Trending Topics:

David Gregory covers up for the Israel lobby (even as he fingers the NRA)

on 38 Comments

When David Gregory asked President Obama yesterday about the Chuck Hagel controversy on “Meet the Press,” he pretended that it was a controversy over 14-year-old gay slur by Hagel, for which the former senator has apologized, as Obama was quick to point out.

This was deceptive. The “criticism” Gregory mentions has come chiefly from the Israel lobby– over Hagel’s resolve that we should not go to war with Iran and his belief that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the heart of the troubles in the Middle East.

From the transcript:

GREGORY: Former Senator Chuck Hagel has come under criticism for some comments he’s made including about a former ambassador nominee during the Clinton years that being gay was an inhibiting factor to being gay to do an effective job. Is there anything about Chuck Hagel’s record or statements that’s disqualifying to you should you nominate him to run the Defense Department?

Well, first of all, I haven’t made a decision about who to nominate. And my number one criteria will be who’s going to do the best job in helping to secure America.

Anything disqualify– … him?

Not that I see. I’ve served with Chuck Hagel. I know him. He is a patriot. He is somebody who has done extraordinary work both in the United States Senate. Somebody who served this country with valor in Vietnam. And is somebody who’s currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job.

So I haven’t made a decision on this. With respect to the particular comment that you quoted, he apologized for it. And I think it’s a testimony to what has been a positive change over the last decade in terms of people’s attitudes about gays and lesbians serving our country. And that’s something that I’m very proud to have led. And I think that anybody who serves in my administration understands my attitude and position on those issues.

I see that MJ Rosenberg and Andrew Epstein have discussed this, on twitter:

Andrew Epstein ‏@andEps @davidgregory pretends Hagel controversy is about 10yr old homophobic comment, struggles to keep a straight face.

@MJayRosenberg  David Gregory is a very proud Israel Firster

I don’t know if Gregory is an Israel Firster, to use the phrase that Rosenberg has inserted into the discourse to signify people who think about Israel’s security first. But the calculated omission certainly raises the question. Gregory is protecting the Israel lobby from any form of scrutiny. That makes it harder to argue about the strength of the lobby, when leading journalists cover for it. 

And Gregory several times referred to the National Rifle Association’s arguments in the context of the Connecticut shooting. 

Gregory is Jewish, and the omission is more evidence that this conversation won’t be complete without a Jewish conversation about, Do we feel a need for a Jewish state? If so, why?

Oh also, neoconservative David Frum cracks that Hagel is unqualified because even if he were the B’nai Brith’s man of the year, he lacks the administrative chops to supervise the Pentagon’s build-down. “Hagel’s supporters offer a case in his favor that would superbly qualify him as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs in the Nixon administration,” Frum says. This is a shot at “Arabists.” Near East Affairs is where foreign service officers who cared about Arab self-determination typically made their careers in a different era. The jab shows that Frum actually does care about Hagel’s views on the Middle East, and shows why so many people support Hagel: because he would show greater respect for the self-determination of peoples, even Israeli-Palestinian people.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

38 Responses

  1. on December 31, 2012, 10:12 am

    You do have to wonder how long this putting another country before the one that enables is going to last///

    didnt nixon tell that pastor bout the jewish controlled media…

    IMO that control has got to end…

  2. munro on December 31, 2012, 10:30 am

    Phil, Israel Firsters are not “people who think about Israel’s security first” but people consumed Israel’s power first.

  3. irmep on December 31, 2012, 10:42 am

    To any who follow the issue, David Gregory’s inability to deal with the true source/issues surrounding the expected Hagel nomination sounded like a cover-up. But even when reporters have been (rarely) asked to deal with it straight-on, they don’t want to talk about the contours of the Israel lobby. Diane Rehm pitched the real question of “character assassination” to her journalist panel in the last 2012 “weekly roundup.”

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would leave at the end of President Obama’s first term. It is said that the White House will announce the appointment of John Kerry as secretary of state. There has also been the story that Chuck Hagel would be nominated as secretary of defense. I have a Tweet here — two Tweets actually. “Please have your guests discuss the Israel lobby’s character assassination of Chuck Hagel. Should Chuck Hagel be thrown under the bus for lack of deference to Israel and its U.S. lobby?” Susan.

