More on Logo Hubris

-

logo hubris.png
I’m glad Barack Obama’s campaign has stated that it is giving up the morphed Obama/Presidential Seal podium sign. I didn’t like it.
But Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars had an excellent retort on presidential seal hubris. See above graphic and the link to her piece.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

50 comments on “More on Logo Hubris

  1. Kathleen says:

    David… melanomas sounds surfac-y… I think the problem is much deeper, say in the marrow of the political process, where accountability becomes a matter of political revenge, rather than upholding the standards of official conduct. Heaven forbid any legal precedences for high standrads gets set…it could come back and bite you in the bum one day….how long has the House Committee on Standrads of official conduct been defunct, inoperative?

    Reply

  2. David says:

    Yes, and with the same ongoing malignant effect on our civil body politic, I think. They are like melanomas.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Carroll. thanks for the various polls… intereting, encouraging…. David. thank you tooo for the great piece by Robert Parry on Iran-Contra….same kind of refusal to impeach then, as now.

    Reply

  4. David says:

    The word “view” is missing after “blathering heads on MSM[‘s],” dammit.

    Reply

  5. David says:

    Obama’s biggest challenge, I think, is correctly defining what the surge is, what it is and is not accomplishing, and what the full picture in Iraq is. I think a full view will put the lie to McCain’s, Graham’s, the Republican machine’s, and the blathering heads on the MSM as regards Iraq. We are the ongoing victims of a very carefully orchestrated public relations assault by the neocons, with the major media as their handmaiden, and pretty much only the internet and a precious few first-rate journalist as sources of clear-eyed views. The government as major agency of propaganda (psy ops) in the United States, something we’ve practiced for a very long time outside the United States, came home under Reagan, something for which he should have been impeached. But Tip O’Neill did not believe the United States should be subjected to another impeachment so soon after Nixon, and so the operatives who got their start under Nixon rolled on, right up to Cheney/Bush.
    Mistake, Tip, and a mistake by the committee that dropped the discussion of this offense by the Reagan administration from the Iran-Contra report. I recommend “Iran-Contra’s ‘Lost Chapter'” by Robert Parry: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/9992/

    Reply

  6. David says:

    Carroll, I agree with your statement regarding which holocaust is a real possibility.
    Regarding the 71% favoring even-handedness, that is apparently of no interest to the media, and the only thing any reference to even-handedness elicits is the firestorm Howard Dean experienced in 2004 when he called for same.
    There is an entrenched consensus in the major media, and it is easy to discern by what is and what is not accepted, what is treated as received wisdom and what generates a firestorm (as Wes Clark what reasonable observations can get you). That entrenched consensus is pretty right wing, including as regards Israel and Palestine as well as as regards the United States and Iraq. All we are allowed in the MSM is that Cheney/Bush bothced the war, not that the invasion was both illegal and immoral, and, as Stephen Hawking said, a war crime. And we are required to equate the fact that our troops are in Iraq with accepting the war on every ground except that it has been poorly executed and not really worth it.
    And on these counts, Obama has no leeway if he wants to win the election, which victory it seems most of the MSM is more and more opposed to. To be sure, the election narrative can change, but not the “received wisdom.”

    Reply

  7. Paul Norheim says:

    “71 Per Cent of Americans Want Even-Handed Policy in
    Israel/Palestine”
    I`ve seen that number, and it`s encouraging.
    Keep up your rants, Carroll!

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    Posted by Paul Norheim Jul 02, 11:21PM – Link
    O.K. I forgive you…:)
    And the point of my mention of the jewish poster MP was that MP was the perfect example of a person who was basically a moral person but totally blinded to the reality of his own illogic and moral conflict in defending the actions of Israel he was caught up in the myth of Israel and because of his personal identification as a jew. To MP and others like him any political criticism of Israel or jewish zionist was about “the jews” and therefore anti-semitic and anything the jews or zionist do has to be forgiven and overlooked because of the holocuast or another holocaust will ensue.
    Therein lies the problem. In giving in to others who use myth and their personal fear or victim rationales you end up not being able to tell the truth and there is no point in talking to them.
    Also, I am sure some anti-semitism exist and not particulary in Europe..but I don’t think it is by any means as wide spread as groups like the ADL wants us to believe. But I will say that keeping anti-semitism alive and well, became in the 20th century, the zionist’s main means by which to push their agenda for Israel, blackmail countries. propagandize and fund raise.
    I guess my point to your point is that to “tiptoe” about the subject and “not give them reason” to call one a anti-semite is self defeating because they are going to do that anyway to anyone who doesn’t tow their line no matter what…just like they have to Carter, Tutu, Klein, etc.. I get your point about not giving them weapons on anti-semitism but trust me, it doesn’t matter. That worm has turned anyway and become a weapon against them as Klein illustrates, something they didn’t forsee.
    And about the boomarang effect. It could blow back on the Jews but then who would it be that really caused it? Our criticism or the actions of the zionist and Israel themselves? You think the ranting of the tiny neo nazi anti-semites is going to cause a blowback on the jews or the actions of the zionst is going to cause a blowback on the jews? Besides, I think the chances of another holocaust against the jews is very slim while the chance of a Israeli holocaust against the Palestines and the Iranians is fairly high thanks in main part to the US zionist among us.
    They have to go..preferably before those holocaust happen.
    I have run out of sympathy for that element of Jews who are wittingly or unwittingly through self induced denial of reality and pure selfish narrcissism, are supporting the Israel fetish in our government policy.
    I have maintained from the get go that if Americans knew the true facts about the Israel/AIPAC/DC scheme in the ME and the US and particulary in Palestine they would demand a change in the US-Israeli relationship. Well slowly but surely and thanks to more people turning from the MSM to the world wide net for their news and understanding of events my contention is proving to be true.
    What Americans want is for their country to act FAIRLY in it’s dealings and for their politicans to serve AMERICA and not a foreign country.
    71 Per Cent of Americans Want Even-Handed Policy in Israel/Palestine
    World Poll, and Kos Poll, Reveal Some Sour Feeling Towards Israel
    Yesterday World Public Opinion presented a poll at the Brookings Institution showing that people in 18 countries, including the U.S., don’t want their governments to take sides in the Israel/Palestine struggle by 58 to 27 on average.
    But of those 27 percent who do want their governments to take sides, the components are: 20 percent for the Palestinians, 7 percent for the Israelis.
    In the US public the result were:
    Should be on Israel’s side: 21 percent.
    On the Palestinians’ side: 3 percent.
    Should be Evenhanded: 71 percent.
    In the Dkos , the progressive site, poll on the question of is our policy toward Israel 1)right as it is, 2) needs tweaking 3)needs changing or 4)all wrong….69% said ALL WRONG and 24% said needs changing.
    So I am keeping up my rants, hopefully it adds to the noise. And I don’t see how I or other posters could change their statements about where this zionist damage to the US/world has come from without leaving out the truth.

