Michael Ledeen's AIPAC Zionists and the White House are having a lover's quarrel over Iran. The Zionist influence over M.E. policy does have its limits because the American people are letting their feelings be known regarding Iraq; leaving Bush with polls as low as NIxon on the day he walked out the WH for good.

Interesting. And definitely news worthy (although I can understand why you people wouldn't include such a story at this blog).

Link

Which reminds me, folks... has our official cheque from the World Zionist Conspiracy™ arrived yet?

And Avedis, on this blog, kindly include URLs in live format per the instructions above and place them at least 6-7 words into your post. Screws up the main page otherwise.

avedis,

Leaving aside the use of the word "Zionists" and all that implies, I'm not sure why you consider the story so newsworthy.

Ledeen has for a long time said the Bush Administration hasn't been doing enough to foster regime change in Iran.

From your comment, I might think you'd side with the White House in this lovers quarrel, since Ledeen and the, er, Zionists would urge an even tougher stance.

If Bush is so wrong for getting involved in Iraq, I'd think you'd consider his policy on Iran to be right on, since he isn't doing a whole lot to influence Iran.

Of course, to the anti-semitic among us, the fact that Ledeen-the-Master-of-ZOG isn't getting his way doesn't seem to undercut their conspiracy obsessions in the least.

Joe, my "cheque" is in the mail.

leaving Bush with polls as low as NIxon on the day he walked out the WH for good.

So ... Richard Nixon left office with a 49% approval rating? I always remembered it as being a bit lower than that.

Which reminds me, folks... has our official cheque from the World Zionist Conspiracy™ arrived yet?

"I got some chocolate gelt for Christmas - does that count?"

Here is the extent of my "anti-semitism". I will unabashadly make the statement that Jewish cuisine stinks. How is that all the other semites came to produce such cullinary delights as humus, fallafel, babaganoush, various delicious olives, various delicious breads, koufta, shawerma, shish-kebab, kibbi,etc, etc, etc and there are some fine pastries as well.

But the Jewish semites toss out some slimy gefilte fish. At best you might get chicken soup with a couple of matza balls lost somewhere in the bowl.

Is that garbage what Isrealis eat? or do they share recipes with their Arab kin?

Well, I just had the best bagel of my life in a small town in California. Bagels "mit ah schmeer, toasted," are ordinarily stiill either kind of chewy or burned (in my experience--even the places I ate in NYC).

This one was crispy with a thin thin crust and a heavenly baguette-like interior.

OY I was verklempt!

Also, lox is not bad, and Hebrew National hot dogs and kosher salt are pretty all right...

:)

But as for serious cooking? I dunno.

Now we know you're not anti-Semitic---you say so yourself and who better than you ought to know? And one, of course, should respect such rare instances of self-knowledge (especially in this season of goodwill).

So you can say that the Jews and the Zionists control White House policy. I mean, even Cindy Sheehan and Chomsky would agree, not to mention Louis Farrakhan, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, quite possibly Michael Jackson, and a lot of other stellar thinkers, besides.

Heck, you can say that the Jews and the Zionists control the world; that they have it wrapped around their (greasy? grimy?) fingers.

And you can say that Bush is merely a puppet of Sharon and his Jew-Zionist minions.

And you can also say that Americans (and others, of course) are dying merely because the Jews and the Zionists need their bodies to defend the Zionist Entity.

All this is open to legitimate historical or scientific debate (or whatever), as the always-astute president of Iran might phrase it (that is, when he's not glowing with a holy aura).

But when you start attacking Jewish cuisine, sir, you are way, way out of line.

(By the way, what the heck is Jewish food, anyway? You think a Jewish Moroccan is going to go for lox on a poppy seed bagel with cream cheese and a slice of onion? You think a Jew from Poland---there are one or two left---is going to go head over heels over chreimeh? You think a Yemenite Jew dreams about gefilte fish and cheese cake? I mean, even if you might be spectacularly on the ball regarding Jew-Zionist machinations world-wide, you, um, might want to think this one over a bit longer. After all, you have your reputation to consider.)

