What Were They Thinking?
What was The American Thinker thinking when it published the following bit of prose?:
“As Obama took steps toward the United States Senate he found a very powerful sugar daddy who would help fund his rise: George Soros. The billionaire hedge fund titan began supporting Obama very early – as befits a legendary speculative investor always looking for opportunities.”
The irony is that this classic anti-Semitic trope — the predatory Jewish speculator always on the prowl — comes in the midst of a screed that claims Obama is in bed with … anti-Semites. This is either waaaay too clever, or just plain dumb, like The American Thinker itself. After all, what kind of a name is that? It sounds like some foreigner’s idea of typical American moniker.
Mark
February 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Make no mistake: Now that Ron Paul is effectively out of the race, Barack Obama is by far the most libertarian and most anti-war of the three viable candidates remaining.
John Lowell
February 16th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
A classical hit piece that entertains most with its attentions to George Soros, a Jew! Soros is pilloried as a “promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship”. Unquestionably more representative of the outlook of American Jews toward “the American-Israeli relationship” by far than Lasky, Soros has been a lead figure in efforts recently to create a Jewish counterweight to AIPAC. We wish him godspeed both for the sake of Israel and the United States.
Lasky offers up the same kind of tripe served Jimmy Carter when he sought to describe the condition of Palestinians living under Israeli control as “aparthied”. Drinking from the same mothersmilk that inspires the all-too-usual conflation of
criticism of Israeli behavior with anti-Semitism, one would think that Lasky aspires to replace Abe Foxman at the right moment. In thios respect at least, together with Soros, Carter, Judt, Walt and Mershimer, Obama is in very good company.
Weston
February 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“This is either waaaay too clever, or just plain dumb, like The American Thinker itself. After all, what kind of a name is that? It sounds like some foreigner’s idea of typical American moniker.”
Justin! Dude! What is with you and the non-sequitors? I agree, it’s probably just a dumb comment. But “after all?” No doubt there’s a joke to be had in making fun of stupid names; but to draw an inference from a stupid name to stupid content? Normally I’d call it sloppy writing, but you pull this sophomoric crap all the time!
evilpaul
February 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Has he voted for more Iraq funding since Justin’s column? Has he introduced a Senate equivilent to Rep. Paul’s “Restore Freedom 2008 Act” or whatever it was called? Has he done anything within his power to end the war (other than saying Bush didn’t do it right)?
While Obama may be nominally better than McCain or Hillary, I still sure as hell won’t pull the lever for him (or McCain) in November. If he wins I suspect you’ll find out he’s a warmonger like the rest of them.
Chris Baker
February 16th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
How did an idiot like Soros make all that money? I figured he must have some kind of ESP. He certainly doesn’t have any common sense.
Nothing will change if O-bomb-a is elected. Bush’s war will become O-bomb-a’s war. Then Ron Paul can run in 2012, and the anti-war movement will be behind him all the way.
Carl Savich
February 16th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The image the American Thinker uses is one of Uncle Sam in the pose of Auguste Rodin’s The Thinker. It is a fairly ridiculous and preposterous image. Based on the content, The American Thinker thinks about only three issues: 1) Israel; 2) Israel; and, 3) Israel.
What stands out is this sentence:
“Has he taught Obama to blame 9/11 on America because of our foreign policy?”
Ed Lasky avers that the 911 attack has nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. created mujahedeen from Afghanistan, the Ronald Reagan Freedom Fighters of Charlie Wilson fame, attacker the U.S. on 911 not because of our foreign policy, but because they envy our freedom and democracy, we are told. This is the “narrative” Ed Lasky is selling. Indeed, he assumes it as the accepted narrative.
But isn’t that a psychotic delusion? A psychotic can convince himself or herself that the sky is falling. That does not mean it is true. Lasky’s thesis is absurd and illogical. Indeed, it is psychotic.
Ed Lasky also attacks George Soros for siding with a terrorist group:
“Soros also called for concessions to Hamas — a terror group that has killed many innocent people.”
But this is hypocritical and disingenuous. Israel and Ariel Sharon and the Israeli lobby in the U.S. supported the Albanian Muslim terrorists in Kosovo after the U.S. State Department declared the KLA to be a terrorist organization in 1998. Israel also supported the Bosnian Muslim faction in the Bosnian civil war, even though Israelis knew that Iran and Ossama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda mujahedeen were supporting the Bosnian Muslim faction. Iranian arms shipments arrived in Zagreb on a regular basis with arms for the Bosnian Muslims in contravention of the arms embargo. At that time, Israel and its vocal U.S. lobby, had no problem with suppoorting terrorists. One person’s terrorist is another person’s “freedom fighter”.
The rationale was that support of Albanian and Bosniam Muslim terrorists is “good for Israel”. But that is a proposition that has been disproved by the facts. The 911 attackers had Bosnian Muslim passports and were veterans of the Bosnian civil war. And Albanian Muslims have shown their animosity and enmity towards Israel and the U.S. as well. The planned Fort Dix terrorist attack against the U.S. was organized by Albanian Muslims, the same Muslims Israel supported.
