Schumer Dances on Republican War Problems But Neglects His Own Support of John Bolton

-

schumer.jpg
I don’t really want to ridicule Senator Chuck Schumer, who has a thoughtful fundraising appeal letter out today which does a very good job spelling out the problems Senate Republicans face in 2008.
I will post his letter below.
However, I feel it important to remind leading Democrats not to become too overwhelmed by their own sense of infallibility about the War and what led to it; not to become too intoxicated with a “holier than thou” attitude for a pugnacious nationalism that flipped a finger off to the rest of the world as they helped enable a crusade led by Cheney and Bush.
Every time I get an email from Senator Schumer, I am reminded of his support of John Bolton’s confirmation in the 2nd push the administration made on Bolton during the Israel-Lebanon conflagration. Several — yes more than three — U.S. Senators told me personally that Schumer was telling them “a vote against Bolton is a vote against Israel.”
It is that kind of false choice thinking that undermines American prestige and moral credibility. So yes, Republicans are vulnerable on this war — but the kind of giddy notes that Schumer is sending out neglect his own role in empowering this crowd.
Here is the letter:

Dear Friend:
I have been leading the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) for two and a half years now.
And yet I am still continually amazed by the commitment of you, our grassroots.
In the past few weeks alone, thousands of our supporters helped us blow past our ambitious quarterly fundraising goal – the tenth straight quarter we’ve done that.
And then, this week, when President Bush made the outrageous decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, tens of thousands of you signed on to our petition expressing your disgust for this affront to justice.
Thank you so very much.
Your unrivaled energy and unflagging financial support means that Republican Senate incumbents, already beleaguered by their blind support for George Bush and plummeting poll ratings, will have an even tougher road ahead to defend their Senate seats in 2008.
21 Republican seats are up for reelection in 2008, compared to only 12 Democratic seats. And already, some GOP incumbents are showing clear signs of vulnerability. Only 31% of New Hampshirites think incumbent John Sununu deserves to be reelected. Norm Coleman in Minnesota and Gordon Smith in Oregon have approval ratings hovering below 50%.
Republican senators are once again showing their blind obedience to Bush — not one has had the guts to stand up and say that the Scooter Libby commutation makes a mockery of the American justice system.
Democrats have a once in a generation opportunity to expand a 51-49 Senate majority that has made it all too easy for Republicans to carry George Bush’s water and obstruct the change that you voted for in 2006.
You have provided a huge lift for us at the DSCC. Your support allows for more staffers in key states, more ads and more investment in advanced micro targeting techniques to get Democrats to the polls on Election Day. You are giving us the resources to convince the very best leaders that Democrats have to offer, to run for Senate.
Most importantly, your energy is keeping every one around here fired up and focused on the goal at hand: expanding our majority.
We’ve still got a long way to go. But thanks to you, we’re off to an amazing start.
Sincerely,
Sen. Chuck Schumer

I do want to see a restoration of genuine political competition in this country — but I am also really fed up with the historical amnesia that so many politicians on both sides of the aisle are promulgating.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

51 comments on “Schumer Dances on Republican War Problems But Neglects His Own Support of John Bolton

  1. MP says:

    Posted by Carroll at July 10, 2007 07:48 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I agree with most of your post.
    Yes, probably Israel would not have come into existence had the Holocaust–and its preamble in the 20s and 30s–not come about. That is one of the terrible ironies of that event, and anti-Semitism in general. Jews mostly WANT to participate in the larger society in a very full way. There were many extremely patriotic German Jews, for example.
    But for Jews at least, and I think ultimately for the region if they can avoid blowing themselves up and move to a just resolution, Israel brings a very positive message. MJ has made this point many times, and I agree with him.

    Reply

  2. Carroll says:

    Well MP, just to clear myself up a bit:
    Most of my zionism research was from the British records and the Jewish Library on line which I also double checked and compared with several Jewish libraries afillated with US universities. They seemed to match in info to me so I took them as fairly accurate.
    And when I said I didn’t think a lot of jews would have gone along with zionism before the holocuast it just means that they didn’t have any really overriding reason at the time to adopt that despite the fact they may have been suffering some discrimination..but before 1940 they wern’t under a current threat of actual death and extermination. The holocuast was the real spark of fear that brought it about. If the holocaust hadn’t happen I don’t think Israel would have ever come about or would have been failed effort for lack of support from both jews and others if not for the holocaust.
    And I will leave it to you to say what the culture of the jews is…I am just looking at the nutcase neo-jewish ones and talking in political terms about how they use the victimhood history on other jews no matter where they live to keep that anit-semite fear alive and sway them into certain corners. It seems to me that the really vicious ones we see who try to smear everyone are suffering from some “revenge”-past weakling-victim identity type complex that they are now taking out on the world or picking out “enemies” to take it out on for their own personal grudges and ego that they (think they) cleverly cover with the jewish cause.
    And I agree I may not be any more right than you simply because I am an outsider…that’s why I say this is “how it seems” to me looking at it from the outside.
    And yes, the Israeli problem does affect me as an American citizen.. but I was referring more to the fact that whatever the truth or answer to the debate on the jewish psyche part of anti-semitism … it doesn’t impact me in any ethnic emotional way to the extent that I have to prove you wrong or myself right. The self fulfilling part of anti-semitism would be an interesting study but no matter who came to what conclusions it would still always be a matter of inside-outside viewpoints and opinions.
    My concern in all this is what is happening right now…the world history of good jews vrs. bad jews vrs bad world I think gets in the way of looking at today and more recent history objectively. Beside which it puts all the onus on “The Jews” and dilutes the conservation and the real target which are radical zionist jews (and yes US neo’s too) and their organizations in the US and Israel that are adding to our insanity and fueling a large part of it politically.
    BTW, I am typing this in the middle of a lightening and thunderstorm right beside my den window and haven’t been struck dead yet..I take that as a sign I am not totally off track.LOL