    Reply

  9. Paul Norheim says:

    POA, as I mentioned in a comment above (with a link), I just re-
    read a thread from October 4. this year, actually the thread
    where I started to comment on TWN. I basically said the same
    then as I`m saying now, and among the reactions, I`ll quote
    parts of one of your answers:
    “And as far as this “anti-semitic” thing goes, the use of the term
    only has power if it’s use accomplishes its goal; castigation and
    intellectual ostrasization by branding a person as bigoted,
    seeking to stifle criticism of Israel, its policies, and its lobbies.
    The idea that we should tone down the rhetoric is absolutely
    polar to the cause of being able to effectively neutralize the
    power of the term. In point of fact, we need to sharpen our
    rhetoric, and remove the stigma attached to criticism of Israel
    and its lobbies. The issue needs to become Israel’s CURRENT
    POLICIES, AIPAC’s (and numerous other Israeli lobbying
    organizations) damaging and unquestionable stranglehold on
    our politicians and American foreign policy, RATHER THAN a
    constant rehash of a holocaust that occured over a half century
    ago.
    There is a very real holocaust occurring NOW, and it is Israel and
    the United States that is committing the acts that rise to the
    level of a holocaust.”
    As I`m sure you know, I`ve never accused you (not Carroll
    either, BTW) of anti-semitism. But several statements from you
    on that thread, as well as your signals now, made the
    impression on me that you found, and still find my arguments
    completely irrelevant, in the light of the current political
    situation.
    If that is wrong, I apologize. And no, I don`t need strawmen to
    support my case.
    In October you said: “In point of fact, we need to sharpen our
    rhetoric, and remove the stigma attached to criticism of Israel
    and its lobbies”. I absolutely agree, but I suggest another
    method to sharpen our rhetoric.

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    David,
    thanks for a reply from a sober voice! As you may guess, I don
    ´t feel comfortable saying what I`m saying here, in a context
    with serious critics of Israel whom I basically sympathize with
    politically, and on the other hand zionists who seem to use any
    opportunity to brand certain persons they don`t agree with as
    anti-semites, racists, and sexists.
    Regarding Obama, I am not as optimistic as you apparently are.
    It`s really hard to say where he`s going if he becomes the
    President. Domestic issues aside, I would guess that his foreign
    policy will be determined by events no one can predict, and
    even he himself don`t know how he is going to react to those
    events. And his recent move toward “the political center”,
    through a lot of statements – since he feels that has to do so to
    get support from certain lobbies and other powerful groups –
    make me think that he will be even less independent to do what
    he really wants. If Obamas recent speech to the AIPAC delegates
    was more than tactics, I`m afraid he as well will not be helpful
    in informing the American people regarding the Middle East.
    We`ll see.
    BTW: I`ve recently noted that you`ve been much wiser than me,
    avoiding some of these issues where people are more occupied
    with insults than arguments. This makes me even more happy
    that you made a comment in this discussion (or more precisely:
    this mine field).

    Reply

  11. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Still, I disagree with you and POA when you seem to say that anti-semitism is “history” (ended in 1945), and that it is a
    European issue, irrelevant in current politics.
    Paul, stop putting words in my mouth. I have NEVER denied modern day anti-semitism, nor have I ever said its a thing of the past. Look man, if you have to create a fictional rationale for your arguments, perhaps you should reconsider whether or not the argument is worth lodging. You have gone from merely expressing an opinion to justifying that opinion with straw premises. You know better. I have seen true anti-semitism here on two occassions, and on both occassions I made my disgust known to the poster immediately.
    Bottom line, when you see “anti-semitism” here, than by all means you should raise a stink. But cease with the bullshit, and putting words in other people’s mouths. Its beneath you.
    Now, if I can exercise a bit of willpower, I’m going to attempt to withold comment for some time. With assholes like this WigWag/Ironbelle destroying threads, and the insipid incroachment of mindless party politics beginning to stink the joint up, the thrill is gone. I think I need a rest from this shit.

    Reply

  12. David says:

    Carroll,
    Many thanks for posting the Joe Klein comment. I had not seen it before, and it is dead on.
    Paul,
    I do think you raise an important point, because I agree that at some point there will be a backlash, and backlashes can be pretty mindless, producing as much harm as the thing that set them in motion. On the other hand, a full-blown backlash against Cheney-Bush is in order, and I hope it takes McBush and Lieberman down with it.
    The thing I fear is that Americans in general will still not push themselves to become informed, and instead will prefer believing to thinking and impressions to knowledge, the former in each case being easier. I do hold that Obama will bring thinking back into the equation, and that he will place it foremost in his secular administration that makes rational room for people of faith and their energies and efforts to alleviate the worst aspects of life in America. Of course, that means “driving the moneychangers out of the temple,” people like John Hagee, that bozo from Ohio, the ghost of Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, although it cannot be through dramatic confrontations, only through denying them special access and privilege. Tell them to get in line. And this includes Franklin “I want a war with Islam” Graham, which he learned from his father.

