Not all. Only Gentiles who supported Bush because ther were misled by the Neocon-Zionist media.

Posted at July 5, 2008 5:57 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)

You underestimate clever Jews. They always have good reasons for their evil actions:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-iraq-was-inevitable-11456

It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:

You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]
What these and other such statements remind us is that, by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations. It consisted of (a) regular UN inspections to track and dispose of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) remaining in Saddam’s arsenal since the first Gulf war; (b) UN-monitored sanctions to prevent Saddam from acquiring the means to make more WMD’s; and (c) the creation of so-called “no-fly zones” over large sections of southern and northern Iraq to deter Saddam from sending the remnants of his air force against resisting Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

The problem, as Bill Clinton discovered at the start of his second term, was that this “containment regime” was collapsing. By this point Saddam was not just the brutal dictator who had killed as many as two million of his own people and used chemical weapons in battle against Iran (and in 1988 against Iraqis themselves). Nor was he just the regional aggressor who had to be driven out of Kuwait in 1991 by an international coalition of armed forces in Operation Desert Storm. As Clinton recognized, Saddam’s WMD programs, in combination with his ties to international terrorists, posed a direct challenge to the United States.

In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen.”

Posted at July 5, 2008 5:16 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)

When in doubt, assume that a Jew is an evil Jew.

Posted at July 5, 2008 4:38 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)

ALL Gentiles are the innocent ones. They all are being mislead or manipulated by Jewish neocons.

Posted at July 5, 2008 4:35 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)

You are wrong.
You don't know history. Jews have always worked as advisers behind the scene. They have always had dual loyalty. They even have chutzpa to celebrate act of betrayals of the host countries. Remember Esther, Joseph and Moses, Purim and Passover.

Posted at July 5, 2008 4:10 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)

Since Jews who support the Iraq War are guilty of "dual loyalty" involving Israel, what about the Gentiles who support the Iraq War?

Posted at July 5, 2008 4:01 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)

You are in denial. Jews are the deciders for foreign policy and are responsible the decision to invade Iraq. They are responsible for WW1, WW2 and all the wars. They are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ .
Hopefully, finally we can start openly talk about crimes committed by Jews against humanity. We need to take our country back from Jews. We should all applaud brave people like M.J. Rosenberg for joining our fight against evil Jews. However, let's don't forget that majority of Jews are good Jews, so we only should fight against evil Jews. neocons, zionists, bankers and so on.

Posted at July 5, 2008 2:47 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)

I'm sure you don't want irrational Clinton supporters vote for Obama. If you think that Obama's relationship to Wright and Pfleger, that really doesn't seem so terrible we can't possibly vote for the same candidate in GE and we will not.

Posted at May 31, 2008 8:27 PM in response to Breaking: Obama Campaign Confirms His Resignation From Trinity Church

We cannot keep on hearing all these distractions when the issues facing America are so critical.

Now Obama wants to talk about issues. After spending 6 months talking about monster Clinton, he wants to talk about issues. No way. Let's talk about distractions like his friedship with real monsters.

Posted at May 31, 2008 8:01 PM in response to Breaking: Obama Campaign Confirms His Resignation From Trinity Church

Let me remind you that we live in a free country (so far). Every voter has a right to vote based on any issue(s) he or she wants. If 90% of Blacks vote for Obama because of ethnic pride, it's fine with me.
If for some Jews surviving the Jewish state of Israel is a priority, this should be fine too. If I have a hint that a candidate shares the M.J views, I'm not going to vote for such candidate, no matter what.

Posted at May 23, 2008 4:53 PM in response to Please, Sen. Obama, Stop Talking About Israel