Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An Unfair Attack

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 02:54 PM
Original message
An Unfair Attack
An Unfair Attack
By David Gergen

4/3/06

It brings no joy to issue a public rebuttal against a valued colleague, but there are moments that demand no less. The occasion is the publication of a nerve-jangling essay entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," written by two professors, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, the academic dean and my colleague at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

In essence, their 82-page piece argues that U.S. policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by a pro-Israel "Lobby." "The core of the Lobby," they say, "is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests." As a result, "the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel." Mearsheimer and Walt assert that for decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the lobby has manipulated our political system to give short shrift to Palestinians, was a "critical element" in the decision to invade Iraq, and is now skewing our policy on Iran (the United States, they say, "can live with a nuclear Iran").

Not only are these charges wildly at variance with what I have personally witnessed in the Oval Office over the years, but they also impugn the loyalty and the unstinting service to America's national security by public figures like Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, and many others. As a Christian, let me add that it is also wrong and unfair to call into question the loyalty of millions of American Jews who have faithfully supported Israel while also working tirelessly and generously to advance America's cause, both at home and abroad. They are among our finest citizens and should be praised, not pilloried.

Commitment. To be sure, pro-Israeli groups in this country, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, push hard to gain the support of U.S. political leaders and public opinion in favor of positions that keep Israel strong and secure. AIPAC is officially registered as a lobbying group, and it is very effective. But that does not mean that its members are somehow disserving America or engaging in something sinister. The Founding Fathers believed interest groups were intrinsic to democracy (see Madison, Federalist 10), and anyone who thinks Jews are unusual hasn't met the Irish, Italians, Greeks, and Armenians who lobby just as hard for their brethren.

snip
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm



(super short bio of D. Gergen:"Gergen is an honors graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School. He has served in the White House as an adviser to four presidents: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and most recently for Bill Clinton as counselor to the president and then as special adviser to the president and the secretary of state.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Funny how he doesn't address AIPAC's use of anti-Semitic claims
A rather convenient and serious omission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tatertop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Vash, are you still worth six billion double dollars?
That's a lot :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Maybe the U.S. should knock me off
You know, put a small dent into that national debt of ours. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tatertop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. As you well know, NO ONE can defeat the Trigun!
Even bush (who knows nothing) knows better than that.
You changed one of the Seven Cities into a mountain of rubble, made a big hole on the Fifth Moon, and (some say) were directly involved in the Big Fall -the crash of the spaceships- over a hundred years ago.

Every week it looks more and more like it will take nothing less
than Vash the Stampede to save this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I was involved in both July AND Augusta.
That's TWO cities, bub. Don't you forget it either! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tatertop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. That is great, I failed to fact check and you thumped me!
Will I never learn NOT to mess with the Trigun?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Perhaps he was limited by article length for this publication?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Oh please.
It's far too serious a charge to merely be ignored, even if article length is imposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Oh please,Gergen can figure out how he wants to frame his stuff
Edited on Tue Mar-28-06 03:53 PM by barb162
since he knows ALL of these people personally, he has a one or two page limit and knows what issues are important from his standpoint as adviser to several presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Well, it's apparent which way you slant. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Yep, pro-Clinton, you got a problem with that? with Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #25
63. This article has almost nothing to do with Clinton or Democrats.
Nice try again. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #63
75. I think you better try again; yours wasn't even a try
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #75
88. Uh, barb. The article has almost nothing to do with Clinton or the Dems...
What the poster pointed out was correct, so they don't need to try again...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #88
103. Who stated it had t anything o do with Clinton or the Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #103
108. You were trying to make a connection in yr earlier post...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #108
115. No I wasn't and you don't know what I was doing either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #115
122. You sure as hell brought them up...
And I've got a very good idea as to what you were trying to do. It failed abysmally...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #122
127.  Your post here has failed abysmally
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #127
131. Posts don't fail anything...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #131
134. Yours sure did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #134
137. I didn't realise Skinner had started grading posts...
Wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #137
139. Is he grading posts? When did you make that determination?
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 04:47 AM by barb162
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #139
141. I thought he's the guy who runs this place...
So if a post has failed, it'd make sense that he'd be the one grading them. Other than Skinner and the mods I don't give a toss what anyone else thinks if they decide they're going to give posts failing grades...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #141
154. He is the the person who runs DU; I sure don't remember any
messages he was grading posts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #154
156. Then why are you grading posts?
'Your post here has failed abysmally.'


