And this is precisely why there is AIPAC and The World Jewish Congress as well as other Jewish organizations.

It’s about the Holocaust. It is all about the Holocaust.

I has to do with the fact that the Holocaust could have been
prevented. If the Jews were permitted to leave Europe, it would have been prevented. But every nation shut their doors based on immigration policy especially Great Britain and the U.S. The only place where they could go was Israel but the Brits from, 1939 and on, closed the doors there as well. That sealed the fate of Jews in Europe.

The U.S. and Britain were aware of what the Nazis had planned almost from the outset but refused to take action that would have saved Jews. They could have bombed the railroad tracks that transported Jews to death camps. Or they could have bombed the crematoriums. They refused to do it.

The reason? The allies could care less about Jews because
Jews were not part of their war plans.

The lesson from the Holocaust for all Jews is the slogan “Never Again” which translated means to never place your fate in the hands of anyone other than Jews.

That has been the mission of The World Jewish Congress who spent years pushing the U.S. and the world to allow Jews to leave the old Soviet Union where they were persecuted.

And the mission of AIPAC is to use their money and power to
force U.S. policy to do whatever is necessary to ensure the security of Jews in Israel and to prevent any further holocausts.

Following the war, Jews initially tried creating international laws and commissions to prevent another holocaust under the general theme called “human rights.”

But over the years, that has been turned against Jews by
ever increasing hatred of Jews. Arabs are very open about their hatred of Jews. But other people hide their antipathy by using terms like apartheid, genocide, occupation, imperialism and human rights abuses in general terms and based on false allegations or just no allegations. They use terms like Zionists and Likudniks hide their disdain of Israelis and Jews.

Unfortunately many Jewish human rights activists have even opted to abandon their heritage in order to capitulate to their allegiance to left wing anti-Semitic human rights groups.

Today, as it has been for thousands of years, the greatest
form of hatred and prejudice in the world is against Jews. That level of hatred is as great today as it was in the 1930’s and not just in the Middle East but in Europe, Asia, and here.

Regarding the Middle East, it really does not matter what Israel does and how it acts. It will never be acceptable to those who have disdain for Jews.

Regarding Hagel and his calling AIPAC the Jewish Lobby – he is right. AIPAC exists to make sure that Jews take care of Jews to prevent any more slaughter of Jews – particularly by Muslims.

Hagel represents a foreign policy line up by Obama to reflect
Obama’s desire to bring Israel to its knees. You see there is no air between Obama and Jeremiah Wright – there never was. Ironically this was in part brought by Jews and by AIPAC who voted for Obama. Just ask Ed Koch and Alan Dershowitz.

This will be the toughest four years for Israel and it likely will include a war. Fortunately Obama is there for only four years and fortunately there is AIPAC to make sure he does not go so far as to endanger the very survival of Israel.

Political history was never my major but still is my passion to the point where I volunteer as a tutor to certain kind of students in college.

Let’s get some facts straight here on Vietnam.

I am not an LBJ fan but he did not get us into Vietnam or even bring us to the inevitable edge of war – Eisenhower did that. The Geneva Accord partitioned Vietnam along the 17th parallel with the stipulation that a national election be held that would unite the country in 1956. By Eisenhower breaking that agreement the path toward war was inevitable and our involvement as the surrogate for South Vietnam was also inevitable. The Gulf of Tonkin was just a spark that escalated the conflict.

As far as Nixon, he never said he wanted to win the Vietnam War or that is was even winnable. His goal was to gain a peace that would allow the U.S. to not lose world stature. Unfortunately that was also not winnable by the time he came into office and the way it played out.

What made the Vietnam War what it was is that it was fought
as a political strategy and not as a war to win. Most of the soldiers who saw combat were in Vietnam (and in the Army) not by choice, because of the draft. As a result there was tremendous division between combat soldiers and officers – particularly resentment for young ones fresh out of ROTC. Friendly fire incidents were not just rumors.

Regarding Hagel and Vietnam, he was a Sergeant and not an officer. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, and Bush as well as McGovern were all military officers and were inclined to listen to and respect the advice of military officers. Hagel may not be inclined to do that since he is always harkening back to his Vietnam experience. When it comes to decisions on scaling back on the military budget, that may be fine – although I am not convinced. But when it comes to making battlefield decisions (or potential ones) that is why Hagel may be the exact wrong choice.

In his first term, Obama did a good job of appearing to be a
hawk on defense by having Gates/Panetta and Clinton. Obama is no longer answerable to anyone anymore (including women’s groups or minority groups) is the way he sees it and as he told Medvedev in Russia, he will now have more flexibility to do whatever the hell he wants.

It is clear that Obama wants to neuter the U.S. Defense ir
order to drastically reduce our influence and move toward Soros’ New World Order which requires the greatly diminished power of the United States. The way toward that is by making sure the U.S. is no longer the world military power it was after World War II. With that goal in mind, Hagel is the perfect choice.

Obama had a number of better options including people who had already worked for him.

The choice I would have thought was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mich%C3%A8le_Flournoy

A more interesting and effective choice by crossing the aisle would have been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Herbits

But Obama is not interested in a responsible reduction in
the defense budget.

There’s quite a bit of over-dramatization going on over Hagel from both sides. My own view is that Hagel is unfit to serve as head of DOD. I think David Brooks got it mostly right when he wrote that Hagel provides Obama with bi-partisan cover for dismantling the U.S. military.

I think the greatest qualification Hagel has is a perfect fit in Obama World – he is so open-minded that his brain is open on both ends…. and very little info gets rationally processed. Also like Obama, I think Hagel absolutely HATES Republicans.

However I want to see those “cuts” done with a filleting knife not an ax. Will Hagel be enough of his own man to resist the Dem determination to use an ax?

I respect and admire his service to his country as I do any vet. Aside from that, I find it difficult to trust anyone who is a part of the Obama administration. He doesn’t allow for other viewpoints.

Hagel would serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. I honestly believe that Hagel is being used to further divide the GOP.

So I guess we will, at least this time, have to agree to disagree. Hell, I don’t even agree with myself all the time.

The congress critters in both houses keep spending money in their own districts to boost their own chances of winning the next election.

DOD has stated more than once, that some of these programs are not needed. The money could be better spent on weapons systems that REALLY work.