    Well, you know, this is really interesting. This is now the second time in really the last few weeks that we’ve seen a controversy over a nomination that President Obama hasn’t even made. I feel like we’ve entered a whole new phase of the Washington news cycle where would-be nominees are being attacked and going up to the Capitol Hill to defend themselves even before anything is announced. And I have to say it does look like Hagel, who’s been extensively vetted according to sources reporting we’ve had on Foreign Policy, for the defense secretary job. It does seem as though the White House was interested in making him the defense secretary.

    But now it looks like he’s hanging out there yet again in almost the same way that Susan Rice was where her nomination, which never happened by the way, was thrown up in a trial balloon where she went through the whole process, was exploded and really left in a very uncomfortable situation by President Obama refusing to publicly push her forward or even to make the nomination official. So now we have that situation.

    The controversy that former Senator Hagel, a Republican by the way, has excited really revolved around the question of whether he is deemed sufficiently pro-Israel in his policies. And there’s a particular quote that he gave to an author, one of Foreign Policy’s columnist as it happened, in which he referred to the quote unquote “Jewish lobby” as opposed to the quote unquote “Israel lobby.” That’s being taken in some quarters as a sign that he is not a real supporter. He’s been critical of Israeli settlement policy for example.

    But I think unfortunately what you see happening is a real almost tar and feathering situation here in which some people bandied about phrases like anti, semi, that’s caused many people across the political spectrum in Washington to rally to his defense.


    And it’s obscured, I think, the very real questions about is this the right pick for secretary of defense. I mean, there’s the political question of whether you should have three of the last four democratic appointed secretaries of the defense be Republican. Bill Clinton picked Bill Cohen. You had obviously Bob Gates staying on. Now you might have Chuck Hagel. He has no management experience other than on the business side. He’s never managed a major agency. He’s never been part of the Pentagon running the biggest, most expensive, most complicated agency in the world.
    He’s been out of office for six years almost. It’s not clear what his stand is on the world stage. Bob Gates had standing. Leon Panetta had standing. It’s not clear Chuck Hagel does. So there are very legitimate questions about whether this is the right pick substantively or politically, as I think with Susan Rice as potentially with Benghazi, obscured completely by the politics. And I think the politics will get uglier now that the Kerry thing is — if it’s locked that’s off the stage a little bit.

    Hagel’s the one person that’s hanging. I think Susan’s exactly right that it’s strange that he’s hanging there with no defense coming from the White House or from — really from Democrats. He’s becoming a piñata.


    Look, I mean, you have to accept the presumptive right of a president who is reelected to pick his own cabinet period as there was a presumptive right of the president to pick his own nominees for the Supreme Court. These things are changing now. And now some people are presenting certain litmus tests for people. The President of the United States capitulated when it came to Susan Rice. I’m not a big support of Susan Rice. I’m not against Susan Rice. That’s not the issue. He has the right to pick his own people.

    There was a character assassination against Susan Rice essentially blaming her for things she was not that responsible for. She was not even nominated. And the sight was ugly really, the way the — you know, sharpening the knives for her and the way they dealt with her. And none of them now is even rethinking whether they’ve done something wrong or not. This is — Chuck Hagel is a mainstream Republican. He’s a moderate. Maybe this species in the Republican world is dying, is becoming extinct obviously.

    He’s the leader, he’s the chairman of a mainstream think tank called the Atlantic Council, which is highly respected. That includes highly respected Republicans like Brent Scowcroft and others. The man served in the Senate of the United States, had two Purple Hearts, he fought in Vietnam. Many of those who are criticizing him never fought in Vietnam or any war but they would like to wage all sorts of wars, as we’ve seen them pushing for the war in Iraq and other places.

    There’s nothing anti-Semitic about the man’s record, absolutely not. He believes in the mainstream American position, which is a two-stage solution. And yes, the man criticized settlement activities where there are a lot of Israelis. And there are a lot of pro-Israelis in this country who criticized settlement activities. And we’ve seen them on the record doing so. So to let this man bleed like that and with the White House almost capitulating on him really tells you something about how dirty politics has become in Washington.

    Last word, Susan.

    Well, I think those are all important points. Two quick other ones to throw into the mix, the other factor here with Hagel now that he’s nominating Kerry is what I would call Obama’s white male problem. And if you look at these national security appointments he basically would be not only appointing the first white male secretary of state in a long, long time but he — the other reported contenders for defense secretary, for CIA are also white men. And so I think that’s a concern after the Susan Rice nomination didn’t come through.