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x120162#120421


The only people whose opinions of my posts matter are the admin and mods. Anyone else is just imo bignoting themselves...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. You mean these in the Crisis Papers, prublished by DU Admin?
Edited on Tue Mar-28-06 04:07 PM by Coastie for Truth
- from a reliabe source, DU, picked by reliable progressives, the DU Admin.

Or how about this one by Joseph Mossad -- --Parallel cites:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. No, I meant by Gergen.
Nice try though. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idontwantaname Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. one of those feel good things huh?
Has Washington sometimes tilted too much toward Israel? Of course, just as we have toward other friends overseas. Is our policy in the Middle East worthy of serious debate? Absolutely, and we should defend the right of academics like Mearsheimer and Walt to question it. But let that debate go forward with a clear mind and an understanding heart. And let us remember that our friendship with Israel has always been rooted in noble values--just as our friendships have been with other outposts of freedom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Other Outposts of Freedom????
South and Central America were considered outposts of Freedom, so was South Vietnam. But Pinochet was the icon of freedom in Chile, and let's not forget Somoza of Nicaragua, or President Diem and then Thieu of South Vietnam. Not exactly the poster children for freedom.

What I'm trying to say is that our friendships with other countries have not always been rooted in noble values, and while our original relationship with Israel may have been, something has been lost over the years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. ROFLMA
IDWAN has a great future in stand up. My god man...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. Exactly, I think Chomsky says it well, check out his perspective on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. you'v got to be kidding......
Edited on Tue Mar-28-06 11:32 PM by pelsar
from the link:

that create a policy in the Middle East that supposedly so different than what is usually US policy. Out of nothing, it would seem to suggest.. if it weren't for AIPAC & the "Israel Lobby", US policy would be for human rights and for fairness, just like everywhere else the US extends its influence.

WHERE?

try reading up on some american foreign policy history...and stop being such a college "freshman"....

more to the point....how about reading from an arab point of view?

What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East absent Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies.

http://counterpunch.com/massad03252006.html

_____

a good place to start
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. That was an unfair attack, and a complete opposite of what I said
The rest of the paragraph you are quoting from says this
The fact is that US policy in the Middle East, its opposition to self-determination for Palestinians, its militarism and warmaking, is very consistent with US policy elsewhere on the planet. That is tragic, and must be confronted at every opportunity.

It is very frustrating to have my views misrepresented so completely (again) to what i stated.

Thanks for the Joseph Massad article link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #32
49. Yes, it is.
It's all part of the 'mind-reading' & 'creative reading' that is very popular,
for some folks, down here in the Basement. I've realised that it's a tactic that's
used, it's not the first time it's happened, I don't know whether it's deliberate,
or accidental, but repeated usage would suggest that it's deliberate. I just find it
laughable, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #32
54. I could have sworn the Roadmap, Camp David, etc, ad infinitum,
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 03:31 AM by barb162
were about Pal self-determination (and getting the fighting to stop once and for all)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #54
66. Barb, it would be better if you went to my other post and
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 10:50 AM by Tom Joad
then responded there. My point in bringing it up here was to highlight how my post on Chomsky's remarks, (which was responded to here, rather than

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x120207
The Israel Lobby? - Noam Chomsky

where i posted it originally) was completely misrepresented here.

So i would ask that if you (or anyone else) has a response, please take it there, and i can respond.
It's just a click away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #26
44. That's a gross misrepresentation of the stated views. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #44
67. We can only hope that Olmert starts a program to combat illiteracy. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #67
76. tsk, tsk, it has one of the highest literacy rates in the world
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #76
92. Yeah, but still there's some Israelis who are illiterate :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #92
104.  that's really important news
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #104
109. Pity you don't find literacy an important issue...
Others do...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #109
114.  Now why would you make such a misinterpretation of a post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #114
123. Oh probably coz of the sarcasm tag in yr post...
But if you meant something different, please clarify what you were trying to say...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #123
130.  can't take humor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #130
132. I don't find much funny in making sarcastic comments about illiteracy...
Mainly coz it's not humour...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #132
135. As long as you're writing about literacy, you might need
an explanation or a dictionary that the word is "cause" in that sentence you just did there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #135
140. Barb, this is a message board, not an academic paper...
And I can say coz and know that 99.9% of readers know what I'm saying. What exactly does this have to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict, anyway?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #140
153. Thanks for letting us all know this is a message board n/t
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #153
155. It appears at least one person needed to be reminded...
A suggestion: it'd be much more constructive to stick to actually discussing the I/P conflict and the issues surrounding it than picking away at my posting style. COZ it does come across as just a bit petty...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #155
157. then I hope you keep reminding yourself this is a message board
And it would be constructive for you not to be reminding 80,000+ posters who are busily posting away that this is in fact a message board because it is apparent they already know that little fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #157
159. I don't need to...
I'm not the one doing the petty routine of trying to chide others for their posting style...


Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #76
148. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
51. Oh yeah and Chomsky really worked in the White House
And I guess he sat in discussions with FOUR Presidents too, just like Gergen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #51
89. Who gives a toss if someone worked in the White House...
Someone could work in the White House for decades and still be a complete idiot...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #89
105.  I really doubt that Clinton would have hired him as Counsel
if he weren't pretty damned bright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #105
111. Clinton hired his fair share of idiots...
Sorry, barb, but you seem to have some idealised vision of White House staff that doesn't come close to reality. Doesn't matter whether the administration is Democrat or Republican, there's going to be a mix of idiots and very bright people there. So I think any claims that Clinton only had extremely bright folk round him is pretty silly...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #111
118.  Who is talking about "staff"... I am talking about Gergen
and he is one super bright man who knows what he's talking about and others in Washington at high levels know it too. bThat's why he gets hired at the highest levels by Democrats and Republicans. Sorry Violet, but you're wrong again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #118
126. Oh, so he's different than anyone else who worked for Clinton?
I'm not all that won over by one person at DU who is a bit over the top with their slavish praise for someone who's a conservative insisting that he's a bright person. For all I know he could be, but being bright doesn't automatically make someone right. Or do you think that Condaleeza Rice is right all the time as well, coz she's one hell of a bright woman...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #126
133. Perhaps you should take a look at Gergen's bio
because four presidents found him bright enough to work in high levels for them. And I'm not discussing Rice in this thread because the article is by Gergen. Now if you want to talk about Rice, post something about Rice and I will decide if I am interested enough to discuss it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #133
136. His bio wasn't impressive...
As this has descended into a weird approach where no-one else but Gergen is supposed to be mentioned, I'll leave you to yr adulation and I'll stay safe in the knowledge that the only reason for it is because you think he's saying something you agree with...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #136
151. His resume is quite impressive; working for 4 presidents
educator, columnist, editor, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #151
158. Working for a few presidents isn't all that impressive...
The only reason yr showing so much adulation for him is solely coz you think he's said something you agree with. If you didn't like what he had to say you'd be claiming he was misled, etc, just like you did when it came to what Jimmy Carter had to say...

Violet..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
47. Since Gergen specifically mentions 3 locations, why muck the
discussion to other countries which he never mentions as outposts of freedom? Where in the article does he mention Nicaragua or Chile as outposts of freedom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
146. maybe it's something you lost
please speak for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Is there something wrong with a hopeful closing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
53. And has Washington sometimes tilted too much toward
the Palestinians? (Since you ask the same question of Israel) We have given a lot of money over the last few decades to the Palestinians, much of which probably ended up in Arafat's etal personal pocket. I trust you are suggesting a study should be done of our policy toward the Palestinians also and that there be an honest debate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #53
64. Too much towards Palestinians? ARE YOU INSANE?!?
You have lost your fucking mind if you think Washington, under ANY administration except Clinton, has done a damn thing for the Palestinians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #64
77.  I call hundreds of millions a year in aid more than a "damn" thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #77
117. But you called 50 million a month in revenue 'measly' in another thread...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. I doubt that; But what thread might you be referencing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #119
121. "$1.3 billion goes such a longer way than a measly 50 million"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #121
138. Context is everything. Don't you agree that 1.3 bill
goes....
Well, you get the idea...using that huge amount of money (relatively speaking) that is just sitting there. 50 mil is measly in regard to a billion three
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #138
142. That's why I posted the link to the post...
Where you did call 50 million a month 'measly'. But if yr going to try to do some comparative argument, then I'd have thought you'd have referred to the aid to the Palestinians from the US in this thread as 'measly' as well when compared to US aid to Israel...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #77
144. Hundreds of millions?!
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yeah, and the $6 billion in financial aid alone to Israel is a pittance, right? Nevermind all of the in-kind aid we provide them, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. You are getting something
In the context of Evangelical Southern Methodist George Walker Bush's theocratic banning of US Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in the US -- you are getting replicated results for stem cell derived therapies for Type I Diabetes and spinal cord injuries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #53
90. No, Washington has never tilted too much towards the Palestinians..
The US has consistantly shown a huge level of favour towards Israel and trying to claim that the US has given some financial aid to the Palestinians shows an ignorance of the relations between the US, Israel and the Palestinians...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #90
106.  Yes, Washington has tilted too much toward the Palestinians
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #106
112. When did that happen and what did it involve?
Because if yr just going to start complaining that USAID has given financial aid to the Palestinians, I'll remind you again that financial aid does not give an indication of the relationship between the US, Israel and the Palestinians. There's a hell of a lot more involved and if you are by chance genuinelly interested, I can explain it to you...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #112
116. Over the decades the US has given hundred of millions
to the Palestinians, Violet. Do you deny that? And I don't need your explanations because I have a way better handle on the relationships than you do. I will remind you that the last time we discussed aid levels to the Palestinians you tried telling the board the US gave the Palestinians 70 million last year and I had to correct you that it was 400 mill. You were wildly off the aid numbers, Violet, as you are many other facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-31-06 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #116
150. Did you bother reading anything that's been said to you??
Obviously not. Yr fixation on the level of aid as being the only way to judge the relationship between US/Israel and the Palestinians shows that you don't have any handle at all on the relationships. At no time has the US favoured the Palestinians..

