One related point about the spate of "Obama-should-have-followed-Rahm’s-centrist-advice" articles that have appeared of late: if you really think about it, it’s quite extraordinary to watch a Chief of Staff openly undermine the President by spawning numerous stories claiming that the President is failing because he’s been repeatedly rejecting his Chief of Staff’s advice. It seems to me there’s one of two possible explanations for this episode: (1) Rahm wants to protect his reputation at Obama’s expense by making clear he’s been opposed all along to Obama’s decisions, a treacherous act that ought to infuriate Obama to the point of firing him; or (2) these stories are being disseminated with Obama’s consent as a means of apologizing to official Washington for not having been centrist enough and vowing to be even more centrist in the future by listening more to Rahm (we know that what we did wrong was not listen enough to Rahm). One can only speculate about which it is, but if I had to bet, my money would be on (2) (because of things like this and because these "Rahm-Was-Right" stories went on for weeks and Rahm is still very much around).
The meaning of my headline is that Rahm and Cheney might be said to represent the same empowered Washington constituency, which Greenwald titles "official Washington." The question arises, How does official Washington remain so conservative following the disaster of the Iraq war? And the answer is of course that regimes last long after their foundations have begun to break down, that we are replacing that regime slowly. And yes, the transformation of Jewish life will play a role in that power-transformation, as conservative Jews who believed in the permanent-war idea of the route to peace in the Middle East remain a significant factor inside the US establishment, in both parties.