Trending Topics:

Loury says Iran attack talk is ‘anti-Islamic hyper-pro-Israeli genuflection’

on 48 Comments

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, two of the country’s leading (and very mainstream) black intellectuals have a fascinating talk about Ron Paul. One of my favorite parts is the way they rather delicately refer to the general weirdness of the Israel lobby’s extreme influence on American discourse (between 3:00 and 6:00)—though so far as I know neither man has made writing about the Mideast any kind of priority. Also revealing and impressive is their dismissive attitude towards the “Ron Paul is a terrible racist” camp; they view Paul as certainly implicated in the newsletters and find them unfortunate but seem to perceive (and why shouldn’t they have some sixth sense about this?) that racism is not at all an important part of who Ron Paul is. I have to admit, though I’ve read and admired Loury and McWhorter’s pieces for many years, there is something about this video which makes me almost choke up with gratitude for America’s civil rights movement.

From the video:

LOURY: [Paul asks] ‘Why do you want to go bomb Iran?’ Can you give me an answer other than genuflection at some politically-correct nonsense? Will you please tell me why you’re going to war with Iran, rather than this anti-Islamic hyper-pro-Israeli pandering? That’s completely contemptuous of the people listening to this political discussion that you would talk in those terms.

So he deserves to be refuted rather than written out because he farted in church… He’s very important to the political discussion.

McWHORTER [echoing]: Suppose a child asked you, ‘Why are you going to bomb Iran?… Why are we so concerned with not ruffling the feathers of Israel?’ Just a child… Ron Paul’s…capable… of asking questions like that… It’s sad that a person who asks questions on that level and is not afraid to and is clearly somebody of intelligence could not be elected….

Scott McConnell

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of the American Conservative. The former editorial page editor of The New York Post, he has written for Fortune, The New Criterion, National Review, Commentary and many other publications.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

48 Responses

  1. tokyobk on January 9, 2012, 10:21 am

    Actually, among black intellectuals they are both considered to be conservatives, though they contest that and I don;t think its entirely fair. They just go into areas not sanctioned by the Democratic party line on issues that touch on race.

    • lysias on January 10, 2012, 11:08 am

      I recently finished watching McWhorter’s “Story of Human Language” course on DVD’s. He’s a very entertaining lecturer. He also reveals that Black English was spoken in his home as he grew up. No question about his being authentic.

  2. ChristopherClark on January 9, 2012, 11:01 am

    I am ever curious when the Ron Paul love-fest will end over here on Mondoweiss. As a news source which is acclaimed and highly respected, I only expect the best. Simply because there is an unlikely voice whispering sentiments that social justice movements have been yelling about for decades in the United States regarding Palestine doesn’t require the silence on Ron Paul’s domestic policies of exclusion. As a principled movement in solidarity with Palestinians, I am shocked and heartbroken to see progressive and radical folks/publications catapulting Paul to messiah status without first thinking: Is Paul anti-racist? (For those late to the game, I’ll answer: no.) Does Ron Paul even remotely have Palestine on his mind or is he simply propagating hyper-containment policies? Look no further than Paul’s domestic immigration policy to see what he thinks of folks who are not Anglo-Saxon (or domestic social policies regarding folks who don’t identify as white, straight, or male). His (mis)conceptions on “America” and where it lies is so misconstrued that one does not have to have read a handful of political science texts to know that Ron Paul has no space in a discourse for social/political/cultural justice in Palestine, but instead should be relegated to the columns for notes scribbled about how we should all envision a world which we don’t want to live in.

    Next time you hear Paul speaking, listen for how many times he even mentions the word Palestine.

    • Kathleen on January 9, 2012, 12:00 pm

      If you had read through Phil’s pieces and other folks comments you would know that most people only want to keep Ron Pauls non interventionist foreign policy based on facts in the debate. One of the only reasons for the support. The fact that Republicans, Dems, Indes, military members support Paul is based on his foreign policy stances.

      keep his foreign policy message in the debates…

    • Chespirito on January 9, 2012, 12:05 pm

      I disagree with Mr Clark; I think Paul’s take on the US role in Israel/Palestine is refreshingly straightforward and fair-minded. The problem with American foreign policy is not that we’re doing too little in the Middle East, but that we’re doing far too much. Simply eliminating US aid to Israel and Egypt would be a giant leap forward, for Americans, Palestinians, Israelis and Egyptians, and it would clear the way for real diplomacy, in which the US could have a limited role, towards a genuine peace settlement. (The current “peace process” is just a war process fueled and lubed by Washington.) The Ron Paul crowd is absolutely right to focus on the US role in Palestine/Israel and to try to rectify that rather than to wax about “social/political/cultural justice in Palestine.” After all, what we Americans are most responsible for is our own policy of bankrolling ethnic cleansing and Jim Crow-ish racism. Yet most US intellectuals, even liberals, take our militant support for Israel (and for the Egyptian Scaf) as a fact of nature that cannot be questioned, like gravity. This needs to stop.

