Neocons Gone Wild

why was I advised not to carry a passport without Israeli stamps in it when I applied for my Iraqi visa?

We regret that you have divulged this information to the public. This may require action on our part.

The surge is working! The Eastasians are on the run! Chocolate rations have been increased to 24 grams per month! Victory, glorious victory!

Joe, I think it's important to stress that the pro-Israeli sentiment you describe is more or less limited to the US. Note that Olmert's invasion of Lebanon rapidly lost favor among Israelis. The folks you're describing are more Catholic than the Pope, further right than Likud.

Also, God forbid you take on an assault from the far right without saying something bad about Democrats.

"A long-term troop presence designed to reassure Iraqis of our commitment to their security against an array of enemies?" After six years of death and destruction, Iraqis have reason to cite a well-known and much-lamented opossum: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

The Neocons would have us tied down, with a requirement to pick sides in internal Iraqi strife, to the end that every action would stimulate as much animosity as indigenous support. If there is to be peace, hence no casualties as in McCain's refinement of his American Century for Iraq, there will be nothing requiring reassurance – save, perhaps, petro-hegemony.

Madness.

I agree that there is less violence now than before the surge, but, as you note yourself, the combatents are choosing not to engage our forces.

This is actually very typical of ANY guerilla war (read new euphemism 'asymetric'). If McCain gets elected, which is now becoming a more and more remote possibility, then look for things to change abruptly.

Your metaphor in your previous surge commentary is very apt.

"It was the lonely hour of fifteen . . .

"Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you, and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree."

- George Orwell, "1984"

There's something terribly depressing about being scorned by people who have used you, isn't there?

"It was the lonely hour of fifteen . . .

"Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you, and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree."

- George Orwell, "1984"

There's something terribly depressing about being scorned by people who have used you, isn't there?

Sorry for the double post.

2 Points,

1-I thought that refering to you as anti-semetic was rather high comedy. But it is an interesting demonstration of the debate-short circuit that gets routinely applied whenever anyone tries to rationally discuss our Mideast policy.

2-I agree that Obama as President is unlikely to preside over the sort of troop withdrawal his more starry-eyed fans anticipate.

In other news today, Neoconservatives are being considered by the Department of the Interior for placement on the Endangered Species list...

Comments and reviews in various scientific circles have revealed that they are considering placing CITES restrictions on the import and export of necons. Most objections have been related to the fact that they are difficult to keep healthy in an environment where there is fresh air, water, and good will.

The Department of Justice, having reviewed the DOE implementation has stated that an EIS will have to be filed before creating ANY preserves, parks or zoos to house them...

"Then, what can one say about Jennifer Rubin, who accuses me of antisemitism?"

Say nothing, accept it the way a duck accepts water rolling off its back. Any criticism of Israel, no matter how light, brings charges of anti-Semitism, it's one of the ways in which dissent on Israel is squelched.

When will you, or any of your colleagues, start discussing the likely consequences to the American people of an attack on Iran? The UN says the ME would become a fireball. Do you agree? Or do you think it'll just be business as usual and just some more cool graphics on CNN?

FYI, the CNN poll of polls has put Obama eight points ahead of McCain, and there are noises about even greater disparities.

I honestly think that 29 years of Republican poltical history is about to come to an end.

And it's epitaph?

The smoke rising from the ERM building, June 19, 1995...

Mr. Klein only tends to take comments seriously if they come from the right wing. In his below thread, I listed 32 different metrics for "success" in Iraq; all of which were designed to engage Mr. Klein on actual substantive issues. And yet, we hear nothing at all about any of my comments, but more neocon nonsense... Will Mr. Klein ever engage his readers and commenters here at Swampland?

Regarding McCain's 100-year military commitment, the U.S. has frequently been able to withdraw from other countries within that timeframe: (1) the Philippines lasted from 1898-1946; (2) American participation in the Chinese "concessions" lasted less than a a century; (3) Panama lasted almost precisely 100 years, but the negotiations to do that to do that occurred about 80 years in); (4) Mexico - there have been several incursions and 1 major war; troops have always been withdrawn; (5) Haiti - in and out several times; (6) Dominican Republic - in and out once; (7) Nicaragua - it kind of depends on how you count; but troops withdrawn; (8) Russia after WWI - in and out; (9) Morocco - in and out (Pedicaris alive or Rishooli dead!); (10) Algeria, Tunis, France and I could go on.

McCain's 100-year rhetoric is ahistorical. The U.S., in fact, has ended wars and withdrawn troops many many times. Korea is not the only model.

And of course, we should not launch yet another unprovoked military strike against a country that poses no existential threat. Deterrence, coupled with diplomacy, worked in the Cold War. Yet again, there is a different model to work from than warmongering...

If Mr. Klein persist in solely engaging the right wing, my days here are numbered...

patroclus:

You have a VERY good point!

Do you remember when India and Pakistan squared off over Kashmir about five years ago.

BOTH tested nukes within weeks of each other, and they are STILL at peace. At least, a peace enforced by the insanity of the alternatives...

Far down the comment thread on Joe's last post, several conservatives wrote in to call Joe an anti-semite.

It's bizarre how much these folks want their Apocalypse.

The Apocolypse is the only thing that will save their party, and even that might NOT be enough...

Hmmm...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGIyZmYxN2UzNzFhODJiOWVkY2JhNzYxNGI1ZTQ4YmM=

When I saw this post earlier today, I distinctly noted that it refered to you as anti-semetic. It appears that the folks at NRO share your willingness to alter posts after they're up, rather than note corrections.

Don't worry, patroclus: McCain doesn't believe Iraq is like Korea either!

In 2005, McCain decided Iraqis resent our military presence, so we should reject a Korea-like model for long-term troop deployment. He insisted that "U.S. 'visibility' was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America's presence — positions held by both Obama and Clinton."

In 2006, McCain reversed course, and embraced the Korea model for a long-term military presence.

In 2007, McCain reversed course again, saying the Korean analogy doesn't work and shouldn't be followed. "[E]ventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws," McCain told Charlie Rose last fall.

And in 2008, McCain reversed course yet again, deciding that we should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq, even if it means 100 years or more.

Foreign policy is easy when you just make it up as you go along!

The tragedy of course is the neo-cons are wrong about what is best for Israel.