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    Posted by Carroll at July 10, 2007 12:39 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks for your response. We’ll probably have to agree to disagree, but I’ll try to respond the best I can in the time allotted.
    C: “All I know about zionism that got it’s start in the 1800’s I got from historical records and from jewish sources themselves.”
    Me: Okay. It would be good to know which Jewish sources. If you’re relying on folks like Jacqueline, I might quibble, but…
    C: “In reading both it is clear that zionism was the idea of a very few Jews. Zionism being the demand for the creation of a jews only state because of discrimination.”
    Me: I’m not sure why Zionism being an idea (originally) of a very few is a knock against it. Many ideas start small and grow. I wouldn’t say “Jews only” state; I would say a State for the Jewish people. How many non-Palestinians do the Palestinians envision living in the State of Palestine when it arrives? In any event, Israel is not a “Jews only” state, unlike S.A. which is a Muslim-only state or even Iran which is a Muslim theocracy. By contrast, Israel is secular.
    C: “I am not sure that most jews would have gone along with that idea or that zionism would have gained any real traction if it had not been for the holocuast in the 1900’s.”
    Me: I suspect you’re right, though I don’t see why that’s a knock against it, assuming that’s what you intend. People always leave where they are because of a perceived lack. In any event, the Holocaust and the period leading up to was experienced as the culmination of a long history of oppression, not an exception to the rule of loving acceptance by the larger community.
    C” I have never done any study on all the religious and ethnic groups that suffered discrimination or were victimized in different countries thruout history becuase it would take a professional historian and years and years to do the research. ”
    Me: Okay. No harm, no foul.
    C: “But we know that Christians and other groups in history were constantly at war with some other religious/ethnic group and got wiped out and/or invaded or victimized so the jews are not totally unique in that.
    Me: Okay; I’ll give you that one.
    C: “Yet, in modern times the christians never set up a country “stricly” for christians, as in an official policy of a christian majority.
    Me: Re-read your European history.
    “Maybe they didn’t have to becuase they are the majority in most western civilizations. Maybe you can compare the Islamic idea of Islamic states and some other groups in the ME to the jews idea of a jewish state, both having at their core religion and/or ethnic nationalism.”
    Me: Yes, they were in the VAST majority. But again, Israel is a secular state and, in that sense, unlike an Islamic state. One difference between Judaism and Christianity and Islam is that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion. There is no idea that everyone needs to become Jewish to be saved and there is no sense of broad eminent domain as there is in Islam.
    C: “As I said I am no expert on the jewish psyche but I can’t think of any other religion or ethnic group that “globaly” thruout all of the countries in the world they live in holds onto their ethnic victimization or bases their culture, politics and outlook on being victims…”
    Me: Except that is NOT what its culture or outlook are based on.
    C: “..particulary when their victimization has long since passed in 99% of the world. Although we may be seeing a rise in that among Muslims due to our terrier wars.”
    Me: Remember a while back when sdemetri posted how shocked he was to discover that the number one or number two most common hate crime (verbal hate crime, I believe) in America was anti-Semitism? You’ll find it in Argentine among the “disappeared.” You’ll find it in Europe. And in Russia. And in the Middle East. True, where Jews aren’t, you won’t find it.
    C: “I know you don’t agree with Jacqualine Roses’s take that zionism based on the victimhood culture perpetuates itself and becomes a self fullfilling prophecy over and over again…but actually I think there is something to that.”
    Me: I think there is “something” to her thesis, but there is much that doesn’t fit. You can’t fit the Holocaust inside it. You can’t fit the pogroms inside it. And you can’t fit Bess Truman inside it. Or purveyors of the Protocols of Zion.
    C: “In fact there are probably some other examples of that in other groups but I can’t think of one in modern times. And I think the extreme of that is what we see today in Israel where every thing they do to others they do in “the name of jews” and justify by the jewish victimhood claim or history. Then when the world reacts and condemns their extreme actions they call everyone anti-semites which further angers reasonable people and gives them a worse and worse opinion of the “jewish state” and those jews who support that particular mantra..and on and on it goes.”
    Me: The reflexive use of “anti-Semite” is wrong and, as you point out, a self-fulfilling act in many cases. OTOH, there are often anti-Semites in among the reasonable critics and, IMO, Israel is subjected to a double standard. Condemning Zionism as racist, for example, as was done at the UN is hypocritical when the world accepts Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are true theocracies. There is nothing racist about Jews wanting and having a state of their own.
    C: “At some point this current thrust/movement/idea among the ring leaders of radical zionism that anyone, group or country who doesn’t give the jews or Israel everything they want, who doesn’t allow them a total get out of jail free pass no matter how unreasonable, no matter what it does to others, is their enemy has to end.”
    Me: Where this occurs, and to the extent it occurs, I agree with you.
    C: “I do think the animus against Israel has risen since 911 and I think their own actions have caused most of that.”
    Me: Not sure I’d put a percentage on it, but I tend to agree about what has happened–whether that’s why, I don’t know.
    C: “This is how I see it as a non jew, as someone who has nothing to lose or gain in being right or worng in this discussion because whether I am right or wrong or you are it will have no impact on me since I am not a Jew.”
    Me: But that doesn’t mean you’re any more likely to be right about this than I am. Moreover, it does affect you, as you’ve pointed out often on these threads.
    C: “The only reason I think the motivations or reasons of zionist and the jews gets discussed on these threads about Israel is because it provides a sidebar arguement for supporters and non supporters in the debate over Israel’s actions and the Israeli influence in the US government.”
    Me: Not sure I totally get your point here. Israel and Jews have always been controversial. Jewish influence on government has been a perennial debate, even for centuries, long before Israel was a twinkling in anyone’s eye. It’s been the EXACT same discussion over and over again. Read the Protocols sometime. Read Henry Ford. It’s always the same “debate.”
    C: “At bottom none of this is about the jews or their history or why for most of us, it’s about how to get Israel and their supporters out of US decisions on America’s foreign policy.”
    Me: I agree…the US needs to make her own foreign policy. I see no reason why she can’t or shouldn’t. In fact, the neos have only been in power a short while.
    C: “I point out the danger and damage to the US, others justify this arrangement by the jewish history as a historical moral cause or the reason we must allow it no matter what it does to the US.”
    Me: This is too vague for me to comment on.
    C: “Only thing that isn’t debatable is that the Israeli factor has cost Americans dearly in money and reputation and allies and even security thruout the world.”
    Me: Except that the US supported Israel LONG before this current slide. Bush’s foreign policy and domestic policy have done far more to damage the US than any support of Israel. And the US has had many adventures, primarily in Viet Nam, that lost us much, long before we supported Israel.
    I tend to view the current period as a temporary aberration–assuming the US doesn’t do something (even more) stupid. But I agree: It’s time for a clean break.

    Reply

  4. Sandy says:

    Bravo, Carroll. Well said.
    I’ve tried to say that myself…but never succeeded as you have in this. Thank you.

    Reply

  5. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at July 9, 2007 05:43 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    All I know about zionism that got it’s start in the 1800’s I got from historical records and from jewish sources themselves.
    In reading both it is clear that zionism was the idea of a very few Jews. Zionism being the demand for the creation of a jews only state because of discrimination. I am not sure that most jews would have gone along with that idea or that zionism would have gained any real traction if it had not been for the holocuast in the 1900’s.
    I have never done any study on all the religious and ethnic groups that suffered discrimination or were victimized in different countries thruout history becuase it would take a professional historian and years and years to do the research. But we know that Christians and other groups in history were constantly at war with some other religious/ethnic group and got wiped out and/or invaded or victimized so the jews are not totally unique in that. Yet, in modern times the christians never set up a country “stricly” for christians, as in an official policy of a christian majority. Maybe they didn’t have to becuase they are the majority in most western civilizations. Maybe you can compare the Islamic idea of Islamic states and some other groups in the ME to the jews idea of a jewish state, both having at their core religion and/or ethnic nationalism.
    As I said I am no expert on the jewish psyche but I can’t think of any other religion or ethnic group that “globaly” thruout all of the countries in the world they live in holds onto their ethnic victimization or bases their culture, politics and outlook on being victims..particulary when their victimization has long since passed in 99% of the world. Although we may be seeing a rise in that among Muslims due to our terrier wars.
    I know you don’t agree with Jacqualine Roses’s take that zionism based on the victimhood culture perpetuates itself and becomes a self fullfilling prophecy over and over again…but actually I think there is something to that. In fact there are probably some other examples of that in other groups but I can’t think of one in modern times. And I think the extreme of that is what we see today in Israel where every thing they do to others they do in “the name of jews” and justify by the jewish victimhood claim or history. Then when the world reacts and condemns their extreme actions they call everyone anti-semites which further angers reasonable people and gives them a worse and worse opinion of the “jewish state” and those jews who support that particular mantra..and on and on it goes.
    At some point this current thrust/movement/idea among the ring leaders of radical zionism that anyone, group or country who doesn’t give the jews or Israel everything they want, who doesn’t allow them a total get out of jail free pass no matter how unreasonable, no matter what it does to others, is their enemy has to end. I do think the animus against Israel has risen since 911 and I think their own actions have caused most of that.
    This is how I see it as a non jew, as someone who has nothing to lose or gain in being right or worng in this discussion because whether I am right or wrong or you are it will have no impact on me since I am not a Jew. The only reason I think the motivations or reasons of zionist and the jews gets discussed on these threads about Israel is because it provides a sidebar arguement for supporters and non supporters in the debate over Israel’s actions and the Israeli influence in the US government.
    At bottom none of this is about the jews or their history or why for most of us, it’s about how to get Israel and their supporters out of US decisions on America’s foreign policy. I point out the danger and damage to the US, others justify this arrangement by the jewish history as a historical moral cause or the reason we must allow it no matter what it does to the US.
    Only thing that isn’t debatable is that the Israeli factor has cost Americans dearly in money and reputation and allies and even security thruout the world.

    Reply

  6. Kathleen says:

    Thanks for the background on Truman folks.

    Reply

  7. MP says:

    As Reagan said…”there you go again”.
    Not me…it’s Michael Beschloss…presidential historian…who makes this point.

    Reply

  8. MP says:

    Posted by Carroll at July 9, 2007 04:58 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well, Carroll, I believe you, as strange as that might sound.
    However–and I’ve said this to you before–I find it strange that with all your objective research you would have overlooked and mis understood one of the key contributing factors that gave rise to Zionism and, ultimately, Israel.
    It’s just weird. You can quote until the cows come home all the complaints that Palestinians cite–and not just Palestinians, but ALL Arabs–against Israel, and against the US for supporting Israel. You’ve delved into the British Archives and the Truman Library. You post FOIA documents from the State Dept circa 1945 talking about the issues. You google the universe, perhaps everyday, on this conflict.
    And yet, when it comes to one of the principal–maybe THE principal motivating factor–that gave rise to Zionism and impetus to a new state, you seem to think that it’s all been a bunch of self-induced brainwashing. That a bunch of Jews just went crazy at some point, and decided to leave their comfy homes and neighbors in Europe and march off into the desert to become farmers and sheepherders.
    All the incredible hard work and sacrifice and risk to life that went into founding the State against all odds was based on nothing more than a halucination. And it doesn’t matter how well, or how objectively, anti-Semitism has been documented by Jews and non-Jews…or how many people have died or had their lives ruined because of it…to you, it’s just a nutty fantasy or something spouted by a few Aryan Nation dead-enders.
    A less charitable person than I would accuse you of HUGE bias, but I’ll refrain. I just find your position, however you’ve come to it, weird.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    Carroll 4:38
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ah yes, the Jews are the root of their own troubles.
    One of Truman’s advisors was his wife Bess, who didn’t like having Jews in her home. I guess it was the smell of gunpowder and fuses that turned her off.
    Posted by MP at July 9, 2007 04:59 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    As Reagan said…”there you go again”.

    Reply

  10. Sandy says:

    Truman’s old business partner, Eddie Jacobson, had the greatest influence on him.
    This…according to an oral history of Truman:
    ..FUCHS: Mr. Truman didn’t file bankruptcy either.
    HINDS: No, he didn’t either and he paid off. His partner [30]
    had to file bankruptcy. He was trying to make a living. (That was Eddie Jacobson.) Every time he got a job somebody would garnishee him and consequently he’d lose his job, and finally he had to file for bankruptcy. Then he got fortunate and went back into business. Somebody backed him and Eddie made a lot of money and paid off what he owed. I know Harry Truman told me that he came into his office there in the White House one day and just laid a check for $20,000 down on his desk. That was the amount that Harry had paid off and Eddie felt that was his share of it, whatever it was. He just gave him a check for $20,000 bucks.
    FUCHS: Let’s see now, in filing bankruptcy — just one-half of a partnership, in that way — did Mr. Truman assume all the debts or just half of the debts?
    HINDE: No, either partner’s liable. You take a partnership and either partner’s liable for the debts. That’s the sad part about a partnership. He assumed the debts — he paid them. I know Harry kept himself broke for years paying on that thing. He was pretty badly involved, but he finally got it paid off. And then, Jacobson paid him part of it — I don’t know whether it was all of it [31]
    or not. Because Eddie was a pretty honorable man and a pretty straight shooter, I imagine it was all of it. I know Harry thought the world and all of him.
    See, where he got connected with this, Eddie Jacobson was at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. when we were down there in 1917. We started what they call a PX; we called it “canteens” in those days, and we had just a big general store. The Colonel put Harry Truman in charge of running this canteen and he got ahold of this fellow Jacobson, who had been in the mercantile business in Kansas City. Eddie, actually handled the thing and Harry looked after the finance; and it was very successful, and I think that’s where they got the idea of going into this store. They made about $15,000 net there in about ten months off of that store down there, and when they came out, why — I believe that’s what sparked the idea of them going into the mercantile business. They did a wonderful job on that — ‘course, the money that they made on that thing went into our mess fund, you know. We lived pretty high on the hog off that store. It was all right.
    FUCHS: Then, in early 1922, Mr. Truman came out for county judge….
    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/hindeeg.htm

    Reply

  11. MP says:

    Maggie writes: “I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top, they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much, because my sympathy has always been on their side.78”
    I guess Maggie didn’t fall far from her mother’s knee. But I wonder how she’d square this thought with the reality that Jews, clearly a success in America, are among the most generous and tolerant with untold institutions of giving, with untold members in the helping professions, with untold participation in virtually every movement for social justice in this country and in many others.
    But here’s the money quote right at the end thanks to ole Lew: “…with American leaders seemingly indifferent to the costs to their own country.”
    You see, it’s NEVER been about the West Bank or Gaza…it’s always been about Israel per se and the “terrible cost America has paid,” from the beginning, for supporting her.
    Hook this up with the “Jews are their own enemies, AND the enemies (seemingly) of everyone else while no one else hates them except with good reason” meme and you’ve got a potent stew, bubbling on the stove.

    Reply

  12. Sandy says:

    Kathleen: “I also wonder why Britain and the US were so hot to establish Israel in 1948….”
    “Truman began the “special relationship” between the United States and Zionism. Franklin Roosevelt, while not blind to Jewish interests, favored an evenhanded approach in the Middle East as between Arabs and Jews. Truman, on the other hand, was an all-out champion of the Zionist cause.73
    There were two major reasons for Truman’s support. One was a sentimental attachment that was strongly reinforced by many who had influence with him, including his old business partner, Eddie Jacobson as well as David K. Niles, and Eleanor Roosevelt.74 Visiting the president, the Chief Rabbi of Israel told him: “God put you in your mother’s womb so that you could be the instrument to bring about the rebirth of Israel after two thousand years.” Instead of taking offense at such chutzpah, the president was deeply moved. One of his biographers reports: “At that, great tears started rolling down Harry Truman’s cheeks.”75
    The second reason for Truman’s support was political opportunism. With congressional elections coming up in 1946 and then a very difficult presidential campaign in 1948, the votes of Zionist Jews in New York, Illinois, California, and other states could be critical. White House Counsel Clark Clifford was particularly persistent in arguing this angle, to the point that Secretary of State Marshall, who was skeptical of the pro-Zionist bias, angrily objected. Clifford, said Marshall, was trying to have the president base a crucial foreign policy position on “domestic political considerations.”76
    American backing was indispensable in the birth of the state of Israel. In November 1947, the United Nations, led by the United States, voted to partition Palestine. The mandate had to be gerrymandered in order to create a bare majority in the territory allotted the Jews, who, while comprising one-third of the population, were given 56 percent of the land. On America’s role, veteran State Department official Sumner Welles wrote:
    By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear upon countries outside the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition.77
    In her biography of her father, Margaret Truman spoke, in terms that today would be viewed as verging on anti-Semitism, of “the intense pressure which numerous Jews put on Dad from the moment he entered the White House and his increasing resentment of this pressure.” She quotes from a letter Truman sent to Eleanor Roosevelt:
    I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top, they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much, because my sympathy has always been on their side.78
    But Truman’s sporadic resentment did not prevent him from promoting Zionist plans for Palestine at the important points. He stubbornly ignored the advice not only of his own State Department, but also of his British ally, who kept reminding him of the commitment made by Roosevelt and by Truman himself, that the Arab states would be consulted on any settlement of the Palestine question.79 When Israel declared its independence, on May 15, 1948, the United States extended de facto recognition ten minutes later. Since then, with the exception of the Eisenhower years, the bonds linking the United States to Israel have grown ever tighter, with American leaders seemingly indifferent to the costs to their own country.”80
    http://tinyurl.com/3asdhj

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    Carroll 4:38
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ah yes, the Jews are the root of their own troubles.
    One of Truman’s advisors was his wife Bess, who didn’t like having Jews in her home. I guess it was the smell of gunpowder and fuses that turned her off.

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Posted by MP at July 9, 2007 04:37 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Unlike you MP I didn’t have any “pre existing” views on Jews or Israel at all, either political or religious or racial. It simply wasn’t a subject that I had ever paid attention to and wasn’t in my realm of interest prior to 911.
    I don’t subscribe to tribalism or racism at all, not for jews or gentiles or any other group. So all my opinions were formed by a combination of reading official non biased history and just observing what has gone on in Israel-Palestine and between Israel and the US in my country and between Israel/ME and the rest of the world.
    I didn’t go looking for a reason to condemn Israel or the actions of Israeli groups like AIPAC
    because before I started paying attention I didn’t know anything about it…unfortunately for those who don’t agree with my take on the Israel problem.. that is just the way the cookie crumbled on the facts and what I found out about the whole sitituation….Israel is in the wrong. And so is the US.
    And yes I think a lot of jews have brainwashed themselves. But I am not an expert on the jewish pschye so that’s just a general observation from what I see in comments from the right wing of the jews.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    I also wonder why Britain and the US were so hot to establish Isreal in 1948
    Posted by Kathleen at July 9, 2007 03:50 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The US wasn’t hot to recongize Israel in 1948, in fact Truman was advised against it by just about everyone from the State Dept to the intelligence agencies. Go to Truman’s presidential library if you want to figue out what motivated him to do it and read the memos regarding Israel.
    As for Britain many there thought they had “a jewish problem” as they called it…at that time there were two jewish terrorist gangs, the Irgun and Stern gangs in the UK who were a lot like the modern IRA, they blew up and bombed places like police stations in London and generally terrorized London and the political class, all centered around creating enough fear or pressure to move the Zionist idea of a nation for jews forward. The jews did have some friends in the parliment that led to the first white paper and the Balfour declaration that eventually led to Britian clearing the way for the establishment of a jewish state.
    So basically the Balfor declaration pleased some friends of the jews and solved the problem of the jews for the UK government.

    Reply

  16. MP says:

    Carroll writes: Here is where the jewish historical victim narrative as an arguement condems itself:
    It’s says the “whole world” in “every century”, in “every country” the jews have lived in were wrong about the jews and victimized them for no reason ALL the time.
    Not ALL the time–but a lot of the time, yes. If you can find “the reason,” please enlighten us. But look out! Prior to 1948…okay, prior to 1900…you won’t have Israel or Zionists to blame.
    It’s simply not possible for Everyone in the world since the begining of time to be wrong All the time.
    Again, not all the time…but a LOT of the time.
    As for jews being regarded as outsiders, dualist, etc.. we see the evidence today in what is happening among jewish groups in this country and our congress that that is how some of them “choose” to be..they “choose” to live in one country and be loyal to and work for another..so if you don’t like that view of the jews take it up with the ones that are practicing that and promoting it…they created that reputation for you, not the rest of us.
    Ha, ha, ha! Read. Some. History. And. Not. Just. The. Stuff. That. Confirms. Your. Pre-existing. Views.

    Reply

  17. Kathleen says:

    Color me ultra cynical, but could it be that our support for Israel is really just an excuse to have our military in the ME so we can steal Arab oil and call anyone who objects anti-Semitic? It’s a handy formula, especially for getting Jews to vote Repugnican.
    I remember that ship full of Jewish refugees denied acess to the US during WW2, sent to their certain death.
    I also wonder why Britain and the US were so hot to establish Isreal in 1948. Despite how wrong Hitler was, there were powerful people who were anti-Semetic, Jewish and Arab. I think they decided it was better to scoop the Palestinians out of the way and plop all those Jewish refugess there but NIMBY. You know a Gentleman’s Agreement to keep the hood all WASP.
    Anyone remember the synogogue bombing in Atlanta in the late 50’s? I do. I lived there then. Don’t tell me these same people give a damn about Israel, except as it serves our “Aryan” needs for big gas guzzlers and some macho saber rattling.
    The whole situation is sick for all involved. There are many in Israel who oppose their government, just like we do. We must remember them and help, if we can.

    Reply

  18. Carroll says:

    And they’d have to do it within a context where they were regarded as “the outsider,” the “traitor,” “the non-native,” “the dualist” wherever they lived, even if they had lived there for centuries.
    Posted by MP at July 9, 2007 02:25 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here is where the jewish historical victim narrative as an arguement condems itself:
    It’s says the “whole world” in “every century”, in “every country” the jews have lived in were wrong about the jews and victimized them for no reason ALL the time.
    It’s simply not possible for Everyone in the world since the begining of time to be wrong All the time.
    As for jews being regarded as outsiders, dualist, etc.. we see the evidence today in what is happening among jewish groups in this country and our congress that that is how some of them “choose” to be..they “choose” to live in one country and be loyal to and work for another..so if you don’t like that view of the jews take it up with the ones that are practicing that and promoting it…they created that reputation for you, not the rest of us.

    Reply

  19. MP says:

    Sandy writes: ” how could anyone with any knowledge of (much less personal experience of) what took place back then….
    make no connection that they themselves are duplicating now….exactly what was done to all those people …back then?”
    I can’t speak to the neo philosophy, primarily because I don’t share it. But in general, one answer to your question is…how do people respond what has happened to them?
    I think a lot of Jews took a moral lesson from the Holocaust–and though it’s much maligned on these threads–that includes the Holocaust Museum–as a warning not to repeat what has happened in the past.
    At the same time, they learned the lesson that no one else was going to come to their aid unless they “made it happen.” That is, they couldn’t simply sit back and hope folks would help them out. They’d have to take action to protect themselves. They’d have to get “their own,” and that attitude has animated much of the Zionist movement, broadly speaking. And they’d have to do it within a context where they were regarded as “the outsider,” the “traitor,” “the non-native,” “the dualist” wherever they lived, even if they had lived there for centuries.
    One of the differences between the killing in Russia and the Holocaust is that surviving Russians still had a home, a country, to go back to which they could call “home,” and where they were the majority and the “native” or “indigenous” population. The Jews did not and hadn’t for centuries. So, it wasn’t “just” the Holocaust, but the Holocaust as the culimation of centuries of discrimination and oppression that gave rise to modern Zionism.
    The right-winig version of Zionism is a perversion of this ideal, IMO, and overlooks or underplays the other, necessary, lesson. There’s an old Talmudic saying, which you may have heard, “If I’m only for myself, what am I? If I’m not for myself, who will be?” You have to answer BOTH questions.
    The Jewish establishment was racked with guilt that they hadn’t done enough to save their brethren, their families, in Europe during the War. They made a pledge never to let that happen again. Unfortunately, they failed to answer both questions in their quest to protect Jews.
    It’s easy to see how “America Firsters” could easily fall into that same trap…