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. The study was right. Gergen is wrong. It's only right wing Israel bots
who say otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Gergen knows what he's talking about. He was there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
94. But if someone is there that you disagree with...
...saying 'x knows what he's talking about. He was there.' turns into something along the lines of 'x doesn't know what he's talking about. He's confused and mistaken.' Somehow I suspect the 'he was there' line as an attempt to claim greater knowledge is used on a very selective basis depending on whether the person agrees with the views of the poster or not...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #94
107.  That's pretty contorted Violet. Gergen can figure out what
he heard, saw, discussed, etc., in his many years in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #107
120. It was as straight forward as it gets...
There's many folk who have seen and discussed things in their many years at the White House, yet that doesn't make them right. Using 'they were there' as some sort of winning argument only when it comes to someone whose argument you decide you like is a weak argument....

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #120
125. It's a powerful argument to have been there and seen things
You're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #125
128. But Carter saw things when he was President...
And in another thread you claimed he was wrong, so I guess now I've been told I'm wrong as well I'm in very good company :)

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #128
152. Gergen didn't work for Carter and is not discussing that presidency
in this article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-01-06 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #152
160. Yes, but Carter saw things...
...and yr using the 'he saw things!!' line as some sort of claim to superiority for this Gergen guy. Can you explain why this 'he saw things' only applies to Gergen and not someone like Jimmy Carter, who was a very solid Democrat and a great president?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. that and an arab american professor.....who disagrees with the report
who is very pro palestenian...bascially he tears it apart and shows what a shoddy piece of writing it is, devoid of any worth what so ever


What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East absent Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies.

http://counterpunch.com/massad03252006.html

Joseph Massad is associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University. His recent book The Persistence of the Palestinian Question was published by Routledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
29. That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of what he's saying.
He barely mentions the study, let alone tearing it apart or showing anything about it.

If I've somehow missed the part where he "tears it apart and shows what a shoddy piece of writing it is, devoid of any worth what so ever"
please to point that part out.

The thrust of his argument seems to be that it's not enough to blame Israel and AIPAC, he wants primarily the United States to be blamed.

I agree with him.

Who told you he was disputing the results of the study?

Do you really read it that way?

How?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I read it the way Pelsar did, too
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 12:42 AM by Coastie for Truth
, see also my appends and and also and the full thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Again, please to point out where he disputes anything in the study
or even says very much about what the study says, or how it was done at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Gergen is basically saying the Walt etal study is a POS
"Not only are these charges wildly at variance with what I have personally witnessed in the Oval Office over the years, but they also impugn the loyalty and the unstinting service to America's national security by public figures like Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, and many others.
...
Moreover, it is just not true that the Israel "Lobby" has captured U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest. Other than Richard Nixon--who occasionally said terrible things about Jews, despite the number on his team--I can't remember any president even talking about an Israeli lobby.
...

ETC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. First, I was asking for relevant quotes from Massad, not Gergen.
Second, Gergen says he never saw anything like what the study says.

I don't believe him.

I wonder if he even believes himself?

Do you believe yourself?

AIPAC, no significant influence on US mideast policy.

Sure, that's believable.

LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #40
48. Do you believe yourself? Come on!
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 03:15 AM by barb162
If the man who has been on high level staff of FOUR presidents says "I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest" I will believe it. I do not know this man to be a liar. Do you? For some reason you'd rather take the word of two writers who were not working in the White House over the word of one who was for four Presidents? I think that says something about you.

Gergen, by virtue of his work experience, has more knowledge in his little finger about this subject than the two writers of the Walt Report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #48
52. You probably never heard him on The News Hour.
I rarely believed him, or agreed with anything he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. You probably never heard him on The News Hour
I watch it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
69. He was on there years ago, doing a point/counterpoint thing with Shields
Did you see him then?

I don't think he's on now.

I work during that time,
so I'm no longer able to see
The News Hour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. No I really don't remember any specific conversation and wonder
if you are confusing him with David Brooks who is fairly often seen with Shields offering a different view
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #78
97. Then you never saw it when David Gergen was on The News Hour
doing a regular segment where he'd debate Shields.

It was years ago.

Shields always took the Liberal Democratic side, Gergen always took the Conservative Republican side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #97
110.  That's a while back and Gergen usually has and had a
very analytical approach to matters any time I have ever seen him. Just as Shields is a mild mannered almost moderate "liberal" sometimes near centrist in his views, I would say that Gergen was not much different. Recently, he just does analysis whenever I have seen him, not taking a political position at all.

But tell me, what does that have to do with the article. If Clinton were to relate what he said to a world leader back when he was president, do you believe him or not based on he was not a radical left prez? What the heck is all this extended crap about someone's politics when you don't have any idea how a person votes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. AIPAC supports PNAC. PNAC supports AIPAC. You can't knock down PNAC
without knocking down AIPAC.

AIPAC, as well as PNAC, as well as the movement that calls itself conservative must be broken!

That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #45
59. conspiracy theories abound....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
70. At least Coastie for Truth bothered to write a response showing he knows
what PNAC is.

While I differ with Coastie's conclusions, at least I know there's some attempt at understanding of the issues involved.


AIPAC supports the PNAC plan.

How could any person honestly differ with that statement?


If you don't know what PNAC is, you should look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. You want to know who the real supporters of PNAC are?
Anecdotal Narrative:

    I have sorta kinda had a visceral feeling of "Peak Oil" and the relative value of petroleum as a chemical feedstock vice a "fuel" since my student days in a Fischer Tropsch lab (that's manufacturing gasoline from coal). And, growing up just a little bit downstream from I had a feel for what air pollution qualitatively was.

    So, after the various oil embargoes of the 1970's, I knew that Bush's fierkuckta (Yiddish for "all screwed up - bass ackards") response to 9/11 - was beyond fierkuckta - and I figured I would sell my SUV and get an economy car like a Civic or Corolla or Insite (the Prius wasn't out yet).

    I go to a few dealers -- and the salesmen all try to sell me SUV's. SUVs? What am I going to do when the next oil embargo hits? Almost unanimity among the salesmen -

      "There won't be any oil embargo with Bush - he'll freakin go in and TAKE THE OIL BY MILITARY FORCE"


My Analysis

    That is - at its core - PNAC.

    There are some people in government, many people in industry (especially autos and oil) and many of our fellow citizens who believe that our very economic existence depends on a plentiful supply of cheap oil. You can even have progressives like Jim Kunstler and Amory Lovins forcefully and sincerely taking opposite sides.

    That PNAC underlying assumption, viz, "our very economic existence depends on a plentiful supply of cheap oil" swings elections - like Macomb County Michigan's "Reagan Democrats."

    The Macomb County Michigan "Reagan Democrats" - and their blind faith that their local economy depends on making and selling SUVs and that consequently "our very economic existence depends on a plentiful supply of cheap oil" is what drives PNAC - not "Greater Israel" or "Likudism" or AIPAC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. If you want cheap oil, you don't invade and occupy countries with...
the largest reserves.

The way to have cheap oil is to leave those countries alone.

You're right, if you think it's about controlling the oil for their own profit.

You're wrong, if you think it's about making the oil cheap for us.

Truth be told what they fear is not Peak Oil, it's an Oil Glut.

Those idiots selling the SUVs, and the right wing radio clowns who promised cheap oil, were obviously wrong.

AIPAC supports the PNAC plan of ever widening war, in the mistaken belief that it will somehow make Israel, and us safer.

It won't.

If followed, it will be Israel's and our ruin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Sorry
The era of cheap oil is over - cheap, plentiful oil had its century. That century is over.

Ken Deffeys is 100% right --- and GM and ExxonMobil and the API and the NAAMA are 100% wrong.

And in the grander scale of things -- AIPAC and Israel don't mean beans to GM or ExxonMobil or the API.

I fought that battle -- www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=115809&mesg_id=115963
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. And neither do the Fundies (among which being an Israel Bot is required)
mean beans to them.

Yet they support each other.


I've got to go right now.

I'll get back to Peak Oil verses Oil Glut later.

I've lots to say on that topic.

By the way, what does the discussion you linked to have to do with any of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. "AIPAC and Israel don't mean beans to ... the API. " YES
That century and that way of life is over, I think. Maybe when some people start to see the shortages appear in a massive way, like no heating oil in a very cold winter, they will get the picture
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. Your post shows hopeless confusion for the most part:
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 11:47 PM by barb162
Comments such as "PNAC plan of ever widening war" are simply in error; corporations such as BP, Exxon, etc., have no want or need for war in the Mideast. War would disrupt oil supply and everything else. The oil companies don't want their multi-billion infrastructure destroyed by war either. They want steady rising income, not wild gyrations and fear there will be complete stoppage in product. Also, in this sentence " Truth be told what they fear is not Peak Oil..." you use the word "they" for the first time in the post. Who are "they"

Anyone who understands peak oil and how reserves seem to to be wildly overstated very much fears peak oil. Ask any oil sector economist. Heck, ask any economist about supply and demand curve equilibrium and what happens when it is out of whack

Since neither Israel or the Palestinians have oil, you're doing a real stretch here as this article I posted is about Israel and the Palestinians, not Saudi or Iran or Kuwait oil reserves
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #81
91. Dammit! Disrupting the oil is exactly what they want. They're enjoying
record profits because of it.

Has the invasion and occupation of Iraq made oil cheaper, or more expensive?

If we announced we were leaving Iraq now, would the price of oil go up, or down?

If we invaded and occupied Iran, Venezuela, or any other oil rich country, would the price of oil go up, or down?

The they that I refer to in that post are those that either own, or are invested in oil, and are in collusion with each other to engage in market manipulation through restraint of trade, and other monopolistic practices.

Oh yeah, ExxonMobileChevronTexacoBPAramco really want stability in the countries where the oil reserves are, just about as much as the war contractors do.

Should I give some insulting personal characterization to your posts?

Nah, why bother?

Such characterizations only discredit those who make them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #91
113. Your post would make a bit of sense if Iraq were pumping out
huge numbers of barrels before the war. They weren't and they still aren't. The price of oil wasn't affected due to huge subtraction of world supply of Iraq oil once the war started. Get your facts straight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #113
129. Actually Iraq was pumping out huge quantities of oil throughout the 90s
I've got a graph out of USA Today in my stack of stuff for my show.

I'll dig it out tomorrow, or I'll find those figures online, and post them for you.

Even though their oil output was reduced just before the war, it was still much higher then than it's been since.

Iraq putting too much oil on the market through Oil for Food, and through smuggling, was a big problem for those who like high oil prices, and hate oil gluts.

Google the words "oil glut" and any year in the mid to late 90s, if you want to read more about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #91
147. supply and demand
your correct that lower oil production could lead to higher prices, but there are a lot of other ways to manipulate the markets w/out invading an oil producing co. The most obvoius way is to restrict refining capacity, the oil cos can and do do this without any giv. involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #71
80. excellent as always , Coastie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #80
96. Didn't you just tell someone else that talking about AIPAC was off topic?
Yet now yr praising coastie for doing the exact thing you just told someone else they shouldn't be doing? Oh-kaaay...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #70
79. PNAC doesn't even have anything to do with the article I posted
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 11:26 PM by barb162
Why even bring it up here...off-topic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #79
93. Neither did Bill Clinton or the Dems...
but you still brought them up. Different strokes for different folks, eh?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midnight Rambler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #70
149. Coastie is right on this
While I don't doubt that PNACers like Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith have AIPAC connections, though I would assume that would be the more right wing elements within the lobby (I dont' really know much about AIPAC's leanings, if someone more knowledgable could enlighten me on this), the true aim of both PNAC and their war in Iraq is American hegemony, and the key to that is oil. Now I'm sure that when they were cooking up this disaster, some of them might've had Israel on their minds. But make no mistake, this was about oil, and any benefit to Israel would have been a side effect. Of course, with the Iran-friendly Shi'ites taking over in Iraq, you can pretty much throw those fringe benefits out the window.

And let's not forget about the king neocon, Dick Cheney. He was the master manipulator here, the one holding all Junior's strings, not AIPAC. At worst, they're guilty of cheerleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #45
68. PNAC is all about assertion of hegemony over OIL
You should probably do a thorough read of to see what the "Project for a New American Century" is actually saying (I read the whole boring thing several times - including several seminars on energy policy).

You might also want to read Chapters 1-3 of Kevin Phillips' "American Theology" and skim through Paul Sperry's "Crude Politics" and Matthew Simmons' "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" -- or if you find Phillips and Simmons too "Republican" you might try Jim Kunstler's "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century"

For a little bit of scientific background you might try Anthony Evans' "An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact" - and then to get into the science of the issues try either or both of Ken Deffeyes' books, "Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak" or "Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage".

To get into the historical geopolitics of petroleum take a look at William Engdahl's "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" (Which Chapter 1 of Phillips' book summarizes nicely).

Also try the real lobby - and their .

I have been in the energy industry and and I find much more validitiy in Professor Massad's position , then in the original Mearsheimer and Walt study.

My point in all of this tedium is that the bald statement "AIPAC supports PNAC. PNAC supports AIPAC. You can't knock down PNAC without knocking down AIPAC." is just your opinion -- and you haven't convinced me. -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
46. AIPAC supports PNAC. PNAC supports AIPAC. You can't knock down PNAC
without knocking down AIPAC.

AIPAC, as well as PNAC, as well as the movement that calls itself conservative must be broken!

That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #46
83.  Do you really think BP cares in even the most minor way
what happens to the Israelis. All it cares about is its stock price, net profits and its long term outlook for same. They only care about politics as far as it affects their stock price and net profits through geopolitical threat. Corporations are completely amoral by their very nature and behave as "economic man."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #83
100. If they care at all about Israel, it's to care that there be as much
unrest and instability in Israel and the Occupied Territories as possible.

For one possible explanation of why they would engage in such behavior, see the book 1984.

Unrest and instability can be used to justify anything.

I've no more time to explain it now.

I'm going to go to bed.

Good night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #29
87. start with this:
Let me start with the premise of the argument, namely its effect of shifting the blame for US policies from the United States onto Israel and its US lobby.
__________________________


and then he goes on to tear apart the "its israels/AIPACs fault"......and explain why americas policies have nothing to do with israel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
43. That's nonsense. Massad doesn't mention the Harvard report. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. And are you implying Clinton had a right winger as his counselor?
Clinton was too damned smart to have anyone but an impartial and super-smart adviser
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Are you saying only right-wingers blindly follow Israel's policy?
Because that's flatly untrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #18
36. No, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #36
62. No, you did.
You asked if Clinton hired right-wingers, as if they're the only ones who can spew extremist pro-Israel garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #62
84.  Your post is incorrect; This is what I wrote below:
"And are you implying Clinton had a right winger as his counselor?"
Gergen is basically above politics, when he is functioning as an adviser and consultant for presidents of both parties. He is an amazing guy, very well respected. And I never saw Gergen "spew" anything... if you ever saw him in any interview
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. Yes, Clinton had (David Gergen) a right wing republican as his counselor.
As any simple search will show you, while he's no raving lying right wing radio clown, David Gergen always has been a right wing republican.

He was on PBS for years taking the side of the right in debates with Shields on The News Hour.

Clinton brought him on board to reach out.

Clinton's always been good at that.


David Gergen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Richmond Gergen (born May 9, 1942) was a political consultant and presidential advisor during the Republican administrations of Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He was also a campaign staffer for George H.W. Bush's 1980 presidential campaign. While remaining a Republican he also served as an advisor to Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Gergen earned his bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1963 and his law degree from Harvard University in 1967.

As of 2005 he serves as editor-at-large at U.S. News & World Report and a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Kennedy School of Government. A native of Durham, North Carolina, David Gergen has also taught at Duke University, where he is now a Trustee.


snip


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gergen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #28
37. That's Incorrect
here's from Gergen's own web page
In 1993, he put his country before politics when he agreed to first serve as counselor to President Clinton on both foreign policy and domestic affairs, then as special international adviser to the president and to Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
http://www.davidgergen.com/index.php?page=biography

Gergen, if anything, is neither right nor left
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. He's a conservative.
'>snip

About David Gergen

One of the most sought-after political minds, David Gergen is defined by an instinctive ability to put his country before his politics.

Bridging Party Lines: A noted conservative who served Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, David Gergen put his country above his personal politics by bringing his wisdom and hands-on knowledge to Bill Clinton’s first years in the White House. Today he helps audiences break through ideological barriers to recognize simple and lasting political truths.

http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/Speaker.cfm?SpeakerID=436
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. Thanks for the confirmation of reality.
If it can be judged which side is right by which side is more honest then the choice is obvious within this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #50
56. That would be a laugh except for the fact that I saw some people
here side with Georgie Boy Bush BIGTIME over the Dubai ports contract and I sure wasn't one who was siding with Bush. So-called Right and Left sometimes doesn't have too much to do with things regarding the Mideast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #50
60. Reality's a stranger in I/p, really.

Up is down, left is right, & war is peace, here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #42
55. Intersting that little factoid you snipped didn't mention CLINTON
You know, BIG DAWG? A Democrat

Although it was correct on at least one thing:David Gergen is defined by an instinctive ability to put his country before his politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #55
61. So, you agree? Gergen's a conservative? Just say it, barb. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #61
86. No. I see him as apolitical and totally involved in his role as
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 12:31 AM by barb162
high level adviser, problem-solver to presidents, as an educator currently and editor and consultant. He keeps his politics quiet. Tell me is he an economics and/ or social conservative? Do you knows his positions on any particular issue, say social security? I doubt you would. This man keeps his politics to himself and only he knows what he does in the voting booth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #86
98. Bullshit, He's a conservative...
The link that Englander supplied had him listed as a conservative, and generally speakers will write their own bios for things like that. I'd tend to believe the Washington Speakers site over you on whether he's a conservative or not...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #98
124. Bullshit, Violet. Do you go in the voting booth with him
over the last ten or 20 years? Do you know for a fact how he voted in the last election? And what if he is a conservative? Clinton liked him enough to hire him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #124
143. No, I read the link that Englander posted...
Most people would believe something he himself has more than likely approved to sit on a website than some anonymous person on the internet who's trying to argue otherwise...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #86
102. Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #55
101. It does, if you read all the snippet, at the end of the sentence. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #42
85.  Just for kicks, so what?
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 12:21 AM by barb162
You know, so let's say he is a conservative (though I consider him a political analyst and problem solver above the fray and he keeps his personal politics totally quiet). Have you ever seen him do a stump speech? No. Does that mean when he says he never saw any AIPAC influence when he was in the White House that he is hallucinating about what he saw and heard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
not systems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #15
65. Laughable ... Exhibit A David Gergen ... Exhibit B Dick Morris ...
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 10:19 AM by not systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris

...

Morris makes it known that he is a bipartisan consultant. In addition to his work with Bill Clinton, he once worked for senators Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, as well as former governors William Weld of Massachusetts and Pete Wilson of California and current governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. As early as 1988, he has said, he decided to work only for Republicans, a claim reiterated in 1995; his role in Clinton's 1992 campaign and presidency was kept secret from the staff. He is not believed to have worked as a U.S. political strategist since the scandal of 1996, possibly because of candidates' fears that their choice of consultant would cause bad publicity.

Morris says he became profoundly "disillusioned" with the actions of the Clintons in the late 90's, after his resignation. He has now formed a career of sorts as a political commentator and critic of the Clintons (primarily Hillary, whom he does not appear to care for at all, whereas with Bill he is more charitable), often appearing on talk shows such as Hannity & Colmes and the O'Reilly Factor.

...


Everyone knows David Gergen is rightwinger so is Dick Morris and Clinton let both of them call the shots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #15
95. This is getting ridiculous...
Advisers aren't impartial. Anyone who thinks otherwise is severely deluding themselves....

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tatertop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. Gergen is pitiful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. "these charges wildly at variance with what I have ... witnessed "
from the article.

I think Gergen is a dispassionate observer and adviser and anything but pitiful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-28-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. David Gergen? The Republican puke?
The same David Gergen that cannot bring himself to say that Bush is a law breaker that should be impeached or censured?

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #27
39. He's a strategist, an educator, etc., and pretty much above
politics these days. I've never seen him stoop to name-calling anyone from either party, which is why he's so well regarded as a consultant by both parties. Bill Clinton had his choice of how many advisers? He chose Gergen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
58. Actually ,Walt etal and their report are pitiful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #58
99. A suggestion...
..instead of doing some mirror-echo thing back at posters, maybe you'd like to point out in detail why you think their report is pitiful. Have you even read their report so you can make any sort of constructive comments about it?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
33. This is just so much "How dare you call the Jews unpatriotic" blather
He doesn't really refer much to the actual content of the study, or how it was done either.

He'd prefer to knock down some mindless Jew bashing straw man of his own construction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. It's impossible to do a point by point mistake list
of a long paper loaded with errors when one is confined to a one page format magazine article.

He very clearly states that "allegations that a pro-Israeli 'lobby' has hijacked American policy in the Middle East are simply without foundation and deserve no credit whatsoever."
http://www.davidgergen.com/index.php?page=biography
Your analysis is completely incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. The Gallup Poll article references Israel , not Zionism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC