You know, controlling the United States government, owning all the media and the banks, poisoning the wells, that sort of thing. Carry on.

As a strong supporter of Israel and a liberal, I don't see why, despite the usual repugnant right wing use of terminology and outright lying, asking Obama's stance on Israel isn't germane?

At least they're not smearing flag pins and pastor issues.

Obama, just like John McCain, deserves to be grilled on his stance on foreign governments like Israel.

I've noted many times on this board that many elements of the left does contain an ugly anti-Semitic undercurrent -- that Israel doesn't deserve the right to exist, that all Neocons are part of a grand Jewish conspiracy to bankrupt America to help Israel, etc.

That sort of nonsense rears itself on the left all the time. It's far and away the ugliest embedded racist strain we have.

Republicans hate Mexicans, gays, Muslims, blacks, women who dare to think, single mothers, and pretty much every other non-white non-Christian group.

But some liberal democrats have ugly anti-Jewish conspiracy theory impulses that are just as gross as the Lou Dobbs venom towards Latino immigrants.

I'm not excusing the wingnut nonsense, but they're probing a real issue -- anti-Semitism on the left.

Obama's clearly not anti-Semitic, and the fact they'll try to smear him as such speaks to their intellectual dishonesty and fraudulence, but it doesn't deny the germ of truth -- this is a real issue on our side.

Did you go to math school for that?

I'd say you're 100% full of it

"Rather obviously, the headline describes the act in which neocons (and the media) are engaged and which I'm criticizing. It doesn't describe what I'm doing in the column."

This is true, but it's a great example of how Salon consistently skews headlines to be anti-Obama.

Anybody who read your article would know what you were saying. Heck, anybody who read the subheadline would, too. But the headline itself is actually pretty ambiguous.

This isn't necessarily your fault - I know that writers often don't write their own headlines. But it is a good example of how more care should be taken by your editorial staff when it comes to headlines. And given Salon's pretty clear pro-Clinton bias, you really shouldn't expect much benefit of the doubt these days.

GOP leaders in the House -- such as House Minority John Boehner -- issued highly inflammatory statements regarding Obama's interview with Goldberg, condemning Obama for describing Israel as a "constant sore" when, in fact, Obama used that term to describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- not Israel

Bearing false witness against your neighbor is one of the Top Ten Things God Says You're Not Supposed to Do.

It's more than disgusting to see people who claim to believe in God directly violating a commandment for political gain.

Note to the GOP: you can gain the whole world and still lose your soul. Which of those do you think God will care about more?

This would take care of Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan, and others as well.

It would take care of Keegan, certainly, but Hanson is an amateur military historian who came to write about such matters because his actual specialty is the early social and political development of the Greek polis states. He's really not much of a military historian outside of the bare nuts and bolts, when he tries to draw conclusions, he indulges his delusions of grandeur.

The motherfucker thinks he's Clausewitz.

Well, I guess that means Obama can't be the Messiah. ...i told you so, Glenn.

Personally, I'm still hoping the rapture will come and deliver us all from ...bush and cheney.

full gospel fellowship,

bah.

Obama's answers in the Goldberg interview constituted a veritable tsunami of pro-Israel cant. For the Bush cultists and Likkud-firsters to argue anything else just shows how utterly insincere they are. I hope to God Obama does not back down or apologize for a "poor" or "inartful" choice of words, but rather calls them out on their sheer gall and utter lack of integrity. But ... I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah but what have you been doing since after breakfast.

"editorial staff"

Nice handle, BTW

Fair enough Re Hanson, though in my defense "Western Way of War" --- which was just, John Keegan looks at the Hoplites --- was Hanson's dissertation, wasn't it? It's the only one of his I've read.

He does have that "I've seen the mountain" way about him, doesn't he?

In my country there is problem

And that problem is the troll

They take over the debate

And they never give it back

Throw the troll down the well (repeat line)

So my country can be free (repeat line)

You must grab him by his horns (repeat line)

Then we have a big party (repeat line)

As a strong supporter of Israel and a liberal, I don't see why, despite the usual repugnant right wing use of terminology and outright lying, asking Obama's stance on Israel isn't germane?

Who said it wasn't germane?

Obama, just like John McCain, deserves to be grilled on his stance on foreign governments like Israel.

I agree with this.

I've noted many times on this board that many elements of the left does contain an ugly anti-Semitic undercurrent -- that Israel doesn't deserve the right to exist, that all Neocons are part of a grand Jewish conspiracy to bankrupt America to help Israel, etc.

That sort of nonsense rears itself on the left all the time. It's far and away the ugliest embedded racist strain we have.

But some liberal democrats have ugly anti-Jewish conspiracy theory impulses that are just as gross as the Lou Dobbs venom towards Latino immigrants.

I notice you have a very bad habit of claiming that "some liberals believe X" and "some on the Left think Y" without ever bothering to cite a single example.

Obama's clearly not anti-Semitic, and the fact they'll try to smear him as such speaks to their intellectual dishonesty and fraudulence, but it doesn't deny the germ of truth -- this is a real issue on our side.

What does anything in this post have to do with whether some "on the Left" are anti-semitic? Absolutely nothing. It's just a red herring you always raise, in the same elusive, non-specific way, to make some point that you think it's important to defend.