Reid is hardly a standard bearer of progressive values or typical Democratic Party ideals. Pro-life, pro-abortion clinic harrassment, pro-patriot act, pro-death penalty, even pro war in 2003. Indeed, he's being honest when he says that Lieberman agrees with "us" (the royal us) on everything but the war. The only difference in the two is that Lieberman STILL supports the war, despite the political liabilities attached to such ideas.

I'm not in a position today to look any of this up, but if my memory serves me the Vatican weighed in on the criteria for just wars a few pontiffs back. Again, I can't remember the name of the pope--I'm half muslim, half catholic, so cut me some slack. I'm also pretty sure that the Iraq war, and every conflict that we've had since World War II (and probably every one that came between that and the Revolutionary war) does not fit the bill. Does anyone know/remember this? Or have a link?

I've struggled for years over the question of allowing myself to get incensed every time a far-right wing mag or program runs fabrications like this. After long years of railing against such crap (to my friends, family, etc.) I realized that no one knew what the American Enterprise Institute was, no one had heard of the National Review. No one (when compared to the legions of reality-television viewers) even watches O'Reilly, Hannity & colmes and the like. I rarely see the National Review on the newstand. Who are we having this conversation with?

It would be so much easier if you people would read all of the texts that you cite from. From that same Wikipedia entry:

In 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others (1922 census[8]).However, this area gradually saw a large influx of Jewish immigrants (most of whom were fleeing the increasing persecution in Europe). This immigration and accompanying call for a Jewish state in Palestine drew violent opposition from local Arabs, in part because of Zionism's stated goal of a Jewish state, which many Arabs believed would require the subjugation or removal of the existing non-Jewish population.

If you were a rational person, that would certainly put the Arab "attack" on Israel in context. I'm somehow doubting that it will.

you said: "omooex talks about the PO'd arabs driven from their land, by the UN sanctioned creation of Israel."

I didn't say that. I offered a quote from the same wikipedia entry you used that explained that the Arab Muslim and Christian population outnumbered the Jewish in Palestine before Zionist sponsored immigration by a factor of nearly 8 to 1. The massive influx of Jews was opposed and yes, Arabs even had a war with Israel about it, because Israel ended up doing exactly what had always been feared--setting up an exclusive Jewish state at the expense of the native population.

Then you said:

"Israel has tried to provide a homeland for palestinians."

Yes, white South Africans tried to do the same with those African ingrates and see what they got for their troubles.

"Israel's decision to attack was preceded by the Egyptian dictator's expulsion of the UN peacekeeping force from the Sinai Desert. The Sinai had been de-militarized by the UN in order to prevent further warfare between Israel and Egypt, but Egypt chose unilaterally to expel the UN and re-militarize it.

--You just said it yourself. Israel attacked. Among other interesting facts to note. The sinai was demilitarized because Israel had attacked Egypt in the first place nearly a decade earlier.

"Eqypt also blockaded Israel's ports, an act of war under international law."

--Untrue. Egypt did not blockade Israel's ports. Egypt closed off the Straits of Tiran to Israeli traffic.

"To portray the 1967 war as Israeli aggression is, to put it mildly, misleading."

--In what Universe?

"Israel did not attack Jordan. The hostilities between Israel and Jordan, resulting in Israel's ill-starred conquest of the West Bank, were initiated by Jordan a couple days into the war."

Israel did in fact attack Jordan using a pretext that even the US declared laughable.

"You mean like the 18,000 unguided rockets fired into Israeli towns? Is that what you meant? "

There is simply no comparison between the homemade bombs used by Gazan militants and the cluster bombs used by Israel in Lebanon. I think, in the last six years, those "18,000" (citation?) rockets have killed less than a 100 Israelis (that's based on my memory of keeping good track of this situation over the last decade. Feel free to dispute with citations). Israeli cluster bombs killed hundreds in the space of weeks and left unexploded ordinance scattered around the country that killed and maimed for a good deal of time after.

The IDF admits that it fired a million cluster bombs into Lebanon in those 6 weeks of 2006:

"Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html

"The scope was extensive and unprecedented in any modern use of these types of cluster weapons," compared to Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, says Chris Clark, the program manager for the UN Mine Action Coordination Centre of South Lebanon, in Tyre.

Additionally:

"UN figures show that 26 percent of southern Lebanon's cultivatable land has been affected, and that 34 million square meters – or 13 square miles – are contaminated....the UN says that nearly all the Israeli cluster bombs were fired in the last three days of the conflict, after a UN ceasefire deal had been reached, but before it came into effect – thereby yielding little military advantage. The timing of the Israeli strikes is "definitely questionable,"..."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p01s01-wome.html