    • Taxi on January 9, 2012, 12:54 pm

      Actually I think he’s politically smart NOT to mention Palestine.

      Middle America is slowly getting used to Apartheid israel being ‘questioned’, but they ain’t ready yet to champion the righteous Palestinian cause. Palestine is still perceived as a political toxic potato. Why would ANY lowly or lofty politician touch it, let alone serve it to the masses. That would be politically stupid and suicidal.

      Besides, Ron Paul surely knows that cutting off aid to Apartheid israel because we’re broke WOULD BE very good for America and (ooops) inadvertently helpful to the Palestinian cause too – a pleasant unintended consequence for the Palestinians, for a change.

      Really Ron Paul doesn’t have to wave the Palestinian flag – what’s the point? His issue is not Apartheid israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, but the taxpayers’ dollars going anywhere overseas, especially to countries that boast and brag about their ‘economic advancement’. I think in choosing this simple path arguing economics instead of politics, he avoids many complex racio-political traps and snares. He just simply sticks to the simplest logic: “we’re broke and we can’t afford to be sending money out to other countries”. It’s a reductionist-populist approach to a political taboo (israel) and I think the blue-collar non-fundies in middle America can dig an argument like this about israel. They see it as reasonable – non aggressive.

      Ron Paul is reminding patriotic Americans that israelis AREN’T Americans – that yes they are our ‘special friend’ but that these days we can’t AFFORD to be paying for all the dinners all of the time.

      He ain’t bashing israel and broadcasting anti-israeli ads on major media channels – he’s bashing foreign aid. Even his anti-foreign-war stance is purely about economics and not ideology: “we can’t afford to have more wars” – (at this moment, that is, right Ron?).

      So really all his arguments are tied to the purse of America. And America’s worried and obsessed with the purse. That’s why his ‘approach’ and his message are resonating broadly, coast to coast. Not because of idealism, but because of desirable economic realism.

      Here me speaking not as a fan of Ron Paul but an observer.

      (For the record, all the politicians I admire are dead and all politicians I despise are alive).

      • ChristopherClark on January 9, 2012, 1:11 pm

        Taxi — of course. I agree with everything you wrote and find it to be (unfortunately) true.

        However, what I’m asking is — is that /enough/? Can one applaud Paul in acknowledging the American political purse when speaking about Israel at the behest of his other policies here in the U.S? If the point is to hit the head on the inability to spend money abroad, what is lost? I’m arguing that what is lost is precisely the other skeletons in his closet r/e the States.

      • Taxi on January 9, 2012, 4:00 pm


        In principle, no it ain’t enough to vote for Ron Paul cuz of his foreign policy. But these days foreign policy has become enmeshed with domestic policy, as attested by the American Occupy Movement and their plentiful foreign policy banners. We’ve a very complex and weird political culture right now where even uber uncharismatic non-dudes like Rick Santorum get a cult following. How weird is THAT?! (I can’t even look at the guy’s face and I advise all parents to keep his picture hidden away from children and puppies).

        Point is, Christopher, our society is failing to produce authentic and trans-formative leadership and it’s been going on thus for many generations. By now our politicians, from craven corruption, have devolved into spineless lizards in black suits and we the people are so weary and effed in the purse that we feel like beggars who can’t be (too) choosy.

        The line-up for the Republican leadership this season, the overall vibe and stench – dear lord sure smacks of ‘creationism’. How weird is that? I mean here we are in the turbo-hi-tec 21st century and there they are straight-faced telling us that the world began five thousand years ago! People so out of touch should not have large and somber offices on Capitol Hill – they should have small dressing rooms in Hollywood fringe theaters.

        Yeah so like on this point, here at least Ron Paul actually physically AND intellectually LIVES in this century.

        I say if you’re voting with confidence, then you’ve been had by the propaganda and the personality-cult of the candidate of choice.

        If you’re voting with dread in your bones and thinking ‘shit I hope my dude wins and I double hope he does what he says – then my friend, you’re a sober realist.

