On reflection I have to say that while I was cheering him on, Michael Scheuer went a little overboard yesterday in his indictment of the neocons on antiwar.com:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Norman Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson, the Rev. Franklin Graham, Alan Dershowitz, Rudy Giuliani, Douglas Feith, the Rev. Rod Parsley, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, the Rev. John Hagee, and the thousands of wealthy supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) appear to care about the United States only so far as Washington is willing to provide immense, unending funding and the lives of young U.S. service personnel to protect Israel. These individuals and their all-for-Israel journals –Commentary, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal– amount to nothing less than a fifth column intent on involving 300 million Americans in other peoples' religious wars,
That's blanket statement. Richard Witty corrects my post of yesterday, saying that free speech shouldn't mean wild speech. He's got a point. Wild speech isn't helpful, even if it's legal.
But what seems to me essential is for an investigation of these issues by the press and by activist organizations. Witty's exculpatory statements re the neocons are conclusory. So are Scheuer's. I don't know that anyone can be conclusory about the neocons' motivations without the fact. Douglas Feith's entire recent book disavows any neocon Israel-based ideology, when we all know that he has it.
The fascinating thing about Scheuer's comments is that they are edging their way into the mainstream. When a leftish CIA guy (my read on Scheuer) and a rightwing Indiana Republican former congressman and a Jewish columnist for Time and two deans of realism (Walt and Mearsheimer) are all saying the same things about the neocons and Iraq, guys, we've got a party! The point is that, No one cares for Feith's denial any more. The culture is moving past that: toward focusing at last on the Zionist agendas that helped push this war. This represents nothing less than a spiritual crisis for the American Jewish community.
Out of residual tribal chauvinism, I insist that Jews take a leading role in this conversation. It's time for antiwar Jews to stop covering up for Feith and to have an open conversation about the Jewish role in the Iraq war. We know these guys; we grew up with them. Joe Klein refers to all the off-the record conversations he had with Jewish neocons in the runup to the war about their domino theory for the Middle East. Jews got included in those conversations in a way that gentiles did not. Remember the group of Asian-Americans who held a panel in D.C. after that young Asian guy went wild at Va. Tech and killed 30-odd people a year back? It was an honorable but misplaced tribal motion of shame. American Jews owe themselves and the U.S. that and more. Last fall at the behest of Marty Peretz at Yivo, Jewish intellectuals went into fits of denial and name-calling on this very subject. They were feeling "defensive," one of them, Jeffrey Goldberg, later explained. Well the time for defensiveness is over. This issue is in play. Reclaim the tradition of intellectual analysis and moral bravery that once so distinguished my people! Do reporting on the neoconservatives and Zionism. Ask Judy Miller and Scooter Libby if they're Zionists and what that means to them. Ask Rahm Emanuel what his vision of Zionism is, and why he went over to Israel during the Gulf War. Ask Kristol and Kaplan and Friedman and Berman and Feith why they wrote that Saddam's support for Palestinian suicide bombers justified an American invasion of Iraq.
This blog comes out of one conversation I had, with my own dear brother, in 2002. "Philip what do you think of this idea of invading Iraq?" "I'm against it. It's Vietnam all over again." "Well you know I demonstrated against the Vietnam war, but my Jewish newspaper says this war could be good for Israel." I was shocked. And let me add: Not one of my many nephews and nieces went over there to serve. We have to get to the bottom of this. Not wildly, you're right Richard. But openly, honestly.
Scheuer's comments are really no more extreme than the views of Jeff Blankfort,
James Petras, the Christisons, and Stephen
Sniegoski, to name just a few critics of the
Israel-firsters who have little in common
ideologically.
Scheuer has openly talked of his political views. He is a paleocon that has turned sour on the Repub Party. From his writings, he is similiar to Pat Buchanan, minus Buchanan's sympathies for the Old South.
Scheuer, Lt. Col. Andrew Bacevich, General Anthony Zinni, Admiral William Fallon, Buchanan, these men are all at the forefront of the battle versus the neocons. I believe that this is so because they are Catholics who are fighting a counter-revolution against the modern day Jacobins.
These men are conservatives who resist change in American foreign policy and reject the new ideas of American Empire. For they know that this adventurism will destroy our Republic.
Phil, maybe it would be helpful for you to explain what is so "wild" about Scheuer's remarks? Strongly stated, polemical even, I agree, but the word "wild" suggests some sort of imprecision. Where is the imprecision, exactly?
