When you reminded him of his fervor in saying that no Sunni fighters could be negotiated with. His stammering denials only make it clear that what most motivates right wingers in supporting invasions of muslim countries and territories is a disturbing and stubborn might makes right. Its grounded in nothing more, there is no reasoning behind it. I think that any reasonable person would have come around to your view by the end of the interview; how many reasonable people listen to the show is another thing altogether.

India, huh? Whew.

Glenn, by-the-by, read Paul Fussell's,"Thank God For the Atom Bomb". Amen.

Glenn,

I tend to agree with your view that the actions of the United States in this war have not been in our national interest. In your interview, however, you seem to support continued U.S. participation in the conflict as a "mediator":

"Well, I think that, for one thing, I think that real negotiations need to ensue, and I think those can only happen with a powerful and devoted mediator, which probably is a role that only the United States can play."

Why should the U.S. even participate to this extent? Obviously, a peaceful resolution to this conflict would be beneficial to our national interests. But wouldn't it also be beneficial to many other nations?

Additionally, what is it that we can specifically provide as a "powerful and devoted mediator" that the EU (or individual nations such as France, Britain, Germany, etc.) can't?

Regardless, our recent actions in the region in the last 8 years probably do not provide us with much credibility in that role.

I am not advocating isolationism but I do think, for national security interests alone, we should have a significant drawback in our participation in this conflict.

The Daily Show counts. Glenn himself counts. Even the excoriable Drudge is running a headline about the school bombing that is tragic and reprehensible, and will bring well justified heat on Israel to explain what the hell it is doing.

That Israel can explain, we know. They can "explain til your kiskas burst. Tell us Winsmithila, what should Israel do?

Also, Winsmith, I showed your comments to some Zionist friends. They think you are one of the poorest Hasbarists they have ever seen. Why don't you turn the field over to someone who knows how it's done?

Look at the distance you have traveled from your earlier comments to this "heat on Israel to explain what the hell it has done"

You're cracking, Winsmith. A good Hasbarist never gives an inch.

You resisted every opportunity to take the bait offered to you by HH to degenerate the discussion in favor of zealots and Israel Right or Wrong supporters. The one argument that the most rabid supporter of Israel have a hard time countering is the one you made many times. The aerial attack and ground move into Gaza is hurting Israel and adding to the strength of Hamas and prolonging the extremism by both sides.

I have found that when you have an angry person and you ask the question, “How is what you’re doing helping you?” the anger can start to be abated. If the pragmatic Obama administration just keeps asking that question when negotiating with both sides or when discussing among themselves, I believe a reduction in violence and life for Palestinians and Israelis can be improved. Israel over and over has been its own worst enemy and many examples can be found such as the assassination of Rabin or the constant building of new settlements while insisting that they are being fair and want to negotiate in good faith.

Israel’s actions have always spoken larger than their words and it is about time that those actions be examined in light of how they have helped or hurt Israel. That is the uppermost question that should be answered by US congressional supporters of Israel who have been an enabler of numerous counter-productive decisions. That enabling has destroyed countless lives and there is ample proof to substantiate that.

Hewitt seemed intrigued and relatively respectful of Glenn's arguments. Professional courtesy? Who knows. But at least from listening to the interview, it appeared at times that Glenn did get through, in part by being able to speak coherently and argue on point rather than all over the map. This is something Dems (especially) seem to be constitutionally prohibited from doing. I'm sure there's a clause or amendment somewhere.

Did he convince Hewitt? Feh. Hewitt has no principled position on anything. He's an opportunist. Californians have been subjected to his schtick for a long time and know it too well.

Did Glenn convince Hewitt's listeners? Probably not, but if they listened, they heard things spoken on the air, coherently, rationally and directly, that could resonate with them eventually. They've been held in thrall to "conservative" orthodoxy for many years, and yet they love to pretend they are some kind of rebel fraternity at the cutting edge of political and social innovation. And here comes Glenn presenting what should appear to Hewitt's listeners as a coherent, logical, and even appealing perspective to their rebel hearts. This is in part because it didn't quite fit "liberal" orthodoxy, either. It seemed to be something sensible and new. After all, Glenn agreed there might have been a pre-WWII point at which a military confrontation with Hitler made sense.

The fact that Hewitt did not attack Glenn directly (though he mocked and disparaged later) would also tend to give permission to his listeners to at least consider what Glenn had to say.

I suspect there will be repercussions...

One quibble - you let Hewitt's assertion that "Hamas brutally seized power" stand unchallenged; in fact, Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza.

Understandable, considering the barrage of half-truths and lies which comprise the corporatist/zionist/tv preacher-duped line you were facing. Hard to counter everything.

"I will always speak out against historical ignorance and coded bigotry"

Well, you can start in your own backyard:

"Our government spent the 1990s legitimizing the terrorist Yasser Arafat as a legitimate world figure, forcing Israel to acknowledge and negotiate with him."

[that's a doozy. I don't think there's any historian who would dare categorize it that way. Oslo was an Israeli initiative]

"Israel isn't challenged for disproportionately responding to Palestine's aggressions, because it was only 10 years ago that Arafat responded to the peace process and Israel's concessions by sending 500+ terrorists to explode bombs near schools, churces and in pizza parlors."

"America's role has been to push for Palestinian nation-hood even as "The Palestinians" are essentially a constructed ethnic group that doesn't exist (except as a mish-mash of other ethnicities whose native countries refuse to absorb them as Israel did to global Jews)."

[WHOA! Absolutely nuts! Do you have any citations for this crazy beliefe, or did a burning bush tell you about it?]

"And anyone who witnessed the Palestinians respond to the peace process with the Second Intifada understands that sending 500-600 terrorists with poison tipped nail bombs to blow themselves up on school buses tend to require a rather strong military response."

[poison tipped? my god, you have no shame]

I got all of these off just one page of your archive. You've been spreading the most ridiculous mythologies, those that not even the most rabidly pro-Israel pundit would have the nerve to say on Hannity and Colmes. You've offered not even one source for any of these crazy beliefs. Don't try to reinvent yourself now as somehow being reasonable, when you've been claiming the silliest things for days.