        The perfect candidate don’t exist. Naaah! Almost impossible. Jesus in a suit and shiny shoes? Definitely double naaah!

      • Shingo on January 9, 2012, 5:48 pm

        I say if you’re voting with confidence, then you’ve been had by the propaganda and the personality-cult of the candidate of choice.

        That’s a brainless and pointless argument. There is no candidate, includuing Obama, that anyone could claim to be voting for with confidence. The perfect candidate has never existed, in which case, the obsessive compulsion with which people like yourself are arguing Ron Paul falls short of perfection sugegsts it is you, not those endorsing him, that have yet to sober up.

      • Taxi on January 10, 2012, 12:36 am

        Why, Shingo, my sober memory tells me that there were millions of people who confidently thought that voting for Obama will bring tidal positive changes to our country – and it didn’t happen.

        You’ve misread what I wrote: I was highlighting the positive of RP to ChristopherClark and simultaneously lamenting the corruption of ALL politicians.

        Last I checked, I had NO “obsessive complusion” for or against RP. I’m a detached observer. My temperament and interest is tepid thus far regarding the coming elections. Honestly, I don’t give a hoot who wins – it’s all the same to me: our political culture is trending downwards and will continue to do so regardless of who is in power.

      • Shingo on January 10, 2012, 5:57 am


        Please accept my apologies. I mistook your statement for one from Clark, which changes the context entirely.

      • Taxi on January 10, 2012, 9:10 am


        Take heart, you’re still my mondo guru forever and ever. I so admire you – no need to apologize – I already knew it was an honest misunderstanding – no problemo whatsoevero.

      • on January 10, 2012, 11:06 am

        yesterday Rand Paul was on C Span specifically speaking as spokesman for his father. And his responses re US foreign policy did not seem to differ all that much from Newt Gingrich.
        The question put to Rand Paul was, “We have a man in Iran who wants to attack the US. He wants nuclear weapons to do it. . . .”

        Rand’s response was, “Ron Paul does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons because it would destabilize the region. . . .Containment works . . .we should contain Iran . . .”

        From my point of view that’s a bad answer, not because I’m a purity troll but first of all, instead of correcting the questioner’s brainwashed assertion with a call to base such serious issues on honest assessment of facts, Paul let it slide, in effect, affirming and reinforcing the propagandized lie.

        Second, because it assumes the audience is stupid and does not realize that Israel is already destabilizing the region, Iran is defending its turf — Iran is PLANTED there, fer pete’s sake, and has been for a few years now — about 4500, at last counting.

        Furthermore, US selling conventional weapons to Saudi Arabia is intended to will certainly result in regional instability — as it is intended to do. Finally, Paul’s answer buys into a sentiment that Romney surrogates expressed in his name, that the US must lead the world because USA is the only nation with values, and we must bring those values to others in the world. That’s so much bullpucky. A growing portion of the American people know that it’s bullstuff, why is Rand/Ron Paul pandering to the “exceptionalists?” USA does NOT need to be supremacist to command the loyalty of Americans.

      • Taxi on January 10, 2012, 12:33 pm


        Considering there’s no such thing as a ‘perfect’ candidate – how best to choose?

        They say politics is the art of compromise. I say voting is the art of compromise.

        Trust no one in office. Ever. Always vote for your candidate with one hand and with your other, make a fist at your candidate’s face. Never tell your candidate of choice you love them and never give them emotional support or succor. Never laugh with them, never have a beer – never indulge their insatiable narcissism or their moral corruption. Perhaps then they’ll start taking the country’s issues seriously.

      • American on January 9, 2012, 1:22 pm

        Absolutely correct Taxi.

        Paul doesn’t have to be Pro Palestine……all he or any President has to be is ‘neutral’ on Israel.
        That would sever the umbilical cord and remove the US umbrella of protection. Israel would have to deal with the Arab councils, it’s surrounding Arab state neighbors, the international community and adjust to losing it’s militarly edge formerly guarenteed by US billions and favors.

        That would be enough for Israel to choose to sink or swim.

      • Taxi on January 10, 2012, 9:41 am


        Unfortunately, colonial israel has already chosen the masada over the suitcase.

    • Shingo on January 9, 2012, 2:54 pm

      Next time you hear Paul speaking, listen for how many times he even mentions the word Palestine.

      Please list the number of times any other political leader or president has done so.

      This is yet a other one of those red herrings the rabid mainstream are desperately using to smear Paul.