Is it that you don't think zionists constitute a fifth column–"a subpopulation assumed to have loyalties to countries other than the one in which they reside" (wiki)–in the United States today?
I had understood that you thought the issue of "dual loyalty" was at the center of all this.
Or is Scheuer wrong about the them wanting to involve "300 million Americans in other peoples' religious wars"? Should he have specified that it's not the 300 million, per se, but rather all the taxes they pay, that zionists are interested in?
I’m not sure what is “wild” about what Scheuer wrote. To me, it all rang true. The message that I took from the paragraph Weiss cites was that many powerful Jews and many powerful non-Jews, some of which are ostensibly American leaders, have been successfully indoctrinated to put Israel above the interests of their own countrymen, and not surprisingly are thus shipping off Americans to fight and die in wars for Greater Israel.
This goes to my second point. This blog is incredibly commendable, but in many ways Weiss is tilting at windmills because he is fighting 2,000 plus years of Talmudic indoctrination, brainwashing and leadership-induced paranoia. In other words, a huge focal-point of post-Christian Judaism has been to instill fear and loathing of non-Jews in Jews by their fanatically controlling and culturally-transmuted-paranoid (and probably mentally ill) leadership. This mentality has now infected Christian Zionists, non-Jewish Neocons, Neolibs and all the other Israel-firsters now embedded in the Washington and American establishment, as well as millions of Christian Zionists in the heartland.
The new David vs. Goliath is non-Zionists (David) vs. Zionists (Goliath). It’s doable, but its basically going to take non-Zionist Jews getting over their chauvinism and turning their backs on the Talmudic “faith.” And its going to take neo-Christians getting over their own pro-Jewish bias imbibed from the Old Testament, which is not what these Talmudic neo-Jews are about anymore, anyway.
Is waging a war against a malign, warmongering coalition of Christian Zionist and Jewish Zionists racists itself racist? No doubt they would say so. But…
The invasion of Iraq was far more a defense of Saudi Arabia action, than a defense of Israel action.
"The invasion of Iraq was far more a defense of Saudi Arabia action, than a defense of Israel action."
Hehehe :)
RE: "The invasion of Iraq was far more a defense of Saudi Arabia action, than a defense of Israel action."–Richard Witty
How so, MIster Witty?
"…to have an open conversation about the Jewish role in the Iraq war"
Shouldn't this read: Jewish role in the War on Terror.
The BBC is reporting today yet more Afghan civilians being bombed: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7510941.stm
There are far more extreme views being read broadly across the internet, one blogger said today: These [Jewish] supremacist blinders are eventually going to cost World Jewry.
The unfolding story is more and more a case of the dog and the tail.
I like the idea of asking Jewish journalists and politicians what their own personal views about Zionism are. Are they lined up with Norman Podhoretz? or Phil Weiss? Or somewhere in between? I think voters and consumers of news media have a right to know if someone's political or religious views might be influencing what they write, or how they vote. And I think once the discussion on these issues that has been mainly limited to internal within the Jewish community goes broad, then we'll be back to normal in this country.
Doppler
"Reclaim the tradition of intellectual analysis and moral bravery that once so distinguished my people!"
Once in your deams, Phil.
The "wild" in those remarks is the necessary punitive measures that silently comes along with them. But Phil do not believe in paying the price, no, he believes talking a lot about the zionism aspect will be enough to cleanse the perpetrators of a whole war against iraqis and americans. It all must be wattered down into lachrimose holocaust-based excuses. This is no "moral bravery", but another easy escape from responsibility, a far more typical jewish characteristic.
Those people killed and maimed millions. Their acts will propagate in time and more tragedy will come from it. Not only should they be banned from their "prestigious sinecures", but also suffer consequences according to their misdeeds. Let's see if the jewish community has the moral bravery to call a traitor a traitor and a criminal a criminal. Let's see if they are of any use now, because when the war was yet a mere possibility they were comfortable in their silence.
"Americans can take their country back, and third-category Jews like Richard Witty will get to call all this anger "anti-Semitism". After all these years, he'll finally be able to swap persecution stories with his father-in-law."
D.
Ouch! that was cruel. Poor father-in-law is probably already having a hard time explaining Witty how a stay in a concentration camp was a bit more hard to bear than an overnight at a five-star hotel in Cairo.
Chris, religions can be misused, absolutely no doubt about that, but the reason lies in us humans and the will-to-power not in religions per se.
