The Arrogance of the Hawks

When you hear that some folks are starting up a "pro Israel, pro peace" lobby organization to provide an alternate voice on Middle East questions to the neoconnish one that bizarrely prevails at the moment in most American Jewish institutions, you don't expect the most neocon-dominated of American Jewish institutions to applaud. So it's by no means shocking to read Noah Pollack at the Commentary blog dumping on the new J Street organization.

What is consistently shocking to me, however, is the arrogance and tone of disdain that Pollack and his ilk are capable of mustering for this sort of thing.

Obviously, the background for all kinds of progressive mobilization on foreign policy issues -- be it J Street or the National Security Network or the rise of Barack Obama or, indeed, Heads in the Sand -- is that there's been this appalling failure of the hawkish approach. In response to 9/11, the hawks launched a war that's killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden ever could, at the cost of over 1 trillion dollars; they've done nothing to impede nuclear proliferation, nothing to build democracies in the Middle East, failed to kill or capture al-Qaeda's top leadership, made Hamas and Iran more powerful than ever before, and brought American prestige and influence to a new low ebb.

Now obviously a lot of the folks who adhere to the ideas that have brought all this about somehow think they're right anyway. And fair enough; there's just no accounting for some people. But the attitude of thoughtless, unreflective scorn that you see from the Pollacks and Kirchicks and Goldfarbs of the world is like it comes from some weird alternative reality where their ideas have generally been deemed vindicated, rather than one where 178% of the public says we're on the wrong track.

What is the counterproposal to an effort at diplomatic engagement with the existing non-AQ powers in the Middle East? More of the same? Because the last five years have worked out so great? Because lazily drifting toward war with Iran is going to make Israel safer? It's hard to take this kind of point of view seriously.

Comments

Based on the title I thought you were going to find quotes of Josh Smith saying Atlanta had a chance of beating Boston.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | April 16, 2008 3:40 PM

'Nique is cocky, but he's good

Posted by mark f | April 16, 2008 3:42 PM

Agreed, of course. But then, the people you are criticizing really do believe that the last 5 years have worked out so great (though things would have been even greater with 100% more violence), and really do think that lazily drifting towards war with Iran is going to make Israel safer (though not as safe as bombing Iran now).

It's true that in any sane society people holding such views would be marginalized at best, or more likely institutionalized, but there you go, we aren't exactly a sane society right now, so such views are the conventional wisdom.

Posted by LarryM | April 16, 2008 3:46 PM

I think my favorite part about Pollak's response is the disdain he has for J Street's supporters list, including Avram Burg. "It is difficult to imagine how the J Streeters believe their organization will be taken seriously as a pro-Israel lobby at the same time they advertise the endorsement of a figure like Avram Burg," Pollak says. I, as a young, American Jew contemplating moving to Israel, don't in any way agree with Burg's positions on Zionism and the Jewish state. But I find it ludicrous that another young, North American jew like Pollak, who has lived his entire comfortable life writing in America, can find such disdain for the many military and political figures on that list, who have given more to the growth, security, and prosperity than Pollak ever could with all of his warblogging from 6,000 miles away. I find it obscene that Pollak could lump their views in with Burg's, as if its impossible to be a patriotic Israeli (or loyal American Jew for that matter) and still support the aims of J Street.

Posted by Daniel Scarvalone | April 16, 2008 3:48 PM

As a young American Jew (by way of Ukraine), I say it's about time a progressive Israel lobby popped up on the scene.

Posted by Roman | April 16, 2008 3:57 PM

International Herald Tribune
Pentagon seeks authority to train and equip foreign militaries
By Thom Shanker Published: April 16, 2008

WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Congress on Tuesday to grant the Pentagon permanent authority to train and equip foreign militaries, a task previously administered by the State Department, and to raise the annual budget for the effort to $750 million, a 250 percent increase.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I call shenanigans! Exactly how goddamned long does it take to train people in the use of rubber truncheons, waterboards and the application of testicle electrodes? Hmmmmmm? Hell, Cheney picked it all up in an afternoon. This isn't rocket science people, get with the program. Do more with less! Recycle! Do you want those fries?!

Posted by steve duncan | April 16, 2008 3:58 PM

Is the 178% line something snarky that just went over my head, or a typo?

Posted by WilliamM | April 16, 2008 3:58 PM

What is the counterproposal to an effort at diplomatic engagement with the existing non-AQ powers in the Middle East? More of the same?

No, continuing to apply the same hawkishness that got us into this mess would clearly be insane. MORE hawkishness is required.

Posted by dj moonbat | April 16, 2008 4:03 PM

1) I think that it is good to have a fair debate over what's in the best interest of America and what's our obligation both to our valued ally Israel and to the Palestinian people.

2)But the sources for that debate was always there.

The BIG problem is that our news media is extremely corrupt -- and functions more as a one-sided, deceitful propaganda broadcast for wealthy men and special interests than as a forum for rational debate among citizens.

I wish J Street well, but I think they will have a difficult time getting their viewpoints a fair hearing.

3) We need to DESTROY the current news networks -- and their Owners -- and create something that will act more in the public interest. That will allow a rational discussion of US national interest to be presented to the voters for their judgment. We definitely do not have that today.

4) Just look at how the National Broadcasters Association turned off the cameras during Tim Robbins scathing critique of their performance:
http://adage.com/article?article_id=126431

(The morons forgot to order audio recorders turned off as well.)

I think Mr Robbins' reference to BETRAYAL of this country is particularly apt.

Posted by Don Williams | April 16, 2008 4:08 PM

Roman - I TOO am an American Jew by way of Ukraine. Small world.

Anyway, I've become skeptical over any prospects of peace in the middle east but this surely is helpful.

Posted by Murky | April 16, 2008 4:11 PM

9/11, Iraq War, Islamoparanoia. Those are features not bugs. And they're good for IL! Just ask Bibi.

Posted by wren | April 16, 2008 4:11 PM

God forbid the US/Israel lobby actually resemble the makeup of the Knesset instead of Likud alone. If you add up the Meretz and Gil seats they have the same dozen Knesset members as Likud but somehow merit a far fewer* column inches in US papers.

*more like zero

Posted by joejoejoe | April 16, 2008 4:27 PM

In my mind there are two seperate issues:

1) Israel. Its security and its treatment of the Palestianians and its relations with its undemocratic neighbors.

2) the U.S.'s excellent adventure in Iraq.

I'm a hawk in that I'm glad Saddam is gone. However Israel can't stop the rocket attacks, lost to Hezbollah in that recent little war, is facing unpromising demographics in the area and is facing a nuclear Iran in the near future. Mr. Noah Pollack shouldn't be so cocky.

Saddam was a threat to both Israel and Iran. A democratic Iraq is a threat to both Iran's mullahs and Israel's apartheid policies. A successful democratic Iraq would help both the Israeli and Iranian peoples by example.

Posted by Peter K. | April 16, 2008 4:30 PM

I commented in this way on Pollack's very post - and he responded by saying that people just don't realize that Hamas, etc. is part of the global Islamofacist movement...

Posted by Mike | April 16, 2008 4:34 PM

Matt Y writes:

"What is consistently shocking to me, however, is the arrogance and tone of disdain that Pollack and his ilk are capable of mustering for this sort of thing."

moments like these require the wise words of Leslie Nielson: "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes"

Posted by Ted Striker | April 16, 2008 4:35 PM

Count me as a 3rd American Jew by way of Ukraine (well, at least one great-grandparent from somewhere outside Kiev) but I also knew Noah Pollack before he became a total neocon.

Here's the thing. He's a creep. And by that I mean he hits on women in the most vile manner possible! What does that have to do with his Israel policy? Probably nothing.

But if he looks at his approach to getting laid (relatively unsuccessful, given the amount of effort he puts in) and concludes that more of the same is what's warranted, then it stands to reason that he would look at the failed approaches of AIPAC and other neocons towards the Middle East and conclude that if what he's trying isn't working, well, then more of the same is what's called for.

I think we have a word for that in this election cycle...McSame?!?!?!?!

Posted by DSG | April 16, 2008 4:39 PM

In response to 9/11, the hawks launched a war that's killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden ever could, at the cost of over 1 trillion dollars; they've done nothing to impede nuclear proliferation, nothing to build democracies in the Middle East, failed to kill or capture al-Qaeda's top leadership, made Hamas and Iran more powerful than ever before, and brought American prestige and influence to a new low ebb.

Emotion, I say!

I'm not sure if Matt reads comments or what, but I hope somebody reminds him that a writer who sacrifices truth on the alter of pith is a hack.

I mean, really, Matt. You might as well title this post, "I fart in their general direction."

An example? Sure thing. How about "launched a war that's killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden ever could, at the cost of over 1 trillion dollars." This is meaningless as criticism, even though it's true. Consider this same sentence with substitutions: "After Pearl Harbor, the hawks launched a war that's killed more Americans than Tojo ever could, at the cost [present day] of over a trillion dollars." All I've done is replace two nouns, it's still true, and yet Matt's entire point dissolves into absurdity. (As an educated man, I'm sure Matt recognizes what "only replacing nouns" means logically; in the present case, it means his tactic sucks dick.)

The next little bit is so bad as to be precisely false. The hawks have done nothing to impede nuclear proliferation except, you know, making non-proliferation a centerpiece of their foreign policy, scaring the shit out of Ghaddafi, shutting down a huge nuclear black market run out of Pakistan, and conducted a diplomatic, multilateral siege against Iran and North Korea ending with moderate progress on the latter front, and as-yet abject failure on the former front.

They have done "nothing to build democracies in the Middle East" (!) except, you know, actually try to build a real democracy in the Middle East (and I'm confused; is Matt saying we should be trying to democratize the Middle East?). Even if Matt is just pointing out the hawk's inability to do what they say they are going to do, surely he understands why his written statement is empirically wrong (and bizarrely so). 'Nothing' has a specific meaning, and yet he seems to be using it as a talisman or curse, rather than as a synonym for 'zero'.

The rest is legitimately arguable, and that's the best that can be said!

Posted by JA | April 16, 2008 4:51 PM

And I stand by my typos, dammit. How else can we distinguish the robots?

Posted by JA | April 16, 2008 5:00 PM

JA, there's a pretty huge gaping flaw in your argument.

You compare Pearl Harbour to 9/11. Big difference: the US responded to Pearl Harbour by attacking Japan, the country responsible. We're talking about Iraq. Which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

Posted by greg | April 16, 2008 5:34 PM

Peter K: "is facing a nuclear Iran in the near future."

Actually they aren't.

This is the same problem Matt has whenever he talks about "proliferation". He refuses to say he means Iran. I mean, really, he's not talking about North Korea, although he certainly could. The problem with North Korea is that Clinton was the one who reneged on providing the light water reactors, and then Bush came in and made with the "Axis of Evil" crap. But Matt would have to denounce Clinton as well as Bush on North Korea.

So he doesn't talk about North Korea.

And he can't talk about Iran, because that would mean answering my two questions on Iran - which Matt won't do, because that would blow his "liberal internationalist" cover to hell and make him susceptible to being as wrong on Iran as he was on Iraq.

So Matt just makes vague references to "proliferation" without admitting that he really thinks Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

No balls, our Matt.

JA: "the hawks launched a war that's killed more Americans than Tojo ever could"

Uh, what part of of Pearl Harbor - not to mention the fact that a war generally kills people on both sides - don't you get? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so any "Pearl Harbor" comparison you're planning on doing are bullshit - even if the PNAC documents prayed for a "terrorist Pearl Harbor" so they could start their war on Islam for oil.

The rest of JA's comment is pathetically bad - ignoring the entire point of Matt's post that none of the objectives JA refers to have been successful.

North Korea made a deal DESPITE Bush's obstinate bullshit, not because of it - not to mention that North Korea actually HAD nukes, whereas Iran does not, which is why Bush never followed up on his belligerent bullshit. Ghaddafi was a joke, so he's irrelevant.

The Pakistani nuclear black market is still in operation by all accounts, and Khan has never been allowed to be interviewed by the West. Not to mention that it was neocons in the State Department who actively facilitated the theft of US nuclear secrets and passing them to Pakistan via Turkey, according to Sibel Edmonds.

And to consider Iraq an exercise in "democracy building" is just brain dead, considering all we know about both the reasons for the invasion and the corruption in the Iraqi government and the process of its creation. Even Afghanistan is a lousy example of "nation rebuilding" with the central government installed there not controlling two thirds of the country - and where it does, it's heavily influenced by warlords.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 16, 2008 5:38 PM

I am not a Jew from Ukraine, but all this fuss makes me wonder if the other ethnic lobbies are similarly riven by internal tensions and American politicians mistake the voice of the lobbying group as the voice of that community. Specifically I am thinking about Indian-American lobbying groups that are helping push forward the nuclear agreement with India.

Is this a general problem with lobbyists or a uniquely Jewish-Israel issue?

If its a general issue with lobbysist, I imagine a competing lobbyist group will only treat the symptoms, not the cause.

Posted by skra3ling | April 16, 2008 5:41 PM

Hey, Daniel Scarvalone, let me just make one comment about your incredulity "that another young, North American jew like Pollak, who has lived his entire comfortable life writing in America..." etc.

Well, Daniel, the problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about -- where I live, where I have lived, where I have worked, what wars I have seen or not seen. Remove foot from mouth. Cheers.

Posted by Noah Pollak | April 16, 2008 5:44 PM

Neoconservatives do not operate in a vacuum. On Iran, the notions that are perpetrated are breath-takingly fantastic. And, of course the only distinguishing feature of Iran is that it is the current strategic rival to Israel. If Iran were an existential threat (an impossibility) , then as far as "arrogance and tone of disdain" goes, you have seen nothing yet.

It takes two. Sure necons peddle their stuff. But, who's forcing the rest of us to swallow whole?

See http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

Posted by BiBiJon | April 16, 2008 5:51 PM

One characteristic feature of the US foreign policy debate is enormous heat and public criticism between people who are in fact very similar. The Commentary - J Street spat should be largely seen in that regard.

Posted by otto | April 16, 2008 5:58 PM

Why is it not legitimate to question the motives and thinking of J Street for permitting someone like Burg, who has called for the dissolution of the State of Israel, to be on their list of supporters? What exactly is it about AIPAC that drove them to create J Street? Have the J Street folks confused AIPAC, which supports the State of Israel, no matter which party is in control or not, with organizations like ZOA, which take more consistently conservative views? Israel is negotiating with Abbas, whose PLO has never stopped inciting its young people or honoring ongoing terrorists, and whose leadership (albeit in Arabic) still sees as its ultimate goal the destruction of Israel? How much more negotiation-oriented does J Street want Israel or the U.S. to be?

Posted by melaw | April 16, 2008 6:21 PM

To give some perspective Israel's moderate negotiating partner just gave the highest honor the PLO can give to anyone to the driver of the terrorist who blew up a Sbarro Pizza Parlor in Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208246580507&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by Dave | April 16, 2008 6:31 PM

I'd be suprised if there were any mid-sized Israeli towns that didn't have things named after terrorists. Until lately it was damn near a pre-qualification for being Prime Minister.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 16, 2008 6:38 PM

Ed has it right. The Israelis came to power in Palestine entirely on the back of terrorism. Virtually all their leaders were terrorists, either in direct action or by support of those who engaged in direct action.

And their subsequent policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians are clearly "state terrorism".

The morons who continually complain about Hamas, or Fatah, or somebody else supporting "terrorism" conveniently ignore the oppression and "state terrorism" which Israel imposes and has always imposed on the Palestinians.

One man's "resistance" is another man's "terrorism".

Or as Wolverine put it once, "Terrorists? Yeah, that's what the big army calls the little army."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 16, 2008 6:44 PM

Re Noah Pollak

Actually, Robert Malley is a far more dangerous member of the Jstreet crowd than Avram Berg. Berg has no influence in Israel while Malley might well have a position in an Obama government.

Re Ed Marshall

Mr. Marshall is a lying fuck.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 6:53 PM

One feels compelled to note that our actual first major military action after Pearl Harbor was to invade Monaco...

Posted by Jeff R. | April 16, 2008 7:03 PM

They took over the goddamn government while everyone else was twiddling their sucked thumbs and you're surprised that they're still arrogant? No one's laid a glove on them. John McCain has Tarjuffe chewing on his ear and he may well be our next President. Why shouldn't they hold startups like "J Street" in contempt? They know how feckless and jejeune these "Pro-Israel/Pro-Peace" Jews are and they don't care if they laugh out loud about them. Because W has internalized the neocons argument- the bombs are about to drop on Iran, and with Admiral Fallon out of the way- nothing and nobody will stop phase #2 of "Rogue State rollback" from happening. They rightly see something like "J Street" as a joke, which it is.

Posted by Trevor | April 16, 2008 7:09 PM

Begin, Shamir, Ben-Gurion forgotten in their terrorist infamy...

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 16, 2008 7:26 PM

As I remarked yesterday, J Street really doesn't seem too progressive to me. Better than AIPAC, certainly, but more middle-of-the-line than progressive. Their issues page calls for Israel keeping a majority of the settlements and a resolution in Jerusalem that acknowledges demographic realities.

That's basically a weak tea form of AIPAC. Though, in their defense, they do favor diplomacy with Iran instead of negotiations. On the other hand, war with Iran would not really be pro-Israel because of the collective clusterf--- the Middle East would deal us if we invaded another Middle Eastern country.

Posted by Bill L. | April 16, 2008 7:52 PM

What you guys don't understand is that the FemNazis are in league with the Islamofascists to establish a Caliphate that rules the world.

At least, that's what some Halliburton execs tell me. They could be wrong, though....

Posted by serial catowner | April 16, 2008 7:54 PM

I just took a look at Contentions; I was about to leave a comment there but it seemed pointless as they are quite sure their program is working very well.

Posted by David Sucher | April 16, 2008 11:27 PM

"The next little bit is so bad as to be precisely false. The hawks have done nothing to impede nuclear proliferation except, you know, making non-proliferation a centerpiece of their foreign policy, scaring the shit out of Ghaddafi, shutting down a huge nuclear black market run out of Pakistan, and conducted a diplomatic, multilateral siege against Iran and North Korea ending with moderate progress on the latter front, and as-yet abject failure on the former front."

If you think the administration that has undermined the non-proliferation regime with the India deal has made non-proliferation the centerpiece of their policy, you're an idiot. Ghaddafi was caught red-handed by the Europeans and it was his Westernizer son (and likely future head of state in Libya) who was studying in London at the time that convinced him to give up the nuclear program. In Pakistan, AQ Khan got a slap on the wrist and will probably just go back to doing what he was doing after his house arrest ends. Success in North Korea came many years after there should have been a deal. They went from having 0 nukes to about 9 in the time the Bushes were acting immature (especially Bolton) to the time Christopher Hill could begin making some progress. Also, considering the CIA says that Iran no longer has a nuclear weapons program, your point about Iran is just odd.

Posted by Reality Man | April 16, 2008 11:54 PM

"Specifically I am thinking about Indian-American lobbying groups that are helping push forward the nuclear agreement with India.

Is this a general problem with lobbyists or a uniquely Jewish-Israel issue?

If its a general issue with lobbysist, I imagine a competing lobbyist group will only treat the symptoms, not the cause.

Posted by skra3ling | April 16, 2008 5:41 PM"

There are tensions. However, since things like Hinduvta are much bigger movement in India than among Indian-Americans, where Muslim Indians are successful, in many ways there is much less tension among various religious groups of Indian-Americans than in India. There are some weirdo Hindus in charge of some community centers and such who want to make everything think they are the most Indian people ever who think they can define the rest of us by their standards, but it is nowhere near the problem as it is among Jewish and Israeli lobbying groups. The likes of Abe Foxman are probably more powerful among powerful Jewish groups (and thus much more internally hated because they have more power that they can use to throw around the term "self-hating Jew" against anyone who disagrees with them) than a bunch of no-name Hindu wackos are among Indian lobbying groups.

Posted by Reality Man | April 17, 2008 1:29 AM

For those well meaning critics of Israeli policy, like Mr. Reality Man, the attached link, which is an op-ed by one Mahmoud al-Zahar in todays Washington Post, should give pause when they claim that the way to a peaceful settlement of the Israel/Palestinian is through negotiations between Hamas and Israel. Of course, Mr. al-Zahars' conditions for such a settlement, which, as I have stated over and over again would require the Government of Israel to go out of business. Now the hard core Israel bashers, like Mr. Don Williams, Mr. Richard Steven Hack, Mr. Ed Marshall, and Mr. Trevor think that Mr. al-Zahars' demands are eminently reasonable as they are in agreement with them. However, the more nuanced critics, like Mr. Reality Man should really carefully consider their positions in light of Mr. al-Zahars' comments.

As I have repeatedly stated, I believe that the Hamas folks are serious people who say what they mean and mean what they say. I have seen no evidence that Mr. al-Zahars' demands are just an opening position in what would become a protracted negotiation. On the contrary, the evidence is that they are non-negotiable positions, which have nothing to do with improving the situation for the Palestinians or achieving an independent Palestinian state on some portion of the land of Palestine. Their position is actually very simple, it's all or nothing. Until such time as they show willingness to compromise, it's going to be nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602899.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 7:42 AM

As a follow up to my last post, I am attaching a link to an editorial in the Washington Post commenting on James Earl Carters' plan to meet with Hamas terrorist leaders and the op-ed by Mr. al-Zahar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603097.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 7:46 AM

One feels compelled to note that our actual first major military action after Pearl Harbor was to invade Monaco...

Jeff R. - Monaco ? What did we do in Monaco ? Do you mean Morocco ? We invaded Morocco as part of Operation Torch on November 8, 1942 (it was part of French held North Africa, and we landed troops in Algeria shortly thereafter).

It was the first US military action in the European theater. Well, unless you count the start of the US bombing campaign. And the fight against the German U Boats. (And there was also the US occupation of Iceland, but that did not involve fighting.) In the Pacific theater, however, we had by this time fought the battles of the Philippines, Coral Sea, Midway, and were halfway through the Guadalcanal Campaign (started August 7). I think that these all count as major military actions.

Of course, the other major difference is that in World War II we had strategic planning, instead of wishful thinking.

Posted by Marshall | April 17, 2008 8:19 AM

"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity." (Pat Buchanan, April 2003)

Posted by Trevor | April 17, 2008 9:47 AM

Re Trevor

Gee, Pat Buchanan, well known racist, antisemite, and latino basher is the font of Mr. Trevors' wisdom. Not surprising considering the close relationship between Mr. Buchanan and Richard Nixon who appointed Mr. Trevors' father to the federal bench. Next, Mr. Trevor will quote Don Black, the founder of the stormfront web site.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 10:08 AM

1) You left out the best part of Pat's comment, Trevor:

"They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America."

2) Given that this "passionate attachment" --plus stupidity, egotism and a pathological delight in deceit -- has caused the needless deaths of 4000 US soldiers --and thousands more amputees -- I think the American Jewish community should separate itself from the Neocon egotists and leave them to their fate. Especially since they and their Likud partners have not been all that "good for Israel" either.

3) However, the one group of people I hate more than the Neocons are the corrupt politicans whose "passionate attachment" is only to money -- and who were willing to sacrifice 4000 soldiers just for the favor of wealthy men.

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 10:23 AM

SLC thinks that if he desperately hurls enough slurs, it will conceal the fact that developments since 2002 have shown Pat Buchanan was right.

Has Bibi found Saddam's nukes yet, SLC?

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 10:28 AM

The leftist Ben Gurion helped the British hunt down his rightwing Jewish rivals. So of course the lamebrains on this blog denounce him too. It's one more reason to take no leftist prisoners.

Posted by Seth Halpern | April 17, 2008 10:50 AM

The leftist Ben Gurion helped the British hunt down his rightwing Jewish rivals. So of course the lamebrains on this blog denounce him too. It's one more reason to take no leftist prisoners.

Posted by Seth Halpern | April 17, 2008 10:51 AM

Re Don Williams

I see that Don Williams, white trash from Eastern Kentucky, also is a fan of Pat Buchanan. I must say that peckerwood Williams certainly has a wide circle of folks he admires, some on the left and some on the right. The only thing they agree on is that the all hate Jews.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 8:42 PM

I see that our favorite sick-loose-crackhead (slc) sees jew-haters out of the corner of the three eyes in the back of his head. When the doctor slapped him in the delivery room - the little baby wailed "anti-semite!" An anti-Semite used to be someone who hated Jews. Now, it's someone whom big baby Jews hate. It's lost its stigma. To be called a "Sunday driver!" today is much harder to live down.

Posted by Trevor | April 17, 2008 9:11 PM

IF I make a donation to the J Street Project, will they slap the shit out of SLC for me?

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 10:33 PM

In an interview with Keith Olbermann , Rachel Maddow gave a scorching attack on Hillary's proposal that the USA engage in a nuclear war with Iran for the sake of Israel.

Keith notes that Pat Buchanan had also strongly criticized Hillary's proposal as well and Rachel laughs and said: This is one of the times when Pat takes a right turn and turns so far to the right that he hits me when I take a left turn.

See http://youtube.com/watch?v=K6TXy2Y8KMI&feature=user

As I've stated before, I disagree with much of Pat Buchanan's views on cultural issues, but I think he has shown loyalty to the people of this country and an integrity that has cost him personally -- while some Democratic leaders have whored themselves in a disgusting matter to people like billionaire Haim Saban.

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 11:37 PM

Oh, but I suppose that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are "racist anti-Semites" as well?

SLC apparently thinks that "Racist anti-Semitism" spreads like that mutant virus in the movie "I am Legend".

We aren't anti-Semitic, SLC. We just think that you sometimes are a clueless asshole.

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 11:58 PM