It's time to start calling these Jewish Zionists on their racism. If McPeak is an anti-Semite for saying the following way back in 2003 — "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote — vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it" — then certainly those who tenaciously support Israel — an institutionally racist apartheid state that discriminates, by law, against those of non-Jewish blood — are racists bent on resurrecting Jim Crow laws in America.

It's time to take the gloves off. Supporters of Israel are clearly the worst kind of bigots: advocates of institutional racism. Obama needs to fight fire with fire and call these agents of Israel on their racist fanaticism.

The smart ass answer is that we will have won the right to not pay ~6 billion in aid each year to Israel and Egypt, AND we will also be able to get out of Iraq, as the neocon interest in Iraq will probably subside if Israel no long exists.

But, the reality is Israel will be just fine, despite your parinoid rantings.

And that is OK, although I would still like to stop paying aid to them and get the troops out of Iraq. Is that too much to ask for?

Hold on Phil, I don't think "All of us Know…".
Just what facts back up your proposition?
What your comment amounts to is a pious wish.
(If Obama retains McPeak, that would be a bit of evidence)

We need some basis for rolling the dice..
Consider,if he gets elected he could "realistically" say he has to continue the essential zionist line,because he has to work with an AIPAC conrolled congress.

Of course Phil's intent: to elect a president who will seek a"realistic" and moral Mideast Policy is noble.
Its just that his failure to demand of Obama some proof that he will indeed live up to expectations, provides a cover for Obama's opportunism…
Lets see if Obama proves my scepticism unfounded.

Making essentially the same point, Glenn Greenwald argues in Salon that the range of commentary presented in the Lamestream Media ranges from "liberal hawks" who critique the execution of the Iraq war, to neocon warmongers who whooped it on. But those who correctly opposed the Iraq invasion before it began are excluded from mainstream commentary. (Obama, who made a speech opposing the attack in October 2002, is one of the few exceptions, by virtue of being a candidate.)

One of those prescient war opponents who gets no calls from the media is — surprise, surprise! — one Stephen M. Walt. Greenwald points this out, then quotes an email from Walt:

————

There's an ongoing myth, peddled by the pro-war establishment, that very few people with "serious" foreign policy credentials unequivocally opposed the invasion of Iraq. That just isn't true. Here, for instance, is an anti-war ad signed (and paid for) by 33 scholars of international security affairs — from among the nation's most prestigious academic institutions — which they published in The New York Times in September, 2002, presciently setting forth the case against the invasion.

Review the names of the anti-war signatories and one finds that they are virtually never heard from in the establishment press, even now. As one of the prime movers of that ad, signatory Stephen Walt of the Harvard School of Government (who, as indicated, made pre-invasion, anti-war arguments with pinpoint accuracy in numerous other venues as well), wrote to me via email today:

Apart from a series of articles that the Harvard Crimson did last week (focusing on Harvard faculty views then and now), I haven't been asked for my views on Iraq by mainstream media in months, if not years. What's more remarkable is that most of the other academics who opposed the war are also largely ignored. As far as I know, none of the signatories of our original NYT ad were asked to provide prominent commentary on the 5 year anniversary, and certainly not in prominent places like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Indeed, I believe that virtually everyone in the media has simply forgotten that there were prominent, mainstream voices who opposed the war on straightforward strategic grounds, and were proven correct. Future historians will have a field day discussing how the United States continued to listen to those who were proven wrong over and over and over, while ignoring those who were (regrettably) proven right.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/25/war_opponents/index.html

————

I can only tell Stephen Walt the same thing I tell our host Philip Weiss: the Revolution will not be televised, nor will it be covered by the Slimes or the WaPo. These are the same stinky fishwrappers that told us the Surge was working. Now we learn this morning that insurgents are rocketing the heavily-fortified Green Zone and injuring — oh, my! — AMERICANS.

This useless war, and the influence of the greasy Israel Lobby peddlers who sold it, will eventually end. So will the dying dinosaurs of the Lamestream Media which serve as their stenographers and mouthpieces.

There will be no revolutionary shifts, absolutely no doubt. But what does the anti-Obama camp fear? Or why do 70% in Israel prefer McCain/Clinton? [a question that triggers statements by Benny Morris about Israeli media at the moment.]

******************************************

Phil Pearlman/the Sword of Gideon: Could you tell us what the exact connection is between the Islamofascist threat and US activities in the cold war or after the breaking up of the communist block suggested above?

Are you aware that both Osama bin Laden and Iran are not really interested in Israel but intend to take over Europe respectively nuke it?

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.1992348697

Rome, 20 March(AKI) – Muslim immigrants are a serious threat to peace and democracy in Europe, according to the Israeli Ambassador to the Vatican Oded Ben-Hur.

…

He referred to leaflets that he claims to have in the Israeli embassy, that are linked to a programme by Osama bin Laden "to re-conquer Europe."

…

Regarding Iran's nuclear programme, he did not believe a nuclear attack on Israel would take place.

"Ahmadinejad is building his atomic capacity not to destroy Israel," said the ambassador.

Instead, Ben-Hur focused the debate on Iran's alleged nuclear missiles and its range, which he said could reach Europe.