  4. on December 31, 2012, 10:54 am

    hagel And is somebody who’s currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job.

    I didnt know that..

    • annie on December 31, 2012, 12:56 pm

      “And is somebody who’s currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job.”

      I didnt know that..

      yep, that’s why it makes sense Obama is considering him. because he already works with him and trusts his judgement. that’s why all this hullabalu about Flournoy is just that. obama has worked with both of them and i’m sure he knows the assets they bring to the table.

      • MRW on December 31, 2012, 1:07 pm

        Word is that the WH doesn’t like working with Flournoy. Don’t have link. Read it last week.

      • annie on December 31, 2012, 1:36 pm

        yeah, we’ve got hophmi singing her praises over here

        AS IF people hire or appoint someone without considering their own personal experience working with that person. it’s a crucial job, one that requires coordination and someone who implements policy according to ones own specifications. maybe he just likes hagel better. as i mentioned he’s worked with them both.

  5. American on December 31, 2012, 11:09 am

    Sometimes I wonder why we even bother with all cable news programs that are loaded up with so many people who have no qualifications, education or experience in what they are criticizing or advising and pontificating on….90% of the media world is down the rabbit hole. They are mainly just noise….either Israel partisan noise or dem partisan noise or gop partisan noise or single issue noise or fanatic fringe noise. The media is a circus just like congress is a circus.

    • MRW on December 31, 2012, 12:49 pm

      Sometimes I wonder why we even bother with all cable news programs that are loaded up with so many people who have no qualifications, education or experience in what they are criticizing or advising and pontificating on.

      Exactly. Furthermore, they don’t have the financial incentive to find out; they have great salaries and perks, looks count more than anything.

      Example: federal accounting. None of them (the media) knows how it works operationally. Zero. Zip. So Americans don’t know as a result. (I didn’t until I spent the last two years night and day investigating this, calling the Fed, and verifying what I was reading and hearing. Shocked the hell out of me.) None of them can rebut Obama’s ridiculous assertion that the federal government needs to tighten its belt like the 50 states, households, and businesses, which unlike the federal government are revenue-contrained. The federal government issues the currency; we don’t need to ‘borrow’ our own currency from anyone (think about it: where does China get US dollars? Do they manufacture them in Beijing?). The media relies upon the supposed wisdom of the people (and economists) who got us into this mess, who didn’t see it coming, and who were flat out wrong. FYI: some people up on the Hill actually know how federal accounting works, which is why SS was quietly removed from the fiscal cliff discussions this last week. I await the day, and I submit it will be in the next 24 months, when Americans understand how they’ve been bamboozled about what happened on August 15, 1971. That day is coming.

      BTW, the debt-ceiling was something used when we were on the gold standard (over 80 years ago) to act like a belt and pair of suspenders to keep our gold in the country. It has had zero meaning since 1934, when we went off the gold standard domestically. Congress should have abolished it immediately but the war intervened.

  6. Obsidian on December 31, 2012, 12:05 pm

    If Senator Hagel believes that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the heart of the troubles in the Middle East, than he is a moron and not fit to be Secretary of Defense.

    Who says he’s a moron? 45,000 dead Syrians. 250,000 dead Iraqis. Muammar el-Qaddafi, etc.

    • annie on December 31, 2012, 1:27 pm

      if? either he said it or he didn’t. since when can you speak for all those dead people? you really think all of them would agree with you?

    • James Canning on December 31, 2012, 7:48 pm

      Obsidian – – Hasn’t the Israel lobby blocked normal relations between the US and Iran? And hasn’t the Israel lobby forced Iran to enrich urnaium to 20 percent? Which in turn helped to bring on civil war in Syria, due to efforts by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to lessen the dangers posed by potential war in the Persian Gulf.

    • justicewillprevail on December 31, 2012, 10:23 pm

      Just remind us of who cheerled the Iraq war. And who is the moron here. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

  7. Sin Nombre on December 31, 2012, 1:28 pm

    Phil Weiss wrote:

    “I don’t know if Gregory is an Israel Firster, to use the phrase that Rosenberg has inserted into the discourse to signify people who think about Israel’s security first….”

    I don’t either, but given the clear reality that Gregory was consciously obfuscating this just points out that Israel Firsters are not the entire problem here. Thus, as opposed to not mentioning the real source of the Hagel opposition due to affection for Israel, it seems to me just as likely (if not more) that Gregory isn’t doing so just as a tribal thing instead. E.g., “You don’t put the finger on fellow jews who might come under attack by the Gentiles for acting tribal,” so that it may not be an “Israel thing” at all.

    The sad thing is that this sort of tribal loyalty is something that the liberal/Left/Progressives sectors clearly approve of, as its political correctness is recognized and certainly never really criticized across the spectrum: Dershowitz and other jews just plain savaging of Goldstone after the latter’s report (“Kapo!”); the idea that a Clarence Thomas is somehow not an “authentic” black (“Uncle Tom!”); and on and on and on.

    The more you look at the situation the U.S. has gotten itself into in the ME the more can be laid at the door of political correctness in one or the other of its forms, and yet, despite its great example of the incredible damage it can inflict, that never seems to garner any attention.

    In a world where politically correct propositions are welcomed, and those questioning or denying same are immediately denounced and read out of intelligent society (as “racists” or whatever), it’s easy to why Israeli partisans above all adore the establishment of the meme that “Israel’s interests are our interests” or that “criticizing Israel is being anti-semetic.”

    In a sense, they get to set the outer limits within which “acceptable” commentary is heard, with all else being savagely repressed.

    • Donald on December 31, 2012, 2:46 pm

      “the idea that a Clarence Thomas is somehow not an “authentic” black (“Uncle Tom!”); and on and on and on.”

      You have this habit of conflating your other problems with the left with the “Progressive except for Palestine” issue. It may have escaped your notice, but the Republicans are as deeply tied to the Lobby as the Democrats. As for the left and Thomas, claiming that opposition to him is based mainly on some PC nonsense about who is an “authentic black” is plain obfuscation. Try googling “Clarence Thomas cruel unusual punishment.” I’ll save you the trouble–


      • Sin Nombre on December 31, 2012, 3:57 pm

        I stand by what I said: “The more you look at the situation the U.S. has gotten itself into in the ME the more can be laid at the door of political correctness in one or the other of its forms.”

      • Donald on January 1, 2013, 12:08 pm

        “I stand by what I said: “The more you look at the situation the U.S. has gotten itself into in the ME the more can be laid at the door of political correctness in one or the other of its forms.”

        You said more than that in the earlier post. You spoke as though the opposition to Clarence Thomas was mainly based on some PC notion that a black man couldn’t have his opinions and be “authentic”, which is a disingenuous way of dodging what is genuinely repugnant about his views. That’s a form of conservative political correctness–screaming “liberal racism against conservative blacks” to avoid talking about substance. Clarence Thomas was opposed because he is a jackass on issues like cruel and unusual punishment. But rather than face up to that conservatives would rather employ exactly the sort of rhetoric they condemn as “PC thinking” when liberals do it.

        This is what political correctness is, at its root–a way of using symbolism to avoid substance. You find it at least as much on the right as on the left. Every part of the political spectrum has its ways of suppressing discussion, making certain topics off-limits. Maybe you want to think this is some exclusively leftwing pathology, but if so you’re deluding yourself.

        As for what I quote from you here, I agree. In fact, back in the early 90’s when attacking leftist political correctness was all the rage–and in the “liberal” press like the NYT–what was obvious was that no one who used that phrase ever pointed out that the Israelis were by far the biggest beneficiaries of politically correct thinking. The heroic warriors against political correctness would focus on some ludicrous example of speech suppression on some college campus somewhere (the sort of idiocy satirized on “Portlandia”) and completely ignore the way mainstream politicians, with rare exceptions, genuflected to Israel.

      • Sin Nombre on January 3, 2013, 5:27 am

        As to Clarence Thomas (and some other individuals) you totally elide the point. Sure, that is, *your* opposition to him was based on views. But you can’t erase that there was indeed *some* loud voices raised against him from some on the Left on the grounds that he wasn’t “authentically” black. Same as, from time to time, we’ve seen conservative women called “inauthentic” feminists by Leftie feminists.

        That being said, I surely don’t deny that, over the last decade or so particularly, and increasingly, some on the Right have tried to use the “principles”—broadly speaking—of political correctness as to this or that proposition. But yes, this is the crux of a sub-issue between us: Overwhelmingly I think the phenomenon is one of the Left, with it only being natural (but no less condemnable) that we see some on the Right eventually try to hijack and use the same tactic.

        And I think this is particularly so as regards racial/ethnic/cultural matters and etc., which I think is clearly at the very heart of lots of our problem when speaking of Israel, our policies towards it and etc. Especially the inability to point out that those so considerably responsible for our policies in the ME are jewish and have been pushing Israel-First ideas. And the inability/unwillingness to point out the heavy jewish component in the media/in the media’s ownership and etc.

        Or, to put it another way, take away all the related political correctness that has, just over the last 13 years, made it impossible to talk openly about ME affairs, and it’s almost impossible to imagine things having gone anywhere near the way they did.

        In the very first place I don’t think we’d have ever gotten into Iraq, and that’s huge enough, but then think of all the rest that would be different too, such as the U.S. opposing U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state and etc., etc. Indeed I think the entire warp and woof of our relationship with and towards Israel would be very very significantly different, with consequent huge differences in our relations with other ME countries following.

      • Donald on January 3, 2013, 10:11 am

        “That being said, I surely don’t deny that, over the last decade or so particularly, and increasingly, some on the Right have tried to use the “principles”—broadly speaking—of political correctness as to this or that proposition. ”

        This is incredibly naive. “Political correctness” is just a label (originally invented by lefties to mock other lefties) that describes a universal human tendency to place certain topics off-limits using bullying tactics or name-calling, not for any logical reason, but because of some ideological prejudice. Orwell wrote essay after essay on this, often focusing on the left, because he was on the left and as a matter of principle, but it’s everywhere. Read his “Notes on Nationalism”. It’s probably as old as humanity.

        To talk about the Right as though it just discovered PC thinking after the evil Left did so is absurd. McCarthyism was PC thinking. Racism itself was a form of political correctness when it was the prevailing mode of thought in our society.

        On Clarence Thomas, the problem there with PC thinking is the notion that some member of a given group long victimized in a society couldn’t be a jerk. He’s the one who played the race card during the Anita Hill uproar with his “high tech lynching” claim. And btw, I knew a lefty on whom that transparent ploy actually worked and who felt sorry for him, but it clearly worked much more so with people on the right who normally claim they can’t abide such tactics.

        There were numerous ironies about the anti-PC bashing that was all the rage back in the early 90’s. First was that very fact–it was politically correct to bash political correctness. Liberals did it as much as anyone–the term, as I already mentioned, was a leftist term invented to mock silly “Portlandia” type lefties. I used it in that sense myself a couple of years before the term went mainstream and people laughed, thinking I was being original. Second, it was politically correct to pretend that groupthink and mind control was some phenomenon peculiar to the far left, and absolutely nobody pointed to the I/P conflict as an example of political correctness, because the really powerful forms of groupthink aren’t mocked in mainstream society until they start to lose their power. Groupthink on the I/P conflict spanned the political spectrum–Chomsky went after some of his fellow lefties on that point back in the early 80’s, but without using the label “PC”.

        It’s always been easier to mock silly or stupid college kids and/or fringe lefty types than it is to go after the real sacred cows in our culture. That’s why the attack on PC focused on the fringe left, rather than, say the Israel Lobby. In fact, it’s what Israel defenders claim now–that criticism of Israel by college kids and others on the left is PC thinking. It’s “politically correct” to criticize Israel and the US and their human rights violations, according to the right.

      • Woody Tanaka on January 3, 2013, 11:57 am

        “Sure, that is, *your* opposition to him was based on views. But you can’t erase that there was indeed *some* loud voices raised against him from some on the Left on the grounds that he wasn’t ‘authentically’ black.”

        …which was based wholly on his views. On what other grounds (other than the “political correctness” fantasy that exists in few places other than the fevered minds of right wingers) do you think that this lack of authenticity was based?

    • James Canning on January 1, 2013, 2:31 pm

      Sin Nombre – – Yes, the “politically correct” angle is important, and it is used to suppress effective debate about Israel/Palestine in the US Congress.

  8. biorabbi on December 31, 2012, 1:59 pm

    I’m luke warmly against Hagel because of not only his hostility towards Israel, but the issue regarding not signing a letter regarding anti-semitism in Russia many years ago… he was the sole holdout refusing to sign such a letter. This, coupled with the remarks of the members of the Nebraska Jewish community about his coldness towards them. But, that’s a personal dislike. He is clearly qualified for the job. He has proven to be completely correct regarding Iraq, war in the middle east, and other issues.

