« Frankfurt Book Fair: Welcome to Jew Haters | Main | Who's Responsible for Germany's Economic Debacle? »


What does Soros have to say about the motivations of the UN security council members who were taking bribes from Saddam through the Oil for Food Program and who were working towards undermining the very sanctions which were presumably "containing" Saddam? How would Soros reply to Bat Y'or's (not sure how to spell that)analysis of European countries having aligned themselves with Arab interests 30 years ago in order to insure oil supplies and who are gradually moving towards "Eurabia"? Does he really think that we share all the same interests as the Europeans any longer? Does Soros have any comments regarding the fact that we basically bombed Germany into complete submission and couldn't care less about the civilian casualties - in fact we ruthlessly shot anyone even suspected of insurgent activity - while in Iraq we have tried to minimize civilian casualties and in fact it may be our very humane approach that it is preventing the insurgents from having to accept certain defeat - that, along with the fact that they must surely take comfort from the anti-American media coverage and the defeatism of people like himself, thus prolonging the conflict? What does Soros have to say about the fact that he was a major player in getting the McCain-Feingold legislation passed and as soon as it was passed he went right through the back door loophole to undermine its intent by throwing millions at the Democratic 527's? What exactly is his agenda? And if right-wing Republican did what he has done this election season would he be the first one crying foul?

Right after the election, Soros is going to give back all theymoney he cheated small depositors and businesses out of.

Walter E. Wallis
Palo Alto, CA

But Germany never attacked us. Neither did Italy.

Soros: "It took President Bush's policies to upset the Germans. As you know, German Chancellor Schroder managed to stay in power by taking an anti-American platform. This goes to show how much damage Bush has done to America's standing in the world."

Huh? Did he really write this reply, or did some intern write it? This makes no sense whatsoever. And whoever wrote this reply didn't address any of the key points. I'll bet I can guess what he considers a more constructive "roll" for America in the world.

It's the medieneinheitsbrei, stupid!
You should read this...

Have War Critics Even Read the Duelfer Report?

October 14, 2004; Page A18

After the release of the Iraq Survey Group's Duelfer report, the headlines blazed "No WMD Found." Most stories continued by saying that Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. and thus the U.S. was wrong to eliminate that threat. This reflects the notion that Iraq was only a threat if it had military munitions filled with WMD. The claim "Iraq was not an imminent threat" was also expounded by pundits that seemingly crawled out of the woodwork as well as those opposed to President Bush. But have these individuals read carefully the report before engaging in such anti-Bush rhetoric?
* * *

While no facilities were found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, many clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services were found to be engaged in small-scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents. These laboratories were also evaluating whether various poisons would change the texture, smell or appearance of foodstuffs. These aspects of the ISG report have been ignored by the pundits and press. Did these constitute an imminent threat? Perhaps it depends how you define "threat."

The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe." Are we to believe this plan existed because they liked us? Or did they wish to do us harm? The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity.

The ISG was also told that "ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol" in various munitions. Such development was not just for assassination. If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD.

Biological agents, delivered on a small scale (terrorist delivery) can maim or kill a large number of people. The Iraqi Intelligence organizations had a history of conducting tests on humans with chemical and biological substances that went beyond assassination studies. While many of these were in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple documents and testimony indicate that such testing continued through the 1990s and into the next millennium, perhaps as late as 2002. Do we wait until such weapons are used against our domestic population before we act? Is that the way that some people wish to have the U.S. protected from terrorist activity?

It is asserted that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. Really? Documentation indicates that Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese.

As for the U.N. inspection system preventing such R&D, why did Iraq not declare these clandestine laboratories to Unscom and Unmovic and why did these inspection agencies not discover these laboratories? Might it have been that there were multiple informants working inside Unscom and Unmovic that kept the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed as to what sites were to be inspected? Information collected by ISG indicates that this was the case. In late 2002 and early 2003, equipment and materials were removed from several sites 24 hours before U.N. inspections. Such informants were said to be active since 1993. Ergo, no surprise inspections.

Furthermore, sanctions were rapidly eroding. Unscom was aware of this erosion but not to the degree that apparently developed post 1998. The accounts of bribery of officials from several countries that were pushing for lifting or weakening sanctions are legend and have been extensively reported this past week. Inspections can not be effective without the full support of the U.N. Security Council. Such full support did not exist from late 1996 onward. Perhaps, now we know why. Iraq exploited the power of wealth in the form of oil to buy influence in the Security Council and within governments throughout the World. This has now been well documented.

Was Iraq an imminent threat? With the regime's intention and the activity of its intelligence organizations, and with the proven futility of uncovering its clandestine laboratory operations by the U.N. inspectors, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. Regretfully, terrorism is the wave of the future. The report by Charles Duelfer is unclassified and makes very interesting reading for those who really want to know. For those with a closed mind, it will be a waste of time.

