Arts & Culture

The Nation Pans “The Israel Lobby”

What a carnival it has been seeing the liberal-left react to the ungenerous reviews of The Israel Lobby. Surely a sign that knee-jerk charges of anti-Semitism and the reductio ad Hitlerum hobble any substantive debate about Israel – ah, if … Read More

By / October 19, 2007

What a carnival it has been seeing the liberal-left react to the ungenerous reviews of The Israel Lobby. Surely a sign that knee-jerk charges of anti-Semitism and the reductio ad Hitlerum hobble any substantive debate about Israel – ah, if only such a debate could be had in the first place!

Matthew Yglesias has gone out of his way to defend John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, even furnishing the latter’s curriculum vitae in defiance of Martin Peretz’s suggestion that Walt had led a “lackluster” academic career until the London Review of Books made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Walt is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations! He’s written three whole books before this one! cries Yglesias, who has also bravely affirmed that AIPAC does not represent Jews like himself, his family and the (gentile) blogger Josh Marshall*.

I very much hope, though, that Yglesias, who has his own humdinger of a volume on U.S. foreign policy in the works, appreciates how categorically conservative and xenophobic his new heroes are. Mearsheimer and Walt belong, along with Michael Scheuer, Bin Laden’s book-of-the-month author, to the reactionary isolationist establishment, the one Harry Truman had to defy it in order to merely recognize the state of Israel in 1948, and the one Scoop Jackson had to war against when the Kremlin’s outlandish “education tax” levied against emigrating Soviet Jews became a scandal worth jeopardizing détente over in the 1970’s. How the sabras must laugh to see a book dedicated to Samuel Huntington, he of the "clash of civilizations" thesis, celebrated everywhere from the University of Chicago to Al Jazeera.

Never ask those suffering from ideological amnesia to examine the irony of their current positions. Forget Che Guevara: the hot new silkscreen t-shirt on campus bears the likeness of Charles Lindbergh. Pat Buchanan’s rag the American Conservative asks if the hard right and hard left can make common cause against Bush, and then devotes an entire article to naming the non-Jewish neocons in Washington. Taki Theodoropoulos, a man who refers to New York as “The Big Bagel” and otherwise spends his time inveighing against the city’s rampant sodomites, thinks that Justin Raimondo alone can prevent more earthquakes in San Francisco by blogging the germ of Marxist thought that infects all neoconservative logic.

Fortunately, a few classical leftists do remain in our midst. They don’t support the war in Iraq, much less Israeli colonialism in the West Bank, but they are admirably unwilling to leverage their internationalism in opposition to either. Denis Lazare of the Nation is one:

Given the kind of people who are criticizing Mearsheimer and Walt and the way the anti-Semitism card is used to silence dissent on the Israel-Palestine question, many might feel compelled to defend their thesis.

They should think twice before doing so. To be sure, Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites, and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy does not portray Israel as uniquely evil or "singularly pernicious." But just because a book is not bigoted does not mean it is good, and the one that Mearsheimer and Walt have written suffers from significant methodological deficiencies, which is a polite way of saying it’s a mess. In expanding their 13,000-word article into a 500-page book (with more than 100 pages of notes!), they have succeeded mainly in exacerbating the flaws of their original argument. They seem to know little about how American government works, how lobbyists function or how the United States interacts with the world at large. They are blind to history and tone-deaf to ideology. Because they blame America’s Middle Eastern rampage on a knot of wily Zionist agents, they seem to think that the US role in the region would turn benign if those agents were removed.

[…]

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a notable example of a new form of nativism that sees foreigners and their domestic allies as a big source of America’s problems and believes that the country would be better off if it could eradicate such influences. Anti-Semitic this is not, but it is still an evasion of the truth that could turn out to be highly dangerous. America will remain in its infantilized state as long as it tries to shift blame for its ills onto foreigners and their domestic agents. It will never solve its problems until it realizes that they originate entirely at home.

* Calm down, people. I wasn’t "expelling" Marshall from Judaism or issuing any kind of sinister innuendo. I went by an older Andrew Sullivan post in response to Yglesias that indicated Marshall wasn’t on Team Chosen. That’s all. Sorry for the mistake, Josh, but thanks for the link anyway, I guess.

Tagged with:
  • Anonymous

    not "Denis," and your name is Coney Island White Fish.

    BTW, Noam Chomsky critiqued Mearsheimer/Walt, too. And earlier. And well. Sure AIPAC are bottom dwellers. They just don't run US policy. Big woop. It's your buds among the goyishe corporate princelings who do that.

  • Anonymous

    People who constantly harp on the 'Israeli excesses/colonialism' trope usually have not a clue what the actual issues are, nor have any sense of either historical context nor the facts on the ground currently in the area.  Suggest to such to read some actual books and get a clue, including not just about the Palestinians but Israel's wonderfully peace-loving, democratic, always-humanitarian neighbors. </sarcasm>

  • Anonymous

    I enjoyed this article by Mr. Weiss. 

    In fact, judging by the  posts by some of the knee jerk leftists to his piece, I'd say he hit a nerve.

     Keep up the good work Michael.

  • Anonymous

    Holy shit, cancel my subscribtion to Jewcy!

    Errr, on second thought…I don't have a subscribtion.

     Oy vey izmir.

  • Anonymous

    You believe in nothing and are nothing!  You're just a pathetic fool whose IQ level is barely in the teens.  I couldn't even get into a debate with you because you're mentally disabled.  You don't understand anything aobut Judaism or anything else for that matter.  Dumbass!

  • Adam Shprintzen

    The problem with any "interest" based foreign policy is that it naturally assumes that there is A singular national interest. And yet, I would dare say that there are actually a whole series of national interests, most fundamental of which should be driven by some idea of the moral and political implications of our actions on a world stage. For as much as W&M have become darlings of the Irrational Left, it is striking to note how their point of view is far more derivative of the type of perceived morally neutral foreign policy that led to such adventures as supporting the overthrow of Allende or support of the Shah.

  • François Blumenfeld-Kouchner

    Amazing how little understood irony seems to be on the Shvitz.

  • Anonymous

    i'm not jewish. i'm not christian. i'm not anything, really.

     

    and i don't have to refer to myself as 'chosen'. i feel good, life is pretty straightforward, i don't walk around thinking i'm better than everyone else. and i certainly don't have to create imaginary divisions that separate me from other human beings — the purpose being, apparently, to simultaneously inflate my own ego and denigrate the religious, ethnic and/or ideological background of anyone who is not 'like me'.

  • François Blumenfeld-Kouchner

    “And this site too is way out of touch with the mainstream of American Jewry. “… Isn’t that the point?

  • Anonymous

    do you have any evidence or argument to back up Walt and Mearsheimer's fealty to the xenophobic reactionary isolationist movement?  like pictures of them in bed with pat buchanan?  don't you think that's a little shrill to accuse them of being against truman's support for israel without any evidence?

     and since when did internationalists have to agree with scoop jackson's counterproductive assaults on detente?

     this was just junk analysis.  you should go into a different line of work.

  • Anonymous

    W and M are indeed of the old school American isolationist camp. Their point of view (realism/ or neo-realism as constrasted with the new-conservatism) advocates an American interest only driven foreign policy. To the extent that they argue that America's policy in the Middle East follows from non-American interests (e.g.Israel lobby), they would view this as a bad foreign policy. The problem with this argument is that American Foreign policy (like domestic policy) cannot be separated from the interest based pluralism that lies at the heart of American democracy, and was so intended to be by Madison. But instead of attacking a system that is built on lobbying and interest driven polictics (which would be the fair criticism) they singularly attack the "Israel Lobby" and make it out as a conspiracy of sorts. This is where their argument fails and opens them to charges of poor scholarship at best to Anti-semitism at worst.       

  • ARG in Chicago

    I have to say that coming over here was a complete waste of my time.  I guess not every link can be a winner, even from TPM.

    I would be hard pressed to care any less about who is Jewier than whom.

    It does seem to me that a significant portion of those who support Israel, people who might otherwise be liberal in their views (e.g. on domestic policy), have supported this war in Iraq and are now pressing for war with Iran.  And their influence seems to be the deciding factor in the domestic politics of trying to stop this war and this president.  I fear it is the main reason that "impeachment is off the table" and our Congress seems so impotent.

    So, to that extent, there is an issue I care deeply about, and would like to better understand.  But this blog entry did me no service in that regard.

    – ARG

     

  • Anonymous

    SUCKS

  • Anonymous

    Dude, it's Daniel Lazare, not Denis.

  • Anonymous

    The one thing in that article that drives me nuts is that the author says that Abe Foxman's book in response is an attempt to stifle criticism.  This is a common liberal trope.  We can say whatever we want, but if anyone responds with their own book  then they are supressing my speech.  Absurd!

  • Anonymous

    Weiss,

    You may have missed it but there are lots of jews, and I'm one of them, who are sick and tired of the "reductio ad anti semitism" of the far right/pro israel, neo-con group that have been attacking Walt and Mearsheimer. If we are reducing the entire of human history to an almost randomly chosen set of points I'd like to point out that the far right/aipac side of things has been smearing and attacking actual jews for being unjewish since the founding of Israel. Did you know that I.F. Stone, who wrote the classic "Underground to Palestine" was essentially excommunicated for advocating a two state solution to the Palestinian problem? The *american* publishers, under pressure from conservative jews in this country, demanded he take out two sentences alluding to a two state solution while the Israeli publishers left it in. Another example, like Gush Emunim, of how fearful and militaristic and unprincipled American Jewish support for Israel has been compared to the actual Israeli political activists and peace activists.

     

    Here's a clue: you and your friends don't get to determine who is really jewish and who isn't, and whose political beliefs are "good" and whose are "bad." But if that's the best you can do, trying to find some way to make your political history "more jewish" than that of others I have news for you–there are plenty of us out here with better political and religious pedigrees. I trace mine back to an anarchist and editor of the free worker's daily, my family has been on the front lines of political activism for four generations, and we won't be dictated to by any little pissant who thinks he's "chosen" by birth and not by action.

    Oh, and f*ck scoop jackson and the horse he rode out on. If I hear any more about that political loser and his degenerate spawn I'll vomit. The very phrase "scoop jackson" has come to be synonymous with angry, childish, militarism and, of course, Joe Lieberman who has become synonymous with "shonda."

     

    aimai

  • VinnyD

    You missed a Simpson's reference in the Andrew Sullivan post that would have made all clear.  Krusty the Klown is a guest for dinner at the Simpsons' house.  He is asked to stay grace.  He says something like "Well, it's been a while, but . . . " and begins a broches.

    Homer:  Ha!  He's talking funny!

    Lisa: No, Dad, that's Hebrew.  Krusty must be Jewish.

    Homer: A Jewish entertainer?

    Lisa: Lots of entertainers have been Jewish; for example Lorne Greene, Dinah Shore, Mel Brooks, William Shatner . . .

    Homer: Mel Brooks is Jewish??

    And yes, both Mel Brooks and Josh Marshall are Jewish.

     

  • Singer

    I chortled at this, on Je(w?)cy's about us section: "This much we know: we’re hungry. Hungry for meaning. For community. For
    continuity and clarity and inspiration. For intelligent, thoughtful
    analysis of consequential ideas and issues."

    But who reads mission statements? Maybe our dear Weisschen should? I'm goin' back to TPM feast. There's nothing for me here but to go hungry.  

    It does sadden me to read a Jew hating Jews, but if you're hungry I guess you'll even eat your own. 

  • Anonymous

    Style note to Weiss:

    If you are going to take on the likes of Josh Marshall with snarky, "you're betryaying your fellow Jews" commentary, you should at least do so in the context of a reasonably well written blog post.  The fact that you attacked Josh in jest might excuse you from the sin of bad intentions, but nothing excuses you from greeting all those tasty TPM web hits with the kind of incoherant, poorly written tripe featured

    So please, take potshots if you must, but at least make sense doing it.

  • Anonymous

    Neither does Paul Newman.

  • earthmann

    Rhymes with Jew. As does flu, coup, and stew.  Bring to a boil, then simmer.

    I don't make sense? Neither do you.

  • Anonymous

    "Fortunately, a few classical leftists do remain in our
    midst. They don’t support the war in Iraq, much less Israeli
    colonialism in the West Bank, but they are admirably unwilling to
    leverage their
    internationalism in opposition to either."

    I'm not saying they support the AIPAC neocon agenda, but they don't not support the AIPAC necon agenda. This is a admirable? You are a very confused young man.

  • Mark Kraft

    "Mearsheimer and Walt belong, along with Michael Scheuer . . ."

    … and so on, and so on, and so on.

    Let's be honest here. There are a lot of vocal minorities in the U.S., and compared to many of them, the Jewish minority is a relatively small one. Out of that minority, the aggressively pro-Israel (pro-Likud?) faction is an even smaller one.  And yet, AIPAC, an organization that is supposed to promote friendship between Americans and Israelis, aggressively lobbied the U.S. Congress to go to war with Iraq. 

    http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php

    And no, I don't need to just site Matthew on this. You can read AIPAC's own press releases from 2002/2003 time period and see some very aggressive statements on Iraq. While much of this information is considerably harder to find today due to site design changes and a removal of pre-2004 archives from the site, archive.org allows us to see documents such as this one:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20010418212354/www.aipac.org/documents/iraqpop1.html

    ". . . Baghdad is suspected of aggressively rebuilding its stockpile of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It is thought that Iraq is amassing chemical and biological weapons and could have nuclear weapons within a year of obtaining the necessary raw materials . . .  Iraq also continues to support numerous anti-Israel and anti-American terrorist organizations."

     While I am, admittedly, a "(gentile) blogger", I have to admit… anyone who wants me to be their friend is doing me a pretty great insult by trying to get my country to launch preemptive wars on other nations, based on lies/misinformation/propaganda that AIPAC helped to spread and perpetuate. Likewise, AIPAC has been implicated as being the conduit in numerous cases of spying/ U.S. intelligence leaks to Israel, dating back decades.

     Perhaps if AIPAC wanted to encourage America/Israeli friendship, they should stop lobbying and manipulating our nation's politicians, and instead focus on promoting cultural gatherings, travel, and foriegn exchange programs… you know, all those things that ordinary organizations of this sort do. That's simply not enough for AIPAC though… they want to effect, influence, and otherwise game the U.S. political system to push forward an aggressively pro-Israel agenda, enshrining a very "special relationship" where the lives of U.S. soldiers and citizens sometimes become a commodity.

     Matthew is right for speaking out against this state of affairs. Why? Because he is both a humanitarian and an American. As a humanitarian, he should want to avoid unnecessary conflicts and unneeded provocations, and as an American, he should owe his greater loyalty to the peace of America, to the defense of its Constitution, and to speaking out against those who would jeopardize either.

    As an American (gentile) blogger, it fills me with great concern to see radical pro-Israel Americans — especially those with dual citizenship — speak about what America should do, as if it should always should be the same thing that would be most in line benefit the rightwing goals of Israeli foriegn policy. It makes me question their balance, their reason, and ultimately, their loyalty, because what is good for Israel or any other nation and what is good for the America should always be, by definition, like a Venn diagram… circles overlapping at points, but not all-encompassing.

    Ultimately, the effotts of such people are self-defeating, as their actions help create more enemies, leading Israel to be outwardly strong, yet permanently insecure. It is no coincidence that what peace Israel does have with its neighbors has been instigated by the U.S. twisting arms and forcing politicians on all sides to negotiate towards an amicable peace.

    In short, you *NEED* America to restrain your pro-Israeli rightwing excesses. You just don't seem to know it yet.   

     

      

     

  • jvill

    All I know is…

    1. I subscribed to Jewcy, got three issues, and then poof! never got another issue again. Reading this freshman-in-college pontificating ass screed, I now know why.

    2. Jews who tell me I'm less a Jew because I disagree with their politics toward Israel are tools, but I still enjoy the amusement.

    3. "This blog entry is an excellent imitation of the rhetoric in Mein Kampf" has got to be the single dumbest thing written since Mein Kampf.

  • Anonymous

    This blog entry is an excellent imitation of the rhetoric in Mein Kampf, and of similar persuasive qualities.

    Or maybe idiots and fools just all converge on the same kinds of nattering.

  • Anonymous

    Big talk from someone who doesn't know a shin from a W.

  • jeffreydj

    And herein I find Weiss extensively quoting Lazare extensively slamming Mearsheimer and Walt's book by cleverly failing to point to a single specific inaccuracy. I'm a longtime Nation subscriber, and it saddens me to see a recent flurry of bullshit book reviews in it. In the past three months, they've paid assorted Keyboard Kommandos to hatchet Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins for their antimonotheism texts, again, long on snide, short on facts.

     Sure, Weiss is an idiot to repeat it, but Lazare is a big idiot to have written it, and most but of all vanden Heuvel needs to review whether she really wants to be the biggest idiot of the lot.

  • Mark G

    Chris Darrouzet,

     Which goes to show that there's nothing "clever" about it. All it reveals is little rich boy, privileged Weiss reading certain books, stealing passages from them while passing them off as his own. Watch how he replicates Christopher Hitchens in a truly shameless way. It's marvelous.

     

  • Chris Darrouzet

    Mr. Weiss,

    For all the clever turns of phrase in your article I learned nothing about the arguments in the book under question or counter arguments. nothing. clever writing is rampant on internet these days, especially in the blogosphere. but no substitute for something substantive to say.  
  • Susan

    How about Juan Cole? We could blame the fact that he's not at Yale on the David Horowitz/Alan Dershowitz gang of merry bullies and their kneejerk resistance to anyone who ever questions Israeli policy on anything – or we could smear him as a "lackluster academic," pretending that his unpopular opinions cancel out any claim to scholarly excellence.

    Gee, I wonder which one it will be.

     

  • Anonymous

    I was going to comment about how incomprehensible this post was, but seems like others beat me to it.  Dang, how much crack had you smoked???  Friends don't let friends blog stoned.

     

  • Anonymous

    I can't even read this, is it in english?

  • James F. Elliott

    Your writing makes you sound like an asshole. It detracts from the substance.

  • Mark G

    And how bizarre is it for Marty "Hot Lips" Peretz to be commenting on the alleged "lackluster" career of an academic? How would Martin even know, considering the simple fact that he's not an academic himself? Shouldn't academics be judged by their peers and not, say, hack rightwing neocon editors?

  • MonkeyBoy

    You can't be a Christian if you don't support Bush's foreign policy.

  • Mark G

    I don't understand why y'all have such a problem with the left uniting with the right in opposition to war. It's an old tradition. Eugene Debbs, America Firsters. Gore Vidal. And now more than ever there's a good reason to back such a coalition. Buchanan and Chomsky disagree on all the "domestic" issues, but they're both right about US wars: namely, that they're a disaster that neither promote democracy, freedom nor "American interests".  

  • Joey Kurtzman

    "Michael's mother is a shiksa so he's not a Jew! Just like the majority of the frauds on the 'Jewcy' staff."

    Fabulous! Is there ANY topic on which you ethnocentric idiots can't work an attack on intermarriage into the thread??

  • Anonymous

    Just like the majority of the frauds on the "Jewcy" staff.

  • Anonymous

    they don't make jews like jesus anymore.  they don't turn the other cheek the way they did before………

  • Joey Kurtzman

    I suppose Michael predicted this sort of reaction by saying,
    "Never ask those suffering from
    ideological amnesia to examine the irony of their current positions."

    Rhetorical stylings aside, I think the message of this post is fairly clear: Leftoid pundits like Matt Yglesias sure do find a good deal to admire in the writings of reactionaries. Do they not find that a bit curious? Perhaps even a cause for concern? Michael (and I) suggests they retrace their steps, just to ensure that in getting to this point where they sometimes sound less like social democrats and more like nativists, they might not have taken a wrong ideological turn somewhere. Just a friendly suggestion! Couldn't hurt!

    In any case, an unprecedented two tagline winners in this thread.

    Owenz: "Jewcy: Just your typical Zionist thug intellectual dishonesty and cowardice"
    Richard Steven Hack: "Jewcy: So clogged with snark and strained cultural references that its point is totally obscured"

    One goes up at the top of the homepage Monday in
    place of "A magazine and community for New Jews and other riffraff",
    the other goes up Tuesday.

  • Anonymous

    Is Walt Weiss jewish?

     What about Marshall Mathers?

  • Anonymous

    If Israel did not exist we would want to invent another client state to further our military adventures.  Rumsfield's dreams for Iraq spring to mind. 

    It is the location of oil that is critical, not religious demographics here or elsewhere.  They provide convenient excuses for politicians here and elsewhere but exactly the same results could be expected if the world were one religion.

  • Anonymous

    Is always classy.  In the words of your hero, GW Bush, you are a "first class a**h*le."  Can't swear on the eve of Shabbos.  Shabat Shalom.  


    Never ask those suffering from
    ideological amnesia to examine the irony of their current positions. Forget Che Guevara: the hot new silkscreen t-shirt
    on campus bears the likeness of Charles Lindbergh.

  • Anonymous

    When acknowledging your own error, it's always a good idea to, you know, just say you're sorry you made a mistake, instead of condescendingly accusing those who call you on it of being uncalm.

  • Anonymous

    If you want to swipes at Yglesias, you should just do it in clear,
    lucid language. All the fluff and fillter really confuses your
    point(s).

    Exactly. The first sign of a bad & insecure writer is the fluff in this article. B'ezrat HaShem, you will learn to write and/or become more confident in your writing that you will learn to write in a straightforward manner without the need to use big words and big phrases.

  • Anonymous

    AIPAC did not start this war.  But they don't represent mainstream Jews either.  And this site too is way out of touch with the mainstream of American Jewry.  Most of whom want a reasonable settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict (like most Israelis), and most of whom do not buy into Bush's betrayal of the trust we inhered in him after 9/11.  As to why Matt Yglesias went out of his way to defend M&W, I think the reason is that wingnuts like this blogger have been attacking him for so long and accusing him of being akin to a Nazi sympathizer (see, e.g., Jonah Goldberg) that he has lost perspective.

     And referring to ourselves as "the chosen" is unhelpful and frankly inaccurate as "chosen" is not a fair translation of the original Hebrew, and implies that we are somehow superior in HaShem's view, which is clearly not what is meant by the text as any knowledgeable Jew would tell you.

  • Anonymous

    Oh my, that sounds horrible! I wouldn't want to be called a crypto-zionist.  Maybe a psuedo-neo zionist, but certainly not a crypto! Ack!!! Not that!!!

     

  • owenz

    …I just think his writing is so clogged with snark and strained cultural references that his point is totally obscured.

    If you want to swipes at Yglesias, you should just do it in clear, lucid language.  All the fluff and fillter really confuses your point(s).

  • Steve

    This post made plenty of sense to me. It's just that, kind of like a Russian novel, it maybe introduced too many minor characters all at once.

  • Anonymous

    I think this says more about Andrew Sullivan than it does Josh Marshall.

  • Anonymous

    I think I understand why Josh gets 10 times the traffic that you do – Josh is able to express himself in plain English. Christ, you make Camille Paglia sound lucid in comparison.

  • washerdreyer

    I'm unsure of what (if anything) this post is intended to argue since it jumps around so much, but I think one of it's points is supposed to be that Matt Yglesias is too uncritical of Walt and Mearshimer. I therefore want to note the existence of <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/levy_on_the_lobby.php">this post</a>, which states that Daniel Levy's review of the book was the best one he's seen.

  • Anonymous

    Michael Weiss is Jewish? He doesn't look Jewish.

  • Anonymous

    I've read thru twice, and I still have no idea what you think you're saying.  Is there a password that will get me to the next level where the words are rearranged in the correct order?

  • Richard Steven Hack

    I mean, Josh Marshall is not only Jewish, he's a "Crypto-Zionist". Criticize Israel enough and he bans you from his blog with the lame suggestion that one "despises Jews" – despite all evidence to the contrary. Push his Jewish hot button and see how far you get.

    Meanwhile, nothing in this post provides the slightest bit of evidence that M&W have gotten anything wrong in either their article or their book. It's just more of the usual slander and calumny with zero evidence to back it up.

    Your typical Zionist thug intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.

    Weiss and Josh Marshall would get along very well, I suspect, since they share these traits.

     

  • Anonymous

    So, did Josh Marshall have religious reassignment surgery, Michael? A week ago, elsewhere, he's not a real Jew, but now he's not one at all.

  • Julius Caesar

    It's reductio, not redutio. Josh Marshall is Jewish. It's odious Taki Theodoracopulos, not odious Taki Theodocropolous. Apart from that… actually that's enough to make me not trust anything else here,

  • Anonymous

    With Jews like you…

    And you should thank Josh for all the traffic on your sorry ass blog… 

  • Anonymous

    You don't understand this blog entry because you simply do not understand the facts.

    AIPAC did not 'start' the Iraq war.  Not even close.

  • Anonymous

    Irony's a bit too thick here.

    But I guess the Lazare quote makes the point.

     

  • Anonymous

    I read this blog entry three times and still don't understand it.

     But I am Jewish.  And AIPAC, the wingnuts who started this war, and the Ann Coulters on the right who want to "perfect me" can kiss my Semitic ass.

  • Anonymous

    Quite.