    Reply

  20. MP says:

    Scott and Carroll write: “There may (or may not) be a compelling argument to make that the U.S. should view terrorist attacks on Israel as attacks on the U.S. There may (or may not) be a compelling argument to make that because Israel is an ally of the United States, America should be willing to wage war against countries that sponsor terrorist attacks on Israel…If there are valid arguments for deeming Israel’s enemies to be enemies of the U.S., then they should be made explicitly and clearly…”
    Personally, I would welcome the country having this foreign policy discussion. I’m not sure that the outcome of an honest debate is a foregone conclusion…
    From its inception, the campaign to depict and treat Iran as pure, unadulterated Evil has been driven by this manipulative and dishonest attempt to conflate Iran’s posture toward Israel with its posture toward the U.S. Whether the president himself was a victim of that manipulation or a knowing propagator of it is something one can debate, and the truth likely lies somewhere in between. But what is beyond dispute is the centrality of Israel and its right-wing American supporters in shaping the president’s moralistic and absolutist view of Iran..
    I would take some issue with this. America’s “problems” with Iran go way back to at least the early 50s. Carter, our new patron saint, didn’t handle relations well either. So, to simply blame the bad blood on Israel, really is inaccurate, though, to be sure, they’ve added to the brew in recent times.

    Reply

  21. David N says:

    First of all, it is a mistake to base a serious policy debate on a fund-raising letter. The fact that to the political leadership of this country there is no difference is no excuse.
    The error made with the founding of Israel is one that is repeated every day by political leaders in every country, whether they are being what we think of as moral or not, whether they are committing genocide or not. That error is to conflate tribal/ethnic identity with political identity.
    Thus, the profound error of basing political participation in Iraq or a person’s membership in a certain ethnic/religious/tribal faction. The only difference between that and what was done in the Lebanon constitution is that it took years for the damage done to Lebanon to become evident; the damage being done to Iraq is immediate.
    The endless cycles of violence in the Middle East have the same root as does so much violence everywhere in the world. Teaching people that their tribal identity is important gives them the right to kill those not in that tribe.
    And we are doing the same thing right here in America, and it will destroy us just as surely as are the neocon policies of hate and fear. The only difference is that we won’t recognize it coming.

    Reply

  22. Carroll says:

    Rosenberg rises to the occasion:
    America Abroad Warren Reports Coffee House Discussion Tables
    Tufts Bans Review Likudniks Object To
    By M.J. Rosenberg | bio
    “Just go to the link to read this. Even I, so quick to comment on the censorship of views the pro Likud right does not like, can’t find the words for this.
    Is there a single other issue that brings on this type of reaction. Think about it. You can write an article calling the President of the United States a fool or a war criminal and so what.
    But challenge the CW on the Middle East and academe quakes.
    Truly sickening.
    This is McCarthyism. In the 50’s, it was dangerous to be a liberal or a leftist. Today, being dubbed a critic of Israel can destroy careers. How utterly sickening that one can say what one wants about Israeli policies IN ISRAEL but not in Massachussetts. In other words, this is not an Israeli problem but an American one. In any case, it is damn serious.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here’s what he is talking about..
    http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=207
    And it is like McCarthism. Exactly the kind of McCarthism that could be flipped right back on the jews and drag them before a committee on unamerican activies with enough events and outcry to prompt it….
    I think the US Likud is scaring the Jews like Rosenberg more than they are scaring the rest of us.
    In this case the jews like Rosenberg actually are the canary in the coal mine for the jews and the US.

    Reply

  23. Carroll says:

    Large UK union boycotts Israeli goods, protesting “Nazi-like” policies
    By Israel Insider staff July 8, 2007
    The British Transport and General Workers Union (T&G) has decided to launch a consumer boycott on products made in Israel, protest Israel’s policies and trigger sanctions against it. T&G is one of the United Kingdom’s largest trade unions, representing some 800,000 workers.
    The decision was made during a meeting held over the weekend in Brighton, about a month after another British trade union, UNISON, also decided to launch an economic boycott on Israel, and after the University and College Union’s voted in favor of considering a boycott of Israeli academics and institutions.
    According to the union, the decision was made “in protest of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people.” It declared its hope that Israel would be forced, like South Africa, to halt its policies following a widespread economic boycott. “We are working to free the Palestinian people from the Israeli war machine,” the union said.
    Union leader Eric McDonald was quoted by the British press as saying that Israeli behavior was often not different from that of the Nazis.
    AJC Executive Director David A. Harris called McDonald’s words a “despicable expression of anti-Semitism.” Harris cited the “Working Definition of anti-Semitism” first adopted by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, and now endorsed by various European bodies, including a UK parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism.
    “Whereas traditional anti-Semitism stigmatized and isolated the individual Jew, these recent boycott votes are attempts to stigmatize and isolate the Jewish state,” said Harris.
    >>>>>>>>
    This is worth noting for several reasons.
    First it’s a growing trend among organizations and groups in a lot of countries.
    Second, if you follow these boycott efforts, you see that the majority of populations in most countries are very opposed to Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
    Third, the fact that governments take no real action on this and continue to go against the obvious sentiments and opinions of their citizens on Israel, among other issues, make you wonder how long it can continue and if there will be a Ms Murphy’s cow somewhere that kicks over the lantern and starts a fire that jump to other countries.

    Reply

  24. easy e says:

    I think we all forget that sometimes you have to kill alot of folks to make the world a better place………………………
    Posted by: derek at July 8, 2007 11:00 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The mindset of “Derek” is the cancerous neocon problem that exists in America today. If it’s malignant, we’re all in deep _ _ _ _ !

    Reply

  25. derek says:

    I think we all forget that sometimes you have to kill alot of folks to make the world a better place. Like when the Israelites killed the Philistines, that was good. When the Allies firebombed Hamburg and Dresden, that was good. When Hiroshima got theirs, that was good. I could go on and on, but I think you can see what I’m getting at. There’s a time and a season for everything under heaven, and killing is part of it. What can I say? You don’t really wanna hafta do it, but sometimes it’s unavoidable and there you are with a choice and you choose your life over the other’s. That’s life in a nutshell, survival of the fittest, and all that rot. Peace is nice, but eventually someone’s gonna step on your toes, and Pow, if they they don’t step off. You know what I’m sayin’? Sometimes ya gotsta do whats yas gotsta do. Peace, out!

    Reply

  26. Carroll says:

    Thought I would mention I saw Hagel on Meet the Press.
    Whatever domestic policies he has that I don’t like he absolutely “gets it” on US foreign policy..that we have to have a comprehensive over all new and realistic direction in our foreign policies.
    He also get how absolutely ridiculous this campaign season is….the money,money,money.
    I half way expected him to admit that it’s the politicans themselves who are responsible for the fact that our elections are always about how much money they can raise from special interest.

    Reply

  27. Carroll says:

    Posted by Sandy at July 8, 2007 03:47 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Those numbers are mind blowing.
    People so seldom mention the holocuast on the Russian people by Stalin.

    Reply

  28. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve:
    A. You’re right about the reasons for Democratic humility, but …
    B. What do you expect? The letter you received is “Dear Friend” fund-raising form letter from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It’s just a piece of marketing flotsam. If Schumer wasn’t being giddy, he wouldn’t be doing his job.
    Your complaint is a bit off the wall. It’s like complaining that your subscription renewal letter from Car and Driver doesn’t contain a frank assessment of the magazine’s failure to advocate more vigorously for higher fuel efficiency standards.

    Reply

  29. Sandy says:

    The Soviet Union
    The butchers who ran the Soviet Union killed between 25 million [The Black Book of Communism] and 60 million [Rudolph J. Rummel] innocent humans – men, women and little children.
    The monster Stalin may be the greatest mass killer of all time.
    Joseph Stalin
    Country: Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – Soviet Union).
    KILL TALLY: Approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death. At least one million executed for political “offences”. At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the ‘Gulag’.
    Lenin and Trotsky killed 4 million people – men, women and children – by mass executions, death camps, and state-caused famine.

    Reply

  30. Carroll says:

    Getting back to the ramifications of the politics regarding Israel-USA.
    This is a released CIA FOIA report on the consequences of the partition of Palestine done in 1947.
    http://tinyurl.com/ysvnta
    Interesting reading. The CIA predicted that Israel would not settle for the land awarded them and would continue their expansion to try and take over all of Palestine and would “use propaganda on the US” to depict the Arabs as terrorist to ensure US aid and military support in their conquest.
    You could read basically the same thing in the Presidential library reports by the State Department and other various US foreign officals so it’s not exactly unknown but this is more detailed
    And from this you can easily see that whatever the reason for our early support of Israel, whether on a moral basis to help the jews or due to jewish influence in the US…it has long since gone very wrong for the US and been a major burden on our country.
    It is also easy to see that far from being an asset to the US, even in the begining Israel was the sore point that led to the US-Russia standoff in the ME..not a case of Israel being our counterpoint to Soviet influence…but the actual cause in the Arab nations of the US-Arab- Russia problem in the cold war.
    It will be interesting to see how far back M&W go in their new book in pointing out the fallacy of Israel as an asset to the US.

    Reply

  31. Sandy says:

    “…except as intentional hate speech aimed specifically at Jews….” LBirnbaum
    Intentional hate speech?? Intentional hate speech?
    Where is your outrage AT THE NEO-CONSERVATIVES — Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Wurmser, Podheretz, et al who are RESPONSIBLE for these travesties, along with Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice…..in YOUR name? That of the Jewish people you profess your concern for.
    What stand have YOU taken to stop them from corrupting the U.S. political system?
    Why are YOU not ANGRY at THEM??? WHY??? Are YOU pro-Likud, pro-Israel….Israel first, Larry Birnbaum?
    When we talk here of the politics of what has happened in this country in the last years of Bush-Cheney’s reign….
    you can call that “hate speech” against the Jews. You can try that.
    But others here are more intelligent than that. It won’t work.
    Get real. Have we accused YOU of hate speech against the Palestinians??? Against Muslims??? Should we?

    Reply

  32. Carroll says:

    Posted by larry birnbaum at July 8, 2007 02:10 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    It’s amazing how sick you are. You are the perfect example of what we were just talking about in the similaries between the nazi exceptionalism mentality and the US neo-Straussian mentality and Jewish exceptionalism mentality.

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The very real suffering of the Palestinians cannot, except as intentional hate speech aimed specifically at Jews, be compared with the mass murder of civilian populations, numbering in the millions of victims, that occurred in the Holocaust (6 million Jews, 2 million Gypsies, and millions of others murdered). Nor can it be compared with the many other sad occurrences of genocide before and since (Armenian, Cambodian, Rwandan) each claiming more than a million innocent lives, or the ongoing genocide in Darfur in which several hundred thousand people have been killed.”
    Posted by larry birnbaum
    Thats allright, Larry, I know it takes time, but have faith, Israel is playing catch up, and they’ll get there eventually. With our help, of course. We’ve already got a helluva jump on the numbers, and golly, just think how they’ll increase when we attack Iran!!! And we have the added bonus of DU dust working in our favor. Shit man, we can be tallying the deaths for generations! Makes ya proud, don’t it? Some razed farmland here, a few million refugees there, some kid killing sanctions carefully applied, some discriminate placement of a few hundred thousand cluster munitions, poison a few wells, destroy an infrastructure or two, run the educated and middle class out, fence off whole communities, stall the delivery of medical supplies and hard goods, commit a few false flag terrorist attacks to breed hatred and fear……..
    Yeah, you are on the right track,Larry. Keep it up, you’ll catch up with ‘ol Adolph in no time.

    Reply

  34. larry birnbaum says:

    I won’t in general be commenting on “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-inspired postings such as the above. However, I do feel obliged to remind everyone who reads Steve’s blog that there are genuine moral and factual distinctions, even among terrible human tragedies. The very real suffering of the Palestinians cannot, except as intentional hate speech aimed specifically at Jews, be compared with the mass murder of civilian populations, numbering in the millions of victims, that occurred in the Holocaust (6 million Jews, 2 million Gypsies, and millions of others murdered). Nor can it be compared with the many other sad occurrences of genocide before and since (Armenian, Cambodian, Rwandan) each claiming more than a million innocent lives, or the ongoing genocide in Darfur in which several hundred thousand people have been killed.

    Reply

  35. Sandy says:

    Excellent, informative, and thought-provoking post, Carroll. Thank you.
    I hadn’t read what Scott Ritter has had to say, and I just got Glenn Greenwald’s book….but haven’t started it yet, so I found your quotes here quite interesting.
    Oh my. What a challenge!

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “By the way, I’d be interested in a long-term discussion of how to make international institutions in general, and the UN in particular, stronger, more transparent, and more honest forces in the world.”
    Putting teeth in their resolutions, by a balanced dispensation of rhetoric, sanctions, and military intervention might be a good place to start. Specifically, it doesn’t exactly strengthen the UN’s powers when the so-called “last remaining superpower” ignores one country’s, (Israel), very real violation of resolutions, while premising the invasion of another country, (Iraq, and quite possibly Iran), with fabricated and false allegations of violations.
    You can rebut with any of your screen names Larry. Its all right, we’re used to it.