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, just returned from Iraq, where he has been a member of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).
URL for this article:



You are right that the Germans and Italians declared war on us. But why did they? The Triparte Pact obviously did not require it (the Japanese felt no compulsion to assist Germany in June of 1941).

The reason had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but everything to do with US support of Britain, then Russia, against Germany.

Also, US and German naval forces were going at it quite heavily in 1941. Even had the US-Japanese peace talks been sucessful, Germany and the US would have been at war by summer of 1942.

Isn't it the leftists who are the ones who complain most vocally against the US going into Iraq who cite North Korea and claim, "They HAVE the WMD's"! They are truly the threat!" ( and what exactly is implied there - that we should attack a country that already has nukes??). Obviously its too late! Why does the left think it was a mistake to take out Saddam BEFORE he actually had WMD's? The truth is - they don't believe what they are actually saying! They know darn well what the Duelfur report shows - that Saddam may not have yet had the WMD's but he definitely planned to have them (consistent with his history - showing a willlingness to actually USE THEM - which even King Jong Il has not yet demonstrated) and was bribing UN Security Coucil members to undermine the sanctions so that he could redevelop them. How can any sane person claim that this was not the "right war at the right place at the right time"? We took Saddam out before he got the darned things! If the sanctions had been undermined and we were now with Saddam where we are with Iran - the left (that includes the anti-Iraq war Europeans) - would be saying what they're now saying about Iran and North Korea - Bush you idiot - on your watch Saddam got WMD! Its all bullshit. The left is lying ( and I say that as someone who has always voted Democratic in my American voting life). It has been stated American policy since Clinton in 1998 to support regime change in Iraq. They tried several internal coups via the CIA. They failed. Everyone involved was slaughtered. The internal Shia uprising after Gulf War I failed - everyone was slaughtered. The sanctions were failing - not only killing innocents but lining the pockets of the French and the Russians and all those who "nobly" (apparently from the European and American leftist POV) - opposed the war! What hypocrites the left are. They are the ones who were screaming most loudly about the sanctions killing the innocent Iraqis in the first place! Anyone with half a brain realizes that the the main motivation behind the American and European lefts' vitriolic opposition to the Iraq war is that 1) it was waged by a Republican American president (thus threatening their own power base) 2) they are in denial about Islamic jihadism because it throws their own liberal, multiculturalist values into question 3) they came of age during Vietnam and they won the "culture wars" with their emotional masturbation of "self-discovery" as indicated by their music and other cultural products and 4) they are simply spoiled beyond belief - having grown up in a world in which men much better than them made it possible for them to have the freedoms that they take for granted. And I think that is doubly true of the Europeans. I'm glad Bush is pulling the troops out of Europe. It is exactly what the Europeans need. Nothing like having to die to protect all you hold dear - free speech, women's rights, freedom of religion, in other words EVERYTHING we in the western world take for granted - for the bloody left to just wake up (or should I say grow up).

I've met with george soros and he is a goddamned pompous and babbling idiot.
Here we have a world currency trader who manipulates world markets for his own capitalist gains, now claiming germany was treated "unfairly" after WW1.
This hungarian imbecile ought to keep his stinking nose out of the US election.
And yes Ray, old man Soros had no answers to the bulk of your points. This man is a shallow and cunning despot. His ideologies match that of the dusty and backwards euro MPs.
He states- "How to protect the world against the likes of Saddam is the great unresolved problem of the present world order. We certainly cannot do it on our own."
Well old man- the US, the Danes, and the Brits and Aussies, Tongans, the koreans and the japanese AND 17 hunagrian truck drivers did it you awipe!

Pato - spell it out please. What are Soros' ambitions - particulars please. I understand he is against the war on drugs and frankly I have to agree with him on that. So do many Americans on both the far left and the far right. But that is about all we know. What is his agenda?

you wrote:Anyone with half a brain realizes that the the main motivation behind the American and European lefts' vitriolic opposition to the Iraq war is that 1) it was waged by a Republican American president (thus threatening their own power base) 2) they are in denial about Islamic jihadism because it throws their own liberal, multiculturalist values into question 3) they came of age during Vietnam and they won the "culture wars" with their emotional masturbation of "self-discovery" as indicated by their music and other cultural products and 4) they are simply spoiled beyond belief - having grown up in a world in which men much better than them made it possible for them to have the freedoms that they take for granted. And I think that is doubly true of the Europeans.

