This is important because Israel is a strong and unambiguous ally, right in the heart of the Middle East. They are a potential base of operations if we need to intervene militarily in the region, but usually simply act as a proxy, doing the work for us so we don't have to.

Do we use Israel as a base of operations in our mid-east wars? Do they do our work for us, or do we do theirs? Are their services so valuable that its OK to piss off those that sell us the oil we need?

wrote:

Perhaps I am not following you but don't we already know what is going on? Don't we already understand the big-picture "motivating forces?" Conservative elitist elements making the world safe for capitalist expansion and their own dominance and hegemony - something they often call making the world safe for "Democracy?" Isn't all of this about control and dominance?

"100% support for Israel" is not an essential element for US control and dominance of the world. Contrary to it, in fact. Commenters have given several reasons, somehow acting in combination, as the explanation for "100% support for Israel." I do not find this very convincing.

Terrorism is the enemy that replaced communism when it unexpectedly (to some) really did collapse. But to add to "Be very afraid: terrorism is the enemy." this: "and by the way it is Israel's enemy too." seems pretty weak. If there is some conspiracy in which those who really run the US on one hand and Israel on the other are the same people, or at least comrades and good buddies, I am afraid that I would need some evidence.

I see, Adnoto. So you think that the 100% of US politicians who support Israel 100% of the time are good buddies with those who run Israel. Surely some others here have been a bit closer to the truth whey have pointed out that many politicians are for sale. Or are you trying to convince me that being a bought politician is the same as being a member of the international conservative capitalist elite who, according to you, actually run things?

I think shooter believes he has outwitted you. You said Taylor is "accused" of torture, but apparently have already decided that Bush&co are guilty.

Shooter's reading comprehension and logical ability are very low. Apparently he cannot understand that what many of us here at UT are doing is "accusing" Bush&co of torture. So it is really the same thing, but Taylor is well on the way to a life sentence, while members of Bush&co are about to hit the multimillion dollar speaking tour.

Yes, shooter has this odd viewpoint that no US government official can be charged with a crime because doing so would involve a presumption of guilt. I believe it is a misinterpretation of some perverse opinion he read in the WSJ.

Are people really trying to make the case that the aggressive interrogation tactics used by the US on terrorist suspects is on the same level as those committed by "Chuckie" Taylor?

No.

But if you rob just one bank, you will be charged. Why should torture be any different?

I get very tired of this argument: "See? There is someone worse than Bush. What the hell are you complaining about?"

I think you do not understand how bad waterboarding is. Bush&co have portrayed it as a relatively harmless "enhanced interrogation technique." Perhaps you need to do a little more research.

But even so, can we agree that the rule of law counts, and it is illegal?

but I was about to say something a bit less pleasant to you. Your quote makes the claim that Glenn has engaged in a personal attack. I believe that this is shooter our are quoting? And so typical. Politico is not a person, it is an organization (sort of). So Glenn's attack is not personal, and some of the other claims are questionable. Shooter is a kind of professional. So do not think that attacking shooter is like picking on your kid brother. And be careful about thinking shooter believes everything he says, or could back up what he does believe with any facts. Glenn earns the right to his style with hard work. Shooter also earns the crap he gets here, in a different way.

Words do hurt - I actually at this moment feel saddened by the comments I have inspired and I still don't see why what I said is wrong, or even particularly controversial.

This is not high school debating society. Commenting on the topic is one thing. Commenting on relationships between commenters is not very bright unless you understand what is going on.

I second RMP's nomination of ondelette. Vote early, vote often, dead or alive. Help preserve our democracy.

than he was tried for, just as Bush&co has done more than we know about. I am guessing that Chuckie really has done worse things than Bush&co, but we might never know.

For example, the one about whether an ancient creation myth should be given equal weight to a scientific theory. Some things are truly idiotic and should be identified as such.

wrote:We now know, in other words, that left to themselves, economic actors do not pursue rational, sustainable courses of action. Greed and self-interest will steer you into the ditch every time.

I think what we know is somewhat different from that and more specific. Some big folks thought they could make fortunes if the regulations were relaxed. They were, and they did. Their success led to a general misunderstanding of economic law (as opposed to regulatory law). Acting on this misunderstanding caused this incredible instability.

That is, the apparent success of the dicks caused interactions in the herd to change.

Actually many of the greedy and self-interested lost big. Their course of action was not sustainable. Of course some of the big guys were gone by then.