Your statements improve with the distance to your favorite subject.
It fact some wild statements against the Israel lobby are to be welcomed. If the pro-lobby groups can issue wild and full throated calls for their political agenda, with all sorts of inaccuracies, then they will only be stopped by embracing Scheuer and co, rather than insisting on a mess of caveats and small print from those on your side – meaning particularly those that don´t want a war with Iran.
Off Topic: J-Street (the new pro-Israel lobby group) has just issued a poll which is worrisome — not the poll results, which are innocuous if not inane, but the very fact that J-Street even felt the need to commission such a study.
Apparently, Jewish-Americans are not bloodthirsty homicidal maniacs: Eighty-seven percent are looking for "an active US role in the Arab-Israeli peace process." (Well, duh.) Many are not sure alliances with people like John Hagee are a good thing. Etc.
Like earlier findings on attitudes about Jerusalem, some of the results are subject to more than one interpretation. For example, 70% feel that "the US should push both sides to make compromises in order to achieve peace." That appears to mean that 30% of the Jewish-American community feels that only the Palestinians should be forced to compromise. A seemingly uncontroversial statement like, "Israel can only achieve real security through peace agreements" elicited only 50% agreement.
And when we get to Iran, no amount of lipstick can disguise the pig: "But attitudes about military action against Iran were somewhat ambiguous. A plurality of 48 percent of respondents said that they were more likely to vote for a candidate whose positions included attacking Iran if they pursued a nuclear program or supporting an Israeli preemptive strike."
"Doves Outnumber Hawks in Jewish Community"
Otto, I have no idea whom you are addressing, but I read Phil's "wild speech" as speech that oversteps red lines, or is brave enough to remain honest to his experience as a witness of recent history.
Richard immediately objected to "wild speech" but took his reading for granted without paraphrasing it for us to see why he did.
By all means dissect the argument of the war party, but please stay away from rewriting the history of the last 2000 years via the prism provided by the last 7.
http://allpoetry.com/poem/4349135
*Wild Speech*
Wild speech
Democracy can work
One step makes us move
Respect for other souls
Opportunities for all
Freedom of speech is a matter of choice
We are free to express our views
Oppression isn’t our right
We proclaim ourselves as “civilized”
Then let’s be an example
For those who don’t have our values
They need to see those values in us
Depending on the path we take
The product of our actions makes a difference
One way, or the other
We can’t force our value to others
Hurting and mistreating others isn’t good
In the name of freedom
Let’s take a stand against bullies
And protect the victims
We bring them trough new horizons
All things may be permissible
But not all things are beneficial
____________________________________________________________________________________
"The invasion of Iraq was far more a defense of Saudi Arabia action, than a defense of Israel action."
What a crock!
Read Paritzky, Perle, Zelikow, Shavit, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc, etc, etc. from 2001-2003.
Speaking of mainstream, Feith was referred to in the comments of one of the major newspaper blogs recently as the treasonous dual-loyalty spy who occupied number 3 at DoD. :-)
It's one thing to do all this stuff (act in defense of Israel), it's another thing to keep denying it, or label ordinary Americans anti-semitic for wanting to discuss it.
____________________________________________________________________________________
"By all means dissect the argument of the war party, but please stay away from rewriting the history of the last 2000 years via the prism provided by the last 7."
What did I do to suggest this? Or even Scheuer?
Glenn Greenwald has an interesting article on Jewish Zionist NYT writer Tom Friedman, who seems to exhibit symptoms of the sociopathic mental illness I mentioned above:
link to salon.com
Functioning sociopaths seems to best describe the US diaspora Jewish Zionist leadership. What makes anyone think they can ever reason with sociopaths? Aren’t they, by their nature, irrational? Unless we see some miraculous, voluntary exodus by these into a mental institution, America is in for a rough next decade, because they are going to ride this country until it collapses, and then probably say that its inability to conquer and destroy the world on their behalf is the fault of its anti-Jewishness.
And God knows, far too few dumbed-down Americans actually have the balls to call them on their insanity, let alone formulate a plan to actually do something about it.
What? Since when do Americans support rascists programs like Israel? That's the whole problem in a nutshell. We've been supporting Israel regime's all along, much to our detriment in the long haul. Not that goy taxpayers or soldiers have a clue.
Phil, you say "we've got a party!". But let's face it: the war in Iraq was started 5 years ago. So my question is: isn't that a very very small party?