Not much to add to your 4 points, you hit the the bullseye. As a born German, now a naturalized US citizen, I am working for a US company here in Germany and I can attest to every single point of what you're saying. I belive I am in a pretty good position to evaluate, having lived many years in both countries. Especially the denial part about Islamic fundamentalism is so true. Germans are soooo multi culti. Over here the motto is: Erlaubt ist was gefällt. Which means, if you like it, it should be allowed. This mental mindset (which is actually a self destroying disease)rules over all aspects of life. Gay marriage, gay child adoption, sexual content on TV and so on so forth... Germany has degraded so much on moral and ethics, that today, a christian who openly refers to GOD, is been looked at funny. Like, you can't be serious.
I feel blessed, as I am moving back to the US one day, but I feel sad about my ex-countrymen. They are helpless slaves on a sinking ship where the captain is the Media.

This is the most pathetic reply I've seen in quite a while ... and the fact that it comes from such a billionaire proves that economic success and intelligence aren't necessarily linked.

Soros immigrated to the US in the 50s. I do not know where he gets off talking about "we" in regards to WWII. The "we" are those of us who lived in the states back then or were told why we did what we did my parents and grandparents. His view of WWII can only be that of the son of a European.

Soros did what you usually do when your contention or thesis is rebutted:

-no democracy by military means; Ray easily refuted this assertion.

slight and swift modification of his statement

-no democracy by military means unless you have been attacked; Soros gives no argument or proof to make sure that this averment is not a simple dogma as true as: no democracy by miltary means unless you have been attacked by aircraft first ...

What is really making me angry: His reflections on WWI and on german antiamericanism -here is why:

The Weimarer Republik was overthrown because a relative majority of Germans voted Hitler and the rest did not defend democracy -apart from the SPD, no resistance to Hitler and his "movement", the retreat of the Bürgerlicher Block when Hitler grabbed power and toppled democracy. Wilson was perhaps way too idealistic and far too weak to make his juridical ideas become real; but he never promised to Ludendorff etc. that the armistice would be concluded on terms of his famous 14 Points: So it became a widespread legend that western democracy came to Germany by means of american (and left-wing) fraud. So,
it´s our responsability to have chosen Hitler leading Germany astray -not yours: Or did the USA compel us to pick the Führer by coercive force ...

America is not responsible for our resentment against the US; jews are not responsible for antisemitic hatred. Not America should change, Germany should changes is attitudes towards the US. Antiamericanism is a german flaw and not due to the failings of America during her history.
German grudge against America -is this a sound argument that will really buttress the campaign of JFK II?

They are helpless slaves on a sinking ship where the captain is the Media.

And I feel sorry about you because you have no brain!

Other than the German 13(?) and U-boats off the coast, when were we attacked by Germany?


Soros is the main driver behind Campaign Finance Reform, which makes the MSM the gatekeeper during the final 60 days of the election.

And I mean the homeland - not the cat and mouse stuff.

--Sadly, anti-Americanism has a long and storied history in post-war Germany and in much of Europe for that matter. ---

Why limit yourself to post-war?

Let's go back 100-150 years.


Caroline - George doesn't like the war on drugs. George has billions, George could fund world-class drug treatment centers in perpetuity, but he chooses not to. Me, the taxpayer, will have to pick up the cost of treatment for those who are not as responsible/recreational.

If you're spending walking-around money to unleash it on the world, you should be willing to spend more walking-around money to help the mistakes get their lives back.

But no, he'll keep his billions and put the bill on me, the overburdened taxpayer.


I think you missed the point on this one.

Soros is correct - you cannot "introduce a democracy with military means."

You can, of course, accomplish what has often in history been the necessary prerequisite: remove the source of oppression that preceded democracy.

Just as George III did not voluntarily let his North American colonies establish a republic, so Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein would not have volunteered to let "Gutmenschen" come establish a democracy on their turf.

But that's where military means come to an end.

The "establish a democracy" piece is a decidedly un-military task. The absence of others to do this task in Iraq has led to the fact that it has fallen to the military - and thus many good young men and women in uniform are doing thier level best in Iraq. That is, people trained by the military to do things military (e.g., use artillery to put accurate "steel on target") are now pulling police-like patrols, organizing village elections and putting in sewer systems.

By contrast, the US Army had prepared and put into place what were essentially civilians-in-uniform to establish a military government in Germany post-8 May 1945. Those people, not trained infantry, armor & artillerysoldiers but trained "military government" lawyers, administrators and educators, undertook the "introduce a democracy" work. Unlike 1945-49, the current effort (and I by no means wish to denigrate the hard work by the stalwarts doing it) is more ad hoc in nature - with the attendant difficulties.