AIPAC sadly, is infested with likudniks. Think of how low Joe Lieberman has sunk. He has a basically moderate to liberal voting record except when it comes to bellicosity towards Israel's enemies.

He is willing to join forces with Hagee, even after McCain tosses him to the side. Lieberman, who is a very religious Jew, smiles and hugs fundamentalist christians who want Jews in an undivided Israel, just for the purpose of their death by fire.

That is sick. Genuinely. No hyperbole necessary.

I think Joe is now coming to grips with his party's indulgence in ethnic hatred as a means to a political end.

I was very glad to see him earlier this year finally come out against the railing against Black Americans before even Obama became a household name, and I congratulate him now on this revalation.

He has seen that bigotry (euphemism: "identity politics") can be a double edged sword.

It is too bad that the Republicans had a 30 year run on this before finally being called to account!

Joe,

You need to explain this comment and until you do, I can only consider there is something seriously wrong with you:

"Another bit of "luck" was the ethnic cleansing that took place in Baghdad in 2005-2006 that lessened the potential for internecine violence in many of the neighborhoods."

And by the way Joe, you might want to check to make sure what you perceive as outrage is not in fact ridicual.

I've heard there's a porn movie 'Girls Gone Wild'.

But 'Neocons Gone Wild'??????

Peesolutely, absulartly S * I * C * K!

Gotta hand it to you, Joe -- sometimes I disagree with you pretty vehemently but you are a good enough writer and reporter that, as is the case here, you can make your critics really reveal their own characters.

This is to be expected, but still sad when one of the squealers is Max Boot, whose work I admire.

Come to think of it, I would love for Klein to expound on this.

Boot is proud member (not the worst, but pretty typical) of one of the most thoroughly discredited ideological clubs in American history: neoconservatism. But Boot isn't merely wrong. He doesn't advance thoughtful but incorrect foreign policy ideas. He argues like a cookie-cutter wingnut: strawman arguments, unsupported assertions, and an utter lack of reflection or modesty.

Is it too much to ask these jerks to express the slightest bit of respect for alternative views? After 5 straight years of being wrong, wronger, and even more wrong on Iraq, could they at least disagree without injecting the sniveling, condescending tone of a college freshman trust-fund baby who has just polished off Atlas Shrugged for the first time? Is that too much to ask?

It is tempting to simply assume that when Klein says "whose work I admire" he really means "who I personally like". But I have know idea how well Klein knows Boot.

I know that I don't know Boot whatsoever. He may be a great guy personally, but I could not care less. What I do care about are Boot's ideas. And do you know what? Boot's ideas are terrible.

So, please Joe Klein, if you can tear your attention away from the Commentary blog for a few minutes, could you actually -- seriously! -- explain what Boot has ever produced that was worthy of admiration?

GySgt213 - I'd consider that morbid humor. I hope. Because nothing I've read from Joe ever indicated that he'd consider mass mutual murder to be something good.

Being someone who NEEDS jokes and such to get through bad times, that's how I'd look at it, anyhow.

Here's a bit of humor.

A Republican so desparate he's grabbing Obama's coattails!

http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/24/obama-camp-sets-the-record-straight/

Well I'm sorry Sniper but that is not going to fly. Does Joe think it was a joke that a lot of the Iraqis that were cleansed were working with us, to help us? These people were powerless to defend themselves and it was out fault. Where is the friggin humor in that?

Sniper,

I'm not trying to take this out on you, but Joe is a so called professional journalist. He has as much a duty to be responsible in his comments as do McCain and Obama. Can you seriously imagine what would have happen if one of them said somethig like it was a bit of luck that people were cleaned out so we can achieved our objectives?

Two headlines about the same story.

Times: Audit: Snub for Dems at Justice Dept.
http://www.time.com/time

IG report: Justice Dept. wrongly considered politics in hiring

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/

"You want evidence of divided loyalties?"

Uh oh, the old dual loyalties "smear"...cue Alan Dershowitz in 3...2...1...(personally I think calling it "dual" is being too generous sometimes)

In this day and age if you haven't been called an anti-semite you're doing it wrong.

As I've written here before--to the dismay of many commenters--my guess is, whomever is elected President, we will see a gradual drawdown that brings us to 30,000 troops in 2012, and much lower thereafter, and without long-term bases,which is what Ryan Crocker and many others familiar with Iraq's domestic politics consider realistic.

I agree with this, actually. The 30,000 (to 50,000) part. I think that's the Washington Consensus minimum, and that all the important participants are part of that consensus.

It's BS, of course. There's no reason for such an occupation other than the continuation of a doomed American Hegmony Project. But that is the consensus view.

Or as GG would put it, with, as Dirks calls them, superfluous capitals The View of The Serious People.

I'd actually be a lot more accepting of this policy result if the Serious People were willing to make the case, and the news organs that publish them would print that case, and the case of those opposed.

But they don't do that.

Why not?

I've lived in the northeast my whole life and I can tell you, Neocons are very scarce in the Jewish community. And vastly over-represented in our national discourse.

I'm almost to the end of this great book on the history of the Neocon movement:

http://www.amazon.com/They-Knew-Were-Right-Neocons/dp/B000W93D9O/ref=ed_oe_k

I wish it spent more time on economic policy and Irving Kristol's think tank efforts. But otherwise it's a pretty good history.

I think you have to be mindful of antisemitism, of course, but the Neoconservative movement has been too important not to shine a light on. And I think people in the Jewish community speaking up and giving the real view of the majority (like the J Street project) is very helpful. Otherwise we just hear the echo-chamber lunacy from the Weekly Standard, AIPAC and AEI.

Neocons gone wild--isn't that redundant?

JayAck, the Villagers recognize the American Hegemony Project for what it is, but the need to believe overwhelms reason. I'm pretty sure the average Roman was sure they lived in a Republic long after Caesar was dead. A discussion of the American Hegemony Project might lead to uncomfortable conclusions, like American Hegemony might NOT be the natural state of the world, but rather a finite moment in history. A moment in history that might just be coming to an end, and of course further discussion might lead to revelations about the Villager's own roles in all this. Very uncomfortable...best to keep quiet.

Joe - You've written some extremely strong and clear-headed posts lately, this among them. Thanks for being willing to put your opinions out there along with your reporting.

I appreciated your appearance on AC360 last night as well. Was glad you pointed out, re: Charlie Black's comments, that it's representative of a pattern in the Republican party, along with Rove's comment about the war being good for Bush.