Also, to what extent do you think it is reasonable to change one's reading of some historical events in light of the neocons role in starting the Iraq war? If a small group can impact history without leaving much fingerprints in the mainstream narrative, what can I trust? what can't I?
How do I know there were no Prince of Darkness in Vienna or Berlin in 1910? How do I know there was no "Clean Break Report" at the time?
No otto, you didn't but some do.
phil i think you are smoking crack on this one…
"Reclaim the tradition of intellectual analysis and moral bravery that once so distinguished my people!"
the old testament stories dont bear this one out at all whatsoever, it is a story of a wayward backsliding nation whose God sent them prophets over and over and over and over….until one day when the Non prophet prophet arrived, he suffered a similar fate as the other messengers in that he was shunned.
since no other messengers have been recorded.
maybe as part of the myth that you all created but other than that i dont see this moral fortitude that you stake a claim on for your peeps….someone has to be hitting the pipe to believe that line after closer inspection.
are you referring to the civil rights movement as your evidence supporting this moral bravely that …etc etc etc….my people?
What is realiity? What is also metaphor>
How about the kosher meatpacking in Iowa?
Jewish Bolshevik manifestos were the precursors to ‘Clean Break’ and other widely circulated Jewish Zionist Neocon/Neolib policy declarations/agitprop of today. Same general Statist-authoritarian product, different packaging, same violently fanatical ideological type.
"By all means dissect the argument of the war party, but please stay away from rewriting the history of the last 2000 years via the prism provided by the last 7."
Why not? The past informs my perception of the present as much as the present informs my perception of the past. Besides, this is a real question. The best answer is probably that you can't prove a negative. Yet there is a new prism after the Iraq war. You can choose to see everything through it or see nothing through it. Or you can choose to use it selectively.
That's why jews should be up in arms against the Perle/Feith/Wurmser crowd: my guess is that they broke the trust of some gentiles. That's why how the Jewish community deals with and hopefully gets rid of these extremists is so important. That's why I read this blog. Crossing my fingers but getting tired of waiting.
Before the invasion, I thought "The Clean Break" report would make the headlines, that people would realize that they were tricked into this war by a bunch of religious extremists. I thought that it would be the end of it, we would blink at Wolfo and Perle and say "nice try" and we would all go home. Five years and hundreds of thousands of dead later, on the verge of war with Iran, my patience is wearing thin.
"By all means dissect the argument of the war party, but please stay away from rewriting the history of the last 2000 years via the prism provided by the last 7."
Why not? The past informs my perception of the present as much as the present informs my perception of the past. Besides, this is a real question. The best answer is probably that you can't prove a negative. Yet there is a new prism after the Iraq war. You can choose to see everything through it or see nothing through it. Or you can choose to use it selectively.
That's why jews should be up in arms against the Perle/Feith/Wurmser crowd: my guess is that they broke the trust of some gentiles. That's why how the Jewish community deals with and hopefully gets rid of these extremists is so important. That's why I read this blog. Crossing my fingers but getting tired of waiting.
Before the invasion, I thought "The Clean Break" report would make the headlines, that people would realize that they were tricked into this war by a bunch of religious extremists. I thought that it would be the end of it, we would blink at Wolfo and Perle and say "nice try" and we would all go home. Five years and hundreds of thousands of dead later, on the verge of war with Iran, my patience is wearing thin.
On Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Anybody remember Fahrenheit 911?
An attempt to ask "why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?"
Some of his direct references seemed far-fetched, but the thesis that the US was there to secure the flow of oil (with US and Saudi control) was evident and convincing to me.
It took Pat Buchanan and a different string of new-conservatives (neither paleo nor neo), to suggest that "the war was fought for Israel" and that "Jews manipulated it".
Its unfortunate that the ethnicity and "dual loyalty" arguments are injected into the discussion of the neo-conservative theses.
It distorts the inquiry into their theses. The theses themselves are questionable.
The only significance of injecting the dual loyalty issue, is to engage in character assassination as somehow an intellectual exercise rather than argument criticism.
I don't buy it. The neo-conservatives suggestions allied with paleos in MANY ways for many years. The arguments of different neo-conservatives are different from one another. And, people change.
People shift from left, or right/left views to liberal left, or to neo-conservative.
People go all ways. Hitchens for example, has adopted much of the neo-conservative conclusions, while hating the religious implications (and rejecting that the neo-conservative approach has ANY significant religious driver).
Other new (flavor) conservatives have rejected their former pro-war stances.
Some of us have retained our convictions. Anti-war, but driven by reason and kindness expressed in politics (if possible), rather than just flapping wings of which hatred sounds more ideologically compelling.
Richard,
Fahrenheit 911 was notable for its total overlook of the Likudnik influence in the war in Iraq. I thought at the time that Michael Moore was cowardly.
I have started reading the comments a few days ago (I've been reading the blog for years) and it seems to me as if you are trying to minimize the Likudnik role in the war with Iraq. Have you read the clean break report? What do you make of it?
Jewish Goyim, allow me to show you how history is written. Take a look at this piece by Hobsbawm from the begining of 2005:
The Dangers of Exporting Democracy
Try finding any hint of the jewish angle in it. You will not find neocons there, but you've already found the "his (Bush) supporters," haven't you? That is all jewish historian Hobsbawm wants you to know about them. Then again, what are neocons for, when "the US has been ready with the necessary combination of megalomania and messianism, derived from its revolutionary origins?"
See how history is made? Project the characteristics of your tribe on the ethnic enemies of the moment and with a flick and a puff the tribe disapears.
Abracadabra!!!
In his July 16th column in the Jerusalem Post ("Washington Watch: Teetering on the Brink") for which he has been excoriated as, among other things, an "idiot" and a "traitor" by the American Jewish Israel Firsters who subscribe to that paper's right wing Zionist line (and who probably can't read Hebrew), a former and long-time AIPAC staff member and Israel Lobby stalwart, Douglas Bloomfield, wrote the following, a somewhat mind-bending admission coming from him, a true insider:
"In the case of Iran, what we don't know – and some may not care to find out – is how much of its leaders' threats to attack Israel and American bases and to close the Straits of Hormuz are also a bluff. We got an interesting glimpse last week when a dramatic display of missile launches turned out to be less rocket science than Photoshop.
"BUT THAT didn't seem to discourage the neocon hawks who brought us the glorious liberation of Iraq and democratization of the entire Arab world. Fearful that Sen. Barack Obama will be the next president, they are pushing for an attack on Iran between the election and inauguration. If John McCain is elected, they're willing to wait a while longer for their war, possibly because they'd like jobs in his administration so they can pursue their agendas.
"Both McCain and Obama quickly condemned the Iranian missile display and called for intensified sanctions, but that's where the similarity ended. Obama said it showed the need for "direct and aggressive diplomacy," while McCain dismissed that and said the display demonstrates the need for an anti-missile system in Europe.
"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) stepped up pressure on Congress to demand more stringent sanctions – notably blocking gasoline shipments to Iran and barring travel by that country's officials – but it's a non-binding resolution the administration will likely ignore.
"The measure may be toothless, but it is getting considerable attention and, along with the growing calls from Israel to act against the Iranian nuclear program, it has escalated talk that Israel and its supporters are trying to push the US into another Mideast war."
"the neo-conservative approach has ANY significant religious driver)."
Richard, read the Neoconservative Vision, by Mark Gerson. There are two chapters that admittedly would be at the center of my interest, had I only endless time. One is religion the other is economy with special attention at the points of intersection, which exist in the work of special ideologues.
"Why not? The past informs my perception of the present as much as the present informs my perception of the past. Besides, this is a real question. The best answer is probably that you can't prove a negative. Yet there is a new prism after the Iraq war. You can choose to see everything through it or see nothing through it. Or you can choose to use it selectively."
The problem about the past is that the closer you look the more complex it gets, there are many players and many interests involved. … Try to make an exercise, next time you walk down road, watch yourself closely how you form conclusion to tiny events and try to imagine how many, many other explanations there could be. And how much you will never know, don't need to know either. It's one of my favorite games.
Try to watch your perception. Let me give you one example of years back. I walked down a road and suddenly stopped, since I felt there had been something interesting. But I had no idea what. I went back slowly, then I passed a book shop. While studying Edward Albee's plays I had asked myself how psychologists deal with emotions, and there was a book about emotions in the window. I was absolutely puzzled, that it somehow got through to me, even as a tiny signal only. I had walked fast and not looked at the window closely.
We see mainly what we know and/or what interests us, from this we form our world view.
History necessarily reduces this complexity.
"That's why jews should be up in arms against the Perle/Feith/Wurmser crowd: my guess is that they broke the trust of some gentiles. That's why how the Jewish community deals with and hopefully gets rid of these extremists is so important. That's why I read this blog. Crossing my fingers but getting tired of waiting."