Die Süddeutsche, mal wieder. Da sitzt Schröder plaudernd mit Gaddafi und man läßt einen Schriftsteller zu Wort kommen, natürlich einen ganz objektiven:

"Eine Polemik zur US-Wahl

Ein verhasster, lügenhafter, rücksichtsloser Präsident

Der Albtraum George W. Bush muss mit der Wahl am 2. November ein Ende haben. Von John le Carré"

Armes Deutschland! Sollten wir nicht mal darüber nachdenken, was es bedeutet, jetzt mit Gaddafi rumzuschleimen?

Ganz interessant von Reuters Deutschland:

"Mit großem Abstand hätten sich Wähler in acht Ländern - Australien, Großbritannien, Kanada, Frankreich, Japan, Mexiko, Spanien und Südkorea - für eine Wahl Kerrys am 2. November ausgesprochen, berichtete die britische Tageszeitung "Guardian" am Freitag. Lediglich in zwei Ländern - Israel und Russland - habe die Präferenz der Befragten bei Bush gelegen. Im Schnitt aller zehn Länder hätten sich 54 Prozent für Kerry und nur 27 Prozent für Bush ausgesprochen. ..."

1.) Soros should not only read his own books, but also what one of the main persons in second World War has said: Winston Churchill. He says in "The Gathering Storm": Many of the lifes that were sacrified in this war could have been saved, if the world would have reacted earlier against the actions of Hitler. Many of those peace loving peoples which were protesting against tough actions against Hitler had to pay this with their lives in the following war.
2.) He should read what Hillary Clinton had to say before the Congress in her speech, supporting the Iraq war: That Saddam had broken or failed to fulfill every resolution of the Security Councel (Chapter 7 resolutions, implementing the use of force against Iraq) and that the time had come to take this all serious and go to war against him.
Which also was the official justification of the Bush government to go to war...
3.) It´s the helpless behavior of all Soros-like people against dictators saying: Something will be done... Going together with the whole world against Saddam could have solved this... So, living on planet earth, George should have noticed, that all the good countries in the UN have their own interests in mind: France and Russia were promised huge oil-contracts, Schröder had to win an election (he knew one half year before he was using this in his election campain, that this war would take place!!! If you need information, ask me) and so on.
4.) It takes time and patience... All those nice people, sitting in cafes, telling you: "Life is unique, use your time, enjoy your life as good as possible, take what you can", are telling the oppressed, tortured, suffering people of countries like pre-war Iraq: "Well its bad now, but be patient, everything will get better, were on your side...etc.. blablabla".
Those people were dead even before they could think of the things above.
What an ugly heap of hypocrisy.
How this works you can actually watch in Sudan. Didn´t hear anything from Soros about genozide in Darfur, concentration camps in North Korea, etc..
One should install a clock counting the hourly death toll of those countries before the UN headquarter ( Germany has such a clock, counting the amount of his debts per second) or in the office of George Soros or of Kofi Annan (you remember "never again"?).
5.) Not all the Germans share the opinion of the big media here. But many had no chance to get informations from other sources as the one sided german press and TV-stations. So one must not wonder if they just repeat what they heard from the media. What you could watch and read sometimes was sheer propaganda -or how do you call strictly one sided information.
Greetings from Franz Hoffmann

Hey Hartmut,

You write:

"You can, of course, accomplish what has often in history been the necessary prerequisite: remove the source of oppression that preceded democracy."

That is essentially what I was trying to say. Democracy would often be impossible without wars and revolutions. In other words, wars and revolutions have been necessary to the introduction and establishment of democracy in numerous countries. Of course you don't need an M-16 or a tank to write a constitution. That was never my point. When I wrote:

"That democracies can be successfully introduced and established through military means."

I did not intend to say that I see military action as the only aspect of creating a democracy. I did not intend to exclude or even downplay the importance of peacekeeping and building civilian, democratic institutions in establishing democracy. Again, I was simply pointing out that military actions were necessary to the introduction and establishment of democracy in numerous countries including the United States, Germany and Japan.

What Soros is trying to tell us is that it isn't possible to replace a dictator with a democracy through military action. That is where I think he has it wrong. At the same time, I agree with you entirely that a great civil effort must be made after the enemies of democracy are militarily defeated to ensure and sustain the success of a free society. No argument there. I agree that the Marshall Plan was a major success and that we ought to invest heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan as well to get those countries going economically and give them a boost on their way to becoming free and open societies.

---Ray D.

Actually, Soros is dead wrong on the comparison of Germany and Japan with Iraq. Iraq did wage an aggressive war and was attacked for it...the mistake was in not removing Saddam in 1991. How well does Soros feel the post-WWII era would have gone if we had adopted the same strategy used in Gulf War I...allowing the aggressors to remain in power? Does he feel that allowing Göring and Doenitz wrestle for power and the resulting government would have been a good idea? Does he feel that a Japan still under the sway of it's military governors ruling with the blessings of the Emperor would simply have beaten it swords into plowshares and become the nation of pacifists they are now?

If he does, the man is a fool.

The great irony here is that MORE military was needed, not less, to introduce democracy to Iraq. The civilian types cannot do their job absent adequate security.

Many of the posts above are pathetic in their rabid personal hatred of all people left of center, most of whom would be right of center in Germany. Attempts to turn Iraq into a go-alone by the Republicans just won't work. There was broad backing for a confrontation with Iraq after 9-11. The aftermath of the war was mishandled badly by Bush, Rumsfeld & Co., but otherwise everyone gritted their teeth to give Bush authority to go forward. And don't forget that many traditional conservatives also opposed the war in Iraq. The showdown with Iraq was not a left-right issue even if the subsequent mishandling of the military victory is. Perhaps a more bilateral approach to the peace would have prevented that.

And let's get real about US foreign policy, too. We certainly are trying alternatives to military might.

Iran? Check out: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/15/news/iran.html

North Korea? Bush is sticking to a multilateral approach. We are skeptical about the likelihood of success in both cases, but we are patient and willing to give these approaches a chance to work since so many others have failed and since force is and will remain a last resort.

One hopes that the Europeans understand that they will not succeed in Iran unless they can credibly threaten economic and, if needed, military harm to Iran for failure to comply with European (and US) demands. [Or are the Europeans telling Iran "you better do what we want or we'll send thousands of Americans to their deaths as a response." (Get real FAST Europe.)] This gets us right to the heart of Ray's point that Old Europe's dependency on US military might is still a major fuel source for resentment and anti-americanism.

I agree with Ray that much of the blather about unilateralism by the Europeans is pure BS. Clumsy diplomacy certainly played a role, but look at Schröder and Chirac. Bush, Schröder and Chirac are the three stooges of diplomacy and each gets a share of the blame for the big falling out. That IHT Iran article is a sign to me that all parties understand that the stakes are just too high to allow a confrontation at the UN such as Iraq II to happen again over Iran. The UN will not survive another such failure. Of course, if the Europeans fail to get their way with Iran but then try to block the US in the Security Council, that will also be the end of the UN as we know it.

Ray, I thought you had very reasoned arguments and a balanced view towards Mr. Soros. Too bad your followers spew nothing but hatred.

SPIEGEL ONLINE does it again:


There are two polls:
First question: For whom would you vote?
Second question: Who do you think will win?

@ Karl B.

Thanks Karl. Certainly some of the comments above are more constructive than others. But most of them are not spewing hatred. I also think it is inaccurate and a little odd to call the people who comment here "my followers." We leave the comments section open for everyone to have a voice. Only cases of extreme obscenity, etc. are ever deleted.

In terms of handling the aftermath of the war, I just don't think things are going as badly as the mainstream media portrays them. They have tried to portray this as a debacle and disaster from day one and some people are beginning to believe the hype. They focus almost exclusively on the negative when so much good is also taking place, so of course people think it is going badly.

I have no illusions about Iraq. It is a violent land, and no other "plan" could have changed that fact. The fact is that there is a plan in place to train Iraqis to take over security for themselves. That is exactly the right thing to do and that is what the administration is doing. The main problem is that we have a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks who falsely think they could have done everything better. If Kerry wins the election we will see first hand if his "plan" (BTW, I still don't really know what it is) is better. The media won't be able to blame Bush for every roadside bombing and shooting in Iraq anymore. Given Kerry's history of weakening America's military and intelligence, I am not so sure the result will be appetizing for his supporters. At least the Germans and French will like us again...gag...

---Ray D.

Karl --

Re: Bush "sticking to a multilateral approach"... why is a coalition of 31 nations that happens not to include Germany and France not multilateral? If your complaint is that the US provides all the firepower, then why do so many people with views at least superficially similar to yours have a different view of the European interventions of the 1990s? The US supplied almost all the firepower then, as well.

I also wonder if you've thought through your position. North Korea probably has nuclear weapons. Is it not clear that the NoKo case is different for that reason? Is it not also clear that we'd all be better off if the NoKos had been prevented from obtaining nukes?

Re: the idea of Europe imposing "credible economic sanctions" on Iran -- give me a break. Amid the "credible economic sanctions" imposed against Iraq by, among others, France, Germany, and Russia, trade between those countries and Iraq was never more lucrative. Any half-awake observer would rightly suspect that EU sanctions against Iran would be another shambolic farce. Sorry, won't wash.

Harry, your right. Russia is building the Mullahs nuclear plant at Bushehr and is now negotiating on sending the nuclear fuel. Thanks Vladimir.

Living in a battleground state, Michigan, has it's advantages. I received a 8-page election/book brochure in the mail from our friend George Soros. This Billionaires for Kerry member's concern for my future is just so heart-warming.

George wrote in his second paragraph of the brochure entitled "Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush":

If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violenc with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.

I wrote George at georgesoros.com and asked him, since John Kerry strong statement in support of preemption during the first debate, how is opposing preemption turn into opposition to Bush? They both support preemption. Does George know something 'we' don't? Did the two billionaires get together and Kerry whispered to George, 'Say, old chap, ignore what I say on 'preemption', it's just politics'?

George is also touchingly naive for such bare-knuckled capitalist, who overthrowns whole currencies on his whim, to think that the Islamo-fascists are going to regain respect for America with the election of John Kerry. I love this cycle of violence stuff too. Islamo-fascist terrorists have been murdering Americans for 40 years with zero response from the US until after 9/11. Suddenly, George is concerned about violence. Where was he during the hostage crisis, Achille Lauro, Lockerbie, African embassies, Khobar Towers, USS Cole and the first World Trade Center bombing. No cycle of violence there, uh, George?

And lets be serious, there are countries out there, who love to see dead Americans and mourn and show their 'respect'. Why should Americans care a whit about the 'respect' of those countries?

Ray - well done!

To the best of my knowledge, the only wars in US history in which we were attacked first were the Civil War (Ft. Sumter), WWII (Pearl Harbor), and the WOT (9/11). We shot first in the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII versus Germany & Italy, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq War.

First of all, my compliments for your excellent posts to Mr. Soros. I wish I had the energy and ability to put together information that well.

I am a trained psychologist and marriage counselor and my question comes very much from that background. My question to Mr. Soros is: "Why the hostility for Mr. Bush?"

Let's just say that it could be proven that Soros is 100% right and Bush is 100% wrong. Both men believe that we should take action to spread democracy to countries other than our own. Both men have acted on their belief. Now in this case, there is an honest disagreement; Bush says it's worth it to try to impose democracy by force and Soros disagrees. Why can't Soros take the position that they agree on the big points, but they disagree on the specifics this time, and that he believes Bush's actions will be counterproductive? Again, why the venom?

This is a social science, not physics. As much as I suport Bush I'm not 100% certain that this will work out, any more than Churchill could have been 100% that his choices would pay off. But I do think that overall it's the wisest and safest choice for myself and my children. But most of all, I see no need to have contempt or hatred for Mr. Soros for seeing it differently than I do. I'm wondering why he can't treat our side with equivalent respect?

Nitpicker, I'm sure you're right. I guess I should remember that when I'm at work, most of the time there is at least a moderate good faith effort to work things out. Not so in the power struggles of the real world. Maybe I got suckered by Soros's posting of Ray's comments.

BTW, you can add Grenada to your list.

George Soros' sole mission at this time, seems to be to defeat GW Bush. Frontpage Magazine has a three part series up now, that is a very interesting read:http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15392&p=1

The other 2 parts are links at the bottom of the first.


Very good idea to write Soros. I wish it could be somehow proved that the answer came from him.

I have a different question for Soros: I'd like to know when UN diplomacy, as opposed to military might, ever introduced democracy?

Forgeting the analogy to German and Japan for a moment: Does Soros have a "plan" for introducing democracy into the Muslim world that precludes military means? Does he expect all Muslims to experience a conversion process by reading the second part of his unreadable book?

Amazing and spectacular posts. I have to commend you on a well built blog.
Soros has been a vague figure for me until lately. I have begun to read up on him. It is amazing that a man who can manipulate money markets as well as he does with an agression that parallels physical violence is against pre-emptive strikes against tyrants. How many lives did Soros ruin with his pre-emptive attacks?
What I am watching from my living room of a very modest home, (probably be judged a hovel by Soros) is exactly the same thing that happened as Hitler was being groomed by certain european countries for his role in contemporary history. Europe had every chance to stop Hitler before he came into full power. I have my own conclusions as to why this was allowed.
I suspect Soros would like to see Kerry elected president because he is a very weak willed individual. That makes him easily controlled by someone like Soros. So who is really going to be the leader of America if Kerry is elected. Kerry or Soros? That way by proxie we would have our first foreign born president.


I think your recollection of the timeline of events is somewhat skewed. Kerry and Edwards both supported the Iraq invasion as late as 2003. They did not change thier position or thier rhetoric about thier position, until Howard Dean threatened thier positions in the Democratic primary.

I cannot understand why the Democrats have to denigrate the war effort and the coalition (please spare me any attempts to state that thier current rhetoric is based on facts or principles). They could easily support Bush's actions, while criticizing legitimate shortcomings in our intelligence gathering and analysis institutions, but essentially making the Iraq issue a push as far as poll numbers. They could then pressure domestic issues and other foriegn relations issues for political advantage.

This would avoid any chance of heartening our islamo-fascist enemies, or demoralizing our armed forces.

Instead, the subtle impression that I get from the Democrat message is that the UN is more legitimate than our own government.

I do not care a whit about a German winning elections in Germany by running an anti-american campaign, I find it very concerning that an American could win an American election by running an anti-american campaign.

I have a scenario in question form.
What is Europe planning if in the near future for some unseen reason all of the US troops are redeployed on home ground?
I believe the only reason some of the continent has not seen a serious uprising of their unassimulated immigrants is the fact there is still a US military presence nearby.
It's so hard to fathom how a whole continent can not remember the hard and fast lessons of WW2. They have lost so much that is not replaceable. So why is it they think they can continue on the same reckless path of denial and irresponsibility without severe consequences?
What if American is finally in a position to where she cannot respond, even if she wants too?
Does it not occur to anyone this is a possibility?

I had never heard of GS until this past year, when my mentor described how GS made his money. Except two days earlier my older brother had mentioned GS as "some rich a-hole who spends his money promoting gun control and [the whole 527] thing." I wonder if someone that irch is anti-gun because gun is a power beyond the control of money, and if the US were to fall into some socialist vacum, and the ss ever role up, it will be guns that save us, and if it never does, at some point it may be guns that prevented it.


I have not read all comments, this point may have already been made.
The peaceful democratic Germany was clearly forged from the wreck of Nazi Fascism. It was also forged despite the influence of an equally dangerous Stalinist influence. An influence powered by a brutal westward advance of a vengeful ideal.
The potential for failure in Germany in 1945 survived for 40+ years with tangible proof of its existence. We won that war and we'll win this one too.

Hey!! That guy Soros is NOT an American. He was born in Georgia, in the Caucasus, which by then was the USSR, so he's originally A SOVIET CITIZEN. Hmmm, very interesting. I'm not American, I'm Mexican, but if I were American I wouldn't give a hoot about what other nations think of the USA. I don't understand why people like him are so worried about someone else's opinions. I wouldn't give a damn, period. But, again, that guy was a SOVIET CITIZEN for many years, perhaps that's why.

EXCELLENT post gutting Soros' feeble anti-westernism, anti-Bush Syndrome.

Concur yr analysis.

Miguel, you're an idiot... Try to use Google before spread your nonsense next time - Soros was born in Hungary, moron.

Unfortunately, the critism of the war in Iraq is a ploy. We can see that from the plentiful pleadings of support before hand by Democrats and the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" by Congress and signed by Clinton.

The real issue here is taking executive power in the USA, using whatever lever is handy. The war in Iraq is quite handy because:

1) It is a major action of the Bush Administration

2) The Democratic base is generally anti-war, any war, thus it resonates within the base.

3) As the MSM gravitates to bad news, they have already pumped up the troubles there, ignoring the good, an example of which is seen here in this pictorial:

So undoubtedly the strategy is to:

1) make it appear unilateral because a few countries refused to participate. We now know why.

2) make it appear that Bush RUSHED to war, when in fact it took many years over two administrations to reach that point

3) make it appear that Saddam was not a threat and "move the goal posts" with regard to "imminence".

4) stress "stockpiles" of WMD, when most of the Bush Administration's points were about weapons PROGRAMS.

5) magnify the problems and minimize the gains.

6) scare people regarding unplanned consequences (e.g., draft)

and so on.

The key point is the (D) people want power and will twist history in any way they can to gain it.


This group has staff following Soros around the country alerting people to his agenda.

And another thing.
You can treaty til the cows come home. It works so well in N. Korea and Iran. I suppose we should have formed a treaty with Saddam, so that he could finish his nuclear weapons systems.

I can hear the media rant in 2008. President Bush should have removed Saddam from power before he obtained nuclear weapons.

No wait. There would be no rant. No trees, no grass, no homes, no life.

I think what Mr. Soros is trying to say is, you can't impose a democracy on a society that’s not ready for it by force.

Plus at this point, we have gone from liberators to occupiers in Iraq. They now hate us and hate all we do and stand for.

Elections we sponsor will not be seen as legitimate and all we do will be held suspect in the mind of the Iraqi people.

At this point, it’s not about politics to me, it’s about the truth.

Are you winning or losing in Iraq right now. Most of the country is not controlled by the Iraqi/US government. It’s a chaotic mess.

And I will tell you why Mr Soros doesn't like Mr. Bush. He sees the Wolfowitz Doctrine/Current Bush Administration Policy of Pre-emptive, unilateral action as an excuse for empire. It’s a dangerous slipper slope and one, by the way, used by Hitler to invade Poland. Go figure why he is nervous. Well I am sure I won’t find any friends here but may be I made you think, maybe.


I honestly don't understand why all this fuss about Soros political blathering. Because he is a genius in currency speculation?

Let me see. Michael Jordan is a genius in basketball. I love basketball and love to watch Mike play. By all appearances he is a decent chap. But why should I give a hoot about what Mike thinks about gay marriage or Palestinian state? I couldn't care less.

I could not care less about Tiger Woods views on multiculturalism and John Lennon position on Vietnam war even though I like Lennon music and Tiger is probably the best golfer ever.

Soros is first and foremost a trader, that requires intuition and steely nerves, not analytical skills and sense of history. Ignore his blatherings and expose his hypocrisy about restricting money in politics.

i'd say you won. well done. the problem with soros's positions is that they contain problems that he recognizes else where in his arguments, but doesn't ultimately address in a comprehensive solution.

this is typical of most bush opponents. in this situation, this war, you must be able to sit down at the table to debate plans of action, not to dedicate all your energy to knocking the leading plan.

which is of course all we hear these days.

I think it's unfair that Soros can spread disinformation via advertisements (possibly affecting the outcome of the election) just because he has more money than me.

Therefore, I think we should do the following:

Censure him.
Make a resolution informing him that we don't like his tactics.
Heck, maybe we should threaten sanctions on him! THAT will bring him around!


From a purely military standoint, it appears that the US IS making progress in Iraq. They appear to have developed an effective approach to cleaning out some of the resistance strongholds, playing on local resentment against the "occupying resisters". It also appears that a fledgling Iraq military is taking root that is willing to fight to clear out these elements. Such a fledgling military is essential to success. They will have to clear out the mosques used as safe houses for the resistance.

Don't read my criticism of Bush on Iraq as an unqualified endorsement of Kerry's platform. He clearly has shifted his stance on Iraq to gain political capital. Given the nasty nature of this campaign, it is a minor sin. In spite of the guarded optimism, the recently-leaked WSJ journalist's letter portrays Iraq as a no-go zone to any foreigner not in full body armor accompanied by armored vehicles. Not encouraging. It is a reality check to anyone hopeful of pulling off some kind of small victory for Iraq.

Harry, I'm not sure I understand your criticisms in your first two paragraphs. I'm not even sure we disagree at this point. I wouldn't let a handful of nuclear weapons stop me from a showdown with North Korea if that were the last resort. Shit, we stared down the Russians over Cuba when life as we know it was at stake. The issue is, are we as Americans still willing to pay the price needed. If you can't remember or haven't read about the military convoys in Miami and all along the Gulf Coast during the missile crisis, you don't know what I'm talking about. The current enemy is nothing compared to what we've faced. We need to get a grip and hang tough. We may get hit, but we're going to get back up and keep coming at them. Contrary to what the politicos are telling you, there just is no real disagreement in foreign policy between mainstream Democrats & Republicans: try it multilaterally. If it works, good. If not, and if our vital interests are at stake, then go it alone. That's not likely to change any time soon. The neocons pushed the envelope on unilateralism and have engaged in a lot of unnecessary chatter that was not needed to justify a confrontation with Iraq. I disagree with some of their broader-reaching unilateralist goals, mostly because of the hubris it reveals. We don't want to be an empire. Empires crumble. Even a traditional foreign-policy analysis of Iraq after 9-11 would have placed Iraq high up on the list of unfinished business. It was an enforcement action in a strategically critical area, not a pre-emptive war.

As for Iran, I hope my skepticism towards Europe's approach came through above. Nevertheless, with England under Tony Blair as one of the three powers dealing directly with Iran, I feel that a higher level of sobriety is guaranteed than with the France/German/Russian axis in Iraq before the war (talk about a fatal conflict of interest!). I have some level of confidence that England will pull the plug on any sort of sloppy deal with Iran. At the point that England starts supporting Security Council action, the canary in the mine will have died, and we'll know it is time for England and the US to put the Security Council to a test. This is multilateralism. It may not work, but we have a certain amount of responsibility as the 800 pound gorilla on the block to allow the Europeans to try their approach. One can hope that if their efforts fail they will have the integrity to back harsh measures against Iran. If not, they risk a severe loss of credibility.

Just a quick comment on those who claim Germany never attacked us before war was declared. In fact, German submarines sank a handful of American Destroyers (perhaps the most famous being the USS Reuben James, sunk 6 weeks BEFORE Pearl Harbour) and quite a few commercial ships (ex: the Robin Moor, sunk May 21, 1941 being mentioned by Roosevelt in an address to Congress) during the so-called "Armed Neutrality" phase leading up to December 1941. Indeed, on September 11, 1941 President Roosevelt ordered the US Navy to shoot on sight any vessel threatening US shipping (namely German submarines) and explicitly warned Germany and Italy that their ships entered the Western Atlantic at their own risk.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29