David Brooks in the NYT equates hating

neocons with hating Jews.

I was reading the letters to the editor in today's NYT and there are more than a few calling David Brooks to task for stating that any criticism of the neocons is antisemitism.

I am Jewish and am TIRED, and I DO mean TIRED of all criticism of anyone who happens to be Jewish being called antisemitism. Such thinking cheapens the word and hardens people so much that when there IS antisemitism people are immune.

Called it disingenous and trite.

I have an article published on PNAC. Most of what he said was utter bullshit.

Agreed on the Jewish thing. It really cheapens the word. It's like crying wolf.

the right-wing writes because I would have been unaware of this train of thought had I not read the letters to the editor.

It's just another way of shutting down any and all debate around anything to do with the Bush (mis) administration. "you're either with us or against us" criticism of Israel=antisemite. When did Americans and especially American Jews become so frightened of a good old fashioned, knock down drag out DEBATE about IDEAS?

thinking that opposing conservatives = anti-semitism.

One of the really interesting things I learned during campaign 2000 is that the vast majority of middle class, suburban whites ("swing voters", moderate republicans, moderate Dems and independents) do not want to support racist, anti-semetic, sexist or homophobic candidates or agendas. But since the corporate news does not cover issues involving minorities, most of these same folks have no idea who and what would be considered racist, anti-semetic or homophobic by the respective minorities.

This is why the Pugs spend so much time and energy on nonsense like this. All they have to do is start a discussion in the media about whether opposing neo-cons is anti-semitism or not, and a good number of moderate whites will decide "where there's smoke, there's fire", and tune out anti-neo-con material as offensive garbage.

The true evil genious of this is that the more the left fights the idea in the media, the more credible the idea is, and the more ammunition the right has. "Tonight, on Hardball: Is Neo-Con bashing anti-Semetic? Democratic Senator So-and-so defends the left's tactics!" The next day in the New York Times, Senator So-and-so is quoted attacking the idea, and - - in the name of balance - - some wing nut is also quoted, claiming that Neo-Con bashing is anti-Semetic. The New York Times will never take sides in a news story, so all that happens is you now have a wider audience thinking "Where there's smoke, there's fire. Neo-con bashing MUST be another kind of anti-Semetism."

And if the left doesn't bother attack such a bone stupid idea in the media, it doesn't matter either. It is published, either in print or on TV, through a reputable news agency. It can be quoted ad nauseum in right wing propoganda, giving the idea an air of legitimacy that would not come from having the same idea published first on NewsMax.com.