Larry Franklin, who worked in the Pentagon under Douglas Feith, has been arrested by the FBI for disclosing classified material. The FBI alleges that Franklin turned over a classified presidential directive on the Middle East, as well as other sensitive material, to employees of the American Israel Political Action Committee. A search of Franklin's home in West Virginia revealed his possession of more than 83 classified documents. The allegations are disturbing, but not as disturbing as Larry Franklin's continued employment at the Pentagon after he partook in secret meetings with an Iranian arms dealer against U.S. policy. If Larry Franklin had been fired when his superiors found out about his attempt to conduct his own alternative foreign policy, he would not have been in a position to handle our nation's most sensitive information.

Thanks a bunch, you prick Larry Franklin, for giving these anti-Israel zealots fuel for their fire.

I don't know Ben. The truth speaks for itself here, doesn't it?

What bothers me most about this is that in this supposed atmosphere of high security that our government has adopted, things like this still continue to be common occurrences. Scary that, in a number of cases, the powers that be are not paying attention or using common sense.

Justin Raimondo pounced on this story as it started to break last year.

Lets wait and see if Larry Franklin will get the
same treatment as the great Sandy Berger. You know working around security clearances all the time, one of the many questions they ask you is if you have any foreign aquaintances, where you have been on vaction and why, if you own a foreign passport etc....etc.... I figure they would have investigated his a$$ a long time ago for having dealings with Iranian arms dealers.

"The truth speaks for itself here, doesn't it?"

Well, it depends what you mean by truth. (I don't mean that in the Pontius Pilate way haha). For one thing, Israel denies having anything to do with this. Also, if your "truth" is that Israel is some terrible nation out to get the United States, the only country in the world (aside from Micronesia, on occasion) who stands up for it, you're completely out of your mind. The truth is that this guy is a piece of filth and he should be punished. But the most annoying thing about this to me, as a supporter of the only democracy in the Middle East, is that scumbag paleocons will now have something to add to their list of Bad Things Israel Has Done.

The truth is that Israel looks out for its own interests. Which is fine, that is what every nation is supposed to do. The problem is that we have people in our government who are also looking out for Israel's interests, with complete disregard for the interests of the United States. Call them spies, moles, or neocons. The difference is slight.

Those scumbag paleocons are proven right again. As Jeremiah said, Justin Raimondo was all over this a year ago.

"Call them spies, moles, or neocons. The difference is slight."

You forgot "Jews."

So whose interests was Sandy Berger looking out for? Or any of the other imbeciles who took classified documents home?

And according to that anti-war.com article Mr. Flynn has linked a few posts below, neocons are just a front group for neonazis. Make a decision, lovely paleocons -- are we a bunch of evil, conspiring Jews, or are we a bunch of evil, conspiring anti-Semites?

I forgot to add -- my point earlier was that it is not in Israel's interests to sully their relationship with the United States. So, I agree with your point that, like everyone and everything else, Israel looks out for itself.

The oldest democracy in the middle east is Turkey.

There seems to be some confusion here.

1. Larry Franklin is Catholic, not Jewish.
2. My "Zebra Killings" post referred to below is in defense of Professor Jonathan Bean and FrontPageMag.com, which is sometimes referred to as neoconservative. I've probably written for FrontPageMag more than I've written for any other publication. Out of fairness, I link to a piece criticizing FrontPageMag and one of the figures at the center of the controversy, James Lubinskas (who wrote the piece Professor Bean used as a suggested reading for his class).
3. The link to the Raimondo article is to allow readers to get a take on Lubinskas, who calls himself a "paleoconservative" (not a neoconservative), from the perspective of his critics. In other words, to say that there is some legitimate controversy here. Lubinskas did edit a racist publication, after all. There are close to 100 links on the main page of the site at any given time. Linking to something is neither an endorsement nor a slam. If I'm linking to Lubinskas and linking to his critics, it can't be argued that I'm endorsing both.
4. Raimondo is not a paleoconservative but a gay libertarian. He also comes from a Jewish background.

My apologies for invoking all these labels, but I assure the readers that I do it in the spirit of correcting some of the mislabeling from above. Carry on...

Ben, I don't understand your point. I don't think it was Israel's intent to sour their relationship with us.

I didn't forget to mention Jews because I was dealing with Neoconservatives, which as Dan makes clear with Franklin's background, includes many people. What typifies a Neoconservative is their fervent support of Israel.

I think it is correct to call Raimondo a Paleocon. Paleocon is just an umbrella term like Conservative has become. Underneath the umbrella you can divide people into more categories: paleo-libertarian, southern agrarian, traditionalist, paleo-con, etc. Pretty much anyone with an affection for the Old Right can be described as a part of the Paleoconservative movement.

"The oldest democracy in the middle east is Turkey."

Turkey has nowhere near the freedom of speech, assembly, etc. that Israel has. It is definitely ahead of other Muslim countries, but it isn't close to Israel. Don't be intellectually dishonest -- my term referred to all the facets of true liberal democracies, not simply the label. As you know, what many countries consider themselves to be (e.g. the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is not always the case.

"In other words, to say that there is some legitimate controversy here."

I'm not denying that. Lupinskas seems like a horrible guy, and I wish Horowitz would be more selective with his choices of contributors. My only point was really about the absurd title of the article. (In other words, the suggestion of a significant neonazi to neoconservative link is ridiculous, especially when one browses the links at the bottom of this page). I didn't suggest you endorsed the view, but I simlpy wanted likeminded people to defend the claim.

"I didn't forget to mention Jews because I was dealing with Neoconservatives, which as Dan makes clear with Franklin's background, includes many people. What typifies a Neoconservative is their fervent support of Israel."

Firstly, just out of curiosity -- how do you even know Franklin is a neoconservative?

And where do you get the idea that "what typifies a Neoconservative is their fervent support of Israel"? Without question, as a general rule neoconservatives are more supportive of Israel than paleoconservatives, but there is much more to each philosophy than that. There are issues of foreign policy, globalization, and immigration, among others, which distinguish one group from the other.

Point taken on the title of the Raimondo article, Ben L, which strikes me as over-the-top too. But when you characterize the jist of that article as "neocons are just a front group for neonazis," you run the risk of having readers view you in the same way that you view Raimondo: hyperbolic, shrill, and ideological. Other than to inflame, what, really, was the point of suggesting that paleoconservatives (whoever they are) either view neoconservatives (whoever they are) as a "bunch of evil, conspiring Jews" or as a "bunch of evil, conspiring anti-Semites." What you've done here is called creating a strawman.

As a general point to all the readers, I think the conversation becomes less enlightening when we ignore the substance of arguments and instead transfix on labels (neoconservative, paleoconservative, etc.). This is especially true when those labels relate to ethnicity or religion. Neither Mr. Raimondo nor Mr. Franklin, for instance, fit in the political box that others would assign them because of their ethnicity/religion. There's nothing wrong with using a label for identification purposes, but when the crux of your argument is neocon therefore bad or liberal therefore bad, you don't have much of an argument.

Ben L, whenever we flynnfiles-ites discuss issues of Israel or issues of neocons you seem to flip out, get extremely defensive, and accuse random people of being racist, antisemetic, irrational troglidites. On other isseus you are completely rational.

Do you really think that Israel wasn't on the receiving end of the spying?

"Point taken on the title of the Raimondo article, Ben L, which strikes me as over-the-top too."

Cool

"Other than to inflame, what, really, was the point of suggesting that paleoconservatives (whoever they are) either view neoconservatives (whoever they are) as a "bunch of evil, conspiring Jews" or as a "bunch of evil, conspiring anti-Semites." What you've done here is called creating a strawman."

I'm honestly not creating a strawman, Dan. Old Right guys are pretty open with their disdain for what they might call "Jewish influence" on American foreign policy. Now, as many have noted (including some conservatives), they just substitute "neoconservative" for "Jew". With regards to my second assertion, it was a direct reference to Raimondo's article. More generally, what I'm saying is that paleocons are often more than willing to be intellectually dishonest if it serves their cause (one example from recent memory, as I've brought up previously, is Buchanan's bringing up of Yasser Arafat's Nobel Prize to lend an air of legitimacy to the terrorist after his death).

"There's nothing wrong with using a label for identification purposes, but when the crux of your argument is neocon therefore bad or liberal therefore bad, you don't have much of an argument."

I absolutely agree with you. I'm just trying to defend neoconservativism from attacks like the ones you're describing.

"Ben L, whenever we flynnfiles-ites discuss issues of Israel or issues of neocons you seem to flip out, get extremely defensive, and accuse random people of being racist, antisemetic, irrational troglidites."

Obviously, I don't think every paleoconservative is a racist or an anti-Semite. However, their stance on Israel is largely an irrational one, and since I cannot understand why they'd adopt such a view, it seems most logical to attribute it to something as arbitrary as anti-Jewish sentiment.

Even a man who could fairly be described as a paleoconservative (he cites Pat Buchanan as his "mentor" and is against the Iraq war, for two quick examples of his paleo street cred), the entertaining and intelligent Bostonian radio host Jay Severin, has stated that if an impartial observer were to just study the evidence of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, he would have to side with Israel.

I am very defensive of Israel because it is essentially my second country. I'm the first person in my family to be born in America, and many relatives live there. I am sick of having to deal with liars who demonize the nation (I've had to basically defend its right to exist with three teachers this past year alone). And just for the record, I'm not saying this for any pity or any of that nonsense -- you asked me why I "get extremely defensive." I do the same for the US, whenever it is harshly and undeservedly attacked.

"Do you really think that Israel wasn't on the receiving end of the spying?"

I don't know. I don't believe in attributing guilt without proof.

-ben

Ben: Under the open thread, I linked to a Keith Burgess-Jackson article on ideology. I think you should read it because you do several things he discusses: (1) accusing people you disagree with of having malevolent ulterior motives; (2) having a "closed system" in which basic facts -- like Israel's acts of spying on this country -- are denied.

Also: I think you use the "antisemite" word so loosely as to be dishonest and slanderous.

Ben L:

The Sandy Berger comparison is not apt. Berger brought documents home to save political face. The items found in his home relate specifically to 9-11 and terrorism, and likely were shielded from the public eye as a means of damage control to the Clinton administration. These actions may be indefensible, but they are not treasonous.

The Franklin matter is of a different order. Franklin had THIRTY YEARS worth of United States classified documents lying around his house. Initial reports indicate that he repeatedly gave classified United States documents not only to an Israeli lobbying group, but also to a foreign official--probably an Israeli.

Passing classified United States documents on to foreign officials--or to lobbying groups that then channel the documents to foreign officials--is an act of treason. If found guilty, Franklin should be hanged. And if Feith ordered Franklin to carry out these actions, then Feith should join him on the scaffold.

Almost every nation on Earth spies on every other nation on Earth.

Should this turn out to be true I will be disheartened by unsurprised. However not because this is Israel. I would be equally unsurprised to find that Canada, France, Britain, et cetera et ceter et cetera are all spying on the US, and that the US is spying on all of them.

"I didn't forget to mention Jews because I was dealing with Neoconservatives, which as Dan makes clear with Franklin's background, includes many people. What typifies a Neoconservative is their fervent support of Israel."

-Obi Juan

I call bullshit on this one. What you would LIKE to typify a NeoCon is their feverent support of Israel. What typifies a NeoConservative is a belief in the aggressive protection of US interests abroad. NeoCons support Israel because the Israeli-American relationship is mutually beneficial. We have many of the same interests, and we have many of the same enemies. When it comes to foreign policy, NeoCons see Israel and the United States as intrinsically linked because Israel is our only ally in the region, and because our causes and enemies are often the same. Israel is a convenient scapegoat for those who would support a less pro-active US foreign policy.

Many of you seem incredulous when Ben goes off on you about Anti-Semitism. Well, as a fairly devout Roman Catholic, I can tell you this much. I don't even think you realize it and I don't think you mean it deliberately. However, some of the comments you make come off to me as RAGINGLY anti-semitic. To Ben, who is Jewish, I can only imagine they are even more so.

Ben T defends Ben L's recent pouting fits: "Many of you seem incredulous when Ben goes off on you about Anti-Semitism. ... some of the comments you make come off to me as RAGINGLY anti-semitic."

Ben: No amount of disagreement (or even resentment) about Israeli politics mixing with our own amounts to anti-semitism. It is an absolute abuse of the word. It is slander, and quite obviously an attempt to shut dissenters up by making them feel guilty or making them look immoral. This is a Leftist move, solidifying my belief that neocons carry a layer of leftism underneith their Republican exterior.

"Second, support for Israel--a key tenet of neoconservatism--is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians." - Max Boot, What the Heck is a Neocon

"Ben: No amount of disagreement (or even resentment) about Israeli politics mixing with our own amounts to anti-semitism. It is an absolute abuse of the word. It is slander, and quite obviously an attempt to shut dissenters up by making them feel guilty or making them look immoral. This is a Leftist move, solidifying my belief that neocons carry a layer of leftism underneith their Republican exterior.
Posted by short at May 8, 2005 10:19 AM"

Short you misunderstood me. I don't think you are anti-semitic. I am saying that you and others, in my opinion unintentionally, say thing that sound like they are anti-semitic. I am not saying that anyone here is an anti-semite, I am saying that people here can often say things that COME OFF AS anti-semitic.

"Second, support for Israel--a key tenet of neoconservatism--is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians." - Max Boot, What the Heck is a Neocon
Posted by obi juan at May 8, 2005 10:53 AM

To say that supporting Israel is a key tenet of neoconservatism is not false. To say that supporting Israel is THE TYPIFYING factor of Neoconservatism, and to imply that Neoconservatives hold Israeli interests primary to US interests, is in fact, false. Not only that, but it is the same kind of slander Short spoke about above.

Ben T: Why should I care if some oversensitive member of a minority thinks my words are bigoted when they aren't? The left has worn out this oppressed-minority crap; you can no longer shut people up by falsely accusing them of racism, antisemitism, sexism, etc.

Ben L says, "I don't believe in attributing guilt without proof," when it has to do with Israeli spying. He doesn't follow the same principle when accusing people of bigotry.

Would you deny that you specifically target Israel? Its clear that you do hold Israel to other standards than other nations.

You are always ready to take up arms over US funding to Israel, or US support to Israel. Yet I have never heard you rail quite so violently when the US gives money/support to groups like the PLO.

Ben T: What are you talking about? Where have I "railed violently" against Israel or "specifically targeted Israel"? You two Bens are boxing shadows here at FlynnFiles. You see antisemitism everywhere. When we talk about Iraq, the war on terror, or a Catholic American spying against his own country, you two turn it into a conversation about Jews and pretend that anybody who disagrees with you hates Jews. This post is an example... Who started talking about antisemitism? Ben L. He seems to see it everywhere.

Knock off the slander. It's a sin. It also undermines civil discourse.

"Ben T: Why should I care if some oversensitive member of a minority thinks my words are bigoted when they aren't?"

Shut the hell up -- nobody here is PC, moron. This has nothing to do with sensitivity. It has to do with honesty. When it comes to Israel, paleoconservatives are flat out liars. It's one thing to be against the United States' sending money abroad, which is obviously a legitimate and debatable topic, but it's another thing to compare Israel to Iran (which has happened here in the past) and slander the nation in such a Leftist fashion.

"Would you deny that you specifically target Israel? Its clear that you do hold Israel to other standards than other nations."

Let it be known that Mr. T pities the fools.

Ben T: What are you talking about? Where have I "railed violently" against Israel or "specifically targeted Israel"? You two Bens are boxing shadows here at FlynnFiles. You see antisemitism everywhere. When we talk about Iraq, the war on terror, or a Catholic American spying against his own country, you two turn it into a conversation about Jews and pretend that anybody who disagrees with you hates Jews. This post is an example... Who started talking about antisemitism? Ben L. He seems to see it everywhere.

Knock off the slander. It's a sin. It also undermines civil discourse.
Posted by short at May 8, 2005 09:31 PM

I am shadow boxing? This is, to my memory, the first time I have addressed anti-semitism at Flynn Files.

When have you railed violently against Israel? When have YOU specifically, or when have "you" the collective of Paleocons at Flynn Files?

You specifically I don't know. However I meant "you" in a collective sense.

And "you" have done that in many ways.

Through comparing Israel to Iran
Through implying that Neoconservatism amounts to a Zionistic plot to control the US government
Through claiming Israel is an extremist theocracy
The list goes on and on and on and on.

And never once have I heard any of you approach the corruption and downright evil of the Arab nations of the Middle East with the same undeniable ZEAL with which you go after Israel.

If you don't hold a double standard, than you sure do make it seem like you do.

"He seems to see it everywhere."

I don't "see [anti-Semitism] everywhere". Paleocons see international Jewish conspiracies everywhere -- for one quick example, everyone knows that we went into Iraq to "protect Israel".

You said what to me, Ben L? ... "Shut the hell up." Wow, I guess you two Bens wanted to prove me right: your slanderous paranoia undermines civil discourse.

Who's antisemitic? Ben T: the Arabs nations are "downright evil." Arabs are semites too.

Ben T claims to be using the plural you, not the singular, when he clearly accused me of railing violently against Israel. Could have fooled me. But is using the general you any better? Now you're slandering innumerable people rather than one.

You two are just throwing very hateful slanderous words around at everybody and at nobody in particular. Grow up.

Besides, Ben 1 and 2: stop talking about paleocons. Most of the people who post here are not paleocons. I don't think you understand the word. You just use 'paleocon' as a shorthand for "brainless racist antisemitic reactionary." You think that "Paleocons see international Jewish conspiracies everywhere," and also think that everyone who has a preference for tradition (including Warrior?!) is a paleocon.

Wow, rather harsh accusation to throw at such a large group of people. Slander is a sin, bro. But you just don't care.

It appears to me that Ben might be looking for victim status here. As has been said, anything related to Israel sends him over the edge and he automatically goes into a defensive crouch.

"You said what to me, Ben L? ... "Shut the hell up." Wow, I guess you two Bens wanted to prove me right: your slanderous paranoia undermines civil discourse."

On the matter of myself: This is the first time i have discussed the topic of Anti-Semitism here, but you have somehow constructed a long tradition of slandorous paranoia for me. How entertaining. You are in fact quite simply slandering me, my dear little hypocrite.

On the subject of Ben L. He told you to shut up? Awww cwy cwy cwy about it. You have said things far more inflammatory in the past. And yet you laugh about Ben searching for victim status.

The intellectual dishonesty on your part is shocking.

Ben T: I haven't concocked a long history of paranoid and slanderous behavior on your part -- you have shown quite enough in this thread alone.
Slander isn't slander if its true; it's then called "detraction." So I'm guilty of detraction for saying that you're guilty of slander -- got it?

I'm doing you a favor by trying to get the two of you to stop acting like juvenile leftists. Maybe because of my charity work here you will some day be for for civil public discourse. Falsely and flipantly calling people bigots qualifies you two for the "leftist" part; telling me to "shut the hell up" qualifies Ben L for the "juvelile" part. (Ben T, you qualify for the "juvenile" part because you then proceded to make fake crying gestures and taunt me as a 12 year old boy would.)

Oh, there I go again ... detraction!

"your slanderous paranoia undermines civil discourse."

Slanderous paranoia? I was repeating a claim made by one of the Flynn Filer schmucks (re: war in Iraq -- sarcastically "at least Israel's safer").

Furthermore, numerous times on this board, neoconservatives -- people who simply have differing views on issues -- have been called such things as spies, moles, and a threat to our nation. How is that NOT slanderous paranoia?

"Who's antisemitic? Ben T: the Arabs nations are "downright evil." Arabs are semites too."

What don't you understand about this -- there is a world of difference between the Arab nations and the state of Israel. To take any kind of "Semitism" out of it, I'll use another example. Without question, North Korea is home to a downright evil regime, but that says nothing about the people other than suggesting my pity for them for having to live under such a despot. The same is true of the Arab regimes.

"Now you're slandering innumerable people rather than one."

No one is being slandered. If you need proof of the hatred of Israel on this board, go through old comments sections.

" Warrior?!) is a paleocon."

What is he, then? Of course someone like you (and I honestly don't mean that derisively) would not admit he's a paleocon, for the simple fact that you don't grant that neoconservativism is a form of conservatism. Your sole definition of "conservatism" is, essentially, paleoconservatism. Just because you don't want to deal with the reality of differing conservative perspectives doesn't mean that the reality doesn't exist.

But anyways, since I mislabeled him, what would be a proper description of his views?

"It appears to me that Ben might be looking for victim status here."

How am I looking for "victim status?" Your weak-kneed attack on my nonexistant political correctness is annoying. I am looking for intellectual honesty and that alone.

Ben T: I haven't concocked a long history of paranoid and slanderous behavior on your part -- you have shown quite enough in this thread alone.

Posted by short at May 9, 2005 04:40 PM

Really? Let's examine the facts.

Firstly let's see what I said first. Oh yes, I said I do not feel the Paleocons on this Blog are anti-semites, but I feel that sometimes what you say can come off a little bit anti-semitic SOUNDING. I said I feel you do this totally uninentionally.

Oh, I guess saying things Short doesn't want to hear amounts of slander nowadays.

I then asserted that many people on this blog hold Israel to different standards than other nations. Totally true. Why aren't you guys ever pissed about US funding to say, South Korea? Why isn't there any anger over US support of other embattled democracies, such as Taiwan or South Korea?

Israel is clearly the target of scapegoating.

Then there is the as yet totally unfounded assertions that

A.) Neoconservatism is a front for a Zionist plot to control the US government

and B.)

We went to war in Iraq for Israel's interests.

Both seem to be points of view held pretty generally on this blog, but I have never heard either of them seriously backed up by facts.

I falsely and flippently called you a bigot? Really, where? Show me where I said you were a bigot.

I am juvenile? Your the one who is seemingly incapable of making a post that does not include an ad hominem.

Do many people on this blog have an unfair and mean-spirited bias towards Jews? I don't profess to know.

Do many people on this blog have an unfair and mean-spirited bias against the nation of Israel? There is little question in my mind that they do.

Ben-T: Your statement that the notion that "We went to war in Iraq for Israel's interests" is "held pretty generally on this blog" is irresponsible and unsupported. I have never said anything like this in a main post despite writing about Iraq every week or so, and although I have seen such sentiments pop-up occassionally among the 7,000+ comments, they are generally made by floaters rather than FlynnFiles regulars. When I've seen regulars making the type of statements you describe, they are generally left-wing readers, rather than conservatives. If you're going to make charges, please quote the posts or comments you find bothersome. Namecalling is not an argument.

Ben T: I must admit you did say that you didn't think I or the other FFs-ites weren't anti-semetic. But then you immediately accused me of "railing violently against Israel," holding Israel to a double standard, etc etc, and then accused the FFs regulars of holding antisemitic left-wing beliefs about Israel and the war.

So, in fact, you did accuse me and others here of anti-semitism, whether or not you prefaced your slanderous remarks with a disclaimer.

Anlogy: I don't think your a slanderer, I just think that you regularly and knowingly say untrue bad things about other people.

Look: you two just lost your freaking head in this thread. PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DISAGREE ABOUT ISRAEL. IT DOESN'T MAKE THEM EVIL.

Unless you consider the national government of the nation state of Israel synonomous with Jews, I didn't ccall you an anti semite. I don't think your evil either, or even particuarly immoral really, so calm down sparky.

Ben-T: Your statement that the notion that "We went to war in Iraq for Israel's interests" is "held pretty generally on this blog" is irresponsible and unsupported. I have never said anything like this in a main post despite writing about Iraq every week or so, and although I have seen such sentiments pop-up occassionally among the 7,000+ comments, they are generally made by floaters rather than FlynnFiles regulars. When I've seen regulars making the type of statements you describe, they are generally left-wing readers, rather than conservatives. If you're going to make charges, please quote the posts or comments you find bothersome. Namecalling is not an argument.
Posted by Dan Flynn at May 9, 2005 05:54 PM

I should have clarified that I did not mean you specifically, but certain posters in the Comments section. The posters I am talking about do not particuarly deny that they believe this, so I don't know how it would be namecalling. It's just a viewpoint I don't feel is backed up.

"If you're going to make charges, please quote the posts" ...

Let's start with this one. From above, I quote obi juan, "Call them spies, moles, or neocons. The difference is slight."

At least Israel's safer...

More looniness and double standards...

Neocons are a threat...

Just a few examples.

-ben

What don't you understand about this -- there is a world of difference between the Arab nations and the state of Israel.

Not in American context there isn't. Isreal didn't event exist for us before it actually existed in the 40s. We did quite fine before Israel existed and there is no need to tie our destiny to Israel's destiny. Israel's problems are Israel's problems. It sucks that the jews chose to make their nation-state smack in the middle of a billion people that hate them, however, it is not the USA's problem.

Ben, the problem with you is that you make no difference between Israel and (as you would put it) "the Jews." Israel is a Jewish state that has its own interests, has its own military, and also has its own intelligence agency. So when people speak out against the actions of Israel the state, or their military, or their intelligence agency (per the Franklin incident or whatever other covert actions they do), it is not an indictment of Jews as a people. It is merely a criticism of Israel, the state.

And perhaps it is true that people do not mention other states as much as Israel. But how does Egypt’s lobby compare? And the Palestinians? And the Angolans, or whatever other nation you would like to insert…

You make light of the fact that perhaps we invaded Iraq for Israel’s benefit. But can the case really be made at this point that it was solely for our own? There are no WMDs in Iraq and even if there were, what range did Saddam have? Only enough to hit Israel. And with what terrorists did he even associate with if not those of the Palestinian kind? That no one can even mention Israel without the same slander that you spew is absurd. They are the elephant in the room, especially given the very pro-Israeli nature of those in power. Deny it all you want. It just makes you look ignorant of very blatant facts. Surely there are many reasons we invaded Iraq, but surely any person of worth must admit Israel was one of these on some scale.

If you question that Neocons are a threat to the Republic, you have no further to look than this administration. The Neocons have run roughshod over innumerable conservative principles and slandered good conservatives. And what else are conservatives but the last protectors of order in our American society? I say quite truthfully that Neoconservatives are unAmerican.

Ben L: You made my point. The three links that you cite show that one guy--one guy!--out of a hundred or so people commenting on the site, and dozens engaged in the three conversations you link to, attempted to partly (and incorrectly from my standpoint) pin the Iraq war on protection for Israel. Granting that you can find all kinds of opinions on FlynnFiles, my point to Ben-T is that his assertion that "We went to war in Iraq for Israel's interests" is "held pretty generally on this blog" was irresponsible and unsupported. I should add that many of your charges, which tend to be sweeping and without facts presented to back them up (e.g., "Paleocons see international Jewish conspiracies everywhere"), are too.

"And perhaps it is true that people do not mention other states as much as Israel. But how does Egypt’s lobby compare? And the Palestinians?"

I have to go to school, but I have a second to respond to some of this. Palestinians get more foreign aid per capita than any other group in the world.

"They are the elephant in the room, especially given the very pro-Israeli nature of those in power."

They are pro-Israeli because any rational human being, examining the evidence, would come to that conclusion. Decent people tend not to side with a group that glorifies killing oneself and others as a form of martyrdom.

"I should add that many of your charges, which tend to be sweeping and without facts presented to back them up (e.g., "Paleocons see international Jewish conspiracies everywhere"), are too."

I am not going to go through every comment on this blog. There's a famous quote of Buchanan's when he's listing off names of Supreme Court justices he dislikes, emphasizing the Jewish-sounding ones. And there are the claims of "extensive amounts of Israeli espionage in the US government" one frequently hears amongst paleocons.

But if we are to be accused of making slanderous, unproven claims, what do you say to statements like these:

"I say quite truthfully that Neoconservatives are unAmerican."

"Call them spies, moles, or neocons. The difference is slight."

Here we have obijuan essentially accusing people with different ideological leanings as being traitors. This is craziness.

"Ben L: You made my point. The three links that you cite show that one guy--one guy!--out of a hundred or so people commenting on the site, and dozens engaged in the three conversations you link to, attempted to partly (and incorrectly from my standpoint) pin the Iraq war on protection for Israel."

One more thing, if I may quickly add... if I remember correctly, not one of the absurd statements were criticized, suggesting a kind of tacit agreement.

From now on we'll all have to respond to every comment each one of us disagrees with saying we disagree -- otherwise we'll each really be saying that we agree. These comments are going to be crowded.

Bem L: you are a d-bag. Bigtime.

Ben L: There are more than 7,000 comments on the site. Do you really believe that when I, or other readers for that matter, don't take issue with something said that we agree with it? Saying that silence equals "tacit agreement" is beneath you. You didn't take issue with many of the conspiratorial posts of the departed flynnfiler named "Truth." Based on your illogic, I should interpret this as an endorsement of various 9/11 conspiracies and other silliness. C'mon, that's really weak.

I don't agree with either of the statements you cite from Obi Juan. There is more than a slight difference between a spy and a mole. Obviously, neoconservative isn't connected with either of those terms. Just because one neoconservative (Larry Franklin, wow, I'm glad we got back to the original topic of our post) stands accused of spying doesn't mean all neoconservatives, or some neoconservatives, or even a few neoconservatives would do the same. In post 8, your inserting the word "Jews" into Obi Juan's mouth in place of his use of "neocons" seemed especially defamatory, particularly when the subject of this conversation--Larry Franklin--is Catholic.

Even though I disagree with Obi Juan's point, I'm not sure you characterize it fairly. He said: "The problem is that we have people in our government who are also looking out for Israel's interests, with complete disregard for the interests of the United States. Call them spies, moles, or neocons." I have problems with this statement, but I don't think Obi Juan is equating the word neoconservative with the word spy or mole. He's saying that the spies or moles that he alleges--I know of but one--are neoconservatives, not that all neoconservatives are spies or moles. Just one neoconservative--Larry Franklin--that I'm familiar with fits the description Obi Juan makes, so I'm anxious to learn who else he's referring to.

I guess the bottom line is that Obi Juan and Ben L have more in common that either dares admit. Both exhibit an unhealthy readiness to attribute vile motives (treason in the former case, anti-Semitism in the latter) to individuals they disagree with. However comforting it is for both of you to believe your enemies are as monstrous as you imagine, might it be more rational to explain their disagreements with you as just that: disagreements.

If you question that Neocons are a threat to the Republic, you have no further to look than this administration. The Neocons have run roughshod over innumerable conservative principles and slandered good conservatives. And what else are conservatives but the last protectors of order in our American society? I say quite truthfully that Neoconservatives are unAmerican.
Posted by obi juan at May 10, 2005 01:16 AM

Which NeoCons?

Bush? Not a NeoCon

Rice? Not a NeoCon

Cheney? Not a NeoCon

Rumsfeld? Not a NeoCon

Wolfowitz is about the only NeoCon left in the Bush administration.

This administration follows the foreign policy advise of the Neoconservative movement. None of the administrations notable members, however, are NeoCons.

EDIT:

In essence Neoconservatism is a foreign policy persuasion, not a political movement. There is much disagreement among NeoCons on almost every issue, with the only real unification resting in foreign policy.

You can't for example talk about what THE NEOCONS have done to the economy, because there is no real NEOCON view on the Economy. Neoconservatism rests fairly exclusively in the field of Foreign Policy.

Bush follows the NeoConservative foreign policy, however he is what is generally termed a "Compassionate Conservative" in the fields of Domestic policy.

For now we don't even have to go into your ridiculous assertion that "Conservatives" (read: People that Obi Juan agrees with politically) are the only upholders of anything good or decent in the world.

Ben-T makes a good point. Couldn't the blame-the-neocons mentality be a way of absolving Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and other non-neocons of their first-term blunders? While it may be true that Wolfowitz, Kristol, Bennett, and other prominent neocons wanted this war, they never had the power to make it happen. George Bush did, and if you're unhappy with the way things turned out in Iraq it seems he's more deserving of blame than 2nd-tier policy people or beltway scribes.

I don't see anything wrong with blaming the war on the neocons. No matter what Steve Sailer says, bush is obviously not a very intelligent man, or at least not a man of many ideas. He came to office promising "a more humble policy." After 9-11 he parrotted the Weekly Standard. Surely, while he isn't a neoconservative in the "liberal mugged by reality" sense, he supports their foreign policy agenda. Ultimately, Bush is the person most responsible for the mess in Iraq, but I don't see anything wrong with blaming the people who persuaded him to that position.

The Mess in Iraq?

Interesting.

Two years of war and a governmetn is established?

How long did it take our own Founding Fathers to agree to a Constitution? Eleven years of peacetime.

Iraq has made transition from Dictatorship to Democracy in almost record time. What we are seeing in Iraq is not a "crisis" It is what is called a WAR.

And Obi Juan did not blame the Neocons for "the war" he blamed the Neocons for almost every problem and/or challenge facing the United States today. Specifically he referenced Bush's expansion of Federal power. How exactly did the Neocons preside over Bush's expansion of Central Power?

Your various ad hominems about Bush as a person carry no wait for now. You sound like the same kind of person that called Ronald Reagan an "amiable dunce."

Ben-T, ever heard of the Office of Special Plans?

Bush is either an intelligent, thoughtful person or he isn't. I don't think he is. My mentioning his intelligence is not an ad hominem attack because I'm not saying that we should discredit his foreign policy views because he's not a genius. Rather I said his lack of intelligence made it possible for the neoconservatives to influence him.

That aside, I would also add a practical, though not very principled, reason to blame the neoconservatives rather than Bush. Most of Middle America is in love with Bush, I suspect some people like Buchanan who still seem to be in love with the Republican party did not want to further alienate those people.

Furthermore, before the election, there was some reason to believe that Bush would change his foreign policy and dump the neocons. This unfortuantely has not been the case, but you can understand why people like Buchanan may have thought it to be prudent to temper their attacks on him hoping to have his ear in the second term.

The USA is a sovreign country -- and a traitor is a traitor.

Larry Franklin, Rosen, Weissman and the AXIS of ADL, AIPAC, and ISRAELI TRAITORS / ESPIONAGE — all indicted.

The #1 terrorist / spy organization in the USA continues to operate openly in Washington DC — its called AIPAC.

I have no problem fighting the actual culprits behind 911 -- thus I am NOT anti war.

Who owns & operates the media -- that is why these spy stories involving israel are buried or never pursued. How do you distract from the biggest story since 911 ? You manufacture other stories (such as Cindy Sheehan) to suck up air time. Anytime Michael Moore is involved you should be aware that ZION spinning is going on. They thrive on controlling all sides of an issue.

In the recent past they have been able to dismiss any critique of Israel with their standard "anti semtite" lies. No longer, everyone is on to it.

A poll done earlier this year by CNN (that has since been buried in the ZION media memory hole) showed that 93% of the USA public DOES NOT support continued funding for ISRAEL.

Who owns & operates the media -- that is why these spy stories involving israel are buried or never pursued. How do you distract from the biggest story since 911 ? You manufacture other stories (such as Cindy Sheehan) to suck up air time. Anytime Michael Moore is involved you should be aware that ZION spinning is going on. They thrive on controlling all sides of an issue.

1. What do the following have in common: Clinton, Condit, Mc Greevy and 4 star general Byrnes ???

2. What do the following have in common: Lewinsky, Levy, and Cippel ???

the answer to #1 is: They were all duped into a MOSSAD honey trap.

the answer to #2 is: They are all MOSSAD agents and all happen to be self identified practicers of judaism. Only 1.9% of the US population identifies themselves as practicing judasim. This is beyond coincidence. What about all the school shooters ??? Thank goodness they removed this COMPROMISED 4 star general from his post. There are still some patriots left in the FBI, CIA, and DIA that have not been deluded / fooled by the ZION lies.

DONT LET THE ZION MEDIA SHILLS / WHORES distract from the reality that the MOSSAD has been trying to deceive our nation into fighting israels enemies for some time — including their complicity in 911. PURGE THE ZION TRAITORS including the scumbags FRANKLIN, ROSEN, and WEISSMAN.

Don’t believe the ZION lies about BUSH. They are attempting to take down another president.

FYI — another ZION shill was arrested last week — Abramoff. Looking forward to the next shill indictment of SAYANIM NOVAK.

ZIONISTS are ANTI 1st amendment and ANTI 2nd amendment and they are also ANTI AMERICAN.

Imagine this: In the middle of our 'war on terror,' a foreign government (Israel) has spies who have infiltrated the highest levels of the Department of Defense.

Larry Franklin, Rosen, Weissman and the AXIS of ADL, AIPAC, and ISRAELI TRAITORS / ESPIONAGE — all indicted.

ZIONIST Douglas Feith (the architect of the IRAQ war and the boss of indicted spy Larry Franklin) resigned August 9th, 2005 and has fled the country. This story was also buried.

Who owns the MEDIA, the VOTE COUNTING MACHINES, the MILITARY, the POLITICIANS, the FEDERAL RESERVE ??? Research it to get ENLIGHTENED.

The sudden use of “HOMELAND” instead of “our country” or “our nation” – is word warfare. Why are we not talking about protecting our country or our nation? I’ll tell you why. We are no longer to think of the USA as a sovereign nation – we are to think of ourselves as having a “homeland” in the ZIONIST government. Ironically, "HOMELAND SECURITY" is run by a dual US-ISRAELI citizen named Michael Chertoff.

Those who think this is going to far – have no idea of the heartless, ruthless psycho-warfare propagandists we should be fighting.

Remove these dual citizens from critical posts in the USA government IMMEDIATELY -- such as Michael Chertoff. NO MORE dual loyalties.

"No one censors speech they agree with."