Molly Ivins: Pro-Israel 'Nutjobs' on the Attack

Posted on Apr. 25, 2006

By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas—One of the consistent deformities in American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and the reaction proves their point so neatly it’s almost funny.

A working paper by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called “The Israel Lobby” was printed in the London Review of Books earlier this month. And all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and academe.

For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious—that there is an Israel lobby in the United States—Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of “kooky academic work.” Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them “liars” and “bigots.”

Of course there is an Israeli lobby in America—its leading working group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It calls itself “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” and it attempts to influence U.S. legislation and policy.

Several national Jewish organizations lobby from time to time. Big deal—why is anyone pretending this non-news requires falling on the floor and howling? Because of this weird deformity of debate.

More at;
Truthdig

Not only should AIPAC be curtailed, but all lobbying
is in need of serious restrictions.

btw- Why does America need to Israel TEN MILLION dollars
in aid per day?

Just check out Cynthia McKinney's loss after questioning what really happened on 9/11.

Because some Jewish Americans would support Israel if the nuked every one of their Arab neighbors.

Because AIPAC is an extremely well funded propaganda machine, aka lobbying institution.

Because we are so afraid of being called anti-semetic. BTW, there is something like a 100% chace I will be called anti-semetic after posting this.

I'm an Anti-Dentite!

No one has called you anti-semitic. Instead you're the one that threw out the charge that people are silenced because of the fear of being called anti-semitic (hey, at least learn how to spell it) That's just a rhetorical trick to label anyone who does make the charge- whether they're right or not- as not having a valid point and just trying to stifle the argument. Funny, that what you're so free to accuse others of is exactly what you chose to do yourself.

As far as McKinney being defeated because of the Jewish lobby, that's just nonsense, and as far as your claim that there are some Jewish Americans who would support Israel nuking Arab neighbors, hell, there are far more xians who would support that than Jews. Of course there are also a tiny minority of Arab Americans that would support the destruction of Israel. You can always find blind allegiance and hate. It's not a trait that's possessed by only one group.

Now, if someone wants to suggest that Israel was behind 9/11, then yep, that's a pretty good indication they're just plain old anti-semitic.

I am also sick of Arab kids being killed with weapons paid for by my tax dollars.

I'm sick of PC preventing an honest discussion of this matter.

Yes, I am sick and tired of CORPORATE AMERICA determining our ME policy.

Let's look at what Uri Avnery - a respected veteran peace activist with gravitas said recently--



And let's look at what the Center for Public Integrity says about the power of the petroleum industry--



With self serve regular at $3.19/gallon this morning, and Bush eating crow this morning, and (Although the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin characterize the speech as hot air, all talk no action http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html|Dan Froomkin, Mostly Hot Air on Gas, Washington Post, 4/25/2006>) it would appear to me that blaming Israel for our Iraqi aggression - or for our current energy state, is buying into the classical Rovian scapegoating.

toward the other, when in fact it's both.

No one but M & W seriously thinks this was about Israel. On the other hand, our Palestinian policy is shaped almost entirely by Israel.

And you should know this - you and I see eye to eye on the causes of hte Iraq War.

When I said "they" I meant those people who do NOT think Israel was a cause of the war. Like me.

me what the stance is of API when it comes to a future war with Iran?

a pain in the butt and a critic and a litigant and a per job (IRS 1099) consultant on totally non-political matters --- . But IMO Bushie would NOT be rattling sabers unless the industry was benefitting.

Not strictly on point - but Bushie is going to BORROW $100 per taxpayer car (for his gas price tax rebate) - while his OIL BUDDIES make about $200-$300/per taxpayer car per year. You don't need a Bushie or Rummie Harvard MBA to figure out which way the money is flowing on that Bushie deal.

What is the stance of the API when it comes to a future war with Iran? What point of view have they been lobbying when it comes to the oil industry on this issue?

israel determines US mideast policy? that they run our country now?

No, they don't run the US.

I save my tinfoil hat for special ocasions.;)

I posted an article a few days ago on the Israel Lobby, and it took no time before the names (GUESS what I was called :eyes:) started flying, and the thread was locked.

Imagie that!!

Israel to a dead cockroach? Seriously madeline, do you really think that was a good article for engaging an honest open discussion of I/P issues?

All I see in this forum is a lot of well intentioned people presenting there views about the conflict, yea there are occasional disruptors, but they show up in all sorts of forums on DU.

It used to be that the issue was anti-semitism. Now they say the problem is that they can't speak "for fear" of being called "anti-semitic." What a load! Are they as afraid of Blacks and Gays as they are of Jews? Don't make me laugh!

These people will tell you that they are not anti-Jew, ie anti-semitic. And in many cases it is true because they are all for Jews who work for the destruction of Israel. There is nothing wrong with Chomsky or so-called Rabbi Lerner, to these people! But support Israel, for whatever reason, and those Jews are the enemy. The Jews of Israel and their supporters, the so-called "Zionist" Jews. It is unfortunate for the Democratic Party that so many of them are unable to see what is happening in Israel and to understand that Israel is like a miner's canary in a free world. They truly believe that if they sacrifice Israel, like they sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, that the Arabs/Islamists will suddenly start making nice with the rest of the world. It is a false and dangerous world view, in my opinion.

:popcorn:

Tell them Molly.

the liars cry foul.

but I don't think that is something that is unique to the I/P forum, just browse through the gun forum for example.

I generally like Molly Ivins work, but she missed the mark on this one. The Mearsheimer and Walt "working paper" is filled with inaccuracies, I don't know if this was done on purpose or due to sloppiness.

The mis-quotes of Ben-Gurion are particularly disturbing, but again, I personally don't know what would motivate two university professors to "accidentally" mis-quote an important figure like Ben-Gurion.

If you spend any time in this forum you would know that there is vigorous debate/discussion about the I/P conflict, I don't see anyone "holding back" because they are afraid of being labeled.

and certainly don't get bored repeating it - The State of Israel is an anachronism. The recreation of a country which had not existed for nearly 2000 years was an absurdity and there is nothing whatsoever anti-semitic about that remark. It would make considerably more sense to restore all land rights to the native indians.

Molly. Now on to your comment. I agree there's absolutely nothing anti-semitic about what you stated, but there our agreement stops. No, Israel hadn't existed for 2000 years, but don't forget there was no Palestinian identity until the late nineteenth century. Jews maintained a presence and a cultural identity within the middle east throughout most of those 2,000 years, and that included Palestine. Palestine was ruled by a long list of foreign powers, from the Romans through the British. Although the Jewish presence was largely expelled under the Romans, they returned under subsequent powers, particularly under the Ottoman Empire which ruled from the 16th century through the 19th century, and increased their numbers under the British. By 1900 Jews were a majority in Jerusalem. In other words, it's more complex than your statement indicates. Your comparison to the Native Americans, neglects to recognize that Israel, as it should be, within the 1967 borders, is but a small part of the land.

But perhaps you're right and the creation of Israel was an absurdity. That's now academic. Israel was created by the major powers. It's far to late to "unmake" Israel. In the best of all possible worlds, Jews and Arabs and Christians and others would live in a single nation under a secular government. Neither side wants this. It's beyond unrealistic to expect people to shed fear and history and trust one another. However strong one's belief that Israel's establishment is not legitimate, real world exigencies demand that we look beyond that belief to realistic solutions.

...so please accept my comliments.

Maybe what's important in life is that people be prepared to listen to each others views.

Edit was a spelling mistake.

one another. I only wish it weren't so hard. History and how we interpret it is a two edged sword; something we need to honestly assess and learn from, and a terrible burden.

cartography after the fall of the Ottoman Empire was a short sighted, imperialistic, colonialist absurdity. It was done to having warring, tribal, mini-states on the Eastern Littoral of the Mediterranean.

Lebanon, and Iraq - with its separate Shiia, Sunni, and Kurdish regions, moving the Hashemite dynasty branches from the Arabian Peninsula to Joirdan and Iraq, etc. These were logical? These were not also "absurd.?

