Adult sons are independant. They express their own views.

It irks me horribly when you alternate between political ideology (specific neo-conservative theses) and "Jews" as the reference of "dual loyalty".

There is a BIG conflict between the description of neo-conservatism as applied in the middle east as an advocacy of universal commercialism and neo-conservatism as applied in a more racialist or single entity reference as protection of Israel.

My understanding of the neo-conservative thesis is that protecting Israel is a means to stage and support the universal commercialist approach, and NOT the exagerated fetish of cause.

Walt/Mearsheimer's and your "realism" is sadly unrealistic, confusing both "cause" and correlation and "cause" and context.

The most plausible of Rosner's comments:

"Here are my ten cents: Klein 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."

To paraphrase, "SHUT UP" if you are Jewish and neo-conservative. Isn't that a racially based effort at censorship, worth avoiding constructing?

I'm Jewish but NOT neo-conservative. Nevertheless, I resent the racial screen, as Rosner articulated (who is Jewish and I think neo-conservative).

Liberals and neo-conservatives rationally share a few sensitivities, even while we differ on more.

No, it is you that is forcing the false choice.

He is not saying all jews are bias or disloyal. He is only saying THESE jews are.

And then this is backed up with lots of documentation, the paper trail for which is a mile long.

The dual loyalty charge assumes that people that consider strong Israel and peace in the Mideast good for America are automatically loyal to Israel more than to the US. This is wrong. In promoting the war as a means to pursue American interests in the Mideast the neocons (and others) were surely misguided (we can now say this having the advantage of the hindsight) but they by and large did not do so to hurt America's interest or safeguard Israel at expense of America. I stress the advantage of the hindsight: it is impossible to separate our view of the war from seeing what it turned into. While Phil had a very good post about the fact that war was unjustified even if it did not go as bad as it did, this does not change the fact that before the war many people – not only neocons – thought the war a good idea for American interests. Cynical, but true: America is not some virtuous force that starts only justified wars and supports only benign regimes. See this Joseph Massad's opinion.
That the war did go bad, of course, changes everything. People need a scapegoat and lo and behold: it was only the Jews who pushed for war; those gentiles who pushed for war were all misled by the Jews etc.

The Israel Lobby has a whole history before 1947, and it is to a large extent in E. Europe, somewhat in Germany and for the most part in the UK.

I discuss the development of the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland and its associated imperial system from link to members.aol.com
onward in my document on The Israel Lobby and American Society.

I know it still rough, but I can make a good argument that Massad's position is far too limited and that he needs to learn far more about modern European Jewish history, culture, sociology and politics.

I'm glad to see that mainstreamers are starting to distinguish between Jewish Neocons and Christian Zionist Neocons, which goes to motive. Jewish Neocons are motivated by personal support for Jewish nationalism, whereas Christian Zionist Neocons are motivated by dispensationalist eschatology. Economic Neocons are motivated by empire, greed and shock doctrine. How to distinguish, and get to who is motivated by what and why? The more descriptors, the better.

Witty doesn’t want the distinction made, and plays the race/anti-semite card: "SHUT UP" if you are Jewish and neo-conservative. Isn't that a racially based effort at censorship, worth avoiding constructing?’

What do Jewish Zionists like Witty have to gain by suppressing descriptive information? It allows them to obscure the real motives for the Iraq war, for example, and maintain plausible “American interest” rationales. A Jewish Neocon is clearly more likely to be motivated by a Jewish nationalist agenda, and pursuing a foreign nationalist agenda from within (and sometimes even without) government means treason, whereas as an eschatology motivation is religious, and an economic motivation can be plausibly argued as an American interest.

In short, Witty wants Jewish nationalists in government to be able to continue to pursue Jewish nationalist (Israeli) interests at the expense of American interests and lives without being singled out and investigated for treason.

No, it wasn't only Jews who pushed for war, but it was only Jewish nationalists inside government who pushed for war on behalf of the Jewish nationalist (Israeli) agenda.

"Prove it," might come the response. That's what criminal investigations are for. No wonder so many Jewish Zionists in Congress (and non-Jewish politicians who have taken Israel lobby money) aren't interested in thoroughly investigating the Bush administration and its push for war. They know exactly where any investigation will lead: right to their front doors.

This is a situation where both the FBI and the CIA are required to step in and start investigations of their own whether the executive and legislative branches want them to or not. This is exactly why the Founders set up a divided government: for purposes of accountability in cases of public corruption and treason.

It most certainly can. Start here:

"The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere. The objective was to change the face of the Middle East." — Israeli Meyrav Wurmser, wife of Dick Cheney's Middle East advisor David Wurmser, on how the neocons sold America's corrupt and gullible leaders on the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The Wurmsers, along with other Jewish nationalist Bush administration figures such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith , wrote a report titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. Many of the report's recommendations, including the removal of Saddam Hussein, were later pursued by Bush/Cheney.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Feith worked with Jewish Zionist Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans assembling specious "evidence" against Iraq relating to WMD and ties to 9/11 that turned out to be baseless.