"Jews" are just as complex a crowd as people born by Catholic or Protestant or Muslim parents. I yet have to be convinced that apart from the fact that "the crowd" were the only ones who had a ready plan to offer in 911 times–based to their analyses of the Israeli context–that they did not ultimately serve US interests, or felt they did. That not quite so visible larger US interests [industrial military complex, oil, economics, in the sense of opening up new markets (what are the economic laws implanted in Iraq?) security, the modern mercenary industry ...] exist or willingly joined the ideologues in support. As their ideology is only slightly more extreme than earlier versions and "only" has one big PR problem: the propagated unilateral approach … that somehow focuses attention on Israel.
I have a basic "human" understanding of the heightened joy we all could watch: the US and Israel joined at the hips, the good vs the evil. … The joy must have felt something like: "Now you made a big mistake. Now the US will bomb you into surrender."
The problem is Israel's ideology written large: Arabs only understand force. Something the masses in the world instinctively understand must be wrong, if they aren't racists.
Think: What were the interests of the allies: GB, Australia, Denmark, Poland, Italy??
There is only one way you can get at "the crowd": You have to proof they had their hands in the evidence production, e.g. the Niger letter. In this context I am a pessimist, although a couple of actors are high on my suspect list here. And yes I have many questions: What clown suggested to use the student paper? Why did Tenet take a seat behind Powell at the UN? Who suggested it? Did Powell himself ask him to? What was the exact progress that got Powell to present: "the evidence?". Do you believe anybody will step out of the crowd and say, I found and recommended it? Far, far to many were involved and nodded in acceptance. Many, many have a heightened interest that all evidence disappears, if there still is any, as they will help each other to block investigations, or will take care to appoint the right person that serves "US interests".
A minor question: Who or what interests were behind the Anthrax story????
Huge Question: 911, and its exploitation.
Were I agree though, is we all witnessed a really ugly side of the "Jewish mind", and that led many of us to study Israel's history more closely. So the "heightened joy" has somehow produced a backlash, that is healthy and in this respect I am slightly more hopeful.
" a backlash, that is healthy and in this respect I am slightly more hopeful."
Sorry: I hate the German punctuation rules, and forgot all the English ones. I should brush them up! All I remember is that I preferred the English ones. …
Maybe here?
" a backlash that is healthy, and in this respect I am slightly more hopeful."
"Also, to what extent do you think it is reasonable to change one's reading of some historical events in light of the neocons role in starting the Iraq war? If a small group can impact history without leaving much fingerprints in the mainstream narrative, what can I trust? what can't I?
How do I know there were no Prince of Darkness in Vienna or Berlin in 1910? How do I know there was no "Clean Break Report" at the time?"
I find myself thinking along these lines also. What is similar between today's America and, say, Weimar Germany is the extent of Jewish influence in the media and financial sectors. On the other hand, there had not yet been an Adolf Hitler, who we are told "changed everything."
I don't know the answer, but there is no way to avoid the question.
One way of stating the question could be: Does Jewish resentment of the goyim stem from the fear that they might be prevented from taking their prize in Palestine, or is Zionism just today's manifestation of a much longer-running conflict?
Let's limbo some more–how low can you go?
'The fascinating thing about Scheuer's comments is that they are edging their way into the mainstream.'
'Fascinating' is one word for it. 'Inevitable' might be another. 'Dangerous' too I would have thought.
'Out of residual tribal chauvinism, I insist that Jews take a leading role in this conversation'
It absolutely must prominently involve Jews like yourself, but more well known ones too.
'I like the idea of asking Jewish journalists and politicians what their own personal views about Zionism are. Are they lined up with Norman Podhoretz? or Phil Weiss? Or somewhere in between? I think voters and consumers of news media have a right to know if someone's political or religious views might be influencing what they write, or how they vote'
I agree, but it's even more important to have potential Israel-firsters in government service identified – defence, intelligence, state, Congress, judiciary, WH.
Mr Witty complains of Scheuer's "wild speech"?
Why is it wild? Because its contains false statements about the neocons? I would say its probably true that they are guiltly of dual loyalty..
didn't they make their plea for war with Iraq knowing Iraq was no threat? Don't they cry wolf about the president of Iran wanting to "wipe Israel off the map", when they know that's a false translation? Tell me its out of loyalty to America. I think not.
I suspect Witty calls it "wild" because it targets Jews, an he with his super low tolerance for criticsm of Israel, is true to form.