The motivation was apparently (per Engdahl) to "protect" the Suez and British access (and control of access) to its East African, South African, and South Asian colonies, and to oil.

A good read is "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl, and I have reproduced some of his papers in my blog, .

You might also want to look at the creative cartography of the Sykes-Picot Agreement in

BTW - I have spent 75% of my career in alternative, renewable, and clean-green energy as, variously, a technician, bench engineer, safety and environmental cop, research engineer, licensing executive, intellectual property manager, executive, academician, and consultant, but never in the main stream petroleum industry,

As I have found to my chagrin. They should be here as soon as they arise to fulfill Molly's prophecy.

1. Oil Dictates Our Middle Eastern Policy

2. Lobbying Is Protected By The First Amendment

, and

3. The Jewish Community Overwhelmingly Votes Democratic

The Mearsheimer-Walt paper does not explain these glaring inconsistencies.

...and that is that most intelligence agencies were afraid of the aftermath of our conquest of Iraq, and that it would turn into a failed state and be a breeding ground for regional instability and terror. I know there were plenty of people in the CIA worried about this, I would guess the Russian GRU, Israeli Mossad, UK MI6 and others came to the same conclusion and warned their respective leaders.

I never thought the Iraq war would be good for Israel. Iraq had the worlds most powerful Air Force flying 24 hour combat patrol missions over 2/3rds of its airspace. Its armor was Destroyed in Desert Storm. As Iraq existed in March of 2003, they were are threat to no one and were not going to be for the forseeable future.

OK, I've been long winded about it, but the invasion of Iraq served no Israeli purpose and in fact is going to contribute considerably to additional dangers for Israel. It blows my mind that anyone would even attempt to make a contrary argument.

A title of one her books... go out and buy it from a local bookstore. Hell, go buy a couple copies of every book she has ever written. This woman has courage.

Why, is her life in danger due to her writings?

...yeah, I'd say she has courage. :thumbsup:

real woman of courage there.

Seriously though, I have always respected Molly Ivins for her dedication to liberal causes, which I imagine is especially difficult in a state like TX. The fact that she survived breast cancer does not demonstrate courage.

Yes, just imagine!! Speaking out against AIPAC! Let's face it eh? The US government is really the ZOG no? When those Jews start screaming anti-semitism, doesn't it just scare the hell out of you?

I wonder if the Jews in Israel quake half so much when the Iranian president suggests they get out of town before he nukes them, lol?

I never expected to see such blindness in a supposedly democratic forum.

I've never seen so much ignorance from folks who call themselves progressive.

welcome to DU, if you have not read Dershowitz's refutation it's worth reading.

We need less Walt's and Mearsheimer's and more Dershowitz's.

'Top Lawyer Urges Death For Families Of Bombers
Lewin: 'A Policy Born of Necessity'
By AMI EDEN
FORWARD STAFF

A prominent Washington attorney and Jewish communal leader is calling for the execution of family members of suicide bombers.

Nathan Lewin, an oft-mentioned candidate for a federal judgeship and legal advisor to several Orthodox organizations, told the Forward that such a policy would provide a much-needed deterrent against suicide attacks. Under the proposal, which Lewin unveiled in the current issue of the opinion journal Sh'ma, family members would be spared if they immediately condemned the bombing and refused financial compensation for the loss of their relative.

>snip

Several leading Jewish figures, including Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, argued that the plan represented a legitimate if flawed attempt to strike a balance between preventing terrorism and preserving democratic norms.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news1.html

____________________


Responding to Palestinian terrorism
By: Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz
Issue date: 3/21/02 Section: Opinion

>snip

So here's my proposal. The Israelis should announce unilateral cessation in their retaliation against terrorist attacks. This moratorium would be in effect for four or five days, in order to give the Palestinian leadership an opportunity to respond to the new policy. It would also make it clear to the world that Israel is taking an important step in ending this cycle of violence. Following the moratorium, Israel would institute the following policy. It will announce with precision exactly what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism -- for example, the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave and then Israeli troops will come in and bulldoze the buildings. The order will already have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action. The Israeli soldiers would be acting as automatons for carrying out a previously announced policy of retaliation against a designated target. Further acts of terrorism would trigger further destruction of specifically named locations. The "waiting list" targets would be made public and circulated throughout the Palestinian controlled areas.

