Forget Iraq. Moran's giving Trent Lott a run for his money

Do you think he's anti semite then?

I'm not an expert on Israel nor am I an expert in Middle East policy. But would we be having these problems if Israel didn't exist? Probably, probably not.

The reality is, however, that Israel does exist and we have long been their ally. Also, there are always going to be wack jobs like Saddam Hussein running around.

 

Agreed

 

Wait a minute...there's aLOT of truth to what he's saying. The broadbrush approach he used is wrong and immoral. But he's not wrong for pointing out that there's a pretty large portion of American Jews pushing this war. William Safire doesn't just speak for himself. Some of the leading neo-cons are Jews who see this war as a help to Israel. Hell, the whole Wolfowitz Doctrine is based on the idea of remaking the Middle East and thereby making Israel safer.

To me, this is like saying that American blacks are pushing AIDS in Africa onto the national agenda. It's true, so long as you don't try to paint a picture of disloyal monolith driving policy.

A link would be helpful to discerning the context and content of what he said. Just a word of advice...if you can copy and paste it, you can give us a link too.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/08/opinion/08KELL.html

Makes sense to me.

 

Gaining moderate Jewish support is not the purpose of this incursion, but it's a nice side benefit that clearly has been discussed inside the White House. It's kinda like the oil issue.

 

Well, he did appoligize for his remarks. But unlike Lott, I'm sure people will not be calling for him to resign in any case.

 

Sum Totals

The question is, when do all the side benefits become the MAIN benefit?

 

I think Moran's point re: the war is way overstated and probably rightfully offensive to many Ameican Jews.

But, at some point, we are going to have to have a serious discussion in the public sphere about how the pro-Israel American Jewish lobby has so effectively created a climate in which any slightly controversial comment about Judaism or Israel is immediately denounced (and picked up by the media) as anti-Semitic. Can you imagine a similar article being written in the Post over someone saying something like, "American Muslims are responsible for terrorism." Well, I guess we can imagine it, but the articles in the Post all just report the content as the news itself, not the offense given to a major U.S. religious population. Note: in both cases, there is some truth to the arguments; it's just the divergent responses that is problematic.

 

Wanna bet?

 

Re: Sum Totals

If you believe the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the main benefit is Middle Eastern stability and democracy, which is in anyone's book a better result than any one election. Clinton would have given up any chance at re-election and killed his mother too if it meant that the history books would note him as the "Father of Middle Eastern Democracy". So no, I don't think that there's any chance of this side benefit becoming the primary benefit ever.

Problem is, the Wolfowitz Doctrine's explanation of how this happens is kinda fuzzy, so even if we capture / kill / exile Saddam we may never get to the final goal. In that case, Bush will gladly tout his military successes and take the side benefits (better access to oil, Jewish-American gratitude, etc.) and get re-elected before any of us fully realize what the hell we did to the region long-term.

 

The memo was a nine or ten book series.

 

Don't get Left Behind.

 

Will that be like a cross between The McLaughlin Group and The Omega Man?

 

I think comments like this point to a current rift between Jews and the Democrats. Jewish people were usually counted on by Democrats to be a solid constituency within the party. Not any more. When protesters carry Palestinian flags and call Jews murderers (similar to Saddam, there's conveniently no mention of Yasser Arafat's role in the region) you can bet that they'll link these acts directly to the Democrats. You hear very little discourse on why there are so many anti-Israel & even anti-Semitic voices in the so-called inclusionary Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton was taken to task for kissing up to Arafat & his wife. She "saw the light" when she realized that a good amount of votes in NY were coming from Jewish voters. Now she's as pro-Israel as she was pro-Arafat. But I'm guessing she did it for selfish reasons. A Clinton doing something like that? Naw, never!!

 

That's why he's here!

 

Are you asking me out on a post-Rapture, pre-Apocolyptic date or something? Kinda creeping me out dude.

 

Mine eyes have seen the glory!