    Reply

  37. Carroll says:

    The Israeli factor is as important, if not the more important factor in US ME foreign policy.
    We all understand that we are fighting two enemies here where it concerns America and by America I mean the interest of the American people.
    One is the ideology and or economic interest of the US special interest/globalist/empire builders.
    The other is the Israeli influence within the US government that is centered strictly on what the US can do for Israel, despite the damage it causes to the US.
    Both these forces join up and piggyback each other on many issues and promote the others agenda where there is something in it for them both.
    Getting rid of the US neo factor without getting rid of the Israeli factor won’ t do the job….it still leaves the Israelis a myriad of ways to draw the US into their wars thru their control over congress.
    The first group has little in the way of slurs to try and quiet our objections to their agendas, the Israelis have only the anti-semite slur to use..both know they can’t really face daylight on the facts.
    I agree most with something Scott Ritter wrote:
    “However, as an American who served on active duty in time of war as an officer of Marines, I also remember the oath I took to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” As such, I am troubled by the recent actions of Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress who have not only abrogated their collective responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution but have taken actions which, under normal circumstances and involving any other nation, would border on treasonous. Our collective duty as Americans must center on defending the very document, the Constitution, which defines who we are and what we are as a people and a nation. To have our elected representatives flagrantly push aside their constitutional responsibilities in the name of the security interests of another nation is unthinkable. And yet it has just happened, apparently without consequence.
    Sadly, the new Democratic Congress has cemented its status as yet another iteration of a system which long ago sold its soul to special interests. Democrats can cackle about Republican scandals, including the Jack Abramoff affair, which brought down Rep. Tom DeLay among others. But history will show that the Pelosi-led sellout to Israeli special interests endangered the viability and security of America as a sovereign state governed by the rule of law more than Jack Abramoff ever could.
    In this time of constitutional crisis, the American people need to wake up and demand that the basic tenets of the Constitution be adhered to. Congress is solely empowered by the Constitution to declare war. Demanding that the president of the United States adhere to this prerequisite is a logical and patriotic stance. Allowing any non-American interest, even one possessing such highly charged political and emotional sensitivities as Israel, to dictate otherwise represents nothing more than a capitulation of sovereignty. We the people need to rally around this defense of sovereignty. We must demand not only that Congress reassert its constitutional responsibilities and authority by demanding the president obey the letter of the law when it comes to war, whether against Iran or any other nation, but also to place in check the anti-American activities of one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, D.C., the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
    To state that AIPAC, and by extension Israel, is above the law in this regard is to acknowledge the reality that American national sovereignty no longer matters when it comes to the state of Israel. So be it. But then we are, collectively, no better than those nations I mocked prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as “colonies” of the United States. So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to operate as an undeclared agent of a foreign nation, and to influence American foreign and national security policymaking at the expense of our Constitution, then we should acknowledge our true status as nothing more than a colony of Israel, pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation’s capitol. While representing the final act of submission, it would also be the first truly honest act that occurred in Washington, D.C., in many years. ”
    >>>>>>>>>>
    And it is a fact that some Jews see what is happening very clearly, more clearly even, because they are part of the Jewish community. Phillip Weiss has tirelessly addressed the dual loyalty among some Jews time and again as an aberration of the unassimilated right wing Jewish sect. He quotes from Glenn Greenwald’s new book on the Israeli question:
    “Greenwald is a leftlib blogger/lawyer and has a mind like a steel trap: fiercely logical. I just glanced at the book; but I’m pleased to read his discussion of the neocons’ agenda, for he frankly states what I also have: Israel is central to the neocons’ thinking and their push for war conflated American and Israeli interests:
    There may (or may not) be a compelling argument to make that the U.S. should view terrorist attacks on Israel as attacks on the U.S. There may (or may not) be a compelling argument to make that because Israel is an ally of the United States, America should be willing to wage war against countries that sponsor terrorist attacks on Israel…If there are valid arguments for deeming Israel’s enemies to be enemies of the U.S., then they should be made explicitly and clearly..
    From its inception, the campaign to depict and treat Iran as pure, unadulterated Evil has been driven by this manipulative and dishonest attempt to conflate Iran’s posture toward Israel with its posture toward the U.S. Whether the president himself was a victim of that manipulation or a knowing propagator of it is something one can debate, and the truth likely lies somewhere in between. But what is beyond dispute is the centrality of Israel and its right-wing American supporters in shaping the president’s moralistic and absolutist view of Iran..
    [I]f Americans are being induced to support wars not in American interest but in Israel’s, and if American lives and treasure are being squandered in wars justified by false premises, by a hidden agenda, they will realize that at some point…When the realization begins to dawn that at least one substantial factor as to why America waged Middle Eastern war(s) is because influential individuals with an overarching devotion to Israel pushed for war against Israel’s enemies, then an anti-Israeli backlash is highly likely to occur. And the backlash is likely to be far more severe and hostile than anything that would ever happen naturally, meaning in the absence of such manipulation…”
    >>>>>>>>>
    I think almost everyone who has paid attention for the past six years understands the Israeli factor as well they understand the US neo/empire factor.
    The crux of the matter though is that we have to get rid of both of these factors, the US and Israeli neos, if we want America to survive. A simple election change in US administrations won’t remove the Israeli influence, it exerts control in both political parties and camps. They have to be taken on both together and seperately. We have no trouble taking on our own US neos and more people now have less trouble taking the Israeli-Jewish camp head on.
    But congress hasn’t gotten the message or has chosen to ignore it. That is why it is going to take a lot more no holds barred hell raising to get rid of the Israeli influence than to get a change in administrations….because the next adm’s policy will be just like the last until that Israeli hold on congress is broken. I doubt this will happen before we get dragged into conflict with Iran but we can try.
    Scott Ritter’s arguement when it comes to Israel and their lobby has always been the right one …does America control it’s own foreign policy for the good of Americans or has our government given over control of all Americans interest to a foreign group and a foreign country? It’s just that simple.

    Reply

  38. larry birnbaum says:

    Again, Steve, the best is the enemy of the good. On top of which, to state the obvious, Senator Schumer’s assessment of our problems and how to address them may be similar to yours in certain respects, and differ in others. Which is to say, your implication that by his own rights he’s acting hypocritically (“amnesia” was your term) is totally without foundation.
    By the way, I’d be interested in a long-term discussion of how to make international institutions in general, and the UN in particular, stronger, more transparent, and more honest forces in the world. Bolton struck me as the wrong medicine — and to be sure I don’t think this was actually an honest priority of his or the administration’s — but the question of how to do this remains on the table.

    Reply

  39. Carroll says:

    It’s the same thing.
    The Neo-Conservative movement and ideology is immoral.
    The crimes committed in its name are no different than the crimes of the Nazis…..or the KKK…..or other similar groups.
    Posted by Sandy at July 7, 2007 12:40 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes, you are absolutely right, it is the same thing.
    The same “mentality” as Hitler’s effects both the US and Israel. Hitler was able to use Germany’s economic distress after WWI on the German public as the springboard for his master plans, the US has used the “security” mantra on the public for theirs. The Israeli’s use the holocuast on their public to actually commit their own holocaust. In reality there is no difference between the “Master Race” and the “Chosen People” when it comes to Germany’s Motherland expansion and Israel’s Greater Israel expansion. No difference in the USA’s idea of itself as the superior way for the world. The acts in all these examples justified by “exceptionalism”.
    I did a paper in college on the Moral Implications of the Nuremberg Trials..mainly centering on the German society during Hitler and whether Nuremberg was really enough of a moral lesson to prevent similar events in the future. That was 20 years ago and my conclusions today wouldn’t be much different…almost any population or society no matter how educated can be lulled into or propagandized into hidious extremes at any time.

    Reply

  40. Arun says:

    For once, I’m surprised! I came to The Washington Note, expecting to see a paean to Colin Powell and to bipartisanship and to serious foreign policy thinkers, and to the courageous opposition to President Bush after (as I saw on thinkprogress) this statement:
    “‘I tried to avoid this war.’
    Former Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed that he spent 2.5 hours “vainly trying to persuade President George W. Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by U.S. forces. ‘I tried to avoid this war,’ Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. ‘I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.’” In terms of the current situation in Iraq, Powell said: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.”

    Reply

  41. CT says:

    I am sick and tired of “pro-Israel this”, “pro-Israel that” everytime the 2008 candidates talk about the Middle East. America’s interests are not the same Israel’s, and we are hated everywhere because we stick our nose in everyone’s civil war but mostly the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This is only making us more vulnerable to terrorism. We now have more than 3000 dead troops in Iraq,all for the sake of protecting Israel, which doesn’t even need the protection. When is some politician going to stand up and say this is nuts,we need to do what’s right for AMERICA, not Israel. Obama tried but he chickened out.

    Reply

  42. Sandy says:

    If any of you can read this — written in 2002 — and then come back here and argue that Schumer, Emmanuel and the rest aren’t every bit as much beholden to Israel as are Bush and Cheney themselves….I’ll be interested to hear it:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html
    We have LOTS of evidence on which to impeach.
    Before they nuke Iran.

    Reply

  43. hazmaq says:

    Luckily Howard Dean bows to no one. And he and Carter have been very close.
    That’s why Schumer and Emmanuel’s first move after the November win was to try and dis-credit the Governor.
    The poor Congressional ratings track true to my own lack of respect for the Schumer and Reid controlled Senate, primarily.
    But the removal of the troop provision in the House was absolute proof of who their masters are.
    Keep in mind the #1 thorn to Congressional Democratic progress is Joe Lieberman. And our two
    Senate Democratic ‘leaders’ were entirely responsible for bringing back their comrade.
    When Donald Trump used Schumer, a key United States Senator, as one of his prizes on The Aprentice I knew the Senate Democrats were in big trouble.
    I’m so disgusted with my own party’s lies and pandering, we all should pray for an Al Gore win– just to get Congress out of the gutter.

    Reply

  44. Shawn says:

    Historical amnesia is a great way to put it. Both the Republicans and Democrats remember only what they want to when arguing their point.

    Reply

  45. Hedley Lamarr says:

    Did Nick Burns say nothing for the record?

    Reply

  46. margaret says:

    As much sympathy I have for people who suffered in Germany and Eastern Europe at the hands of the Nazis, I fail to understand why Israel uses this as blackmail, in essence against anyone who questions their political policies. The financial contributions made to every member of Congress is proof of that blackmail, and everyone in the world ends up paying for it with violence, the unresolved problems of the Palestinians, and the economic impact of paying for wars that could have been avoided through genuine diplomacy. I will not ever forgive the Israeli’s for what they did last summer in Lebanon. And, what they continue to do to the Palestinians.

    Reply

  47. Sandy says:

    “I have never understood why Jewish Americans don’t see that ultra conservatives in office in Israel are as harmful to Isrelis as they are here at home….” Kathleen
    “Schumer is already on my hit list fo other assorted crapola like this, reason numuber 435 why I am not voting for the dems….”
    Carroll
    You both express my own feelings exactly!
    As an aside, my husband and I watched our Netflix DVD last night, Judgment at Nuremberg….which neither of us had seen before.
    I went to bed thinking it ought to be watched by everyone these days. It may be an old movie, but Maximillian Schell and Spencer Tracy were great.
    And, as I drifted off to sleep, I thought:
    I just fail to understand — looking at the Neo-cons in power and all their rhetoric and vicious plans for WAR, WAR…and MORE WAR….against anyone and everyone…it seems like — how could anyone with any knowledge of (much less personal experience of) what took place back then….
    make no connection that they themselves are duplicating now….exactly what was done to all those people …back then?
    People who cry out to be heard and understood…..as “a people”….surely must see….surely….that human beings…..are simply human beings before anything else — country, race, religion, language, ideals, beliefs.
    How is it any different, for example, to knowingly support Palestinian genocide — or bomb innocent civilians…anywhere….or throw them into prisons….forever….with no rights — how is that any different than what happened to the Jews and others by the Nazis? I fail to see it.
    It’s the same thing.
    The Neo-Conservative movement and ideology is immoral.
    The crimes committed in its name are no different than the crimes of the Nazis…..or the KKK…..or other similar groups.
    The Chuckie Schumers seem to think we “little people” don’t pay any attention to their allegiances….and their actions. That we are too dumb…or uninformed….to make connections.
    They are dead wrong.

    Reply

  48. Kathleen says:

    I have never understood why Jewish Americans don’t see that ultra conservatives in office in Israel are as harmful to Isrelis as they are here at home. When Carter and Clinton were President, they both actively worked to bring about peace and fairness and fewer people were killed on both sides.
    NeoNutzis don’t care how many people get killed and maimed, so long as they stay in power.
    Schumer let his Jewishness get “played” by Dopey and Darth who purposely tried to get another vote on Bolton during the Isreal-Lebanon conflict last summer to put Liberals in a spot.
    Is it me or does anyone else think elected representatives should be better informed than the average citizen and on top of the details and smart enough to keep from getting played?
    Carroll, I’ll bring my own tar and feathers. I might need some extra.

    Reply

  49. Carroll says:

    Schumer is already on my hit list fo other assorted crapola like this, reason numuber 435 why I am not voting for the dems. I think I will call his office Monday and ask for his comment on this:
    Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:
    “Democrats Asked to Strip Carter of His Position”
    “Six former U.S. ambassadors, all Republicans, urged the Democratic Party to strip former President Jimmy Carter of an honorary position.
    The letter mailed Wednesday to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean calls for Carter’s removal from his position as honorary chairman of Democrats Abroad, because of statements Carter made about Hamas.
    The letter, sent under the auspices of the Republican Jewish Coalition, refers to a June 19 speech by Carter in Ireland. In the speech, the ex-president “castigated our government and the governments of Israel and the European Union for withholding direct aid to Hamas leaders in the Palestinian Authority,” according to the letter.
    Carter told the audience that the isolation of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority was “criminal,” despite the fact that Hamas was designated as a terrorist organization during the Clinton administration and it is illegal for the United States to give it assistance.
    In response to the ambassadors’ letter, the DNC pointed to a statement by Dean last year in which he distanced himself from Carter.
    Responses to Carter’s talk from members of the diplomatic corps with differing opinions are sure to come next. As JVP’s Mitchell Plitnick wrote in the JVP newsletter several months ago about his experiences speaking with Samuel Lewis, the US ambassador to Israel from ‘77-’85:
    Perhaps most striking was that Ambassador Lewis felt strongly that the US and Israel needed to speak with the existing Palestinian government, even though it is led by Hamas.He rightly pointed out that many terrorist and violent groups have graduated into political leadership, and that the only way to move forward was to speak with duly elected Palestinian representatives.
    These are actually very common ideas, very much in the mainstream, though you’d never know it from our media or from Congress.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am very tired of the jewish israeli attack on Carter, who is an honorable man, a true American and rare man in these times who is not afraid to put himself in the line of fire by telling the truth and certainly no anti-semite. I suggest we declare war on the Israelis in the US and most of all on the ones in congress.
    Sign up here ———> ………….
    I will provide the tar, feathers and rope.

    Reply

  50. liz says:

    off topic, sorry. I hope Senator Schumer obtained complete resolution from his Lyme Disease. That would be the same Lyme Disease that other American citizens are not allowed to be treated for.
    Again, off topic.
    But the point of the topic was?????????????

    Reply

  51. saifedean says:

    When Schumer was asked by a journalist whether the hissy-fits he threw at the Dubai Ports deal were too racist and anti-Arab, he replied saying it wasn’t racist, because “if skinheads wanted to buy these ports, we would also have stood up to them.” So Arabs, all and any Arabs, are equivalent to neo-Nazis in this genius’ dictionary.
    This is a man who has no problems with Israel blowing up Palestinian children to bits, but then turns into the biggest hippie when it comes to Iraq so he can score cheap anti-war points.

    Reply

Add your comment

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