I just find it stunning that someone as multiculturally sensitive as Avedis is describing a cultures food as 'garbage'.

The other all conquering, all knowing, got-all-your-money world-empire has garbage for food too. Except for fish-and chips what else do the British eat? Coincidence? I think not.

It is hard to name a world-renowned Jewish chef. I'm surprised there is much good cooking in the ME at all. Very tiny rocks (fine sand) is blowing in the air 100% of the time. Unlike pollution, the wind doesn't blow it away, it makes it worse.

Did you see the laughable statements in the first section above?

"terrorists have said they will use the momentum of Christmas and the New Year celebrations to carry out attacks." Christmas momentum?

The Indonesian Generals are, quite often, ruthless thugs who think no more of killing peasants in Aceh than a US soldier thinks of accidentally killing a civilian Iraqi.

How many Timorese did they kill? 1/3 of the population? GO INDONESIAN GENERALS GO! Long live the unquestioned repetition of whatever murderous thugs say! Go Winds of Change!

Other stupid stuff from today's post:

1. Jumblatt? You don't seriously believe that guy, do you? Didn't we go through this before? You are assidiously avoiding what he used to say, I guess.

2. Thank goodness Turkey has no freedom of association. They were the #1 arms importer in the world for the 1990s, and they used most of that money killing Kurds! Long live the new Iraq! I mean Turkey. I mean, killing Turkish Kurds is good, but gassing Iraqi Kurds is bad, unless you Winston Churchill or an agent of King George V, in which case chemical weapons attacks on Kurds are good again! Thank god for clarity!

3. The top US people say Iran is not getting a nuke before 2015. Israelis say sooner. At_least some of the confirmation of bogus intel on Iraq came from Israel (according to public comments by the Israeli gov't, it involved intel that Israel gave to another country, then stopped believing, but then confirmed when they heard it from the recipient government (Russia, I think)). And you want us to read about a rush to bomb Iran. Congratulations. You must be great fun at parties.

Hey, is the deal that you folks are wimps, and get beat up a lot? Is that it? Is that why you want to use the US military, to live out your own violent passions? You should join the military then, right?

4. Israel near continuously harasses and bombs its neighbor, claiming that because some people (not the government) are firing homemade rockets over the border they have the right to shell whole towns, and some brainiac thinks the Palestinian government might collapse? Wars have been started over far less than what Israel is doing. If Israel was attacked by a foreign gov't, I'd support defending her. This way? Forget it.

"The Indonesian Generals are, quite often, ruthless thugs who think no more of killing peasants in Aceh than a US soldier thinks of accidentally killing a civilian Iraqi. "

So in other words, they take it incredibly seriously? The individual is taken off duty until an investigation is completed? Inquiries are begun? Every round fired must be accounted for and explained? Court martials are held if allegations of wrong doing emerge? What exactly are you suggesting about our troops?

Once again, Mark, I suspect that someone has done a better job describing themself than they've done of either describing Indonesian or American troops.

Funny how that works.

Jumblatt? You don't seriously believe that guy, do you? Didn't we go through this before? You are assidiously avoiding what he used to say, I guess.

Yeah, you caught us. From now on in the briefings we'll be sure to include not only the recent story/interview/article/news item...but also include links to every comment ever made previously by individuals referenced in the briefing.

Stay tuned for next week's briefing, which should be 700,000 words long...we wouldn't want to be avoiding anything.

Come on guys, there is some great Jewish cuisine out there (in addition to bagels etc). You just need to know where to look:
Chicken Ala King
Chow Mien
etc
Becuase that aint Chinese food.

A world-renowned Jewish cook? Come on, you can't be serious on that one. Any one of my bubbes.

I see why you keep this Avedis guy around. He's sort of like the court jester around here, isn't he?

Bingo, Meryl.

