HaloScan.com - Comments

One could write a book in response to this piece, but it's all summed up with "Well said".
Hector | 02.03.07 - 8:47 am | #

Mohammed Salah. Mohammed Salah, Mohammed Salah.Where is the right's indignatious calls of Farce, Outrage and it's not about the original crime in this man's trial? Mona Charen,Byron York and Victoria Toensing have been blabbing all along about how it's a waste of time and it's not the original crime in the Libby trial , well, how about some equal time to the Government's wonderful performance in Mr. Salah's trial. Hypocrites. This will further give way to the reasons to just arrest and torture and "Padilla" anyone now accused of terrorism. They lost 2 big Palestinian Fish to our court system this has got to be stinging their asses right now.
the Fly-Man | 02.03.07 - 8:56 am | #

sellouts to the left of me
fearmongers to the right
global warming is here
is this the fall of night?
malamiyya | 02.03.07 - 9:01 am | #

This is the kind of issue that underlines the importance of independent commentary and of the need for bottoms-up overhaul of our political system. Pointing out that running an important element of our foreign policy, not for our interest, but for another country's interest, and to the detriment of a large proportion of the humans on this planet has nothing to do with anti-semitism.
As long as AIPAC and their allies have a disproportionate influence on our political process there is no hope of a breakthrough in the Middle East.
Joel Grant | 02.03.07 - 9:04 am | #

Yes, we need that debate, Glenn, but I doubt we will have it. Look what just happened to Wesley Clark, as you pointed out. Look what has happened to Jimmy Carter -- JIMMY CARTER! -- for criticizing Israel. I always thought Carter was a terrible president (because he was not a leader), but a very good man. Now I'm being told that not only is he anti-semitic, but he has been a virulent anti-semite for years and a man of hate. Jimmy Carter?

The discussion won't happen, I'm afraid, until we're picking what's left of our country out of the rubble, following the Great Middle Eastern War, aka WWIII.
Svensker | 02.03.07 - 9:04 am | #

Thank you. What is also striking is the narrow range of discourse on foreign policy issues in D.C. foreign policy "think" tanks, especially when it comes to the Middle East (which in addition to the MSM's own biases fuel media coverage of these issues).

The Brookings' O'Hanlon, Indyk and Pollack are generally just a somewhat kinder and gentler version of their more acerbic and militant colleagues at AEI or Heritage. This is the same range of opinion among foreign policy expects that gets reflected on the Washington Post editiorial and op-ed pages and to a large extent also on NPR.

George Soros' efforts to remedy this situation are much appreciated (he's done far more than his share both here and in Eastern Europe), but there must be many other potential funders who see the need for a greater diversity of opinion in our foreign policy opinion-making institutions. Also, with the exception of Juan Cole and a few others, academics have largely retreated from adding their expertise to the public debate. They need to step up despite the garbage that may be thrown in their direction if they do.
Ben Brackley | 02.03.07 - 9:08 am | #

Ezra Klein has an interview with Edwards where he tries to dig himself out of the hole his comments put him in with those who against attacking Iran. He insists that when he says “all options are on the table” that it’s much different than when Bush says it. I’m not convinced.

While he does recognize many of the negative consequences of an attack on Iran (and he makes some good points), I don’t see Edwards having the courage to say what it will take to stop it. He’s not there yet, and since he needs money to compete in the campaign, he probably never will be.

It’s the money necessary to run a campaign that so totally distorts this issue in our politics. We can’t even discuss this rationally because of it.

http://www.prospect.org/web/prin...iew.ww? id=12434
zack | 02.03.07 - 9:14 am | #

Careful Glenn, you are sailing close to the wind that Walt & Mearsheimer ran afoul of and that drove them onto the rocks. The next thing you know, Alan Dershowitz will be denouncing you in the pages of the Harvard Law Review.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 9:17 am | #

It seems about everyone is predicting a strike on Iran. And, soon. If so, the rhetoric of Democratic candidates will be mooted, and they will have to address a different world. From John Pilger:

"The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by Cruise missiles launched in the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. [When the attack on Iran begins] Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes. Posing as victims, the Israelis will suffer some tolerable damage and then an outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian hysteria, leaks, disinformation etcetera . . . It remains unclear whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war." '

http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/? a...articleid=10452
MD | 02.03.07 - 9:22 am | #

Careful Glenn, you are sailing close to the wind that Walt & Mearsheimer ran afoul of and that drove them onto the rocks.

All the arguments I made about AIPAC and the misnamed "pro-Israel" groups came right from the New York Sun and New York Post. That's what I found so remarkable - just how explicit they were about the power of those groups in compelling support for their agenda.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 9:25 am | #

Glenn,

Because of this single, most important point, our country will again find itself lead willingly, and even enthusiastically, to jumping off that same ol' Middle East cliff.

And folks, this time it's a long, long waaaayyyy down.

What will be interesting, but hardly helpful at all, will be the wonderment expressed by many Americans after the fall: "Jeez, why didn't somebody tell me about that landing?"
Mad Dog | 02.03.07 - 9:25 am | #

What benefit does Israel have in having an unstable middleeast?
cathy | 02.03.07 - 9:30 am | #

You say these groups are "large." Are they?

I've watched, my whole life, although the during the first part of it, I wasn't aware of it, this country kowtow to a small number of rich Cuban emigrants to establish an utterly failed foreign policy regime directed at Castro. The result of the embargo was keeping Castro in power, making him the head of state with the longest tenure in the world.

Does AIPAC represent a lot of people? There aren't that many Jews, and there are even fewer Likudniks.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:30 am | #

All the arguments I made about AIPAC and the misnamed "pro-Israel" groups came right from the New York Sun and New York Post. That's what I found so remarkable - just how explicit they were about the power of those groups in compelling support for their agenda.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 9:25 am

Yes, it is fairly amazing. Their articles should make it possible for even someone lacking your skill at analysis to put it together. Perhaps, like the Bush administration and its various illegalities and incompetences, they feel strong enough in their position that they don't even have to try to hide it any more.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 9:31 am | #

Mitt Romney thrashes Hillary over her suggestion of dialogue with Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070...pr/ clinton_iran

"BALTIMORE - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday accused Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of "timidity" regarding the security threat posed by Iran.

In a speech to a retreat of conservative congressional Republicans, Romney lashed out at Clinton for telling a pro- Israel dinner that a dialogue with countries hostile to Israel — including Iran and Syria — is needed to promote peace in the Middle East.

"At this point, We don't need a listening tour about Iran," Romney told the Republican Study Committee. "Someone who wants to engage Iran displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat of a nuclear Iran." '
MD | 02.03.07 - 9:31 am | #

One of your best articles yet Glenn,

The antisemitic card is the poison that will kill this country along with politicians that serve for the purpose of only how much money and power they can accumulate while in office.

Our country has been sold out by a group of people that are more concerned about their political image than their own country, the politicians, and that is why the press ostracizes anyone that talks against the interests of the Israeli lobby as the press is owned by the global cabal that is headed up by a few families and they also are told what to report and who to destroy.

The answer to you question about is their a politician that will stand up to these issues for this country is one guy named Ron Paul of Texas and that is exactly why he will not win as there are too many braindead brainwashed people here in this country as the propaganda campaign has been very successful in the dumbing down process.

This is my territory when you speak of the Jewish lobby as I have been studying this issue for over 27 years and have come to a conclusion that the people that "run the world finances" are not at all Jewish but they are called "Kenites" and are not Jewish at all but do lie about being Jewish as they hide in the fig leaves continually for their own protection as the antisemitic card is a powerful one with those who have position and power to lose as they all know who controls the money. But they are all wrong about who controls the money and are mistaken. They are wicked in their ignorance.

I can't wait to see the comments about this post and how I will be "stoned" by rote. I have no power to lose nor position so I am free to speak without fear of the retribution process.

It is a shame that such a wonderful country could be taken over so easily by the money people and here is a quote.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." --- Thomas Jefferson

Please do not write that I am anti semitic or hate jews because I love my Jewish brothers and sisters and if you do accuse me of it you are wrong.

Welcome to Babylon
Gabe | 02.03.07 - 9:34 am | #

What benefit does Israel have in having an unstable middleeast?
cathy | 02.03.07 - 9:30 am

You have perhaps heard the expression "divide and conquer"? If not, bone up on your Sun Tzu.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 9:38 am | #

Cartoon images and bullying tactics supplanted rational discourse -- not only prior to the invasion but for several years after -- and we are paying the very heavy price for that now.

Of course this sentence describes the unfortunate process to a T. Critical thinking and rationality need not apply.

Few things ratchet up emotions more than the subject of your post. Its the one issue on which otherwise reliable liberals cleave into hawk and dove factions. (just wait, the thread is young!)

The last time I checked, Israel had a very capable army, plenty of weaponry, and a significantly more sensible apreciation for both the capabilties and the limitations of military power. Why then should it be up to the US to keep the cauldron boiling?

I for one, just don't get it.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:39 am | #

The amazing thing is that no one has brought forth ANYTHING that the Iranians have actually DONE. They have never invaded anybody (despite provocations), and, quite frankly, could make our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan living hells if they really wanted to. At first, in fact, they were rather cooperative.

I don't get the whole 'Ahmedjinadad' sp? being the big bad boogey man who single handledly will finish Hitler's work. The big reason that we supposedly refused to have any dealings with his moderate predecessor, Khatemei, was because the 'president has no real power any way'. It was supposedly the mullahs.
So why do these same pundits scream about stopping the current 'madman', if he has no power--which THEY insisted was the case with his predecessor?

How phony all the current anti-Iraq tripe spewing out of the Administration now is clearly shown by the hole aftermath of the Karbala attack last week. It HAD to be the Iranians behind it--the proof? Why, it was so sophisticated and organized, Iraqis couldn't possibly have pulled this off.

I notice this has been back-tracked.
twit | 02.03.07 - 9:40 am | #

All these "anti-Semitism" claims are clearly nothing but childish name-calling. Why is it so difficult for Democrats to point this out? I am sick of being held hostage by sophomoric taunts.

The trouble with the hawks is that they don't have any options - just the use or threat of military force. They don't have diplomatic, economic or strategic options because they are so friggin' authoritarian - "obey me or I will bomb you". How this childish, provocative behaviour ever came to be confused with strength is beyond me.
ESaund | 02.03.07 - 9:41 am | #

Does AIPAC represent a lot of people? There aren't that many Jews, and there are even fewer Likudniks.

With much of our national media centered in New York and all of our politics centered in Washington there is a sense in which the country is being led by the East coast. I think the concentration of liberal hawks is higher in that region than elsewhere. (can anyone say Lieberman?)
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:46 am | #

Excellent post, Glenn.

In the old day of the cold war when the Soviet Union had every American city targeted by thermonuclear "devices" (note: not the firecracker suitcase nukes measured in kilotons, but megaton hydrogen bombs). We didn't freak out and run around like chicken little. MAD - mutually assured destruction kept fingers off of triggers.

If Iran builds a nuclear device, it will be a primitive small one. We can welcome them to the big boys club and inform them that MAD now applies to them. Chirac said the same thing (accidentally) a few days ago. We know how to deal with nuclear powers. I think this is all about controlling thw world's oil supply.

I wish we didn't have a stealth foreign policy. It would be great to debate this stuff instead of spin conspiracy theories...
Toby Tobiason | 02.03.07 - 9:51 am | #

In 1999, the Pentagon budget was 276 billion dollars.

For 2007, Bush is proposing a Pentagon budget of 622 billion dollars.

Defense spending now constitutes half of all discretionary spending, and according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is the highest since WWII.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/20...fnbudget070202/
MD | 02.03.07 - 9:52 am | #

Did anyone notice how Bush in the middle of last year started stating, repeatedly, that Hamas and Hezbollah were 'enemies of the United States'?

Since when? After Beirut in '83, Hezbolloah has done nothing to us. Yet no one has challenged Bush on this. Talk about mission creep!

Since when do enemies of Israel automatically conflate to enemies of the United States? And always, the 'evil hand' of Iran is seen behind them. Yet what has Iran actually done to Israel, other than trash-talking? They did NOT participate in 1948,56,67, or 73.

The irony is tht BOTH Hamas and Hezbollah were covertly helped in their infancy by Israel--seen as 'foils' to more moderate Arab groups like Fatah. Just as we used Saddam as a 'foil' against Iran.

Ain't blowback grand?
twit | 02.03.07 - 9:57 am | #

Your arguments would be a lot more compelling if you honestly presented the views of people you disagree with. For instance, you write:

"It goes without saying that there are other factions and motives behind the push for war with Iran besides right-wing Jewish groups. There is the generic warmongering, militarism and oil-driven expansionism represented by Dick Cheney. And there are the post-9/11 hysterics and bigots who crave ever-expanding warfare and slaughter of Muslims in the Middle East for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. There are evangelical Christians who crave more Middle Eastern war on religious and theological grounds, and there are some who just believe that the U.S. can and should wage war against whatever countries seem not like to us. And, it should also be noted, a huge portion of American Jews, if not the majority, do not share this agenda."

Really, so everyone who thinks a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be necessary is either a bigot, an imperialist, a religious nut or a right wing Jew. There are really no thoughtful people in the public policy debate who have defensible beliefs on this score?
GS | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:58 am | #

GG,

IMO a very strong piece, with positions that need to be stated again, and again. And again, until they surface in the public awareness.

There is a claim you make, however, which is problematic, and may need an added touch:

"And, it should also be noted, a huge portion of American Jews, if not the majority, do not share this agenda."

This line comes at the end of a graph where several agendas are described, and it is unclear to me which one you are stating that the majority of American Jews do not share. It appears most likely that you are saying that most American Jews are not for war with Iran. Regardless, this statement is not supported--and you appear guilty of the self-same faults David Brooks was recently accused of here at Unclaimed Territory. Your statement would be fine if you can supply polling data or some other substantive evidence that the majority of American Jews indeed hold this opinion.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 10:00 am | #

Does AIPAC represent a lot of people? There aren't that many Jews, and there are even fewer Likudniks.

It's not the number of people represented, it's the amount of money controlled that determines their effectivness in obtaining power or bending those in power to their will. There aren't that many neocons either, but you may have noticed how they have been able to take control of US foreign policy and drive it full speed into a wall known as reality. The Japanese war party wasn't all that big in the 1920's - 1930's either but they managed to do exactly the same thing with the Japanese Empire through their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".

History -- Lessons -- Ignore -- Repeat

Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 10:02 am | #

There are really no thoughtful people in the public policy debate who have defensible beliefs on this score?
GS | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:58 am | #

Problem is that NONE of them can be trusted.

But, just to peak my interest, name one.
BuelahMan | 02.03.07 - 10:02 am | #

GS--

I haven't seen any 'thoughtful' commentary on the subject. Just knee-jerk 'we can't let them have nuclear weapons!'

As I've said before, what REALLY is a danger to us and the world is Pakistan's arsenal post-Musharraf.

Who is talking about 'Plan B' if Musharraf gets overthrown? That is THE beig worry NOBODY talks about.
twit | 02.03.07 - 10:03 am | #

Frankly--

Don't forget Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution. Only a handful of stalwarts managed to take control of a few strategic spots, and the government halted resistance in order 'to prevent bloodhsed'.

Banks stayed open, the opera performed, the trolleys ran. People ignored the 'Revolution', having no idea what was coming.
twit | 02.03.07 - 10:11 am | #

From the NY Sun piece:

"New York is the ATM for American politicians."

Misses the mark, in my opinion. Change "the" to "a" and it's dead on. California is another ATM. Texas is another. Various states appear to have more equal or greater value as cash cows than they do as sources of electoral votes.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 10:11 am | #

I think the concentration of liberal hawks is higher in that region than elsewhere.

I don't know any liberal hawks who are not in the media or politics. I knew a few people I'd regard as somewhat left of center who were persuaded by Pollack's book that intervention was justified. But they have not been on board for some time now.

I've always thought that the reason there are liberal hawks in politics is that the guy sees himself as president some day, and would want a muscular presidency for himself. (I'm particularly thinking of Biden here.)

Explaining the liberal hawkishness of the media quickly starts one down a path that has overtones of Jewish conspiracies. (And there's always Marty Peretz there to reassure you that, well, maybe you're not crazy.)

But there's also WASPy George Packer, writing (very well) for the ultra-WASPy New Yorker (no dis-I subscribe) and his ilk out there.

They're the ones who have marginalized everybody who was right about this war, from Howard Dean and Russ Feingold to Scott Ritter. I cannot recount the number of times I've read articles by some guy who says, yeah, well, it turns out I was wrong, but I was serious, and that my girlfriend/some loony leftie/my aunt Bessie may have said that this war was a bad idea, but they weren't serious, so even if I was wrong, they weren't right. And, just by the way, if this war hadn't been conducted so incompetently, I woulda been right after all.

It's not so much that this is a bad argument, as it is the argument I see repeatedly in the MSM. Lieberman is still getting op-ed space in the WaPo to reiterate ridiculous lies about the Iraqi threat. It can't really be a Jewish conspiracy that denies Feingold the space, can it?
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:11 am | #

I ran into an example of the "war with Iran" meme last night. My family and I were eating at a local Chinese restaurant when a CNN image of Iranian "tank-killers" came on a screen. Who knows where Wolf Blitzer got that crap from. The whole thing reminded me of the "mobile bio-tech lab" nonsense in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

Glen makes sense about the money nexus and the promotion of a "pro-Israeli" agenda. Given that most American Jews don't back a hyper-aggressive Israeli policy, wouldn't it be more accurate to characterize it as "right-wing" Jewish money even if it is going to the Democrats. In fact, I wonder about the extent to which this kind of money also finances conservative think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and Hoover Institute and the other foreign policy and defense think tanks out there.

In this context, it seems to me that a good way to resist the "war with Iran" meme is to push the Democrats to disentangle themselves from right-wing sources in general.
Ric Caric | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:12 am | #

Regrettably,the hard-line pro embargo policy towards Cuba is not just held by a "small number of rich cuban emigrants".A majority of cuban-americans vote consistently for pro embargo Republican candidates.Indeed,a contrary position is a political death wish in south florida.Likewise,I suspect hard-line views toward Iran among Jews is not a minority position.
AJSURI | 02.03.07 - 10:13 am | #

CASUAL OBSERVER - Regardless, this statement is not supported--and you appear guilty of the self-same faults David Brooks was recently accused of here at Unclaimed Territory. Your statement would be fine if you can supply polling data or some other substantive evidence that the majority of American Jews indeed hold this opinion.

Fair enough. I haven't seen any polling data specifically on the question of what percentage of American Jews would support a U.S. military attack against Iran. But what I do know is that 3 out of 4 American Jews voted against Bush and for Kerry in the 2004 election, where these issues of foreign policy -- unilateralism v. multilateralism, treating the "War on Terror" as the Greatest Struggle Ever or just another problem, etc. - predominated, and the fact that Jews overwhelmingly rejected Bush is pretty convincing (though admittedly not conclusive) evidence that most do not share the neoconservative views of The Weekly Standard, the AEI and AIPAC. If they did, they almost certainly would have voted for George Bush in much greater numbers.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 10:18 am | #

Really, so everyone who thinks a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be necessary is either a bigot, an imperialist, a religious nut or a right wing Jew. There are really no thoughtful people in the public policy debate who have defensible beliefs on this score?
GS | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:58 am | #

Frankly, no. To support miliary strikes by the US and/or Israel against Iran, especially with tactical nuclear weapons, but even with conventional weapons, is simply mad. And somehow madness and thoughtfulness don't really go together.
jeff in doha | 02.03.07 - 10:18 am | #

This all brings to mind the insidious linguistic virus we Americans unwittingly pass amongst ourselves like an incubating common cold: saying that a candidate sounds or seems "presidential."

Like so many political/media terms, this is a loaded little bundle of distorted meanings, biases, and misperceptions. In this particular case, sounding "presidential" means having to represent the Bald Eagle Clutching the Arrows when ever asked a question about American might. It means using the buzz "presidential" language "all options are on the table." It means assuming wholesale the very radical and upside-down presumption of force-until-proven-otherwise. And, if you are a Democratic candidate, it means keeping one eye fearfully locked on the shadow cast by the constant glare of accusations and assumptions from the media and the right that you are weak on national security issues. These are sicknesses by any name; sicknesses that have infected our body politik for so long that we have come to accept the symptoms as natural, but serious infirmities nonetheless.

And then there is the tried-and-true tactic of the right of crying bigotry anytime anyone dares pull back the curtain on their true motivations and tactics. It's disingenuousness at its absolute worst, because the accuser knows full well that he is playing a trick and projecting his own deep-seated prejudices.
DCLaw1 | 02.03.07 - 10:19 am | #

Really, so everyone who thinks a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be necessary is either a bigot, an imperialist, a religious nut or a right wing Jew.

If you add in "just plain stupid", I think that about covers it.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 10:22 am | #

Ric Caric,

"Glen makes sense about the money nexus and the promotion of a "pro-Israeli" agenda."

I argue that the "money nexus" promotes ALL agendas of our government. It writes the energy laws. Health Care policy. Military spending. Agricultural policy.

There is no contemporary governmental policy or statute that is NOT promoted by the "Money Nexus".

Public funding of elections is the. only. solution.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 10:22 am | #

Glen, good fortune with your move to Salon, I hope your audience there will be larger and more diverse. The country needs more sane articulate voices like yours.
David P | 02.03.07 - 10:22 am | #

There aren't that many neocons either, but you may have noticed how they have been able to take control of US foreign policy and drive it full speed into a wall known as reality.

In oh so many ways, this administration is a bizarre aberration. These guys have been running around Washington pushing this notion of military intervention in the middle east since the late 70s.

They've never been taken seriously before. Before 9/11, even though we know they were being taken seriously by the current crackpot administration, they couldn't have advanced this agenda.

But I do agree with your larger point--that money and electoral college effects play a disproportionate role in setting policy. That's why I referred to the Cuban embargo.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:24 am | #

Public funding of elections is the. only. solution.

And, hence, will not be adopted.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:24 am | #

Glenn--

I notice that a lot of wing-nuts hang out at 'mainstream' progressive sites like Salon and The Nation and post like crazy.

Will you be permitted to 'ban' posters, or reply in the comments strean?
twit | 02.03.07 - 10:25 am | #

Public funding of elections is the. only. solution.

And, hence, will not be adopted

Like night follows day....
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:25 am | #

Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 10:18 am

And I'm not disagreeing with you--simply noting that the line represents a crease in the armor of the piece as a whole.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 10:26 am | #

This will not end well. Most thoughtful people sense this, even if they haven't done the research necessary -- as Glenn has -- to see exactly exactly how badly it's likely to end, and why.

The problem is that thoughtful people are usually not powerful, and powerful people are rarely thoughtful beyond the measures necessary to retain and increase their power. (The short time horizons of corporate CEO's, the ridiculously expensive weapons-systems of the defense industry, the simply stunning indifference in Washington to the possibility of nuclear war or global warming -- all are symptoms of a similar disease.)

What can we do about it besides speak in whatever forums remain to us in the shadow of Fox News or the Washington Post? Very little, at this point. We'd be wise, though, to be ready when the first signs of failure -- as in Iraq -- begin to reveal the serious gaps between the explanations offered us and the reality impinging on us in the form of shrinking incomes, dead sons and daughters, and increasingly harsh methods of social control -- a few hundred, then a few thousand demonstrators beaten in the streets, rioting crowds being fired on, etc. It's happened already once in my lifetime, and it took the arbiters of conventional wisdom almost two decades to right the ship of state afterwards.

We should be aware, though, that even that may not be enough to loosen the grip of the powerful long enough to inject some life into the conventional wisdom, especially if the attack on Iran does come -- either from us or from Israel -- and that attack is nuclear. Woe unto us is a virtual certainty if that happens.

In the meantime, it's important to do in our own way what Glenn does here; to remind the powerful that they aren't thoughtful, and that the consequences can be as severe for them as for us. If nothing else, it can prepare the way for people to listen to us when they're finally forced by events to discover that the emperor has no clothes.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 10:27 am | #

Who is talking about 'Plan B' if Musharraf gets overthrown? That is THE beig worry NOBODY talks about.

There is absolutely no reason to worry about Pakistan. Plan B is India nukes them off the face of the earth.
soMebodY | 02.03.07 - 10:27 am | #

And, hence, will not be adopted.
JayAckroyd 02.03.07 - 10:24 am

Jay, there must be a way. Otherwise, we are doomed.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 10:28 am | #

It's true that Bush was playing the "evil Muslims" card as hard as he could, but I think you're overlooking the fact that his party is openly, aggressively Christian and has been for years. That gives Jews (of any political beliefs) a clear motive to keep that party out of power - no matter how much they agree with it in foreign policy - and instead influence the other one to *also* be hostile to anyone that's hostile to Israel.

Unless they want their kids forced to sing Christmas carols in school, etc.

The election isn't, and can't be, a poll on any specific issue because the people elected have influence over a lot of issues. And the voters don't necessarily decide based on the issues that get the most candidate or press attention. Everyone knows the Republican party is more or less openly hostile to non-Christians and a non-Christian in the voting booth has to take that into account whether it was the focus of the campaign or not.

P.S. Nobody could be unaware of the irony of Jews actually forming conspiracies to influence the politics of one or more nations. It's not just life imitating art, it's life imitating propaganda. But that doesn't mean it can't happen, and we need to be careful to look at the evidence and not jump to conclusions in *either* direction.
Chris | 02.03.07 - 10:31 am | #

The aforementioned brings to mind English King Longshanks in the movie 'Braveheart.'

The English were fighting the Scots in a certain battle (forget which one) and Longshanks was present.

Longshanks ordered his archers to send a volley of arrows into the fray. An underling asked Longshanks, "But Sire, will that not kill our men?"

Longshanks (incredulously): "Why yes...but it will kill their's too."

My point being, will not a pissed off Iran send many lethal bombs and missles into Israel thereby killing scores of Israelis?

Of course. But I'll kill Palestinians too.
daganium | 02.03.07 - 10:31 am | #

I haven't seen any polling data specifically on the question of what percentage of American Jews would support a U.S. military attack against Iran.

One of the things that struck me in the 04 election was how strongly opposed folks in New York City (where I live) were to Bush's reelection. One would think that the Global War On Easatasia, oops, um, Terror would be especially popular in a place where pretty much everybody was no more than two degrees of separation from someone who died.

You'd also think that, if it were true that American Jews are, by and large, Likudniks, that he would have been able to win the City just on the Jewish vote.

While CasObs point is, strictly speaking, correct, I think it's clear that AIPAC does not represent rank and file Jewish opinion.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:34 am | #

Incredibly disturbing that the litmus test for "serious" Presidential candidates is a hostile and aggressive attitude towards Iran. I have a hard time seeing war with Iran waiting until 2009, so the next President gets to start it. But I suppose it is good to "hedge your bets" by helping to ensure all the "serious" candidates want a war, just in case...

Off topic - How about a constitutional amendment declaring the "Unitary Executive" theory of presidential powers is incompatible with the checks and balances of our system of democracy? Afterwards I envision a purge (kinda like de-baathification) from all branches of government those who have publicly embraced this theory.
smgumby | 02.03.07 - 10:35 am | #

It's a mixture of painful and pandering hearing Hillary, Edwards, and Obama 'talking tough' about Iraq and Iran.

General Wesley Clark we need you to get in this race because you have the leadership and experience to 'walk the talk'...the others are just pretenders.
km4 | 02.03.07 - 10:41 am | #

This wasn't extremely easy to find:

Poll: U.S. Jews Back Strike Against Iran — by Israel
The survey, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee, found that only 38% of American Jews support American military action, down from 49% last year. But, according to this year’s survey, 57% back an Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic.
ej | 02.03.07 - 10:42 am | #

daganium | 02.03.07 - 10:31 am

"My point being, will not a pissed off Iran send many lethal bombs and missles into Israel thereby killing scores of Israelis?

Yes, I guess I would rocket Israel if I were Iran and was attacked, but not for that reason.

AIPAC and the US Navy need to understand that IEDs can float. And IEDs can fly. Iran's main attack would be the shipping lanes, one would think.

Ironic that the country with the most to gain is not Israel, but the House of Saud and the Kuwaitis. They'll knock a Shiite adversary down a peg or three, and the price of oil will absolutely go through the roof.

Brilliant.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 10:42 am | #

Jay, there must be a way. Otherwise, we are doomed.

This is it, here. People powered politics. Driven by the internet.

It's funny. I actually think this presidential election is an important test. If Hillary succeeds in sucking all the money up, and wins just because she has the money,then we have a very long row to hoe.

The midterms were a test, and the people powered movement had a remarkable number of successes. But if you saw the recent analysis over at MyDD of where the money the netroots put into campaigns went, you'd realize that this is all still being run out of K Street. Matt Stoller drove a couple million dollars of contributions and can't afford health insurance, while the Bob Shrums of this world take a cut on every horrible teevee ad that's run.

Moreover, leaving aside money and corruption, incumbents are never going to vote for systems that make it easier to defeat incumbents. Members of the Republican class of 1994 who explicitly ran on term limits have conveniently forgotten their pledges to serve only three terms. Susan Collins promised to leave after two Senate terms, but she is running after all.

It's going to take a mass movement, fueled by the internet, to change this. I'm trying to do my part. Glenn is certainly doing his. So is Markos, the MyDD folks, FDL and so many more.

But the bar is high.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:46 am | #

How about a constitutional amendment declaring the "Unitary Executive" theory of presidential powers is incompatible with the checks and balances of our system of democracy?

What would it say? That the above language is really, really operative?
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:48 am | #

Bill Moyers Apologizes to Future Generations

"We're sorry. We're really sorry for the mess you're inheriting. We are sorry for the war in Iraq. For the huge debts you will have to pay for without getting a new social infrastructure in return. We're sorry for the polarized country. The corporate scandals. The corrupt politics. Our imperiled democracy. We're sorry for the sprawl and our addiction to oil and for all those toxins in the environment. Sorry about all this, class of 2006. Good luck cleaning it up."

Pass the Bread
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s06/0522- 35.htm
km4 | 02.03.07 - 10:49 am | #

When they call you anti-semite you should call them what they are:

Jewish Supremacists

Let's understand that just as the White Supremicists in this country are a tiny minority, so are the American Jewish Supremacists in their community.

Something like 85% of American views voted Democratic in the last election.
anonymous | 02.03.07 - 10:50 am | #

For a thoughtful article from Wm. Pfaff on American interventionism generally, and in the ME particularly:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/20...fnbudget070202/

"Bush administration policy continues to reflect the influence of cold war ideology, which in Dulles's case revealed the influence of the world-historical thinking of the Marxist enemy as well as personal religious assumptions about the meaning of history. The neo-conservative, "neo-Wilsonian" ideological influence on Bush's thinking, that history's course is moving toward universal democracy, was reinforced by the President's encounter in 2004 with Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident. Sharansky's argument that international stability is possible only under the rule of democracy was reflected in the President's second-term inaugural announcement that America's foreign policy objective had become "ending tyranny in our world." This amounted to a naive instance of what the British-Austrian political philosopher Karl Popper called "historicism," meaning faith in large-scale "laws" of historical development. The Bush vision is of a vast struggle between democracy and an effort by "the terrorists" to establish an oppressive Muslim caliphate of global scope. (How they are to do this against the opposition of the industrial West and non-Muslim Asia has yet to be given a persuasive explanation.)"
MD | 02.03.07 - 10:50 am | #

My point being, will not a pissed off Iran send many lethal bombs and miss[i]les into Israel thereby killing scores of Israelis?

You don't think that Israel owned up to having nukes recently for no reason?

Iran is not going to attack Israel. I don't think they'd attack a non-nuclear Israel. Regimes like that need foreign enemies to stay in power.

Or, like this one in the US.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:51 am | #

That link is wrong. Here's the correct link to the Pfaff article:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19879
MD | 02.03.07 - 10:52 am | #

As Dan Rather would say: "This is Important."

Glenn, you have just become a major blogger, certain to attract a lot of attention from the mainstream, and you just stepped in it big time. This is a good thing for the country as this issue may finally get an airing out, but maybe a bad thing for you as the attacks will come fast and furious.

What is troubling and frightening to me on a personal as well as a humanitarian level, is the very real possibility that true and extremely virulent anti-semitism could sharply increase as the result of pro-Israeli factions clearly and aggressively agitating for a war that will kill American boys and girls. Particularly if the draft is reinstituted.
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:56 am | #

Haloscan blew up the first time - hopefully this won't double-post. Just for good measure - a second poll:
Iran: What Americans want, what American Jews want
Interestingly, these two polls meet on the question of Iran. 54 percent of American Jews oppose a US military action against Iran (57 percent though support such action by Israel). And the same reluctance to confront Iran can be found on the PIPA poll: Just 28% will urge their legislator to help "dissident groups to try to overthrow the government of Iran" - 39 percent want the pressure on Iran to ease. A majority favor "entering into talks with North Korea and Iran without preconditions."
ej | 02.03.07 - 10:57 am | #

"When they call you anti-semite you should call them what they are:

Jewish Supremacists"

An excellent way to play directly into this particular special interest's hands. Well done.

This is not about supremecy. It's not about race or religion. It is about trying to end the condition of constantly being someone else's tool.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 10:57 am | #

Well, as long as we’re discussing marionetteurs, the one, big counterweight to all this push to attack Iran, is the group formerly known as the Industrialists (in keeping with the Prince theme for the weekend). The fact of the matter is, attacking Iran will be bad (and potentially, really really bad) for business. I just can’t see the Big Boys (outside of AIPAC) letting us go much farther along this trail of mutual immolation, or at least that’s what I’m hoping (and there’s no small irony in having to depend on the Industrialists to pull our nuts out of the fire).
JimLanc | 02.03.07 - 10:58 am | #

JimLanc: (and there’s no small irony in having to depend on the Industrialists to pull our nuts out of the fire).

Please excuse another kind of irony, but you might ask the Krupps about the effect on warmongers of sensible industrialists. I'm not sure you'd like the answer.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 11:02 am | #

So Much!

Gabe at 9:34--and Thomas Jefferson said elsewhere about the banks...'if the people knew what the government was doing with their saving, there would be a run 'stampede' to withdraw tomorrow...'

W.T. at 10:27--and in the battles of Valley Forge and elsewhere, recrited troops wore 'duck' (rags) tape for warmth on naked feet.

No clothes, No shoes, No damn war. We want peace! Thanks. Now, honest, I'm out/over. Peace.
clownsense | 02.03.07 - 11:02 am | #

"It's going to take a mass movement, fueled by the internet, to change this."

Agreed. But what I see are people like me, who bitch and moan about it, without direction. A strategy is needed. What is the best way to go about it? One state at a time? I don't have the tools or experience nessessary to know what track even has a chance for success.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 11:02 am | #

All options should be left on the table, especially when dealing with nuclear weapons. But diplomacy must be tried relentlessly. Look at Iraq. One problem most people don't seem to notice is that the U.S.'s allies were/are barely involved in the war. If diplomacy is attempted first, other allies may eventually think war is necessary. Then we could go in with allies.
But currently, war with Iran is not necessary.
Simmons | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:05 am | #

It's worth noting that Jesse Jackson was talking about this phenomenon when he made his infamous "Hymietown" remark ("All Hymie wants to talk about is Israel.") which the Sun and the Post frankly admit is basically the truth. By the iron laws of political discourse, if he had said "New York Jews" instead, he still would have been pilloried, so you can imagine how grateful the pro-Israel lobby was that Jackson gave them such a helpful way to deflect the discussion onto an irrelevancy and keep the subject politically toxic.
Potato Head | 02.03.07 - 11:10 am | #

Please excuse another kind of irony, but you might ask the Krupps about the effect on warmongers of sensible industrialists. I'm not sure you'd like the answer.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 11:02 am |

There’s always money to be made in war, but those are, to some degree, limited earning sources - sure, someone’s going to make and sell the munitions (and earn craploads doing it), but there’s plenty of Big Boys that aren’t in that game, and they’re the ones that are going to get slammed from the effect a conflagration in the Middle East will have on the rest of the world economy. It's the non-Krupps who, if anyone can, need to start applying the brakes to this runaway.
JimLanc | 02.03.07 - 11:11 am | #

Sorry, I misread that second, PIPA poll. That one was about American attitudes in general.
ej | 02.03.07 - 11:11 am | #

Recently I posted a comment at firedoglake, praising then for reporting in their Wargate reporting and pointing out how the Zionist enterprise is at risk in this trial. For it is not Libby, Plame or other minutia but the neocon enterprise behind, that is important. It is really disconcerting how, well minded Americans have been brainwashed, out of a stupid confusion that for the rest of humanity is not a brainier . Yet it continues to feed the frenzy of ignorance and political discourse. I am talking about Antisemitism and Jewish identity.

-’Anti-Semitism’, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of Semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell game of Jewish identity: “Look! We’re a religion! No! A race! No! A cultural identity! Sorry-a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism!” quickly alternates with” Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you anti-Semite!”

Here bellow is the bloger response to my post followed by my comment:

Censor at 76 — I think that’s an inaccurate characterization — I think the neocon enterprise is at risk. It’s not the same thing — there is a distinction between power plays and nuance there, but it’s more about personal power structure and much less about some overall US/Israeli cabal — it just is. The neocons are about their own world view, their own personal power and reputation, their own vision of how the world should be — and that transcends anything to do with religious belief, given that there are a number of staunch Catholics of the Opus Dei variety right there in the mix as well as some fairly agnostic power-hungry folks as well.

I would appreciate it if we wouldn’t shorthand things as “Zionist,” when that is factually inaccurate. And, having a number of friends from college and otherwise who are Jewish, very supportive of Israel’s right to co-exist in the Middle East and, in a couple of cases, having had a professor who survived Auschwitz and/or Buchen-Wald, I find the throwaway “Zionist” term to be far too easy an excuse that borders on denegrating an entire religious group which is, frankly, unfair and wrong.

_Censor@76 Response
Thank you for clarifying the assertion. I should, off course, first thank you for the hard work on your blog covering Wargate. Count with my financial help via Pay Pal.At this time I only can think about Jimmy Carter Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and the assault, it have provoke, for the remarks he wrote.

Just to clarified the Jewish question I am grateful to Michael Neumann who make clear for me, in The Politics of Anti-Semitism edited by Alexander Cockburn of www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html

-’Anti-Semitism’, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of Semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell game of Jewish identity: “Look! We’re a religion! No! A race! No! A cultural identity! Sorry-a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism!” quickly alternates with” Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you anti-Semite!”

Which bring us to the dual loyalty game. But do not confuse Neoconservatives with Jewish as some wanted to claim today because it is nothing but a confluence of religious and political zealots in a bellicose sphere foster in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, as with the downfall of communism we need to pick other fights, to sell more arms. I am so glad that we spear Latin-american with the “Drug War”. Is not that war that our belove leader Regan wanted to start? But hi I go sidetrack… at is so easy to trow sand in your eyes.

Today fascists want us to think about Islamofascism. Off course no body can deny that there are also fascists in Islam or other religions for that matter. Although such anachronistic phenomenon is similar to the rise of Protestants, Lutheran and Catholic fascists Nazis in Germany and Italy again the evil Bolsheviks. But juxtapose Bolsheviks, communists for Muslins and you have professor Huntington’s war by proxy Clash of Civilizations. http://tinyurl.com/expy9

Although anachronistic, as historical social event,this is what the Amen corner want us to think in the United States. That we are at war with Islam. Take Libermann later remarks…

It is just a matter of time before Glenn at Unclaimed Territory will be smear as Antisemitic…The Meaning of Marty Peretz…http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.co m/

In short Neocon is a politically correct liberal term to name a fascist. Neocons is an euphemism not to offend conservatives of the old school who happens to fought fascism East and West.

I think that in today’s political debate the idiosyncratic and ideological agreement between religious and political bystanders, rabid Evangelical Zionists and political opportunists in conjunction with corporate moguls, not to mention other religions of mercy, breeds’ fascism as an overall enterprise. Fascists thrive in religious fundamentalism. Fascists not only welcome the spoils of war, they create it. Fascism and colonialism go hand in hand.
Quote This Comment
200
Adie
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/...-day/#more- 6844
Censor | 02.03.07 - 11:13 am | #

Please excuse another kind of irony, but you might ask the Krupps about the effect on warmongers of sensible industrialists. I'm not sure you'd like the answer.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 11:02 am

And, as I am not supposed to forget Lenin and the Russian Revolution, you shouldn't forget IG Farben and their little contribution to the war effor.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 11:14 am | #

CasObs

You should get out more. Go to YearlyKos in Chicago in August. Or go to the Second Life version of it that I'm currently working on, if you can't get to Chicago. Go visit your Rep's local office, to say how upset you are about this awful war. If you're in a Red State, it's even more important that you do so. Republicans are already scared. If people start showing up on their doorsteps, they'll be still more scared.

Find your local MoveOn chapter and get involved.

There is an enormous amount of grassroots organization going on. There's some element of cat herding to it, but it's happening.

This kind of thing may seem pointless, but the effect is cumulative. Dean's 50 state strategy is working, both to win elections and to break the hold the Beltway has on candidates and their policy positions. Ford lost, Tester won. This will have an impact in how, say, Tom Allen runs for Collins' seat--and has led to him running at all.

The MoveOn/Kos initiative to identify Democrats who do not represent their constituencies and find primary opponets is part of this.

We will find, in this cycle, a way to better control where the netroots money goes.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:15 am | #

Off-topic, but ...

President Bush (sorry, that's just a fact) has delegated much of his foreign policy duties to Cheney, Rice, Powell, Hadley, etc. He chose the wrong people. Cheney's former #1 aide is now on trial for crimes committed by lying to the FBI, according to the prosecutor.

Bush's back is against the wall. When will the pardon occur? During the trial, to prevent Cheney from having to testify?
krog | 02.03.07 - 11:17 am | #

Sorry. I addicted.

Potatoe Head at 11:10.

Yes. Potatoe 'spud' fingerling soup for lunch?! Sounds great. Sorry. I'm gone. What a kind host we have here.
clownsense | 02.03.07 - 11:17 am | #

Tony Judt "on the strange death of liberal America."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/jud...18/ judt01_.html

It being Tony Judt, he inevitably gets to the Israel factor. Here's his take on it all, at least insofar as it implicates the American liberal establishment.

"Bush’s Middle Eastern policy now tracks so closely to the Israeli precedent that it is very difficult to see daylight between the two. It is this surreal turn of events that helps explain the confusion and silence of American liberal thinking on the subject (as well, perhaps, as Tony Blair’s syntactically sympathetic me-tooism). Historically, liberals have been unsympathetic to ‘wars of choice’ when undertaken or proposed by their own government. War, in the liberal imagination (and not only the liberal one), is a last resort, not a first option. But the United States now has an Israeli-style foreign policy and America’s liberal intellectuals overwhelmingly support it.

The contradictions to which this can lead are striking. There is, for example, a blatant discrepancy between Bush’s proclaimed desire to bring democracy to the Muslim world and his refusal to intervene when the only working instances of fragile democracy in action in the whole Muslim world – in Palestine and Lebanon – were systematically ignored and then shattered by America’s Israeli ally. This discrepancy, and the bad faith and hypocrisy which it seems to suggest, have become a staple of editorial pages and internet blogs the world over, to America’s lasting discredit. But America’s leading liberal intellectuals have kept silent. To speak would be to choose between the tactical logic of America’s new ‘war of movement’ against Islamic fascism – democracy as the sweetener for American involvement – and the strategic tradition of Israeli statecraft, for which democratic neighbours are no better and most likely worse than authoritarian ones. This is not a choice that most American liberal commentators are even willing to acknowledge, much less make. And so they say nothing."
MD | 02.03.07 - 11:17 am | #

JimLanc

sure, someone’s going to make and sell the munitions

This time around, it's everybody connected with the administration making money on this war. There are 100,000 contractors in Iraq. It's not just munitions. Did you see the deal that the "Iraq government" "negotiated" with US oil companies?
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:18 am | #

Great post. I worked at several news networks in DC and I don't think most people realize the chilling effect that can happen to anyone in that business who tries to do a serious piece on the Israeli lobby's influece in this country. It just doesn't happen.

All it takes is a few whispers about "anti-semitism" and the hint that you might lose your job and be ostracized and the potential story never sees the light of day...
Ronin | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:20 am | #

JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:15 am

Jay,

It would be as inappropriate for me to start talking about what I've individually done, as it would be for you to make assumptions about it. So I'll skip that, and simply ask if there is a strategy of any kind for proceeding towards public funding of campaigns, coming from the Blogosphere or anywhere else. And please spare me the 50 state strategy, which has nothing to do with campaign finance reform.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 11:23 am | #

This time around, it's everybody connected with the administration making money on this war. There are 100,000 contractors in Iraq. It's not just munitions. Did you see the deal that the "Iraq government" "negotiated" with US oil companies?
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:18 am | #

Iran, in my opinion, is a whole other story. There isn’t going to be any reconstruction funded by the US there; just destruction. So, while lots of people are making lots of money in Iraq, the worst thing that can happen to that process is to have the neighboring country start to go up in flames, and in retaliation, make Iraq more of a hell-hole than it is now.
JimLanc | 02.03.07 - 11:24 am | #

As far as non-crazy people who could advocate a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities (not today but in the future if other measures fail) I'd include:

Michael O'Hanlon
Ed Luttwack
Ken Pollack
Walter Mead

Glenn is captive to the same debate-restricting partisan vitriol he is decrying. People don't merely hold positions he disagrees with, you see, they are fundamentally BAD PEOPLE.

It's a passionate subject - and I certainly don't endorse a war with Iran - but I'm willing to grant that there are cogent, good-faith arguments for a military strike against Iran. I think it's possible to disagree and rebut those arguments without resorting to name-calling. Obviously, Glenn thinks otherwise.
GS | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:27 am | #

ronin: "I worked at several news networks in DC and I don't think most people realize the chilling effect that can happen to anyone in that business who tries to do a serious piece on the Israeli lobby's influece in this country. It just doesn't happen."

CAMERA -- Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America -- tracks all journalists, and keeps a list, in regard to reporting on Israel.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?...& x_article=1174

Here's what CAMERA says about its history:

"The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA, was founded in Washington, DC in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman, a teacher and social worker. Mrs. Meiselman formed CAMERA to respond to the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel’s Lebanon incursion, and to the paper’s general anti-Israel bias. Joining CAMERA’s Executive Board in the early days were such prominent Washington-area residents as Saul Stern and Bernard White. Win also recruited an Advisory Board which included Senators Rudy Boschwitz and Charles Grassley, Congressman Tom Lantos, journalist M. Stanton Evans, Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, Pastor Roy Stewart, and Rabbi David Yellin."
MD | 02.03.07 - 11:31 am | #

The cynicism of the above GANG OF FOUR, combined with completely enclosed short-sightedness, is of course provocative.

But none of the their above arguments can stand fair analysis and still remain viable.

Greenwald et al. not only rebut the neocons argument but, rather, refutes them.

Theirs is the rub.
krog | 02.03.07 - 11:32 am | #

but I'm willing to grant that there are cogent, good-faith arguments for a military strike against Iran.

Sorry, but raining death upon a civillian population can never be described as "good-faithed"
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:32 am | #

The "All New & Improved Anti-Semitism" committee is going to go after this post. That's because anyone questioning the aggressive approach to international relations, especially when dealing with Israel, is now labeled an anti-semite.

I'm lucky. I live in the SF Bay Area & out here we have several Jewish as well as multi-denominational peace groups that loudly support Israel AND the Palestinians too.

Unfortunately, as you so rightly pointed out, they are not the biggest donars, nor are they the attention of much media publicising their desires for PEACE.
kindness | 02.03.07 - 11:34 am | #

Please help....what is AIPAC????
liberAL | 02.03.07 - 11:35 am | #

Can't you hear it now?

"The bombing will be limited to military targets" will be the official US position, posited by President Bush in a national address.

This will be followed by numerous "oops" events.

Gad, these leaders are not only blind-visioned but opaque!
krog | 02.03.07 - 11:36 am | #

Here's a better link to CAMERA.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp
MD | 02.03.07 - 11:36 am | #

Remember too, what was done to Juan Cole by the funders!
Druthers | 02.03.07 - 11:40 am | #

"Please help....what is AIPAC????"

http://www.aipac.org/

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee"

"For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. From a small public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."
MD | 02.03.07 - 11:41 am | #

GS sez at 11:27 - As far as non-crazy people who could advocate a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities (not today but in the future if other measures fail) I'd include: . . .

GS, do you have any specific articles to back up your contentions? I quickly ran a google search on a couple of the guys you referred to, and they’re all advocating negotiating with Iran, not nuking it -

Michael O’Hanlon - advocating the need to engage in negotiations with Iran and Syria -

http://washingtontimes.com/comme...95401- 3400r.htm

advocating the need to engage in negotiations with Iran before imposing economic sanctions -

http://www.brookings.edu/ printme...e4c0a1415cb.xml

Ken Pollack, advocating linking with other Western states in presenting a unified front in negotiating with Iran

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20...kenneth- pollack ray-takeyh/taking-on-tehran.html
JimLanc | 02.03.07 - 11:43 am | #

Ronin: ll it takes is a few whispers about "anti-semitism" and the hint that you might lose your job and be ostracized and the potential story never sees the light of day...

Which is why I think that amateurs are so important, along with the Internet technologies which enable them -- although to be fair, in an earlier era we did have teach-ins, and underground newspapers.

For all their faults, not least of which a lack of resources which restricts them largely to commenting on what others -- notably in the reviled MSM -- produce for them, they do say openly what no one dependent on a journalist's salary dares say.

When I was reading the comments on Glenn's previous thread, I resisted the temptation to dismiss as sheer paranoia all of the comments worrying that the move to Salon might somehow mute his voice. If ever there was anyone likely to resist the blandishments of fame and fortune, it's Glenn, but the underlying concern isn't a trivial one.

My own view is that the entire ecology is important -- from the Robert Fisks who seem driven by personal demons to see for themselves, to the Paul Krugmans and Glenn Greenwalds who bring expertise in their profession to a more general view of what's going on in the world, and finally to the rest of us, more or less literate, who have our own individual truths to tell.

It takes all of us to cobble together a democracy in the shadow -- as I said above -- of those who have no need of us to act as they see fit in the world. To keep us honest, though, I believe that we'll always need those who wear that crown of thorns we call the day job. Actors wait tables, poets teach. Why should political writers be exempt?
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 11:43 am | #

It would be as inappropriate for me to start talking about what I've individually done, as it would be for you to make assumptions about it.

My apologies.

So I'll skip that, and simply ask if there is a strategy of any kind for proceeding towards public funding of campaigns

No there is not. And I do think it will be very bad if Clinton wins with her big money strategy. By that, I mean not that she would be a bad president, but that a successful candidate who completely rejected the only form of public financing that is now in place would be a serious setback.

While Dean's initiative is not a public financing initiative, it is a decentralizing one, which may have positive effects. And there have been successful public financing laws passed recently at the state levels.

Overall, though, I agree with a post Markos put up yesterday. The DC campaign finance reform lobbyists, like Common Cause, do not recognize that they have failed, and need to start over from scratch.
JayAckroyd | 02.03.07 - 11:44 am | #

t I'm willing to grant that there are cogent, good-faith arguments for a military strike against Iran.

Could you make some of those arguments that you would grant? I can't think of any.
JayAckroyd | 02.03.07 - 11:47 am | #

Great and important post, Glenn. The level of debate on the subjects of both Iran and Israel generally demands that anyone speaking in public simply deny obvious truths like-

Bombing nations that have not attacked you is a belligerent and generally illegal act. It is also morally reprehensible. The U.S. has a vibrant history, reputation, and value system. The U.S. that stands to lose it's position from this kind of militarism. Fool me once, as they say. A second unprovoked military adventure, even if it's "only" the slaughter of civilians by cruise missile, will damage America no end, and will encourange more countries to work against the U.S. and to seek nuclear weapons for themselves.

Iran has more direct and vital interestes in Iraq than the U.S. does.

Iran has not attacked Israel or the U.S. Isreal has occupied the Palestinian territoiries (hence the existance of Hamas) and Lebanon (hence the existence of Hezbollah.) Neither of these hoslite organizations exits because of Iranian action. Ditto the violence in Iraq. The fact the Iran is deeply embroiled in the affairs of the middle east is not even mildly surprising, much less justification for military action.

If Pakistan can seek nuclear arms, then so can Iran. There is no logical argument otherwise. As Some Fool says above, Pakistan is deterred by a nuclear-armed India. Why then is Iran not deterred by Isreal and U.S. nukes?

Convincing the muslim world that they are prone to unprovoked attack by Israel and/or the U.S. if they attempt to obtain a viable national defense is an enormous gamble that is at least as likely to further imperil Isreal as it is to defend it. I would argue the former, but even those who argue the latter should concede, given the Iraq situation, that pre-emptive military actions can give rise to unintended consequences. Like the strengthening of Iran, for instance.

God this is depressing.
Bullsmith | 02.03.07 - 11:51 am | #

Glenn, outstanding analysis that shows how the majority can be silenced by a minority. You could have done the same with the run-up to the war in Iraq with the Israeli papers or the Forward...that is where the neo-con agenda was discussed openly. Gabe, makes an inportant point that it is a global cabal that owns the press.. The reason I agree with him is that Putin, Chavez, Castro and others have stated that the international press is the problem. If you will notice any leader that gets out of line with the cabal's agenda is crucified publicly.
AIPAC, Brookings etc are organizations that attract like minded individuals but without the press could not promote their agenda...they could be marginalized by an opposing press ...in fact, you would be one that had a strong voice for the opposition. If you can find the video: The Revolution will not be Televised...it is worth a watch. This video shows the power of the press during the coup in Venezuela. Also notice that Chavez, Putin and Castro (probably others) have made changes in the media that have been quickly denounced by our media as undemocratic. This is a global phenomena not just in the US...Somehow, it appears that the countries targeted like Iraq,Iran, North Korea, Venezuela have leaders that don't follow orders....they are all suppose to change their ways (ever wonder just what that means...change their ways.) Another movie to see is 'Z'...it shows how the masses can be manipulated to support the state's aggressive war posturing to the detriment of its own citizens. Glenn, you are an articulate voice for the majority but the minority will work 24/7 to discredit you and keep you on the fringe... Why was Molly Ivins never given a public forum? Why is Dennis Kucinich never quoted in the MSM?
Mary | 02.03.07 - 11:51 am | #

You would think that smart, well educated neo-cons would see the folly of an agressive military policy, if they would just examine the last 50 years of conflict in the middle east.
Has no one noticed that after 50 years no one has been able to put in place an effective peace? What does that exactly say about the strategy? I dare say the only real solution would be a political one and certainly not a tactical one.
The idea of blasting your ideas upon the populace with bombs, harassment, and imprisonment has only guaranteed that the "terror" will grow, and the fact that even having killed many terrorist leaders has done nothing to quell the growth of those terror organizations.
The neo-con idea of using might to solve the world's problem must be seriously examined, and after thorough discussion must be tossed into history's waste bin as another failed idea of the right.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:54 am | #

You would think that smart, well educated neo-cons would see the folly of an agressive military policy, if they would just examine the last 50 years of conflict in the middle east.

That's where the "force of will" or if you prefer the "stomach for the fight" defense comes in.

Everyone knows that the reason that bombing people into submission fails to acheive submission is due to insufficient or weak-willed bombing. If only we are adequately ruthless will our enemies come to see our natural superiority and benevolence.

It is - after all - for their own good.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:09 pm | #

Has Glenn jumped the shark this morning and joined the loony "war for oil" crowd? "There is the generic warmongering, militarism and oil-driven expansionism represented by Dick Cheney." I can't recall Glenn utilizing this feeble rationalization for the Iraq war over the past six months.

Glenn also claims there was no debate in this country over the Iraq war. Where was Glenn? All sorts of people have claimed they were against the war and claimed they documented their positions. The Democrats desperately tried to avoid a vote on the subject in 2002, but instead were forced to look patriotic to their constituents. At the end of his piece, Glenn does acknowledge some quasi debate took place, presumably not enough to suit his taste. Enough debate, no doubt would have resulted in Congress voting against the AUMF. Gum flap it to death.

On the Middle East, because our policies coincide with Israel's does not necessarily mean they are determined by Israeli influences. This is like making the argument that global warming is caused by human activities. The human activities are observed at the same time the earth is warming, but that does not necessarily imply causation. Even the scientist working on the latest IPCC report aren't willing to say with certainty that global warming is caused by human activity. We don't like Iranian meddling in Iraq, Lebanon, support for terrorism, threats against Israel or ourselves. I don't think Israel gives a shit about Iranian involvement in Iraq or their threats against us, but the other interests overlap.