If this automatic policy of destroying targets announced in advance is carried out with the support of the entire Israeli government, including those who are committed to a resumption of the peace process, a clear message will be sent to the Palestinian people: Every time terrorists blow themselves up and kill Israeli civilians, they are also blowing up one of their own villages. Over time, the Palestinian residents of these villages will place the blame where it should be placed: directly on the Palestinian terrorists who engaged in terrorism against Israel with full knowledge that the consequence would be the destruction of their homes. Those villagers whose homes were coming up on the list would have an incentive to pressure the terrorists to desist.

http://www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2002/03/21/Opinion/Responding.To.Palestinian.Terrorism-397873.shtml?norewrite200604260751&sourcedomain=www.hlrecord.org

____________________________



Want to torture? Get a warrant

Alan M. Dershowitz

Tuesday, January 22, 2002

>snip

The suspect would be given immunity from prosecution based on information elicited by the torture. The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.

It may sound absurd for a distinguished judge to be issuing a warrant to do something so awful.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/22/ED5329.DTL

but I don't see it as all that bad. "Under the proposal, which Lewin unveiled in the current issue of the opinion journal Sh'ma, family members would be spared if they immediately condemned the bombing and refused financial compensation for the loss of their relative."

I would think that's the least they (the families of the bombers) could do. If they don't renounce it, then they become part of the conspiracy to kill Israelis, and Israelis are in their rights to execute them. Considering that getting 'out' of their terrortory, er territory... (in Gaza) did absolutely nothing to stop attacks on Israelis, and considering that the whole world is screaming because they don't like the fence, (or as the anti-Israelis call it, in typical anti-Israeli hyperbole,'the Apartheid Wall')...it really seems as if no one thinks Israel has a right in the world to defend herself. Because of those poor under-armed Palestinians, Israel has to permit its citizens to be blown to little pieces and not complain. I'd like to see what the Arizonins or Californians would call for if the Mexicans started coming into the malls and blowing them up.

Which is some mean feat, after only 15 posts! But kudos to yerself, every other member of Team Z
completely ignored Dershie's proposals, I do think you should be praised for at least trying.

but damned if I know what, lol.

I wonder how long it would last, since baseless claims of 'a-s' are against the rules,
I understand.

Dershie is a joke, re i/p. He may have a clue on other issues, but he really has no objectivity
on this issue, or anything regarding i/p. Wasn't this the guy who advocated torture, & the
destruction of Palestinian villages? I think it is. Clearly, that's not the viewpoint of an
objective witness.

I don't want to post something that is against the I/P rules (though I don't know why this paper would be), and I don't know what you are referring to with the 'a-s' thing.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf

I think this paper stands on it's own, whether Dershowitz has gone off the "deep end" regarding the I/P conflict is another issue.

'Abstract
The working paper by Academic Dean and Professor Stephen Walt and Professor John Mearsheimer presents a conspiratorial view of history in which the Israel Lobby has a “stranglehold” on American foreign policy, the American media, think tanks and academia. In his response, Professor Alan Dershowitz demonstrates that the paper contains three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted; and embarrassingly weak logic is employed. One of the authors of this paper has acknowledged that “none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews.” In light of the paper’s errors, and its admitted lack of originality, Dershowitz asks why these professors would have chosen to publish a paper that does not meet their usual scholarly standards, especially given the risk – that should have been obvious to “realists” - that recycling these charges under their imprimatur of prominent authors would be featured, as they have been, on extremist websites. Dershowitz questions the authors claims that people who support Israel do not want “an open debate on issues involving Israel.” He renews his challenge to debate the issues.'

If you want to provide a condensed version of Dershie's pov, then do feel free, I'm always baffled
that anyone thinks he's objective, or rational, even, on this subject. All I can see is a completely
biased, supporter of the rw Isreali Govt, who defends the indefensible.