    Truth in advertising works both ways. People who oppose Hagel on Israel/Jewish based issues should not hide behind other issues, unless they are truly gay-centric or whatever. But folks on the far left who suddenly are in love with their favorite republican despite his past intolerant comments on gays or support of Storm Thurmond or whatever, should also admit that their support too is all about their hostility to Israel.

    For me, for Phil Weiss, for Pat Buchanan, for Justin Raimando, for Annie, for Mr. Foxman, the Hagel Affair is all about Israel.

    • annie on December 31, 2012, 2:12 pm

      biorabbi, i am not in love with him. perhaps you could answer a question for me. several people have mentioned the issue of him being a republican. i have to admit with certain offices it would make a difference to me. especially domestic/environmental/heath/SS issues. but for secretary of defense, what difference would it make what ones party was if they are neocons or have neocon FP leanings. if ones policy choices are pro israel centric it makes no difference. which is different than pro israel. and i will admit i am pro palestine centric. i really want to see palestinians have freedom and equal rights. that’s different than focus on hostility. but it’s a not surprising/mundane attack on human rights activists.

      btw, not that anyone ask but i think obama was willing to not push rice forward because he didn’t want to drag benghazi further into his new cabinet. it wasn’t about rice per se.

      • biorabbi on January 1, 2013, 12:14 am

        Annie, I think there is a large element of resistance to Hagel in the republican senate caucus in the type of republican he his. He was against the surge, was strongly anti-Iraq war, and, more broadly, anti-interventionist. While, he was right on many levels, I believe he accompanied then Senator Obama, running for election for President in ’08 on a worldwide trip. His republican credentials could be compared to the democratic credentials of Joseph Lieberman… that of a highly respected ‘party man’ who switched to the other side.

        So, using the pick of Hagel to demonstrate Obama’s bipartisan credentials would be the exact same hypothetical pick of a President Romney demonstrating his bipartisan credentials by picking a Joseph Lieberman for secretary of state. I doubt democratic senators would view Lieberman as a “bipartisan nominee” any differently than Lindsey Graham or John McCain views the “bipartisan nominee” of Chuck Hagel.

      • biorabbi on January 1, 2013, 12:15 am

        I believe you are right on Rice, Annie. Happy New Year.

      • annie on January 1, 2013, 2:45 am

        happy new year bio rabbi. and happy new year to everyone. running out again…gotta make the big midnight downtown..


  9. American on December 31, 2012, 2:33 pm

    Guess what congress spent all it’s time on this am….floor speeches about Hezbollah as terrorist org.
    All Israel all the time.

    • Donald on December 31, 2012, 3:23 pm

      “Guess what congress spent all it’s time on this am….floor speeches about Hezbollah as terrorist org.”

      Really? How’d that come up? I’m guessing Hagel, but don’t know.

    • ritzl on December 31, 2012, 5:56 pm

      Prep work for the upcoming confirmation hearing questions regarding Hagel’s “lack of judgement” about ending the 2006 Lebanon massacre asap.

      The Lobby never sleeps.

      • Donald on December 31, 2012, 7:42 pm

        Thanks. I googled and found this about Hagel’s statement back in 2006–


      • annie on January 1, 2013, 2:42 am

        donald, you can watch the clip from that hagel speech here:

      • ritzl on January 1, 2013, 6:28 pm

        Thanks Annie.

      • annie on January 1, 2013, 11:02 pm

        my pleasure ritzl

      • James Canning on December 31, 2012, 7:45 pm

        Yes, the ISRAEL LOBBY is relentless in its efforts to deceive the American people and facilitate endless war in the Middle East to “protect” Israel.

      • James Canning on January 1, 2013, 1:54 pm

        Hagel wanted an immediate end to the insane Israeli rampage in Lebanon. Good judgement, of course. In contrast to the foolish Condoleezza Rice, who claimed to hear “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

  10. James Canning on December 31, 2012, 7:43 pm

    Bravo! David Gregory deserves contempt for his obvious effort to deceive the American public about why the Israel lobby is trying to block Chuck Hagel from Defense. To do this, he tries to change the subject.

  11. G. Seauton on January 1, 2013, 3:48 am

    Go Phil! This is the kind of critical reporting that makes your blog — and your commentary — unique. Excellent.

  12. Blank State on January 1, 2013, 10:36 am

    Geez…Obsidian claims 250,000 deaths in Iraq??? A bit conservative, doncha think??

    Try well over a million in the last twenty years, murdered by the United States, while Israel has cheered and encouraged the carnage.

Leave a Reply