    Reply

  13. Paul Norheim says:

    “Israel has for decades, on different levels, been one of the worst
    regimes in contemporary politics on a global scale.” (I said so)
    What I meant was of course that Israel has been acting horribly in
    their region (not having the same impact on “a global scale”), but
    is currently among the worst regimes on the planet. A highly
    civilized modern country, indeed, but also a “rouge state”.

    Reply

  14. Paul Norheim says:

    “Listen Paul, you weren’t around last year when we went
    through this Jewish-Zionist- Israeli-US-ME-Palestine food fight
    and in particular my back and forth discussions with my jewish
    friend co-poster MP. So I am giving you the benefit of a doubt
    in your insults to me.”
    Carroll, you are right, I weren`t around at that time (I have read
    TWN on and off before I started to comment here, but I did not
    see that one). I sincerely did not intend to insult you, and yeah,
    it`s your country. I also interpret your frequent critical remarks
    against Israeli politics and the Jewish/Israeli influence on
    American foreign policy basicaly as political critisicm.
    Still, I disagree with you and POA when you seem to say that
    anti-semitism is “history” (ended in 1945), and that it is a
    European issue, irrelevant in current politics.
    I agree that the CURRENT biggest issue is the demonization of
    Muslims, Arabs, “sand niggers”, “lunatic Iranians”, “terrorists”
    etc. But anti-semitism is an issue that may become explosive
    again in the future – also in America. The absurd positive myths
    about Israel and “Jews” are very powerful in America (as well as
    in parts of Europe), and they may become a boomerang later on,
    targeting “Jews as a whole”. This is one of the reasons why I
    think we have to be sober here.
    My point is a principal, as well as a tactical point. Since I am
    convinced that anti-semitism is not a closed chapter, I think it`s
    wrong to be careless about that issue. That is the principal
    aspect.
    My tactical point is that since Israeli politics against the
    Palestinians, as well as their attitude toward other ME countries
    (shown recently in their brutal attacks on civilians in the Israel-
    Lebanese war two years ago), is so horrible; and since there is
    such strong support for Israel in the US and elsewhere, all of us
    who criticize Israeli politics should speak in a language that
    makes it harder to accuse us of being anti-semites.
    I have no illusions. I think the hard core Israeli supporters will
    accuse anybody who critisize their government of being anti-
    semites. But we should not make it easier for them to do so, by
    being careless about our choice of words.
    And to me, it seem obvious that this does not imply some
    kind of “politeness” – not calling a spade a spade. Israel has for
    decades, on different levels, been one of the worst regimes in
    contemporary politics on a global scale. But it`s not very
    difficult to say so without using a vocabulary that deliver the
    Israeli supporters a weapon they can use against our criticism.
    This is not a particular or personal criticism of you, Carroll.
    Read it more as a general opinion: there are both principal and
    tactical reasons not to be careless about the distinction I am
    talking about.
    If not, BTW, there will also be more MP`s and WigWags fucking
    up these threads with accusations in the future. They will never
    disappear. But we should hesitate before we give them weapons
    they easily can use against our legitime criticism. Sorry for
    being off topic here. But more threads will end off topic if we
    are careless about this.

    Reply

  15. leo says:

    “Now, like POA, I’m outta here. I can’t remember having to deal with so many discreditable, cheap shot posts on a single thread before.”
    This Logo-scandal nonsense naturally surfaced as a Drudge post (the first of Steve’s Logo-scandal posts that is), the end result was entirely predictable… swarming trolls.

    Reply

  16. arthurdecco says:

    WigWag said: “And you’re with Arthur (Jews are biologically programmed to be cunning) Decco.”
    You are a liar, WigWag. You can’t provide a link to where I allegedly said this, can you? So stuff your pathological lies where the sun don’t shine.
    Thank you for your sanity, Carroll.
    Now, like POA, I’m outta here. I can’t remember having to deal with so many discreditable, cheap shot posts on a single thread before.
    Pathetic bunch.
    And to think the thread started out with such promise…

