I am going to avoid direct quotes because at a certain point, long posts become too long when quotes are added.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I think our differences boil down to

1. Whether GG meant ONLY Iraq and Afghanistan when he spoke of USA "conflicts" in the ME [note to GG if you are reading: feel free to cast the deciding vote] or whether he was speaking more broadly.

2. And how does US support for Israel fit into the equation?

First - do you doubt that there are people in the ME who are angry with the US because of its support of Israel? Here is one of what with a little diligence could turn into hundreds of articles that make this point:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/04

/irans_reformists_redirect_their_anger_toward_us_and_israel/

Note that this article is talking about Lebanon, not Iraq or Afghanistan.

As for bin Laden, he has always opposed Israel; in fact, he recently called for jihad against Israel because of their assault upon Gaza.

True, Israel was not the prime motive for 9/11, but that is hardly the point here. Glenn is essentially drawing a Venn diagram and noting where the different issues intersect, not that every point in space directly connects with every other point.

The issue here is that our civil liberties are being attacked and the proximate cause of the attack is the fear of terrorists. Our government has repeatedly conflated bin Laden and various Islamist spin-off groups and affiliates with 9/11. Falsely, but that is what they do.

To the extent that our own, non-Israel-motivated conflicts in the ME; and our involvement with Israel's conflicts motivate people to do or threaten things that cause American right wingers to hide under their beds and call out for Big Brother to protect them from the terrorists, our support of conflict in the ME - our own and Israel's - has a negative impact upon US interests.

I believe that is GG's take and that you err in your interpretation by suggesting that GG paints a direct line between US/Israel and US/Iraq/Afghanistan. It is not so straightforward.

And how could it be? In the end, we are talking about human behavior in the real world, which to a great extent depends upon people forming views based upon emotions and imagery.

Israel - you will no doubt grant? - is thoroughly hated by many people in the ME. If the US is perceived as being joined at the hip with Israel, the US is going to be hated as well.

Which groups, exactly, make this connection and do things that scare Americans? Does it really matter? Do you think Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, cheeleaders for all things authoritarian, make such fine distinctions?

I wrote:

I meant "conflated 9/11 with Iraq..." thereby allowing them to suggest that our continuing occupation of Iraq is a continuation of the "war" against al Qaeda.

I would love for someone around here, wiser in the ways of congress than I, to explain how it is possible to compromise on a bill with the other party, and have the other party deliver not a single vote.

Do they not make deals such as: if you promise X number of votes we will make such and such changes?

Or do they just make changes and hope the other side compromises?

Or what? How does it work? How can it happen that the Dems give in to the Republicans, and get nothing in return?

From one original to another.

Just last night I attended an event in Kirkland, WA (suburb of Seattle), jointly sponsored by Rick Steves and the ACLU-WA, about the lunancy and criminal stupidity of our drug laws.

We saw a short documentary that the ACLU and Rick had put together, expecting one of the local television stations to run it as a paid program. Not a single local station would run the show.

Pathetic. By far, the negative effects of marijuana prohibition outweigh marijuana's pharmacological harm. What will it take to re-tool our stupid drug laws?

It seems to me that the basic argument of those who equate opposition to unconditional US support for Israel with anti-semitism are committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

All anti-semites oppose unconditional US support for Israel

X opposes unconditional support for Israel

Therefore X is an anti-semite

Or substitute 'anti-Israel' for anti-semite for the same result.

Compare that to:

All anti-semites oppose unconditional US support for Israel

X is an anti-semite

Therefore X opposes unconditional US support for Israel

The arguments go on and on but the basic logical fallacy seems to be rather clear.

Who says:

If this were only true. There is a sizeable group of American religious wing-nut antisemites, who want to continue unconditional US support for Israel until judgement day. Literally.

No doubt and good point. If only people's attitudes (as opposed to their mortality) could be expressed as a universal with total accuracy.

To illustrate the fallacy, formally, assuming "all" works well enough.

To illustrate the point informally, I would say that it is not logical to believe that opposition to unconditional US support for Israel (hereafter: OTUS for short) equates to anti-semitism or anti-Isrealism.

And this is an obvious point. Why the argument has ever had any traction is amazing to me.

I think Beck et. al. are hoping for a coup rather than a civil war. They want the military to side with "the people" and "the constitution" against those they perceive to be their enemies.

Yes, the mask has completely come off.

You are asking an ADVICE COLUMNIST how not to be a know-it-all?

Rove is a guy who regards politics as war. Everything is fair. He is just a psychopathic liar.

Talk about your funny math.

Exactly.

Why ask why McCain is "being" a jerk. You might as well as why water is "being" wet or baseballs are "being" round.

McCain has always been to jerkdom what black holes are to density. Maximal.