A-s = anti-Semitism, what else could it mean?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Of course! How cliche. :eyes:

"lobby" This has got to be one of the funniest things i have seen posted on the I/P forum, or it would be if i thought you were joking. In some ways it is also very sad.

Let me tell you, despite the hysterical cries coming out of Frontpagemag.fools, ISM is not a very powerful group, and it is doing what it does in a very modest scale. It is able to publicize and expose Israel human rights atrocities, and making a difference in the US among grassroots people who listen to what is happening. Among the left and progressive groups, Israel policies are supported less and less. It is also making a difference in that Palestinians are able to protest nonviolently and have a slightly less chance of getting killed in the process.

However, it is not true, as the aforementioned fools would claim, that ISM is on the verge of overthrowing the US govt. or destroying Israel. Some of the other human rights organizations you mentioned are probably even more modest efforts.

Because of the fear of crossing the pro-occupation lobby, even the most progressive congresspeople will hardly do anything affirmative in advancing Palestinian rights, and really that is a tragedy for both Israelis and Palestinians, because that is the only way to peace. John Conyers, who will introduce a resolution to commemorate the Israeli massacre at Qana, along with Cynthia McKinney, are the rare exceptions to the rule. And even with Conyers and McKinney, you don't see them doing this very often.

AIPAC is destructive to not only basic human rights for Palestinians, but also all the people of Israel best interests.

I don't understand why is it that a few people here are taking such great pains to say that AIPAC has nothing to do with US policy in the Middle East, when AIPAC itself claims to be the "most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel"? Are you mistaken? Or is AIPAC a scam?

so reliably over the top and sounds so scripted it diminishes the value of your argument, and that's a shame. Israel does commit human rights abuses. It is occupying the West Bank, but you invariably represent Israel as so one dimensional as to be a caricature. I tend to agree that AIPAC wields very real power and influence, but it's not the only lobby that does so.

or some figment of your imagination?

I briefly touched upon ISM as part of a list, but, they were hardly the crux of my post.

I take it your sensitivity is due to the fact that you are an ISM member and their lobbying efforts are not as successful as you would like them to be?

Perhaps that is because blowing up Jews has not become mainstream acceptable in the US like it is elsewhere - yet, but, I understand that James Baker III is being called in to fix W's problems, and you may just get lucky.

the words of countless sane voices on the subject are completely ignored in DC.
None of these organizations support "blowing up Jews" (nor does ISM, on your list of power brokers in DC), they just have this idea that Palestinians also have human rights.

Only the voice for Israeli extremism is heeded-- for now.

From Congress there is almost no opposition to the annexation wall, no opposition to full-funding of Israel military, no opposition to funding a relatively wealthy economy, even as many communities in the U.S. have such dire needs.

Yes it is disappointing. However, it will not last forever. From the grassroots there is more and more of a realization for a more balanced approach to Israel/Palestine, cognizant that it is indeed Palestinians whose land is being occupied and taken, not the other way around. It is Palestinian homes that are demolished by Caterpillar bulldozers, not the other way around. It is Gaza that is being shelled for weeks on end, and those lives count as much as Israeli lives, even if the mass media does not recognize that. From this will be a coalition of many organizations, that together will be opposing the poison of AIPAC. It will consist of Jewish, Arab-Americans, and all the rest of us working towards a world we can all live in together.

If you are concerned with protecting the status quo, then that is something to worry about. Most of us have more than had it with the way things are.

You may want to view their article as "sinister" because then it is easy to discredit it as the modern day Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a thinly veiled way of calling Mearsheimer and Walt antisemites. That's about as fair as calling you a traitor to the Republic because you are concerned more with Israel's well being than that of the US - an allegation that would not be fair at all. As Tony Judt recently wrote, "How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been most thoroughly aired?"

Actually they don't insinuate anything - they come out and say that at times the Lobby has worked against the interests of the US.

Virtually anyone who has ever served in the U.S. National Security apparatus is a realist. And simply because neither is a progressive does not mean that they are necessarily wrong on this point. Indeed, guess who's on your side? None other than the bloviated Christopher Hitchens, the Grand Knight of Apostasy.

The Oil and Defense lobbies have been examined for decades. I would agree that they merit even more scrutiny. Indeed, I think M & W greatly overestimate Israel's influence in the Iraq War; history will show that Israel effectively had a detente with Iraq and was at most neutral if not tacitly opposed to the war; it is far more accurate to say oil and power dominated the discussions - money was not far behind. Iran, however, is very different story.

Tom Joad is right. The Lobby's influence greatly exceeds that of any Arab-American coalition; the Lobby has more influence because it controls more votes and dsitributes far more money, both directly and indirectly. But that's its purpose.

As for Al-Waleed and the rich businessmen, they come from all sides. Note the more pro-Israeli CFR under the stewardship of the corrupt AIG Czar Hank Greenberg. And what about the top secret list of AIPAC contributors - mostly pretty wealthy individuals - would that make them fascist oppressors of the Palestinian people? Come on.

Good night and good luck.

You may want to view their article as "sinister" because then it is easy to discredit it as the modern day Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a thinly veiled way of calling Mearsheimer and Walt antisemites.

Nope, I didn't say the M&W article was sinister, so the premise is false and the conclusion invalid. I said that M&W implied that the lobby was sinister.

That's about as fair as calling you a traitor to the Republic because you are concerned more with Israel's well being than that of the US - an allegation that would not be fair at all.

Well, I sure am glad you decided to be fair and not attack me through the back door.

As Tony Judt recently wrote, "How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been most thoroughly aired?"

Damning with feint praise, is he?

Actually they don't insinuate anything - they come out and say that at times the Lobby has worked against the interests of the US.

And M&W get to decide the interests of the US as opposed to the people, some of whom happen to be members of this lobby? And M&W want to reign in this particular lobby but not the energy and arms lobbies?

Virtually anyone who has ever served in the U.S. National Security apparatus is a realist. And simply because neither is a progressive does not mean that they are necessarily wrong on this point.

Actually, their paper has been shown to be factually and theoretically wrong.

Indeed, guess who's on your side? None other than the bloviated Christopher Hitchens, the Grand Knight of Apostasy.

Don't forget Chomsky and Zunes. But if Hitchens didn't convince you, you can't be convinced.

The Oil and Defense lobbies have been examined for decades. I would agree that they merit even more scrutiny.

Yippee.

Indeed, I think M & W greatly overestimate Israel's influence in the Iraq War; history will show that Israel effectively had a detente with Iraq and was at most neutral if not tacitly opposed to the war; it is far more accurate to say oil and power dominated the discussions - money was not far behind. Iran, however, is very different story.

Woo hoo.

Tom Joad is right. The Lobby's influence greatly exceeds that of any Arab-American coalition; the Lobby has more influence because it controls more votes and dsitributes far more money, both directly and indirectly. But that's its purpose.

Is that what Joad actually said? Well, OK, so equal outcomes isn't the ideology of the lobby industry, and this particular lobby appears supposedly successful at what it does (although one can compile a list a mile long of it's failures).

As for Al-Waleed and the rich businessmen, they come from all sides. Note the more pro-Israeli CFR under the stewardship of the corrupt AIG Czar Hank Greenberg. And what about the top secret list of AIPAC contributors - mostly pretty wealthy individuals - would that make them fascist oppressors of the Palestinian people? Come on.

Whoever said that money talks was a smart guy. Now let's figure out which folks out there really have got the motherlode.

Good night and good luck.

Likewise.

Well, I sure am glad you decided to be fair and not attack me through the back door.

Is this some homophobic joke or do you seriously perceive yourself as being attacked by an analogy that absolves you?

Damning with feint praise, is he?

Tony Judt is damning certain Americans maybe, but not Israelis.

And M&W get to decide the interests of the US as opposed to the people, some of whom happen to be members of this lobby? And M&W want to reign in this particular lobby but not the energy and arms lobbies?

M & W get no say? Aren't they also citizens of the Republic (or what is left of it)? Let's face it - few of the People are members of the Lobby. And where did M & W say they didn't want to reign in the energy and defense lobbies?

Actually, their paper has been shown to be factually and theoretically wrong.

Not responsive to my point but where is it factually and theoretically wrong?

But if Hitchens didn't convince you, you can't be convinced.

Virtually no one is convinced by Hitchens, especially in person.

Profile;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=188249

I guess it's not surprising. Few of his comments were constructive.

you'd win a lot of arguments. (Again).

in a few short sentences. See:

DUKE ONE, HARVARD ZERO, here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008117

'Taranto's Web

>snip

Read by some 120,000 people every day, Best of the Web now competes with the most popular political blogs. But its influence is greater still. The primary distinction between Taranto and the blogosphere at large is that he is also armed with the pretensions of power and influence that come along with the Journal’s brand, evidenced most clearly by his preference for the royal “we” instead of the first person. A self-described “hawkish free-market conservative,” Taranto shows a natural affinity for the blog form, and his writing showcases a combination of wit, engaging prose, and muscular (if sometimes twisted) logic. He’s been described as the Journal’s Rush Limbaugh (only smarter and nastier) and a “vicious satirist,” and often in words unfit to print. “Taranto sounds like a bar-stool bore, with a bad habit of repeating the same lame insults and xenophobic cracks again and again,” says Joe Conason, columnist for the New York Observer and Salon.com. (Limbaugh, for his part, has referred to Taranto as “one hell of a writer.”) But he’s never been called inconsequential. “He gives the Journal a credible presence in cyberspace, something they would otherwise lack,” says J. D. Lasica, a contributing editor at the Online Journalism Review.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9696/

Don't you agree? One doesn't throw away a good idea just because it comes from someone you don't agree with. It is only from looking at things from both sides of the political spectrum that one will really come away with the truth.

rather like reading through the \\\"Protocols of the Elders of Zion.\\\" The thesis seems to have been the same.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:sarcasm:
white smoke - not a Mushrooom cloud :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
To the City and the World
I bring you "Good News"
Habemus Moderatorus
white smoke - not a Mushrooom cloud :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
:sarcasm:

I give to David Pimentel and Tad Patzek (they posited that ethanol synthesis uses more energy then the ethanol contains), Professor Michael Behe of Lehigh University (he posited that "irreducible complexity" proves "intelligent design."), and Professor Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon (he posited that a Prius uses more gasoline and generates more green house gases then a Corolla - because it gets better mileage and therefore encourages the wasteful Prius driver to drive many more miles).

Lots of DUers have doctorates.

He called the first Iraq war.

Everyone in the country was worried about Saddam and his defenses. Mearsheimer was on a local chicago panel show, and he called it--three weeks, tops. Everyone looked at the ponytailed academic like he was nuts. But he was absolutely right, not only on the timing but the method of air power and mobility that would simply evade any defenses that the Iraqis would bother to man.

So for what it's worth, the guy ain't no dummy.

Any veteran at pay grade O-3 or above, or E-5 or above, who paid attention and "learned something" (that cuts out Texas Air National Guard Lieutenant Bush), and was "Cat 1" or Cat 2" could have called it.

I would certainly expect a WEST POINT GRADUATE with a PhD. in Political Science to be able to call "...the timing ... the method of air power and mobility that would simply evade any defenses that the Iraqis would bother to man". That is a WEST POINT GRADUATE'S expertise and stock-in-trade.

But they didn't. Mearsheimer did, against not only conventional wisdom but as far as I know, everybody's wisdom. I give the man props for not only being right, but taking a public stand against every single evaluation. Just saying.

1. M&W assert that we went to war because some Jews persuaded Dick Cheney that it would be a good idea. At best, that's borderline anti-semitism that lazily relies on Protocolesque mythology rather than the realities of the Bush administration.

2. There is a Neo-Con lobby in this country much more than there is a pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC serves the interests of the transglobal imperialists much more than they serve the interests of the people of Israel. AIPAC and other Likudniks are the true members of Bush's coalition fo the willing.