still reverberating in my ears.  It is like with Mel Gibson. The truth comes out when you least expect it.

 

Amos:  So he is more careful now? Anti-Semites do not change. They just hide it until it is a safe environment or when they are drunk (ask Mel Gibson).

Add your comments: Click to email comments 

 Democratic Platform

Cliff:  If by the left you mean people who advocate

Raising the minimum wage,

Lowering drug prices by having Medicare negotiate prices,
Lowering the cost of college by loans and grants,

Coming up with a more intelligent Iraq strategy, 

Promoting conservation,

Seeking energy independence,

Recognizing that global warming can be dangerous, and

Reducing ear-marks

then you're right, that's who controls the Democratic Party.

 

Democrats and National Security

Amos:  Good sound bites do not change the fact that the Democratic Party is now controlled by the left who will not give a hoot about security.

 

Cliff:  The Democratic party always supported getting the Taliban out of Afghanistan, which Bush no longer does.

 

Amos:  The Democratic party voted against all measures taken by the Bush administration to combat terrorists. From interrogation to wiretapping . Afghanistan war is now being fought under NATO. Isn't that what the Democrats wanted - participation by other countries? 

Cliff:  Democrats opposed warrantless wiretaps.  Bush could have had the same surveillance effect with delayed warrants through FISA.  Democrats opposed eliminating habeas corpus -- which is a Constitutional right.

Amos:  FISA was developed at a different time. It does not allow for "fishing expedition".  Well, in today's technology we must be able to do some fishing to catch the bad guys.  A similar case can be made for financial transactions , infiltrating potential groups, monitoring and eavesdropping on meeting places, profiling etc.  We did not start this war, but now that we are in it, we must use whatever it takes to win. 

Cliff:  BUSH moved Force 21, which was searching for Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and used it to search for Hussein in Iraq.  We reduced US troops in Afghanistan while NATO commanders say more are needed.  Effectively we cut and ran from Afghanistan prematurely.

Amos:  The Bush Administration made a mistake in assuming that the War Lords of Afghanistan will capture Osama in Tora Bora. However, once Osama escaped to Pakistan the US options (except invading Pakistan) became limited. We needed (still do) assets on the ground, but years of neglect by/of the CIA did not help. Bush did not cut and run from Afghanistan . He turned it over to NATO. If NATO needs more troops let them go to all other NATO countries, France and Germany in particular, first. 

Add your comments: Click to email comments

 

Pox on the GOP

  

Amos:  With people like Hastert, Fallwell and Bush defining the Republican party I have nothing to do with that party either.

 

Cliff:  You're right here. 

 

Amos:  Therefore I chose to be an independent voter and not a party loyalist. More people should voice their disgust in the parties' pandering to the right and the left. We need an alternative to unite the people in the middle.

 

Cliff:  Like it or not, this is a 2-party country.  Independents get self-righteousness as their reward.

 

Amos:  The British thought the same and than came the Liberals and almost upset the apple cart.  It can happen here too 

 

Israel, Iran and North Korea

Amos:  As far as Bush and Israel, North Korea and Iran, You made some sound bite assertions which are incorrect. To rebut these assertions  let me try some of my own. 

 

Bush gave Israel more time than any other US president ever did.

 

Cliff:  Wrong.  Bush ignored Israel for 3 years.  Bush never convened a peace conference.  Clinton spent 10 times the hours that Bush did.  Bush couldn't find Hebron on a map.

 

Amos:  You are letting your emotions control your thinking. I was responding to your accusation about the cease fire.  Bush gave Israel more time to finish the job than Eisenhower in 56, Johnson in 67 or Nixon in 73. 

 

Amos:  Its was Israel political (and to some extent military) ineptitude that brought respect to Hezbullah.

Add your comments: Click to email comments 

Cliff:  Agree. 

 China and North Korean Nukes   

Amos:  The Clinton administration tried bilateral negotiations giving Money and aid to a regime that was cheating on the deal. When the Bush administration found out about the cheating they changed policy and asked for Multi-national negotiations Without China any agreement with North Korea is not worth the paper it will be written on. Considering that North Korea is totally dependent on China, leaving the Chinese out of the process does not make any sense. 

 

Cliff:  Wrong.  China doesn't care and doesn't have interests parallel to the US.  If we depend on China we will continue to fail.  Which is what Bush wants.  The Bush family has major economic interests in China that is what drives our unspoken policy.  Bush's spoken policy doesn't mean shit.

Add your comments: Click to email comments

 

 Who Hates the Bush Family      

                                                                                   President Bush Meets with Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia

Amos:  Here again you sound like Michael Moore. Your hatred of the Bush family is too obvious.  

 

Cliff:  I don't hate the Bush family, I just point out that Neil Bush was wrapped in the S&L scandal, Bush 41 is a director of Carlyle  Corporation that is primarily funded by the Saudis.  Neil is also involved in consulting in China.

 

Amos:  And Kennedy's father was a bootlegger, so? what does this have to do with North Korea and China 

 

Amos:  China is not interested in North Korea being the supplier of nuclear technology any more than the US does. However, they also do not want to see a communist regime fall. 

 

Cliff:  How do you know China objects to North Korea going nuke?  Arafat also spoke against terrorism while not doing anything to stop it.  Same with China.

 

Amos:  What an example!!! You must have searched high and low to come up with this one.

China does not want North Korea to go nuke for the same reason any nation who has the nuke object to it. They want to be in the exclusive club and do not want others to join. How do you think China will react if Japan changes the constitution and start arming themselves with Nukes? 

 

You don't know what China wants.  All you can know is what China does.  China refuses to interdict materials coming across the 800 mile border with North Korea.  China objects to US interdicting ships.

 

No one know what any nation wants at any particular time. All we can do is analyze the situation and make assumptions. My assumption is that China does not want North Korea to be a nuclear power or they would have help them become one years ago.

 

So while their interests are not necessarily the same, they do object to the same thing and without their help it will be extremely difficult to monitor North Korea shipments of Nuclear material. I do not think that anyone is really concern about North Korea attacking the USA. I'm sure they were told privately that any attempt to use Nuclear weapons will send them back to the stone age.

 

We can accomplish a no nuke Korea by signing a non-aggression treaty.  The risk is No. Korea will sell nukes to terrorists.

 

No treaty will be worth the paper it will be written on, just ask the Clinton administration. Our only hope (short of nuking them) is to have China and Russia support an interdiction program that will prevent North Korea from selling material and technology to terrorists. 

 

Amos:  Similar message should (did?) be sent to Iran. However, I'm not sure it will stop the Mullahs from trying to destroy Israel, and there lies the problem. The USA cannot attack Iran. The anti-war elements in the USA and abroad made sure that the pre-emptive strike policy is unacceptable. Even Israel after the debacle in Lebanon is reluctant to use pre-emptive moves and that is were we are. Any proposed solution? 

 

Cliff:  Pinpoint sabotage.

 

Amos:  Easier said than done. We have very little human assets inside and those elements that support us are not likely to sabotage their nuclear program. It is a matter of national pride. India and Pakistan have Nukes, Iran want it too, Mullahs or no Mullahs. 

 
Pounding on President Carter  

Amos:  As to Iran - look no further than Carter.

 

Cliff:  You ignore that Regan gave weapons to Iran after Carter. 

 

Amos:  So what? We wanted the hostages in Lebanon to be freed, so we paid the blackmail. It was to our advantage because we wanted the Iranians to be able to fight Iraq and visa versa. I wish, that war would have lasted 100 years instead of only seven.

Carter support of the deposing of the Shah and his ineptitude in responding to the challenge during the take over of the embassy are the cause of our problems, not Reagan and the Contra affair.

 

Cliff:  What appeared to be Carter ineptitude may have been the machinations of the Secret Army, led by Siglob and Seccord.

 

Amos:  You missed my point again. I was not talking about the rescue mission, I was talking about the lack of immediate response. Once the embassy was taken over he should have used the threat of nuclear response if the hostages are not release promptly, and follow it up if they did not yield. Kennedy had the guts to  come to the brink of war, Carter was too weak. 

 

Cliff:  Carter was a wimp.  The GOP relished it and offered nothing constructive at the time.

 

Amos:  Considering that the Democrats were in control of Congress, all the GOP could do is replace him with a stronger leader - they did and the hostages came back but the damage has been done.

 

Add your comments: Click to email comments