I'm still wondering how "Israel" is responsible for the Iraqi debacle; the Jews I know, all strongly in favor of the continued existence of Israel although wildly divergent in other matters regarding that country, universally doubted the wisdom of attacking Iraq. Even Alan Dershowitz (not someone I know, BTW) was against invading Iraq, fer Crissake. I didn't notice the current Israeli administration asking Bush to attack Iraq; as far as I could see from afar, there was certainly no consensus of opinion within Israel regarding the need to attack Iraq; quite the opposite, the attitude of editorial pages, etc. was that Saddam was, in fact, the proverbial toothless tiger. Had the argument been to attack Syria or Iran, there might have been more support from the Israelis, but that was not the case. The idea that we attacked Iraq on behalf of Israel is as valid as the idea that we attacked Iraq on behalf of the suffering Iraqi people. Of course, they're getting punished for the war as well, so it all sort of comes together.

So, we're left with "It's all for Israel" boiling down to an organization composed of a small and diminishing minority of American Jews who, aside from espousing rightwing policies towards Israel as they do to all other matters, "overwhelmingly supported the war at the outset, have begun to realize that it has been a disaster for both the United States and Israel". Even the link in the text quoted above leads to a news article which emphasizes that AIPAC was hardly representative of American Jewry, even at the outset of the war: "Outside the conference, the dovish Israel Policy Forum warned that pushing one-sided terms could derail any post-war peace efforts. 'The road map is balanced; the letter is utterly unbalanced,' said M.J. Rosenberg, Washington office director for IPF, which draws its board members from such groups as AIPAC, American Jewish Committee and former leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations."

Once again, what does it all boil down to? That a group of wealthy and powerful and conservative Jews supported the Bush administration's Iraqi adventure; much as wealthy and powerful and conservative blacks and gays and women and Texans and Orange County residents etc. etc. etc. supported the administration's Iraqi adventure, all against the wishes of the majority of American Jews and at least a good part of Israelis, perhaps even a majority?

Might I suggest that if you wish to stick the blame for the Iraqi debacle at the feet of an ethnic or religious group, you might try either the hardcore Christian right who supported the idea from the gitgo, the neocon "intellectual" cabal which thought up the whole thing, or even the rich, powerful, and overwhelmingly rightwing Cubans who indeed have a disproportional influence on American policy vis a vis the Americas and are much more representative of the Cuban-American community, and who could easily be considered responsible for Bush's "winning" Florida and thus the Presidency.

But I guess it's too much to expect to see the non-Jewish citizens of America accept the fact that if assigning responsibility for the Iraqi war to any ethnic/religious group is valid, it was and even continues to be much more popular among nonJews than among Jews; after all, Jews are almost universally in favor of the continued existence of Israel, and that's apparently enough to find them guilty of anti-Americanism. I wonder; wouldn't that imply that nonJewish Americans are by contrast willing to see Israel disappear, although they aren't saying it explicitly? Is that the case? If so, please let us know, so we could debate about the real issue instead of these phantoms.

Are You a Liberal Anti-Semite?

Take this quiz and find out.

http://www.slate.com/id/2158962/?nav=navoa

(all of us the children of immigrants),

"I been dis country tree veek, and already some damn eemeegrant stole mine job".

Everybody wants to shut the borders, right after himself. And his family. And friends.

"Sherman did what he had to do at that time. And it worked. But for a hundred years the South has hated him for it. It was horrific. I doubt the American public, or the world, would allow it to happen today, or that it could be forgiven in another hundred years."

Does sound like rather a bad strategy for ending the risk of Middle East terrorism against the US, doesn't it? I suppose Mr. Bush has some trouble keeping his focus for a long time on what exactly it was he is trying to achieve.

I need a note from my doctor to buy cough syrup, but not a Glock 9 mm?

Yeah, I agree that the sudden winning streak was a symbol to Tony that he'd gotten back on track again. I'll have to listen to it again, but I thought that in his sunset tripping there, he shouted out 'i did it' rather than 'i get it'. As though, finally he could talk about it rather that having to be in literal denial.

this is starting to sound like the last episodes of the sopranos.

Oh pooh. A couple of old pros playing an improv game. Can Jane make Stephen fall out of character, or can he hold on? Fun to watch. Better than "Whose line is it anyway?"

There's something peculiar about an argument trying to prove "environmentalists' DDT ban kills millions" by citing all the countries that are still using DDT.