The Return of Peretz-Blogging

One request in the navel-gazing post was for more Marty Peretz-bashing. Your wish is my demand! Like the other day Matt Duss was smacking Peretz around for his outrageous smear campaign against Archbishop Desmond Tutu prompting, naturally, James "Lil' Marty" Kirchick to leap to the defense of dark master, but as Duss notes in a followup he's not making any sense either.

The thing about the archbiship, though, is that unlike, say, Jimmy Carter it's genuinely the case that he's never done anything to massively improve Israel's strategic position. Carter, by contrast, though definitely pissing off some Israeli politicians and their self-proclaimed friends in the United States did, by brokering a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, wind up doing perhaps the biggest favor to Israel that any American president has done since Harry Truman's decision to recognize the Jewish state back in the 1940s. Naturally, the prospect of him trying to offer advice on the business of peacemaking to Secretary Rice has incensed Peretz who seems to consistently place hatred of Arabs and love of war ahead of even his much-professed love of Israel.

But as a bonus, Peretz yet again puts the words "Jewish lobby" into the mouths of those who would criticize the pernicious activities of the Israel lobby in the United States. It's much easier to pretend that your political opponents are all motivated by a racist hatred of Jewish people if you refuse to engage with what they're actually saying and instead just attribute some different words to them! Nice work if you can get it, but somewhat despicable from an ethical point of view.

Comments

Matt! it's the Likud Lobby! It's not the Israel Lobby--lobbying for policies that raise the odds that Tel Aviv will be erased from the page of time is not good for the Israelis. Call it the Likud Lobby. Call it the anti-Arab Lobby. Call it the anti-Israel Lobby. Don't call it the Israel Lobby!!

Posted by Brad DeLong | November 2, 2007 11:30 AM

As outrageous as Peretz got in this case, even by his standards--the idea that Tutu was threatening Israel with a repeat of the Holocaust is obviously ludicrous--Tutu's rhetoric isn't very productive either. When he said "remember what happened to you in Egypt and much more recently in Germany," he was essentially saying "don't be like the Nazis." Comparing Israelis to Nazis, even in that somewhat indirect way, is a good way to get everyone in the country to write you off as being completely biased against them.

Posted by Haggai | November 2, 2007 11:33 AM

George Bush Sr. engaged in a minor-league version of this when he said that Bill Clinton had protested "against his country" when he joined protests against the Vietnam War while at Oxford, thus intentionally conflating "the current federal executive branch administration" with "the country".

Posted by The Navigator | November 2, 2007 11:38 AM

Matt,

This post is an example of an extreme and deranged form of what psychologists call projection. You have made your name by failing to address the arguments of your adversaries, most notably in your bizarre defense of the right of some scholars to assert without the whisper, scintilla or hint of evidence that neoconservtives are only advancing Israel's, or Likud's interest at the expense of the American national interest. You repeat over and over that anyone who speaks plainly about Iranian agression must be "addicted to war." Even in this post, you assume that Carter is so offesnsive because he brokered the Camp David peace accord, not because he wrote a book calling Israel the moral equivalent of PW Botha's South Africa. So give this piffle a rest. You are everything you think Marty Peretz is.

Eli

Posted by Eli Lake | November 2, 2007 11:39 AM

But Brad, the book is called, you know, The Israel Lobby. Peretz shouldn't put words in the mouths of his opponents, even if they're the words we wish they'd used.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 2, 2007 11:42 AM

Eli Lake is everything he thinks Matt Yglesias thinks Marty Peretz is, but really is himself. So there!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 2, 2007 11:44 AM

No, Eli, Matt is observing that Carter is offensive to The Lobby in spite of the fact that one of the signal achievements of Carter's lifetime is a massive improvement to the security of the State of Israel. Matt is, through that rhetoric, questioning whether you people really have Israel's best interest at heart.

Posted by Marshall | November 2, 2007 11:50 AM

It's pretty clear that Tuti is blaming all Jews and not Israelis. It's the same thing that would have you in a hissy fit if someone blamed all Muslims for the action of Jordan.

Posted by Dave | November 2, 2007 11:56 AM

Eli chooses to overlook the fact that Carter does not liken Israel to apartheid. He likens occupation to apartheid, which is an apt comparison. On the other hand, he is responsible for saving thousands of Israeli lives (3000 died in the war with Egypt three years before Carter became President. None since, and thanks to Carter).

On Peretz. I have been reading TNR again now that the new owners exiled Jackie Mason (I mean, Marty Peretz) to its blog. It's really good and, guess what, not every politician or issue is judged on the basis of whether he or she supports the occupation. Peretz pretty much destroyed TNR. The post-Peretz TNR is looking good.

And, Matt, you are right. The MP's of the world used to love Israel. But they discovered that for them hating Arabs is so much more exhilarating.

Posted by MJ Rosenberg | November 2, 2007 11:57 AM

Eli has a point I suppose - it's true the neocons aren't really advancing Israel's interests over the US. In fact the only good Israel as far as the neocons are concerned is an Israel in constant jeopardy. The neocon goal is really to advance their own personal agendas - they just want influence, status among the elites and by marginalizing their opponents they are able to keep that influence, status and money. Using overheated war rhetoric is a great way to marginalize any alternative foreign policy views, and pretending to be allies with Israel is also a useful tool for bashing their rivals with anti-semitic smears. Most neocons are grubby charlatans.

Posted by vanya | November 2, 2007 11:57 AM

"This post is an example of an extreme and deranged form of what psychologists call projection. You have made your name by failing to address the arguments of your adversaries, most notably in your bizarre defense of the right of some scholars to assert without the whisper, scintilla or hint of evidence that neoconservtives are only advancing Israel's, or Likud's interest at the expense of the American national interest. You repeat over and over that anyone who speaks plainly about Iranian agression must be "addicted to war." Even in this post, you assume that Carter is so offesnsive because he brokered the Camp David peace accord, not because he wrote a book calling Israel the moral equivalent of PW Botha's South Africa. So give this piffle a rest. You are everything you think Marty Peretz is.

Eli

Posted by Eli Lake | November 2, 2007 11:39 AM"

Dude, you're just a joke now. You've become a parody of yourself. I can't watch your bloggingheads anymore without laughing. You're starting to wander into old-man-in-the-street-muttering "the Kaiser stole my cheese" territory.

Posted by Reality Man | November 2, 2007 12:00 PM

Seriously, Eli Lake? Matt doesn't address his adversaries? Have you ever read his writing? He doesn't have to lay out his entire argument against the neo-cons and MP in every single blog post referencing them.

Geez, you could say things about Matt that are remotely credible, but refusing to debate is certainly not one of them. He's shown himself to be more than willing to get down to the nitty-gritty. Why don't you post some examples if you think that's the case?

Posted by bob | November 2, 2007 12:07 PM

It's pretty clear that Tuti is blaming all Jews and not Israelis. It's the same thing that would have you in a hissy fit if someone blamed all Muslims for the action of Jordan.

Tutu did in fact use the word Jewish lobby. This wierd "No, it's the fill-in-the-blank lobby!" is a song and dance that doesn't get played outside the U.S. I've never heard an Israeli use "Israeli lobby" to describe what goes on in the U.S. It's always Jewish lobby and I don't think it's controversial. I think it wouldn't make any sense to them to call them the Israeli lobby. The lobby isn't Israeli. Calling it the Likud lobby is equally non-sensical. Many of the people who lobby for Israel have prominent Labour families.

If that's Tutu's big sin, most of the planet are crazy anti-semites.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 2, 2007 12:10 PM

I almost wonder if someone signed Lake's name to that post because the was the most laughably obvious form of projection I've ever seen. That post should be on tests in Psych 101 classes.

Posted by Reality Man | November 2, 2007 12:11 PM

Eli, that comment is an example of an extreme and deranged form of what psychologists call schizophrenia -- a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality.

From the annals of failing to address the arguments of your adversaries: "...bizarre defense of the right of some scholars to assert without the whisper, scintilla or hint of evidence that neoconservtives (sic) are only advancing Israel's, or Likud's interest at the expense of the American national interest..."

I've certainly never seen Matt (or Walt or Mearsheimer, for that matter) formulate that argument with an "only" in it. If you haven't heard a whisper of evidence that neoconservatives care about advancing Israel's interests, then you're as deaf as a doorknob, and if you haven't seen a scintilla of evidence in the past few years that neoconservative policy has harmed the American national interest, then you're a cretin.

Most of the complaints in these here parts have not been aimed at those who "speak plainly" about Iranian aggression, but rather at those who pen fabulist nonsense about Iran without citing even a scintilla of evidence to support their claims, while explicitly condoning American aggression toward Iran.

Furthermore, it's obvious that Yglesias is NOT claiming neocons find Carter offensive because of the Camp David Accords, but rather to point out that Jimmy Carter has done more to actually improve Israel's strategic position than any of his neocon critics, and this really ought to be taken into consideration before you start tossing slurs like "anti-semite" at Carter.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 2, 2007 12:18 PM

Re Condi Rice

I find it unconscionable that Ms. Rice consults with the worst president in American history, James Earl "white trash" Carter on anything. In particular, given his over the top anti-Israel bias over the last 25 years, his advice relative to the upcoming Annapolis conference is worth less then nothing. The fact is that white trash Carter is nothing but a shill for the Saudi and Oman royal families as related in the attached link. Consider the following excerpts from the aforementioned link.

"That bias was exposed at least as early as 1990. It was then that Douglas Brinkley, author of Unfinished Presidency, revealed that after meeting Yasser Arafat, Carter "drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears...."

Explained Carter to Arafat: "The audience is not the Security Council, but the world community. The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum sympathy and support of other world leaders...." He advised Arafat to present himself as a peacemaker victimized by Israeli belligerence, advice that was clearly taken to heart by Arafat."

"The Carter Center in Atlanta is highly relevant to all of this, and may provide the underlying rationale for Carter's blatant anti-Israel bias, for it has consistently received its major support from Arab sources. Many millions of dollars have come from the Saudi royal family, and from Oman. But it is Carter's association with the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up, located in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Republics, that requires the closest attention. Founded in 1999, ostensibly as a "think tank" for the Arab League, it took its name from UAE president-for-life Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, now deceased. When Carter received the Center's Zayed International Prize for the Environment in 2001, he gushed that it had special meaning to him because "it is named for my personal friend, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan." "

"The Harvard Divinity School, however, has been decidedly less enthusiastic about the Zayad Center. The school in 2004 returned a $2.5 million donation awarded to underwrite an Islamic chair, after research by divinity school student Rachel Fish exposed the Islamo-Fascist agenda and the blatant anti-Semitism of the Center. The Center has underwritten a book that claims the Americans themselves masterminded September 11, has hosted Holocaust deniers, and sponsored a talk by a Saudi professor who maintained that Jews use gentile blood in holiday baked goods."

In particular, Mr. Rosenberg ought to be ashamed of himself for having anything to do with white trash Carter. He should follow the lead of Kenneth Stein, formerly associated with the Carter center and disown white trash Carter.

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12307.htm

Posted by SLC | November 2, 2007 12:19 PM

Haggai,

You make a good point about the way that Tutu's rhetoric is likely to be received. But in his defense, Tutu's actual focus is on what it is like to be the oppressed, not what it is like to be the oppressor.

People object to the characterization of the occupied territories as apartheid basically by trying to explain why the motivations of Israel are different than the motivations of the South Africans. The merits of such a defense are debatable, but from Tutu's perspective as a Christian who actually takes Christianity from the Gospels rather than the epistles and more hateful parts of the old testament, his concern is more in people remembering that the conditions that the Palestinians are in fact living is, if anything, worse than Blacks under South African rule.

Israel's position with regard to the Occupied Territory makes sense from the Israeli perspective as long as one thinks of the Palestinians as plot devices in the Israeli narrative. Tutu is asking that people think about the policies as if the Palestinians are people and asking Israelis to remember when they were in similar situations. That is not unfair, but it may be self-defeating because it is asking people to do something they will never do.

Instead they will ask themselves how they should respond to this new plot device in the Israeli story. And decide it is another attack that shows what victims they are.

Posted by Lon | November 2, 2007 12:20 PM

it wouldn't make any sense to them to call them the Israeli lobby.

Well, that's one reason the phrase actually used is Israel lobby, without the 'i'.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 2, 2007 12:28 PM

The merits of such a defense are debatable, but from Tutu's perspective as a Christian who actually takes Christianity from the Gospels rather than the epistles and more hateful parts of the old testament, his concern is more in people remembering that the conditions that the Palestinians are in fact living is, if anything, worse than Blacks under South African rule.

Those may be fair points, but I was talking about his Nazi comparison. That one is considerably less fair, and considerably more offensive to Israelis. The Palestinians are most definitely not in a "similar situation" to what the Jews of Europe faced under Nazi domination.

Dismiss "plot points" all you like, but I'll stick with reminding people about the actual political realities that actually determine what happens in these situations. Sadat's speech in the Knesset didn't differ a whole lot in substance from many of his previous speeches--much of it was pretty damn harsh, even possibly threatening, from an Israeli perspective--but his genius was in recognizing that the staging would overwhelm any such substantive issues. In other words, he understood exactly how to turn the "plot points" to his advantage. I'm not trying to draw an exact parallel to the situation of today, but the point is that it matters, a lot.

Posted by Haggai | November 2, 2007 12:30 PM

"The thing about the archbishop, though, is that unlike, say, Jimmy Carter it's genuinely the case that he's never done anything to massively improve Israel's strategic position."

Given Israel's close alliance with the apartheid regime in South Africa, including their assistance to South Africa's nuclear weapons program (shut down when the ANC took over), I wouldn't expect Tutu to be particularly interested in improving Israel's strategic position.

Posted by Joe Buck | November 2, 2007 12:33 PM

And here comes SLC to call the living US President who did the most for Israel "white trash" and condemn Carter for having connections with wealthy Arabs (unlike the Bush family, of course.)

While I don't think anyone in the Palestinian leadership is the moral equivalent of Desmond Tutu, the analogy between Israel and Botha's South Africa, with its race-based citizenship policies, bantustans, settlements, etc., isn't being invented out of whole cloth by people who hate Jews. It's the sort of obvious comparison that makes many people who generally support Israel very uncomfortable. Simply shouting "We are NOT like South Africa! Are not! Are not! won't make the similarities go away.

Enablers are not your best friends. The guys at the bar who want to go out with you and start a brawl are not your best friends. Your best friends are the ones who tell you the truth when you don't want to hear it.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 2, 2007 12:33 PM

Matt,

There was a curious void in my life over the last few weeks that has now been filled. We need more of this Peretz bashing. I can't read that moron, and can't visit his blog to see what his latest racist venom is about, but to get it filtered through you is perfect.

Please make this a regular feature, maybe even set up a section of your blog specifically for this moron, and please don't forget Little Marty as well.

Thanks,

Saif

Posted by saifedean | November 2, 2007 12:39 PM

Hey, an opportunity to cut and paste:

It's a true measure of the scope and wealth of the wingnut welfare system that they can provide employment for a hack at the level of Eli Lake. True, he has to work for a publication read by fewer than four actual human beings, and with slightly less intellectual cachet than Final Call. But at least he doesn't have to take a job suitable for his level of ability, such as screaming at people in the street.

***

It's also an opportunity to once again encourage Lake to gaze upon SLC and his crazy old man mutterings. Because that's him in a free market future.

Posted by 23456 | November 2, 2007 12:43 PM

Re LaFollette Progressive

1. Egypt and Israel were bribed into signing a treaty which does nothing more then require them to behave themselves in return for annual payments of 3 billion for Israel and 2.2 billion for Egypt. Big deal!

2. I hold no brief for the Bush family. Their close ties to the Saudi royal family are atrocious. However, G. H. W. Bush, unlike peckerwood Carter, hasn't written a book labeling the State of Israel as an apartheid regime nor has he engaged in the type of anti-Israeli garbage that the latter has indulged himself in over the past 25 years. Actually, Mr. Don Williams, the foremost Israel basher on this blog (I don't count Richard Steven "bottom" Hack as he is obviously deranged, as evidenced by his endorsement of killing police officers), studiously ignores these ties when engaging in his ritual bashing of Hiam Saben.

Re 23456

I don't know who Eli Lake is nor have I read anything he has written but I strongly suspect that Mr. 23456 lack sufficient intelligence to carry Mr. Lakes' briefcase.

Re saifedean

Mr. saifedean considers anything written by a supporter of the State of Israel to be racist venom. Since Mr. saifedean is an antisemitic nazi bastard, Mr. Peretz should consider being on the receiving end of his ire to be a great compliment.

Posted by SLC | November 2, 2007 2:01 PM

Haggai,
After I read your comments I went back and reread the Tutu speech. It had been a while since I read it, and so I did not realize how directly he states what I had suggested that was simply behind his speech. Have you read it?

There is no nazi comparison. There is a statement that the message of the Old Testament is that jews who have suffered historically should therefore have empathy for the oppressed and downtrodden. He then points out that the jews have suffered and mentions Germany as an example of this, which should give modern jews empathy for the conditions under which the Palestinians must live.

Perhaps Tutu should have realized that more people would have read his remarks taken out of context and fillered to suggest he is anti-semitic than would actually here his comments in context. That is the actual state of criticizing Israel in this country. But Tutu's remarks in context does not depend on an Israel-Nazi comparison. It is an appeal to those who have suffered to empathize with those who have suffered.

Posted by Lon | November 2, 2007 2:15 PM

I see. The dismantling of settlements, return of the Sinai, 25+ years of peace, and diplomatic recognition between two nations who had fought 2 wars within the previous 12 years... Big deal!

Eli, if you want to understand why neocons are accused of caring more about belligerence for it's own sake than serving the best interest of either Israel or the United States... look no further.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 2, 2007 2:17 PM

"People object to the characterization of the occupied territories as apartheid basically by trying to explain why the motivations of Israel are different than the motivations of the South Africans."

An interesting parallel is that the Afrikaaners, much like European Jews, went through a period of being oppressed before they gained control of a state. The British put them in concentration camps during the Boer War. First Afrikaaners turned to the Comintern, which created the race-based union system that laid the basis for the proto-apartheid state. The political leadership kept their thoughts on race but switched from seeking aid from the left to seeking inspiration from the right when they backed the Nazis and the National Party instituted apartheid. This isn't a 1:1 copy, but it does have interesting similarities. Where else but the Occupied Territories has a state created an ethnically segregated system of roads?

Posted by Reality Man | November 2, 2007 2:22 PM

Re LaFollette Progressive

Mr. LaFollette Progressive is seriously in error in characterizing me as a neocon. Like all too many of his ilk on the left, he refuses to accept the fact that being an Israel basher is not a litmus test for being a liberal Democrat. I even declined to vote for our antisemitic Congressman James Morans' opponent in the last two elections.

Posted by SLC | November 2, 2007 2:34 PM

awwwwww yeah! Peretz bashing in a post with lots of typos! This is why I love MY!!!

Posted by joe | November 2, 2007 2:45 PM

And like all too many in the Peretz Wing of the Democratic Party, SLC refuses to accept that a willingness to condemn Israel's stewardship of the West Bank is not a litmus test for anti-semitism.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 2, 2007 3:33 PM

Re LaFollette Progressive

I would agree with Mr. LaFollette Progressive that the control exercised by the Government of Israel over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has been poor. That government has been far too lenient towards the Palestinians, inviting Qassems, homicide bombers, mortar attacks, etc. The time is long past for the Government of Israel to apply Hama rules and crush the terrorist infrastructure there totally and completely. Only when the Palestinians realize that the Government of Israel has stopped fooling around and has gotten serious about stamping out terrorism, will there be some possibility of a peaceful settlement.

Posted by SLC | November 2, 2007 6:06 PM

Come on people - let's all admit it. Peretz may have been wrong and/over the top about Tutu - But sometimes Tutu just grates. It's hard to explain - but he's just annoying sometimes. - He

Posted by Comment | November 2, 2007 11:10 PM

Haggai: "The Palestinians are most definitely not in a "similar situation" to what the Jews of Europe faced under Nazi domination."

The operative word here is - yet.

And that is primarily BECAUSE the world remembers what the Jews went through under the Nazis. Thus, the Zionists need to be a little more careful than the Nazis, who didn't care about sucking up to a more powerful ally.

If you don't think at least some of the rightist Zionists think like Nazis, you haven't read the quotes from some of their public statements.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 11:24 PM

SLC: "Actually, Mr. Don Williams, the foremost Israel basher on this blog (I don't count Richard Steven "bottom" Hack as he is obviously deranged, as evidenced by his endorsement of killing police officers)"

Hey, I resemble that remark!

And the only reason Williams is the better Israel-basher is because he's more interested in that aspect of the ME situation and probably has more experience at it than I do and more information about it than I do.

After all, I only got into it once the Iraq war started, and in trying to figure out from a standpoint of correctness what was going on, I came across the neocons and the Zionists. Before that, I couldn't care less about Israel or the ME - it was all primate politics to me.

But hang in there, SLC! I'll get better at it! After all, I'm the one that realizes that Israel - as a Zionist state anyway - is doomed one way or the other. I don't know if Williams agrees with that.

In any event, count on both of us to expose your racist, fascist. fanatic, neo-Nazi Zionist thug attitudes here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 11:34 PM

Re Richard Steven "bottom" Hack

Our favorite convicted bank robber and bottom to the brothers weighs in again with some more name calling. Here is a man who advocates killing police officers, and he resents being labeled deranged. Considering the fact that Mr. Hack is an ex-con, convicted of armed robbery, such advocacy might cause him to be considered a potential terrorist by law enforcement. I somehow doubt that the San Francisco police department or the FBI would take kindly to such advocacy.

Posted by SLC | November 3, 2007 8:19 AM

Actually I think Don Williams is a bigger tool than Hack, though he doesen't have near the perverse obsession with Israel that Hack does.

Posted by DRR | November 3, 2007 12:55 PM

Israel lobby or Likud lobby?

I think this is a curse of lobbies in general. Actual Israelis are human who hate, love, who can be happy or sad, with a lot of different views and interests. Lobby is another creature altogether.

Thus while actual Israelis can view events throgh various prisms or be outright indiferent, the lobby must inspect of something is good for Israel or bad, and for that it needs to have a fixed methodology. In that fashion, a totally indiferent event of Sec. Rice consulting (former) Pres. Carter was found BAD for Israel and thus worthy a CONDEMNATION. Several articles were duly jotted for the purpose, just another day of indefatigable effort.

Less diligent folks could note that snowball has more chances to survive in Hell than Pres. Carter has a chance of being sincerely consulted by Sec. Rice. The latter was surely going through some forms of politeness.

Back to the lobby. We hear "politeness" and feed the word to our data base. Yes!!! One of the innumerable anti-Semitic codewords, used to formulate feeble apologies for despicable atrocities like kissing Ruha Arafat, or calling Arabs by any other name but Islamofascist scum. Most recently, used to justify the use of headkerchief by Laura Bush.

In the case of Miss Rice, most probably it would never cross her mind to be polite for the sake of a former head of state from the opposite party, so she probably tried to humor some Arabs while avoiding doing anything of substance (well, she was not authorized to do anything of substance). Arabs actually have to be humored a tiny bit because they provide us with bases in Persian Gulf. SLC bitterly complained that Pres. Carter is on good terms with monarchs of Emirates and Oman, just across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran.

So here we are. As prodded by Israel, and surely not contrary to the effort of Israeli lobby, Miss Rice is working to improve our diplomatic position in a possible confrontation with Iran. This involves reassuring friendly monarchs of the area that Jewish neocons and friends of Jewish neocons are not the only people influencing our policy, why, just another day I had a very cordial talk with Pres. Carter blah blah.

And in reward for her effort Miss Rice gets verbally abused by the good writers of Israeli Insider, Marty Peretz, SLC etc. Who then lecture others about "perverse obsessions".

With such exposure to Israeli Lobby, one can be later shocked that most of Israelis that one can meet are not hateful maniacs. Although it is possible that the sample I have met is unrepresentative.

However, Israeli Lobby is but one of lobbies that make their living by conving their customers that they need active lobbying on their behalf and then transforming the worldview into GOOD things and BAD things. For example. it can be established that seatbelts are BAD for the lobby of car makers and as such they have to be resisted tooth and nail until the customers of the lobby will specifically request to cease and desist as the effort is pointless. Efficiency mandates are bad, until they are not. In my private opinion, Car lobby did not do any good for our car makers, but this is what they are.

Posted by piotr | November 3, 2007 9:46 PM