Diddn't Blowjob Bill promise to pick up a rifle and jump into a trench to defend Israel while he was still in office or a quote to similar effect?
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 12:10 pm | #

Why has it been crickets on the left about William Arkins WaPo columns, the New York Times' video of a dying soldier and the liberal double standard on race demonstrated once again (save for Sharpton and Rangel) on Biden's remaks about Obama?
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 12:13 pm | #

These people are pushing the people of this country into a posture analogous to that which Israel has pushed the peoples of the Middle East. By claiming that their power mad fantasies are something that everyone else must bow before and offer themselves to, because otherwise they are anti-Semites, they are making "the Jews" generically responsible for the crimes they advocate. Eventually what is simply atrocious policy that is contrary to the interests of most people, including most Jews (and Israelis), becomes identified with "the Jews." As this condition deepens, we really are going to see anti-Semitism. How far are we from the moment that Americans start thinking that "the Jews" want to steal their children and send them to be killed in faraway wars. Not far.
janinsanfran | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:20 pm | #

Here is how it's done

From Charley Reese

More on how it's done

And no, not all Jews support Israeli aggression. Unfortunately, progressive Jews have as hard a time being heard as the rest of us:

http://www.nkusa.org/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ israel...,966226,00.html

http://www.pjalliance.org/articl...x?ID=192& CID=20

http://jewishconscience.blogspot.com/

http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews- ag...zionism.html#t3
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:21 pm | #

The Politics of Antisemitism

-’Antisemitism’, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of Semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell game of Jewish identity: “Look! We’re a religion! No! A race! No! A cultural identity! Sorry-a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism!” quickly alternates with” Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you anti-Semite!”
censor | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:23 pm | #

"This is like making the argument that global warming is caused by human activities. The human activities are observed at the same time the earth is warming, but that does not necessarily imply causation." - daleyrocks

Or, to put it another way, daley's typing and nonsense is appearing in the thread. Did daley cause the nonsense? Who can say?
Bullsmith | 02.03.07 - 12:21 pm

Or to put it another way, there were no scatological or sexual innuendos in the thread until BJ Daleyrocks posted, but does that necessarily imply causation? Just coincidence, obviously.

Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 12:29 pm | #

Mary | 02.03.07 - 11:51 am

"Glenn, you are an articulate voice for the majority but the minority will work 24/7 to discredit you and keep you on the fringe..."

Probably worth considering the nature of the pushback against any voice that questions traditional ME policy.

In this case I'm thinking the best defense is a good offense:

Any policy position that is not founded on what is best for American Interests is Anti-American. That is a pretty powerful weapon, and has the added benefit of actually being true.

GG cites George Washington: "The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to ***lead it astray from its duty and its interest.***

Washington makes a mighty shield, but he is also a dandy nine-pound hammer.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 12:29 pm | #

In the global community such as it is today, war is truly an idiot's game, especially so in a context where conversation, dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiation are explicity rejected.

Its really a shame that the American political leadership of both major parties appears to be driving toward a wider Middle East war. The ramifications of this militarism will without a doubt affect this country and the people of the Middle East for generations. And for what purpose?
To protect the state of Isreal, or forestall Iranian influence in the region? Why is this in the American national interest? I can only conclude that at root this is a struggle for natural resources needed to power a clearly unsustainable consumption-based economic system. What a hideous last gasp of an IMHO obviously antiquated system of exchange and trade.
With so many challenges facing the American people here at home, what rational justification is there for spending an ever increasing percentage of the national treasure on military exercises on the other side of the world?

The last six years have destroyed American credibility and dignity. The national dialogue has degenerated ever more into a very simplistic argument between competing euphamisms. One criticizes the state of Isreal for certain policies, and is in turn accused of hatred of jews. Its all a very bizarre reality where honesty and informed debate are more side show than central.

It really does appear that certain intellectual constructs and the disproportionate influence of certain interests are leading the American government toward a truly extraordinary conflagration, even while the American are clearly indicating through polls, both electoral and opinion, that war is an unacceptable investment of both our young people and our money.

Apparently the leadership will have its war irregardless of what the People want. May we all have the wherewithall to withstand the likely trauma we will all likely have to endure due to the leadership's imperial ambitions. May we all have the strength to endure this stuptity and disregard for the will of the People.
Timothy Silva | 02.03.07 - 12:30 pm | #

AIPAC continues to have unrestrained influence because they are so well organized and well funded. Equally important is the fact that the average American and the majority of American's have been subjected to decades of Holocaust Industry propaganda - the one that always paints Jews as victims and Israel as a beakon of light in an evil arab region. Thus public sympathy is something AIPAC can rely on no matter what. To deconstruct this mass delusion is almost impossible. To approach the issue objectively and rationally is suicide for any politician or public figure(for the reasons cited in other posts). Finkelstein along with professors Walt and Mearsheimer document this phenomenon very well.

And what serious effort are underway to weaken AIPAC's influence? The FBI arrests a prominent member of their executive - Franklin (sp??)(if memory serves either last year or 2005???) and you would THINK this would cause a re-assesssment of governing policy, but then you might have also heard that the Democrat's much heralded anti-corruption legislation contained - get this, contained an exemption for AIPAC - slipped it in quietly and of course it was not picked up, questioned or touched by the MSM....

So the unchecked power and influence of AIPAC and the American delusion continues unabated.

Maybe, in a perverse way, a war with Iran is the only thing that can correct this situation. It would finally wake American's up, and the subsequent mayham and loss of American lives (the US military in Iraq would find itself in a situation similar to what General Paulus experienced in Russia) would blowback big time on AIPAC and the neoconservatives. No doubt the blowback would be fatal.
Bo | 02.03.07 - 12:31 pm | #

An American war against Iran will have disasterous consequences more far reaching than what is occurring right now as a result of the illegal and unjustified attack and invasion of Iraq. In fact, I believe that once the scope of the disaster becomes apparent that it will precipitate a real, not imagined, rise of anti-Semitism among certain segments of American society, especially those who are among those most disproportionately affected by these wars, i.e., military reservists, their familes, friends and communities.

In addition, an attack on Iran is also likely to lead to uprisings in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world. What is the U.S. going to do if, for example, Pervez Musharraf is deposed by elements of the Pakistani military and intelligence services and control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falls under the control of elements that have been aiding the Taliban?

We being pushed, pulled and dragged into a world of hurt that is fueled by the unintended consequences resulting from our foolish actions.
fogcitynative | 02.03.07 - 12:37 pm | #

The idea that the neo-conservatives and aipac pro-war lobby speaks for American Jews is ridiculous. I am Jewish myself and have many Jewish friends. With perhaps one exception in the entire group, we oppose their pro-war agenda and their darling Bush.
kedger | 02.03.07 - 12:38 pm | #

When Wes Clark said it, it was because he hates "Joos" (as Atlas Shrugs likes to put it), but when the Post and Sun say it its because its true.

There are evangelical Christians who crave more Middle Eastern war on religious and theological grounds

There are evangelical Christians who get all excited and choked up over the prospect of a M.E. nuclear war because they believe they'll be Raptured. This is a fringe group, but they have a disproportionate amount of political influence.

Now the emphasis has shifted to Iran's alleged (but entirely unproven and apparently overstated) fueling of the civil war in Iraq.

People should be able to see this a mile away. I pointed out in the comments last week that it was probable that the administration's reluctance to produce an NIE was because it would undermine its claims that Iran was interfering in Iraq, and now that the NIE is out, that was indeed the case.

I'm a smuck, a nobody. If I can see that, then our nations journalists should be able to recognize that and must point this stuff out.

The Bush administration attempts to control information in such a way as to achieve what it wants. This mentality saturates every level of policy. Its the reason the administration is so secretive, why it leaks what it wants people to see and classifies (or tries to classify) everything else, why it does everything it can to dismiss, fabricate, or manipulate science.

If the Bush administration decides it wants to do something, it will use whatever amount of propaganda (and I mean that in its most pejorative sense) it can slip by without anyone noticing.

Hell, even when the administration gets caught, they still do it sinse there is little incentive not to lie in out political discourse.

Just ask Sean Hannity, who has become rich.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 12:38 pm | #

For the sociologically naïve but democratic idealist the numbers count, as in the past elections. But for the conniving, shrew and well finance only the powerful count. That is way AIPAC exist. For the Democracy spectators please read: Israel Secret Weapon
http://tinyurl.com/expy9
Censor | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:41 pm | #

Glenn --
This post (like most others) does a major public service. What I don't understand is why or how hysterical overreaction to the vile, dimwitted ravings of every third world blowhard became the lodestar of "tough" foreign policy. And your post provides a partial answer. Still, I'd bet that, money aside, someone like Obama or Clark (or Edwards or even Hillary) could really get traction w/an argument like this:
Let's get a freakin' grip, people. Iran is not the second coming of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and the Death Star all rolled into one, as the President and these other pants-wetters are claiming. Is it a problem? Damn right it is, but the world is filled w/problems, and the last thing we need to do when facing them is to go off half-cocked and needlessly sacrifice our principles, dignity, money and children's lives. We've already tried that in Iraq and it didn't work. Tantrums are not tough, and they aren't going to change the fact that reality doesn't always match our wishes. So let's get 3 things straight:
1. Iran's increasing power is the fault of George Bush and everyone else who supported, and continues to support, his misguided disaster in Iraq. We eliminated Iran's greatest rival and replaced him with a welcoming vacuum, all while stretching our military to the breaking point and exposing the limits of our own power. This crowd cannot be trusted to solve the problem they created.

2. War with Iran would be a disaster under any scenario. We'd make Achmidinejad a hero, set back any home grown regime change or reform by decades, if not more, cause untold death and destruction all around, turn the world against us, and, at best, set back the nuke program by a few years. Sometimes, war is the answer. This time, it's not.

2. Iran simply does not pose the threat that the pants-crapping, fainting couch crowd says it does. The NIE just showed that Iran's role in the Iraq morass is minimal, and its nuclear program isn't nearly as advanced as advertised. What's more, even if, because of Bush's blundering, Iran eventually gets a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't be the end of the world. We lived through nearly thirty years w/massive Soviet nukes pointed at every major American city and we'll certainly survive this. And so will Israel. Everyone knows that if Iran even thought of launching a first strike against Israel, Terhan would be flattened. No nation has ever committed this kind of collective suicide, and Iran won't either.

Bottom line: the world isn't always exactly how we like it. Holding our breath, stomping our feet and screaming our lungs out isn't going to change that. We need to grow up and deal with it.
Rob Michaels | 02.03.07 - 12:41 pm | #

Wait minute please... you mean all Jews do not have the horns?
Borat | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:47 pm | #

Rob Michaels | 02.03.07 - 12:41 pm

I'm sorry, John Edwards here---I've read your comment and don't see how any of this gets the special interest cash into my campaign fund. Nor do I see where this keeps the defamation echo-chamber from torching my campaign into a smoldering ruin. Can you clarify that part of it?
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 12:50 pm | #

Um, Gabe, I have run into the term "Kenite" a number of times before. In each case, it was either a part of, or a direct outgrowth of, "Christian Identity" groups. Groups which, unlike Glenn and his supporters here, are in fact anti-Semitic, flagrantly and obsessively so, and usually supportive of a final solution for the Jewish problem.

To help clarify the nature of your many years of "study", let me pose you this question. These "Jewish brothers and sisters" you say that you love: do they include anyone the rest of us would recognize as Jewish? Say, George Soros, or Elie Wiesel, Yitzak Rabin, or (showing my age) Danny Kaye? Or would those folks be examples of "Kenites"?
pt bridgeport | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:50 pm | #

This upcoming war with Iran will spread and will involve Egypt, Syria,Russia, China as well as others.

The neocons are crazy and they should be stopped at all costs.This Iran war has been spoken about in religious texts of the world and it will prove to be "biblical" in scope and will change the whole world from now on for the worse.

The power elite are insane and they have a taste for blood that will never cease until they are removed forcibly.

the sad part is that there is nothing that can be done to stop them as the common people have no power by ballot as that has been bought from them by their politicians and the politicians only represent their owners interests and not the peoples.

The golden rule strikes again,

He who has the gold makes the rules.
boston blackie | 02.03.07 - 12:51 pm | #

Some hopeful news at www.juancole.com

The big briefing planned by the Bush administration on supposed Iranian weapons shipments to Iraq had to be postponed because the presentation was judged exaggerated and unsubstantiated by Secretary of State Condi Rice and by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. So that raises the question of who was spearheading this presentation inside the Bush administration? Getting Iran is an obsession of the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute and their plants inside the administration, such as Iran-Contra felon Elliot Abrams in the National Security Council and David Wurmser and John Hannah on Cheney's rump Veep national security council. Many Neoconservatives and other sorts of wingnut have a secret alliance with the Marxist Islamist MEK terrorist organization, which feeds them allegations about Iran in Iraq just as Ahmad Chalabi used to with regard to the Baath regime in Iraq.

"So have the Cheney Neoconservatives been at least somewhat reined in by a new Rice-Gates axis of Realists?"
Russ | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:51 pm | #

McCain Says Major Financiers Will Back His 2008 Bid

December 15, 2006
One of the most prominent on the list of finance committee co-chairmen is the head of the New York Stock Exchange, John Thain. Mr. Thain, whose title is CEO of NYSE Group, Inc., previously served as president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

WHAT A FUCKING COINCIDENCE!

It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 "PULLED" by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:

Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V...h? v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

LISTEN to the firefighters and police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j...h? v=jnbpz9udYus

Listen to the owner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L...h? v=LYaUeGvYYxc

http://www.commondreams.org/head...s03/0823- 03.htm

COLLEGE STUDENTS DYING FROM INHALED ASBESTOS:

http://www.bupipedream.com/pipel...cle.php? id=3259

ALL SO HALLIBURTON COULD REMOVE THE WTC ASBESTOS LIABILITY FROM ITS BOOKS - HALLIBURTON HAD ACQUIRED DRESSER TO SAVE THE BUSH FAMILY FROM THE LOSING POSITION IT WAS STUCK IN…all because of the pending Asbestos law suits

Planning days in advance to bring down WTC7 by planting explosives inside it implies only ONE THING...FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACK ON 9/11.

Google: "Dancing Israelis"

The Zionists did it. McCain is in their employ. Lieberman is absolutely his running mate. Apparently McCain doesn’t realize that once they are “installed” in the White House, his own days on planet earth are numbered by dark forces who will not rest until Israel has installed a Zionist as President in YOUR White House.

Follow the money.
Google: Greenquest
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 12:54 pm | #

Jim Woolsey at Herzliya :

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2007/01/ israelis_americ.html
Jim Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, castigated [the U.S. Department of State for their] emphasis on diplomacy. He also likened Iran to Nazi Germany. Funny thing is I distinctly remember hearing a similar speech from Woolsey at an international conference in 2002, when he likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Now Hitler is back – except that this time he’s Iranian.
-- Gideon Rachman, January 22, 2007

The whole point of this kind of "reductio ad Hitlerem" fallacy is to paint anybody who uses diplomacy as being pro-Nazi and/or a wimp.

That's why Hillary Clinton "drew grumbles" at the so-called "pro-Israel" dinner. For the neocons, diplomacy is an option they absolutely don't want to see "on the table".

I consider myself pro-Israel, though a neocon would claim I'm not. I'm opposed to the neocon policies both because they're bad for my country, the USA, and also because they're bad for Israel.

There's a parallel situation with Cuba, where a minority of Cuban-Americans have managed to get the USA to maintain policies which strengthen Fidel's regime, which hurt the people of Cuba, which hurt the USA, and which are opposed by most Cuban-Americans in the USA.

I can forgive politicians who endorse the misguided and counterproductive Cuba embargo policies, because I expect politicians to make compromises, and the policies are merely bad, not catastrophically bad.

The stakes in the Middle East are much higher than in Cuba, and perhaps there's some slight hope of averting insanity. Even the "hawkish realist" community is split -- Negroponte was fired as DNI because he wasn't enough of a yes man for the neocons. The intelligence estimate released yesterday (see his web site at http://dni.gov) doesn't provide support for a war with Iran, so Negroponte got booted over to the State Department for not saying, "Yes! War! Now!".

When the question is war, a neocon's only desire is the answer, "yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
sysprog | 02.03.07 - 12:56 pm | #

What I don't understand is why or how hysterical overreaction to the vile, dimwitted ravings of every third world blowhard became the lodestar of "tough" foreign policy.

Read Hofstadter's Paranoid Style and Altemeyer's The Authoritarians.

Authoritarians within the conservative movement have an apocalyptic fear of impending doom at the hands of some form of existential threat - either external or internal; or both - which it reacts to.

The paranoid group that Hofstadter focused on was the John Birch Society, who feared Communism and an internal Communist threat (some Birchers accused Dwight Eisenhower of being a closet Communist.)

The nightmare of today is that the group that Hofstadter viewed as a fringe minority has now made itself the mainstream of a large political movement.

It's done this through various means (Brock's Republican Noise Machine is an excellent intro on this.) Today the existential threat feared by the movement is The Terrorists and the liberals at home teamed up with terrorists (Hannity) and the Mexican Reconquista invasion and the liberals at home that want to help them invade (Malkin). And there is still some obvious overlap between groups - Ann Coulter is classic Bircher style nuts.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 12:56 pm | #

The smoking gun that reveals who is REALLY behind everything (read ever link):

http://killtown.blogspot.com/200...lis-on- 911.html
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 12:56 pm | #

Is it a problem?

Is it? Is it a bigger problem than Saudi Arabia? Than Pakistan? Than China?

What is the problem? The Iranian president's rhetoric? It's no worse than Chavez's.

They've already shifted the narrative to the point that you feel you have to concede that there is a "problem" to be dealt with. To the degree that there is, there are plenty of other equally difficult problems.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 12:57 pm | #

For the neocons, diplomacy is an option they absolutely don't want to see "on the table".

You know, that would lead to a great line. Dem presidential candidates should say ALL options need to be on the table. Unlike this administration, which only puts one option on the table--ultimatum.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:00 pm | #

CAMERA will make you apologize, General Clark! Or you will be execute!

(from Source Watch)

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a powerful Boston-based lobby group that tries to curb criticism of Israel in US media.

Modus Operandi
CAMERA's website has an extensive database of journalists that it has focused on over the years [4] (including many prominent Israelis).

In one of its media alerts, it describes Israel's acclaimed historian Benny Morris as a "fabricator". [5]. It's other targets include Robert Fisk, Israel Shahak, Edward Said, Norman Finkelstein, John Pilger, Ilan Pappe, Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, and has even accused Israel's prominent daily Ha'aretz of fueling "anti-Israel bias". [6]

The following quote from a CAMERA Student Fellow is instructive: "Is it true that Israel is not complying with U.N. resolution 242, requiring withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967? Not at all. The resolution does not actually specify particular territories or the extent of the withdrawal". [7] (emphasis added)

In a May 7, 2002 full-page ad in the New York Times, CAMERA criticized the media for their lack of understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Palestinian violence was attributed not to the occupation or alleged atrocities of the occupying army, but instead to the "hate education" in Palestinian society. (The New York Observer, May 13, 2002)

Responding to CAMERA's criticisms of the "anti-Israel" bias in its Middle-East coverage, the Executive Editor and Publisher of the the New York Times attended a journalism forum at the University of California in 2002. The editors of the right-wing New York Post noted with some consternation that the majority of the criticism that came their way was for exactly the opposite. (New York Post, November 22, 2002).

Ted Koppel has been taken to task for giving "twice the air time" to a whole group of critics on his Nightline as he did to the single supporter (The Washington Times, Oct 10, 1996).
Borat | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:03 pm | #

Shame on ye, sysprog, fer puttin' such a fine old broad's words into the mouth of a black-hearted neocon. Shame on ye, indeed. Ye'll burn in hell, surely, fer sich a blasphemy.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 1:03 pm | #

"I consider myself pro-Israel, though a neocon would claim I'm not."

I'm pro-American myself. But I have to admit a certain fondness for Chile. They make a Carmenere there that is really good (Viu Manent--try it). And the price is reasonable too.

Mind you, my support of Chile comes in the form of buying wine from that country. I trade with them. But I stay out of their politics.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 1:03 pm | #

So, Glenn, I don't recall seeing your answer to the question about whether you will retain the right to block/otherwise control posts to your comment section when you move to Salon
JimLanc | 02.03.07 - 1:23 pm | #

"The CDI's Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on "the future of Iran' sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute's Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney's leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Un Lubrani of Israel's Ministry of Defense.

Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: "Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster."

JINSA, a neoconservative organization established in 1976 that fosters closer strategic and military ties between the United States and Israel, also has its sights on Iran. At a JINSA policy forum in April 2003 titled "Time to Focus on Iran-The Mother of Modern Terrorism," Ledeen declared, "The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."

JINSA, along with CSP, serves as one of the main institutional links to the military-industrial complex for neoconservatives. Ledeen served as JINSA's first executive director and was JINSA's "Godfather," according to Amitay. Amitay is a JINSA vice chair. JINSA board members or advisers also include former CIA director James Woolsey, former Rep. Jack Kemp and the AEI's Joshua Muravchik. After he joined the administration, Feith resigned from JINSA.'s board of advisers, as did Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton."

http:// www.thirdworldtraveler.co..._Iran_Next.html
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 1:24 pm | #

My, we certainly have degenerated into tin-foil hat turf here. Come on folks, let's not let imaginations run away here.
twit | 02.03.07 - 1:24 pm | #

Letters to the Editor
New York Times
December 4, 1948

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughoutthe world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants ? 240men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

New York, Dec. 2, 1948
Albert Einstein | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:25 pm | #

Signatories to the above letter to the NYTimes

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ
HANNAH ARENDT
ABRAHAM BRICK
RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO
ALBERT EINSTEIN
HERMAN EISEN, M.D.
HAYIM FINEMAN
M. GALLEN, M.D.
H.H. HARRIS
ZELIG S. HARRIS
SIDNEY HOOK
FRED KARUSH
BRURIA KAUFMAN
IRMA L. LINDHEIM
NACHMAN MAISEL
SEYMOUR MELMAN
MYER D. MENDELSON
M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY
SAMUEL PITLICK
FRITZ ROHRLICH
LOUIS P. ROCKER
RUTH SAGIS
ITZHAK SANKOWSKY
I.J. SHOENBERG
SAMUEL SHUMAN
M. SINGER
IRMA WOLFE
STEFAN WOLF.

I've always been pro-Jewish. I've never been pro-Israel. It's a mistake to assume that all Jews were in favor of the creation of the State of Israel.

An anti-semite used to be a person who hated Jews. Now it can mean any person whom the Zionists hate.
Albert Einstein | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:25 pm | #

My, we certainly have degenerated into tin-foil hat turf here. Come on folks, let's not let imaginations run away here.
twit | 02.03.07 - 1:24 pm

Refute anything posted above with facts and links to support your contentions.

Have you read the information provded at the links?
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 1:27 pm | #

"With friends like these, who needs enemas?"
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 1:28 pm | #

Anonymous, you badly need a sense of perspective, and a little mercy for your fellow commenters -- and yourself -- as well.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 1:32 pm | #

This one isn't bad. The rest of it is crap.

http:// www.thirdworldtraveler.co..._Iran_Next.html

Blow it out yer ass, anonymous.
Albert Einstein | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:33 pm | #

It seems a well-documented U.S. psychological syndrome, though poorly studied: obsessive-compulsive fixation with the Middle East. What is the source, the course and the remedy?
Quentin | 02.03.07 - 1:33 pm | #

Anonymous, you badly need a sense of perspective, and a little mercy for your fellow commenters -- and yourself -- as well.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 1:32 pm

Share with me your perspective that makes the foregoing any less true.
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 1:33 pm | #

This one?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Ju.../ Hughes0712.htm

A little dated... Some stuff was recently declassified.

Wiki has some updates on The U.S.S. Liberty Incident. Most of it is still classified. No one knows for sure what happened. We may never know. Sometimes you just never get to the bottom of things.
Albert Einstein | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:37 pm | #

Do you deny that as well?
Anonymous

I not only deny that! I deny the alligator!
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:39 pm | #

It is PATRIOTIC to reveal and criticise Israel's ESPIONAGE and Blackmail within our own borders - to expose it for what it is - and to expel AIPAC from our shores.
Anonymous

I agree! Let's clean out Hymietown, too!
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:41 pm | #

Anonymous: Share with me your perspective that makes the foregoing any less true.

Context. Balance. Mutability. Jenseits von gut und böse, the perils of intellectual or spiritual monoculture, More things in heav'n and earth, Anonymous, than are dreamt of in your philosophy....
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 1:42 pm | #

On that ATM thingy: Public Finance of
Elections would do away with some of this, no?
Hedley Lamarr | 02.03.07 - 1:44 pm | #

We may never know?

We ALREADY KNOW.

The sailors who survived the attack have told us precisely what occured

Have you ever been under attack by anything more deadly than your rabid hamster? I didn't think so. If you would lay off the conspiracy theories, and stick to actual facts, you would find that we don't disagree with some of your basic premises about undue influence.
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:45 pm | #

Iran: War is Coming

I do not think it can be denied any longer. The question is what, if anything, can be done to prevent this catastrophe?

A commenter at Digby (An American Chap) has been cataloguing some of the possible consequences of a war against Iran and they are bleak indeed, including China pulling in her chits and causing the total collapse of the US economy, which in turn will turn us all into street beggars. Think about it.
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:49 pm | #

Well, Anonymous, if you won't reconsider, perhaps you'll run out of steam...or diesel fuel, or enriched uranium...or whatever else is powering your monomania. I really hope you aren't burning down forests in the Amazon to stoke your furnaces; our fragile planet is hard-pressed enough already.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 1:50 pm | #

Taking a breather after those two controversial posts on your move to Salon, huh, Glenn?

Wow, what a great piece of writing. Your paragraph about “toxic and manipulative anti-semitism accusations” leveled against the Wes Clark’s and others who have the audacity question the strategy of militarism before diplomacy in the Middle East absolutely nails the posturing that logically is no different from the Bush and his acolytes’ meme that to question the war in Iraq is unpatriotic and helps the terrorists. It is simply a barrier erected to prevent honest discussion of the issues, to “roll back” those who get in the way of their agenda.

What Edwards and the rest need to remember when they make such statements is the campaign funds they raise will be ultimately paid with the blood and money of Americans and Middle Easterners who really have no say in the deal. They may rationalize that they are merely paying lip service as candidates, but what they are really doing is giving a war-mongering president cover for his delusional agenda.

And casual observer beat me to the quote from George Washington about habitual fondness or hatred for other nations that Glenn had in a piece, George Washington and the Middle East, earlier this week, which perfectly sets up today’s piece. Another Washington nugget: “So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.”
rollotomasi | 02.03.07 - 1:53 pm | #

My postings are specifically intended to "balance" the monologe... zzzzzz

Spare us and get a clue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Rense

If you post crap from Rense and a few of those other sites here, you won't be taken seriously. That's not to say that there isn't a grain of truth or fact to be found there. You just can't distinguish between those few morsels and the rest of the dross. All good disinfo and conspiracy theories have a basis in fact and a few grains of truth.
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:53 pm | #

Bwahahaha!

Monica Lewinsky... an Israeli Agent? Only at Rense.com

http://rensewatch.blogspot.com/

Run along and play with your tin foil hat someplace else.
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:55 pm | #

Two things.

First, since some here have asked where I'm blogging lately, I'll advise that I threw caution to the wind and posted on this neocon/AIPAC/anti-Semitism BS two days ago at Jim Henley's place, and my comments section shows the issue makes some decidedly uncomfortable. There are hinted accusations that I am actually anti-Semitic.

Second -- and totally OT -- does anyone here know the German name for those Aryan breeding farms Hitler ran? I have a post in mind and cannot for the life of me track that term down.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:57 pm | #

Mona:

Lebensborn, I believe.
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 1:59 pm | #

The Ebensburg Program
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:00 pm | #

Sorry, Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 1:59 pm was me.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 2:00 pm | #

Well, Anonymous, if you won't reconsider, perhaps you'll run out of steam...or diesel fuel, or enriched uranium...or whatever else is powering your monomania.

I've banned anonymous and deleted those comments. If it had been confined to one or two comments, I would have left them, as incoherent as they were. But coming to a blog and spewing 15 comments with your own personal conspiracy theories is the equivalent of spam.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 2:01 pm | #

Glenn,

You've misrepresented the articles you quote in at least two ways. First, nothing in any of the articles suggests that "the issue which they [AIPAC supporters] care about most is Iran."

Instead, the Sun article quotes someone as saying "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them." Iran hadn't been mentioned in the article up to that point. It's clear to me that this statement refers to Israel as the most important issue, not Iran.

Second, you quote the NY Post as if it were an objective source of news. The NY Post shares ownership with Fox News, and has harshly criticized Hillary for years. Even though the Post has somewhat lessened its hostility recently, their description of the AIPAC audience's negative reaction to Hillary can't be taken at face value. I just looked at the AIPAC web site, and Hillary gets a photo and positive mention on the home page.
Ragout | 02.03.07 - 2:01 pm | #

Lebensborn was the child relocation program instituted by Himmler for children of the "disappeared".
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:04 pm | #

Glenn:

Have you seen the AIPAC promo video?

It really says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h? v=Ae5t_55OWbo
I am the Witness | 02.03.07 - 2:05 pm | #

Excellent piece Glenn.

Here is a relevant quotation from Scott Ritter, taken from a public conversation he had with Seymour Hersh about Iran last year. It was broadcast on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now on December 21, 2006:

"SCOTT RITTER: One of the big problems is -- and here goes the grenade -- Israel. The second you mention the word “Israel,” the nation Israel, the concept Israel, many in the American press become very defensive. We're not allowed to be highly critical of the state of Israel. And the other thing we're not allowed to do is discuss the notion that Israel and the notion of Israeli interests may in fact be dictating what America is doing, that what we're doing in the Middle East may not be to the benefit of America's national security, but to Israel's national security. But, see, we don’t want to talk about that, because one of the great success stories out there is the pro-Israeli lobby that has successfully enabled themselves to blend the two together, so that when we speak of Israeli interests, they say, “No, we're speaking of American interests.”

It’s interesting that AIPAC and other elements of the Israeli lobby don’t have to register as agents of a foreign government. It would be nice if they did, because then we’d know when they’re advocating on behalf of Israel or they're advocating on behalf of the United States of America.

I would challenge the New York Times to sit down and do a critical story on Israel, on the role of Israel's influence, the role that Israel plays in influencing American foreign policy. There’s nothing wrong with Israel trying to influence American foreign policy. Let me make that clear. The British seek to influence our foreign policy. The French seek to influence our foreign policy. The Saudis seek to influence our foreign policy. The difference is, when they do this and they bring American citizens into play, these Americans, once they take the money of a foreign government and they advocate on behalf of that foreign government, they register themselves as an agent of that government, so we know where they're coming from. That’s all I ask the Israelis to do. Let us know where you’re coming from, because stop confusing the American public that Israel's interests are necessarily America's interests."
AerialRoots | 02.03.07 - 2:05 pm | #

AIPAC SPY SCANDAL:

CONSPIRACY TO COMMUNICATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT

1. Defendant LAWRENCE ANTHONY FRANKLIN was employed by the United States government at the Department of Defense (DoD) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), International Security Affairs (ISA), Office of Near East and South Asia, Office of Northern Gulf Affairs, Iran desk, and held a Top Secret security clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). FRANKLIN'S office was located within the Pentagon, in the Eastern District of Virginia. FRANKLIN was also a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR).

2. Throughout his employment with the United States government, FRANKLIN repeatedly signed written agreements acknowledging his duty to safeguard classified information

3. At no time was FRANKLIN authorized to release classified information to ROSEN and WEISMANN except with respect to Overt Acts 43 and 44 in count one.

4. Defendant STEVEN J. ROSEN was employed as the Director of Foreign Policy Issues for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, D.C. ROSEN was hired by AIPAC in or about July 1982. AIPAC, according to its website, is " America's ProIsrael Lobby." AIPAC lobbies the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch agencies on various issues related to Israel and U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East. As the Director of Foreign Policy Issues, ROSEN lobbied on behalf of AIPAC, primarily with officials within the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. During the time period of this indictment, ROSEN did not have a U.S. government security clearance and was not authorized to receive or possess U.S. government classified information.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/ in...t_04aug2005.htm
I am the Witness | 02.03.07 - 2:08 pm | #

There's reason why we call it the Hitler Channel

Post-war sensationalism
Himmler's effort to secure a racially pure Greater Germany, the classification of Lebensborn as one of Himmler's race programs and sloppy journalism on the subject in the early years after the war seems to have marked Lebensborn as one of the frontiers of Himmler's race battle. In particular, the allegation of an attempt to create a master race through supervised breeding have stuck with Lebensborn and have reached a wider audience over the years.

The first stories of Lebensborn involvement in a master race plan can be found in the German magazine Revue, who ran a series on the subject in the 1950s. On January 13, 1961, the German movie Der Lebensborn (also known as Ordered to Love (US) and Fountain of Life (International)), produced by Artur Brauner, was released, later to gain worldwide circulation. The movie purported young girls forced to mate in Nazi camps. [4] In the decades to follow the subject has been revisited both by film makers and in printed press. Examples:

CBS Drama Explores Nazis' Plan For A `Master Race, The Seattle Times - October 19, 1986
Of all the many terrible aspects of the Nazi regime, one of the least familiar was the party's plan to create a Master Race through lebensborn. This was a program intended to mate the most Aryan of German girls with the most Aryan of S.S. members.

Nazi records found for breeding scheme, The Dallas Morning News - November 26, 1999
Thousands of Germans who were born as a result of one of the Nazis' efforts to create an Aryan "master race" have at last been given hope of tracing their parents - 54 years after the scheme was hurriedly abandoned at the end of the second world war.

How the Evil Began, and How It Spread, Newsweek - March 20, 2000
The Lebensborn program wasn't a sudden decision by Hitler and his cronies. It was part of a much larger Nazi policy on racial purity that evolved over many years ...

Recent movies: Lebensborn (US, 1997), Pramen zivota (Czech, 2000; also known as Spring of Life (US, 2000))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
Jesse Jackson | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:09 pm | #

Last session, republican senators came within a hair's breadth of doing away with filibuster altogether, such was their domination over the minority. And the republican speaker of the house would not allow a bill to the floor unless 2/3 of house republicans supported it. Not 2/3 of the house--2/3 of the republican house members. Our legislators had ceased to identify themselves as the first branch of govt., in favor of becoming party operatives. Hacks, some call them.

Now, Republicans are threatening filibuster in order to BLOCK SENATE DEBATE on Iraq. So the issue can not even be discussed by the 'worlds greatest deliberative body'. Discussion of the war by our senators is to be prevented by any means possible.

"Republicans Plan to Block Iraq Debate"

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Friday that his party would unite to block Senate debate next week on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq unless the Democrats allowed votes on at least two Republican alternatives."

If link below doesn't work, the story is up on Memeorandum. The unmitigated gall of these guys never ceases to amaze.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/ 0...ubizc+ywyngK8Vg
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 2:12 pm | #

Jesse:

Lebensborn was probably the term Mona was looking for, though, yes? I can't remember any other references to Aryan baby farms over the years. I never heard of an Ebensburg Program, for example.

You do seem to know more about this than I, though. What was the story?
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 2:14 pm | #

Glenn,

I'm guessing that by "preemptive" war you actually meant "preventive" war.

Preemptive war, as I understand it, means attacking another country that poses a provably and unmistakably clear, present, serious and most of all IMMINENT danger. E.g. Japan (had we known about Pearl Harbor, assuming of course that we didn't).

Whereas preventive war, also as I understand it, means attacking another country that poses a potential, long-term and/or unclear danger, in order to prevent it from becoming the above kind of danger. E.g. Iraq in 2003 (although, of course, the administration sold this war as the former kind, when it was in fact AT MOST the latter kind).

I would think that most people would support a preemptive war if in fact it was a legitimately preemptive war situation and ALL other responsible means of avoiding war were first exhausted. One example that comes to mind is the Cuban missle crisis, in which I think the US had a legitimate right to attack the missle sites and the ships carrying them to Cuba if no other responsible choice remained open--but where, thankfully, other responsible choice WERE open and pursued, ultimately successfully.

But Iran, like Iraq before it, is not a preemptive war situation. Rather, also like Iraq, it is, at MOST, a preventive war situation--and a fairly weak one at that, given what the available intel appears to be saying about Iran's present and near-term capabilities and intentions. And so, any preemptive war justification of an attack on Iran is complete and utter bullshit, and should be rejected as such.

Furthermore, given the apparent present state of development of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, not only does preventive war not appear to be called for, but it seems to me that it would only end up achieving the exact opposite of its intended effect, namely, to further radicalize Iran and make it even more determined to confront and willing to attack the west. And while its long-term nuclear ability might be weakened by such attacks (but even then not necessarily), its possession of and ability to make other kinds of WMD would likely not be seriously diminished, and, far worse, its willingness to USE them would only be increased.

Bottom line, this is not only not a valid preemptive war situation, it is not even a valid preventive war situation. Rather, this is a situation that clearly calls for forceful negotiation, without irresponsible saber rattle-waving. Iran's leadership might be weak, desperate and stupid enough to to do its own saber-rattling--and clearly it has. But that doesn't mean that we have to take our cue from them and respond in kind. That would only demonstrate our own weakness, desperation and stupidity. And god knows we've had enough of that recently.

The Democratic candidate who most honestly, forcefully and unhesitatingly promotes this view and approach is the one who will get my vote. So far, to my surprise, Obama appears to come closest, and Hillary furthest. Count me in the Jews Against AIPAC crowd.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 2:15 pm | #

Yet what has Iran actually done to Israel, other than trash-talking? They did NOT participate in 1948,56,67, or 73.

Well, actually, they have done more than just trash-talk Israel, in their support for Hezbollah. But that is entirely besides the point, because an attack on Israel (or any US ally) is not an attack on the US. The US is within its rights to responsibly support its allies (while at the same time encouraging them to act responsibly as well). But it is not obliged to consider or treat its' allies enemies its own enemies. That would, for example, seriously complicate our relations with India and Pakistan, or with China and Taiwan.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 2:20 pm | #

re: Lebensborn

Thank you all; I'm pretty sure that's it and can take the research from there. No need to continue the topic and hijack discussion of Glenn's post.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:22 pm | #

Yes, Lebensborn is WT, but it was initially not a breeding program. I must have had a brain fart. And I'm German. =-0

From the talk page at Wiki Lebensborn.

(Always check the talk page and look for revert battles.)

In reality, no evidence is found, so far, of any breeding houses. Further, the idea that the Lebensborn project was ever intended as a program to carefully breed selected humans is disputed, at best. No written material has been discovered stating such goals. There are no recorded statements, and no woman or man has stepped forward with reliable claims. The trial against the leaders of the Lebensborn organization after the war did not reveal any plans to breed humans.

The only reference to such a plan can be found in Felix Kersten's book The Kersten Memoirs, 1940-1945 (1956), where Kersten, Himmler's physical therapist/masseur, claims that Himmler told him that he had let it be known, privately, that unmarried women who longed for a child could turn to the program for conception assistance of the "revolutionary kind".

If part of the above can be reworded, we can restore it to the article. Sam Spade 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sam, let me know what lines you are thinking along. I was battling moving this part in its entirety to a new section or to the Post-war sensationalism part. Do you feel it should be rewritten? Steve Hart 19:34, 7 February 2006
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 2:23 pm | #

It seems like so many children were being kidnapped from Poland and further east for Lebesborn (as long as they had aryan features) that it wouldn't make sense to institute a major breeding progam. That kind of thing just happens naturally. I wouldn't be surprised if it's slightly exaggerated. Makes for great programming on the History (Hitler) Channel. MSNBC recycled old Erich Von Daniken crap for a program on Atlantis recently. It's really sad.
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 2:30 pm | #

So that raises the question of who was spearheading this presentation inside the Bush administration?

Perhaps merely encouraging Dick Cheney to resign could herald a significant improvement in our foreign policy overall! ( It sure couldn't hurt!)
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:32 pm | #

The human activities are observed at the same time the earth is warming, but that does not necessarily imply causation.

Anyone still arguing against human-caused global warming is effectively a member of the flat earth society and thus not to be taken seriously on any other matter. Period.

But if that's not enough proof, this is:

I don't think Israel gives a shit about Iranian involvement in Iraq

Both statements indicate an almost willful cluelessness bordering on insanity.

I.e. a diehard Bushite, a sad and thankfully dying breed.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 2:35 pm | #

Glenn,

I'm guessing that by "preemptive" war you actually meant "preventive" war.

Kovie

It really does eat my names

Wiki says "In political rhetoric "preemptive war" may also be used to refer to preventive war".

A preventive war is term given to kind of war whose public justification is proclaimed as "self-defense."

The concepts of preventive war and preemptive war differ only in the certainty of an attack —the latter concerns an imminent attack, while the former requires no military provocation. The rationale for preventive war is the claimed prevention of a possible future attack, which international law considered to be indistinguishable from a forbidden war of aggression. The term preventive war arguably belongs more to political rhetoric than to diplomatic and legal language. In contrast, "preemptive" (if it is understood as anticipatory self-defense) has a strict and universally accepted legal meaning enunciated by Daniel Webster in the Caroline Case, requiring a degree of certainty in the imminence of an attack and no time for deliberation. In political language these terms are often applied subjectively by defining an "imminent threat" by an extremely variable spectrum, which can blur their meanings.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:35 pm | #

Paul D: Perhaps merely encouraging Dick Cheney to resign...

Oy! Am I glad that isn't my job. How would you encourage him, short of threatening to call a halt to Armageddon?
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 2:36 pm | #

I.e. a diehard Bushite, a sad and thankfully dying breed.
kovie

We wish.

There are still Nazis around. Rust and fascism never sleeps.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:38 pm | #

For Jim Montague, who bove asks if there aren't any half-way intelligent neocons who have learned any lessons from the current fiasco, I give you Francis Fukuyama, quoted from Digby:

'What I find remarkable about the neoconservative line of argument on Iran, however, is how little changed it is in its basic assumptions and tonalities from that taken on Iraq in 2002, despite the momentous events of the past five years and the manifest failure of policies that neoconservatives themselves advocated. What may change is the American public's willingness to listen to them.'

This is Mr. "End of History' Fukuyama, once regarded as the brightest star in the neocon firmament.

A glimmer of hope in the dark night.
twit | 02.03.07 - 2:39 pm | #

GATOR - This is not a rhetorical question, but a sincere request for information: Has AIPAC or any other American Jewish organization actually advocated a military attack on Iran by the United States?

I don't know about "any" Jewish organizations (though I know Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard editorially called expressly for the U.S. to fight with Israel against Iran last summer - and people like Charles Krauthammer and John Podhoretz both called a U.S. attack on Iran inevitable), but Iran is obviously the most important issue to AIPAC (see its website). It dominates its frong page, they call Iran the "core of instability" in the Middle East, encourage all pending legislation to take a tougher line against Iran.

We're not at the point in the cycle yet where people are overtly calling for war against Iran. At this time in the pre-Iraq-invasion cycle, all of the obvious war advocates were still denying that war was inevitable, insisting that they were attempting diplomacy.

But do you really have any doubt that AIPAC would be infinitely less inclined to support a political candidate who was clearly reluctant to wage a war against Iran? Are you in doubt that that's what their aim is? You are right to point out, in the strictest sense, that they haven't yet overtly called for a war with Iran, but there are plenty of ways to put us on that path without making it overt that this is the desired outcome.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 2:40 pm | #

How would you encourage him, short of threatening to call a halt to Armageddon?

By arming Patrick Fitzgerald with a cross, a clove of garlic and a wooden stake.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:42 pm | #

This is not a rhetorical question, but a sincere request for information: Has AIPAC or any other American Jewish organization actually advocated a military attack on Iran by the United States?
Gator90

My guess is that some have. More respectable organizations will refrain from that, but their members will form committees that do not appear on their face to be Jewish organizations, and advocate for it.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:42 pm | #

"By arming Patrick Fitzgerald with a cross, a clove of garlic and a wooden stake.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:42 pm | # "

Bravo!

But better make it one of those Garlic wreaths. If Dick has a full charge on his batteries he can be formidable.
casual observer | 02.03.07 - 2:45 pm | #

This is not a rhetorical question, but a sincere request for information: Has AIPAC or any other American Jewish organization actually advocated a military attack on Iran by the United States?
Gator90

If it were to be done, they would need the US's help.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?...sp? idnews=36369
Russ | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:45 pm | #

The Iran Policy Committee (IPC), formed in January 2005, is a pressure group meant to influence US government policy towards Iran. IPC is made up of former White House, State Department, Pentagon and CIA officials. Several of the principals are affiliated to AIPAC and its related think tanks.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index...olicy_Committee

Friends of a Free Iran, etc.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:45 pm | #

Thus public sympathy is something AIPAC can rely on no matter what. To deconstruct this mass delusion is almost impossible.

That the Holocaust happened and was unfathomably evil and horrific is clearly beyond dispute--and I sincerely hope that you're not doing this here. That some have exploited it for political gain is also beyond dispute. But to refer to the latter as "Holocaust Industry propaganda" is, at best, unbelievably insensitive, stupid and counterproductive (and thus undermining your apparent intention), and at worst thinly-veiled Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.

So you might find it easier to "deconstruct this mass delusion" if you didn't use phrases such as this, because they tend to both undermine your case and make you look like a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 2:46 pm | #

What benefits has 'taking down Saddam' brought to either the US or Israel? Has anybody who pushed us into the Iraq fiasco answered that?

It's pretty much a given that the big winner in this whole deal has been Iran, which has greatly increased its influence through little exertions on its own. Since Iran is the 'big boogeyman', what was the point in going after Saddam?

Then, again, what benefits would Israel get from taking down Iran? Have these idiots thought through this? This benefits Israel how?
twit | 02.03.07 - 2:49 pm | #

Kovie,

What if a Jewish author has coined the term (or used it) "Holocaust Industry"?

Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London: Verso, 2000. 150 pages.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:49 pm | #

I haven't read this yet

http://library.flawlesslogic.com...om/ industry.htm
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:53 pm | #

It's going to take someone with a lot more power than Fitzgerald to drive the stake through the shriveled raisin in Dick Cheney's chest.

Garlic has no power over the electronics that keep the ichor flowing in his veins.

Impeachment (or forced resignation) is the only constitutional answer. Leave Shrub in place, eradicate Cheney. Replace him with someone at least sane. I'm not sure that restriction would allow Saint McCain to step in. It might be a lot better (sanity-wise) to have Senator Warner step up. Robbed of his Mr. Hyde, Shrub will become manageable, or at least less destructive.

This strategy would provide for a more orderly transfer of power out of the current nightmare.
Charles | 02.03.07 - 2:54 pm | #

Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London: Verso, 2000. 150 pages.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:49 pm | #

I was about to make that point -- and Finkelstein's mother was a Holocaust survivor. That said, I would never, myself, use the phrase "Holocaust industry," because I'm not Jewish. (Oh, ok, go back six generations and there is Jewish matriarch on my mother's side.)

It is kind of like I can say anything I want about my brother, including that he is a retarded sicko -- but you can't.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:55 pm | #

That other link may take issue with the book's thesis...

But here is a book review:

http://www.olokaustos.org/saggi/.../finkel- en1.htm

The Holocaust Industry: the book

Giovanni De Martis

Finkelstein’s work “The holocaust Industry” is a small book of about 150 pages, divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, Finkelstein maintains that the subject of the Holocaust was totally overlooked within the context of the cold war. The struggle between the two blocks – communist and capitalist – made the memory of the Holocaust “politically inappropriate” in view of the re-birth of West Germany, which was part of the “free world”. Only after the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1967 – according to the author -, the Holocaust became a tool for political propaganda.
And a powerful weapon for pressure. The general objective that created the “Holocaust industry” was, at the time, the will to gain access to the “nerve centre” of US democracy. Israel, on the other hand, had become America’s “best friend” in the Middle East. Reaching the heart of American power, and stably maintaining such position – that was the goal of U.S. Jewish organizations.

This sort of Jewish plot reveals all its alleged power in the second chapter of the pamphlet.
Finkelstein engages in revealing the function and use of the Holocaust “dogmas”: the so-called “uniqueness” of the Holocaust, and the alleged eternal hate of non-Jews towards Jews.
The idea that the Holocaust is a unique event in human history, not comparable to any other similar event, would have been conceived in Elie Wiesel’s writings. This would be a cinical theory, functional to the “Holocaust industry” itself. Its purpose should be that of placing the Jews in a position of superiority with respect to all other persecuted peoples. A gigantic lie, whose goal should be minimizing other people’s suffering in order to blow up their own, for political purposes.
Demonstrating the uniqueness of the Shoah would make it possible to move over to the third stage of this new Jewish plot: obtaining the money. Once the uniqueness and unrepeatability of Jewish suffering has been demonstrated, organizations move on to collectingg.
The financial exploitation of the Shoah is the subject of the third and last chapter of Finkelstein’s work.
This exploitation would have taken on the connotation of an extortion, at the expense of two groups of victims: us Europeans and almost all the Jews who should have been entitled to compensation. But the American Jewish organizations are not only depicted as a “gang” of moral blackmailers; they are also described as a bunch of fools, In their infinite greed, they would have inflated the figures of survivors, in order to obtain more money. Thus the number of victims would proportionally decrease. This operation would have opened the doors for negationists, providing an enormous opportunity for their propaganda.

According to Finkelstein, elimination of the “dogmas” created by the “Holocaust industry” hindered clear and full knowledge of the Nazi phenomenon and of the tragedy itself.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:56 pm | #

Glenn writes: At this time in the pre-Iraq-invasion cycle, all of the obvious war advocates were still denying that war was inevitable, insisting that they were attempting diplomacy.

It's true that the Bush administration denied that they were planning a war with Iraq up to the last minute. But many outside the administration were calling for an invasion long before. The American Spectator (or maybe the Weekly Standard?) called for a war against Iraq in 1998. By September 2002, Ken Pollack even had a book out subtitled "The Case for Invading Iraq." There is nothing remotely like that now.
Ragout | 02.03.07 - 2:56 pm | #

It's true that the Bush administration denied that they were planning a war with Iraq up to the last minute. But many outside the administration were calling for an invasion long before. The American Spectator (or maybe the Weekly Standard?) called for a war against Iraq in 1998. By September 2002, Ken Pollack even had a book out subtitled "The Case for Invading Iraq." There is nothing remotely like that now.

This is completely wrong. As I said, Bill Kristol already called for the U.S. to wage war against Iran. Both John Podhoretz and Charles Krauthammer pronounced it inevitable. And more and more, one is seeing from the President's core supporters derision over the attempts to use diplomacy to achieve our goals with Iran (James Baker was called all sorts of names for suggesting that) combined with the standard war cries over regime change.

I don't understand the benefit of this reality-denial. Does anyone actually doubt that the same groups that led us to invade Iraq now have their sights set on a military confrontation with Iran? Just go read the Weekly Standard, National Review, the New York Sun, etc. It will dispel any doubts. If it doesn't compare that President's speeches now about Iran to what he was saying about Iraq in May and June and October, 2002.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 3:01 pm | #

Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 2:49 pm

It doesn't matter. Like I said, this is, at best, an insensitive and stupid phrase that no responsible person should use, whatever their religion. Not that there aren't people who exploit the Holocaust for political and other gain, but that doesn't change the fact that this phrase implies that this is ALL that people who promote awareness of the Holocaust want to accomplish, which is incredibly wrong and unfair.

What would your reaction be if someone referred to a "Slavery exploitation industry" or a "Hiroshima exploitation industry" and put them alongside the civil rights and anti-nuke movements? Like I said, stupid and insensitive at best, and racist at worst. Perhaps I'm being too PC here, but surely there are more sensitive and obviously specific ways to refer to such "industries" that don't intentionally or unintentionally denigrate the quite legitimate movements that these "industries" seek to exploit.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 3:02 pm | #

The smearing of Wes Clark is an on-going project. I know; I get his Google alerts. Here's the irony: Wes Clark's father was Jewish. Yes, yes, technically a father doesn't matter in the scheme of things. But it does matter to Clark because he was 4 when he lost that father, and has embraced that side of his family.

And of course there is this: bombing Iran would be a complete disaster for Israel (and the US.) The best course of action would be to do exactly what Clark is advocating: negotiate with Iran to bring the more moderate influences into power, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the region.

In short, it is Clark, the Jew, the man now being vilified daily, who is the friend of Israel, while AIPAC and its pandering presidential wannabes, are proposing that we take a course that will wreck Israel's future.

I am sick of the backward heads people being in charge. They don't own us, we're not just one of their little toys.
Donna Zen | 02.03.07 - 3:07 pm | #

Jeebus!

I did start to read that first link and then I realized it's at the Racial Nationalist Library. Love the internets!

I was about to make that point -- and Finkelstein's mother was a Holocaust survivor. That said, I would never, myself, use the phrase "Holocaust industry," because I'm not Jewish. (Oh, ok, go back six generations and there is Jewish matriarch on my mother's side.)

It is kind of like I can say anything I want about my brother, including that he is a retarded sicko -- but you can't.
Mona

I know what you are saying, of course. I also notice how difficult it often is for blacks to make a similar argument WRT to affirmative action here.
Haloscan ate my names | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 3:08 pm | #

Like I said, this is, at best, an insensitive and stupid phrase that no responsible person should use, whatever their religion.kovie

So what would you call organized efforts to gain politically and financially from the Holocaust? Is there another, more politically correct term one could use that would convey the immorality of such an enterprise without them?
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 3:08 pm | #

I meant to say "that would convey the immorality of such an enterprise without insulting them?
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 3:09 pm | #

kovie,

this phrase implies that this is ALL that people who promote awareness of the Holocaust want to accomplish, which is incredibly wrong and unfair

Perhaps it is wrong and unfair to suggest that is the author's intent without reading his book first. I will grant you that the title is a bit sensationalistic. I wonder how much the publisher had to do with that?
Haloscan ate my names | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 3:12 pm | #

We were having a similar discussion over at another blog this morning but about evangelists who are no more than crooks. TV evangelism is an organized crime racket, in my opinion, and should be taxed if legit and prosecuted under RICO if not. Someone said all religious organizations were nothing but fronts and all should be taxed, like Gore Vidal has been suggesting for years. I was able to name three just of the top of my head that should not be taxed. None of them own TV stations and they engage in works, nor words.
Haloscan ate my names | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 3:18 pm | #

Glenn, the predicate of your post is an attack by the U.S. on Iran. It's my contention that the attack will come from Israel and that the U.S. will then "come to the defence" of the Israeli's. In this scenario, all the special interests mentioned in your piece win.
Mike | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.

Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, "the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."

With a group of other conservatives, Ledeen recently set up the Center for Democracy in Iran (CDI), an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran.

Quotes from Ledeen's works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about American attitudes toward violence. "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history," he proclaims in his book, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago." In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."

Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed "total war," a concept pioneered by the 19th century Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz in his classic book "On War."

Ledeen's take on this idea is wedded to ideology. In summarizing his book "The War Against the Terror Masters" on the American Enterprise Institute Web site, he writes: "We wage total war because we fight in the name of an idea, and ideas either triumph or fail ... totally." In his reckoning, force is the only reliable strategy to enforce our ideology on our enemies. In the same summary he claims, drawing inspiration from Machiavelli: "We can lead by the force of high moral example ... [but] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our enemies, our power will be far greater."

http://www.alternet.org/story/15860/
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 3:24 pm | #

Kovie,

I suggest reading the Wiki entry on Prof. Finkelstein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Nor...man_Finkelstein
Haloscan ate my names | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 3:24 pm | #

I didn't see the post with the phrase "Holocaust Industry" in it. But the term comes from Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were Holocaust survivors. Finkelstein is harshly critical of lawyers that he says are extorting money from governments and banks, ostensibly on behalf of Holocaust survivors, but according to Finkelstein really to line their own pockets. I haven't ever looked at the issue closely enough to know who is right.

Finkelstein is also very critical of people who use the Holocaust to justify Israel's human rights violations against Arabs.

As a gentile it's a term I'd stay away from, but it isn't Holocaust denial.
Finkelstein is sometimes accused of Holocaust denial, but that's a vicious slander (his parents, as I mentioned, were Holocaust survivors and one of the people who praised his book on the Holocaust industry was Raul Hilberg.)
Donald Johnson | 02.03.07 - 3:24 pm | #

Manichaeism :

http://1911encyclopedia.org/Manichaeism
From the legendary Eleventh Edition, Volume 17, pages 572-578.
MANICHAEISM
...The cumbrous mythology and cosmogony of Mithraism at last weakened its hold upon men's minds, and it disappeared during the 4th century before a victorious Catholicism, yet not until another faith, equally Iranian in its mythology and cosmological beliefs, had taken its place. This new faith was that of Mani, which spread with a rapidity only to be explained by supposing that Mithraism had prepared men's minds for its reception. Mani professed to blend the teachings of Christ with the old Persian Magism...

...The Manichaean system is one of consistent, uncompromising dualism, in the form of a fantastic philosophy of nature...

...Mani, following the example of the gnostic Jewish Christians, appears to have held Adam, Noah, Abraham (perhaps Zoroaster and Buddha) to be such prophets. Probably Jesus was also accounted a prophet... But at all events Mani himself, on his own claim, is to be reckoned the last and greatest prophet, who took up the work of Jesus impatibilis... He is the "leader," the "ambassador of the light," the "Paraclete." It is only through his agency and that of his imitators, "the elect," that the separation of the light from the darkness can be completed... When the elements of light have at last been completely, or as far as possible, delivered from the world, the end of all things comes. All glorious spirits assemble, the God of light himself appears, accompanied by the aeons and the perfected just ones. The angels supporting the world withdraw themselves from their burden, and everything falls in ruins. A tremendous conflagration consumes the world; the perfect separation of the two powers takes place once more...
-- Adolf Harnack & Frederic Conybeare

If Bush and the neocons discovered that Mani was Iranian, would they become a little less eager to honor him?
sysprog | 02.03.07 - 3:24 pm | #

The very same New York Sun today publishes an article -- headlined Imagining a War with Iran -- that begins with this sentence: "With America heading toward a war with Iran, inadvertent or otherwise, the picture of how the conflict is likely to pan out is becoming clearer." The article then proceeds to describe how the war will play out.

Oh, yeah. An invaluable article I'm sure, jam-packed with observations we all oughta live by, seeing as these guys's predictions about how wars in the Middle East are going to play out have proven to be ever so accurate thus far.
bekabot | 02.03.07 - 3:26 pm | #

Speaking of Ledeen, is anybody ever going to investigate the famous 'yellow cake' forgery concerning Iraq and Niger?

Everyone admits it's a forgery--yet no one seems interested in investigating WHO forged it and to what end?

I've seen hints that perhaps Mr. Ledeen's fingerprints are on this--I'd like to know for sure.

THAT would open up an interesting can of worms, without getting to tin-foil land.
twit | 02.03.07 - 3:34 pm | #

As a gentile it's a term I'd stay away from, but it isn't Holocaust denial.

Donald Johnson

I understand what you mean.

That's the difference between you and an Anne Coulter and yet you are both equally "aware" of the words you choose.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 3:35 pm | #

Anonymous quotes 'tinyurl'?

'Toto, I think we MUST be in tin-foil land!'
twit | 02.03.07 - 3:36 pm | #

Anon--

I must admit I'm unfamiliar with Sembler, but this is interesting.

The hints I mentioned were about Ledeen's Italy trip.

Anyway, I STILL would love an OFFICIAL investigation of this.
twit | 02.03.07 - 3:40 pm | #

I’ve read some reports that the administration might attack Iran as early as late April when it has all the strategic elements in place. We are starting to hear the ramp up of propaganda that makes it look like this decision is already a done deal. My question: is it to the administration’s advantage (politically) to attack this early, and if so, why?

Given what happened in Iraq, is it disadvantageous for them to have an extended debate on the wisdom of these attacks? Might the public turn against such an idea as they learn more? Do they really want this debate to go on all summer and be a part of the presidential campaign?

Politically, some Republicans might want this debate to go on since it gives them an opportunity to cast the Democrats as weak (as Mitt Romney just did). On the other hand, if attacks are launched in April, the Republicans can’t play that card.

I think the negative consequences of an attack might be apparent very quickly, and then the political debate might be about the need for “more attacks” or an insistence on “regime change” since the attack will only reinforce support for the most radical elements in Iran.

In short, if the attacks happen in April, all this debate about whether the Democrats are “for or against it” will be immediately overshadowed by unfolding events and how to respond to them. Is that what the GOP wants? Do they view complete chaos and uncertainty as political “plus” so they can play their “fear” card?

I’m just kind of thinking out loud here, and I really don’t know the answer to my first question. Does the administration think it’s to their advantage politically to attack as soon as militarily possible?
zack | 02.03.07 - 3:50 pm | #

Haloscan ate my names, sunny, et al,

Like I've said several times, I don't deny that there are people and organizations that have consciously, shamefully and inappropriately exploited the Holocaust for their own gain. I'm just saying that a more sensitive term be used to describe their despicable efforts than "Holocaust Industry", because of its obvious even if not necessarily intended implications--and the window this opens for actual Holocaust deniers to exploit it for their own ends.

I'm just not comfortable with this term, even if it was supposedly invented by a Jewish academic whose family was in the Holocaust, just as I imagine that many people (black and non-black) would be uncomfortable with using the term "affirmative action industry" to discuss people who exploit such programs and laws.

If you want a compromise term, how about ""Holocaust Exploitation Industry"?

There, was that so hard?
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 4:01 pm | #

Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 4:01 pm was me.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 4:02 pm | #

Overt neocon calls for war with Iran? Michael Ledeen has a blog hosted by (gag, puke) Pajama's Media, named "Faster, Please!" He has a 2/1 post titled The Heart Sinks...

Why is poor, poor Ledeen's heart so saddened? Because he (almost certainly disingenuously) reads George Bush as being willing to pursue only peaceful means vis-a-vis Iran:

My heart fell while reading the president’s interview in today’s Wall Street Journal. At a certain point he seems to preen himself, to brag that he’s wimping out on Iran:

There is a temptation for people to take my comments and say, ‘Really what he wants to do is escalate the conflict.’ The answer to that is that we can solve this peacefully and we’re going to need other partners to help us solve it peacefully. Anyway, that’s where we are.

Those are not the words of a Texan who understands the nature of the war we’re in, and have been in, for nearly three decades. Those are the words of a man who has been lobotomized by the dips and spooks who have never wanted to deal with the Iranian threat ...
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:02 pm | #

Does the administration think it’s to their advantage politically to attack as soon as militarily possible?
zack | 02.03.07 - 3:50 pm

As someone else said, I truly believe Israel will attack first, and then who will argue for the need to "defend" our allies from the inevitable counterattacks? Certainly not any of the more prominent Democrats. Therefore, when the attack occurs is not the question. Having Israel attack first will mute all opposition in Congress, insofar as there is any. At the same time, Israels timetable will be dependant on US readiness, which I think is nearly complete.
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:05 pm | #

kovie, I understand your concern, but am not sure how "Holocaust Exploitation Industry" makes it better?

Maybe we should look at it this way-if you describe a person or group in terms that others may take offense to, even tho you didn't mean it the way it is being portrayed, perhaps more effort should be put into explaining the terms. It is pure propaganda to assert that "Holocaust Industry" equates to "Holocaust Denial" just as criticism of Israel is equated with anti-semitism, and I do not think we should be held hostage to propaganda. Finkelsteins thesis is well researched and morally grounded and we should not participate in the marginalization of his efforts.
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:16 pm | #

Sunny:
The Isrealis may not be able to do this attack considering distances and multiple nuclear sites.
Russ | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:17 pm | #

Russ-
Not even with air assaults? Wasn't there an article late last year which described Israeli Air Force preparations? I'll see if I can find it.
sunny | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:19 pm | #

Sunny:
"Israel's frequent threat to attack Iran's nuclear facilities is also at odds with its internal assessment of the feasibility and desirability of such an attack. It is well understood in Israel that the Iranian situation does not resemble that of Iraq's Osiris nuclear reactor, which Israeli planes bombed in 1981. Unlike Iraq's programme, which was focused on a single facility, the Iranian nuclear programme is dispersed; the two major facilities, Natanz and Arak, are hundreds of miles apart, making it very difficult to hit them simultaneously."
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?...sp? idnews=36369

This article also mentions fueling difficulties,
Russ | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:23 pm | #

Kovie,

Our country is in the business of holocaust denial. Think about it.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 4:25 pm | #

Mona,

Thanks for the link to Ledeen's blog. That will have some anthropological value. One marvels at the man's capacity to say things that simply are not true. What I would like to know is he if is lying or actually is that fanatical ... I'm leaning towards fanatical.

Take this for example.

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ m...ell_and_why.php

There’s a third category, the worst of all: those who lie to advance a personal ambition or, in government, a personal or corporate agenda. You wouldn’t believe how often high officials lie to their superiors because they fear the policy consequences of the truth. That includes very high ranking officials, as Bob Woodward demonstrated in his recent book; he has at least three examples of high officials deliberately withholding evidence of Iranian complicity in attacks against Americans in Iraq. Why? Because the evidence documented acts of war by Iran against the United States, and they “knew” the president would react strongly, which they didn’t want.

I've read State of Denial. It says the opposite about Iran's inteferance in Iraq. The intelligence contradicted administration claims.

The sheer audacity of Ledeen revising reality to portry the truth as lies is remarkable.

And disgusting.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 4:27 pm | #

Tin-foil hats are no longer appropriate as the standard icons of baseless paranoia (see http://www.moody.af.mil/news/story_media.asp? storyID=123038820).

The remnants of sanity in this world of ours are in the position of "Mad Magazine" in the 1950s, when Mad was deconstructing paranoia, and at the same time was targeted by government actions that would sound like crazy conspiracy theories if they hadn't actually been quite real. The FBI collected dozens of dossiers on those subversives at "MAD" (see http://counterpunch.org/randall0916.html).

As "Mad" put it, in short, "The Paranoids Are After Us!"

Yes they are, and now they might have heat rays.

Where was I? Oh, yeah, since tin-foil is no longer appropriate, we need a new icon to symbolize the distinction between more or less reasonable fears and batshit crazy paranoia. Suggestions?
sysprog | 02.03.07 - 4:28 pm | #

Who am I kidding? The man is a fanatic.

The more I look at his writing the more clear it is that his fondness for Italian fascism is more than superficial.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 4:29 pm | #

Suggestions?

I've strayed into this realm myself. I just take the aproach of identifying my own awareness of how what I'm saying sounds paranoid. I can't think of any other way to walk the line.

Listen to the AM dial long enough, and you'll snap.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 4:31 pm | #

I don't see Indonesian peasants making an industry out of this:

In a period of 6 to 8 months in 1965...
Between 300,000 and one million Indonesians were killed in the mass-killings that followed. [7] Lists of suspected communists were supplied to the Indonesian military by the CIA. A CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that "In terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century..."

It must also be noted that the CIA was not the only party to the issue, and there was also British involvement in the events.

Perhaps they should. Were you even aware of it, Kovie? Have you even given it a thought in the last few months? I think that is Professor Finkelstein's point. Why is one horror or holocaust more "special" than any other?
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 4:34 pm | #

sunny,

To me, "Holocaust Industry" implies, whether intentionally or not, that the Holocaust is nothing but a money-making enterprise, no more and no less than, say, the hotel or arms industries, and that even if it's not necessarily exploitative--i.e. using the Holocaust to further goals which have nothing to do with it, e.g. the Likud expansionist agenda--it is, nevertheless, about money, even if that money is meant to help Holocaust survivors and to preserve its memory.

When, to me at least, the Holocaust is first and foremost about, well, the Holocaust. I.e. its incredible evil and horror, its victims, perpetrators, enablers, events, places, effects, etc. It is not an "industry". Rather, it is an incredibly horrible, and relatively (but sadly not entirely) unique historical event that is only cheapened--at best--by qualifying or being qualified by words like "industry". And, at worst, it is implicitely denied by such qualification, however unintentionally.

Which is why, if one absolutely needs to qualify it, the phrase "Holocaust Exploitation Industry" seems much more apt to me, because it leaves less room for doubt as to what is meant, neither denying nor cheapening the Holocaust, but rather cheapening the attempt to exploit it financially and otherwise. It's still quite awkward IMO, and I wouldn't use either term myself, but if one had to use such a phrase with the word "Holocaust" in it, my alternative one seems better than the first one.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 4:50 pm | #

"There’s a third category, the worst of all: those who lie to advance a personal ambition or, in government, a personal or corporate agenda."

Three comments on this, but this statement is profoundly remarkable. Ledeen IS the one doing that. He criticizing others for what he is doing. The audacity is overwhealming.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 4:50 pm | #

mbf--Right you are (no pun intended) on the Mussolini/neocon synergies.

I've said here more than once that these whackos would have been sending Christmas packages to Benito's boys in Spain in 1937.

This is why the Chamberlain/appeasement meme coming out of their mouths is so grating to me. They'd be cheering on Duce for having hoodwinked Daladier and Chamberlain at Munich.

In fact, they are fast putting the US on 'the wrong side of the table', if you will, in the eyes of the world today. One wonders if the rest of the world will one day soon demand the end of 'appeasement' of Dear Leader?
twit | 02.03.07 - 4:51 pm | #

Somewhere above someone quoted Ledeen talking about the need for an idea to win out "totally."

I've been saying to start looking at Hannah Arendt to try and get some sort of point of reference for this sort of thinking.

For the totalitarian mindset, reality is made true by those with the power to make it true by action. (Arendt gives as an example of this the question to a murderer whether or not a potential victim is alive or dead, the question is rendered moot by killing the victim.)

To achieve a coherent reality (made out of lies), the totalitarian must achieve complete control of the world, as this is the only way to maintain the capacity to create reality through action.

Ledeen's sentiments echo what Arendt was talking about.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 4:57 pm | #

Gabe -

Welcome to Babylon indeed. You have a sharp mind, and I for one definitely value your comments when they pop up here.

Glenn and everyone else, criticism and concern regarding Israel's interests and their relation to American interests is not only 100% VALID but also NECESSARY. For it is not only corporate money that oils the American political machine but also money from concentrated-power special interest groups. "Special interest" - not AMERICAN interests.

It is in the interest of the American people to leave the Middle East as soon as possible, reinvest and rebuild a sustainable American infrastructure, and overhaul the government ASAP in a race against the realities of global warming.

Americans have an idea, but no overall concept of how completely sold out this country is - truly a result of nothing more than simple greed.

Fascism in America will attempt to advance under the banner of Americanism and anti-Fascism. - Georgi Dimitrov (1882-1949)
Jason J. | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:57 pm | #

Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 4:34

Perhaps it was not your intention, but I don't appreciate the implication that I'm putting one "holocaust" over any other or denying that there have been and continue to be others (as my immediately preceeding comment makes clear). Such self-righteous moralizing has no place here. Or anywhere, really.

And yes, I am aware of the Indonesian genocide--aided and abetted by the US. I am also aware of many other genocides that I need not name here to prove my right to discuss the Jewish "holocaust". Nor do I care to get into a discussion about whether the Jewish "holocaust" has the right to claim the title of THE "Holocaust" in the context of what this blog and specifically this thread are about.

And for the record, I object to the term "holocaust industry" whether applied to the Jewish "holocaust" or to any other. And I somehow suspect that so would the survivers of such holocausts.

If I were to use the term "Palestinian refugee industry" I would fully expect and deserve to be attacked for being incredibly insensitive if not worse, even though, as with the Jewish "holocaust", people have exploited it for their own ends.

I do not appreciate the implications inherent in this comment, intended or not.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 4:59 pm | #

On another matter, and not to in any way excuse Israel's Likud and AIPAC neocon war hawks who are clearly banging the drum for war with Iran, but considering that Blair, other Toryesque "New Laborites", and England, were far more demonstrably instrumental in helping the US go to war with Iraq than Israel was, why have so few people (actually, none, from what I can tell) publically condemned England for being such a warmongering nation that controls US foreign policy and is the source of all evil in the world?

A bit of a hyperbolic and simplistic question, I'll admit, but still valid in its fundamental implication, I believe.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 5:05 pm | #

re: Fascism

Tonight at 2am Chris Hedges will be on BookTv to talk about his new book American Fascism.

Its about the Dominionists movement. I suppose its a stretch to relate that to this comment thread ...
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 5:09 pm | #

Kovie--

Yes, a tad simplistic. But who's a big British lobby here that runs around milking cash cows and taking collections for the UK?

Who from Britain was saying 'we'll do it ourselves if you won't?'

They could have--but did NOT choose to take this route during the Falklands War.

Blair and the Brits were following OUR lead (I mean the US, not us) on Iraq. They did not instigate it.
twit | 02.03.07 - 5:11 pm | #

m.b.f.,

I've set my DVR to record it. If one can wade through all the AEI and Heritage Foundation crap on CSPAN these days there's still a lot of good stuff to be found.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 5:12 pm | #

mbf--saw that segment last weekend in the late afternoon on C-Span.

Twas scary indeed. Highly recommended.
twit | 02.03.07 - 5:14 pm | #

A bit of a hyperbolic and simplistic question, I'll admit

You might include disingenuous in that summation.

But in any case you have answered your own question. It was Blair, not Britain that enabled the war. The populace was against it, and members of his government resigned rather than participate. But don't worry, there is a seat reserved in Hell for Blair as well as Bush, Aznar, and Sharon.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 5:14 pm | #

"Haloscan ate my names", you question whether one horror or holocaust is more "special" than any other?

I wouldn't use the word "special" as you do (I suspect, like most trolls, you've learned which words work as bait, and you know that "special" works as bait). Oh well, I guess I've been baited.

Some horrors are more horrible than others. War is horrible. Taking no prisoners is even more horrible. And the most horrible horror is genocide, the extermination of hypothetical future enemies, that is, babies and children:

http://www.unb.ca/bruns/0001/issue7/oped/ wabanaki.html

"We must act with vindication and earnestness against the Indians, even to their extermination, men, women and children."
-- William Tecumseh Sherman

"Nits make lice."
-- Methodist minister Milton Chivington

Finkelstein may have a valid point or two, but he is being used as a tool of the racialist hatemongers who still beleive in Chivington's maxim.

"Haloscan ate my names", that you quote Finkelstain approvingly and that you link to racialist hate sites is unfortunate.
sysprog | 02.03.07 - 5:16 pm | #

twit,

That pro-Likud/AIPAC neocons, some of whom were Israeli, but most of whom were American, helped instigate this war is undeniable. But "Israel" was no more the ultimate cause of this war than "England" was a willing participant in it.

The Bush administration started this war, and all the rest merely played their roles, some more directly than others, but with the respective country of each merely being taken along for the ride.

Israel no more started this war than did England or the US. It was the ruling regimes of each--and their ideological and corporatist backers--who did.

And yet Israel continues to get singled out, rather than its neocon leaders and ideologues. Odd.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 5:19 pm | #

Kovie--

I never stated that Israel (or its supporters) instigated Iraq. You said Iran--and there is quite a loud lobby for that now coming from some in Israel and some here that support Israel, with the usual local suspects (Cheney, et al).

I agree (and I stated) THE USA instigated Iraq, with no help from anyone else.

And I blame PNAC, primarily (Cheney, Rusmfeld, Kristol, Feith, Wofewitz), and Bush especially.

AND I reserve special contempt for Condi Rice on this. What kind of National Security Advisor was she that she didn't fight this nonsense tooth and nail--but PUSHED IT.

She gets off much TOO lightly.
twit | 02.03.07 - 5:25 pm | #

I wish I could write like you :( You've put it all together. THANK YOU :)
SandThroughTheEyeGlass | 02.03.07 - 5:26 pm | #

Frankly, my dear,

Why disengenous? Exactly how many Israeli battalions, planes, ships, etc., took part in the Iraq war? Exactly how many votes did the Israeli parliament hold on whether to approve of this war? Exactly how many Israelis directly took part in this war? I don't know what the corresponding numbers are for England but it's clearly more than zero, which is the exact number it is for Israel.

I do not dispute or deny the role that CERTAIN Israeli leaders and ideologues (and their supportive American counterparts) played in instigating this war. What I do have a problem with is Israel the COUNTRY being blamed for this war and singled out above all other (far more direct) participants for condemnation for its participation in it.

Someone really needs to clue me in on that.

Oh wait, I forgot, Israel is the most evil nation in the history of the universe. No, scratch that. Israel is the ONLY evil nation in the history of the universe.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 5:27 pm | #

Is Bush trying to finish a job his dad didn't finish with Iran? No. Our hostilities with Iran date back to the Peanut Preznit. Iran Contra was Reagan.

Is there a mushroom cloud on the horizon that Bush is lying about? There doesn't appear to be. Just as in the case of Iraq, Iran doesn't have nukes yet. Iran, however, openly admits pursuing nuclear "power" and they have an active rocket development program.

Does Iran support international terrorism? There doesn't seem to be any doubt about this claim.

Is Iran interfering in the affairs of other nations in the Middle East? Again, not much doubt about this claim either.

Do we have any ongoing diplomacy efforts with respect to Iran? Absolutely. We are working through the auspices of the U.N. to get Iran to shut down their nuclear program. Like the negotiations with North Korea, we don't want to have another failed bilateral treaty.

Based on the above, the usual litany of moonbat excuses against invading Iraq don't seem to hold water with respect to Iran. The other arguments about whether it is a good idea or not, given the Saudi squeeze on their oil revenues, our current focus on Iraq, and the lack of urgency are the most compelling arguments against using force against Iran anytime in the near future.
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 5:27 pm | #

Kovie--

who's blaming Israel for Iraq? No one said that.

That's strictly Blunderbuss and his coterie's doing, as I stated.
twit | 02.03.07 - 5:31 pm | #

"Based on the above, the usual litany of moonbat excuses ..."

Moonbat is tiredand played out. Rush Limbaugh is more current on the proper way to describe libs ... as "cockroaches."

I guess we can start calling it Radio Rush.*

*An allusion to Radio Rwanda. The Hutu called the Tutsis cockroaches before and while they were "exterminating" them.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 5:33 pm | #

Kovie : this is a "neocons" war - and BOTH American and Israeli neocons are to blame. I have a feeling you know that.
SandThroughTheEyeGlass | 02.03.07 - 5:33 pm | #

twit,

Clearly, there is plenty of evil and bad faith to go around everywhere, be it in Israel, the US, England or elsewhere. That is indisputible. My only objection is when entire countries (and their people) are blamed for the malfeasance of some of their leaders and other citizens, which is what some people here and elsewhere appear to have been trying to do.

I'm just offering an explicit rebuttal of this calumny, which of course reasonable people have already instinctively done in their own minds. But, of course, I wasn't speaking or responding to reasonable people. Just because a misstatement is obviously (to reasonable people) wrong doesn't mean that it doesn't warrant explicit refutation.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 5:34 pm | #

D-Rocks--

Not a bad post--especially your last sentence. Remember it.

I must take issue with your 'terrorism'point. Iran is NOT supporting Al Qaeda--Al Qaeda is USING Iran to recruit--painting a dreadful Shiite takeover.

Al Qaeda is at war with us, and Iran has NOTHING to do with them.

As far as Hamas and Hezbollah--they are NOT our problem, despite Dear Leader trying despeartely to make them so.
twit | 02.03.07 - 5:35 pm | #

Kovie : this is a "neocons" war - and BOTH American and Israeli neocons are to blame. I have a feeling you know that.

Yes, of course I know that, and as I stated above I wasn't responding to people who know this as well, but rather to those who have asserted (or, more insidiously, who silently believe but are afraid to express) that the Iraq war was instigated by Israel the country, and that a new Iran war is being instigated by Israel the country, as opposed to by Israeli, American and other neocons (among others). This might be splitting hairs but for some the distinction does not appear to be clear.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 5:39 pm | #

Twit - I didn't mention Al Queda did I? There are plenty of other terrorist organizations affiliated with the religion of peace to go around. I would argue with you on Hezbollah and Hamas. Lebanon 1983, Khobar Towers, and Americans blown up or shot in attacks.
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 5:49 pm | #

YOU'LL NEVER EAT LUNCH IN THIS TOWN AGAIN

I was doing research the last few days (which I haven't completed yet) about the voting records of some of the politicians who have been mentioned as possible Presidential 2008 candidates. I decided that rather than listen to others evaluate the various candidates, I would evaluate them myself on their (and others') voting records.

I looked at 5 or 6 issues that were the most important to me.

This is being a very illuminative project. Along the way, all sorts of subtexts became obvious, one of which being that when I found a politician who voted to my liking on one of my main issues and I checked that person out on my other important issues, there was an unusually high degree of correlation of positive (imo) votes.

These issues spanned many aspects of politics, and most of them didn't have to do with foreign policy.

Today's article by Glenn--- unfortunately because I intended to do some work this week-end and was hoping he'd write something bland (fat chance)--- acutely illuminates something I discovered when I was checking out the "foreign policy" votes of various politicians.

Glenn writes--And, it should also be noted, a huge portion of American Jews, if not the majority, do not share this agenda.

I actually felt sad when I read that sentence because I know first hand how true it is but the public never would know that from the things they hear and read in the MSM.

Project Vote Smart was where I started my research. They include in their data the ratings various interest groups and organizations give to each Congressman according to how supportive that individual is of their primary goals.

One such group is called "Jews For Peace in Palestine and Israel":

"Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) is a group of American Jews who believe that a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in Palestine and Israel is attainable through negotiations based on international law and the implementation of relevant United Nations (UN) resolutions. We believe that as Jews outside of Israel, we have both a right and obligation to speak out in favor of an Israel that pursues peaceful, ethical, just, and democratic policies."

Yes, I thought, this certainly does reflect the views of the American Jews I have always known, none of whom were accused of being self-hating until around 2001, and is also descriptive of what Americans in general have always thought about the Jewish community in America as Martin Luther King could attest---that they've been in the vanguard of those who fight for civil liberties, promote humanitarian concerns, and care about justice.

How could anyone not support the work of a group whose name is Jews for Peace? (They'd gravitate instead to a group called Jews for War?)

This group's rankings are plus 10 as the highest, and -8 as the lowest. There are not that many plus rankings given to our politicians as a group, but here are some of the rankings given to certain politicians. The group I selected to list below may seem somewhat arbitrary but I am working on several sub-texts within this category which I can't get into now . A few of those, however, may appear somewhat obvious. (There may be typos here---don't sue me.)

Positive Rankings.

John Dingall 10 D. Kucinich 8
Barbara Lee 8 John Conyers 7
Ron Paul 7 Carolyn Kilpatrick 7
Fortney Pete Stark 7 William Lacy Clay 6 Maxine Waters 6 Lynn Woolsey 6 M. Luther Watt 6 Donald Payne 4 Chuck Hagel 1

Negative Rankings.

Jack Murtha -2 John Kerry -3 Edward Kennedy -3 Patrick Kennedy -3 John McCain -3 Maria Cantwell -3 Jay Rockefeller -3 Rahm Emanuel-4 Evan Bayh -4 Arlen Specter -4 Silvester Reyes -4 Lindsay Graham Harry Reid -4 Chuck Schumer (NY)-4 H. Clinton (NY)-4 Olymipa Snowe -4
Steve Israel -4 Patty Murray -4
Russell Feingold -4 Orrin Hatch-4 Nita Lowey (NY) -4 Jon Corzine -5 Virgil Goode -5 Nancy Pelosi-5 Gary Ackerman -5 Carloyn Maloney (NY) -5 Mary Landrieu -5(Katrina)Sensenbrenner -5 Walter Jones (?)-5 Jeff Miller -6 Jerald Nadler (NY) -6 Steney Hoyer -6 Tom Tancredo -6 Barbara Boxer -6 Carolyn McCarthy -7 Eric Cantor-7 J. Gresham Barrett -7 Mark Souder -7 Benjamin Cardin -7 Gary Weller-7 Clement Otter-7 Steve King-7 John Linder -7 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen -7 Elliot Engel -8 Steve Rothman -8

Footnotes: l.Cynthia McKinney's record wasn't on Project Vote Smart. She's, as you know, no longer in office.

2. Who the heck is Fortney Pete Stark? I never heard of him before. Did you??? Anyway I checked out his record in other categories and I love him madly. I guess the power elite let him stay around out of mercy since he's been in office since 1972.
Eyes Wide Open | 02.03.07 - 5:54 pm | #

Who am I kidding? The man is a fanatic.

The more I look at his writing the more clear it is that his fondness for Italian fascism is more than superficial.
m.b.f. | 02.03.07 - 4:29 pm | #

I believe this is a very important point, one few are picking up on. It even relates to the Libby Trial. I wish someone would start investigating the "Italian Connection" more, and right smack in the middle of it is Michael Leeden.

From Wiki:

Ledeen had often been accused of associations with shady organizations. According to the Asia Times, for example, "Ledeen's right-wing Italian connections - including alleged ties to the P2 masonic lodge that rocked Italy in the early 1980s - have long been a source of speculation and intrigue, but he returned to Washington in 1981 as "anti-terrorism" advisor to the new secretary of state, Al Haig." P2 was also involved in Operation Gladio, which was managed by NATO.[1] Michael Ledeen had denied any connections with Licio Gelli's masonic lodge. However, he acknowledged being paid by the SISMI in 1980 for "risk assessment". The SISMI secret services, along with P2 and Gladio, were involved in Italy's strategy of tension.[2]
Eyes Wide Open | 02.03.07 - 6:05 pm | #

KOVIE - Oh wait, I forgot, Israel is the most evil nation in the history of the universe. No, scratch that. Israel is the ONLY evil nation in the history of the universe.

I agree that one can find this sentiment in some precincts. Just as there are those with an irrational and faith-based loyalty to Israel, there are some with an identical hatred of it - people who pretend to be interested in all sorts of values yet only seem to protest when those values are violated by Israel but no other country or group (including some who violate those values even worse yet who are their friends and allies). I think that corrupt dynamic is more present among the European Left than the American Left, although I think it's a small minority in both arenas.

Nonetheless, the fact that some people argue Position X with malice is not an indictment of Position X (some people, for instance, oppose immigration or affirmative action from racist premises, but many don't - some people who are advocates of the Palestinians are driven by anti-semitism but many aren't, etc.).

To say that there is an influential segment of right-wing Jews who helped push the country to war in Iraq or are pushing it to war in Iran is not to say (as I said in the post) that they are the ONLY such influences. Plainly, they are not. The idea that, for instance, Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld have some special sentimental affection for Israel - let alone a dual loyalty to it - is just absurd.

But I think very few people argue that right-wing, Israel-loyal Jews have a complete stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy, and those who do think that aren't worth refuting.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.03.07 - 6:12 pm | #

Why are we going to bomb Iran? I forgot?
Uncle Sam | 02.03.07 - 6:22 pm | #

Who cares about the Jews? Jews. I don’t have a problem with that. But why do I, a goy, have to know more about Tel Aviv then Kansas City? Jews buy up most of the large media outlets and promote themselves shamelessly everyday. When the goyim complains, they tell us not to buy the newspapers or watch the news if we don't like it. Human beings have a right to be properly informed about their world. I believe most of the worlds problems start from a lack of credible information. Tainted lies and half truths to further a certain cause while closing down other ideas and opionions: this will cause unrest in a society, eventually leading it to fail. Just look at the US involvment in Iraq. Examples: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Dov Zakheim, David Wurmser, Scooter Libby, Joe Lieberman etc., etc., etc. and too many media outlets to mention. The media and Israel has convinced most of the US public that all arabs are terrorist thugs. Right now the Jews got the US chasing her (shiksa) tail.
Joel | 02.03.07 - 6:31 pm | #

Glenn,

Thanks, and I agree. And usually I manage to ignore such dissemblers. But sometimes I find it hard to take and just have to vent my frustrations at this brand of calumny. I'd like to believe that I'd be outraged at it even if I weren't Jewish and originally from Israel, but since I am, my outrage is personal as well as philosophical and humanistic.

I feel much the same way, of course, when people attack the US in much the same way, as the most evil nation on earth, etc., rather than specific Americans or US policies that are evil or misguided. And I also take exception when the peoples of other countries, religions, ethnic groups, etc. are attacked for the actions and policies of certain members of them.

However, considering the long and shameful history and extent of anti-Semitism, it's hard not to make certain connections with respect to certain criticisims of Israel that are harder to make when other countries are criticized--but only certain ones, of course, since much criticism of Israel (or at least some of its leaders and policies) is certainly warranted. I was, of course, referring to those criticisms that were unwarranted, excessive and/or possibly anti-Semitic.

Bottom line, anti-Israel criticisms are not necessary also anti-Semitic, but sometimes they are. Just as anti-America criticisms are not necessary also anti-American, but sometimes they are.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 6:37 pm | #

The media and Israel has convinced most of the US public that all arabs are terrorist thugs. Right now the Jews got the US chasing her (shiksa) tail.
Joel | 02.03.07 - 6:31 pm | #

That's not true. Some right-wing Jews who are fanatical and deranged have decided conflagration in the ME is in Israel's interest. But at outlets like Fox News you have evangelical-leaning nutbars like Sean Hannity who are also mindlessly hawkish on Israel. Most of the "Left Behind" evangelical eschatology movement is on board with this craziness.

And I agree with Glenn, the notion that Cheney or Rumsfeld have a tender spot for Israel is laughable -- those two are simply hardcore hawks.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 6:39 pm | #

Right now the Jews got the US chasing her (shiksa) tail.

Almost on cue and as if to prove Glenn and my points, the trolls have come creeping out of their caves to spew forth some of their putrid bile. Funny how that works. Do they take turns?
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 6:44 pm | #

Mona,

I'm surprised that you took the bait so seriously. This person is obviously a troll. And we try not to feed them here, but rather chase them back to their rat holes.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 6:46 pm | #

GLENN:

I forgot to post this. Yesterday zack wrote a comment:

The far-right does not think much of our new “pinko” overlords at Salon.

Justin Raimondo dismisses Salon as “anorexic liberalism” as he sides with the Free Republic over Salon :

“Salon, the cyber-organ of Clintonian soccer-momism, with its anorexic graphics and insipidly self-righteous left-liberalism, is really the continuous thread that runs throughout this story…" etc.

I decided to write to Justin Raimondo and ask him about that as I like to follow up stuff, when I can, and get direct information.

Here's Justin's reply:

"My beef with Salon was over a specific issue: the attack on a website by a big corporate entity, namely the LA Times, which sued FreeRepublic.com for "copyright infringement" after articles were posted for comment by FR readers. Yes, Salon is (or was) the fountainhead of Clintonian liberalism, but so what? The guy who posted my link was making just that point, and took it as a badge of honor that Salon was being attacked by a supposed rightwinger like me.

Salon is far better than, say the Huffington Post. I wish Glenn much good luck in his move to Salon."

-Justin Raimondo
EWO | 02.03.07 - 6:51 pm | #

Bottom line, anti-Israel criticisms are not necessary also anti-Semitic, but sometimes they are. Just as anti-America criticisms are not necessary also anti-American, but sometimes they are.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 6:37 pm | #

You are exactly correct. Myself, I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept that there was a significant bloc of right-wing Jews in the U.S. that is deranged and, well, evil in its ostensibly pro-Israel war-mongering, and I resisted accepting it until about 18 mos. ago. All of my life I've been strongly supportive of the State of Israel, and pretty disgusted with various one-sided UN resolutions attacking Israel & etc while wholly ignoring regimes with far more egregious human rights records.

But there just is no getting around the fact that a powerful segment of Jewish neocons, at this moment in time, holds immense influence in Washington and the pundit class. Coming to the point where I concede that, and in fact have only recently begun to insist on it, is an extremely uncomfortable place for me; but at the end of the day it is a truth I feel cannot be ignored if these voices are to be discredited and their war-mongering ended. No hyperbole -- I think I'd rather be suspected of being a child molester than an anti-Semite, but speaking truth in these times seems to entail being vulnerable to the latter charge.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 6:52 pm | #

Kovie | 02.03.07 - 5:27 pm

I do not dispute or deny the role that CERTAIN Israeli leaders and ideologues (and their supportive American counterparts) played in instigating this war. What I do have a problem with is Israel the COUNTRY being blamed for this war and singled out above all other (far more direct) participants for condemnation for its participation in it.

I'm not sure whose side you're on here: Hermann Goering's or Osama bin Laden's. Apparently you lean toward Goering, whose thesis was that, even in a democracy, the people have no say in the events in which their leaders involve them, in contrast to OBL who holds that the people of a democracy should be held accountable for their elected leaders' actions.

I say you side with Hermann Goering because you seem to be saying that the people of a democracy have no control over their leaders and that blaming the country of Israel for the actions of the leaders of Israel is just not fair. When I lived in the Middle East, which, admittedly, was over 25 years ago, the people did not associate me with, or hold me responsible for, the actions of the USA. They recognized the difference between the people of a country and its government (probably because they so often disagreed with their own government). But when the leader of a country is a certified, card-carrying war criminal, people are not so ready to make allowances. And were I to return to the Middle East today, I doubt that my nationality would be so readily tolerated.

Someone really needs to clue me in on that.

You will perhaps realize that there are geo-political reasons why Israeli participation in the US's wars in the Middle East (e.g., Iraq) has to be very low profile (see Kwiatkowski, Karen on Israeli participation in Pentagon planning), and in fact, it is best if it shows no profile at all. Similarly, US participation in Israel's wars in the Middle East (e.g., Lebanon) has to be very low profile.

Oh wait, I forgot, Israel is the most evil nation in the history of the universe. No, scratch that. Israel is the ONLY evil nation in the history of the universe.

When accused of disingenuousness, responding with more disingenuousness is perhaps not the best strategy. Since you don't seem to know what disingenuous means:

dis·in·gen·u·ous –adjective,
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.

Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 6:55 pm | #

Mona,

Credible and well-founded anti-Israel criticism is no more anti-Semitic than non-credible and unfounded neocon policies are pro-Israel. There are nuts, liars and evil people--as well as decent, responsible and honest people--all along the political spectrum, and no one "faction" has a monopoly on either evil or good.

I take people like I take ideas, policies and actions, on their own merits or lack thereof, and not on the nationality, religion or ethnicity of those behind them. As, clearly, do you and all reasonable people such as Glenn and many of the other fine commenters here and elsewhere.

Don't feel so tortured about following your conscience. It's a sign of its health, of course, but ultimately a waste of time and energy.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 7:02 pm | #

Frankly, my dear,

My god, talk about disengenuous. Are you ready to renounce your US citizenship, because if you're not, you're a poster child for it. Oh wait, you probably protested the Iraq war, so that makes you pure of heart and off the hook.

What makes you so sure that all Israelis supported Sharon and his policies? What makes you so sure that there is not and never was a strong peace movement in Israel that opposes and has always opposed the policies of Sharon and his ilk?

As for the US, last time I checked, an unquestionable warmonger was reelected by a majority of Americans. What does that make America? And I haven't even gotten to Nixon or Reagan. If we're going to judge an entire country by its leaders and the majority of its citizens who elect those leaders (overwhelmingly at times, e.g. '72 & '84), then the US is VASTLY more evil than Israel given how many more people it's killed or caused to die.

And I love the way you throw in unsupported conspiracy theories about how Israel secretly controls the mideast or at least US mideast policy. Next thing you know you'll use the last excuse of the truly disengenuous, along the lines of "If you need to ask, then you're beyond all redemption...". Indeed.

Your "logic", such as it were, is all over the place, and both rediculous and offensive on its face. But what really sealed the deal for me was your shameless ad hom attack on me in comparing me to Goerring and Bin Laden because I happen to not believe that an entire country should be judged on the basis of its leaders or on even the majority of its citizens who elected that leader (I assume, of course, that you'd have been all for nuking Germany right after WWII, and cheerfully celebrated 9/11).

There is a special place in hell for hypocritical fuckwads like yourself, who pose as oh so sensitive souls but are merely just the left-wing version of a hateful bigot. Eat shit and die, you maggot. You're as transparent as glass.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 7:22 pm | #

There is a special place in hell for hypocritical fuckwads like yourself, who pose as oh so sensitive souls but are merely just the left-wing version of a hateful bigot. Eat shit and die, you maggot. You're as transparent as glass.

Oh dear. I seem to have really touched a nerve. I'm sorry that you can't stand any criticism of your beloved Israel. It may even be possible you you yourself don't condone genocide. But attacking people who don't is not a good way to convince others.
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 7:29 pm | #

Glenn,my mailman delivered the new print edition of Counterpunch today.Coincidentally,a long article dovetails with the topic of this thread and the previous two.
In it,Christopher Ketcham authors a story titled 'What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?' which takes as it's starting point the Israeli nationals seen cheering the WTC attack from the New Jersey waterfront and addresses the subsequent reluctance of corporate media outlets to develop the story.
In the introduction by the Counterpunch editors,it's alleged that Salon killed the article one hour before it went up on it's website with the explanation there 'was nothing newsworthy'.
Perhaps it could be a subject for you to post on.
AnonE.Mouse | 02.03.07 - 7:30 pm | #

Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 7:29 pm
From me, with love.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 7:30 pm | #

What makes you so sure that all Israelis supported Sharon and his policies? What makes you so sure that there is not and never was a strong peace movement in Israel that opposes and has always opposed the policies of Sharon and his ilk?

What makes you sure that I don't know these things? It happens that I do because a number of people who do these things in Israel I consider my friends. Your reading comprehension seems to be on a level with daleyrocks.

Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 7:37 pm | #

Almost on cue and as if to prove Glenn and my points, the trolls have come creeping out of their caves to spew forth some of their putrid bile.

Don't go saying who proves Glenn's points, kovie. We can all read and decide for ourselves who proves what....or who doesn't.

For instance: don't think that when you call someone a troll because he disagrees with you, or because you don't like the way that person expresses his views, that you are speaking for all of us.

You're not. You very, very rarely speak for me, btw. I find many of your comments laden with false assertions.

Troll is in the eye of the beholder.

Eat shit and die, you maggot. You're as transparent as glass.

Kovie reveals his true colors. I'm hoping you are one of those people who can't afford a subscription to Salon and doesn't like to read ads.
EWO | 02.03.07 - 7:38 pm | #

And another thing. Why would we leap to the defence of Israel against Iran? Where the hell was/is Israel with regard to the Iraq mess? Were they part of the coalition of the willing? I listen to progressive talk radio nearly every day and I have never once heard anyone bring this up. We are often told that Israel is our "closest ally in the middle east." Some ally, sitting on the sidelines and destroying Lebanon because it got bored waiting for us to attack Iran.
caroline | 02.03.07 - 7:45 pm | #

Kovie reveals his true colors. I'm hoping you are one of those people who can't afford a subscription to Salon and doesn't like to read ads.
EWO | 02.03.07 - 7:38 pm | #

EWO, Frankly accused Kovie of being either Hermann Goering or Osama bin Laden, ostensibly because Kovie cannot stand to see his "beloved Israel" crticized. That's pretty foul rhetoric on Frankly's part, and Kovie was entirely provoked.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 7:48 pm | #

EWO, Frankly accused Kovie of being either Hermann Goering or Osama bin Laden, ostensibly because Kovie cannot stand to see his "beloved Israel" crticized. That's pretty foul rhetoric on Frankly's part, and Kovie was entirely provoked.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 7:48 pm

No, Mona, I suggested that Kovie was taking his talking points from either Goering or OBL because they both made those respective points. This is not the same as saying that Kovie was either Hermann Goering or Osama bin Laden. I'm not surprised that Kovie can't tell the difference, but I'm rather surprised that you can't.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 7:52 pm | #

Mona:

For what it's worth, I agree. Kovie is generally a voice of sanity, no less so today than usual. No one is a fiercer critic of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians than I am, but I don't see how an honorable defense of one's birthplace, be it Israel in Kovie's case, or the United States in mine, is a justification for anyone else comparing one to such an odious figure as Hermann Goering.

Simple pleasures, such forms of self-righteous name-calling may be, but they are also dishonorable ones, when all is said and done.
Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 7:57 pm | #

Anonymous | 02.03.07 - 7:57 pm

HaloScanned again. Apologies to all.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 7:58 pm | #

No, Mona, I suggested that Kovie was taking his talking points from either Goering or OBL because they both made those respective points. This is not the same as saying that Kovie was either Hermann Goering or Osama bin Laden. I'm not surprised that Kovie can't tell the difference, but I'm rather surprised that you can't.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 7:52 pm | #

Distinction without a relevant difference.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 7:59 pm | #

This is specious:
"Bottom line, anti-Israel criticisms are not necessary also anti-Semitic, but sometimes they are. Just as anti-America criticisms are not necessary also anti-American, but sometimes they are.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 6:37 pm | # "

Kovie conflates the country of Israel with the religion of Judaism.

Substitute the word "anti-Protestant" or "anti-Christian" for "anti-American. Now it is a fair comparison.
caroline | 02.03.07 - 8:03 pm | #

Distinction without a relevant difference.
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 7:59 pm

In that case, I bow to your judgment and apologize if my comment was taken to imply any comparison of Kovie with either Hermann Goering or Osama bin Laden. That was not my intention. I agree with WT that Kovie is normally a voice of sanity (albeit often a biased on), and I can see that if my comment prompted him to such an insane outburst, then it must have been ill-advised. I do not, however, withdraw my characterizatio of Sharon as a certified, card-carrying war criminal.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 8:06 pm | #

Excellent discussion today but I really want to hear what Pam from Atlas Shrugs thinks.
AkaDad | 02.03.07 - 8:15 pm | #

Frankly - I give up. How did I insult you today? Comparing Kovie's reading comprehension to mine? Please! He's a ranter. His comprehension is limited to a few topics.

BTW, have you ever seen him participate in a thread and not let everyone know he is Jewish and originally from Israel? I think it is a trademark for him.
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 8:15 pm | #

Frankly - I give up. How did I insult you today? Comparing Kovie's reading comprehension to mine?

Sorry. I won't do it again.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 8:20 pm | #

I would disagree with you Glenn that the Israelis do not have a stranglehold on US foreign policy.

I do believe that the US foreign policy is not only formed by Israels interests but that the criminal international banksters tell the Israelis what to do with regard to policy.

The nation of Israel is not owned by Israelis or run by Israelis. the nation of Israel is not a Jewish nation as you think it is. The nation of Israel is controlled by the Banksters the people who say they are Jews but are not Jewish at all but are liars, they are Kenites.

The same people behind Zionism is the ones that own and control Israel and Abe Foxman is just their public relations hitman.

Now to light up all you anti-conspiracy brainwashed people to a fun night of calling people names and showing us just how mature you really are by trying to infer that to say conspiracy and Israel in the same breath makes one a "troll", "Fringe" nut group, or someone that could not possibly have any serious input into a political argument "because they are so crazy".

Hello is there anybody home? To ignore a person by saying that he is a conspiracy nut case is the ultimate intellectual disconnect from reality. This actually puts you on a par with in an intellectual way the people who argue for vigilantism.

Where you make your mistake is by coming out so strong with your words denouncing the possibility of a conspiracy connected with the nation of Israel or with anything else.

By doing this you are saying that you either "know for sure", or that you "think" their can be no moral or civil relevance to any such argument on its face and therefore must be discarded from even consideration.

This is the definition of delusional according to brother Webster.

The United States is in my opinion the foreign policy arm of the nation of Israel and the police force thereof as well.

If you have a little trouble believing this go and do a little research on how many dual citizens are sitting on the presidents cabinet that have Israeli citizenship and or are outright agents for Israel then say I am wrong

I will take the time to do the research before I start calling names will you?

Okay start throwing your rocks I am ready.
Gabe | 02.03.07 - 8:23 pm | #

Frankly,I suppose it's a moot point since you've apologized,but I read your comparison of Kovie's words with Goering's and bin Laden's words as you using irony as a rhetorical device.
AnonE.Mouse | 02.03.07 - 8:23 pm | #

The problem is that thoughtful people are usually not powerful, and powerful people are rarely thoughtful beyond the measures necessary to retain and increase their power.
William Timberman | 02.03.07 - 10:27 am

That is so, so true. Ayn Rand pointed out one reason why (in my words as I understand hers): thoughtful (rational) and highly intelligent people have no desire to control others. They are capable of directing their efforts toward creating, producing, and attaining mastery over their environment.

Those who are not often focus on attaining the kind of power which enables them to control others. Being second handers (meaning not producers of anything of value) their modus operendi is to seek to control others to get what they want.

This is why, in the end, the pen is mightier than the sword. A great thinker can have a tremendous influence on others, without controlling them by force. The only problem is in reaching his audience.

That is why I support Glenn in his efforts, and think he and a few others like him might just prevail. The "audience" is out there, as MLK found, and most especially in America, the land of freedom of the individual. One just has to find a way to reach enough of them.
EWO | 02.03.07 - 8:27 pm | #

Granted, I took my shots at Kovie earlier, but he DOES have a valid point. Criticism of Israel, Israel's foreign policies, an d US mideast policy is FAR more livelier in ISRAEL than it is here.

I think this gets back to Glenn's basic point. Why is Israel more of a sacred cow in New York than it is in Tel Aviv?

Why do the Israelis really have more of a free press on this issue than we do? Or a livelier political debate?

If it was all a 'zionist plot', there would be no discussion in Israel or in European cernters with large Jewish populations.

What is it that has the media and politicians here so cowed as to ever question Israel? Is it the religious
Christian right with their rapturous nonsense?

Why is the US unique here?

And Kovie DOES have a legitimate voice in answering this, as he's lived in Israel and here?
twit | 02.03.07 - 8:44 pm | #

Kovie What I do have a problem with is Israel the COUNTRY being blamed for this war and singled out above all other (far more direct) participants for condemnation for its participation in it.
Someone really needs to clue me in on that.

While Israel might not be the major instigator of this war, Israel has not been a strong advocate for peace in the ME. Israel's apartheid policies regarding the Palestinians are a provocation for the Muslim world. Nearly 60 years after Israel was placed on the map, she still hasn't made peace with the people that were displaced for (by) her. Considering the attack on Lebanon this past summer, there is an argument to be made about Israel's role in the continuing conflict in the ME. Granted, not all Israeli's support the policies against the Palestinians but at what point do you not hold a citizen accountable for their leader's actions? I have never supported Bush yet I understand the anger that could be directed at me by various people from across the world. My parents recently went to Switzerland and were confronted by a waitress over the actions of GW Bush. They were quick to point out they did not support him but they too, understood what lead the waitress to behave as she did.

You do come across as an angry person.
(fuckwad, fuck off and die maggot)? That stuff reminds me of LV. Mellow out.
~
nuf said | 02.03.07 - 8:44 pm | #

Kovie...And I somehow suspect that so would the survivers of such holocausts.

And there is the most salient point. Soon there will be no survivors of The Holocaust. Just people who will kill you for cartoons about Allah.

Holocaust Industry, indeed.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 8:46 pm | #

Twit... I think this gets back to Glenn's basic point. Why is Israel more of a sacred cow in New York than it is in Tel Aviv?

Not so much anymore. I have read that they do not like too air this issue with non-Israelis. Then there is CAMERA. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a powerful Boston-based lobby group that tries to curb criticism of Israel in US media.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index...hp? title=CAMERA

You should read about it. I doubt many of you have ever even heard of it.

And really, Kovie, lighten up. Unless you yourself are a survivor of the holocaust (I refuse to capitalize that ever again). I don't deny it happened. It's not the last time it will occur. It's going on in Darfur right now, but let's talk about the past, with the words you approve, and get ready to bomb Iran.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 8:56 pm | #

Point being that both of those tiny special interests, and others like them, have far too much influence over our politicians and policy makers than we, the people do. And that's not the way it's supposed to be. And furthermore, if the point of studying the past is to never repeat it, it's not working, WRT to holocausts and Darfu and bombing Iran and destroying Iraq, is it? I rest my case.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 9:09 pm | #

twit Why do the Israelis really have more of a free press on this issue than we do? Or a livelier political debate?

I think it has to do with the amount of foreign aid American gives to Israel. If we had an open discussion of just how much money goes to support Israel's policies, that flow might dry up. Keeping the media in line and our politicians on the AIPAC dole is in the best interest of Israel. What Israeli's discuss will have little impact on the gravy train.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population...
~
nuf said | 02.03.07 - 9:12 pm | #

FMD,

I say you side with Hermann Goering because you seem to be saying that the people of a democracy have no control over their leaders and that blaming the country of Israel for the actions of the leaders of Israel is just not fair.

See, this is where my "insane outburst" comes from. You compare me to one of the architects of one of history's most horrific atrocities because I dare point out that not everyone in a country is responsible for their leaders' actions, and you expect me to stay silent or react calmly? Such a patently offensive and idiotic ad hom attack pretty much demands such a response from the attacked party.

You could have kept the content at the level of "I intensely disagree with you", but instead chose to completely discredit yourself and shoot down any future attempt to regain any credibility by making such a vile and unforgivable comparison. Assholes such as yourself are the reason that Godwin came up with his "law".

And speaking of being disengenuous, your attempt to "apologize" by saying that "if my comment was taken to imply any comparison of Kovie with either Hermann Goering or Osama bin Laden. That was not my intention." is about as perfect an example of it as they come. You might want to revisit that dictionary and this time THINK about what it says. Then look up "asshole" (as in spewer of shit). Shouldn't be too hard.

What is most astonishing is that I thoroughly despise Sharan and always have, ever since his own version of Iraq, the Lebanon invasion of '82 (which I would have taken part in if my family hadn't emmigrated to the states years before), and especially since Sabra and Shatillah. For this, while he sadly did not go on trial let alone go to jail, he was relieved of duty and harshly admonished after a thorough and open investigation commissioned by Israel's government (which, unlike what has happened in the US, his actions ended up bringing down). Hardly sufficient given the magnitude of his crimes, but still more than one can presently say about some of our own leaders, military and otherwise.

And yet, because I refuse to condemn an entire nation or country for the despicable actions of a rogue psychopath and a sadly out of touch ideologue prime minister (who, though, just a few years prior had made peace with one of Israel's major enemies, again something that the present US administration seems incapable of an unwilling to do) and others in their regime--actions which brought down this regime and discredited many of those who took part in it--you compare me to one of the most evil men in the history of humanity. If that doesn't warrant an "insane outburst" then I don't know what would. (And for anyone in the know, I find myself increasingly more understanding of and sympathetic to Armando/BTD's self-defensive rants over at DailyKos whenever his character and good faith are impugned.)

Furthermore, your criticisms (now there's a eupehmism) can just as well be applied to the US and just about every country in the mideast. I.e. countries whose peoples are unable to prevent their evil leaders from doing evil. There were, of course, massive anti-war protests in the US prior to the Iraq war. And yet they failed to prevent its leaders from carrying out this war. Surely this merits a condemnation of the entire US and its people. And surely every Muslim is to be help responsible for Bin Laden. Damn convenient, that blood libel charge (even if not literally made).

Oh, and to that other troll, the reason that I "let everyone know" that I am "Jewish and originally from Israel" on a semi-regular basis (but only when discussing matters related to Israel in case no one's noticed) is for full disclosure because my background obviously influences my opinions on this issue. Call it bias, perspective or prejudice or whatever, I believe that when someone has a background that is directly related to a given topic that they are discussing with people who don't know them, it's only fair to reveal it. One doesn't have to do it. I choose to. Perhaps it doesn't matter and I don't need to reveal these things about myself. I think it does. And I only repeat it because new people are constantly joining these discussions and may not know this about me. Sorry to bore you with needless information about myself. That's more than I can say about you, although your biases are pretty easy to surmise (misogyny being but one of them). We all reveal ourselves sooner or later, I guess.

And EWO, your biases are no less clear, which makes continuing to ignore you (either here or on other sites) quite easy to do. Please do me the favor of doing the same.

To everyone else, please forgive my rant, but I'm hoping that considering the circumstances you can understand what prompted it.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 9:22 pm | #

"Haloscan ate my names", that you quote Finkelstain approvingly and that you link to racialist hate sites is unfortunate.
sysprog

I'm going to limit my response to your ignorant bullshit other than to remind you that the ACLU, (and even Glenn Greenwald,) has defended such groups right to speech. Are they trolls, too? As would I even if I disagree with it, which I do. And I could quote some choice Voltaire about the freedom of thought and speech and the infinite proponderance of stupidity but why bother with you?
I used the google while searching for his name because I have not read the book but I knew that the souce of that phrase was not from a holocaust denier, but rather a Jewish academic. Steve Simels regrets the error. So sue me.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 9:24 pm | #

Kovie... See, this is where my "insane outburst" comes from. You compare me to one of the architects of one of history's most horrific atrocities because I dare point out that not everyone in a country is responsible for their leaders' actions, and you expect me to stay silent or react calmly? Such a patently offensive and idiotic ad hom attack pretty much demands such a response from the attacked party.

I would never do that and I did not. I do see why you reacted the way you did and where your opinion comes from, and even if I disagree with it, it is understandable.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 9:31 pm | #

This one will kill you, I promise. Today's news:

135 Killed In Deadliest Iraq Bombing To Date

Well, so what? Who cares? They're not Americans. At least our great warriors who send Americans off to war do care about American casualties. Right?

"Disabled American Veterans" is the group concerned with those who were maimed and disabled fighting our country's wars. The ranking scale of this group is different---it covers a small range. Generally the "good guys" on this issue got a ranking of 100, and the "bad guys" got a ranking of 66. A few fell in the middle and one or two fell off the chart.

We start with a group, mostly antiwar--- you know, the ones who "don't support our troops":

Dennis Kucinich 100
Ron Paul 100
Fortney(Peter) Stark
(there he is again!) 100
Maxine Waters 100
Lyn Woolsey 100
William Lacy Clay 100
Melvin Luter Watt 100
John Conyers 100
John Dingall 100
Carolyn Kilpatrick 100 etc.

Then we have those in the middle, the "let's let them have one crutch, they can hop along okay with that" crowd:

H. Clinton 80 D. Feinstein 80
R. Feingold 80 B. Obama 80
Harry Reid 80 Chuck Schumer 80
J.Lieberman 80 E.Kennedy 80 Kerry 75

Then we have the really great warriors, the "okay they can have one crutch but it better be a used one":

Orrin Hatch 50
Lindsey Graham 40 (not too many etcs)

AND THEN WE GET TO ONE OF THE LESS THAN A HANDFUL WHO FELL OFF THE CHART:

JOHN MCCAIN ... 20 !!!!!!!

The lowest rating!

Quick, someone direct me to that site (I was reading it yesterday but I thought it was one of those conspiracy sites) that said this man hates American and seeks to betray it--- he was brainwashed by the enemy when he was in captivity, and it's been downhill ever since.

I guess it wasn't really a "conspiracy" site.
EWO | 02.03.07 - 9:38 pm | #

Kovie...And yet, because I refuse to condemn an entire nation or country for the despicable actions of a rogue psychopath and a sadly out of touch ideologue prime minister...

I don't condemn the entire nation. Most here do not and I will not defend anyone who does. I wasn't born until a few years after 1948. After many years I have come to the conclusion that the State of Israel was a mistake, as a few rather smart Jews thought at the time, and I think it is doomed to fail unless they wake up and realize that there future security does not lie with agreements and understandings with the U.S. but with reaching some kind of comity with their neighbors in the region. This is a common, but less known, opinion of some Jewish scholars, Rabbis and academics here and in Israel.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 9:40 pm | #

To everyone else, please forgive my rant, but I'm hoping that considering the circumstances you can understand what prompted it.
kovie

Understood and done.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 9:41 pm | #

Ok folks, by way of some leavening with humor, it is not the U.S., not Israel, not anyone's foreign policy, and certainly not al Qaeda that are responsible for terrorism, as all of France is now aware:

...Charles Darwin is "the real source of terrorism." For example, a photo of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers carries a caption reading, "Those who perpetuate terror in the world are in reality the Darwinists. Darwinism is the only philosophy which validates and encourages conflict."

(Found at Hit 'n Run under the title "Islamocreationism.")
Mona | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:47 pm | #

Mona... You are exactly correct. Myself, I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept that there was a significant bloc of right-wing Jews in the U.S. that is deranged and, well, evil in its ostensibly pro-Israel war-mongering, and I resisted accepting it until about 18 mos. ago. All of my life I've been strongly supportive of the State of Israel, and pretty disgusted with various one-sided UN resolutions attacking Israel & etc while wholly ignoring regimes with far more egregious human rights records.

And we are glad you did. It's been rather remarkable to watch. That sounds exactly like my transformation, except I was a little less obstinate perhaps, but no less truculent about my support of the State of Israel. There was no finer fighting force on the planet than the IDF at one time. I have always admired them. Then "defense" became "offense" and the luster wore off.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 9:49 pm | #

You do come across as an angry person.

I don't know about an angry "person" (well, no more so than many of the regulars here including Glenn, and for damned good reason I'd say if so), but yes, I was and continue to be extremely angry at not only having my good faith and honesty impugned but then being compared to both Goering and Bin Laden. This is not the sort of thing one "mellows out" over. To have to explain this is beyond incomprehensible.

As for Israel's mideast policies, I'm not going to claim that Israel hasn't done more than its share of contributing to both the Palestinians' continued suffering and to tensions in the region. But to single it out as the worst if not only perpetuator of such actions is ludicrous. Each and every country in the mideast has contributed to both problems, as you point out.

And yet the majority of comments I come across here and elsewhere appear to single Israel (and the US) out as the primary if not sole sources of evil and strife in the mideast. That is ignorant at best, and willfully dishonest (for any of a number of reasons not necessarily due to anti-Semitism but often enough that as well) at worst.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 9:50 pm | #

Kovie... But to single [Israel] out as the worst if not only perpetuator of such actions is ludicrous.

All nations are equally guilty of this, just limited by their ability to throw their weight around. Except for New Zealand. Even if they had weight to throw around, they wouldn't.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 9:58 pm | #

I'm going to limit my response to your ignorant bullshit other than to remind you that the ACLU, (and even Glenn Greenwald,) has defended such groups right to speech. Are they trolls, too?

Unlike these organizations that they have defended, neither the ACLU nor Glenn are trolls. And they DID NOT defend WHAT they said, but merely their right to say it. There is a VAST difference between the two that I assumed you were aware of.

I don't remember the exact words or who said it, but there's a famous quote to the effect that if one truly believes in freedom then one is obliged to defend the freedom of people whom you thoroughly despise to say things that are extremely offensive to oneself and all decent people. I'd put myself into that camp as well.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 9:58 pm | #

I've taken to using the term Hilbadwards for Hillary, Barack Obama, and Edwards. They're all pandering for a war with Iran, and all for the same reasons.
lambert strether | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 10:06 pm | #

S.T.T.E.G. :

...BOTH American and Israeli neocons are to blame...
SandThroughTheEyeGlass | 02.03.07 - 5:33 pm

There is a VAST difference between the two that I assumed you were aware of.

Yeah, I don't write as well as most here. I mangle every sentence. especially when my blood is up. I think you understand. ;-)

Orwell says it best.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Still, I do read those sites from time to time. It's amazing how well some of them have perfected the rhetoric and managed to polish the stink off it. It's easy to see how people get sucked in.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 10:10 pm | #

After many years I have come to the conclusion that the State of Israel was a mistake

While I strongly disagree with many of the methods by which Israel chose to make itself into a state, and respect your right to hold this opinion, I, of course, disagree that its becoming a state was a mistake.

I think it is doomed to fail unless they wake up and realize that there future security does not lie with agreements and understandings with the U.S. but with reaching some kind of comity with their neighbors in the region

You will get no argument from me on this, as I've held this opinion for over 20 years. There might have once been a time when the only way for Israel to exist was to defend itself militarily, first with France and England's help and then with the US's (which, of course, had far less to do with concern for Israel and its people than with concern for their oil and shipping interests).

But that time passed decades ago, and many if not most Israelis came to the same conclusion long ago as well. Sadly, a powerful enough minority of Israelis (and their US and other non-altruistic supporters) felt otherwise, and have passionately and so far successfully resisted letting Israel go down that path. E.g. Rabin's assassination, Netanyahu and later Sharon's deliberate provocation of Palestinians and refusal to abide by the Oslo accords that intentionally caused the second Infifada.

As in the US, a majority continues to be manipulated by a powerful, evil and determined minority, some knowingly, some not, while a just as if not more determined minority diligently works to change this. I no longer follow Israeli politics closely enough to know if this is bearing much fruit there, but here in the US, we do appear to have finally started to make some progress. The only question is whether it'll be in time to stave off the coming disaster in Iran.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 10:11 pm | #

See, this is where my "insane outburst" comes from. You compare me to one of the architects of one of history's most horrific atrocities because I dare point out that not everyone in a country is responsible for their leaders' actions, and you expect me to stay silent or react calmly? Such a patently offensive and idiotic ad hom attack pretty much demands such a response from the attacked party.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, eh? I realize that you have no control over this, so I accept your explanation. But I really do expect people to react calmly, whatever the perceived provocation. It is part of what we call civilization. It has also been my experience that those who look for things to be offended about are seldom disappointed.

You could have kept the content at the level of "I intensely disagree with you", but instead chose to completely discredit yourself and shoot down any future attempt to regain any credibility by making such a vile and unforgivable comparison.

If you want to channel Herman Goering, I can see why you wouldn't like to have it pointed out. But I doubt if you even realized that you were taking Goering's position and, furthermore, I wouldn't have said that I disagreed with you because I don't. I also think that Goering was right: The leaders of a democracy (or any other form of government) can always manipulate the people into fighting the leaders' wars. The people should not be held accountable for their leaders' crimes.

As far as unforgivable is concerned, I realize that forgiveness is not big in your religion, but it is in mine, so I will pray for you in hopes that the hatred will pass from your heart.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 10:11 pm | #

After many years I have come to the conclusion that the State of Israel was a mistake

I told you I mangle sentences.

I could have put that better with more effort.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 10:13 pm | #

F,MD... But I really do expect people to react calmly, whatever the perceived provocation.

People don't always do what we expect them to do. I really hate that.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 10:15 pm | #

F, MD

Kovie is a product of his environment, as we all are. You write much better than I, but could have been a bit more... tactful. (I'm not too good at that either).
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 10:21 pm | #

Kovie: Kovie : "...As for the US, last time I checked, an unquestionable warmonger was reelected by a majority of Americans. What does that make America? And I haven't even gotten to Nixon or Reagan...

Urgggh - you had it right there. (although, I would like to add that I believe the Democrat candidate won BOTH times... but I would have liked a LARGER show of votes)

Knowledge is power, and that's the problem... we have propaganda with the MSM, with the American public not knowing what the hell is going on, aswell as the propaganda pieces sent out from those questionable 'protect Israel' newsletter content directives sent out from the uber-neocon umbrella organization of the pro-israel interests in the US.

We each have our 'cross' to bear... driving the point home...
SandThroughTheEyeGlass | 02.03.07 - 10:25 pm | #

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, eh? I realize that you have no control over this, so I accept your explanation. But I really do expect people to react calmly, whatever the perceived provocation. It is part of what we call civilization.

To expect people to react calmly when compared to a mass murderer is either the stupidest thing I've ever heard, the most vile, or the most dishonest. Take your pick. I don't care.

If you want to channel Herman Goering, I can see why you wouldn't like to have it pointed out.

Ditto.

I realize that forgiveness is not big in your religion, but it is in mine

In just a few words you manage to insult 20 million people (and, by extension, anyone who is more tolerant than you of other faiths) while engaging in rhetorical crusade (Jihad, whatever) AND show just what an ignorant and intolerant ass you are.

I don't hate you, so don't mistake my anger for that. I now merely pity you as just a sad and self-righteous pontificator of no account.

Bye.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 10:27 pm | #

There is a special place in hell for hypocritical fuckwads like yourself, who pose as oh so sensitive souls but are merely just the left-wing version of a hateful bigot. Eat shit and die, you maggot. You're as transparent as glass.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 7:22 pm

I don't remember the exact words or who said it, but there's a famous quote to the effect that if one truly believes in freedom then one is obliged to defend the freedom of people whom you thoroughly despise to say things that are extremely offensive to oneself and all decent people. I'd put myself into that camp as well.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 9:58 pm

I'm sorry, Kovie, but I seem to be having difficulty reconciling these various statements of yours. Could you explain to me which of them you actually mean?
Frankly, my dear, ... | 02.03.07 - 10:31 pm | #

SandThroughTheEyeGlass,

Well, if you're referring to '72 and '84, although the campaign tactics of at least the former were obviously despicable, and while it was a tragedy for the country both times, it is pretty much indisputible that these were overwhelming victories for the winning candidate. As opposed to many on the right, most of us here on the left like to stick to the facts (although we all like to indulge in a little private CTing now and then). ;-)

As for manipulating the public, one doesn't have to read Chomsky to realize that. One just needs to observe and think for a while, and it becomes pretty clear (although, of course, it happens on so many levels and from so many directions that it's often hard to tell its full extent). Of course, it goes WAY beyond Fox and Rush.

And as for the disengenuousness of "pro-Israel" advocacy on the right, well, I met some people last summer who were diehard Bushites who unquestioningly supported Israel (no doubt because their religious leader and/or Rush & Co. told them to) yet who gave every indication of also being anti-Semites (and they knew full well that I was Jewish). Go figure. I do not trust people who claim to be your "friend" if the telltale signs of true friendship are not there, whether they're on the right or left.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 10:40 pm | #

Kovie... No, I was referring to 2000 and 2004... In '72 & 84 -- I was one of the 'clueless' ones :)
SandThroughTheEyeGlass | 02.03.07 - 10:43 pm | #

Yet another transparently disengenous attempt to redirect. I was and do defend the right of all assholes to spew forth their bile (including yourself) in PUBLIC, but as I stated above, that does NOT mean that I have to tolerate this bile.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if the same ACLU lawyers who defended the right of neo Nazis to march in Skokie, IL years ago stood on the side and protested them as they marched. There is NO inherent contradiction here.

If you can't understand the difference then you're truly hopeless.

(And before you latch onto this to call me a hypocrite, DR, while I did try to have you banned from this site for making a transparently misogynistic remark several months ago, this is a PRIVATE site in which none of us have the same rights we have in the public arena. Nor am I calling for FMD to be banned. Your case was truly exceptional IMO.)
kovie | 02.03.07 - 10:48 pm | #

SandThroughTheEyeGlass,

No argument from me on '00 & '04.

And actually a weak case could be made for Nixon's stealing the '72 election because his ultimately successful strategy was to discredit all potential Dem candidates who stood a chance of beating him. But that's a whole other topic...

And apologies if I came across too strong. As you can tell I'm not exactly in the calmest of moods today. ;-)
kovie | 02.03.07 - 10:52 pm | #

I'm not buying this explanation from Kovie.

"I believe that when someone has a background that is directly related to a given topic that they are discussing with people who don't know them, it's only fair to reveal it. One doesn't have to do it. I choose to."

You telling people your background is your way of establishing Kovie Kred, telling them you know more than they do, that you are an expert and they know nothing and that they should just STFU. It's an intimidation tactic for you along with your rants.
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 10:59 pm | #

The neocons, and the disasters they are bringing us, will be feeding world-wide anti-American bigotry and anti-Israeli bigotry for years to come, while people will be all too forgiving of Berlusconi, Howard, Blair, Kaczynski&Kaczynski, Aznar, Rasmussen, Harper, and all the other neocons who are neither American nor Israeli.
sysprog | 02.03.07 - 10:06 pm

Most likely and sadly true. Kind of ironic when you think about it, but then I don't view neocons as in any real way pro-Israel. Even more ironies abound but I'll spare everyone Godwin's wrath.

Perhaps most ironic of all, though, is that this will only further drive Israel and the US closer, when in fact they might be best served by some quality "alone time".

Funny how this all works. Not the hah hah kind, though.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 10:59 pm | #

Idiot troll,

It is decidedly NOT intended to intimidate or tell people to STFU, you pantywaist prick. It is primarily meant as what I said it was meant as, full disclosure, to let everyone know that I may well have a conflict of interest that I think they have they right to know about. And secondarily, it is meant to let people know that yes, I do have a certain knowledge and perspective about these matters that others who don't have my background might not.

How that is meant to intimidate anyone is beyond me, and if anyone IS intimidated by this, then that's clearly their problem. I have no problem with Glenn's revealing that he is a lawyer--especially when the law is frequently what he write about. In fact, I'd be upset if he didn't reveal this, and I appreciate that he has.

Sad, just sad. Go cry to your mama now, Mr. Intimidated.
kovie | 02.03.07 - 11:06 pm | #

daleyrocks

Now there is a troll. Pinch his head.
Haloscan ate my names | 02.03.07 - 11:09 pm | #

kovie - Paraphrasing George C. Scott in the movie Patton, "Kovie, I've read your book."

You're transparent and don't intimidate me. I truly find your antics and frequent faux anger with those who dare to disagree with you amusing.

"I do have a certain knowledge and perspective about these matters that others who don't have my background might not."

Exactly my point. All bow before the awesome knowledge and perspective of the mighty kovie!
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 11:14 pm | #

I have one last comment, before I sign off. You know how there are racehorses who pull away from the pack and are in "a zone" all their own, like Barbaro?

I started following the Libby trial which I hadn't before, and from all that I've been reading that's a good description of a person called eriposte, who is writing on Fire Dog Lake. This man (?) is a true genius (and appears to be at the full flower of his intellect) who has the type of highly organized and deeply analytical mind which can follow very complicated things closely enough to pick up what others never see. His analysis goes way beyond the issues that most are following: whether or not Libby lied, and whether his testimony will implicate Bush, or Cheney, or Rove.

Eriposte is delving into the deepest bowels of the War Party and its propaganda machine in this country and deciphering how actions that they took led us to where we are now.

It's just too bad this is coming at the time of the increasing nightmare in Iraq, and the threat of war with Iran. This is world class intellectual sleuthing and at any other time I would think he would have the nation mesmerized by what he is piecing together.
EWO | 02.03.07 - 11:16 pm | #

I don't see a strike on Iran coming this spring, only because any attack on Iran will be timed for the maximum political impact it could have on the 2008 elections. So look for it January 2008. Escalating the war will help ensure that a "wimpy" democrat won't be elected, and St. John of McCain or Rudric of New York can ride in to rescue the legacy of the Cheney administration.
badick | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:25 pm | #

Blah blah blah. Your pathological self-loathing for all to see. Perhaps the true genesis of all trollism. How sad.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 11:37 pm | #

Daleycrock...kovie - Paraphrasing George C. Scott in the movie Patton, "Kovie, I've read your book."

What an idiot.

Learns his history from movies.

It was B.H. Liddell-Hart's book that Guderian read. Rommel didn't write any books. Patton wrote poetry. Bad poetry. Go away, troll.
I'll punt | 02.03.07 - 11:42 pm | #

He's only trying to bait you, kovie. Don't take that bait. He's an idiot, the sum total of his knowledge and entire world view comes from Hollyweird movies (the same Hollyweird he bashes as being "too liberal"), and right wing propaganda. Fuck him with a rusty railspike.
I'll punt | 02.03.07 - 11:48 pm | #

Fuck him with a rusty railspike.

Um, no, I think I'll defer on that one, thank you. ;-)

But I generally don't take the bait. I make some exceptions now and then when he gets especially stupid and offensive--which is kind of hard when the bar is set so low--almost admirable, in fact.

And I was scratching my head about the Patton reference until you cleared it up. Yeah, that rings a bell. I didn't realize that Rommel hadn't written any books but it makes sense that he was talking about Guderian, who invented the military tank strategy that Rommel successfully implemented in N Africa...for a while.

And for him to seek to compare himself with Patton of all people. What a sick joke. More like Custer at the LBH.

Which kind of aligns well with your advice.
Kovie | 02.03.07 - 11:58 pm | #

EWO,

You need to get laid. Bad.
I'll punt | 02.03.07 - 11:59 pm | #

And back on the meds...but not in that order.

I can't believe that I'm devolving into a 15 year old. ;-)

Venting, just venting...no, make that just a grande...
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:01 am | #

You're transparent and don't intimidate me. I truly find your antics and frequent faux anger with those who dare to disagree with you amusing.

dr, you are reflecting. You tried the same the same tactic that you are now acusing another of with me.

It doesn't work.

It didn't stop me. Kovie will not stop commenting because of your "objections."

I've been busy today, and am now late to this party. However, dr is not legitimate, nor has he ever been.

On these threads he has turned into a Jeff Goldstein and I will not tolerate it. He has mucked up these threads for the last time.

He is an imp.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:05 am | #

I'll punt-- I'll gladly take over, just have to catch up.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:08 am | #

Thanks michelle, this is highly appreciated. More than you know.
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:11 am | #

But I generally don't take the bait.

When I point out the bait, I'm well into a thread. It is all they have left. . . bait.

Whether we take it or not -- as in my crapping out with Jeffy, I can only attribute it to too much box wine or a teenage "whatever."
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:12 am | #

"daleyrocks" said:

BTW, have you ever seen him participate in a thread and not let everyone know he is Jewish and originally from Israel? I think it is a trademark for him.

Have you ever seen "daleyrocks" 'participate' in a thread and not let everyone know that he's an eedjit and a Dubya butt-sucker to boot? Now, granted, that's more evident than Kovie's attributes, so Kovie does have more reason to state his background explicitly up front....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:12 am | #

Thanks Arne, ditto on my remarks to michelle.
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:13 am | #

There are really no thoughtful people in the public policy debate who have defensible beliefs on this score?
GS | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 9:58 am |

Good question. Di you have a thoughtful answer>? Is Iran with a nuke worse than China with one? Why? What should be done about it?

IS Iran evil before they get the nuke?Why?

Id IRan evil after the nuke? wHY?
x | 02.04.07 - 12:17 am | #

Hey Arne -- I model myself partly on your responses here -- you are a mentor type for me.

(you can disown me now or at anytime.)

Kovie, I get you.

dr, is just a JG wannabe.

Even if Arne doesn't stay around, I will for a while.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:19 am | #

All bow before the awesome knowledge and perspective of the mighty kovie!
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 11:14 pm |

Mocking others dr? That's not like you.
x | 02.04.07 - 12:20 am | #

Kovie, sorry I didn't get here sooner. My bad.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:22 am | #

michelle,

No prob. But who's JG?
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:31 am | #

Why is Israel more of a sacred cow in New York than it is in Tel Aviv?
twit | 02.03.07 - 8:44 pm |

"sacred cow": Uhmm...because of the assholes from Brooklyn like Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein (and similar ilk).

I truly find your antics and frequent faux anger with those who dare to disagree with you amusing.
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 11:14 pm

"faux anger"? In any event, who cares what you, daleyrocks, find amusing or not? I find your meaningless and pointless observation meaningless and pointless. Truely.

Kovie, I get you. michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:19 am

Me too.

*
the farmer | 02.04.07 - 12:32 am | #

No prob. But who's JG?
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:31 am

Jonah Goldberg be my guess.

*
the farmer | 02.04.07 - 12:33 am | #

Arne - Very insightful comment. Do you ever get any new material? Sitzpinkler!
daleyrocks | 02.04.07 - 12:34 am | #

michelle - Nice to see you back after leaving some of your creepy sexual comments at your friend Jeffy's blog. You and Jim got your butts kicked pretty good over there. Sorry to hear you're feeling intolerant tonight. Such is life on the left.
daleyrocks | 02.04.07 - 12:37 am | #

You telling people your background is your way of establishing Kovie Kred, telling them you know more than they do, that you are an expert and they know nothing and that they should just STFU. It's an intimidation tactic for you along with your rants.
daleyrocks | 02.03.07 - 10:59 pm | #

I didn't have to go very far up to see the crap of dr. Since when has personal knowledge been a detriment. I'll tell you when -- since the talking heads on the teevee and the radio have discounted it. dr will not take any of our personal experiences into account.

Just for fun, I'll link to this "report" from the freepers. Why? It is what is considered credible in my neck of the woods.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:37 am | #

JG is Jeff Goldstein of protien wisdom.

Sorry.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:39 am | #

michelle - When your head's already in the gutter as you showed at PW, there is really only one direction to go.
daleyrocks | 02.04.07 - 12:41 am | #

X,

As for Iran, while I'd argue (as would most) that it's in no one's interest that they get the bomb (nor, for that matter, that they be dissuaded from obtaining one by military attack), the thing that I've never gotten was why we continue to pursue a belligerent stance towards it.

The Iranian revolution long since died and is pretty much a joke among many Iranians, from what I've read, so to the extent that Iran is our enemy, it is its current regime that is the enemy, not Iran or its people. And even that I tend to dispute, as I consider most of what comes out of the mouth of that idiot Ahmedinejad to be Bushian bluster. Maybe I'm wrong.

But that there appears to be much reason for the people of Iran to resume peaceful relations with the US (and even Israel) makes me wonder why the hell this hasn't happened yet. Most likely, for the same reason that Cuba remains our sworn enemy despite posing zero threat and representing great opportunity for peaceful coexistence.

Yes, I know the answer, radicals in each respective country are at war here, not the peoples. But that they continue to control their countries with such a poor track record of accomplishment for so long never ceases to amaze me. This is as true of the US as it is of Israel and Iran (or Cuba, for that matter).

Why do decent peoples (as all peoples are, I believe) continue to be doomed to be screwed by terrible leaders? You'd think the masses would wake up and realize that their shepherds are crazy morons and get rid of them. And yet, Bush, Olmert and Ahmedinejad still rule. Crazy.
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:41 am | #

dr joined the army reserve thursday. let's hear it for dr. one weekend a month. kudos.
x | 02.04.07 - 12:42 am | #

michelle - When your head's already in the gutter as you showed at PW, there is really only one direction to go.

Speaking as one, of course, who has an intimate familiarity with gutters, and who's life ambition is to crawl up Karl Rove's ass, take up shop and get to smell those blossoms up close. I think he already has.

I've really got to stop this. I don't even like worms.
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:47 am | #

I've had my eyes on some teen hotties daleyrocks | 01.28.07 - 4:53 pm |

just us know when your going to appear on that Dateline sex predator snatch-n-grab show daleyrocks.
*
the farmer | 02.04.07 - 12:51 am | #

Kovie, I thought you were going to sleep! I had the very same discussion with my Venezualean student. Extremes from either side are only pushed to be extremes from the other side.

Thanks Kovie for your input.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:51 am | #

I wonder is Greenwald would submit one of his posts to the New York Times editorial. That would give him some exposure fast. How about today's post. Can you imagine?
x | 02.04.07 - 12:52 am | #

And now I lay me down to sleep...
Kovie | 02.04.07 - 12:53 am | #

dr, if your fetish stopped Jim from visiting my blog, I don't care. I support his blog and his effort despite you.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:55 am | #

night kovie.
x | 02.04.07 - 12:55 am | #

night Kovie
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 12:57 am | #

Athena Press, Inc.

http://athenapressinc.com/attacks_sum.htm

ATTACKS
By Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

First published in Germany in 1937 under the title "Infanterie Greift An".

The U.S. Army translated the book in 1943 and General George Patton became familiar with it. Patton was reportedly “electrified” by the book, and read it again and again until he knew it by heart.

sysprog | 02.04.07 - 12:57 am | #

Kovie -

"I can't believe that I'm devolving into a 15 year old. ;-)"

I had you pegged at 18 or 19 based on your arguments and writing style. Just keep being yourself!
Anonymous | 02.04.07 - 1:02 am | #

goodnight kovie
daleyrocks | 02.04.07 - 1:03 am | #

Democrats lining up to tap the ATM in New York has a parallel in Miami.

Every presidential election season starts with Dems and GOP candidates lining up at the meetings of the rabid Cuban E-exile remnant, trying to outdo the others in their fierce determination to "get" Castro, so they can "get" all those retrograde votes and bucks.

It'll be 45 years this week that US initiated "el bloqueo," the utterly stupid and self-defeating Cuban embargo (later stiffened with the inhuman travel ban.
Jim Bouman | 02.04.07 - 1:06 am | #

"I can't believe that I'm devolving into a 15 year old. ;-)"

goodnight kovie
daleyrocks | 02.04.07 - 1:03 am |

now you've gone and got daleyrocks all excited.

*
the farmer | 02.04.07 - 1:09 am | #

As a Jewish veteran who has always backed Israel (if not all all her policies) and is also a strong supporter of General Wesley Clark, I have to take exception with what you characterize as "the Wes Clark treatment":

i.e., demonized as an anti-semite unless and until they repented, appeared before Abe Foxman to request absolution, repudiated their views, and then took an oath of allegiance to that agenda.

You need to read the original reports, not the many twists and turns the tale has taken thru the blogs. To begin with, General Clark was called by Abe Foxman, who was not happy with what Clark had said, but hardly demonized him. In fact, Foxman said in his statement to Jewish Week, "we know [Clark] is a good friend of Israel and is not an anti-Semite..."

More importantly it seems to me, Clark never repented, repudiated, requested absolution, or took anything like oath of allegiance to the hawkish pro-Israeli right. Quite the contrary, immediately after Foxman's call, Clark wrote a letter back with a drop copy to Forward magazine where he stands by everything he's said to date about talking first, shooting last, and our need to have the debate on all options.

We need to get our strategy right. Challenging the threat posed by Iran’s quest for regional hegemony and nuclear capabilities requires a multi-faceted strategy. There is still time for direct dialogue, and the United States should take the lead. There are no guarantees that such a dialogue would be successful; and the option to use force should not be taken off the table. It has been my experience that diplomacy has always been America’s most effective tool and that force should be used only as a last resort.

My position on Iran should not be misinterpreted, defined out of context or used to create conspiracy theories about one group’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is no place in these critical policy debates for Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that blame the Jewish community for the war in Iraq and for action against Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave risk to the United States and our allies, including Israel.

I will not tolerate anti-Semitic conspiracy webs to permeate the honest debate Americans must have about how best to confront Iran.

One thing about Wes Clark is, he never backs down when he's speaking the truth he believes people need to hear.
Ret LTC | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 1:13 am | #

i guess Mona and EWO are better than me.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 1:16 am | #

I had you pegged at 18 or 19 based on your arguments and writing style. Just keep being yourself!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
kovie | 02.04.07 - 1:27 am | #

"we know [Clark] is a good friend of Israel and is not an anti-Semite..."

off topic some but for what its worth: "semite" or "semitic" is a basically a politically bastardized word. Semite/semetic refers specifically to a common language group shared by both Arabs and Jews and others.... technically if someone is anti-semitic or an anti-semite they would have to be both anti-Arab and anti-Hebrew... since both share a common semitic root language shared by those same "semitic" peoples.

*
the farmer | 02.04.07 - 1:30 am | #

It remains centrally important I
think that if Israel desires to be
seen as the good nation in ME today
it must exceed at being forthright,
noble and above all long in mercy,
compassion and demonstrated justice.
An article at ZMAG.com ZNET site by
STEPHEN LENDMAN is worthy of a read-
ISRAEL'S KAFKAESQUE MATRIX OF CONTROL
found under the FEB.2 date entries.
Lendman underscores Israel's not being
the good ME nation,not exceeding at
being forthright,noble and long in
mercy,compassion and demonstrated
justice. This is the reality Israel
clearly seeks to distort or simply
lie about. It is difficult to see how
Israel expects to escape the reaction
and logical outcome to it's conduct in
ME. Israel is not the good nation in ME.
The facts and record do not permit
Israel to claim such a role in ME.
R.Ashen | 02.04.07 - 1:55 am | #

...correction to 02.04.07-1:55am

...ZMAG is a .org and not a .com
R.Ashen | 02.04.07 - 2:12 am | #

According to biblical legend, Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham.

Japeth moved to Europe and after doing Eurail for a summer settled down, had a ton of kids and founded the various European peoples.

Ham moved to Egypt and after touring the pyramids settled down, had a ton of kids and founded the various African peoples, along with the Canaanites (not to be confused with the New Canaanites, who are a New World offshoot of Japeth).

Shem decided to split the difference and moved to the mideast, and after striking out as a wildcatter settled down, had a ton of kids and founded the various Semitic peoples, including Jews, Arabs and Persians.

Every now and then their descendants came across each other and raised holy hell, but most of the time they were too busy inventing french fries, humus and the yam to be bothered.

But then some of the Hammites showed up (specifically the French, British and Americans), discovered oil and really mucked things up. But people managed.

And then the worst Hammite of all showed up, known as Bush ibn Bush in those parts, along with his buddies Cheney the Sith Lord and Sharon the terrible, and ruined it all for everyone. And god was not happy. So he invented blogs (after his good friend Gore invented the internet).

And now I really do need to get some sleep............

Night everyone.
kovie | 02.04.07 - 2:18 am | #

Every now and then their descendants came across each other and raised holy hell,...

i think they invented holy hell too. along with french fries and yam sandwiches.

*
the farmer | 02.04.07 - 2:31 am | #

is this link dead? I wanted to apologize for being such a selfish person -- but this is the only way I have found to comment. the main link says the site is moving.

Again, I apologize.
michelle | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 3:33 pm | #

And I was scratching my head about the Patton reference until you cleared it up. Yeah, that rings a bell. I didn't realize that Rommel hadn't written any books but it makes sense that he was talking about Guderian, who invented the military tank strategy that Rommel successfully implemented in N Africa...for a while.

And for him to seek to compare himself with Patton of all people. What a sick joke. More like Custer at the LBH.

Which kind of aligns well with your advice.
Kovie

Patton was a lunatic and a war criminal. If I had to pick the best Generals in WWII, I'd go with Lucien K. Truscott, Omar Bradley and Eisenhower and possibly Ike's hatchet man, Walter Bedell Smith, then George C. Marshall for rebuilding the continent. This nonsense about Patton and Rommel reading books is typical revisionist history, like glossing over Patton's instability and war crimes.

Rommel's war diaries were published under the title Infanterie greift an (Infantry Attacks), published in 1937. He never intended to write a book and to call that is misleading. Rommel's theories were not his own. They came from Heinz Guderian, who got them in turn from Fuller and Liddell Hart. Fuller was a bit weird, an occultist and friend of Aleister Crowley. Liddell Hart was a true military genius.

Liddell Hart began publishing his theories during the 1920s in the popular press.

After the WWI, Guderian stayed in the Reichswehr and began to specialize in armored warfare. Being fluent in both English and French, he was influenced by the British maneuver warfare theorists J.F.C. Fuller and B.H. Liddell Hart, as well as the writings of the then-unknown Charles de Gaulle. Their works were translated into German by Guderian.

The Brits, and to a lesser extent, the French came up with the ideas. Guderian borrowed them. Rommel applied them. Liddell Hart would later cite Erwin Rommel's Northern Africa campaign as a classical example of his theories. Any good general studies his adversary. That's just intelligence.
I'll Punt | 02.04.07 - 7:57 pm | #

Athena Press, Inc.

http://athenapressinc.com/ attack...attacks_sum.htm

ATTACKS
By Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

First published in Germany in 1937 under the title "Infanterie Greift An".

The U.S. Army translated the book in 1943 and General George Patton became familiar with it. Patton was reportedly “electrified” by the book, and read it again and again until he knew it by heart.

sysprog

Furthermore, since Rommel's war journals were written during WWI, before the advent of armoured warfare, and are mainly about massed infantry assaults, I doubt they would have told Patton much about armoured warfare in WWII.

These observations were not lost on Patton, who probably shared similar experiences and had been involved in training troops. During the Saar campaign in early 1945, Patton confided to his diary:

Woke up at 0300 and it was raining like hell. I actually got nervous and got up and read Rommel's book, Infantry Attacks. It was most helpful, as he described all the rains he had in September 1914 and also the fact that, in spite of the heavy rains, the Germans got along.
I'll Punt | 02.04.07 - 8:20 pm | #

Kovie said...

Clearly, there is plenty of evil and bad faith to go around everywhere, be it in Israel, the US, England or elsewhere. That is indisputible. My only objection is when entire countries (and their people) are blamed for the malfeasance of some of their leaders and other citizens, which is what some people here and elsewhere appear to have been trying to do.

Who is the worse? Those "leaders and other citizens" who are obviously evil and known as such? Or those who know about them and do nothing but blather on that they recognize how evil the evil is?

I, for one, do blame intelligent, well informed people such as yourself and myself for doing nothing. Why do you let "the people" off the hook? "The people" are completely to blame.

.
adnoto | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 9:01 pm | #

Rommel didn't write any books.
That was a blooper.

One of the bloopers in the movie is that the movie shows Patton reading Rommel's second book, which Rommel never finished.

Another blooper in the movie was to show Patton yelling at Rommel -- who wasn't in Africa at the time.

The movie was beloved by Nixon, who watched it over and over -- he saw himself and Patton as being fellow victims of Eisenhower.

Despite my hating war, and my dislike for Patton, and despite the movie's faults, and despite Nixon liking the movie, "God help me, I love it."

Not sure if I can shift this back anywhere near to on-topic, but within the general topic of presidential candidates, I'd guess that people who fall in love with the image of Patton, and who resent those Eisenhower types, are the kind of people who'd be likely to believe that Rudy Giuliani was actually an effective prosecutor and a competent mayor -- neither of which is true.
sysprog | 02.04.07 - 9:17 pm | #

Obama should come out and tell people that he wants to run without special interest money and is asking citizens to send in just $10 each to enable him to do just that.

If he does it he will win.
Sandy | 02.04.07 - 9:51 pm | #

Appropos of nothing in particular: A quote from Lynne Duke in Sunday's WaPo. It appears the media's memories are finally returning. Reminds me of reading Milan Kundera a couple of decades ago.

Lots of people predicted things would turn out this way. They are military brass and lawmakers and foreign policy intellectuals, the kind of wise ones whose counsel is routinely sought and respected. In the run-up to this war, their concerns carried no weight against a swelling of patriotism, a backdrop of fear and an administration determined to oust Saddam Hussein. Their warnings that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11 were ignored. Worse, some were shunned and scolded.

As president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Jessica Tuchman Matthews, raised hard prewar questions about the looming Iraq engagement. They predicted Iraq would become a long occupation and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and would damage U.S. relations with the Muslim world. And: No weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Yes, just as I remember it. And as the MSM would not as long as the war seemed like it might go somewhere.
Baldie McEagle | 02.04.07 - 10:02 pm | #

.

When American Foreign Policy is influenced, bought and paid for by another country, then who's interests are being served but the benefactor. This most certainly is NOT(!) American and America most certainly is NOT(!) the beneficiary to these ideas. The Forefathers of this Nation would not recognize it one bit as the America they established, free from foreign influence.

.
MAX-1 | 02.04.07 - 10:23 pm | #

The Rommel Papers:

http://www.amazon.com/Rommel-Pap...n/dp/ B0006D6PI2

Edited By B.H. Liddell Hart

Another blooper in the movie was to show Patton yelling at Rommel -- who wasn't in Africa at the time.

Not really. There is no way Patton could have known that. We know that now. Some people may have known it then because of Enigma and the work done at Bletchley Park, but if it was known, which is questionable at best, they certainly wouldn't pass it on as that was the quickest way to let the Germans know that we were reading their mail. We can debate semantics about this all day long. There is a difference between the book Glenn wrote and published ad hoc, and the contents of this blog, collected and edited and published in another format, post hoc. But sure, Rommel's diaries or journals or whatever were published in a book.
I'll Punt | 02.04.07 - 10:59 pm | #

daleyrocks,
How long have you been smoking crack? "You and Jim got your butts kicked pretty good over there. Sorry to hear you're feeling intolerant tonight. Such is life on the left."
Sorry to disappoint you, I was only over there a few minutes, made my point and left. It was an interesting experience though, it felt as if I was a stray dog and just got left at the animal shelter, and before I could turn around every flea in the joint jumped on me. Actually a couple of the posters were pretty competent and made good points, but there is no point engaging someone who can't or won't be persuaded by reality. In deference, I will say their brand of partisanship is not much different by what is found on the left, but the left will at least listen to what you have to say(most of the time)unless you make really dumb statements as you are are inclined to do some of the time.
I won't go back, I don't have the time or the desire to get involved in trolling. But it was interesting.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 11:03 pm | #

Jim - I agree you left more quickly and took less abuse than Michelle. PW's commenters are generally more informed than those here as you indicate, but the threads can easily get sidetracked by nonsense. I do not find that many on the left are willing to listen, depending on the site. There are of course exceptions everywhere.
daleyrocks | 02.04.07 - 11:12 pm | #

PW's commenters are generally more informed than those here

I suppose you could say the same about the people who frequent UFO and conspiracy theory sites. They are better informed about that stuff than the folks here. You idiot.

People, stay away from PW. Hang out at the fun sites like Rense.com. Those people take their meds without being forced.
I'll Punt | 02.04.07 - 11:18 pm | #

Sorry, I didn't say here. Protein Wisdom doesn't rise to the level of Unclaimed Territory, it doesn't even come close. You want comparisons think Volokh Conspiracy or something on that level. Not JoJo the Clown vs the Reason.com.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 11:30 pm | #

I'll Punt - Seems like Glenn used to be a frequent visitor to PW. The left loves to hate the site precisely because it's effective at what it does, the same reason it hates successful conservatives like Malkin. Jealous much?
daleyrocks | 02.04.07 - 11:31 pm | #

I'm not going to disparage Protein Wisdom or Malkin, neither one has anything to contribute to our discourse at least as far as I am concerned. There are many more serious people out there to give serious consideration to, I'll pass on both.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 11:38 pm | #

Jeff Goldstein :

http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/ if_instead_of_a_romantic_poet_samuel_taylor_coleri dge_were_foul_mouthed_har

protein wisdom.
PAJAMAS MEDIA Network Blogger

Friday, June 30, 2006

If instead of a famous Romantic poet, Samuel Taylor C*leridge were foul-mouthed hard-left “feminist” Amanda Marc*tte ...
...Meanwhile, Penises whom I never more shall meet again,
(To their utter delight, and in answer to their prayers, I dare say),
Wander in gladness, and wind down, perchance,
To that roaring dell, a fresh vaginal space!
Another’s womanhood (skanks!), ...

Chris Clarke :

http://faultline.org/index.php/site/comments/ the_lap_dog_rides_a_white_steed

June 30, 2006

Posted by: Chris Clarke
Creek Running North »
» The Love Song Of J. Edgar Goldstein

Let us go then, you and I...

Jainists believe that anything, even a rock, is a sentient being of at least the first order. Most of us wouldn't go quite that far.
sysprog | 02.04.07 - 11:58 pm | #

"daleyrocks":

Arne - Very insightful comment. Do you ever get any new material?

No, but since I'm responding to your inanities, that's hardly my fault.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 12:32 am | #

sysprog:

Cheap Nietzsche, i.e...there are no rules for me...I can be as nasty as I want to be...and who's to stop me?

Heh.

If I didn't know better, it'd be hard for me to believe that these wankers actually exist. Of course our newly-minted Internet world is virtual almost to a fault, and I suppose that sadistic wish-fulfillment in a consequence-free environment must beckon seductively to such morbidly adolescent folks as the ones you quote.

Still, who can fathom how our post-war culture, even with all its known defects, has managed to produce so many cases of arrested development?

D-Rocks, would you care to weigh in here with an expert opinion?
William Timberman | 02.05.07 - 12:56 am | #

Out of curiosity, I'm interested in everyone's impression of this panoramic photo of Shanghai.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wiki...haipanorama.jpg

After realizing that this spectacular place was built with our dollars, I couldn't help but pause to think of the future of both this place and of our place.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 1:14 am | #

I do not find that many on the left are willing to listen, depending on the site.

And the content. Junk opinion and fact, like junk food, is really bad for you.

Didn't they teach you that at school?

You know, that big building you got dropped off at every morning by that nice man in the short yellow bus.

Man I am so mean.
Kovie | 02.05.07 - 1:18 am | #

I, for one, do blame intelligent, well informed people such as yourself and myself for doing nothing. Why do you let "the people" off the hook? "The people" are completely to blame.

.
adnoto | Homepage | 02.04.07 - 9:01 pm

In the early 80's, after the Sabra and Shattilah massacres become known, hundreds of thousands of Israelis, led by intellectuals, politicians and other leaders, staged mass protests in front of city hall in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, to protest the war and demand the resignation of prime minister Begin and army chief of staff Sharon.

It ultimately succeeded, and the Peace Now movement was born. Although its power has diminished over the years, it has also accomplished much, along with other peace organizations in Israel such as B'Tzelem, which monitors and reports on human rights violations in the territories.

I'd say that that's doing something.

After Begin resigned, Israel's politics shifted back to the center, and power moved back and forth between the right-wing Likud and left-wing labor parties. This allowed Rabin to become prime minister a second time, and he, of course, led Israel to sign the Oslo accords.

Sadly, these accords, along with various economic reforms led to an economic boom in Israel in the mid to late 90's, like every western nation (including the US) Israelis became enamored with easy money, luxury, good, etc.

This, along with a series of deadly terror attacks, shifted Israel's politics back to the right, culminating in the election as prime minister the very military leader who had been outsted nearly 20 years before, Sharon--made possible by the start of the second Intifada, precipitated by Sharon's intentionally provocative march on the Temple Mount.

The series of horrific suicide bombings that ensued were effectively Israel's 9/11, shifting its citizens drastically towards the right and to embrace Sharon's brutal tactics. Like Bush here, he effectively used fear to silence and manipulate his people.

Throughout this all, Israel's peace movement continued to operate, but far less effectively. So I'd say that it's a mixed bag, and there have certainly been Israelis--as there have been Americans (e.g. Vietnam protests, Iraq protests)--who have clearly done more than their share to oppose brutal leaders and policies.

Unfortunately, there appear to be times when such people are unable to affect their government's policies.

But fortunately, there are times when they can. E.g. this past fall's election, which hopefully set in motion a process that will finally rid us of this round of brutality. And a LOT of people worked like crazy to help make that happen. So don't give up on the citizens of countries that have terrible policies. They can and do make a difference, eventually.

Saying that "the people" are to blame is wrong, unfair and unhelpful, as there are 300 million of those people in the US, some very much to blame, others quite the opposite, and most somewhere in-between, like you and me. I can certainly do vastly more than I do do, but I don't believe that I've done "nothing". Nor, I suspect, have you.
Kovie | 02.05.07 - 1:44 am | #

Anyone see Prince at the Super Bowl tonight? ;-)
Ghost of Tom Joad | 02.05.07 - 5:06 am | #

Kovie...you seem sincere in thought
and with your wording...yet the facts
and record of Israel's conduct over
past 5 years,10 years,15 years and
out to past 25 years as the article
at ZMAG.org fully revealed once again
are very much not good. Not to suggest
all of Israel or all Israelis are or
ever have been engaged in wrong doing.
But it clearly is the wrong path for
USA to be playing role of the enabler
for Israeli conduct and the very well
documented abusive practices Israel
engages in WestBank and Gaza.
For the USA to do so dangerously
undermines the American's already
weakened positions in ME affairs.
Kovie...your comments in this thread
read as balanced and nuanced. It is
important however in light of the
Iran bashing that has now come into
play that Israel's factual and conduct
of record over past 25 years be fully
seen as being as destructive then as
any one,two or five examples of ME
violence,death dealing or cross border
incursions of Iran. Israel plainly
has a record that is not good for ME.
Israeli self-defense is legitimate and
I dont endorse any surrender-monkey
takes on Israels real security or its
ability to defend itself. It is known
well enough Israeli Militarism is at
full force and with Israel's nuclear
weaponry stands as singular in ME.
Sadly the Americans failure to scale
any of this to a better balance feeds
Israel's not good ME policies in Gaza
and WestBank. Or in Lebanon as seen
in summer of 2006. It has become very
needful to hold Israel accountable
for it's ME conduct of record and not
gloss over the wretchedness of Israeli
policies and conduct. It is now late
in timeline of Israel's poor conduct
and error of ways in ME. Very late.
R.Ashen | 02.05.07 - 7:29 am | #

Greenwald,

Last Fall, sir, just after the election, I posted a comment here observing that the control exerted over our political establishment's Middle Eastern policy by AIPAC and Christian Zionists taken together with the egregious abuses of presidential power respecting torture, privacy and the like amounted to our having passed into a kind of dictatorship and was called "feverish" by you if I recall. Yet I doubt if I could have described as well as you have here the basis for my having made such a claim. You write this piece as though you were making an important new announcement. Just these points have been made by countless observers for years, decades as a matter of fact, and you present them as being somehow hot off the press? I mean really, sir, you owe me an apology.

John Lowell
John Lowell | 02.05.07 - 10:51 am | #

Tonight's event is the first time any of the 2008 candidates have competed for attention in the same room since they launched their campaigns in earnest.

This is false, of course. My personal favorite (and while we're on the subject: the Herzliya Conference -- more war-mongering about Iran by 2008 Presidential hopefuls to an Israeli audience.
. | 02.05.07 - 12:12 pm | #

Mr. Greenwald has hardly been a faithful lackey of the Democratic Party. Shortly before the 2006 election, he wrote,

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/ legalization-of-torture-and-permanent.html
Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The legalization of torture and permanent detention
...we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period. Primary responsibility for this fact lies with the authoritarian Bush administration and its sickeningly submissive loyalists in Congress. That is true enough. But there is no point in trying to obscure that fact that it's happening with the cowardly collusion of the Senate Democratic leadership...

sysprog | 02.05.07 - 12:24 pm | #

"The survey, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee, found that only 38% of American Jews support American military action, down from 49% last year."

So opposing the neoconservatives and Isreali zionists isn't "anti-semetic" at all.
shep | 02.05.07 - 1:08 pm | #

R.Ashen | 02.05.07 - 7:29 am

All good points, and I was not trying, of course, to apologize for or excuse Israel's occupation and its brutal occupation policies, which are not only immoral but ultimately self-defeating--i.e. they not only don't enhance Israel's security, but actually diminish it. Nor do I excuse its brutal, unwarranted and self-defeating attack on Lebanon last summer, in its extent and nature. If Israel genuinely cares about its long-term security, then it has to stop these practices and find a way to coexist with its neighbors in peace, including Palestinians--in fact especially Palestinians. And the US has to stop supporting if not encouraging such policies. You will get no argument from me on this.

However, I also believe that anyone who is sincere about these things has to apply the same exact conditions to every other country in the region that is in any way contributing to the various tensions in that region. Syria has to stop meddling in Lebanese affairs and assassinating its leaders, or allow foreign fighters to enter Iraq over its borders. Iran has to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and other organizations that undermine regional stability. Fatah has to rid itself of its corruption and start ruling competently. Hamas has to give up its terrorist wing permanently and not on an ad hoc Hudna basis. Hezbollah has to stop provoking Israel. Saudi Arabia has to stop funding Jihadidi Madrassahs. And the US and other countries have to be more honest and forceful brokers in the region. And so on.

Blame lies everywhere and with everyone in this godforsaken region. And to single out any one or two parties is not helpful. And I would only add, because I know Israelis and used to be one, that while Israel's leaders might (and often do) have their own agenda, many of Israel's citizens have supported these leaders in the past in part because they believed that their county was being held to a standard that was not also being applied to other parties in the region, so they figured that they might as well do what they felt was best for their country (whether or not this turned out to be true) and to hell with what everybody else thought. I'm not saying that this justified some of the policies that this resulted in, but I think it does explain why Israel's citizens supported them. People who feel beseiged tend to become radicalized in belief and action (which of course equally applies to Palestinians).
kovie | 02.05.07 - 3:17 pm | #

Glenn said:

It goes without saying that there are other factions and motives behind the push for war with Iran besides right-wing Jewish groups. There is the generic warmongering, militarism and oil-driven expansionism represented by Dick Cheney. And there are the post-9/11 hysterics and bigots who crave ever-expanding warfare and slaughter of Muslims in the Middle East for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. There are evangelical Christians who crave more Middle Eastern war on religious and theological grounds, and there are some who just believe that the U.S. can and should wage war against whatever countries seem not like to us. And, it should also be noted, a huge portion of American Jews, if not the majority, do not share this agenda.

Well, you left out one possibility. There is the faction of those who genuinely believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to the very existence of Israel...or is it possible to have convinctions when one is on the opposite side of an issue to you?

Just checking...
Mark Coffey | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 4:25 pm | #

Kovie...same standards for all ME
countries-I agree.Still Israel is
afforded a platform in USA that it is
doubtful any other ME country with
possible allowance for Saudi Arabia
finds similarly open. When Israeli
PM Olmert visited USA a few months
back he was given a WashDC reception
where the warmth of the accolades was
only exceeded by the blatant pandering
to all things Israeli. Did he walk on
water or what? During summer 2006 open
season on Lebanon Israel repeatedly
attacked civilians and other dubious
civilian targets with little regard
shown for the ethics/morals involved.
The final brutal act of firing shells
that dispersed bomblets in blatant
violation of accepted rules now besets
Lebanon months after having done so.
Recent reports indicate the USA will
sweep that under the rug. I do think
all ME countries should be treated
equally. I also think Israel should
not be given greenlights,free passes
and the benefit of the three monkeys.
If the USA seeks to brand Iran as a
dangerous ME country then the same
standards should apply to Israel.
In past five years Israel has openly
killed hundreds of people in WestBank,
Gaza and now Lebanon.The Israelis
now seem very determined to attack
Iran on basis of it possibly getting
nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Israel has
nuclear weapons already and voices the
threat of using them.Incredible. Iran
has suffered from American meddling
and it appears is about to be meddled
with again by Americans or Israel.
Something stinks and it isn't a pile
of camel dung.
R.Ashen | 02.05.07 - 6:14 pm | #

Meanwhile Israel has
nuclear weapons already and voices the
threat of using them.

I agree with nearly everything you say but this. Israel has not, to the best of my knowledge, "voiced" any such threat in any public forum. There have been stories written and opinions offered by credible people such as Sy Hersh and Scott Ritter, but based on anonymous back sources, and not anything that Israel has OPENLY voiced.

Not that such a threat has not been IMPLICITELY voiced by other means, e.g. think tanks and surrogates (i.e. shills) hinting and implying that "no option is off the table", and I realize that dangerous games are being played here. But let's be clear on what has and hasn't been openly voiced.

Having said that, I repeat that I agree with you. Israel is deserving of neither better nor worse treatment by the US and world in terms of its human rights abuses and policies. But no mideast country should be held to a lower (or higher) standard than Israel should be held to (and is held to by much of the world save for the US and a few other powerful western countries).

The key, I think, is replacing the current ruling regime in the US (not just in the White House but in congress as well, given how pro-AIPAC so many Dems are) with one that is both fair (when deserved) and tough (when warranted) on ALL parties in or involved in the mideast--including the US itself.

Arab and Muslim countries and peoples will not trust the US (let alone Israel) so long as Israel is seen as getting better treatment than them (which it often is). But neither will Israel trust these until it believes that they're going to be held to the same standard that they want it to be held to.

There needs to be a level playing field in the mideast. And only the US can make that happen--under different management.
Kovie | 02.05.07 - 8:18 pm | #

We move on then...with shared hope any
new management is an improvement over
the current one--which surely is as
bad as bad ever should be allowed to
be at start of this very different to
come and uncharted 21st century...
R.Ashen | 02.06.07 - 2:07 am | #

Amen and inshallah.
kovie | 02.06.07 - 2:27 am | #

A Time to Speak Out: Independent Jewish Voices

[snip] We are a group of Jews in Britain from diverse backgrounds, occupations and affiliations who have in common a strong commitment to social justice and universal human rights. We come together in the belief that the broad spectrum of opinion among the Jewish population of this country is not reflected by those institutions which claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole. We further believe that individuals and groups within all communities should feel free to express their views on any issue of public concern without incurring accusations of disloyalty.

We have therefore resolved to promote the expression of alternative Jewish voices, particularly in respect of the grave situation in the Middle East, which threatens the future of both Israelis and Palestinians as well as the stability of the whole region. We are guided by the following principles: [/snip]

principals/declaration continued here:
http://jewishvoices.squarespace..../declaration-2/

more here: brian klug / guardian uk

*
the farmer | 02.06.07 - 2:57 am | #

Thank you. What is also striking is the narrow range of discourse on foreign policy issues in D.C. foreign policy "think" tanks, especially when it comes to the Middle Eas.

http://cars.itinto.us
Neonila | Homepage | 02.06.07 - 4:51 am | #

http://www.best-xxx-vids.com/?wm...m/? wmid=wmid139
http://www.teensexmovs.ru/?wmid=wmid139
http://www.erovideos.ru/?wmid=wmid139
http://pencool.pp.net.ua/forum/
http://pencool.pp.net.ua/blog/
http://pencool.pp.net.ua/index/0-7
http://pencool.pp.net.ua/index/0-8
http://pencool.pp.net.ua/gb/
http://joobcool.clan.su/forum/
http://joobcool.clan.su/forum/2
http://joobcool.clan.su/blog/
http://joobcool.clan.su/index/0-4
http://joobcool.clan.su/gb/
http://joobcool.clan.su/index/0-11
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv2/zuru.../015/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv1/zuru.../015/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv9/zuru.../014/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv8/zuru.../014/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv7/zuru.../014/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv6/zuru.../014/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv5/zuru.../014/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv4/zuru.../014/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv3/zuru.../014/ index.html
http://fhg.icoonet.com/rdv2/zuru.../014/ index.html
jamo | 02.08.07 - 4:52 am | #

Great piece, Iran wants war, they don't want any peace until the planet is Islamic.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
make your enemy attack
.
USpace | Homepage | 02.13.07 - 2:07 am | #

This probably won't get seen. This one slipped by me and now you're at Salon, Glenn. Taylor Marsh cued me on this one and I have to say Glenn, this is excellent and urgently needed. I've been hard on you in previous comments for failing to connect neoconservatism to zionism. Thanks, Glenn. As you pointed out, the urgency and necessity of deep examination of undue Israeli influence on the US is beyond debate. Time to unite our voices, Jews and Gentiles, to make sure that no further unprovoked state terrorism by Israel and the United States occurs against Iran. The stakes couldn't be higher.
unmask911 | 03.17.07 - 11:35 pm | #

Looking for Yiwu Shoes? Need Yiwu Agent? Contact us now!
Yiwu agent | Homepage | 07.01.09 - 12:05 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan