Non-Jewish Americans have a perfect right to object to the policies of Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism.

Hear hear. Well said.

Turkey is a member of NATO, not an ally.

Your other points are valid, but let's keep in mind there are plenty of fringe idiots here in the States (both inside and out of the government) who tend to express similar sentiments.

Of all the stupid legalisms, that takes the cake.

Not 'legalism', but historical fact.

The Egyptian Second and Third Armies crossed the Suez on October 6th, advanced 15 km, and deliberately stopped there. Israeli counterattacks failed to dislodge them from the 7th to 14th, when Sadat finally ordered a limited offensive be initiated (primarily to take pressure off the Syrians, who had been stalled in the Golan).

Sharon didn't arrive until October 8th, and didn't take part in any major actions until Operation Valiant on the 15th. His most notable contribution was directing the 143rd Armored Division into a high-risk, very localized attack in the vicinity of Ismailiya. This allowed the Israelis to mount their own crossing and reverse the war.

There is no evidence Sadat or his staff ever seriously considered pressing unto Israel proper.

Historical facts, not 'legalisms'.

Camps & ovens.

Small wonder you're too cowardly to take a name.

Its one thing to try and argue over a 'policy' that is little more than a joke (ie Giuliani's Israel-joining-NATO proposal). Its quite another to have to confront the reality that those we trust will reverse the disasters our country is vectored towards in fact have a vested interest in maintaining course, seemingly heedless and uninterested in the likely consequences.

Its hard to read this and not come away with a sick sense that this Congress will willingly go along with the Bush Administration over the cliff. There's really no other way to put it.

Does this mean all is lost? Far from it. It simply means we have to accept our elected officials (the current crop, anyway) aren't going to magically fix all this for us.

It means we, their nominal constituents, have to now step in. That means letter writing, calling their offices 24/7, protesting, and/or running for office ourselves. That also means we have to be prepared for many more years of disappointment as we work to shift the ship of state away from the icebergs dead ahead, and patiently work to repair the damage already done and still to come.

If Feinstein is the symbol of what is sour and now worthless amongst the Beltway Democrats, it lies to the rest of us to fill the void she and her's have left.

What other choice is there?

So which is it?

Its number four: "None of the above".

You aren't funny, shooter. Quit trying to be.

Do the Democrats in both Houses not deserve to get 'slammed' after their recent performance?

As Professor Cole points out in his article yesterday, this whole contrived 'controversy' over Ahmadinejad risks elevating the status of a petty figurehead in the worst possible ways. Indeed, I've seen nothing in the last 25 pages of comments even begin to touch upon the wider context and possible consequences of inflating the man's stature.

Glenn correctly notes its become an article of faith (oh, the irony there) amongst the pro-war clods that the US and Iran have been "at war" since at least 1979, an absurd notion on its face and completely at odds with reality. Their current tactic for pushing this line is latching onto the variety of overblown and frankly worthless statements Ahmadinejad has made concerning Israel (which Iran doesn't neighbor) and whatnot, all the while conveniently overlooking the small fact that the man occupies a figurehead office with no real political power.

Yet now he's held up as the 'supreme dictator' of Iran, in the process investing more weight to him than is warranted. Yes, his statements are reprehensible and worthy of objection to. That doesn't automatically mean they're anything more than vapor and certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse to either defund Columbia University or start another costly war.

Has anyone here seriously considered how this kind of hysterical demonization of Ahmadinejad pushes the pro-war clod's line and the risks therein?

The next President of the US will be Rudy Giuliani and he will build upon and consolidate the gains of the Bush Administration. You lefties should prepare yourselves for real shock and awe in January 2009.

Please keep your kinky fantasies to yourself. We're trying to have a serious conversation here and aren't interested.

From retroactive immunity (what the hell is the Democrat's motivation behind that anyway) to the need to 'defend' gay Iranians while criminalizing gay Americans. I'm forever amazed Glenn can swallow his bile at these legal and moral atrocities every day and present such cogent analysis.

A pity hypocracy on this scale isn't fatal to those holding it. The universe, not to mention Sunday telly, would be a much cleaner place if it were.

Bomb the heretics!

Technically, Christians are the heretics as they depend upon a purely secular (and often heavily edited) text. The Qu'ran by contrast was dictated directly to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.

Plus which the whole issue of homosexuality being 'icky' is Victorian Era, y'know? Wonder why these old white guys are so fixiated on it in the first place.

They're sure carrying a lot of stones for people with their history.

I wasn't being entirely serious there, but you do raise a good point. Their (ahem) liberal cherry-picking of Scriptual justifications for their private fetishes/prejudices is one of the larger tragedies of the Religious Right. But then religious faith, no matter how pure in intent, seems to cause more damage than good when it seeks to proactively prescribe conduct in society.

Just look at Prohibition.