Yes, laugh away at that marshugana goy. Trust me, I get just as big a laugh out of you people at this blog, radical wingnuts that you are.

I can laugh because I know that you are the minority these days. Your brief moment in the sun is over. Your conquest of the mid east has stalled in miserable failure in Iraq. There will be no Syrian invasion. There will be no Iran invasion. There will be no overthrow of the House of Saud. Iraq will have backfired by becoming an arm of Iran.

The hard right Israeli lobby is losing traction. It's coming to an end. The American public won't be manipulated anymore by it or its allies in the US military industrial complex.

It's sad that you can't even be honest about something as simple and as obvious as Michael Ledeen - like several neocon figures - being a key player in hard right Israeli groups that lobby and form US foreign policy.

Are you prepared to call the NYT an antisemitic publication? Because they're saying the same thing I am.

CLARIFICATION: I don't laugh because US troops are dying in Iraq.

What I meant was that your foolish pie in the sky notions have been proven utterly, miserably wrong. Yet your minority (far right war mongers) babbles on.

I am actually outraged that US blood had to flow in putting your nonsense to the test (yes you Ledeen and Darling). That US credibility has suffered. That US treasure has evaporated into the arid land of Iraq.

Yep, Meryl, better than the Three Stooges.

Speaking as a regular person, not a wingnut, let me say that I found avedis' most recent post to be borderline as any sort of valuable communication.

I admit I've contributed my own little bit to the 'jacking of this particular thread. And Avedis had some somewhat substantive things to say, modulo all the stridency and "fightin' words".

However, avedis's broad brush flamage is beginning to fatigue me. The "you" in "you Ledeen and Darling" [sic] means, I take it, anyone who frequents this blog without agreeing with avedis.

Avedis, I haven't stopped beating my wife, either; but I've never had one.

I disagree with avedis's characterization of [my] position, and see no useful way to respond.
I would guess I'm not alone in that. Doesn't make me any sort of right wing conspirator. As I posted in another thread, the stupidometer at WoC does have a redline.

"I can laugh because I know that you are the minority these days. Your brief moment in the sun is over. Your conquest of the mid east has stalled in miserable failure in Iraq. There will be no Syrian invasion. There will be no Iran invasion. There will be no overthrow of the House of Saud. Iraq will have backfired by becoming an arm of Iran."

You see all that and laugh. Enough said. Glad to see the welfare of our nation, the West, and the people of the Middle East come second to your personal amusement. Are you going to be crying when the last US troop withdraws from a free Iraq?

No, Mark. I'm not laughing at the situation in the middle east. BTW, The jacobin neocons - the NRO crowd- screwed up. Don't blame me.

No. I'm laughing at many people on this blog (not all, Nortius) who cannot admit simple obvious bits of reality and who twist the statements of others, falsely represent the positions of those they disagre with, character assassinate, lie, deny, and obfuscate to hide who and what they really are.

Do I think there is a Zog conspiracey running the US government. No. Of course not.

At some point a ways back I did say - as I do believe and as ample documentation supports - that many neocon personalities that have been influencial in the formation of ME policy have very strong ties to hard right Israeli politics as well.

Michael Ledeen is one such character. He is also a slime ball from the Iran/contra era. In other words the work he and his buddies did supported some governments that were at least on a par with Saddam's. Oh yeah, Ledeen supported Saddam back then, too. Whatever, I digress.

Just one example of synergy between neocon figures and US politics; Ledeen is a founding member of AIPAC, an Israeli lobbying and fund raising group. You can read AIPAC's website to get a feel for their politics and the extent of their activities.

I don't agree with them. Maybe you do. It doesn't matter. There are many such examples. There are neocons who sit/have sat on the boards of Israeli defense industres, etc, etc.

I think the problem of a conflict of interest is obvious and real. And I think it would be very wrong to allow one to occur. I do think that some of out decisions have been the result of that conflict of interest. To the extent that our government is controlled by zionists. Again, no. I never said that nor do I believe that.

Yet, for saying that, I am shouted down as a crazy anti-semitic conspiracy nut.

I also think that Israel has a role to play in bring peace to the region. I have criticized some of her actions.

For that I have shouted down as being a friend of terrorists and for being anti-semitic.

Someone said that the Palestinians had not had their land "stolen", but that their land had been purchased.

I commented accurately that "the Jews" had purchased only about 8% of the land they eventually ended up with. That the rest was gained through a combination of agressive hostile actions and throught eh British mandate.

Because I used the word "jew" to describe the people who had purchased 8% of the land, Dan Darling and others called me an anti-semite. Dan particularly found the use of "the jews" to be compelling evidence for racism.

Had I used the term "zionist" your response would have been the same.

They weren't yet Israelis because the country didn't really exist.

Again, whatever.

There's more, I dont like the idea proposed by several here that Arabs will either convert to democracy or be annihilated. I take issue with it and I'm called everything from a Michael Moore sycophant to, of course, an antisemite.

Disagree with anyone here and you're labled as a hippy liberal.

But mostly, I can't take this blog seriously because of the rapant dishonesty.

Would it be so hard to simply say - for example - "yes. Michael Ledeen and other characters who refer to themselves as "neocons" have X, Y and Z connections to the Likud party, etc. Yes they have lobbied to this or that extent on Isreali's behalf...."
Then honestly and openly debate, like adults, whether or not this is an acceptable way to conduct the business of the American people.

Would it be so hard for many here to admit that they think Arab culture is all wrong, inferior, and we need to carry the white man's burder and either convert them or kill them? Because that is what many here are really saying. And if that is your position, then fine. Stand it up and stand by it like a man.

Until the level of integrity improves at this blog, I will continue to come here for laughs; sort of like throwing peanuts to the monkeys at the zoo.

I'd be happy to engage in rational and mature debate when you're ready.

Hmmmm. a key paragraph got truncated or altered with its meaning significantly change.

"I think the problem of a conflict of interest is obvious and real. And I think it would be very wrong to allow one to occur. I do think that some of out decisions have been the result of that conflict of interest. To the extent that our government is controlled by zionists. Again, no. I never said that nor do I believe that."

I do think that some of our decsions have been the result of that conflict of interest. It would only be to the extent that this has occurred that zionists exert any influence over our government. I have never said that zionist control our government. I only said they influenced (25% I think) the decision making regarding Iraq and other palns that probably won't come to fruition at this point.

I hope the text and meaning of this last is not altered because I will start to think that the problem is beyond my own morning bleariness.

Avedis:

You left a long, thoughtful, and disjointed comment on your views of this blog and US-Middle East relations as #25. As comment #26, you added:

Hmmmm. a key paragraph got truncated or altered with its meaning significantly change...

I was intending to correct the offending garbled paragraph in #25 (leaving a note that I had done so, as always)... but after reading #25 and #26, I can't figure out what that correction would be.

• It's conceivable that Joe has already made the changes.
• It's somewhat more likely that my OS/browser setup doesn't show garbled text, but yours does.
• It's quite possible that the correction in #26 is clear to you as its writer, but opaque to me as a reader.
• Your favored explanation: "I hope the text and meaning of this last is not altered because I will start to think that the problem is beyond my own morning bleariness."

An application of Occam's Razor would suggest that there's little merit to the charge you are implictly making.

This is relevant to your problem as I see it. Most of your posts are juvenile in content and in tone. As you describe your own conduct,

I will continue to come here for laughs; sort of like throwing peanuts to the monkeys at the zoo.

And yet there are times when you want to engage in thoughtful dialog.

I'd be happy to engage in rational and mature debate when you're ready.

Re. #25: You aren't the only blogosphere commenter who demonstrates modest abilities in expository and advocacy writing. Of itself, that's okay; we learn by practicing. Exulting in the somewhat trollish reputation you've created for the handle "Avedis" has made self-improvement more difficult. Since you aren't committed to rational and mature debate, it would be unreasonable to expect that your sparring partners here would consistently maintain that standard.

The peanut-tossing Avedis may well mock my effort to make the following points. But still. If you want to be taken seriously, prompt worthwhile debate, and possibly change some minds, consider:

• Organizing your thoughts prior to hitting 'post'. I, for one, have trouble with your stream-of-consciousness style. Perhaps you could choose one point and build on it.
• Proofreading. Have you considered composing posts offline to facilitate spell- and grammar- checking?
• Providing URLs (in the approved format) for your controversial assertions. Links to reputable sites are more likely to get clicked than those at the fringe. You may have to repeat some from thread to thread.
• Cutting back on gratuitous insults and name-calling.

I hope this helps.

Just tossing this out there: The sudden stream of revelations and shock reminds me a bit of what happens when people get sick and take anti-biotics:

They don't question taking the medicine when they feel sick, but when they start to feel better they stop wanting to.

It's been over 4 years and we haven't had another domestic attack, so people are starting to feel cured and want to stop taking the medicine.

Trouble is if you stop taking medicine too early just because you feel better, you tend to end up getting sick again with an even more resistant strain.

AMac:

That's sort of the problem as far as dealing with avedis - by his own admission, he has a very low opinion of us and comes here for a reason (psychological experiment, amusement, whatever) other than to engage in regular discussion. By his own admission on another blog, he thinks that getting people of what he considers to be our ideological stripe angry is the best way to "expose" us (which I guess he sees as one of his duties here), which usually comes in the form of disjointed rants and ad hominem attacks.

However, in the interest of correcting the record:

"I commented accurately that "the Jews" had purchased only about 8% of the land they eventually ended up with. That the rest was gained through a combination of agressive hostile actions and throught eh British mandate.

Because I used the word "jew" to describe the people who had purchased 8% of the land, Dan Darling and others called me an anti-semite. Dan particularly found the use of "the jews" to be compelling evidence for racism."

For the record, I have never to my memory called you an anti-Semite (I think that you're a conspiracy nut with all kinds of looney ideas about both our own government and the Middle East, but that's neither here nor there). Moreover, it sure didn't look like you weren't talking about the original Jewish settlers when you said this:

"If only the Zionists were free to do what they want to do - complete the job they started in 1948 with a thorough genocide of their Arab brothers.

... Hollinger, through some astounding mental gymnastics, manages to blame the Saudis for the fate of the Palistinians. Jewish theft of land, slaughter of innocents, etc means nothing to Hollinger or others here."

That doesn't look like you're talking about the original mandate to me, it looks like you are referring to the actions you dislike by the Israeli government (readers can examine the thread and see for themselves) as actions by "the Jews." As I noted in the original thread, these kind of statements (combined with your tendency towards ad hominem attacks) sort of lend themselves to the appearance of anti-Semitism.

If his last statement is anything to judge by, in order to appease him so that he might deign to dialogue with us we have to agree with the basic form of his conspiracy theories and adopt his caricature of our position on the Middle East. In which case, why do we care?

"In which case, why do we care?"

Now there's the best question i've heard in a while.

I shouldn't be amazed but more evidence that CNN and the Democrats are not serious about our national defense.

Monitoring Mosques and other muslim buildings for HIGH LEVELS OF RADIATION! This is supposed to be bad?!

A place where large numbers of Arab men congregate and have "hate the west" preached to them daily, is a bad place to look for terrorists!?

Anytime the next anti-Christian Democratic president wants to monitor my church for unusually high levels of radiation they are welcome to. Of course we are not terrorists and we are not ACLU types who want to help terrorists kill us. If this sacrifice is what the Christian hating left believes will safeguard America then bring it on.

I challenge all other religions to make the same statement. I'll bet Howard Dean's church will not go along with it. But then again Dean would probably use bacterial agents to destroy Republicans given the chance. He is in favor of stabbing babies in the back of the head as they are being born so who knows what he and his fellow travelers would sink to.

Here's the thing, Dems have been latching on to the idea that Bush has done nothing for homeland security because we arent doing enough at the borders, ports, etc (which is certainly a fair criticism). But the fact that Bush is doing targetted (ie smart) things like driving by Mosques suspected of extremism and sniffing for radiation, and listening to conversations between AQ members and people on US soil, is driving the Dems nuts. Its a damned if you do damned if you dont scenario for the president. Either use the most effective methods and stand a good chance of stopping an attack, or dont and suffer an attack and then get railed on for not 'connecting the dots'. Better to air to the side of saving American lives. The opposition is going to attack whatever he does, or doesnt do, so long as he holds the power they covet.

"Better to air" Or err even

RA #31 wrote:

[Howard Dean] is in favor of stabbing babies in the back of the head as they are being born.

Um, jeez...reasoned dialog this isn't. I don't agree with Dean's politics, or think much of his recent conduct in the public sphere. My great-aunt was a patient of his for some years, and had nothing but kind words for him. During my time there, he was very well regarded in the Burlington (Vt.) medical community. His record as lt. governor and governor is honorable.

I can assure you that he is not in favor of stabbing babies. Nor are the leftists among my own family and friends, or those in yours, either.

Dean most assuredly is in favor of stabbing babies, provided only that the mother turns her thumb down and not up. You got a problem whith that, AMac?

> You got a problem whith that, AMac?

Well, yeah. But elaboration would have to await a topical thread. And, anyway, I rarely write on that subject. To my mind, what's more closely related to the actual post's material was the idea of "reasoned debate".

Also, like most WoC readers, by this point I'm familiar with the arguments pro and con, on abortion itself, and on the the merits of extending civility towards those with whom one passionately disagrees--and who don't always reciprocate. Even if I could stay online this evening--I can't--I wouldn't propose to hash this out here.

"Uzbekistan's hardline authorities consider the eastern Uzbek town of Andijan a hotbed of Islamic extremism, after a jailbreak and mass protest in May was crushed by troops. The events in Andijan have starkly emphasised the tensions which a revival of Islam has brought to Central Asia."

Hmmm ... I think this interpretation of events would please Islam Karimov's ears, but I don't think it's right and IIRC neither did the US government. Basically, what happened is that Karimov cut the people of Andijan off from commerce with folks in nearby countries in the Ferghana valley, it crushed their livelihood, and they were protesting about it. The Uzbek government spun it as an Islamic fundamentalist thing but it was by and large about economic grievances.

also, fwiw, the Muslim Brotherhood is now walking back Akef's boneheaded statement.

Sorry, AMac, we are being dragged off-topic here, so I'll desist. (It's a real hot button, though: folks who are forthrightly in favor of allowing any and all abortion, no questions asked, don't get my ire up nearly as much as those who support it but want to pretty it up so we don't think too much about what's being done: the materfamilas smiles, you live; she frowns, you die.)

#38 also, fwiw, the Muslim Brotherhood is now walking back Akef's boneheaded statement.

OK, I Googled around and I found something of a retraction here. I conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood is learning to spin stuff when their leaders err by telling us what they really think.

Not saying this isn't progress. It is, in a way - see, e.g., Michael Totten's recent experiences with Hizbullah.

[praktike: D'ja have fun in Cairo with Michael? Quite an adventure he's having, nay?]

praktike,

I agree there is more to the Andijan story than simply the Uzbek government's version.

In fact, the article that item links to goes on to make some of the same points you make.

It's hard in two or three sentences to fully convey all the angles in a story. Hopefully the articles speak for themselves.

(I did think that was an accurate statement, that the Uzbek authorites do consider the Andijan area to be a radical area. They may be wrong, and they may just be looking for an excuse to crack down on Muslims there, but there certainly are tensions in the area.)