marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs

Democrats Enlist

Let's for a moment speak the unspeakable. I can give myself license because I am a Jew. Fact is, the Democrats' policy on Israel mirrors the Republican policy on Cuba. They both derive from primarily domestic political considerations and not from any measured analysis of foreign policy nor any deliberation on where our true national interests reside. Republicans want to keep the Cuban-American voting base -- in Florida and New Jersey primarily-- inside the tent. So to hell with any notion of revising a policy toward Castro that has only, in effect, helped maintain his now 47 year long monopoly on power. (Happy 80th, Comandante). Democrats, likewise, want to retain the majority of the Jewish-American vote and prefer , for the most part, to keep their mouths closed and their eyes shut when it comes to Israel. Cuban-Americans and Jewish-Americans are also important funding sources for both parties (Bill Clinton was actually able to raise tons from both communities, Hilary's borther-in-law being a major muckety-much within the right-wing exile milieu) and neither party wants to offend those who pay their bills. Here's "Speaker" Nancy Pelosi, a liberal darling, enthusiastically enlisting in the ranks of those pledging "unwavering support and committment" to Israel, urging the Bush administration to tighten the screws on Syria and Iran. How's that for an opposition leader? Pelosi is hardly an exception among Democrats, or even liberal Democrats. On Wednesday afternoon, the Dems lined up cheek-to-jowl on the floor, pushing aside GOPers in a frenzied contest to see who could spout the most pro-Israeli rhetoric. This during a faux debate on a congressional resolution condeming Hezbollah and Syria and Iran. The House resolution is co-sponsored by Pelosi and the Republican Majority Leader John Boehner. The vote comes some time Thursday. Same story in the Senate where Democratic Chief Harry Reid co-sponsored a similar resolution with his Republican colleagues. Indeed, the only real objections to the blindly pro-Israeli wording of the resolutions, which makes no call to Israel to halt its military campaign, comes from a few conservative Republicans who, frankly, don't have to worry as much about roiling the Jewish-American vote:
Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said earlier this week that he opposed the call in the resolution to the president "to continue supporting Israel as it exercises its right for self defense." Warner called the Israeli reaction "extraordinary" and called to consider the implications it might have on the US efforts regarding Iraq and Iran.
I had to laugh out loud while listening to some satelite radio in the car. As C-Span carried the House debate live, the most forceful voice in calling for a more even-handed approach to the resolution came from right-wing Republican Dana Rohrbacher (!). Likewise, on Hardball a few hours later an emotional Pat Buchanan made a plea that while Israel had a perfect right to retaliate against the Hezbollah it had no business whatsoever levelling the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon. Countering him, strenuously arguing the case for Israel, was none other than Bob Shrum -- former top consultant to a long, failed list of Democratic candidates, including John Kerry. It's kind of stunning to see how little impact this fighting -- which threatens to blossom into a regional war-- continues to have on the liberal blogs. Yes, it's being discussed. Kevin Drum is trying to, er, drum up a good discussion. And Arianna's crew is doing a great job of rounding up blogations about the war. But on the left side of the 'sphere the flattening of Lebanon is still pretty much taking a second or third seat to Lieberman, stem cells and general Bush-bashing. The best Kos can come up with, for example, is to throw his hands up in the air and call the war a clusterfuck. Puh-leeze. More to the center-right, PajamasMedia continues to jam away with a longer and longer list of links. So, I suppose, that's our choice nowadays. Join the Republicans and deny the existence of science. Or join the Opposition and enlist in the cause of a reckless Middle Eastern war. In either case, it's all about pandering. P.S. MaxSpeak is an outstanding exception to the left 'sphere inclination toward avoiding the Israel issue. Here are some links to his posts: http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002368.html http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002366.html http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002365.html http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002362.html http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002360.html http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002357.html

79 Responses to “Democrats Enlist”

  1. Michael Balter Says:

    Great post, Marc, could not agree more. I could also cynically suggest that the Israel/Lebanon situation (and Gaza, which no one wants to talk about) takes some attention off of the Iraqi disaster for both Democrats and Republicans. In addition to about 100 Iraqi deaths per day, there are also these:

    Names of the Dead

    July 20, 2006

    The Department of Defense has identified 2,548 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:

    BAUGHMAN, Nathaniel S., 23, Cpl., Army; Monticello, Ind.; 101st Airborne Division.

    DICKINSON, Michael A. II, 26, Staff Sgt., Army; Battle Creek, Mich.; Ninth Psychological Operations Battalion, Fourth Psychological Operations Group, Special Operations Command.

    HOLGUIN, Manuel J., 21, Specialist, Army; Woodlake, Calif.; First Armored Division.

    PUGH, Kenneth I., 39, Cpl., Army; Houston; Fourth Infantry Division.

    SMITH, Scott R., 34, Sgt. First Class, Army; Punxsutawney, Pa.; 737th Explosive Ordnance Detachment, 52nd Ordnance Group.

  2. Robert Fiore Says:

    James Wolcott is doing long posts on the incursion on a daily basis. Or is that considered “radical” rather than “liberal”?

  3. Samuel Stott Says:

    I also tend to think that the Israeli response in Lebanon has been excessive, but I find nothing to argue with in Pelosi’s statement:

    “Using civilians as shields by concealing weapons in civilian areas, as done by Hezbollah, is inconsistent with affording them protection, and this resolution properly condemns that action.”

    “This attack would likely not have been possible without the explicit authorization of Hezbollah’s main supporters, namely Iran and Syria. Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to the destruction of Israel, and Iran and Syria aid and abet efforts to achieve that goal.”

    Much to your discredit, Mr. Cooper, you comment on this subject while ignoring the most elementary facts: that Isreal is willing to make peace while its enemies are unwilling to tolerate the existence of Isreal; that tens of millions of Arabs and Muslims, if not hundreds of millions of them, beleive in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and that Jews are pigs and monkeys and make matzoh with human blood, etc, etc, unendingly, unendingly, etc.

    In its confused, ineffectual way, even the American Democratic Party recognizes that the fault lies with Muslim and Arab Jew-hatred and rejectionism. Four million Jews living on a tiny stamp of land are not the cause of anything in Cairo and Tehran and Darfur, and its time for the Left to quit supporting oppressed, poor, ignorant dupes in their delusions. In so doing, the Left will cease its objective support for their oppressors.

  4. peaceout Says:

    While I pretty much agree on the general point of this article I find the comparisson of Israel to Cuba a little off.

    As far as I know Cuba does not posess nuclear weapons, a super-outfitted army compliments of the US, a Silicon Valley-like high tech industry (again consisting mostly of US companies), or diamonds.

    Nor in fact does it occupy any foreign countries or territories, routinely kill people with airstrikes (from US-built helicopters and planes), or enforce an appartheid-like regime.

    Cuba doesn’t care what countries you’ve visited by looking at your passport when you arrive at its airport (Israel does.)