    • Shingo on January 9, 2012, 3:02 pm

      I am shocked and heartbroken to see progressive and radical folks/publications catapulting Paul to messiah status without first thinking

      I wish I could say I am shocked at how low do called progressives have sunk and the lengths they have gone to in order to destroy Ron Paul’s credibility.

      As it stands now, the progressives are standing shoulder to shoulder with the war hawks, lovers of empire, neocons, corrupt elite, supporters of apartheid Israel .

      If you are really concerned with racism ( and I suspect you are not) you need only look in your own house.

    • annie on January 9, 2012, 3:53 pm

      hi christopher. i see you have contributed all of 4 comments here thus far. actually 3 when you wrote this one. sometimes i get bored with the paul discussions, but they are not a problem for me. did you take a look at this:

      January 9 2012
      0 Hey Quartet, Netanyahu left a note for you on the door
      Paul Mutter
      6 Lieberman plan to strip Palestinian citizenship mirrors liberal demographic fear mongering
      Adam Horowitz
      1 Israel’s national theater to bring ‘Merchant’ to World Shakespeare Fest in May
      Eleanor Kilroy
      16 Trying to save two-state consensus, ‘Washington Post’ invokes ‘demographic’ threat
      Philip Weiss
      2 Gaza students discuss ‘Occupy Wall Street’
      Yousef M. Aljamal
      8 US millionaire Kenneth Abramowitz funds settlers linked to attacks on IDF
      Alex Kane
      1 A Year of Foreboding: What next for the Arab Spring?
      Deepak Tripathi
      20 Loury says Iran attack talk is ‘anti-Islamic hyper-pro-Israeli genuflection’
      Scott McConnell
      15 A personal appeal– PennBDS needs your help
      Annie Robbins
      23 Just wars– and civilian casualties
      Jerome Slater
      5 Ron Paul and the liberal interventionists
      Jack Ross

      see, lots of other stuff to check out. when i am not in the mood to check out the paul threads, i don’t. you could always try that.

      • on January 10, 2012, 1:03 pm

        Annie, this comment to Christopher was so DailyKoSofia. please say it ain’t so.

    • ToivoS on January 9, 2012, 6:27 pm

      Christopher in a perceptive analysis say I am shocked and heartbroken to see progressive and radical folks/publications catapulting Paul to messiah status

      Well I have a prescription: go back and read the threads and you will see that Paul is not being elevated messiah status. That should repair that old heart of yours.

      There are a few here that like pretty much everything Paul stands for, but most we’re hoping that his candidacy would open up the debate on US foreign policy and US support for Israel. If you haven’t noticed, there is no national debate on these questions.

    • Citizen on January 10, 2012, 8:44 am

      ChristopherClark, what color are most of those overseas civilians who’ve died or have been horribly maimed by America’s hands in the last, say 50 years? Do you really think the Palestinians would not benefit from a Ron Paul presidency with his view of foreign policy and foreign aid? What other POTUS candidate has said in public the people of Gaza live in a de facto “concentration camp?” What other candidate has asked the American public to walk a mile in Iran’s shoes to gain some perspective beyond knee-jerk jingoism?

      Ron Paul may appear to be alone but he’s not; everyone paying attention by now knows he thinks Iraq & the push for a repeat on Iran is recipe for disaster, e.g., he’d certainly agree with the following conclusion:

      “Whatever pretext Israel and the US (for consistency) might find for the war they threaten, at stake is the existence of the world as we know it. Even a triumph of their justitia may turn utterly hollow, for there might be no people to celebrate it. So the real question that Jews and non-Jews alike face today is: Is the World for Israel or are Jews for the World? We know how Rabbi Berger would have answered. ”

      You should look at your priorities, as the two black American gentleman in today’s article suggest.

    • dahoit on January 10, 2012, 10:35 am

      Oh yeah,tomorrow he’ll say that the Israeli state has taken Arab land and the Palestinians are the good guys,and see what happens to his campaign.
      His policies of non interference will bring peace and justice to that region as they will take away the Israeli cover of our backing their terrible actions,and they will stop them,guaranteed.
      And why does the the black community have to rely on Welfare?
      Because all those liberal and conservative icons of US government have sent those well paying and productive jobs needed by that community overseas in search of profit over people and are the real racist scum hiding behind medals of CRActs dangling from their hollow chests.
      And doesn’t their concern about it mirror the alleged riot ending eagle sh*t today(never heard the term?) angle called as racist screed?Every white household in America has heard such utterances,and to imply that some are of such purity that they won’t acknowledge such utterances,defies reality,but hey, we are in a twilight zone already,so it doesn’t surprise.
      And if one hasn’t noticed,the welfare state is going belly up,if one reads the economic balance sheet,and defending the FED seems a little strange,as since 1913,the plight of the inner city has not improved an iota,and might be worse than ever outside of yuppie enclaves,and how is that dollar doing?

      • on January 10, 2012, 11:56 am

        not ALL of those jobs went overseas, dahoit.

        In Myrtle Beach, SC, Lindsay Graham country, where a major aeronautics manufacturing and development campus is under way, Israeli and Russian workers are getting visas to take high-skill jobs.
        The notion is that US scientists just can’t compete with the technological acumen of foreign workers. But that fails to account for the fact that with US space exploration programs closing down, many highly trained and experienced scientists in the aeronautics, engineering, etc. fields will be looking for work.

        Maybe they can go to Israel and pick cherry tomatoes?

    • lysias on January 10, 2012, 11:10 am

      Which does more harm in the world, our wars or exclusionary domestic policies?

  3. Kathleen on January 9, 2012, 12:05 pm

    “his ability to stand outside of the usual discourse”

  4. iamuglow on January 9, 2012, 12:15 pm

    ” I am shocked and heartbroken to see progressive and radical folks/publications catapulting Paul to messiah status without first thinking: ”

    Personally I couldnt be happier wih how Mondo has approached RP. As with most subjects, its been open forum without any policing of ideas. There have been articles for and against Paul and lots great debate in the comments. To ignore that and suggest people have come to support RP “without…thinking” is frankly silly.

    There is a lot nuanced positions you can take on RP from fully supporting him, to supporting him as a form of dissent, to acknowledging his FP ideas are good to disliking him completely. I’d suggest you make up your own mind about him and not waste time being heartbroken over other peoples deciscions .

    Best wishes,

    • philweiss on January 9, 2012, 12:34 pm

      thanks iamuglow, i hope you’re right. i do enjoy the free exchange of ideas. and hope that we can extend that spirit in other ways

    • ChristopherClark on January 9, 2012, 1:03 pm

      Iamuglow– I’m not at all claiming that there has been a policing of ideas or even that there has been an overwhelming /monopoly/ of views. Instead, I was arguing that the Mondo coverage of Ron Paul is deadpan silent (sans pockets of comments) on his gross domestic issues. It really isn’t so much of some perverse neo-liberal fantasy for me that everyone’s opinions are great but instead that while Paul can speak on an isolationist’s POV about foreign policy and Palestine is rhetorically appealing — his fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic /other/ domestic policy ideas are horrifying and do not coincide (nor should they be looked past) with folks seeking any sort of social change due to RP’s smooth styled FP which is inherently rooted in purely self-masturabatory America-not-anyone-else demands.

      We can all applaud Paul calling into question the U.S economic relationship with Israel but only so far. Nearly everything else, even the foreign policy, is rooted in something far more problematic for Paul. As initially stated, I’m instead dismayed to not see such connections brought out and addressed in Mondo’s coverage.

      Of course at the very base of my commentary is a not-so-gentle reminder that one is lost if Washington or any elected official holds magnificent potential in bringing a just end to Israeli hegemony. We can’t look to Washington for significant change in the Middle East.

      • Shingo on January 9, 2012, 3:13 pm

         his fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic /other/ domestic policy ideas are horrifying

        Frankly, I’m nauseated by this level of dishonesty and selective morality.

        Isn’t it revealing how racist, sexist, homophobic policies are accepted as the status quo when it comes to every other candidate ( including Obama) but so much effort has gone into painting Paul as racist, sexist, homophobic.

        Of course, these are false accusations.

        1. Paul is the only candidate open to gay marriage.

        2. Paul is the only candidate who has attacked the war on drugs as being hugely discriminatory to black communities

        3. This I the first time I’ve heard him accused of sexism.

        It becomes immediately obvious that such accusations are based on pretty hollow assumptions.

      • Scott on January 9, 2012, 3:21 pm

        Actually, the bloggings heads dialogue contains some pointed criticism of Paul’s domestic policies, and is interesting precisely to see these two grapple between somewhat interesting to them FP ideas and the domestic ones they dislike. They don’t go into the “racist, sexist, homophobic, wife-beating” thing though.
        Oh, you didn’t accuse him of wifebeating.

      • Citizen on January 10, 2012, 8:58 am

        Scott, that’s the drift I got from ChristopherClark’s comments too. He does not seem to have been following MW consistently, to say the least. As one example, I typed in on MW Ron Paul’s comments as he responded to audience questions to fearful questions regarding the safety net, comments that clearly show he’d cut military spending by far the most, and his approach to changing social bennies to bring their cost into the realm of reality was, in every case, on every social net program, a gradual one, and one of transition not affecting near and current beneficiaries, but given future ones options. Again, he said the first thing he’d whack is the endless war machine, and he wouldn’t consider whacking needy babies. And so on.

      • Citizen on January 10, 2012, 9:09 am

        Ron Paul is the only one seriously concerned with the privacy, due process rights, liberty, and property rights of the individual. It’s true he thinks group factions are divisive and not part of the traditional American value ideal. He is not for the current welfare-warfare state, as represented, respectively, by the Democrats and Republicans who do trade-offs every 4 to 8 years at the expense of most Americans and the world, especially the non-white world.

      • Chu on January 11, 2012, 9:58 am

        Chris Clarke reminds me of StopAipac. Some of these people must believe that Obama is their man to keep the empire going. Civil liberties, not so important to progressives it seems.
        If you’re not frustrated with the incumbent at this point in history, then go campaign for him. The whining syndrome about Ron Paul is annoying to say the least. What about you man in the white house?

      • dahoit on January 10, 2012, 10:48 am

        That’s funny,gross.Do you mean large?Are the problems large?Or is it detestable,the gross adjective,his domestic policies of following the Constitution in an age of Constitutionally ignorant scholars?Or was that all irrelevant prattle by extinct white bigots unaware of the danger of a thousand underarmed pajama clad Muslim fanatics,sailing the oceans on their dhows whirling scimitars of beheadedness,to set up their caliphate?
        How about Santorum,the guy who hates Muslims and gays,or Obomba the killer dweeb,who is taking away your freedom while protecting the freedom of criminals to economically rape you?Or the other evil whores of the power of the Ziomic monster?They pass muster?

      • on January 10, 2012, 12:01 pm



  5. on January 9, 2012, 1:02 pm

    The American Elitists Power wants to widen nonchalantly the influence of their Private Empire (called also USA) at any costs. At the expense of their own common citizens, (using them when needed) and with a total disreagard for opinion, safety or well being of other nations.
    They try to rob Iran, Russia, China , Syria, many S. American countries from their local power and influance. They aspire to be the wordly hegemon, yet for the world they still want to present themselves as those, who bring ” peace ,freedom, democracy ,human rights and lady gaga ,blah, blah” .
    There is no nuclear balance in the Middle East. Israel was the first country who moved this balance in their favour. Israel is obviously a great friend of America. Friend , who is cruel , unpredictable, erratic, calculated and extremely selfish.
    Friend, who is very well protected by “democratic” American Empire.
    If America is such a great democratic country that respects peoples rights,
    why then it supports unconditionally Israel that breaks daily all those rights??
    This doesn’t make any sense.
    Israel is a huge danger to the worldly peace and stabilisation.
    Either we will give Iran a chance to militarize itself ,so it isn’t afraid of psychopathic Israel , or we force both of those countriues to disarm themselves.
    Now we let criminal , psychopathic Israel run around the world fully armed, and we hope that it isn’t going to hurt anybody because……….
    Because why????

  6. Krauss on January 9, 2012, 1:46 pm

    I think the coverage of RP on this site has been in the general spirit which is so in sync with what goes on here; namely that anything goes and arguments are to be made without namecalling and preconceived notions.

    I personally would never vote for RP, but I think his ideas on FP as well as his staunch protections for civil liberties(from a liberatian perspective), which is why he is intensly against the SOFA and/or the NDAA are all important factors why I think he has relevance.

    The best case scenario is a situation where RP comes 2nd to Romney but with a serious following and then he mends peace but with a vigilant eye on Romney, keeping the base intact.

    The next step is for the long slumber on behalf of the Democratic base is end, and we could have an anti-war alliance crossing both parties. The MSM would go beserk, but why should we let that stop us?

    You have to work with people on common goals, even if you cannot be totally ideologically pure on all issues together, but if you’re that kind of purist you’ll never get anything done. And America, as the world’s foremost military power, this country’s foreign policy is seriously in need of actual debate. Corrupt career pols often complain that foreign policy is never debated and voters ‘don’t care’ about it. Voters do care, but the constraints that are being set up for people to debate without being attacked as a dangerous isolationist is what makes people shut off, because without serious questioning that no ‘mainstream’ candidate wants, why would the average American care?

    Is it a coincidence that Ron Paul blows all other candidates, including Obama, out of the water when you see to whom active military donate their hard-earned money to?

    This is why we need this debate, and why Ron Paul is important. Not as an end, but as a bridge to a wider and more nuanced conversation that takes root in peace and not war as a default.

  7. Taxi on January 9, 2012, 2:18 pm

    Regarding African Americans and their perception of the israeli lobby/israel, I thought it pertinent to re-post a comment I made a few weeks ago:

    “Like my African American friend said to me right after Natanyahu’s 29 standing ovations in congress: “The jews are getting the wasps to beat up on our main man and that ain’t cool.” So what you gonna do ’bout it? I asked. He shrugged his shoulders and said: “We’re playing dead for now. Don’t wanna make it tougher on Obama. Don’t want history books to say there’s all that racial shit going on in the streets of America on his watch”.

    Consciously restrained AND aware of long-term consequences. This is where the African American community’s at under Obama.

    Yes it’s a smart posture to take, for the good of America too, but at some stage this strategy of “playing dead” is gonna become counter-productive.”

    Kristol accuses Obama of wanting the Jewish state to disappear
    Taxi December 4, 2011 at 12:51 pm

  8. ChristopherClark on January 9, 2012, 3:08 pm

    Protecting civil liberties for /who/ and /why/? It isn’t merely enough for me that Paul has loosely critical remarks about Israel. I’m not so quick to call myself a ‘purist’ but rather someone who holds Paul accountable to his other political sentiments beyond what might initially sound good — something I wish more progressive/radical intellectuals and activists would take on head first.

    In other words than stated here: is it enough that Paul wants to cut military aid to Israel? Paul’s rhetorical demands are important, yes, for continued discussion. But only to be picked apart and contextualized in a thoughtful and critical way.

    Simply because military folks are contributing more money to Paul isn’t any more of an incentive to support him for me. Instead, it shows an American public stretching and yawning from a deep slumber in which the majortity of people in the U.S supported ill-found wars abroad. It exemplifies the idea that American democracy is failing and people want alternatives — a scary reason why Paul is so attractive to veterans.

    • Shingo on January 9, 2012, 3:35 pm

      It isn’t merely enough for me that Paul has loosely critical remarks about Israel. I’m not so quick to call myself a ‘purist’ but rather someone who holds Paul accountable to his other political sentiments beyond what might initially sound good — something I wish more progressive/radical intellectuals and activists would take on head first.

      You’re not a purist Clark, you’re a poseur. Given the magnitude of the US military and US overseas involvement, there can be no greater issue than foreign policy. Only a fool could claim to hold any reagrd for humanity, while arguing that mass murdering people in other states is of secondary importance to welfare payments.

      If you were truly concerned with holsing peopel to account for their political sentiments, you would be attacknig Obama for his wars, his continuiation fo Bush policies (both domestic and abroad) and his capitutaltion to big money interests.

      In other words than stated here: is it enough that Paul wants to cut military aid to Israel? Paul’s rhetorical demands are important, yes, for continued discussion. But only to be picked apart and contextualized in a thoughtful and critical way.

      This is simply garbled gibberish from someone who’s clearly afraid of actually tackling the issues, and would prefer to talk about them as a means of maintaining the status quo.

      It exemplifies the idea that American democracy is failing and people want alternatives — a scary reason why Paul is so attractive to veterans.

      It’s also why he’s attractive to the youth, and indeed, many progressives who are sick of the corruption and ineptitude of the Democrats, and conservatives who are sick of the corruption and tyrrany of the Republicans.

    • Citizen on January 10, 2012, 9:19 am

      ChristopherClark, you write as if its not uncommonly courageous for a limelight US politician, running for POTUS yet, to declare publicly Israel would not be excluded from cutting foreign aid, and that it should be treated at arms-length like we do all other foreign countries. Similarly with his call for transparency wrt the Federal Reserve, and his hard look at the publicly unaccountable alphabet soup federal agencies regarding their actual results all these years. We have never had an audit of either the Fed or the Military in modern US history. Isn’t it about time?

