Popping Up Everywhere

Does Brad Plumer hate the Jews or does he just have Lindberg-esque views worthy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Comments

Brad Plumer has nothing to worry, as long as he doesn't move to Europe, that is.

Teh left wing Europeans are leading the charge here. Apparently those lefty 'Murkans aren't bad enough.

"As anti-Americanism has risen, so, too, have anti-Semitic commentaries become more commonplace in Europe, with the political left -- with its allegiance to purportedly oppressed third world movements -- leading the charge."

This piece of wisdom can he found here.

Gotta love these beautiful generalisations these right wing rags publish.

Posted by EvilEuropeanLefty | February 4, 2007 1:04 PM

Plumer is, at most, summarizing the news and drawing the inferences. It's the newspapers that are leveling the charges. Why does the New York Sun hate the Jews?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 4, 2007 1:08 PM

Good post by Plumer. That Sun article is a classic, proving once again that it's only permissible to asssert the influence of pro-Israel organizations in the context of praising Israel. If one describes AIPAC's power while being critical of Israeli policy, the very same statementes are magically transformed into anti-Semitism.

Posted by M. Duss | February 4, 2007 1:42 PM

Dude, it's "Lindbergh," not "Lindberg." You've done this twice now.

Posted by John | February 4, 2007 2:13 PM

Will Marty fire him?

Posted by Joe Blinden | February 4, 2007 2:25 PM

Spencer, would you scoot over and make room for Brad please?

Posted by Tim | February 4, 2007 2:44 PM

Plumer is clearly a rabid anti-semite.

Posted by Jimm | February 4, 2007 4:19 PM

I think "Lindberg" captures both the absurdity of the charge and the trademarked MY spelling mistakes rather nicely.

I hope you are paying for top-notch proof-reading of The Book.

Posted by otto | February 5, 2007 1:00 AM

IMHO, this is the most important point:

I'm also curious to know why it's always and everywhere considered "pro-Israel" to support military strikes that won't, in all likelihood, destroy Iran's nuclear program, but will, in all likelihood, destroy international support for sanctions on the country, entrench the more radical factions in Tehran, and make future conflicts in the Middle East more, rather than less, likely. As if opponents of such a thing are "anti-Israel."

Back in the head up to the Iraq war, the war was considered something that would be good for Israel and that you were a bad Jew if you opposed it (and in fact, I heard stuff from my fellow tribesmen that if a Goy said Jews would say such things -- as Jews, we have a greater loyalty to Israel than America -- those very Jews would likely wonder if that Goy's reading material included the Protocols: interestingly, these people who behave the most like anti-Semites fear Jews would behave are the ones most paranoid about anti-Semitism ... paging Dr. Freud. paging Dr. Freud) ... and yet, it's likely turned out to be not so good for Israel, but very good for Iran, in its own way.

And of course, we'd end up Cheneying up ("big time") any effort to destroy any Iranian nuclear program. And the result would be an entrenchment of radical factions in Tehran.

So now put on your tinfoil hats here folks: who's the double agent in AIPAC and/or our government who's putting forth programs to benefit Iranian hard-liners and selling them by constructing opponants of those plans as anti-Semites? I dunno the answer, but something is sure rotten with the bunch of former Team B Iran-snugglers (remember Iran/Contra anyone?) who are entrenched in this admin as well as in AIPAC.

Even if I my paranoia is misplaced, it still is odd, ain't it that "good for Israel" should translate in reality to "good for Iranian hardliners", nu?

Posted by DAS | February 5, 2007 2:48 PM