I don’t understand why this posting is ascribed to “anonymous” when I’ve clearly signed it. mariana

I agree with most of what you say, particularly the “Clintonian” vs “McCarthyite” comment.

As a former college instructor, I can assure you that better than 70% of those using the term “McCarthyite”, generally have only the indoctrination by their left wing teachers and one clip in their minds…. the one about “…have you no decency, sir..??!!” It has never reached them that the specific items which elicited this wonderful sound bite, were later proven to be correct and true. Alas.

I find your comments “as a Jew” to be very interesting. As a non-Jew, I disagree.

While I hate the seeing epithets like “racist”, “anti-semite” being thrown around loosely, McPeak and, unfortunately, a large portion of our permanent foreign policy establishment, are against Israel, pro-Palestinian Arabs [maybe oil, maybe just envy - after all, Israelis turned the useless rocky soil and desert into a garden].

I haven’t a clue why Ann Coulter’s name got raised here. I doubt she ever ascribed any criticism of herself to “a vast Jewish conspiracy. Gibson’s smarmy, drunken rant is mentioned here, only because he’s conservative and I certainly won’t defend it. A drunk is a drunk.

McPeak was in a position of power; he had a serious bias which deleteriously affected his observations, judgments, and reportage back up the chain.

Democrat Candidates have been whipping out these “wannabe appointed to something” former generals and admirals. It does them no good and besmirches any reputation they may have previously earned in the military.

In this case, I do not understand a competent “general” who can look at a map and walk the ground concluding that “pre-67 borders” leave Israel defensible.

Oh yes, they could “carpet bomb”, “napalm” or do other massive retaliations which could create a wide cordon of protection; unfortunately, perhaps, Israel is a Democracy and its people would never tolerate such indiscriminate slaughter of innocents to get at the animals deliberately fighting and hiding in their midst.

Since Israel is therefore enjoined from the kind of actions which would readily increase their defensibility, the 67 borders are obviously indefensible. mariana

I agree with most of what you say, particularly the “Clintonian” vs “McCarthyite” comment.

As a former college instructor, I can assure you that better than 70% of those using the term “McCarthyite”, generally have only the indoctrination by their left wing teachers and one clip in their minds…. the one about “…have you no decency, sir..??!!” It has never reached them that the specific items which elicited this wonderful sound bite, were later proven to be correct and true. Alas.

I find your comments “as a jew” to be very interesting. As a non-jew, I disagree.

While I hate the seeing epithets like “racist”, “anti-semite” being thrown around loosely, McPeak and, unfortunately, a large portion of our permanent foreign policy establishment, are against Israel, pro-Palestinian Arabs [maybe oil, maybe just envy - after all, Israelis turned the useless rocky soil and desert into a garden].

I haven’t a clue why Ann Coulter’s name got raised here. I doubt she ever ascribed any criticism of herself to “a vast Jewish conspiracy. Gibson’s smarmy, drunken rant is mentioned here, only because he’s conservative and I certainly won’t defend it. A drunk is a drunk.

McPeak was in a position of power; he had a serious bias which deleteriously affected his observations, judgments, and reportage back up the chain.

Democrat Candidates have been whipping out these “wannabe appointed to something” former generals and admirals. It does them no good and besmirches any reputation they may have previously earned in the military.

In this case, I do not understand a competent “general” who can look at a map and walk the ground to conclude that “pre-67 borders” leave Israel defensible.

Oh yes, they could “carpet bomb”, “napalm” or do other massive retaliations which could create a wide cordon of protection; unfortunately, perhaps, Israel is a Democracy and its people would never tolerate such indiscriminate slaughter of innocents to get at the animals deliberately fighting and hiding in their midst.

Since Israel is therefore enjoined from the kind of actions which would readily increase their defensibility, the 67 borders are obviously indefensible. mariana

When he tells us he’d like “reversion to the 1967″ borders, we learn that he’s an incompetent general, as well as a bigot. mariana

When he tells us he’d like “reversion to the 1967″ borders, we learn that he’s an incompetent general, as well as a bigot. mariana