"my guess is, whomever is elected President, we will see a gradual drawdown that brings us to 30,000 troops in 2012, and much lower thereafter, and without long-term bases"

Even with a neocon controlled McCain? We'll need a draft, not a drawdown, to fulfill our role as 'world police'.

I do give you some respect for the cajones it took to write this post, but I'm sure you'll be made to fall back in line promptly.

The Password IS Hitler.

Yes Joe, let's not send Iran and Syria and Hamas the message we mean business, for the long haul, when cutting and hunkering down in Hyannisport makes greater domestic cents, eh?

Being an ingrate retro-McGovernite doesn't necessarily get you a seat at the Obama fundraiser in Hollywood tonight of course ($30,000 a pop), but it sure must beat believing whatever Senator Skippy rips off from Mother Jones as original speech today might matter at Time.

["Hello, I'm Osama Obama, and I approved this gutless unaccountable non-transparent foreign DNC clown financing flip-flop..."]

To be sure, we're re-entering the media Age of Carter's Malaise, and Obama's the new head cheeseleader -- class warfare, anti-military tirades, isolationism, Israel bashing, union hucksterism galore, failed greed, wasted Pell Grants, Universalist Church of What's Happening Now -- but why bother the old white folks with the price of imported fuel in Fresno this coming Christmas?

If we all just get along and elect Obama, he'll know what to do.

Maybe.

Hopefully.

Gradually.

Until Hillary re-runs her spastic spousal unit in 2012.

Not much change there, actually.

= APPEASEMENT ACCOMPLISHED =

Cincinnatus

Yep. The reason this discourse is impermissible is that it the project is unsupportable. But there are too many institutional forces dependent upon the Hegemony Project, from Beltway's think tanks and to the oil companies and the military/industrial/telecom complex, that it simply can't be discussed.

Ron Paul and Mike Gravel tried to. They're loons, so it's understandable that it didn't work. But there are plenty of thoughtful academics who the media could introduce to the conversation, and do not.

Joe,

This is an extraordinarily good post. That's two in a row!

Good post. You put it all very well.

Oh, did Obama mention he was black tonight, again? He seems to want everyone in Jacksonville and Barstow to know that he's pretty black, for some reason.

The murdering mullahs must be laughing in their towels, waiting for this latest self-ingratiating, pinheaded, pandering Carteresque jerk of no balls and less experience to cower in the Chamberlain legacy closet with Hagel and Reid.

Allah help us all, because the selfish and myopic lefty loons sure as hell won't.

"...bellicosity that is out of sync with the beliefs of the vast majority of American Jews..."

Sorry, who died at Denny's and made you Head Rabbi Retreat?

You don't represent anyone but yourself -- and nobody's elected you, Olberamergown, Kos, or Abbie Hoffman's rotting self-loathing carcass to a G-D levitated thing.

If McCain picks Lieberman as VEEP?

It will double the GOP's war chest, and sink Skippy's fast & loose change appeasenik campaign before Labor Dolt Day.

"But there are plenty of thoughtful academics who the media could introduce to the conversation, and do not."

Agreed, but forget academics...George Carlin had more wisdom and foresight than the entirety of the pundit class put together. RIP George...got a bowl packed w/ Toledo Window Box just for you buddy!

BTW, Joe (never to be confused with Kinky Friedman, even in Travis County):

I'm an AIPAC contributor (in more ways than one), and proud of it.

Do some news reporting then, and EXPOSE the PLO punks that post on this board, once and for all -- before the election.

[Hint: See what they're ripping off from the Move On Soccer Mom talking pieces, and Airhead Puffingbone's customized Soros story boards.]

The scum buckets roosting here for Hamas while their neighborhoods reek in filth and bad faith haven't even dented your bent Baltimore mayoral meter, and from what I understand that doesn't even include your scale speaking fees.

= PUBLISHER'S WEAKLY ACCOMPLISHED =

obamish: The Password IS Hitler.

Exactly.

Very interesting post, Joe. Raises many thoughts. I have nothing to add, other than to your comment "I am not ruling out the use of force against Iran--it may come to that--but you folks seem to embrace it gleefully." Just insert Iraq for Iran. It wasn't that it would never happen. It is just the manner and ill timing of how it happened that resulted in disaster. Just a matter of good judgement, competent leadership, deliberation. Drawing on Doris Kerns' "Team of Rivals" the real problem in this administration was not really the neocons, it was complete lack of competent leadership to balance them. The inmates took over the asylum.

Neocon + Blackwater = theme song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=211jT7-fj7E

give 'em hell, Joe!

Would you like, to see Britannia rule again? My friend? All you need to do is...

EricaWA, thanks and no thanks...relevant and great video, but a cruel thing to do to a Pink Floyd addict like me.

For those of you who haven't seen it...this is Ron Paul's take on Neocons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df1soW7Dho

Sorry James, I agree it was cruel thing to do to Pink Floyd fans.

J.J.

On that post OMG...I am just floored.

Now you must be immoral if you're poor? That was definitely a vomit in the mouth moment.

Hmmm...seems to me the #1 reason for bankruptcy in this country is medical bills, not strip club debt.

Not really apropos of anything, but I'm sure Bush will try to take credit for bringing jobs back:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/25/0017213

Yes, those Kristols are interesting people. It's really surprising to me that they don't get called out more.

Here's a great essay on one of Irving and Bill Kristol's philosophical mentors, by the way:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7335

It's extremely important not to let criticism of the Neocons lapse into antisemitism (there are a few parts of that Ron Paul video that made me cringe). I see it as an intellectual movement with strong roots in the ethnicity of its founders. Remember that there are a lot of Israelis who don't like the Neocons. And there are a good many neocons today who aren't Jewish:

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

J.J.

Yes Ron Paul is a little over the top for me, but I have a lot of admiration for his willingness to speak up.

Also, I'm under 40, so while I understand there was a recent atrocity committed against the Jewish people the term antisemitism seems to get thrown at anyone in disagreement with Israel.

I am not at all surprised that there are many Israelis who are not fond of the Neocons...whatever this movement started as, it has spiraled into something a free society should be very afraid of.

For a complete smackdown of Klein's smears, check out Paul Mirengoff at powerlineblog.com. Enjoy ....

Do we all sit back and allow The United States to become a police state...with a media that regurgitates government propaganda.

Do we sit back and allow our sons and daughters to do to the Muslims what was done to the Jews? In order to avoid being called antisemites? I find myself in absolute insanity.

It's extremely important not to let criticism of the Neocons lapse into antisemitism (there are a few parts of that Ron Paul video that made me cringe). I see it as an intellectual movement with strong roots in the ethnicity of its founders.

Loved the part with the Star of David floating over the sinister phrase "WHAT NEOCONS BELIEVE:". Ah Ron Paul supporters, ah humanity.

"intellectual movement with strong roots in the ethnicity of its founders" sounds about right of many of the original neocons, and that is precisely the problem. The more scoundrelly political parties in modern history always made ethnic nationalism their core belief.

The neocons are far more diverse and far-right nowadays, but the pro-Israeli influence towards attacking Iraq and now Iran are undeniable. The "benign domino theory" was and still is sold publicly as "promoting democracy", and when Liberman claims he's campaigning for McCain only because he's nostalgic for the Democratic Party's foreign policy of "the 60's", I kinda wonder if he's referring to LBJ's covert support of the Israelis during the Six-Day War.

Here is a prediction for my self-described LIBTARDS. In less than 2 weeks after the up-coming November election, no matter who is elected Obama or McCain, Israel will bomb the living hell out of Iran.

George Bush will be totally un-able to stop them due to his lower than average popularity ratings that the liberals gleefully run down the road like chicken little proud to proclaim.

Sorry Joe, but your posts will not stave off any Israeli attack on Iran, no matter what babble you write.

And the REALLY scary part if my prediction comes true. A President Obama, totally un-tested, inexperienced, less than one-term Senator who has spent 80% of that time campaigning, will be the one making decisions with world chaos at hand.

No ladies and gentlemen, it will not be "God Damn America", it will be thousands on their knees praying to God Almighty.

This is an astonishing post since you give us some off the record stuff on the internal dynamics of the US Likudniks and their obsessions. Frankly, Joe, there is a much higher level of discourse in Israel on Palestine and ME issues than will ever be possible here. We claim to be a great democracy. But we are often afraid to deal with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians without having any reservations about condemning the awful Palestinian attacks against Israel. The excesses of Isreali settlers and Likudniks gets a very good hearing in Israel. Here????

Rustydog - Why wait until two weeks after the election when Bush could ask Isreal to attack two weeks before? That way the fevered dreams of Charlie Black can be realized and the GOP can scare the bejeesus out of American citizens on election day. I mean, if you are going to engage in fear mongering then why do it half-assed?

Does it not bother you that you are having to resort to such tactics as political terrorism? What happened to the good old days of 'Morning in America'? You guys need to get out of the bunker once in a while.

Joe,
Your response to Boot is nonsensical. When he referred to "precipitous withdrawal", he was talking about Obama's plan to remove all combat brigades in 16 months. The 2007 NIE warned that withdrawing too many troops too quickly would worsen the situation, and full withdrawal of all combat brigades in that short of a time span is precipitous. With 142,000 troops in Iraq, it would take at least a year to handle the logistics of getting all of our personnel and equipment out.

Samantha Power's "best case" statements were repudiated by the Obama campaign. Your opinion that Obama would change his position on withdrawals is a statement of faith, and certainly not based on anything Obama has actually said. But hey, we all know that you're so bedazzled by the guy that you'll just ignore his actual words. His campaign has said nothing about any gradual drawdowns. As it stands, and despite the substantial improvements in the last 15 months, Obama must believe that we've already lost Iraq, going by his "plan".

A pretty good post, on the whole. And come on, people, "luck" in scare quotes was neither serious nor intended to be a knee slapper. It was just snark 101. If kos or GG had said exactly the same thing, it wouldn't have raised a ripple.

I don't get the rationale, though, for a continued presence of some thousands (but not so many as 30) past 2012. Either things have calmed down enough that they're not useful; or Iraqis in general will be irate that we still haven't left, so many more will be required.

And since there are to be "no long term bases", where are these 29,000 American soldiers going to sleep? At youth hostels?

This is exactly the kind of thing Obama is running against:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25349667#25349667

But hey, it's just politics:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

Right?

It's just politics. They can never be "wrong":

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/blood-lamb-ii-im-guy-sourced-it

And when presented with empirical methods showing how wrong they were, they throw billionaires and think tanks at the problem to try to skew the news media so they can avoid having to display any sense of conscience.

You admire Max Boot?

what the hell is wrong with you?

And Rustydog, you need to be treated for your rampant rabies. Sheesh.

Rusty the wonder pooch:

"Here is a prediction for my self-described LIBTARDS..."

Rusty, what will happen to the price of oil?

What about it spiralling out of control? Isteal doesn't have the ability to find and neutralize targets spread over a wide area. PLUS, they have no intelligence on the ground there to help them. RS has limits.

Guess what happens to economies when you wind up paying possibly $15 for a gallon of gas for Israels' follies?

I think rather than running away, they may be chasing YOU down the street with pitchforks, because people like you destoryed our country.

When we lost last time in 2000, we defaced the w's on typewriters - a harmless prank.

Now some Republicans want to do a whole lot worse. They want to destroy the country in a fit of pique, and they can include the rest of the planet, so be it...

Guys check out these great article:

"The Country I Lie To"
Obama LIES on his first general election ad! Also, a short background check on Obama's VP adviser; Eric Holder.

wwww.savagepolitics.com/?p=800

"Tyrants or Children"
Kim Jong Il and his North Korean murderers endorse Barack Obama. Also, a short profile of Cindy McCain and her charity work.

www.savagepolitics.com/?p=805

we defaced the w's on typewriters - a harmless prank.

Oh, no. That was a Rove prank:

http://www.slate.com/id/1006969

And the press went along--a sign of things to come.

TomT:
"..Good post.."
Can we dare ask why it is?
Despite his legion of Kool-Aid groupies, I find it disappointing that the blogging efforts of Joe Klein in MSM consistently score an "F".

JK:
" .. as a Jew, I find it offensive that the American Jewish Committee .."
Why does the reader NEED to know your ethnicity?
Would your opinion be less persuasive if you had written:
"It is offensive that the American Jewish Committee.."?
The reader is aware that you are expressing an opinion - unless you think that you ARE endowed with an overriding authority on the matter at hand.
Even so the reader should be able to discern authority and incisiveness in your (bellicose) works even without prior awareness of your 'qualifications'.
Are we supposed to admit your opinion (or twaddle) without due diligence? [Because we are NOT Jews?]

OR, why not elevate yourself above it all by concisely writing:
"The American Jewish Committee..":

Do you have to include the word "offensive" here? Why not present the (sanitary) reasoning and let the reader take (emotive) offense if so inclined?
Should we care about your offense, ethnicity or proclivities?
[Come to think of it, what are your sentiments on sexism and racism in national discourse and executive decision-making?]

Does it help the discourse if we read the following:
" .. as an Islamist, I find it offensive that the American Jewish Committee.."

Paul Dirks:
"it is an interesting demonstration of the debate-short circuit that gets routinely applied whenever anyone tries to rationally discuss our Mideast policy."
Indeed.

Well maybe there was some de-"W"ing of a couple keyboards. Bush-Quayle bumperstickers were stuck on chairs during the previous administration. But the overblowing of the story was a political stunt.

Go Joe! There is more than one side to the Israeli policy debate. Don't stop now! You and other American Jews who agree with you need to get LOUDER, and not be brow beaten by Likud in America.

Hey Joe, check out Noam Chomsky at Al Jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/06/2008624202053652281.html

Fun reading.

JJ:

An interesting point. I wasn't aware of the possibility it had been played up in the media with the help of the R's, much like the "lawlessness" in the immediate aftermath of Katrina.

MAX BOOT and his neocon gaggle are rather cute in declaring that we should stay in Iraq to protect the Iraqis against an array of enemies. An incredile altruistic motive! Baloney. Anyone who still believes this crock deserves to be lied to. Staying in Iraq is a geo-political land-grab, as simple and crass as that. Just look at the demands of the U.S. in the initial proposal for the Status of Forces agreement.

I find it amusing that the neo cons don't have the cojones to state their real aims, and must always couch and shade their aims in terms that the average American finds palatable and agreeable, and thus supportive.

Max Boot and his neo con allies, can't very well come out and say openly that we need to stay in Iraq forever, so that we can control that country, and the countries around Iraq.

Anti-Semitism is the default position of people who have run out of ideas, Joe. You can't respond to an argument, go ad hominem and nuclear and call the person an anti-Semite.

I teach Jews about Christians. It's my job. I'm a theologian and deeply proud of and fond of my Jewish heritage. I would never call someone an anti-Semite unless I had concrete proof that the person had taken off against Jews. Not Israel. Jews. For instance, Hagee is an anti-Semite because he thinks Jesus will slaughter Jews on a scale unthought of by Hitler when he returns and he will rapture Hagee and his ilk to a Jew-free Heaven. That is an anti-Semite. Someone who criticizes the Likudniks, many of whom Hagee is fostering, is not anti-Semitic. Indeed, such a critic is not anti-Israel, either.

I have pretty much sworn off the neocon discussion because they are so insulting to both Americans and secular Israelis, most of whom just want peace and security rather than ethnic cleansing and who are willing to deal honorably with the Palestinians if they can find someone with whom they can deal.

Anti-Semitism exists, sure, but seeing it under every tree reminds me of Adm. Forrestal who, when he had gone totally mad and before his suicide, saw Communists under the bed and everywhere.

"whomever is elected President" ??? The grammar is wrong but you are not alone: http://tinyurl.com/4lltop

I have to disagree with the posters and with Joe who seem to automatically dismiss a claim of antisemitism. And no your Yiddish grandmother won't help you here.

And thank you for seeing it as important to provide evidence based on conversations with neo-cons that the neo-cons are really obsessed with Israeli and not American safety (I'd like it to be a little more developed. The off-the-record quote involved their discussion of Israel's safety not an ordering of priorities, with Israel above America. That would be better proof.)

But, Joe, that's just not what you originally said! Your original statement expressed explicitly that their Jewishness was evidence enough to convict them of dual loyalty. I'd even allow you to say that's not what you meant, but it *is* what you said! It's really not hard -- apologize or say you mistyped (HCR has done it with worse)!

Again, I don't fall into the category of "a host of conservatives" calling you antisemitic. I happen to think neo-con policy is dumb as nails.

I just think that there's a line, and you crossed it.

Good one Joe. I am glad you stood up and said the accusation of anti-semitism will not work anymore when it comes to Israel's policies.

The whole threat of being labeled anti-semitic is losing all meaning as it's thrown around at even the slightest bit of criticism or pointing out facts that prove Israel to be warmongering,
oppressive, belligerent,land-grabbing, and apartheid. Sorry, I'm not buying. Go ahead, say whatever you want about me, but you can't kill the truth. If the citizens of the United States were allowed to see the facts that MSM continually ignore in the US/Israeli relationship, we would demand transparency with Isarel.

Anti-Semitism is a label used to deflect issues from facts and censor discussion and debate.

People who question Israel's policies don't hate Israeli's because their Jewish, they hate them for kicking the Palestinians off their land, bombing civilians, stealing the very rare potable water, ignoring U.N. resolutions and Geneva conventions, ignoring previous agreements and destroying the Palestinians food supply and economy.

But let's be clear here, "to make the world safe for Israel?". I don't want to make the world safe for Israel, I want to make the world safe for the US. Why does the U.S. willingly set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of Israel which is also now a liability in the war on terror due to US unconditional, unquestioned support of it.

"There is only one country in the world that is putting any pressure on the U.S. to attack Iran, and that is Israel,and it is putting enormous pressure on the US.

Inside the United States, it is pro-Israel individuals and groups who are almost wholly responsible for pressure being brought to bear on Bush and Cheney to use military force on Iran. The idea that the lobby and Israel don't put huge amounts of pressure on the U.S. is contradictory to the evidence.

Why are we still unconditionally, unquestioningly, unendingly still financing Israel ? My tax dollars are still funding the illegal settlements in the West Bank and the apartheid oppression of the Palestinian people. Cutting their aid would make the Israel's do something, finally, after 60 years. I'm sick and tired of my tax money giving every Israel $1500.00 per capita while our own go without.

Why are we still letting AIPAC define Middle East foreign policy ? Iran nuclear transparency, means Israel better be transparent too. It's time for the US to stop the hypocritical, double standard of protecting Israel while demonizing a member of the NNPT and who allows IAEA inspections. Israel does not. The Iran issue is 100% Israeli.

... and for those of you who didn't catch it the first time around:

taking a character inherent to a person's identity (their religion or ethnicity) and using it as an explanatory factor of other attributes (their policy decisions [read: Mr. Klein] or their criminal record [read: Mr. Imus] is antisemitic , and racist respectively, *by definition*!!

Under attack from the neocons, locked out for good from the progressive house:

"Where will you go, what will you do?"

The use of the term "neocon" has evolved into a mere epithet -- usually reserved for Jews with hawkish viewpoints. As such, it as just as vague and equally offensive as the the term "New York/East Coast liberal" was in its heyday, when employed by the far right as a code phrase for Jews on the left.

I oppose any nation attacking Iran, just as I condemned our invasion of Iraq. But those who resort to screaming "neocons!" as a substitute for intelligent and forceful engagement of the issues, themselves, earn no credibility.

I suspect that the great appeal of Barack Obama has been his ability to speak clearly and directly about major political and social issues without resorting to the low road of name calling and exclusionist rhetoric found in so many political posts and on today's op-ed pages.

I wonder though, that the very fact that the term 'neocon' has evolved that way not speak a LOT about how they have conducted themselves.

Like the term 'Swiftboat' and others...

Klein, you are wrong, and in my opinion, maliciously so, in two crucial respects: 1. The possession of nuclear technology by Iran is a threat to every single city and country in the world, for the simple reason that the weapons can be given to terrorists to use as they want. You don’t need missile technology to deliver a nuclear bomb to an American, European, or Israeli city. Moreover, when, thanks to the cowardice of Klein and his fellow travelers, the first such city is vaporized in this way, and the world begins to ponder “Is my city next?” see what happens to the world economy and civic order. 2. Israel is a bastion of freedom, civilization, constitutional order, and democracy in the world — one of the greatest of them all, as only a handful of countries, at most, can compare to its record of political, moral, and economic achievement. (And don’t let me hear anything about the well-deserved crackdown on known Palestinian criminals and terrorists.) In the world of naked barbarism that characterizes much of the Middle East and Asia today (to say nothing of the growing jihadist influence in Western countries), Israel stands virtualy alone. Unlike the rest of the West, it knows the principles for which it stands, and it has vowed to defend itself and its civilization unto death; it is that clearsighted moral valor, and nothing else, that so fills critics like you and the rest of the Lunatic Left with hatred. Let Israel fail, and the rest of the West will crumple like a taco. Go take your America hatred somewhere else.

As such, it as just as vague and equally offensive...

I don't mean to offend anyone's ethnicity. The Neocons are a distinct intellectual movement. With a history. I don't know what else you would call it. I mean, I'm a left-leaning Yankee with a Protestant background (a "WASP"). You could probably trace my history (although in polite company, you shouldn't use the term "WASP."). With the Neocons there are definite shared influences, common experiences and backgrounds. There are ways of talking about these things without denigrating anyone's ethnicity. In some cases, it's too important not to have the conversation.

The possession of nuclear technology by Iran is a threat to every single city and country in the world, for the simple reason that the weapons can be given to terrorists to use as they want.

So why don't Russia's loose nukes get the attention Iran's get--even though Iran's nukes don't even exist?

"... Go take your America hatred somewhere else."

That takes care of THAT, I guess.

I just wonder how Israel, all by itself, has been the finger in the dike holding back ALL this evil?

I mean, they DO have maps, you know.

Of course, at the very least, 'Breaking' Natanz (and, in retaliation, Dimona) will result in two Chernobyl-style disasters.

Isreal doesn't even have the military power to prevent Iran from retaliating. They are strong, but are simply too few. RS has its' limits, and they and we have little intelligence on the ground there to effectively locate what they do have, and where it is.

Israel's disadvantage is they simply don't have enough real estate to just harden military sites and sit. They can't keep incoming missiles at bay, not in the numbers that will be coming, and if we do see Chernobyl-type disasters, things might get out of hand, escalating into an exhange or WMD by the two countries.

Toss on top of all that, gas probably going up to $15 a gallon in the ensuing panic/speculation/greed. On top of that, the impact on not just our damaged economy, but the rest of the worlds' economies might be as severe as the world has ever seen.

I personally don't think it is worth the risk.

Thank you, Joe Klein. This presidential campaign is a kind of Armageddon within the American Jewish community. On the one hand are the humane, liberal Jews, like my NY girlfriend and most of her friends and relatives, who are fervently for Obama, because they sanely understand that he is not just the best hope for America, but for Israel as well, since what Israel really needs is an American president who can be a wise and just honest broker in the Middle East, not a ventriloquist's dummy for the most hawkish and delusional members of the Knesset and AIPAC. The shamelessness of the neocons and the deluded Jews who fund them, and all the candidates for president, in both parties the neocon hawks' supporters have bought since Reagan, is a disgrace. First, these neocons create the greatest debacle in the history of American foreign policy in Iraq, with a proxy war for Israel, with the goal of strengthening Israel in the whole region but the de facto result of strengthening its gravest enemy Iran instead. Now, Bill Kristol blandly announces for the neocons on Fox News Sunday that if Obama is leading in the fall, Bush will have to bomb Iran for Israel before he leaves office. The neocons and the whole rabid Israel Lobby are terrified of Obama because he's literally beyond their financial control. His revolution in campaign financing via the Net has made him independent of the wealthy Jewish donors who have bought every major candidate in both parties since Reagan, because these people were so terrified by Carter and Camp David. They were determined that never again! would any president make policy in the Middle East without being directed by them. And they achieved their goal for the past 28 years, now with disastrous resuls for America and Israel in Iraq and the whole region. If either Israel or its puppet Bush bombs now, in crazed desperation, actually bombs Iran, American gas prices will double or triple overnight, the stock markets of the world will collapse, and we'll have an international depression of historic proportions. There will be no mystery even for the densest Americans as to who created all this economic misery for them. It will clearly have been Israel and its neocon operatives. This will be the greatest possible disaster for US-Israel reltions, and Israel will be threatened with the loss of its only friend in the world because of the unexampled rage of the American masses. Let's hope that somehow the wisest and most humane Jews in America and Israel can prevent this calamity from befalling Israel and America by somehow heading off the neocons at the pass. So far, they've succeeded in imploding Iraq and the Republican Party. Let's not let them implode the American and world economies for dessert.

PS Of COURSE Iran's nuclear program must be stopped. There's no argument about that. The debate is over the MEANS. OF COURSE we have to stop Iran not just from vaporizing Tel Aviv but from vaporizing New York too with terrorist nukes. All that's a given. But Israel won't be doing the world any "heroic" favors if it vaporizes the world economy all by itself by bombing Iran soon and blowing the top off the price of oil. THIS is the part that makes balanced people see the neocons and their ilk in the Knesset as dangerous kooks, NOT the desire which we all support to protect Israel from destruction. The neocons will, of course, argue that it's naive to think there's any way to stop Iran's nukes other than bombing. I leave it to balanced minds in America and the world, Jews and gentiles alike, to decide whether this hysterical neocon claim seems valid. No one is talking about "appeasement" or finding a new way to give Hitler the Sudetenland. That's a red herring. The sane among us are simply determined to find a way to save Israel without destroying the world economy in the process. If either Israel or the neocons believe that the American masses will consider their economy well lost when Israel bombs Iran, there is clearly no reasoning with such people. They are living on such a hapless planet of their own, such a flying island, that they give new, and uniquely ominous, meaning to the term "loose cannon."

One last word on all this. If racism against blacks lingers just below the surface among the tens of millions of Archie Bunkers of America, let's not forget that the Klan was as antisemitic as it was antiblack. Any neocon would truly have to be certifiable to believe that the Archie Bunkers of America would not express the most virulent mass antisemitism voiced in the Western world since Hitler if Israel or Bush actually bombed Iran and thereby gave Archie $15 gas and destroyed Archie's whole economy, throwing him out of work and freezing him all winter because he can't afford heating oil anymore. Hitler was a direct product of the German inflation of 1923. The economic dislocations which would be caused by Israel's bombing Iran would make that inflation look like nothing. America's and Israel's only hope is for a huge movement in America to be started which would dwarf the antiwar movement before the invasion of Iraq. This new movement would basically warn Israel that if it bombs Iran and implodes the world economy, there will be hell to pay in this country in terms of its future support for Israel. Hillary famously said for her neocon supporters that she was willing to use the term "obliterate" in regard to Iran because Iran has to be warned in order to prevent it from doing something suicidal. The only hope for America's economy and the world's, and thus for preventing the greatest international rage at Israel imaginable, starting right here, is for a very vocal movement to warn Israel that it's lifeline to America will be cut if it bombs Iran and ruins the world. This has nothing to do with antisemitism, much less hoping for the destruction of Israel. An informed Israeli told an NPR reporter recently that Israel's leaders are so determined to bomb Iran that they are willing to accept the inevitable retaliation of Iran's non-nuclear missiles, no matter how many Israelis are killed by them, because obviously those casualties would pale in comparison to a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv. That and Israel's recent air maneuvers make it clear to all of us that Israel is truly on the brink of a crazy abyss which it must not be allowed to leap into if we can possibly stop them. Since America is literally Israel's only friend in the world, since Europe is violently anti-Zionist, since there's Africa is anti-Zionist, since Israel has no friends in Asia or South America, and since the whole Muslim world wants Israel dead, the idea that Israel and the neocons would cut their only lifeline by so infuriating the silent majority of Americans that they would come to detest Israel for what it alone had done to these people and their children is simply beyond belief. But apparently they are either so arrogant or crazed by fear that that's the chance these people are willing to take. But there are not enough Congressional or White House voices influenced by AIPAC or enough journalists supported by the neocons--not even Fox--to quell the mass fury of Americans if Israel acts in this suicidal way. All who care about Israel, and all who care about America and the world, including all the millions who would freeze and starve if the price of oil was tripled by Israel, MUST do all we can to call Israel on this insane course before it's too late.

"Neocons GONE Wild"? Doesn't this imply that at one point in time they were sane? Forced (supposedly) to play his Jewish card, Mr. Klein finds it "offensive" that the American Jewish Committee once endorsed the wackos at Commentary. That pales in comparison to the way Time and other mainstream media outlets legitimated the Bush administration and these fools with their "benign domino" theories in the first place.

Why are we talking about the Jewishness of the Neocons right now? Oh that's right, because Mr. Klein brought it up. What rhetorical purpose did that serve again? Oh, that's right, to link them to Israel...

C'mon are you guys serious?

Enough smart commenters have brought up enough problems with Neocon thought above me to stress the fact that talking about them as Jews is inappropriate and unnecessary.

jeanrenoir, incredible fallacy. If Israel bombs Iran in self-defense, it will be Iran, not Israel, that is the cause of any bad repercussions. Iran is not a civilized, law-abiding country; it is an evil aggressor that needs to be stopped. When you kill German soldiers to stop them from invading your country, it is not to your moral blame that they died, it is to Hitler's and the rest of the Nazi leadership. Same with the mullahs.

Joe Klein is astonishing. If it was possible for him, someone who wishes Israel well, to support the invasion of Iraq because he believed it in America's interest, why can't he conceive of the Jews at Commentary as equally patriotic?

And why is desiring the destruction of Iran's nuclear capacity another exercise in manipulating the US for Israel? Why does he not rather suspect the Gulf Arabs who fear a nuclear Iran and very much want the US to scotch Iran's nuclear weapon program?

In fact, the Arabs have ever relied on the US to do their fighting whether in Lebanon in the 1950s or in Kuwait in the 90s. The American fliers, killed and wounded by the hundreds, in the Khobar Towers in 1996, were there protecting Saudi Arabia.

Unlike Bosnians, Kosovars, Koreans, Vietnamese, Panamanians, the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Belgians, etc., Israelis have ever in their many desperate fights over the last 60 years, done their own fighting and dying. It was Israel's destruction of the Osirak reactor that allowed America to assemble an army for the liberation of Kuwait in 1990. American Jews point to that with pride. Yet it is precisely they whom Klein accuses of trying to get America to doing Israel's dirty work.

He says, the Israelis need not fear an Iranian nuclear attack. They would not hazard destroying Jerusalem, which contains hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and is Islam's 3rd holiest shrine.

Iranian and Arab leaders have repeatedly said, they would gladly sacrifice a portion of the Middle East's Muslim population in a nuclear exchange, if it would eliminate Israel once and for all. Furthermore, Jerusalem only became Islam's 3rd holiest shrine when Israel gained possession. Previous to that, under Ottoman and Arab control, the place was a neglected hovel. King Faisal who lamented being unable to pray at the the holy mosques because they were in Israeli territory, forget that he never visited to pray at those Mosques when Arabs controlled the area.

The subject is beslimed with hypocrisy, malice and lies. Now Klein has added to the pile.

I live in Kuwait. I just want to venture a response to the views about Neocons and the Gulf War (1979 to 2008 onwards)and where Israel and Iran might fit into all this.

Financing war has always been the surest way to make a killing. On the advice of Jewish Bankers, King James of England had the Bible mistranslated in 1611 to remove all references to usury, the charging of interest, which was against Mosaic (and latterly Koranic) Law. This was to be able to lend money to France to engage in war with Germany, a war which spread out across most of Europe. That war lasted for 30 years, from 1618 to 1648. England made a huge amount of money as one of the backers of mercenary armies that plundered and looted all before them. A lot of territory changed hands. War is primarily a vehicle to make massive financial gains through what is effectively mortgaging entire countries.

In the same way, Saddam Hussein's war against Iran was supported by a huge amount of Allied lending on the assumption that he would be the victor. The fact that a million Iraqis and a million Iranis were killed in the process gives one an idea of the size of the financial investment by both teams.

During the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam Hussein racked up so much debt that his backers were forced to call in the debt. Iraq had to fund the repayments from oil revenues. At the time, Iraq accused Kuwait and the UAE of overproducing oil to lower the oil price. Iraq alleged that it had suffered a loss of 14 billion US Dollars. In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

It must be realised what amounts of money were involved in financing the Iraq-Iran War. The money used to finance war does not only come from Private Corporations who back Governments in the hope of realising huge profits, but worse, Governments gamble huge sums of Taxpayers Money on a successful outcome.

So yes, America has to stay the course in Iraq. A sizeable investment - hundreds of billions of Dollars - was made in Iraq by a large number of countries (called America's Allies). There has to be a return on that investment.

Iran is in serious financial difficulty. It exports oil and imports the refined Gasoline at a higher price. It seriously needs the Nuclear Power so that it can export more crude. It has also put in a claim for 100 billion Dollars War Reparations from Iraq. Iran has had to be involved in the latest 2003 round of the War so that it can assert its stake in the dividend. The brinkmanship is all about financial bargaining.

Why is America an Ally of Israel? Well, if you don't have a small kid on the block to shout obscenities at the neighbours, who's going to put money on the Game?

If there is any doubt that Iraq was pushed by Zionists (Christian and Jewish) who wanted to get Saddam out of the way all you need do is go to Benjamin Natanyahu's website and read his speech regarding the need for a Pre-emptive strike on Iraq following 9-11.

Remember Saddam was paying 25,000 a head for suicide bombers families at the time. Israel hated him.

Now Israel is making claims Iran is using proxies against Israel, even though Israel sells weapons to The Kurds who are using them against their neighbors the Turks and Iranians. The BBC did a nice expose on Israeli commandos in Iraq training the Kurds. I thought there would be no country that didnt take part in the "Coalition of the Willing" would benefit after/before/during?
What is Israel doing in Iraq? Why are they making hundreds of millions of dollars while American men/women are dying over there?

I came to your Blog via an Israeli newspaper site called Haaretz.

Molding The Middle East to suit Israel.

The Likud Party still plans to annex the whole of Jordan and to incorporate it into a Greater Israel. Here is a quote to that effect from the 16 June 2008 edition of Time magazine in an interview with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni,

"Livni also rejects the Likud Party's vision of an Israel encompassing both banks of the Jordan River?" (p34).

She may say she rejects it but it has been a central feature of the Likud manifesto since even before Menachem Begun was campaigning with it in New York in 1949. Check out the Irgun emblem and you will note the incorporation of Transjordan into Greater Israel.

"...when Liberman claims he's campaigning for McCain only because he's nostalgic for the Democratic Party's foreign policy of "the 60's", I kinda wonder if he's referring to LBJ's covert support of the Israelis during the Six-Day War."

Posted by vicious maniac
----------------------------------------
Maybe I missed something. What was wrong, or deplorable in LBJ's support of an Israel, which

* was facing an openly declared existential threat,

* was confronted by the UN's abandonment of its peacekeeping duties in the Sinai, and

* had an illegal blockade imposed on its lifeline to the east?

If "maniac" would cease being "vicious" for a moment or two, maybe he would consider explaining? I'm "kinda wondering", as well.

time-blogger may find it inconvenient to have facts intrude on his fantasies, but it was the Likud - a political grouping which is not to my taste - but, nonetheless, it was their Governement, which first made peace with its Arab neighbors.

... and jeanrenoir (see above) needs two things:

1. an understanding of paragraph breaks, and

2. a cold shower several times a day.

Oh, what a surprise! Just noticed that jeanrenoir has a best Jewish (girl)friend.

They all do, don't they?

"... and for those of you who didn't catch it the first time around:

taking a character inherent to a person's identity (their religion or ethnicity) and using it as an explanatory factor of other attributes (their policy decisions [read: Mr. Klein] or their criminal record [read: Mr. Imus] is antisemitic , and racist respectively, *by definition*!!"

Posted by Oren
-------------------

BRAVO!!!!

Just a closing thought. To be "fervently" for any politician is a surefire recipe for mindless adoration replacing thoughtful consideration.

It is a definition of mob mentality and bodes ill for political life in your country, as it does anywhere else in similar circumstances.

Beware of the jeanrenoirs and their "fervent" friends! Whether Jewish, or not.

Post closing thought (because I just came upon it) - a quote from Shmuel Rosner in Ha'aretz:

"Klein's comments are really a trap. Saying that Joe Lieberman supported the war in Iraq because of disloyalty to America is basically saying that no Jewish person can ever support a policy that can be perceived as beneficial to Israel.

"If Condoleezza Rice supports the war - that's legitimate. If Paul Wolfowitz supports the war - it's not. They might have the exact same motives, but Klein will differentiate between the two because one is not Jewish and the other is Jewish."

That sums it up and brings to mind the old adage - if it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, then it may well turn out to be a duck.

Quack, quack, quack, Joe?

* was facing an openly declared existential threat,

* had an illegal