  9. on January 9, 2012, 3:59 pm

    WE have a very serious , global fight between Good and Evil, between Light and Darkness. I don’t think that we ever, in the history of human kind, had such an issue before. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to believe in it. It seems almost impossible , unreal that anybody, any group would plan something like this.
    However, considering our global technological and military advances, this is no joke.
    There are Powers now in the world that are very UNITED, very determined, well organised, calculated, ruthless and merciless in their goals to conquer a majority of the world, to destroy what needs to be destroyed, and to slave those, whom they plan.
    The plan ,that some were talking about many years ago, and which was regared , hush, hush, OMG as a “conspirational theory”
    is revealing itself more and more ,every day for those ,who have eyes wide open and are not afraid to observe and to see.
    Either people will come to understand that they have to rise above their everyday squabbles ,and see the major danger that is standing in front of them , or they will let petty things to shut down and silence those ,who have power and courage to warn them that the Doom Day is coming.
    Again, the movie the “Lord of the Rings” comes to my mind with the Sauron’s Army treading the earth, destroying and killing,
    while individual kingdoms are arguing bitterly over some old-time rubbish.

    • anonymouscomments on January 9, 2012, 7:37 pm
      people need to understand that there is continuity in US policy, REGARDLESS of what party is in the high office, or has control of the senate and/or house. the small things change, the language changes, the rationale changes, but the BIG geo-strategy moves do not change one bit. the powers that be are non-partisan, and their control of both parties is quite apparently complete.

      people like jerome slater eat the liberal intervention BS (*selectively* applied only to those that were set to go down), and then the right buys the fear based flag waving “let’s roll” intervention. either strategy can be applied to any country, depending on who is in office.

      i am in general agreement, but i try to frame it as a continual fight, where there is an ebb and flow. if we sound hysterical (though the stakes are very very high, especially since 9/11, and especially the next few years), most ignore us. we need to continually hit people with various facts, such that they eventually realize what they thought was their informed political activism is in fact an acceptable chorus of liberal “dissent”, that does not threaten the strings of power, just annoys them slightly on a given pet project.

      i think most everyone here is fighting the conventional “good fight”, and i fight with them- it has its successes. the only issue is that if we ignore or remain ignorant of concentrated elite power, which is nonpartisan and extremely malevolent, we are fighting brush fires while the forrest burns behind us. we do need to go issue by issue, but we also need to organize around institutional and media reforms which can blunt the concentrated power of the US/world elites.

      i think this is why so many get disillusioned with politics and they burn out. both sides of the isle are beholden to the same media, the same corporate interests, and the same ruthless elites who by there own disregard for “law” are horribly efficient. ron paul is the only candidate who does not show himself to be amenable to playing to power, hence he is attractive to so many of us.

      but i accept ron paul is intrinsically a little too extreme to be electable. if he were, the MSM would ensure he was unelectable (as they are doing now for good measure). if this weren’t the case, and he was posed to take the high office, he would be dead. i’ve said this a few times before, and it is speaking hypothetically, but people need to understand that someone who intends to gut a trillion dollar MIC, neuter the CIA, and perhaps even uncover some state crimes, is NOT allowed in the high office. if conventional MSM cannot derail such a candidate… he would be taken out.

      • on January 9, 2012, 9:15 pm

        I ain’t Cassandra ,(nobody listened to her anyway) or a fortune teller ,but I can tell you a few things that I’m sure WILL happen this year.
        You may quote me on this in 6-8 months if …if there will be chance.

        There will be a huge unrest ( sort of revolutions )in Europe within few months, the EU will divide ( Great Britain and Irleand will get out of it). Something “big “will happen in France, and its neighbouring country.
        USA will start a WAR with Iran.
        That ‘s all for now.

      • anonymouscomments on January 12, 2012, 11:21 pm

        here is a cassandra (sure you have seen this… ron paul’s predictions from 2002)

    • dahoit on January 10, 2012, 10:54 am

      True.And if we actually had a real accounting by our corrupt MSM in our Iraq murder and shock and awe spree,and our Afghan spree,the American people would see the real evil that we have become.

  10. piotr on January 10, 2012, 2:42 am

    “It exemplifies the idea that American democracy is failing and people want alternatives — a scary reason why Paul is so attractive to veterans”.

    Isn’t it the entire point of democracy: when the politicians are failing, throw them out?

    Just think about possible calamities that could sweep the globe and reach our shores would we slash military spending, say, 4 times. I say, Estonia will survive and so will New Zealand, South Korea would prevail this time with North Korea. I just do not see much clamor “don’t leave! please!”. It is only Israel that has an existential problem. Even countries that line the southern shore of the Persian Gulf perceive nothing so dire. (They also outspend Iran several times over. If this is not enough, someone is wasting money.)

Leave a Reply