>>>The Likkud has always been against returning to pre-1967 borders.

Didn't a Likud-governed Israel return to its pre-1967 border with Egypt?

Hey OJ - why are you slandering the United States Navy by claiming that it bestows decorations for valor in combat upon cowardly frauds? Would you dare say that on foreign soil?

I think someone made a similar point already, but the key point is disclosure. When I as a lawyer am representing my client in court, the judge and/or jury know I am getting paid to advocate my client's position, emphasize its strengths, minimize its weaknesses, etc. So they know to take my assertions with the appropriate grain of salt. When a lawyer discusses his/her client's case on TV (sadly, I've never gotten to do this), he/she has an ethical obligation to disclose the attorney/client relationship.

Lanny Davis likely is a lawyer, but he is not functioning as one when he takes money from Group A and then goes on TV and talks up Group A's agenda. In a better society, there would be a set of journalistic standards that would require disclosure in these situations, but apparently there is not.

1. Crazy, hysterical, paranoid accusation by wild-eyed, partisan, left-wing loonies.

2. Old news.

I wish King and the other torture advocates could be required to publicly answer a question like this:

Imagine that you have a son or brother in the US military. He is taken prisoner by the enemy, and the enemy believes that he knows important information about American attack plans. Would you agree that the enemy has the right to hang your son by the arms until his shoulders dislocate? To threaten your brother with the murder of his children? To strip your son naked and chain him down and pour freezing water on him?

Etc., etc., etc.

The Golden Rule. An oldie but a goodie.

Imagine that you have a son or brother in the US military. He is taken prisoner by the enemy, and the enemy believes that he knows important information about American attack plans. Would you agree that the enemy has the right to hang your son by the arms until his shoulders dislocate? To threaten your brother with the murder of his children? To strip your son naked and chain him down and pour freezing water on him?

>>>When did Broder argue for prosecutions of Democrats?

I don't know that Broder explicitly argued for a criminal prosecution of Clinton (though I'd bet the farm he would not have opposed it), but he certainly believed that Clinton's alleged misdeeds warranted a very dramatic type of accountability.

Terrific post, by the way. And a brilliant cartoon.

>>>Don't forget the millions of illegal immigrants in our country. But do you see these liberals calling to have them prosecuted?

I believe our laws call for illegal immigrants to be deported, not prosecuted, after being apprehended. So urging prosecution of illegal immigrants would not really be consistent with the rule of law. By contrast, the law forbidding torture by US government officials specifically requires prosecution whenever the evidence supports it.

Comparison fail.

>>>The right comparison would be to the employers of illegal aliens, who are liable to criminal prosecution and civil fines, and about which we always hear from the democrats that regarding enforcement, "the cost to the country would simply be too great". So by all means, let's enforce the rule of law.

I have a confession to make. I think torturing brown people is worse than giving them jobs.

>>>"By this same logic, African Americans and Native Americans should also get their state. And by the same logic, it shouldn't matter how they get it or who's already there. How about letting them set up their state in Israel? After all, anyone who knows the evil that was done to both groups cannot do other than be glad about it"

I'm surprised that you of all people would argue against the notion that oppressed peoples are deserving of statehood.

I know you're not as big an asshole as the above comment makes you appear (IMHO, anyway). I suspect you are confusing the idea of a Jewish national homeland (self-evidently good to anyone with an ounce of decency and historical awareness) with the choice of the location for said homeland (admittedly bad).

Thank you for your thoughtful response to what was a bit of an unfair and ill-informed statement on my part.

With that said... again with the "genocide"? I'd thought that one of my very few triumphs as a blog-commenter was persuading you to abandon that unfortunate and gratuitously inflammatory terminology.

Oh, you're right, that is what he suggested, isn't it. Yeah, I totally agree with you.

Omooex 2, Gator 0.

>>>"If Norm, Chas. Krautheimer and the gang are so pro-Israel then they too can go and live there!"

America ... love it or leave it!! Preach it, Spiritgirl!

Once we get the neocon Jews relocated to Israel, and the urban liberal Jews relocated to Real America, we'll be well on our way to solving our Jewish problem. Yippee!

>>>There should never have been a problem from day one post-WWII with allowing any and all Jews [to move to] America.... The "why" the world [established Israel] instead of pursuing alternatives to a Jewish State is a very complicated question.

No, it isn't. Jews wanted their own country, and America didn't want them here. (Google "MS St. Louis.")

It might seem obvious to you, at a six-decade remove, that significant persecution of Jews would never happen in the US, but this was by no means obvious in the 40s. What seemed obvious at the time was that Jews would be safe only in a country of their own. Hence Israel. Unfortunately, as I've said before, they chose the wrong place for it. But your hysterical doomsaying notwithstanding, the world will, I believe, survive the mistake.