American Thinker is not engaged in much thinking. The only thought they have is: “Is it good for Israel”?
They need to expand their intellectual horizons and get away from such a narrow focus.
John Lowell
February 16th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Have you no shame? You’d inflict Ron Paul on America’s peace enthusiasts yet again in 2012, watching him implode yet a second time at the moment of greatest opportunity? Paul’s political instincts remind one of the 1964 Philadelphia Phillies, ahead substantially at season’s end and in need of winning but one of their last twelve games only to blow every one of them. No, we need someone vastly more saavy – and capable – than Paul, one who would have husbanded his $20,000,000 hoard for a independent candidacy rather than squandering it on one primary in a Quixotic attempt to cleanse an uncleansable Republican Party. I beg you, please, no more Ron Paul. At this point, I’d be willing to tolerate another neo-con in Congress just to see the back of his neck.
DetainThis
February 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Good words, Carl. The more that things change, the more they stay the same. Terrorist groups currently harbored, funded, and/or trained by the United States include the MeK (Iran-Iraq-domestic), the JDL (domestic), the PKK (Iran ["PJAK"]), and Jundallah (Iran-Pakistan). It’s not “terrorism” when we do it (for Israel, of course).
Daniel Maxwell
February 16th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Exactly, just different wars. What was it, tripling of foreign aid? Yeah, that will help world peace – by supporting all the despots of African and Asian countries, so they can continue their wars against their own people.
Don’t be fooled. Obama is no McGovern. He is pro-war, but for wars he starts.
FirstCasualty
February 17th, 2008 at 12:36 am
If you think Soros is our savior as the creator of a Aipac counter you are sadly mistaken. Soros is a fake sorry. He supports actions in Yugoslavia,Georgia, Ukraine, Iran, Russia
that are akin to our own neocon policy towards these countries. If he is aligned with Obama, Obama is obviously tainted as well. Give it up Raimondo. You only have credulity towards Obama now.
evilpaul
February 17th, 2008 at 1:06 am
While I wouldn’t say that the Ron Paul campaign was run particularly well (most of its successes were grassroots things the campaign had nothing to do with), who’s thunder did it steal, exactly? Kuicinich/Gravel while I could have voted for them didn’t get anywhere near 2% in any primary.
The fact is that Americans love killing brown people, and their electoral politics reflect it. Blaming Ron Paul isn’t going to change that.
Ron
February 17th, 2008 at 5:04 am
Download state’s absentee ballot and write-in Ron Paul. Take a picture of your vote and consider it counted.
Ron Paul is viable. You have fallen for the corporate media trap if you think otherwise.
Jesus, this is Anti-War.com. Don’t ignore the only candidate who would end the war(s) and occupation(s) by late January 2009.
Wake up!
Ron Paul is still in the running.
richard vajs
February 17th, 2008 at 5:55 am
I wish everyone would ease up on Ron Paul. He has done a lot for the cause of freedom in America over the last twenty years, but he can’t do it all by himself – he is what -72? Harsh critism of Raimondo also seems unwarranted. Anti-War.com is not some gravy train like “American Stinker” or such funded by AIPAC – Raimondo has to beg for donations every three months. I hope everyone who regularly comments on this forum also contributes financially.
Bill K.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:24 am
So that is it? Everybody is giving up on Paul? Even if the Elite don’t let Paul run for the Republican Party an Independent candidate position should not be missed. And has a higher chance of success.
Bill K.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:25 am
And I don’t the above wording of Soros is off the mark. I believe it is quite accurate.
Vassili
February 17th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Yep – ESPECIALLY on NATO expansion (aggression) against Russian Federation.
Vassili
February 17th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Soros IMHO belongs to where KHodorkovskij is now :-) Getting trained in some productive labour skills. Add Bill Gates there – and the rest of the criminal Bush’s gang – the world would be a much better place.
Yes, there are other criminals, but those are especially bad in have zero accountability for their misdeeds.
Mark
February 17th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Would Obama immediately end the Iraq war? I don’t know. But I doubt Clinton or McCain would.
Where Obama clearly reveals himself as the best candidate for anti-war libertarians is in his strong statements against attacking Iran. McCain and Clinton are both itching for a new war, Obama isn’t.
JOHN LEWIS-DICKERSON
February 17th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Clinton vs. Obama on the Cluster Bomb Vote
Posted by Brad Jacobson
“[Cluster bombs are] the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use.” -Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch
David Rees, the man behind the hilarious and trenchant Get Your War On, reminded me yesterday of another especially egregious – yet much less known – vote cast by Senator Hillary Clinton, which no one in the mainstream media is talking about.
But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing “soft on terror,” as it would have harmed her electibility………
ARTICLE- http://www.atlargely.com/2008/02/clinton-vs-obam.html
Carl Savich
February 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The name of the magazine is misleading and is false advertising. It has nothing to do with America. It has everything to do with Israel. It should be called The Israeli Thinker or The Zionist Thinker.
What is troubling about this Zionist magazine is that it conflates America with Israel. This is arrogant and deceptive. It is also inane and mindless.
Skulz Fontaine
February 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Raimondo is exactly correct. American Thinker? Yeah, since when? Thinking in American government? Foreign policy? Where’s the proof for such a ridiculous conjecture? Thinking? Illogic maybe. Convolution maybe. Treason for damn certain. Delusion positively. Insanity? I think we might be close.
John Lowell
February 17th, 2008 at 9:54 am
FirstCasualty,
I’d said something about Soros being a savior? My comments were confined to his activity in promoting there being a Jewish community counterweight to AIPAC. You’d prefer that there were no Jewish community couterweight to AIPAC?
John Lowell
February 17th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Well, we certainly know that he supported the Israeli/American aggression in Lebanon. Couldn’t have been more supportive. Lots of warts there, certainly. And his Pakistani intervention enthusiasms weren’t particularly reassuring either. Its when he’s able to grasp the fact that intra-uterine violence is a bad idea that I’ll feel comfortable with him, won’t vote for him until he does. Peace begins at home.
Tim R.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
John Lowell, reflecting on Obama, writes the following:
“Well, we certainly know that he supported the Israeli/American aggression in Lebanon.”
Excuse me? Last time I checked Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled all Israeli forces out of Lebannon several years ago. Last time I checked the pull out was fully certified by the UNITED NATIONS. And yet Hizzbollah terrorists continuted to unleash rocket attacks, border incursions, and they kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. But yet for some reason, people like you only see one side of the coin and you only refer to “Isreali aggression.”
John Lowell
February 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Ron Paul won’t even write in his own name, why in heaven’s name would anyone want to do that for him? Is there no limit to these imbecile enthusisms?
Paul has taken himself out of contention in any way that actually has meaning. He’s disappointed a lot of people,
watched passively as his campaign’s $20,000,000 was abysmally mismanaged and now concerns himself with the teaching of ideology and with the retention of his own personal feif. You, yourself, could have improved upon that performance. Why not write in your own name?
dontreallycare
February 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Obama was born and raised Muslim. By no means should he even be allowed to run for such and office. He will be the first person to sell out the American public because he holds true loyalty to the Muslim Nation.
McCain is the only one who has the best interest in our nation. At least he is isnt painting a pretty picture for us or telling us what we want to hear… He just tells you like is! And for that he has my respect and support.
the legendary Bill
February 17th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
By any reasonable definition the IDF is a terrorist organization ( they certainly behave as such ) and the US and Israel ( and our northern suburb ) are the only countries that classify Hezbollah a terrorist organization…The rest classify it as a resistance org..( Of course, in the neo-con mind Israel doesn’t deserve to have any enemies so-by definition-any enemy must be a terrorist org…and since Israel is the 51st Super-state they’re our enemies too…Two of their soldiers were snatched in a border skirmish and they respond by bombing the entire infrastructure of Lebanon..Bombing the power plant in Tyre and spilling thousands of barrels into the Med…bombing vital highways and bridges, apt bldgs-one after the other in S. Beirut..purposely killing innocent civilians just as they do in the W. Bank and Gaza….Killing over 1200 civilians….to hell with you Israel First neo-cons..no one at anti-war is buying your BS…You don’t love America..it’s only a host for you like the tick that was on my dog’s ass…
the legendary Bill
February 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Israel still occupies the Sheba Farms area of Lebanon and the Golan Heights of Syria…Damn you, you filthy lieing neo-cons who ONLY care about Israel…..
the legendary Bill
February 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Yeah, I know..but we shouldn’t have been in Beirut in ‘83 in the first place…Which is exactly what Rep. John McCain said on the floor of the House at the time..Eventually Reagan agreed with him…Which, of course, is one of the things the neo-cons hate about Reagan..
the legendary Bill
February 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Lebanon; the only country in the Middle East that is 1/3 Christian and constitutionally must have a Maronite Catholic president..( Syria is about 1/4 Christian now that Bush’s war chased the Christans out of Iraq where they previously were protected by the old regime )..Curiously, whenever the US dealt with Lebanon they always worked with Prime Min Saniora-puppet of the Saudis-and not the Catholic pres..
the legendary Bill
February 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
But since the Bush admin couldn’t care less about Christianity it’s not surprising…And the neo-cons? Well, a “Christian” is only good if he’s controlled by them…Which, of course, means he ceases to be Christian…
JC
February 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
And what would the name of this Muslim Nation be?
McCain is quite obviously deranged.He is no risk however, because he cannot win any competition except perhaps how many times he can say P.O.W. in one sentance!
You Republicans make me sick to my stomach. War, war, kill, kill, profits, profits, “Augh”
peace
February 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Don’t agree with don’treallycare above.
peace
February 17th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Do you think the voting patterns of Black Americans in the primaries this year that they too love killing brown people, evilpaul, et al? Do the electoral politics of all colors of Americans reflect this? I would sincerely love your hypothesis discussed.
peace
February 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
YES, to richard vajs’s, hope, expressed above. I certainly contribute financially.
peace
February 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I share your pain, legendary Bill.
f9f804373c73
May 10th, 2008 at 7:33 am
f9f804373c73…
f9f804373c73d263ad91…