    The US government has never prevented its citizens from visiting their relatives in Israel, nor placed any embargos on Israel despite their
    daily criminal acts against human rights.

    Cuba has never really been a threat to world peace. The US would never consider sheltering terrorists who acted against Israel (Luis Posada Carilles who blew up a plane full of Cuban citizens? According to the NY Times he’s now allowed to apply for US citizenship.)

    The list is long but I guess my point is this:

    The Democrats policy on Israel doesn’t mirror the Republicans policy on Cuba. The US government’s policy on Israel is in fact the exact opposite than its policy on Cuba regardless of it being Democrat or Republican. The US favors Israel despite its continuous war crimes (or maybe because of them) while it punishes Cuba for having the audacity to assert its independence. In the rest of the world all this is crystal clear. Cuba has a whole lot of domestic problems but no one in the world considers Castro a threat. (Israel punishes its dissidents too by the way, just look what happened to whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu when he revealed Israel’s secret nuclear program.)

    Even before the latest attrocities in Gaza and Lebanon when Bush talked about Iran being a nuclear threat a lot of people outside the US wondered “well if Iran’s a threat because of POTENTIAL nuclear weapons how about Israel that already has said weapons?” Now looking at pictures of dead children and other civilians, killed by Israeli forces while the US government issues supporting statements to Israel we are not surprised. This has been US policy from the very start. However it is becoming more and more painfully clear that Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same thing. And that is a little sad because it takes away from the hope that anyone with power will stand up and do something. On the other hand maybe it’s time the people recognize what is going on and demand change, significant change that reflects the majority’s belief that we want all wars and the killings of innocents to stop now, regardless of their nationality, religion or skin color.

  5. Samuel Stott Says:

    An impressive post from Peaceout, listing the ways in which Cuba is benign, Israel malign, culminating in the observation that “Cuba has never really been a threat to world peace.” Yes indeed; Cuba hosting nukes for the peace-loving, tragically misunderstood, regrettably defunct Soviet Union is not worth mentioning, but Israel having nukes is scary!

    Obviously, the initial comparison between Cuba and Israel was made with reference to the two American parties and how they formulate policy for political advantage, but the juxtaposition of two tiny countries that punch well above their weight: “Cuba” (victim) and “Israel” (victimizer) is just too damn sexy!

    Let’s for a moment speak the unspeakable. I can give myself license because half my family is Cuban, and half of them are Mareolitos and their descendents. Cuba is not Israel. Israel permits their citizens to come and go. Israel doesn’t have a prison camp for aids victims. Israel isn’t a facist thogocracy.

  6. peaceout Says:

    I did not mean to imply that the situation in Cuba is ideal or democratic or without violations of human rights. However, while sad, as regards to the US or the rest of the world Cuba poses no immediate threat. The Cuban Missile crisis was a very dangerous point in human history. However, it was many decades ago, while Israel’s aggression against its neighboring countries is happening right now. Cuba as far as I know has never had any imperialistic tendencies -and right now posseses no nuclear weapons. The US even has Guantanamo as a military base there!
    Yes there are human rights violations in Cuba, and I’m really sorry if you thought I was making light of them. I was just saying you can’t compare the US policy on these two countries. In fact you can look at a number of countries which the US has diplomatic and economic relations with and not punished for their human rights violations besides Israel. China for one comes to mind. My point was that the comparisson (Cuba to Israel) was faulty because I consider US policy to be obviously completely opposite when it comes to those two countries. In fact they are very good examples of the extremes in US foreign policy. Overwhelming support for Israel and overwhelming hostility towards Cuba. The latter being a country that while it does and can hurt its own citizens can not by any real standards be considered a threat to any other countries, and the first that has the power to inflict major damage in any country it so chooses, and in fact is right this very second doing so!

  7. jayinbmore Says:

    But on the left side of the ‘sphere the flattening of Lebanon is still pretty much taking a second or third seat to Lieberman, stem cells and general Bush-bashing.

    Marc, otherwise insightful post is ruined by the remarked above. I think your generally good impulse to find fault with “the left” has gotten the better of your observational skills.

    The only name “left” bloggers NOT covering this mess are Kos and Atrios and I’m glad they aren’t. They have nothing at all useful to say about it. However, along with the previously noted James Wolcott, Juan Cole, MaxSpeak, Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias (both at Tapped and TPM Muckracker) have been writing extensively about the war. And those are just th eones I’m reading.

  8. Marc Davidson Says:

    Where indeed is the opposition party. Maybe Ariel Sharon’s (apocryphal?) retort to Shimon Peres in 2001 was right on target:

    “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”

    The unending cries of Israeli victimization as expressed by Samuel Stott are a major part of the problem with regard to finding a peace settlement — the hundreds of millions of Arabs (terrorists for the most part) who consider Jews to be baby-eating pigs who should be thrown into the sea… very convenient and rather pathetic.

  9. Michael Turner Says:

    The Dems current scramble for bipartisan unity on Israel shouldn’t surprise anyone. They don’t want to be outflanked on this issue in the fall elections. Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York, a city that was target of the biggest terrorist attack in history (if you don’t count U.S. firebombings of Japanese cities in WW II as “terrorist” anyway), and substantially jewish in its community of political contributors, simply takes the obvious position. All politics is local.

    All politics is local, so let’s look at it from inside Hezbollahland. For rather meager concessions currently suggested by Israel — stopping the missile barrage and returning a handful of captured IDF soldiers in exchange for dozens, if not hundreds, of Hezbollah prisoners, Nasrullah can emerge into daylight again, a political superhero in his little quasi-sovereignty, and even the Shi’ite world, perhaps even capable declaring victory of a sort without eliciting too many snickers.

    All politics is local, so let’s look at it from inside Israel as well. Olmert, from stepping uncertainly into Sharon’s shoes, took Israel into a Real War (none of this namby-pamby Intifida 1, 2, 3 stuff), got some nice Israeli boys back home from the nasties, and becomes a political superhero in the Israeli (and American) world, even capable of declaring victory of a sort without eliciting too many snickers.

    As I’ve suggested in my posts on previous threads, you can keep going down the list of political actors, and see something that any current poser on the political stage can retrieve from this shambles, and call victory. Of a sort. Without eliciting too many snickers. (Or, they get the consolation prize of a distraction from some other embarrassment.)

    Which is probably why it’s all happening in the first place. There was political capital to be harvested, capital that had been ripening for a while. And who started shaking the tree? My bet: Assad the Younger, greenlighting the Syrian contingent of Hamas to instigate militants in Gaza to provoke the Israeli electorate. After that, and Olmert’s “see-I-have-balls-too” response, Assad wouldn’t even have to tell Nasrullah outright to follow up with rocket attacks and IDF soldier abductions.

  10. Aunty Woody Coulter Says:

    PajamasMedia is center-right? Where on the political spectrum is it approprite for eliminationist rhetoric The overwhelming theme of the bloggers aggregated there is the call for someone’s death, whether its reporters from the New York Times or anybody else who can be construed as an ‘enemy’. More than half the citizens in this country are accused of treason or worse daily by someone on the jammy ‘network’.

  11. Woody Says:

    Michael Balter’s concern for dead soldiers rings about as sincere as those in the Democratic Party who pop a champagne cork with every death in Iraq milestone. The only time that the left cares about our military is when they can use it’s losses or failures for political attacks. Let’s try to identify and list people who would have been killed had Hussein been allowed to continue his terror reign. It’s harder, but the list is longer–much longer.

    ———-

    Marc, I don’t live in Florida or New Jersey, and the Republicans will handily win my state in any near-future elections–so, they are not pandering to me on Cuba. I have never liked and still cannot stand Castro, and we should never give in one bit to Cuba until that country’s dictatorship is through and they begin acting civilized, rather than exporting leftist political doctrine and support for anti-American socialist leaders in our hemisphere. I think that you’re dreaming if you think that our accomodating Castro would have changed him or would have removed him from power. We helped him to gain power, and then he turned on us and cooperated with the Russians–almost starting WW III in 1963. Castro used up his last chance with me then. Maybe other people don’t have long memories.

    ———-

    “Deny the existence of science?” What a dumb way to state that Bush has vetoed federal funding on one form of research for moral reasons rather than saying that the science is wrong. If companies want to pursue any barbaric form of stem cell research, they are welcome to use their own money–unless, of course, they were looking for easy grant handouts or they lack faith in the success of the research.

  12. Woody Says:

    Maybe we should be nice to Hugo Chavez and he will play fair or step down. If it should have worked with Castro, then surely it will work with Chavez.
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html

  13. Randy A. Paul Says:

    Michael Balter’s concern for dead soldiers rings about as sincere as those in the Democratic Party who pop a champagne cork with every death in Iraq milestone.

    Proof?

  14. Michael Turner Says:

    Woody writes: “Let’s try to identify and list people who would have been killed had Hussein been allowed to continue his terror reign. It’s harder, but the list is longer–much longer.”

    Well, that *would* be harder, wouldn’t it? It’s very hypothetical, after all.

    But let’s try anyway, by extrapolating from the last year of Saddam’s rule. Surely there are useful numbers somewhere … somewhere …

    Aha! Here’s an attempt to come up with a tally for 2002, not long before the U.S. invasion.

    http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18277.htm

    Hmm. Just skimming here, doing rough tallies, but the numbers for Iraq 2002 appear to average out to well below the average of 100 per day we’re seeing now. It seems that the writers of the report are reduced to reciting a litany of abuses from many previous years. But in so doing, they must inevitably include Kurd-on-Kurd violence and human right violations, much of it related to the unwillingness of some Kurds to allow other Kurds to collaborate with U.S attempts to destabilize Saddam’s regime at various times.

    Damn. If this report is reliable, it looks like more people are dying now than would have died if Iraq hadn’t been invaded, especially if you include civilian casualties from the invasion itself, and “collateral damage” from U.S. attempts to suppress the insurgency since then. How disappointing.

    But wait! This report is from one of those highy dubious, left-wing, America-hating “reliable sources”: the U.S. Department of State under the Bush administration. I guess we can totally discount it, then, can’t we?

    Of course, if Iraq blows up into full-on civil war, the deaths from any such conflict (possibly into the millions) won’t be on our heads at all. Nope. No way. It’ll be the fault of those ungrateful, disorganized, immature, hot-head Iraqis. Their tendency to overreact. Their lack of restraint. Or their rampantly growing, almost apocalyptic religious conservatism. Or their desire to reassert the status quo. Or their greed for oil. Or their simplistic black-and-white worldview, where anybody who is not for you is necessarily against you. Right? Obviously! Why, those blinered ingrate Iraqis! Can’t they see that America offers them hope for so much better? Gosh. Some people ….

  15. miriam Says:

    “Much to your discredit, Mr. Cooper, you comment on this subject while ignoring the most elementary facts: that Isreal is willing to make peace while its enemies are unwilling to tolerate the existence of Isreal; that tens of millions of Arabs and Muslims, if not hundreds of millions of them, beleive in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and that Jews are pigs and monkeys and make matzoh with human blood, etc, etc, unendingly, unendingly, etc.”

    Thank you, Mr Stott, for summing it up so succinctly. This IS the crux of the problem. That doesn’t mean I automatically support all Israeli actions, either in this crisis, or any other. I am unclear why Marc, others commenting here do not get this, and so many others do not understand this.

  16. Marc Davidson Says:

    Please explain your contentention “that Israel is willing to make peace,” and the only one in the Middle East, at that. Granted there are peace groups in Israel but theirs, unfortunately, is not the government position.

  17. Wall Says:

    Miriam, I think most of the people on this blog would find that sweeping or simplistic at best.

    The Democrates are guilty as charged in this post. There is a some evidence that the Dem base could at least tolerate a lot more balanced posisition, but who knows.

    Al Franken has been doing some excellent shows on the issues involved, pointing out that many supporters of Israel dissent from Bush’s actions.

    Woody, your post shows the moral level of acceptable conservative retoric. Still, I would like to come over to your place for the festive celebration all Republicans will be having on 9-11 this year. To think, the deep sense of joy and triumph each conservative must feel in the Party’s supreme accomplishment: keeping Osama bin laden alive. As every good Republican knows, the last six years can pretty much be summed up in a single statement: “Thank God for 9-11!”

  18. Randy A. Paul Says:

    Woody, let me simplify this.

    I disagree with Sam Brownback about stem cell research, but I don’t characterize his opposition to mine as being in favor of letting people suffer from Parkinson’s disease, remain confined to wheelchairs or suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease.

    Similarly, I’m sure that there are people who oppose stem cell research who don’t believe that those who favor it are also in favor of killing babies.

    I have little doubt I my mind that you hold your beliefs sincerely. Perhaps you could afford the rest of us the same courtesy.

    George Orwell once said that “To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel.”

    Stop taking the intellectually lazy and easy way out. It says far more about you than those you are criticizing.

  19. Woody Says:

    Randy Paul, go away. It’s not worth my time arguing with someone who can’t understand metaphors and who is blind to the upbeat tone of Democrats when Iraq has problems and death milestones are recorded. Our arguments go nowhere, you believe what you want, you NEVER accept “proof” because anything that goes against your beliefs must not be real proof to you, you eventually attack me personally, and it’s VERY BORING to everyone–especially me. I’m not going there with you.

    ———-

    M.T. a dictator who gasses an entire city of his political and religious opponents can’t be all bad to the left, huh? Someone who has opponents put feet first into a plastic recyling machine and slowing killed needs defending by the left. A dictator that allows his kin to kidnap and rape women at their pleasure needs understanding by the left. Someone who invades neighboring countries resulting in tens of thousands of deaths to his own soliders and to civilians in those countries needs defending by the left. If I want to keep score, I have some numbers that you guys leave out.

    ———-

    Wall, no one on the right celebrates 9-11. The only thing that I celebrate is that the Republicans are in charge and stopping terrorism at home rather than the Democrats who can’t decide whether to fight or run. People trust the Republicans more on national security issues, which makes the Democrats so mad because they can’t get people to focus on other things–like illegal immigration and minimum wage, which doesn’t blow up buildings.

  20. Woody Says:

    Randy Paul, our posts crossed in the mail and I wrote the comment above before seeing your second one. Your comment was more courteous than I expected and that kind is more deserving of a more complete answer from me. However, I have to go to Athens and be there iin 30 minutes which is impossible, so a better response from me will have to wait. Thanks for your questions, and I’ll do my best later tonight to respond.

  21. Randy A. Paul Says:

    Woody,

    While I appreciate the second response, I asked for specific instances when Democrats celebrated the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq.

    You do your side the greater disservice when you ascribe the most vile traits to those you oppose. On what basis do you think Michael Balter is being insincere when expresses sadness about the death of US troops?

  22. Michael Balter Says:

    Michael Turner, many thanks for doing what needed to be done but what I frankly did not have the time nor energy to do–demonstrate once again how completely full of shit Woody is. Just a little thinking would have made him realize that Saddam would not and could not have killed tens of thousands of people in the last three years, no matter what his past record. But more importantly, was it too much to ask that if the US wanted to remove Saddam, that it find a way to do so that would not lead to tens of thousands of innocent lives lost? Woody cares so little about these deaths, as is obvious from his many posts here, that he does not even pause to mourn them–to do so would, I suppose, be giving ammunition to the Bush-hating left. That makes it doubly ironic that he accuses others of popping champagne corks at each death and destruction milestone, and that he would accuse people such as my good self of being insincere and being motivated by partisan politics. To acknowledge the tragedy of all these post-Saddam deaths would be to weaken his political ideology, and so he doesn’t do it. He has proven so many times that he is a pot calling the kettle black.

  23. Wall Says:

    Randy, thanks, I think you have done a good job in demonstrating what the common decency approach gets you in dealing with the likes of Woody.

    Does the Republcan really posses a level of thickness so sturdy they can’t understand that when we see their oafish attempts to manuver on the World stage produce predictable disasters, we are laughing at the downfall of their infintile arrogence rather than celebrating the suffering of it’s victims?
    It’s a leap Woody is quite capable of making, but doesn’t for stratigic reasons. See “ruthless explotation of 9-11.”

  24. reg Says:

    “those in the Democratic Party who pop a champagne cork with every death in Iraq milestone. The only time that the left cares about our military is when they can use it’s losses or failures for political attacks.” (Oh, and most of that last passing of gas as well.)

    Woody, go fuck yourself, you little weasel. If this is the kind of crap you continue to spit out here, you really should just crawl back to your Corner among the the Rottweiler-Right where you hang your hat – a land of loudmouth cowards and punks and their disingenuous enablers.

    You are a complete idiot. Your contributions consist of raving and ranting and repeating the mantras of a gang of morons. We’ve heard it all before – it’s really pathetic. The recent post in which you made stupid comments suggesting that women were incapable of making any sense and that someone or other should “go back to the kitchen” was a low point even for you.

    There are a bunch of folks who I disagree with strongly that post here, but few who are as insulting to as many with so little to back it up. You’re an embarrassment. I’ve pretty much quit commenting here, at least for a while, because I find it impossible to ignore your rancid crap. You’re in competition with some pretty inane commenters, but – aside from the fact that you generally manage not to personally insult Marc, except when you’re hiding behind the apron of “respect for Marc” in order to avoid honest responses to your own garbage – you really are just about the worst. Childish, ignorant, prone to link to the most crackpot “news” sources, and ultimately totally predictable in your mindless generalizations, ridiculous hyperbole, and persistent banalities.

    Please go back and stay in the land where it’s fun and games to call for the lynching of judges and treason trials for news reporters. It’s where you belong and you don’t come across like the dumbest guy in the room because everybody there is either nuts or stupid. Also, if you or some slimeball like you – in person, in my face – loudly persisted in the notion, because of my views on the war or whatever mad-dog notion had taken hold of your fevered brain, that I rejoice in the deaths of American military personnel, I would come at you with whatever was at hand and beat you bloody – or, worst case, get hurt trying. I’m not kidding. My disgust runneth over.

  25. Wall Says:

    Reg, it’s a lose/lose. Best you can do:

    A) Ignore. B) Play back some of their own
    projection.

    Rince, repeat.

  26. Miracle Max Says:

    Commander Chopped Liver, reporting
    for
    duty , Sir!

  27. too many steves Says:

    And this pandering of which you speak is different from the normal course of political business how, exactly?

  28. Aunty Woody Coulter Says:

    “If companies want to pursue any barbaric form of stem cell research, they are welcome to use their own money”

    If its immoral, it should be illegal. I sense more than a liile hypocrisy here.

  29. Jcummings Says:

    On another topic, Orwell was a red-baiting informant, and an overrated racist, anti-semitic thinker.

  30. c.gray Says:

    I don’t see why anyone finds the position of the Democratic Party’s leadership on this issue surprising. The overwhelming majority of USA voters, rightly or wrongly, sympathizes with Israel. And an even larger majority loathes Israel’s enemies.

    There is no political upside to criticism of Israel except pleasing a relatively small group of far-left activists who will side overwhelmingly with the Democratic Party on election day anyway. The relatively small amounts of Jewish votes and cash that might seek out a Republican alternative is almost besides the point.

  31. Nathan Says:

    Suppose Quebec sent militias across the US border, killed a few dozen soldiers and kidnapped several more. Suppose further that they commenced firing rockets indiscriminately into Buffalo, Albany and Manchester. And finally, suppose they had been pulling stunts like this for years while burning every olive branch they could find.

    Oh yeah, suppose America were only seven miles wide and Manchester was our third largest city.

    Do you suppose the American response would be, or should be, proportional? Don’t you think we might be more concerned with self-preservation than fractions? Wouldn’t we do whatever was necessary to neutralize the threat, even if it damaged Canadian infrastructure?

    I think you have selected just about the least useful international analogy for this situation.

  32. Aunty Woody Coulter Says:

    So now the big tough righties are afraid of Canucks? I live near Buffalo. We would kick the Canadians ass any day. With our bare hands. Only cowards see the need to reign terror down on innocent victims in order to justify their viagra fueled lust inspired by thuggish nationalism.

  33. Nathan Says:

    AWC,

    This might help clear things up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

  34. Jcummings Says:

    Yes, America would react like Israel. Two very violent countries. This is the new propaganda meme “any country would do it” from the Pro-Israel crowd.

    Case to disprove your point – Kashmiri Separatists killed over 200 in a terrorist attack in India. Do you see India destroying Kashmir, and/or Pakistan?

  35. Aunty Woody Coulter Says:

    okay here’s the analogy I left in an earlier thread. Except that its true.

    A DEA agent was kidnapped, tortured and killed in Mexico. Last I knew, the U.S did not bomb Mexico City.

  36. Nathan Says:

    Jcummings,

    Your point is well taken. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about Kashmir to say much intelligent about it beyond this: Kashmiri Seperatists are not backed and armed by nation states bent on the annihilation of India (if this is wrong, please let me know).

    But given that Israel has tried time and again to find peaceful resolution to this conflict, but has still had to face nearly continual violence targeted specifically at its civilian population, how would you suggest they proceed? I think it is incumbent on those who oppose the current operation to say what effective steps Israel could take instead to secure its borders and people.

  37. Nathan Says:

    AWC,

    Was this agent tortured and killed by a quasi-state entity that controls the US-Mexico border? Was this merely the latest of many such horrors perpetrated by that entity? Had all efforts at negotiating peace failed miserably? Were they firing missiles on a daily basis?

    It appears my analogy is indeed flawed. Such an attack by Quebec would be nowhere near as serious and offense as what Israel has had to endure.

  38. Jcummings Says:

    Kashmiri separatists may well be backed by some elements within Pakistan’s intelligence services, liek the guys who killed Danny Pearl.

    Israel recently has not endured NEARLY as much pain as its victims. What their doing has NOTHING to do with Israeli security (as Gilad Shalit’s father found out when he begged them to trade prisoners for Shalit) and everything to do with destablizing the region to maintain its hegemony, wreck Lebanon out of fear of a Pro-Western democratic neighbour that won’t toe its line, and draw America into a regional war.

    This is openly acknowledged.

  39. c.gray Says:

    India is a peaceful country compared to Israel? Tell that to the Kashmiris. Or the Sikhs. Or the relatives of the thousands of Muslims murdered in the police lead slaughter in Ghujarat in 2002.

    A number of commentators have held up India’s “restraint” as an example Israel should follow. But that just proves memories are short and clear thinking is rare.

    The last major terrorist strike by Kashmiri militants was the storming of India’s parliament building. India responded by moving the bulk of its army to the Pakistani border and threatening war. The only reason a war did not happen is that Pakistan, unlike Lebanon, has nuclear weapons and threatened, quite publicly, to use them if India attacked.

    The only reason India is behaving with restraint now is that its political leaders can see no other viable alternative. They have learned from experience that direct military attack on their enemies risks nuclear war, which is about a billion times worse than current levels of terrorism.

    India would react just as aggressively as Israel, if its politicians thought they could get away with it. They have in the past.

  40. Nathan Says:

    Who acknowledges this? Hizbollah is a terrorist organization that has never hidden its desire to destroy Israel, and is receiving weapons and cash from nations that share that desire. It controls the Lebanon-Israel border and has used it to stage rocket attacks and incursions. Hizbollah started this war, not Israel.

    Why would anyone think this has *nothing* to do with Israeli security? For that matter, doesn’t Israel *need* hegemony, being surrounded by people who hate Jews?

    I hate to see this happen to the mostly peaceful people of Lebanon, and think bombing Beiruit was probably a mistake. But no nation is expected to tolerate repeated, violent incursions of its border by sworn enemies. What would you have Israel do instead?

  41. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad Says:

    I support Peace, Now!
    Lebanon should surrender. Let Israel become an Occupying Power, with the responsibility of keeping order — since the Leb gov’t is unable to shoulder that responsibility.

    Proportionate force should mean: the minimum required — to achieve a situation where Israeli is not being attacked.

    On the fine post, Marc — what US war was NOT based on local voting preferences? I recall FDR haters claiming he allowed Pearl Harbor in order to create war-hate (which I don’t believe).

    But the US has already lost a war in which no major battles were lost — Vietnam. And the huge outcry about Viet civilians being killed by the US, like at My Lai, was replaced by virtually no talk about N. Viet commies murdering S. Vietnames (US allies especially).

    Woody was exagerating on champagne, but Wall tried to clear it up some: “we see their oafish attempts to manuver on the World stage produce predictable disasters, we are laughing at the downfall of their infintile arrogence rather than celebrating the suffering of it’s victims?”

    What enrages me is the infintile arrogence of the Left that wanted US out of Vietnam, which no number of Viet murders could result in the least bit of humility. How many murders before calling for US withdrawal is a mistake?

    Of course, I don’t think Iraq is a disaster — but those who do seldom have a link to prior predictions about how it would NOT be a disaster. I’ve listed my disaster criteria (2500 or less, A; 5000 or less, B; 10 000 or less, C) — but the many intellectual cowards on this blog refuse to list their standards. How convenient, every death is proof that Bush is an oaf, what Leftist joy! — isn’t this what Woody said?

    The alternative to Bush’s war is available today — see Darfur; slo-mo genocide; Democrat Party supported UN “nuance”.

    [Woody, please keep mostly ignoring Randy; Randy, very polite discourse. Potty mouth ... I'll try to follow my own advice and ignore.]

  42. Randy A. Paul Says:

    Tom Grey,

    I visited your site finally. Clearly you live in another dimension – or on another planet.

    On another topic, Orwell was a red-baiting informant, and an overrated racist, anti-semitic thinker.

    Jcummings has so decreed. Every word Orwell wrote is now worthless.

  43. Jcummings Says:

    No. 1984 and his other novels are damned good. Yet his political thinking was shaky, and his informing was very indicative of his shallow – and sometimes very authoritarian thinking. just as elia kazan was still a good filmmaker, orwell was a good writer. He also attempted to destroy people’s lives because of their politics.

    Nathan, what I said is acknowlledged in much of the Israeli press, as well as by US neoconservatives Krauthammer and Kristol, Daniel Pipes, others – they openly allude to what I am alluding to.

    What should be done? I’d have Israel take a hard look at itself and its behaviour as an agressive power, accept the Arab League peace offer that ha been standing since 1970 when Rogers put it forward – and negotiate with Hizballah.

  44. Samuel Stott Says:

    Well Peaceout, you have a point that Cuba is NO LONGER a threat, as you do that Israel and Cuba represent extremes of American policy.

    Miriam, the reason that Leftists don’t want to discuss the Nazi-like (I use my words advisedly) anti-semitism rife in the Arab-Muslim world is that Leftist ideology has never progressed beyond Mid-(last)-century analysis. If you can’t lay the template of colonialism/ post-colonialism over a festering sore, well, there must be no problem! Hence the famous Left-wing indifference to mass-murder in Darfur, the Congo, etc. Three million dead in the Congo? Who cares?

    Anyone who knows the slightest bit about history knows that Arab regimes and Arab populations overwhelmingly supported the Nazis during the Big One. Both Baathism and Islamism are totalitarian doctrines of Jew-hatred. How unpleaseant and inconvenient a fact!

    For instance, Marc Davidson writes:

    “The unending cries of Israeli victimization as expressed by Samuel Stott are a major part of the problem with regard to finding a peace settlement — the hundreds of millions of Arabs (terrorists for the most part) who consider Jews to be baby-eating pigs who should be thrown into the sea… very convenient and rather pathetic.”

    Notice who respects Science. I make a statement open to empirical refutation: that an Arab majority or plurality or at minimum a significant minority are wack-oh Jew-haters. Where is the empirical refutation? Both Hamas and Hizbula are on record as approving the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Both are on record as being unwilling to tolerate the existance of a Jewish State in the Middle East in any way, shape or form.

    What reader of this blog is willing to march up and down any major throughfare in Cairo, Amman, Damascus, Khartoum, Riddya, (name any other Arab-Muslim capitol) carrying a sign that says:

    “I am a Jew and I support the right of Isreal to Exist.”

    Any takers? I know many rich Americans who would be willing to back such a venture, especially if they weren’t held liable for the ensuing execution. This is a serious offer.

  45. Marc Cooper Says:

    Everything in tells me this is a waste of time but… JCummings, you should learn that when you don’t know what you’re talking you should keep your mouth shut. And you, my friend, clearly know aboslutely nothing about George Orwell. You have to be the first person in history to accuse him of authoritarianism; he devoted his entire life to fighting it. Go back and read Homage to Catalonia and see how Orwell riskied his life in Spain the case of anti-authoritarian revolution, fighting off both Fascists and avowed Stalinists.
    He was hardly a red-baiter. He was a life-long socialist and his critique of Stalinism was borne out 100% by the subsequent facts.
    While his naming names, as you put it, may not have bene his finest moment that is not, simply, what he did. It’s quite a complicated and nuanced story and the names he listed in a letter to a womanfriend were of Communist Party members who names had already been made in public. Whatever you think of his motivation, he saw it in the context of outting apologists for Stalin’s purges and atrocities. Not a dishonorable act in any case.
    “Shaky” and “shallow” is how you describe Orwell’s politics. Those two adjectives would be generous in describing your critique.

  46. Samuel Stott Says:

    Another way of understanding how demented the Left has become is to consult the rule of Hatred in Reverse Proportion to Reason to Hate; also known as the Rule of Hatred in Reverse Proportion to How Willing I Am to Actually Live In the Countries I Either Support or Condemn.

    For instance, if you are a politicized and proud atheist, homosexual or transvestite, you are probably a champion of Palestine and an opponent of Tel Aviv. This is because you know damn well that you will be tolerated in Tel Aviv and jailed in Palestine. Thus, you defend Palestine, while disparaging Tel Aviv, because you know damn well that others, and never you, will die for your disgusting hypocrisy and opportunism. The important thing is to blame the Liberal Democracies from which you will never, and have never consider ed leaving.

  47. Michael Turner Says:

    Woody writes: “M.T. a dictator who gasses an entire city of his political and religious opponents can’t be all bad to the left, huh?”

    Talk about being off the point.

    You keep forgetting I’m not a leftist. You also seem not to notice that many leftists decried the gassing of Halabja, especially since it didn’t elicit so much as a wristslap from the U.S. at the time, which was feeding arms and military advice to Saddam. Not to mention that the U.S. was feeding arms to his opponent — Iran — which had occupied Halabja at the invitation of the Kurds.

    And you seem not to notice at all that you haven’t provided yourself with a single leg to stand on. The question was: how many more Iraqis would have died if Saddam had been left in power? What’s your guess and what is it based on, besides a past in which many Iraq deaths tended to peak when they tried to stop being Iraqis, and sided instead with Saddam’s enemies?

    I suppose now I’ll be accused of saying Saddam was a nice guy, really. No, he was and is a jerk. Not least for cheating me at poker, back in the day, when he and I and the Left used to get together and plot the demise of Western Civilization with Osama bin Laden.

  48. Michael Turner Says:

    Tom Grey, making his usual paternity claims on iberty, writes:

    “I’ve listed my disaster criteria (2500 or less, A; 5000 or less, B; 10 000 or less, C)”

    So, Tom, let me get this straight: if they somehow pull the Holy Grail out of this mess — the articulated goal of a unified, terror-free, democratic, prosperous, peaceful Iraq — but it costs 30,000 American lives in the end, Bush still gets an F?

    Sounds like you’ve got some really useful criteria there, Tom. I feel really guilty now about not having some up with an objective grading scheme for this administration’s Iraq policy.

  49. Randy A. Paul Says:

    Tom Grey is Lord Farquar in Shrek:

    “Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”

    I’m sure his view towards sacrifice would be markedly different if this were taking place in batislava.

  50. Randy A. Paul Says:

    Damn typos. Make that Bratislava

  51. miriam Says:

    Samuel Stott:

    “the reason that Leftists don’t want to discuss the Nazi-like (I use my words advisedly) anti-semitism rife in the Arab-Muslim world is that Leftist ideology has never progressed beyond Mid-(last)-century analysis. If you can’t lay the template of colonialism/ post-colonialism over a festering sore, well, there must be no problem!”

    Again very well and succinctly put. Which is why I even bother coming to Cooper’s blog. I think he has been able in many cases to go beyond that template. I agree with a lot of what he says, and enjoy his disagreements on other leftists for just those reasons. And I think it is its inability to go beyond “mid-last century analysis” that has made most of the Left irrelevant to the majority of Americans, and why we keep getting Republican admins.

    And it never ceases to amaze me how people who criticize Israel never seem to take into account the anti-semitism that is “rife in the Arab-Muslim world.” And, as you said, all of that is WELL-documented. Could this anti-semitism be part of the problems in the ME, and not just Israeli actions, or big power machinations? If you want to understand a situation, it is important to take into account everything about that situation, not just those facts that fit your particular story line. You need to have an ability to hold conflicting or paradoxical truths, instead of rushing to create a story out of only one side of those truths.

  52. Jcummings Says:

    The Orwell debate is unnecessary. His defenders don’t deny his redbaiting, bigotry and name naming, even if they contextualize it.

  53. Jcummings Says:

    There are questions as to Orwell’s stories in Homage – but I’m sure he meant well. Vincente Navarro’s perspective is a corrective – but I sure don’t know – homage is one of the books that made me the political believe that I am, so admire it. Same time, the whole “Stalinistt destroyted anarchist revolution” can be refuted by “anarchist ultras destroyed Spanish Republic.” I also agree that Stalin sold everybody out.

    The important thing to remember is that it is an absolutely wrong thing to inform, going against all humane and enlightenment principles. the excuse used by Orwell’s defenders is like that of Kazan’s – the names were already known. Perhaps this is the case and this si how George and Elia saw it. Lives were destroyed in the process.

  54. Jcummings Says:

    In/re AntiSemitism in the region, of course its a factor…but as a result of Israeli behavour largely – and also as a mean for regimes that will never actually challenge the occupation to control and rile their populations. So it is a factor, no less than Israeli militarism and having little girls write messages on missiles aimed at Lebanon.

    Or to use another analogy, many tliberals (not myself) backed the Bosnians full-tilt in the 90s, they didn’t seem concerned with the Islamists and racists in their ranks. They saw probably rightfully that Bosnians were the victims, and their own views on Bosnian Islamism and inviting in of Al Qaeda types was secondary to saving them.

  55. Matter Says:

    “Israel is willing to make peace…”

    Oh please. Israel is willing to IMPOSE peace, at the barrel of a gun. That’s how the country was created: through terrorism, murder, ethnic cleansing, and massive theft.

    Of course, most Jews in the US refuse to address these facts, and usually resort to denying them entirely.

    Then they resort to statements about “Israel’s right to exist” – which means, in essence, a right to a free pass on the massive crimes committed to create the state of Israel.

    The best way to peace in Palestine/Israel is the way the South Africans did it. They dismantled their nuclear weapons, ended the racist laws, adopted a true democratic system of government, and addressed past crimes through their Truth and Reconciliation Commission. South Africa is hardly perfect, but they’ve come a long way since Apartheid.

    In the meantime, Israel is an Apartheid state worse than South Africa ever was. It’s a theocracy in which anyone not a Jew is a second-class citizen (or worse) as a matter of law. Their goal is to ultimately drive all the Palestinians off their land, not share the land. This has been Zionist policy since before Israel came into existence.

    The rest of the world has recognized that a Jewish Supremacist State is not a democracy, and is in fact an aberration.

  56. Virgil Johnson Says:

    It never ceases to amaze how people here (not everyone) and in most of the blogsphere continue to call this merely some knee-jerk regional squabble. It gives now meaning to the words “brain dead.”

    Lebanon is being subjugated, plain an simple. There is no other reason for the massive civilian killings and destruction to the infrastructure. Lebanon is being turned into an Israeli protectorate, wake up and smell the coffee. End of story.

  57. Eli Stephens Says:

    Cooper is of course absolutely correct about the almost total silence of liberal blogs on the subject of Israel’s assault on Lebanon. However, he does a disservice to his readers in neglecting to mention that there are, amazingly enough, blogs which, unlike the ones he cites, do not orient to the Democratic Party. Blogs such as mine (Left I on the News), Politics in the Zeros, Jews sans frontieres, Lawrence of Cyberia, Lenin’s Tomb, Savage Justice, and more, not to mention CounterPunch (not a blog but updated daily just like a blog) are among those where discussion and analysis of the war goes on on a daily basis.

  58. Matter Says:

    The Angry Arab is great too. Too bad Cooper never managed a convincing replay. Angry Arab: 1, Cooper: 0.

  59. Nell Says:

    I would add to Eli’s list Dennis Perrin at Red State Son, who was posting on this topic on June 29, a week before Marc (who was on blog vacation when the Gaza captures and counterattack began), and Billmon, who has posted regularly and substantively since July 14. Neither has comments, which helps in plowing forward on the always-touchy, now incendiary subject.

    Marc’s emphasis on Democratic Party policy on Israel based on domestic political considerations is misleading. The monolithic, uncritical Congressional support for Israel is bipartisan. The Senate resolution basically green-lighting invasion passed unanimously (Warner’s feeble “concerns” failing to affect his rubber-stamp voting, as usual). And Marc himself pointed out that both parties’ leaders cosponsored the House version.

    The frozen condition of U.S. politics wrt Israel has far more to do with donors, activists, and AIPAC than with voters.

    Republican candidates have chosen to pander to the “Christian Zionists” who mobilize fundamentalist voters. Right-wing Jewish neocons in the U.S. and government ministers in Israel have made a seriously unhealthy tactical alliance with these fundamentalist Christians (who are responsible for half of the U.S. tourists who visit Israel).

    Democratic voters, including Jewish Democratic voters, are far more divided on policies related to Israel and the middle east than the AIPAC line that both parties maintain, each for their own reasons. So are independent voters, and even ‘soft’ Republicans. The hardcore Republican base, the 30-35% that still back Bush, are strongly supportive of a blank-check-for-Israel policy.

  60. Nell Says:

    Apologies. A preview function really would help.

    Red State Son

    Billmon

  61. Bob West Says:

    Seems to me Dennis Perrin trunps all. Why?

  62. Samuel Stott Says:

    Ms. Miriam:

    I agree with you. There are many, many Leftists who are working in good faith. They are undoubtedly part of the solution.

    And then, on the other hand you have hysterical, ad-homenizing jokers like “Reg,” and posts like this one from:

    Matter on
    July 21st, 2006 at 8:08 am:

    (WITH MY COMMENTS IN CAPS)

    Oh please. Israel is willing to IMPOSE peace, at the barrel of a gun. That’s how the country was created: through terrorism, murder, ethnic cleansing, and massive theft.

    CLASSIC NIAVE, VULGAR LEFTISM HERE. WHAT NATION-STATE IS NOT DRENCHED IN BLOOD?

    Of course, most Jews in the US refuse to address these facts, and usually resort to denying them entirely.

    I’M NOT A JEW. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION, THE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF YOUR INTERLOCUTORS IS IRRELEVANT. OR MAYBE NOT, DUDE OR DUDETTE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. PERHAPS YOU HAVE A THEORY ABOUT THE AMERICAN “JEW LOBBY” OR JEWS IN GENERAL. OR PERHAPS YOU WERE JUST SLOPPY WITH YOUR WORDING.

    Then they resort to statements about “Israel’s right to exist” – which means, in essence, a right to a free pass on the massive crimes committed to create the state of Israel.

    WELL, NO, AND EXACTLY NO. YOU WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED TO FIND EVEN ISRAELI JEWS WHO WON’T STIPULATE THAT ISRAEL HAS COMMITTED CRIMES. REFERENCES TO ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST GENERALLY REFERENCE ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST, A RIGHT VOUCHSAFED BY THE UNITED NATIONS UPON ITS BIRTH AND ON A CONTINUING BASIS. DON’T BE COY. ARE YOU INPLYING THAT ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST? SPEAK ENGLISH.

    YEECH!

  63. Randy A. Paul Says:

    M.T. a dictator who gasses an entire city of his political and religious opponents can’t be all bad to the left, huh? Someone who has opponents put feet first into a plastic recyling machine and slowing killed needs defending by the left. A dictator that allows his kin to kidnap and rape women at their pleasure needs understanding by the left. Someone who invades neighboring countries resulting in tens of thousands of deaths to his own soliders and to civilians in those countries needs defending by the left. If I want to keep score, I have some numbers that you guys leave out.

    Woody, if you want an object lesson in why people find you disingenuous, this is it.

    Here you are last August:

    Being cozy with Hussein in Reagan’s era was a relationship of mutual convenience.

    It was not the left that visited Hussein in 1983 after it was documented that he used chemical weapons, it was Donald Rumsfeld as an envoy of Ronald Reagan.

    It was the George H. W. Bush administration that doubled the available credits from the Commodity Credit Corporation to Saddam from US$500,000,000 to US $1,000,000,000 after the chemical attacks in Halabja.

    Blaming it on the left is not borne out by the facts, Woody.

  64. reg Says:

    “if you are a politicized and proud atheist, homosexual or transvestite, you are probably a champion of Palestine and an opponent of Tel Aviv”

    Thank God Samuel Stott isn’t an hysterical, ad hominizing joker. Samuel’s reasoned, insightful commentary consistently sets him apart.

  65. bugmeister Says:

    Nice debate here….(NOT!) Full of misconceptions and total ignorance in history or current affairs.
    All those who claim (Matter?) that Israel is n appartheid state have not even taken the time to learn what that term means… Israel, although has problems between arabs and jews is far away from SA’s appartheid (and sorry to say, Israel had contributed to that regime). Just learn your facts.

    BTW, have you noticed that the history of the US is filled with the same “terrorism, murder, ethnic cleansing, and massive theft”? It is still happenning. You call them “Native americans” but you put them in “reserves”. This is hypocracy in action.

    And good morning to you Virgil Johnson:”Lebanon is being subjugated, plain an simple. There is no other reason for the massive civilian killings and destruction to the infrastructure. Lebanon is being turned into an Israeli protectorate, wake up and smell the coffee. End of story.”

    What about rockets (thousands by now) being fired at Israeli towns and villages, killing innocent people (The Hizbollah even said they are sorry that 2 arab brothers, aged 5 and 3 were killed….). What about the fact that the attacks took place inside Israeli territory and against a UN resolution (1559 FYI). Did you know that before the bombings, flyers are spread to warn civilians?
    Are we (Yes, I am an Israeli) supposed to just sit back? what would you do if someone came into your house?

    Israel has left Lebanon six years ago. The Lebanese government let Hizzbollah dictate the agenda in Lebanon. N

  66. rushmc Says:

    The perspective of your post is skewed. If you’ll notice, it’s the REPUBLICANS who are the major standard-bearers for Israel (in large part due to their religious genocidal obsessions; ie., the “Rapture”). Certainly, the Democrats are standing right there with them–when do they not?–but to say that the Democrats are to Israel as the Republicans are to Cuba is to miss the key fact that the Republicans are to Israel as the Republicans are to Cuba, and then some.

  67. eggs Says:

    my 2 cents for what its worth:

    israel/lebanon and the disproportionate bombings: i assume there is a great deal more realpolitik going on here than i’m aware of. assuming the iranians via the syrians have in recent months upped the arming of the hezbollah, then one might see the reason for israel to go all out and destroy the hezbollah bases. i do not condone bombing of civilian targets in response to the kidnapping of 2 soldiers, but one might see the rationale of a larger offensive in the face of a bigger looming threat.

    on kashmir: the ISI of Pakistan is a curious establishment. since the soviet invasion of afghanistan in 1979, the ISI was the main conduit for the US to funnel money and armaments to the rebels – it operated almost like a state within a state. the powers-that-be saw the windfall of american money and arms as an opportunity to get back at india for the loss of bangladesh (east pakistan) in the 1971 war, and diverted money and arms to train terrorists – initially in the Punjab in the early 80s (the indian prime minister, indira gandhi, was killed by them). That insurgency died out towards the end of the decade, to be replaced by sponsored terrorism in kashmir in 1991.

    The only truly indigenous rebel movement in Kashmir was the JKLF – once banned, it has now become a valid political party and participates in elections.

    There are a myriad of differnt groups today operating in the region, but the most prominent of them is the LeT.

    LeT guerillas are directly related to that other wonderful entity in that region – the Taliban. They share a common ideology (pan-islamism), common training grounds (NWFP) and the same creators (the ISI).

    The geography of the region helps – kashmir, afghanistan and pakistan share a common border.

    Had the US intelligence not turned a blind eye to the ISI’s “extra-curricular” activities in funding terrorism in India for 20 years, and the jihad factories been shut down when the Russians withdrew – Afghanistan wouldn’t have had the Taliban, and OBL wouldnt have a place to hide.

  68. Marc Cooper » Blog Archive » Democrats Re-Enlist Says:

    [...] A bit of follow-up on my posting last week about the Democrats’ “unwaverig support” for Israel. [...]

  69. A Bob’s Life » Blog Archive » Those Warmongering Democrats! Says:

    [...] Marc Cooper has an interesting take on the Democrats view of Israel. He compares it to the Republicans and Cuba. Forget all the posturing and rhetoric. When it comes right down to it, the Democrats believe it is more important to pander to a specific voting bloc than to stand up for what they claim to believe in the rest of the year. Who ever thought that Pat Buchanan would come across as the peacenik dove when appearing on national tv across from John Kerry’s former adviser? [...]

  70. Political Opinion » Democrats On Israel: Mouths Closed, Eyes Shut Says:

    [...] Let’s for a moment speak the unspeakable. I can give myself license because I am a Jew. Fact is, the Democrats’ policy on Israel mirrors the Republican policy on Cuba. They both derive from primarily domestic political considerations and not from any measured analysis of foreign policy nor any deliberation on our true national interests.read more | digg story [...]

  71. Mike Says:

    Google preved rodnoy!
    apcservicder

  72. Evan Says:

    Marc Davidson, If Israel didn’t want to make peace then why have they already made peace with both Egypt and Jordan. The fact is Israel has already shown their willingness to make peace. They even pulled out of Gaza for that sake and look where it got them.

  73. ci3QaCVFlO Says:

    Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! NvKJtntA3bz

  74. kwhgogbxxb Says:

    http://plffemin.com

  75. movie Says:

    http://www1.acallahan.com/39

  76. monica Says:

    monica…

    Definitely, the most sensible thing i have seen in a long time….

  77. john black Says:

    Generally I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! really nice post.

  78. Soma Says:

    The powers-that-be saw the windfall of american money and arms as an opportunity to get back at india for the loss of bangladesh (east pakistan) in the 1971 war, and diverted money and arms to train terrorists – initially in the Punjab in the early 80s (the indian prime minister, indira gandhi, was killed by them).

  79. Poser poses Says:

    Exellent,thanks for sharing a lot of .