1. "First, as is true for virtually every aspect of foreign policy, McCain's position -- that the U.S. should consider as our Enemy all enemies of Israel and refuse even to talk to them -- is a carbon copy of the neoconservative Bush/Cheney policy, one that has been so destructive to the U.S., Israel and the Middle East generally. Yet it reflects the destructive equation in American political life between "mindless Middle East militarism" and "support for Israel." American political orthodoxies hold that one must embrace the former in order to prove the latter."

Embodied in the latter part of this paragraph I think you are acknowledging that both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for this equation. However, it'd be nice if you'd say it more forcefully once in a while and not just in relation to Hillary Clinton. Obama has taken a 180 degree turn toward Israel--from once being pro-Palestinian to the same kind of mindless overbearing support that you are critiquing here. This is a trans-partisan problem, and nothing will be done about it unless we acknowledge that anyone with a serious shot at being president is going to have to tow this line. Although I do agree, that despite whatever fiery rings that Democrats jump through for Israel, the Republican candidate will always be there upping the ante, as in the "Obama is a friend of Hamas" bs.

2. "But this equation is not even shared by actual Israelis, nor is it shared by the majority of Americans. An overwhelming majority of Israelis -- 64% -- favor negotiations with Hamas. Two-thirds of American voters generally "believe that Israel should continue to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, even in the face of terrorist attacks."

I think its important to distinguish the desire to negotiate from the reality of how negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis have played out. As occured in Oslo, Israelis generally have used the negotiations to cynically create a matrix of control in Palestine from which they could better leverage their territorial ambitions. In the Oslo case, Israelis left Palestinians on the ground completely out of the loop, negotiating instead with the PLO. In any case, negotiations that include the US will always be inherently unjust, and Palestinians have few chips to bring to the table. Negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian situation--at least within the current US-Israeli-Palestinian framework are part of the problem, not the solution.

If the Christian explanation holds for Republicans, then what is the rationale for Democrats who hold nearly the exact same views as Bush, McCain, et. al?

Especially, this line:

"Who would have taught him to love it...?

Yes, who? Who would have taught him to love slavery, Jim Crowe, Yellow Peril, the genocide of Native Americans, immigration quotas, the legal suppression of labor rights, single-handedly starting the nuclear arms race, the invasions of Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, and, of course, our finest hour, the financing of right wing central american militants with drug money??!??!??!

Who?

I was watching Hardball. Matthews and the panel were gabbing about the most important issue facing Americans--Reverend Wright--when Matthews broke in about Wright's alleged accusation of the US government in creating the AIDS epidemic. SOmething like, "of course, we all know about Tuskegee..."

Do we? How would we know about Tuskegee? When was the last time you saw mainstream news reflect at all on the history of black people in this country? Or even mention that there is a history, especially when talking about Wright?

"His petty, personal attacks on people he doesn't like are straight out of junior high school."

You're projecting.

How could anyone so neatly display both their contempt for "Gate Fourteeners" and their complete ignorance of everyday life? When was the last time you met a guy named Vinnie? I believe the appropriate pseudo-bigoted stereotype he was searching for would be something like "Luis" or "Achmad".

"But apparently there are still people who believe that the only center around which debate could take place is how many troops we should have devoted to the effort and whether we should have rushed to get the job done in March or could have waited until September."

I would say that a large part of this comes from the embarrasing performances of our Democratic candidate in 04, Kerry. Kerry's only substantive critique of the war was that it "was fought on the cheap", a notion he reiterated at every opportunity until it became the de facto rallying cry of the opposition. Clinton has indulged in a bit of this revisionism as well, and the closer Obama comes to becoming the nominee, the more he drifts into this discourse.

What is most amazing, as far as I read, is that Williams didn't even mention what the issue was behind the NYT article, and offered no defense, except, "they're cool, dude. Brian Williams told you so."

What a beautifully crafted article, really just brick and mortar and lock and key. They could use this to teach media criticism.