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    And while I am at it let me perform a little more surgery on this subject. Joe Klein has written before and during the Iraq war about the role of the zionist and AIPAC and the jewish community. He recently remarked on this in one of his columns about the forces behind the drum beat to war with Iran.
    This of course got a accusation of anti-semitism thrown at him by the ADL’s Abe Foxman. Which is a hystericaly transparent example of the slimey tactics they use to try and silence any “truthiness” when you consider that Klein is after all, a Jew.
    Here is Klein’s reply to Foxman.
    June 25, 2008
    Dear Mr. Foxman,
    I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my position. First of all, I have never said that Jewish neocons were the primary reason we went to war in Iraq. The reason we went to war was that George Bush was foolish and uninformed, and his primary advisors were even more foolishly bellicose. But Jewish neoconservatives certainly played a subsidiary role in providing an intellectual rationale for the war. In a 2003 column, I called their arguments “the casus belli that dare not speak its name.” The notion of a “benign domino theory”–benign, that is, for the interests of Israel—was certainly abroad in the community during that time. I had several off the record conversations with prominent Jewish conservatives who cited it. And there is now, in my opinion, an even more dangerous tendency among Jewish neoconservatives to encourage a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear program. Their gleeful, intellectual warmongering—given the vast dangers and complexities of an attack on Iran–is nauseating.
    You write: “There can be no question that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, legitimate and serious American security and foreign policy interests played a critical role in President Bush’s decision to attack Iraq.”
    Well, I question it. And so do a fairly thick slice of the diplomatic, intelligence and military communities, who believe that Iraq was a tragic, costly and, above all, bloody diversion from the battle against those who actually attacked us on September 11.
    I am disappointed, but not surprised, by your claim of antisemitism. But that’s what you do for a living, isn’t it? I find your “outrage” particularly galling because the people you defend are constantly spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians, or who don’t favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran.
    Their campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being “soft on terrorism” or “unpatriotic” or favoring “surrender”–Joe Lieberman’s favorite—by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a neurotic need to prove their toughness. They, and you, should know that most Jews disagree with their politics and many Jews are disgusted with their behavior. They, and you, should know that the tendency to “cry wolf” about antisemitism does real harm to the Jewish community—indeed, in this case, it is laughable.
    Best Wishes,
    Joe Klein
    Furthermore, to those who hold the notion that gentiles or Arabs or non semites can’t criticize Israel or these zionist because it is…gasp!…anti-semitic…and that only Jews can talk about the jews or the zionist agenda because of the holocaust and history of the Jews I suggest you get over it, it’s happening.
    My ancestors and a lot of other Americans ancestors died establishing this country so we could have the freedom of expression and representation that the lobbies now claim as their “right” in their influence peddling, and if anyone thinks slurs or whining nattering or censorship under the guise of political correctness and sensitivity is going to stop most Americans from saying what they think they are seriously ignorant of the character of the real American society outside of Orwellington, D.C..

    Reply

  18. WigWag says:

    Well everybody, bipolar Carol is back and she’s more manic than ever! At one time you needed a whole thread before you could put together a post with Carroll’s greatest hits. But it’s a new and improved Carroll. Now we can do a greatest hits compilation from just one of her comments. For your enjoyment, here’s the best of Carroll for July 1, 2008.
    “The get out of jail free holocaust card has been canceled…”
    “Listen Paul, you weren’t around last year when we went through this Jewish-Zionist- Israeli-US-ME-Palestine food fight…”
    “So I am giving you the benefit of a doubt in your insults to me.”
    “And they felt threatened because they have been “conditioned” to ‘continue” to feel threatened and to not expect to be talked to like we would talk to anyone else.”
    “But frankly I don’t give a rat’s ass about your “concern” over anti semitism and opinion of my opinon of the Israel centric problem in this country..this is my country, not yours.”
    “Third…it has been stated and stated and re-stated a hundred times by posters like myself and POA and many others that we know the difference between this jew and that jew and zionist and etc.”
    “Furthermore I have no intention of being “sensitive” to jews/zionist who use their past victimhood…”
    “Now…every news addict and ME junkie knows the major players in the jewish community regarding our ME policy and has read their writings and statements.”
    “they have nothing to do with Judism and are consumed with the idea and “land” of Israel because of their own personal upbringing and mental conditioning and emotional distrubances..”
    “The problem is those carnards about them are quite true. As we see right now.”
    “For years the US has indulged the Jews to the point that otherwise sane jews have come to believe that it is somehow their right to live in this country…”
    “We will no longer cater to this Orwellington “exceptionalism”…”
    “…because that is encouraging the zionist to keep using “jewish suffering” and “the Jews” to continue their same behavior and agenda.”
    Oh, and POA, I know you said adios, but I have a feeling your skulking around out there. Your always accusing me or Ironbelle or TE of ruining the threads (“turning them to shit” in your words) or spamming. But you have the utmost sympathy for poor Carroll. This is what you said at 9:12 am this morning, “And they ALWAYS single out Carroll for their most vicious accusations and slander…” You think our comments are going to get the comment section closed down, but you think Carroll’s comments are just fine. That about says it all about you, POA. You’re with Carroll. And you’re with Arthur (Jews are biologically programmed to be cunning) Decco. That is unless of you are Arthur Decco. POA, we know everything about you that we need to know.

    Reply

  19. Carroll says:

    Gawd!,I can’t believe this is still going on on yet another thread.
    But I am going to address Paul since he mentioned me in his comments:….
    “When I look back, I still agree with my main point then: distinguish between critique of Israel as a State and government, and the old rhetoric of anti-semitism. And I still don`t understand why POA and Caroll did not understand why one should pay any attention to that distinction.
    Honestly, I have tried to understand this, but why on earth is it so, oh so hard to critisize Israel without mentioning “the crux of disgust with all thing Israeli” (Caroll”
    Listen Paul, you weren’t around last year when we went through this Jewish-Zionist- Israeli-US-ME-Palestine food fight and in particular my back and forth discussions with my jewish friend co-poster MP. So I am giving you the benefit of a doubt in your insults to me.
    First and foremost…When Israel was originally discussed and criticized it was POLITICALLY based.
    Second and foremost.. The “jewish” angle to the US-Israeli discussion was “inserted” into the discussions by the self proclaimed zionist on this site and by some jews who weren’t zionist but felt threatened by the discussion of Israel because it is a “jewish state”. And they felt threatened because they have been “conditioned” to ‘continue” to feel threatened and to not expect to be talked to like we would talk to anyone else.
    Third…it has been stated and stated and re-stated a hundred times by posters like myself and POA and many others that we know the difference between this jew and that jew and zionist and etc.
    Fourth…we have said if often enough that you can by now ASSUME when we criticize Israel and AIPAC we are talking about zionist who believe that it is their right to use the US and anyone else to protect Israel and further Israel’s interest at the expense of this country and any other country and people and not “The Jews”. We are not going to preface our every word with apologies to the non-zionist jews.
    Furthermore I have no intention of being “sensitive” to jews/zionist who use their past victimhood and the history of Jewish people because most of the time they do so to try and prevent discussion or I should say TRUTHFUL and FACTUAL discussion of the Israeli factor in the US government and our ME policy.
    Now…every news addict and ME junkie knows the major players in the jewish community regarding our ME policy and has read their writings and statements. We are aware they share a belief that they as jews are a “nationality”, not necessarily a religion. Indeed many of the zionist are secular, they have nothing to do with Judism and are consumed with the idea and “land” of Israel because of their own personal upbringing and mental conditioning and emotional distrubances and their first and only loyalty is to Israel. Not the kind of people you want making or influencing foreign or domestic policy in any country but Israel.
    In additon let me say that it is the zionist, the jewish “nationality” jews who are responsible for the carnards about a “nation within a nation”. The problem is those carnards about them are quite true. As we see right now.
    For years the US has indulged the Jews to the point that otherwise sane jews have come to believe that it is somehow their right to live in this country and maintain a higher loyalty to Israel and to lobby and campaign for the interest of a “foreign” country regardless of the majority will and welfare of this country’s citizens.
    We will no longer cater to this Orwellington “exceptionalism” the zionist claim and foster in the jewish community because it is dangerous to our country and our democracy and now to the world at large.
    We will not be “sensitive” in discussing the poitical and real world ramifications of this Israeli fetish in our government because that is encouraging the zionist to keep using “jewish suffering” and “the Jews” to continue their same behavior and agenda.
    The Jews who are in fact Americans first don’t have reason to feel threatened, the ones who spout the zionist line and lies about Israel do and they should.
    The get out of jail free holocaust card has been canceled. That was 65 years ago, this is today. There are different holocaust going on today and one of them is in Palestine and it is being supported by my tax money, my politicans and my country and I don’t like and won’t stand for it and will contine tell it like it is about everyone involved in keeping this Israeli abomination going on not only in Palestine but in my country’s government.
    I enjoy most of your post and enjoy outsider’s views of the US behavior.
    But frankly I don’t give a rat’s ass about your “concern” over anti semitism and opinion of my opinon of the Israel centric problem in this country..this is my country, not yours.
    Until you and your country have given Israel and the zionist billions upon bilions of taxpayer dollars to maintain an illegal occupation and slow motion genocide, ruining the reputation of our country because of it, and is being set up to commit another war for them you can stuff your opinions and insults to Americans who aren’t going along with it any longer.

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, you people get get this asshole IronBelle/WigWag to yourselves. I’m outta here.
    Adios.

    Reply

  21. Paul Norheim says:

    But my very simple points regarding this issue – from when I started to comment here and until now, are:
    It should not be so easy for the defenders of the agressive and brutal actions of the Israeli government & army to legitimize it with Holocaust, should it?
    Secondly: it`s not so hard to critisize Israel and the Israeli influence on American politics without making generalizing comments about “the Jews”, is it?
    And those two questions seem somehow to have been connected at TWN for a while.

    Reply

  22. WigWag says:

    First we have Senator Obama flip flopping on campaign finance reform. Then we have Obama embracing the Bush position on FISA and retroactive immunity for telephone companies. And just today we get this; Senator Obama endorsing Dubya’s faith based initiative and promising to expand it. This from the New York Times:
    By JEFF ZELENY and BRIAN KNOWLTON
    Published: July 2, 2008
    ZANESVILLE, Ohio — With an eye toward courting evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama presented a plan here on Tuesday to expand on President Bush’s program of investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform community aid work.
    The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Mr. Obama said. “We need an all hands on deck approach.”
    On the second day of a weeklong tour intended to highlight his values, Mr. Obama traveled to the battleground state of Ohio on Tuesday to present his proposal to get religious charities more involved in government programs. He delivered remarks after touring the Eastside Community Ministry here, a program providing food, clothes and youth ministry.
    “I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square,” Mr. Obama said. “But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups.”
    In remarks and during an outdoor 30-minute question and answer session, Mr. Obama praised the idea of the Bush administration’s programs, but added: “What we saw over the last eight years is the office has never fully completed its mission or fulfilled its promise.”
    He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state…”
    My goodness, it’s looking more and more like Senator Obama’s role model for the presidency is none other than George W. Bush.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    “and that you consider me a raving, spitting, sputtering anti-Semite.”
    No, I don`t, Arthur. But I should wish that you one day realized that Jews, as well as anti-Semites, come in different shapes and forms. Just like you Canadians and us Norwegians. If you generalize negatively about Jews, that does not make you “a raving, spitting, sputtering anti-Semite.” But you are very close to the common definition of anti-Semitism if you generalize in that way. Believe it or not.

    Reply

  24. arthurdecco says:

    …and deliberate misrepresentations.

    Reply

  25. arthurdecco says:

    I have no more interest in getting into a pissing contest with you, Mr. Norheim, than I have in plucking out my own eyes.
    Let’s agree that I think you a dissembling, dishonest, boring boor in love with the sound of your own uninformed voice and that you consider me a raving, spitting, sputtering anti-Semite.
    Is that okay?
    Now stop talking to me. You’re boring me with your endless self-justifications and predictable avoidances.

    Reply

  26. Paul Norheim says:

    Honestly, I have tried to understand this, but why on earth is it so, oh so hard to critisize Israel without mentioning “the crux of disgust with all thing Israeli” (Caroll) or “the Jews as a whole” (arthurdecco)?
    I don`t get it. Does it put some restrictions to what you may say against Israeli military or political actions, their government, the neocons, AIPAC, and wealthy & powerful American Jews supporting their case?
    If you are not able to argue without using those words, yoo`re begging for trouble and disruptions from people who call Iranians “lunatics”, or people who may look at Arabs as “sand niggers” but who do not hesitate to accuse those who “use the n-word” for being racists.
    Come on, folks! Why is it so hard to treat Israel and Israeli interests on a political level, without degenerating to general statements on the same level as the islamophobics?

    Reply

  27. Paul Norheim says:

    I don`t think so, Arthur. I just tried to suggest a broader context, the same context that I talked much more about in my comments in the referenced thread from October last year. Did I play “their” game then too?

    Reply

  28. arthurdecco says:

    “I don`t want to play their game.”
    You just did.

    Reply

  29. Paul Norheim says:

    POA, I must admit that I`m a bit tired by all this guessing – whether this or that person are parts of “the same entity”. I am a bit guilty of this as well, but got fed up after a moment of doubt…Does it make much difference?
    If you ask me, my theory is that I am me and you are you, and then we have arthurdecco, Linda, Kathleen, Caroll, Steve Clemons, WigWag, JohnH, rich, pauline, Ironbelle, and hundreds of others contributing more or less frequently to this blog as separate entities. Some agree with each other, and some don`t; and some may be fake, but I really don`t think it makes a big difference.
    arthurdecco said (adressed to me): “And while I still have your eyes, I’d like to point out the consequence of your less-than-informed appraisal of my opinions on Jewish influence. ironbelle’s pathetically ignorant bellicosity wasn’t created in a vacuum. She felt enabled, deliberately or not, by your musings in some of your earlier, ill-considered and out of context posts.”
    Arthur: I am not in any way responsible for Ironbelle`s comments; as you`ve seen, she may use any opportunity to say anything she wants to say.
    And I am not responsible for your comments either. I quoted a long text you had written, without omitting anything from that text. The context? A Canadian blog discussion in the shadow of the Israeli-Libanese war in August 2006. This context contained several attacks from Hezbollah rockets on cities and towns in Israel, but the context also contained brutal Israeli attacks that in effect caused a lot more civilian death and destruction on the Lebanese side.
    The Israeli army and their political leaders (supported by statements from Condi Rice and several others) comitted such brutal acts against the civilian population, that anger, frustration, hate and invectives was highly understandable at that time. But you provided more than that: you provided a coherent “theory” about “the jews as a whole”, how bad they have been acting through thousands of years, and why.
    I`ve never accepted, and will never in the future accept that kind of theories. In my book, you were crossing a line.
    Since you are confronting me, Arthur, with this issue, and since I respect you much more than I respect Ironbelle, I feel obliged to answer you. Do you remember my first post at TWN, last autumn? I just read that again, and continued reading more or less the whole thread before posting this.
    When I look back, I still agree with my main point then: distinguish between critique of Israel as a State and government, and the old rhetoric of anti-semitism. And I still don`t understand why POA and Caroll did not understand why one should pay any attention to that distinction. To think that anti-semitism is something that started with Adolf Hitler in 1933, and ended with American soldiers saving the surviving Jews in 1945 is naive. Anti-semitism is much older, and will survive all of us discussing here today. And this makes it more important to develope a critical language that is different from that heritage when we critisize Israel.
    Arhtur, Carroll, POA and WigWag, you may still find something interesting in that very long thread if you browse through it today – as well as a comical exchange between me and the always suspicious POA. Believe me, WigWag, I`ve also been insulted by POA.
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2007/10/media_alert_msn/
    In some ways, I feel we are still there. But in addition we have got people who use any opportunity to accuse anyone of anything; racism, sexism, misogyne tendencies… and I`m tired of that. And when those people accuse someone of “anti-semitism”, after accusing others of “sexism” and “racism” for obscure reasons, and with no solid facts or arguments behind it, the accussators simply has no credibility or weight in my eyes.
    I don`t want to play their game.

    Reply

  30. arthurdecco says:

    Paul Norheim said, (referring to WigWag): “I still regard you as a reasonable person (of course I do!). I also think that admitting that you are a Zionist, and openly arguing for that position at TWN, deserves respect.”
    Here’s an issue where we fundamentally differ, Mr. Norheim. WigWag is much more often disruptive for no discernible reason than she is reasonable, and self-admitted Zionists like her, are by definition, the real racists in the room and therefore hardly deserving of anyone’s respect.
    And while I still have your eyes, I’d like to point out the consequence of your less-than-informed appraisal of my opinions on Jewish influence. ironbelle’s pathetically ignorant bellicosity wasn’t created in a vacuum. She felt enabled, deliberately or not, by your musings in some of your earlier, ill-considered and out of context posts.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Paul, “the reasonable guy” IS IronBelle.
    They’re one and the same entity.
    This isn’t the first time this has happened here.
    And don’t let WigWag turn things around on you. Look at the Obama thread, and this one, and see who it is that is hurling “invectives”.

    Reply

  32. Paul Norheim says:

    Well, POA, as you saw, I`m also trying to talk to the reasonable guy here:
    “And why are you cooperating with Ironbelle in all these endless accusations, currently threatening to destroy almost every interesting thread at TWN?”
    WigWag, you must admit that even if POA is generous with invectives, he has contributed with opinions and info in a way that makes Ironbelle`s contribution in that regard amount to zero. 90 % of the contributors here have been constructive in this or that way. Ironbelle has not been so in any sense of that word. And being constructive, also in criticism, is the raison d`être of the comment section of TWN.
    Do we agree on that?

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    One more thread destroyed.
    Paul, have you considered that the intention is to destroy the comment section? Its not that we haven’t been through this before on this blog. I think it was before you started posting here, but these EXACT kinds of attacks have occurred before, and it ALWAYS entails two players, one fiegning moderation and an occassionally sentient contribution, the other rabidly obnoxious, contributing on the heels of the first. And they ALWAYS single out Carroll for their most vicious accusations and slander, with me being a close second.
    Same bullshit from the same trolls.

    Reply

  34. WigWag says:

    POA, you seem to have a little problem here. Sorry, there’s nothing I can do to help you. But if it makes you feel any better; POA and Paul Norheim the same person? I don’t think so. After all, Paul’s usually polite, you’re usually nasty. Paul’s comments are usually measured, your comments are usually over the top. Paul is always trying to mediate and bring everyone together, your usually focused on invective and insults.
    But I have wondered whether you and Arthur Decco might be the same person. Look at Arthur’s comment from 8:15 last evening. He says “Yer quite a gurl, ironbelle.” You have to admit that the colloquiel spelling is somewhat reminiscent of your comments.
    I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll postulate that there’s only one POA here and that it’s a POA without doppelgangers. It’s not about how many of you there are, it’s about the quality of what you have to say, which in your case is typically not much.

    Reply

  35. Paul Norheim says:

    I did a little research on Ironbelle, after asking myself if any of her contributions at The Washington Note actually contained some political substance?
    You never know…
    And believe it or not, I`ve found something. Not much, I admit, but at least a couple of sentences – dated May 22.08:
    “As for McCain being too much like Bush; we don’t believe it and we don’t care. We survived the past 8 years, we’ll survive the next 8 years.
    We won’t reward sexism. Any other questions, dawg?”
    We may or may not speculate about why Ironbelle initially supported Hillary Clinton: Was gender the one and only important issue?
    Apparently, any other imaginable issue or problem (did someone mention health care? The economy? The abuse of Presidential power? Torture? Imperial arrogance? Iraq? Iran? Nuclear proliferation? The environment?) must seem ridiculously trivial and tiny in Ironbelles mind, compared to the horrible sexism displayed by certain Obama supporters and certain commentators in American news papers and TV. Ironbelle can`t forgive them.
    So my question is: if you`re angry, Ironbelle, why do you direct all your sarcasm and anger toward certain persons at TWN who have never been known as fans of Obama anyway?
    And why, WigWag, did you write an enthousiastic answer supporting Ironbelle immediately after the comment I quoted from here? Your brain or political instinct didn`t react when you saw those lines? And why are you cooperating with Ironbelle in all these endless accusations, currently threatening to destroy almost every interesting thread at TWN?
    Honestly, WigWag: do you really see sexism as a serious problem at TWN?
    Do you really want to invest time and effort and passion in accusations that are much more serious and sensitive in 2008 then you and POA occationally calling each other jackasses, pissants, or similar rather harmless and old fashioned stuff? Feel free. But you should really, really, really try to be precise when you feel it necessery to do so. Because this is not some kind of entertainment or sophistical game.
    In your opinion, even quoting someone using the word “sand nigger” in a spesific context, should be forbidden. That`s your opinion. But that does not entitle you to accuse anyone who use that n-word in a spesific context (to discribe a latent KKK-attitude, transfered from the American South to a new geo-political landscape or culture, or to discribe certain Israeli attitudes toward Arabs) of being a racist. This only serves to direct the issue away from the political message by some unneccessery, noisy spectacle – and I`m sure you know that.
    I still regard you as a reasonable person (of course I do!). I also think that admitting that you are a Zionist, and openly arguing for that position at TWN, deserves respect. And in my opinion, you often add perspectives to the discussions here (of course I often disagree, as you know). However, I would guess that you are not entirely comfortable with Ironbelle accusing people all the time, but lacking any will to contribute in a constructive way to the discussions here.
    Anyway, with you, WigWag, Ironbelle obviously got an enthousiastic supporter, and has thanked you ever since by defending you, and insulting anybody who happen to attack you.
    But to be honest with you, Ironbelle, The Washington Note was never meant as a group therapy forum.
    Best wishes from
    Dr. Phil.

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    From WigWag….
    “Your the one who needs to cut the crap”
    From Iron Belle…..
    “Maybe your one and the same”

    Reply

  37. Paul Norheim says:

    arthurdecco, just like most of the commentators here, have
    written hundreds of posts containing opinions, perspectives and
    information. Many people happen to disagree, sometimes even
    strongly and passionately, with what someone else have written.
    But Ironbelle is the most destructive character I`ve read on TWN.
    Not one meaningful exchange of opinions; only spam, or wicked
    insults like those above in this thread.

    Reply

  38. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Anyone that posts at a blog purely to disrupt and incite is truly a very sick individual.

    Reply

  39. arthurdecco says:

    Yer quite a gurl, ironbelle.
    I just wish you could have done something to ameliorate the image I’ve got of you in my head, rather than reinforcing it with your embarrassing response.

    Reply

  40. arthurdecco says:

    ironbelle,
    your best posts, (at least those I’ve read here), can charitably be described as peculiar. The rest are simply offensive.
    This latest post wasn’t one of your best.
    Besides your dumb-ass penis joke, I mean. That was so oh funny. Not.
    And anyone who could think that POA and Paul Norheim, (who isn’t from Sweden, incidentally), were the same poster has serious reading comprehension issues. Though I’m sure your difficulty with reading comprehension pale in comparison with your more pressing issues, don’t they? (shudder!)
    Tell me, do you still use a rattail comb? And carry your wallet in your hip pocket attached to your belt with a chain? & slip on your motorcycle boots to stumble out to the store for smokes?
    I ask only because that’s the cartoon version of a person I’m thinking lurks behind your “ironbelle” moniker.
    Enlighten me, please.
    I’d like nothing more than the opportunity to erase that grotesque picture from my imagination.

    Reply

  41. rich says:

    nobama,
    On the contrary. The press corpse and punditocracy went haywire telling us all how elitist Obama was—HA! Trying to bowl! Just doesn’t have the common touch! Ha, he’ll never fit in!
    Their openly false media narrative has never showered adulation on Barack Obama, but cut him down at every turn. A community organizer labeled as a Harvard professor who just can’t connect with blue-collar whites. Yet each of his campaign stops proves the opposite.
    nobama—your comment compares a speech to bowling–a nonsequitur, but one intended to catapult the lies and propoganda.

    Reply

  42. Tahoe Editor says:

    The Great Seal of Obama is gone, but the campaign is still pushing the “declare independence from a broken system” canard, claiming the new path to a candidacy funded “by the people” — “the people” being defined as Obama contributors, of course. Those non-believers just have to come around.
    How does “anywhere, anytime” translate to “only on the Fourth of July”?

    Reply

  43. Tahoe Editor says:

    Speaking of the inaccessibility of personality cults, what’s up with the “anywhere, anytime” rhetoric vs. the only-on-the-Fourth-of-July reality?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMGgyPm9kh4
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/article648382.ece
    I’d have more respect for him if Barry would say, “I’m opting out of the public finance system I’ve championed for so long because I’m raising more money than I’d ever imagined possible; and I don’t want to debate John McCain because I’m leading in the polls and he just wants to play ‘gotcha.'”
    “Anywhere, anytime” and “the system is broken” are about as much B.S. as ocean levels responding to his nomination.

    Reply

  44. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hardly a “grouchy Clinton supporter”, I was appalled at the arrogance Obama’s campaign staff displayed by the use of “the seal”, and equally appalled that Obama didn’t recognize the folly of such an arrogant gesture. It telegraphed a mindset that seems to epitomize the elitism that separates the leaders from the led.
    I see no dichotomy between the use of such arrogant symbolism being used by the right or the left. Both entities, through such lofty symbolism, portray a level of self-imposed importance that further detaches them from the people they are supposed to represent.
    Obama, if true to his message, should have the common sense to choose symbolic imagery and graphics that implies an empowerment of the people, not symbolism that elevates the office of the Presidency. After these eight years of unprecedented executive abuse and empowerment, Obama’s foolish gesture has unusually relevant import. I do not see this as a “small issue”. Steve has, on many occassions, pointed out the importance of these candidates confiding to the American people EXACTLY what recently imposed executive powers they would be willing to relinguish should they attain entrance into the Oval Office. Not one of these candidates has done so. In fact, the recent postures of both McCain and Obama in regards to the FISA sell-out does not exactly encourage optimism that either of these candidates intend to relinguish powers, OR not take advantage of the current trend towards the complete extinction of any sort of checks and balances designed to rein in the power of the President.
    The use of lofty symbolism was highly instrumental in the marketing of Hitler’s Nazi party and agenda. It appears, as our government veers ever closer to the implementation and installment of a fascist form of governance, that we too will be treated to the same sort of symbolic graphic propaganda.

    Reply

  45. nobama says:

    I like your bowling analogy.
    Imagine if Barack Obama had given a “major speech” about bowling. The press corpse and the political spinmeisters would have a love fest all about how wonderful the speech was, how Obama is a true star in the bowling firmament, how his prowess in talking about bowling proves that he is qualified to lead the country.
    Instead, Obama goes out and actually bowls….and scores a 37.

    Reply

  46. rich says:

    McCain kept the U.S. shield over the eagle’s breast, whereas Obama at least substituted his own logo. So McCain doesn’t even bother with the minimal distinction Obama uses.
    Obama’s imagery is slick, but McCain assumes the mantle of Presidential Task Forces and Presidential Roundtables as a matter of course and without a second thought, adopting Presidential logos and seals wholesale. Why bother to change the seals or hide your presumption, when you’re entitled, after all, to your inheritance?
    McCain’s presumption far outpaces Senator Obama’s brand-savvy marketeers.
    After all, McCain is literally ‘borrowing’ seals that are actually Presidential, having been created by Reagan. Senator Obama doesn’t go that far. McCain’s default is the job’s already his; Obama’s at least trying to win it.
    And btw, Susan, when people levy the ‘personality-cult’ charge at Obama it signals their own candidate is devoid of leadership qualities. Bush & Obama are polar opposites, personality-wise: one listens and adjusts, the other doesn’t. Personality cults are characterized by inaccessible, rigid, controlling, monolithic figures that inform every aspects of their subjects’ lives. That’s a close approximation of the lockstep MO enforced by the Bush Administration and the rigid 27% supportive dead-enders. But everything we know about Senator Obama contradicts your ‘claim’.
    What you see is a response to genuine leadership; that it’s so unfamiliar to you shows how barren our political landscape has been of the courage and thoughtfulness that define a leader.
    How much more human can a candidate get? Obama went bowling and bowled badly–and what could be more authentic than that? Even great bowlers know better than to cut people down for trying.

    Reply

  47. leo says:

    I still think this is a non-issue irresponsibly pushed by a clique of grouchy Clinton supporters.

    Reply

  48. susan says:

    to me, the biggest difference is that Obama’s was so, well,
    personalized. thesethree are all committees, and relatively small
    time. the Obama one seemed to be meant to convey that Obama
    was already president, not just before the election, but even before
    the nomination. It’s this kind of personality-cult tactics that have
    turned me completely off to Obama, who looks more and more like
    GW Bush coming from the left.

    Reply

  49. JohnH says:

    Branding is all the rage these days, and these logos are meant to represent the Republican brand. Of course, branding is historically associated with cattle, often cattle from Texas. The brand is often put on the beast’s haunch not far from where the BS comes out. Which is appropriate, since the Republican brand is mostly associated with BS these days…

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *