The history of the Democratic Party over the last forty years is predominately one of liberals purging fellow liberals for not being liberal enough. This cathartic ritual, occassionally puncuated by brief excursions into sanity, has resulted in a greater purity of ideology at the expense of political victories.

The Democrats have lost three consecutive national elections. Their prescription for their ballot-box woes has been to ingest more of the poison that got them sick in the first place. After New Democrat Al Gore headed a losing slate by becoming Old Democrat Al Gore, the most visible Democrats became Barbara Lee for casting the lone vote against a military response in Afghanistan, Cynthia McKinney for authoring a "Bush knew" 9/11 conspiracy theory, and David Bonior and Jim McDermott for taking a propagandistic trip to Baghdad. This approach didn't work out in 2002, so the Democrats subsequently embraced San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi as their House leader and Ted Kennedy's understudy as their presidential nominee. Now, in the wake of losing yet again, Democrats have turned to Green Mountain socialist Howard Dean to chair their party. An obstinate bunch, these Democrats.

The liberals chased loyal Democrats--traditional Catholics, Southerners, blue-collar workers--out of the party. When the LBJ-Hubert Humphrey version of the party didn't go far enough, the McGoverniks replaced them. Now the party has gone left again with the elevation of Howard Dean to party chairman. So who will remain to purge Dean, already being labeled a "moderate" by Paul Krugman, when he proves not far enough to the Left? The Ward Churchill wing of the Democratic Party?

All I can say is: "Aaaaagggggghhhhh!"

IS AMERICA AN EMPIRE?

Please forgive me for this off-topic post...

Daniel, I have a friend that loves America, but contends that it is an empire. I asked him to locate our empire, and he said that our empire, granted, is not the British Empire. To clear up any confusion, we looked up “imperialism” on dictionary.com.

“Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony, the predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over other nations.”

After we read this, he acted as if this vindicated his argument. To further argue his point, he points out that we have occupied South Korea for 50 years. He also brought up Guam and the Spanish war. I lack knowledge on these subjects and defer to your better understanding of these issues. He suggests that because of our military influence in other nations, he can justify his assertion that America practices imperialism.

When ideology is your guide, you’re bound to get lost. This happens, most likely, because it is easy to put your brain on auto-pilot when ideology does all of the thinking for you. Daniel, I come to you because, as a young man, I am passionately in love with my country and I fear that my love for her may be leading me astray, blinding me to the truth. After reading your fantastic books, I’ve decided that the best way to guide my way to truth is to ask “is it true?” Since my friend claims that America is an empire, and you argue against this assertion in your book, I ask you, Daniel, is it true?

I know this will sound crazy to most but Dean is actually basically a moderate in the Democratic party. Partly this is because the extreme is so radical to the left but partly this is b/c a good portion of his policy positions are in fact pretty moderate. On economics he was a centrist in VT always making sure to have balanced budgets (wouldn't that be nice nationally?). Also, remember why he fell out of favor in the primaries wasn't mainly b/c of his supposed radical leftism but b/c of his assertions of quite reasonable things like that the Democratic Party had to get the votes of "guys w/ confederate flags on their pickup trucks," which meant the Democrats will continue to lose if they continue to alienate southern white men, the religious, the patriotic, etc. That is a good assessment of why the Dems keep losing.

Granted "moderate" does NOT mean "not a liberal or to the left" when used to describe a Democrat today so I am in no way endorsing Dean, although I do wish he had been the candidate to run against Bush.

I wrote a section on the myth of American imperialism in WTLHA. My basic point was, and is, that to call America an empire you have to redefine empire--which is why leftists often use the phrase neoimperialist. In other words, you can point to specific places--Ireland, India, Palestine--ruled by the British empire. You really can't do that with the American "empire." Sure, there are places--Afghanistan and Iraq--where we have troops, but this indicates we are at war not that we are imperialists. The notion that we control South Korea economically or militarily is ludicrous. If we are running things in Iraq and Afghanistan ten years from now, the people calling America an empire might have a point.

I guess the larger point is that if America is an empire, it is the strangest acting empire in history. Did we seize Kuwait, France, or South Korea after liberating them? Contrast our post-WWII behavior to that of the Soviets. They gobbled up nearly a dozen countries. We ultimately left the nations we defeated to their own devices.

Andrew - Dan could also add that, at the turn of the 19th/20th century, there was open debate whether America ought to embrace the concept of empire - natural successors of the British. (This was when the concept of empire was not nearly as fraught with negative connotations.)

This was answered in the negative; we have a balancing isolationist streak going back about to the beginning of the country. In fact, we are so far from empire that, in law and the Constitution, the individual states of the union have powers and authority that the Union itself does not, and cannot impose on the several states. (Granted that this concept is honored in the breach more often than not, but it's there.)

Keep hunting down the truth, Andrew, as much of it as you can; you won't go easily wrong. Good luck.

But I wouldn't ignore, Dan and Nightfly, the extent to which neocons have explicitly debated taking up the mantle dropped by the British Empire. British neocons like Paul Johnson have also claimed that the British empire came to an end about 25 years too soon and that the British westernizing of the mideast in particular is unfinished business, business which the argument goes, the U.S. must needs conclude. Some neocons have explicitly argued for what they themselves call "empire," though they do define the term differently from what we are used to. A friend of mine at the Justice Department has argued to me that after the decline of the British empire the U.S. has had to take over their role in the world.

Of course as you and Dan mention this is not empire as conceived and carried out in the 19th and 20th centuries. The leftists who attack American "imperialism" are trading on the fact that the word itself has come to be seen as negative. This is EXACTLY like the neocons (some posting here often) who label conservatives who think the Iraq War was a mistake as "isolationists." Or the overuse by the left of the term "fascist," etc.

Simply calling American foreign policy imperialistic obscures more than it illuminates. The idea of hegemony probably is more useful. I would suggest though that we not think that b/c the U.S. foreign policy isn't "imperialistic" in terms of seeking to establish empire as classically understood that we have somehow established that it is reasonable, prudent, and just. We haven't properly labeled or addressed foreign policy simply by avoiding mislabelling it.

Finally, your comment about states rights, or really the demise of them is central in my opinion to understanding the development of the U.S. into a wholly modern nation state, what Hobbes called a Leviathan. Modern politics is essentially tyrrannical and in that sense is "imperial," the U.S. is sadly no exception.

Howard Dean is a force to be reckoned with. The Republican Party will have to be extremely dilligent in the way it deals with the impending Dean onslaught. If he can galvanize the radical left-wing kook fringe base that makes up roughly 3-5% of the electorate behind a pseudo-moderate like Clinton, we could be looking at Democrats wielding power in the executive branch in 2008. I hope Ken Melman and other strategist are getting ready to prepare a successor for Bush. A charismatic dud will lose to Clinton in 2008 due to the changing demographics in our country.

Howard Dean is most definitely a force to be reckoned with. Most of the conservative blogosphere does not seem to think so, but their is a danger whether one is conservative or liberal of being caught up in a proverbial echo chamber. Just a reminder of why this man is simply not fit to lead America:
1.) In an interview while his candidacy for president was going strong, he refered to Russia as the Soviet Union. He did this not once but multiple times. 2.)When discussing the Arab/Israeli conflict he said America "should not take sides." 3.) He said America "should get permission from the UN before taking military action." These are paraphrases of actual Howard Dean qutoes. Someone with such a fundamental misunderstanding of foreign policy simply cannot be trusted with a position of natinal leadership.

The democrats support euthanasia, abortion, and many of them have opposed the war against islamic extremists who would kill them, if given the chance. It really seems as though these people have a death wish.

polemical muhammad ali,

Look at the the trends in American politics in the last 5 years. Bush v. Gore in 2000...both candidates appealed to the middle, Bush barely won.

In 2002 the public was sick and tired of hearing the left cry about the election being stolen...this further motivated the conservatives to go out and vote to maintain Republican majority in both houses.

In 2004 the Dems appealed hard left with Dean, and eventually, Kerry. Bush called the Dems what they were; liberals. America does not like liberals, they like moderates. Bush won by 3.5 million votes.

Why did Bush win? He's likeable. He comes off as compassionate enough, because he's a globalist (if you think Dean is sick saying we should ask the U.N. before we take action, look how Bush is playing the global welfare game for the U.N.'s Millenium Challenge). And, he's basically a moderate conservative. Take a hard look on his issues, he's no Buchannan, Robertson, or Santorum....he's really a moderate.

Dean will lead this party down the road of further destruction. The only thing the Dems could gain my crowning Dean party chair, is that maybe he won't run in 2008. And if and when Hillary does run in 2008, and by chance, she wins the nomination, the Republicans will run Condaleeza Rice and win easily. Think about it, rice will win the black vote, split the women vote (or barely lose it), and win the conservative vote. She will get 60 million votes if she runs, and she will win big.

Dean is a tool, not a force.

Look, Howard Dean is a great pick for Democrats. As party chairman, his main role will be to fundraise. He has a great track record in this respect. He ran a grassroots campaign propelled largely from small donations given by "Deaniacs"--members of the internet generation who shop at Starbucks. Assuming that Dean can continue to excite these people, and not isolate traditional Democratic doners, he should deliver lots of money to the Democratic kitty.

On the seminal foreign policy issue of our time, Dean was right where every other big-name politician was wrong. He stood in front of television cameras time and again and said, free from equivocation, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Not only were these statements politically courageous, but they also proved to be factually accurate. The Democrats are better off having a chairman who is unequivocal but right than a chairman who is passive and indescript.

Further, Dean's enthusiasm for the job cannot be questioned. He said recently "I hate Republicans, and I will work my hardest to fight them." While many chairmen want the job solely as a resume line, there is no question that Dean thinks he has something to prove, and that he will work his hardest to help Democrats win close races.

His ideas about what the Democrats need to do to win seem exactly right. Whenever he is interviewed, he says he plans to spend the next five months or so in the deep South. He knows that Democrats cannot win if the party is only a CA and northeastern party. His plain-spoken, no-nonsense style may actually go over far better in the South than many of his skeptics suspect.

Foshee:
Dean is right that America needs to be more impartial in the Middle East. We lose all credibility with Arab countries when we shower Israel with gifts of tanks, missiles and interest-free loans.

Christopher:
Condi would not have a chance. First of all, don't make the racist assumption that blacks will vote for someone just because the person is black. Blacks didn't exactly rush to the polls to vote for Alan Keyes, or Carol Mosely Braun. Second, Condi just is not that impressive. She is not charismatic, she does not smile much, and she is not particularly dynamic. She might be a decent hatchet-woman for Bush, but her popularity with independent voters is neglible (they perceive her as a Bush tool with no personality of her own).

Bush is no moderate. He is the most conservative president of the last 50 years hands-down. His rhetoric is mild, but his policies are extreme. Republicans have done a good job of selling him to the rubes as "one of them"--just a plain-spoken, average, ordinary guy with common-sense ideas. Of course, reality diverges sharply from this fiction.

Hey Reader, Dean was not correct when it came to Iraq. He was dead wrong. Iraq has held its first democratic parliamentary election in decades and the insurgency is most certainly not winning the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis. Most of the military will be out of Iraq within three years, replaced by a military base, quite possibly at the behest of the newly-elected Iraqi government. Just because there were no weapons (they could've been sent to Syria, by the way) doesn't mean Dean's position was correct. Tell that to the 60+ percent of Iraqis that risked their lives to vote.

Dean will be a good chairman, and Republicans will have to be relentless in the way they define him, even if they must exaggerate some of his policy positions. He is very weak on abortion. In fact, he is for abortion-on-demand in every conceivable circumstance. The country, in particular the 18-25 year old demographic, is trending pro-life. His rhetoric will also get him in trouble, but again, if he can galvanize the nutty, kooky left-wing fringe in this electorate without completely alienating the moderates, we could see a President Hillary Rodham. If Kerry could've galvanized that 3-5%, he would be president.

Reader

I am a bit pressed for time right now so this reply will be brief. You state that we shower Israel with gifts of tanks, missles, and interest free loans. The United States has sold arms to both the Arabs and the Israelis. You can find more on this at www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf23.html. While United States weapons sales to Israel may have favored Israel over the Arabs from time to time it has simply not been as favorable to Israel as you make it out to be. Regarding interest free loans to Israel you can refer to www.jewsihvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/index.html. You can search those articles. They have information on loans from the United States to Israel. While they may have been more favorable to the Israelis than Arabs at times, the loans are simply not as favorable as you make them out to be. Over the years Arabs have benefited tremendously from American foreign policy. America did the following: 1.)Liberated Kuwait. 2.) Defended Saudi Arabia. 3.)Intevened on behalf of Muslims in Somalia and Bosnia. 4.) Saved Yessar Arafat from Israeli forces in Beirut in 1982. 5.) Assisted Muslims against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s. 6.) Removed the Taliban and Saddam Huessien. 7.) Given both Iraqis and Afghans their first true shot at liberty. This only scratches the surface. Suffice it to say Arabs have no business complaining about American foreign policy. Point number 4 is particularly relevant to the current situation. Had the Israelis been allowed to finish the job in either of the wars of 1973 or 1982 we might not have the problems we currently have.

If American foreign policy has tilted in the direction of Israel, it is because both nations have the same enemies. Even if Israel were to disappear today, this would not end global jihad. All it would mean is that jihadist assets that are currently deployed against Israel would be deployed elsewhere. Israel acts as buffer between the western world and the terrorists, as such, it is in America's interest to support Israel. It also in the best interest of western nations to support Israel. This is so whether they realize it or not. I might also point that the USA recieves tremendous benefits in intellegence sharing, on our common enemies, from Israel. More on this can be found in the archives of www.palestinefacts.org or in the archives of www.israelnationalnews.com. Without this benefit the cost of national defense would be much higher and probably much less effective.

You say we should be impartial in the middle east. Lets see here. Israel is the loan western style democracy in the middle east. The other Arab regimes are led by tyrannical thugs. The notion that terror supporting thuggish regimes and a western style democracy should be regarded as equals is at best misguided and at worst is a symptom of the moral bankruptcy that infects much of the post-Christian western world.

America is an empire. It hold world hegemony. America has been an empire since World War II, and was solidified as the world's only empire after the Cold War.

America is and should be an empire.

Reader,

I honestly don't know where to start, but i'll attempt this anyway:

1) Ronald Reagan is the most conservative President in the last 50 years. Reagan was no globalist (Bush is, if you want proof, look at the Millenium Challenge), Reagan did not extend the Federal welfare system (Bush has; although the Faith-Based Initiative is 'good welfare', it's goals haven't exactly been reached; read David Kuo's column on religion.net), and Reagan's tax cuts saw real results, Bush's haven't yet really done that, although we may not see it for a couple years.

2) Condaleeza Rice IS a dynamic figure. She will beat Hillary head-to-head, because of a couple of reasons:
a) She has grace, which Hillary lacks. In a woman v. woman contest, a feminine quality that Rice has and Clinton lacks will be important with the man vote. Men do not want a vicious, man hating tyrant like Hillary running the country. They want a respectful, dignified woman who can listen to reason when needed.
b)She is dynamic, and a great speaker. Rice has a PHD, she is incredibly smart, and a gifted orator. Look at her hearings for Sec. of State, she was fantastic under pressure. I have also seen her speak in person, and she has a presence when she walks in the room, and captivates an audience. She also isn't very outspoken because she knows her role in the administration. She will not upstage the President, but she could if she wanted. Further, the blacks don't vote for figures like Alan Keyes for the same reasons white don't vote for him. He's too radical! Rice is not a radical. She is religious, but doesn't throw it in people's faces like Keyes does.

3) Dean is a joke. He's a tool for the Democrats. The only reason he's chair, is so he won't run in 08'. Five months in the deep south? I'll believe it when I see it! Dean is a north-eastern, liberal yuppie. He won't survive there five weeks. He'll go insane. Further, he doesn't represent the values of the people in the south.

But go ahead and send him there, go ahead and let him scream in the 100 degree heat to Mississippi rednecks that hate gays, want to keep their money from Feds who redistribute it to minorities (who they also hate), and want to retain their 2nd Ammendment rights. Reader, I think you a bit naive! But go ahead send him...GIT ER' DONE!

Polemical:

Dean had Iraq exactly right. He told Americans at least a thousand times that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, that North Korea was a bigger danger, that a war in Iraq would cost more money than it is worth, etc., etc., etc.

Every single thing Dean said about Iraq has been vindicated. Iraq did not have WMD. North Korea produced the bomb while the US was bombing Baghdad. The United States is wasting hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars trying to democratize Iraq when it is apparent that the vast majority of Iraqis do not want us there and do not appreciate our "help."

Dean went against the grain in making all these statements. The New York Times, Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Lieberman, Powell, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Hillary Clinton, just about every single major political figure and media outlet had it wrong but Dean.

Rob Foshee:

1. We shower Israel with gifts of tanks, missiles, interest-free loans, etc. As a result, Israel has one of the most high-tech armies in the world, possessing state-of-the-art weapons and computer systems. Israel has an anti-ballistic missile defense system ("Hetz") and is working with the US on development of a tactical high energy laser system against medium range rockets (called Nautilus Thel). When Israel wants such weapons, the U.S. says nothing and/or gladly donates the weapons to Israel. When an Arabic country tries to acquire such weapons, the U.S. calls the country a terrorist state.

2. You are probably aware that the U.S. ALWAYS votes with Israel at the U.N. Often the U.N. will attempt to condemn Israel for slaughtering Palestinians. The U.S. always opposes the censure. The U.S. should show more spine and should join other countries in condemming Israel when it commits atrocities.

3. Regarding those websites you listed: do you understand the difference between an objective and a biased source? The Jewishvirtual library? C'mon, you can do better than that. Can't you?

4. U.S. foreign policy has not only recently "tilted" toward Israel. U.S. foreign policy has ALWAYS favored Israel. The Israeli lobby is powerful in the United States, and there is no countervailing lobby.

5. I do not question that the U.S. should work with Israel. Let's agree that (1) the U.S. and Israel share some mutual enemies; (2) Israel can help the U.S. in many important ways; (3) having an alliance with Israel is a good thing. However, there is a difference between working with Israel and letting Israel do whatever it wants. Our leaders should not be afraid to stand up to Israel when it starts bulldozing refugee camps, shooting schoolchildren and destroying hospitals. Requesting that Israel desist such actions is perfectly reasonable, and making such public requests would improve the United States' standing in the Arab world. This is important because, let's face it, the United States needs to work with Arabic countries too--to get oil, to track terrorists, etc.

6. Israel is not a democracy. It is a theocracy. It is a state "for the Jewish people." It puts quotas on the number of gentiles that are allowed to live there.

Christopher:

1. It depends on how you define "conservative." Heaven knows, there are lots of different strains of conservatism. It's a close call (you'll probably agree with me there), but I think Bush is more conservative. Here are a few reasons:
a. bigger tax cuts;
b. more frequent invocations of God/Jesus Christ;
c. opposition to stem-cell research;
d. opposition to gay marriage;
e. considered amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
The two share the same foreign policy (frame everything as a battle of good against evil), and both support the death penalty. Bush may be more of a big-government president, but I still think he is socially more conservative than Reagan (at least if his policies are the judge), so I give the nod to Bush.

2.(a). They are both power-women. They talk fast, wear suits, have female attorney haircuts, etc. If those are the two major party candidates then a lot of male voters will stay home on election day or else will vote independent. Neither figure has that warm, graceful, fuzzy, girlish quality that men expect from women.
(b). Her credentials are not impressive. She went to the University of Denver. The average SAT score there is, what, 1000? Guess where she got her PHD? Yes, you got it! The University of Denver. Not exactly a mecca of academic excellence. Her resume "don't impress me much" to borrow a Shania Twain line. She is not that gifted a speaker either. She is adequate and competent, but not exciting or extraordinary. No independents will be standing up and cheering after hearing her speak.
(c). Rightly or wrongly, blacks call Condi "Aunt Jemima." They will not vote for her.

3. Dean is actually a big proponent of Second Amendment rights. He fought gun control bills as VT governor. This was the one blemish on his resume in the eyes of liberals. You dump on him and say he will not get anywhere in the deep south. You might be right. However, he is excited about the job, and his tenacity is unquestioned. I think he might surprise you and a lot of other skeptics. And even if he fails to make much progress in the South his fundraising abilities make him a good pick for chairman. The more money the Democrats have, the more money they can pump into their candidates' campaigns. Raising funds will be his primary job, and it is a job he will do well.

As if on cue Ben-T proves me right about the neocons and empire. Sigh.

Reader, Bush isn't a conservative that is silly, but you are right Dean was the only player speaking the truth about Iraq that is why I wanted him to get the nomination. I don't want to get into this argument just showing you some support.

Reader,

let's continue this debate on who is the bigger conservative...Reagan or Bush. As I consider myself to have some authority on this subject, I will address some of your statements.

1)
a) Reagan's tax cuts reduced the tax system from something like 14 brackets to three! His cuts may not have been bigger, but they were landmark. The concept of trickle-down (aka, supply side) economics came to the forefront in American economics for the first time, and much of conservative economic thought now exists because of this theory and Reagan's use of it. His cuts have also proved to be more far reaching, while Bush's have not yet proved that.

b) Scholars have often wrote about Reagan's deep devotion to God, from the time he was a little boy in Iowa, under his mother Nelle's influence, until the day he wrote his farewell letter to the American people in the mid 90's. From the time Reagan governed California (and before), be publically acknowledged his belief that God's will brought him to the public forefront. After he nearly died in 81' at the hands of John Hinkley Jr., Reagan told his friends, advisors, and religious influences that he believed God spared him, and that the rest of his time on earth would be devoted to His work; which Reagan believed would be to bring down Communism, the great evil of the his day. On a side note, when Reagan was shot, many witnesses have said that he expressed more concern over Hinkley's soul than his own well-being.

Reagan made many, many public references to God, especially when talking about Communism. However, saying that Bush made MORE references does not mean he was more conservative. Reagan has his own style, and invoked the savior's name on occasion, but did not feel it neccessary to pronounce his faith as Bush does. I think that Reagan was just as, if not more, devoted to his faith than Bush.

c & d) Nice try, but neither of these issues relate to Reagan, nor can Bush be compared with Reagan on these because they weren't even on the radar in the 80's.

e) Yes Bush does want to outlaw gay marriage, but he is in favor of civil unions. So he is not as conservative on this issue as many think. The radicals conservatives do not like his policy on this issue.

f) Foreign policy is very similar, but you forgot to address that Bush is a globalist, while Reagan was not. Reagan was much more America first than Bush is. Bush may edge Reagan slightly on social issues (Faith-based initiative), but Reagan far outweighs Bush on fiscal matters.

If I scaled this on a 100% basis, I would say Reagan wins like 54/46.

2) We will have to just disagree on the Rice/Clinton thing. I have seen Rice speak, I happen to think she is very graceful and more feminine than Clinton. As far as her education, I think it is unfair of you to discredit her degree and credentials because she went to Denver. I have little respect for anyone who comes out of the Ivy League with a degree in poltical science or public policy. I think these schools still have Socialist teachers, teach history incorrectly, and are not neccessarily the best. I for example, went to a very small, conservative college, got a fantastic education, and many outside of my area have never heard of the school (it's one of the best liberal arts schools in the country). When it comes down to it, a lot of your education is determined by what you put into it, and Rice definitely has gone the extra mile.

I also disagree, and think that blacks will vote for Rice on much higher proportion's than they voted for Bush. I'm saying she's going to get 87% like Kerry did, but she will get 40-50%.

3) Yes, you are right, Dean is a great fundraiser, and he is a good communicator. But you fail to realize one thing. The Dems actually raised more money than the GOP in 2004. It was their MESSAGE that didn't get them elected. Having an ultra-liberal like Dean as your party chairman is dangerous, because he is sending the wrong message to the people, that the Democrats are far left. The Dems need to move towards the middle to compete in 2008, not go left again.

Reader writes, referring to Condoleezza Rice,

"(b). Her credentials are not impressive. She went to the University of Denver. The average SAT score there is, what, 1000? Guess where she got her PHD? Yes, you got it! The University of Denver. Not exactly a mecca of academic excellence. Her resume "don't impress me much" to borrow a Shania Twain line. She is not that gifted a speaker either. She is adequate and competent, but not exciting or extraordinary. No independents will be standing up and cheering after hearing her speak."

Firstly, to speak as though where a person attended college is the end-all be-all of their credentials is plainly ignorant and insanely condescending. John McCain graduated at the very bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, Dick Cheney graduated from the University of Wyoming, Abe Lincoln never went to college, etc. Are you saying that Dick Cheney has no credentials? He is a forensic and policy titan. You lost a lot of credibility, Reader, with this gross display of arrogance. Is an expert on Russia, who can speak its language fluently, and someone who is an expert pianist and who has worked with presidential administrations on foreign policy a lightweight? If you want to talk about lightweights, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright come to mind. I would say that not only is Condoleezza Rice extremely qualified, she is a Renaissance woman. Have you ever heard of Stanford, Reader? She was a professor there as well.

Adequate and competent, but not extraordinary? Tell that to the 9/11 Commissioners who had their lunches handed to them. You can go to C-Span.org and check it out for yourself.

No independents will be standing up and cheering after hearing her speak? I think she proved her political mettle when she toured Europe and had everyone slobbering all over her. She has grace, poise, and a very well-cultivated speaking style by all objective standards.

Reader

What you wrote has been clearly lifted straight from the talking points of the main-stream news media. This is not very hard to do. Simply blindly swallow what they feed you. This clearly does not seem to be a postion you reasoned into, therefore, it is unlikely anyone could reason you out of it, nevertheless, I will briefly discuss your points and provide the opposite perspective. You generally will not get this perspective from the main-stream news media.
1.) It is true that the United States sells weapons to Israel. The United States has sold weapons to most of the Arab states at one time or another. The United States even once sold weapons to Iraq. The Arab states can purchase weapons from Russia, China, Europe, or anywhere else for that matter. Israel can only purchase weapons from the USA. Simply trying to acquire high tech weapons does not make them terrorist states. What they would do with them is the salient point. Israel has repaid all of the loans granted to it by the USA. The source I presented to you previously will document all of this. It makes good strategic sense for the USA to work with Israel on weapons development. Israel is a very resourceful country who has survived against very difficult odds and we have the same enemies. Even if Israel were to disappear tonight, the only thing that would change is that jihadist assets that are now deployed against Isael would be deployed elsewhre.

2.)Does the United States always vote with Israel at the UN. The short answer to this is no. From 1973-2003 the UN has adopted somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 resolutions critical of Israel. The USA has vetoed 37 of them. Either by voting with the secuirty council or abstaining, the United States has supported the security council's criticism of Israel approximately 2/3 of the time. In 2004 the United States abstained on a UN resolution condeming Israel concerning its "occupation" of so called "Palestinian" territories. The notion that the United States always supports Israel simply is not supported by the facts. These figures are from the United States state department. Israel does not slaughter Palestinians. Israel defends itself. The ana-lysis you are getting from the main-stream news media is misleading. For examples, the Palestinians count the homicide bomber as a casualty. The Palestinians have the crazy action of firing live ammunition in the air at rallies. People die from this. Their statistics include these as casualties. The Israeli health care system is among the best in the world. The Palesinian system is incomptent. The Israelis have offered to treat Palestinian terrorists but the Palesinians have often refused leaving their people to die and to be counted as casualties. This is documented in the book "The Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz, pages 123-133, 140-153. You can refer to this for a more detailed ana-lysis. It requires no spine to cower before bullies who could seriously hurt your economy by shutting a vital source of oil. It does require a spine to support a small democratic country who has no natrual resources. It would be unethical to compromise Israeli security to keep middle eastern oil flowing. We must get to work on finding alternatives to oil!! The UN is fundamentally anti-American and anti-Israel. This organization has become a virtual Arab proxy. To expect Israel to submit to the UN is a bit like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The reliance on the UN is a flaw in American policy. We should withdraw from this corrupt organization asap.

3.) Yes I do understand the difference between a biased and an objective source. I might ask you if you do. Your talking points are lifted straight from the main-stram news media. Even a cursory glance of the reporting of the main-steam media indicates they are biased against Israel. This documented at www.honestreporting.com. Admitedly the American media is not quite as bad as foreign media outlets. Frankly, given the recent scandals involving the main-stream news media, the sources I refer to a far more trustworthy. Eason Jordan and Dan Rather probablly ring a bell. In any event, among elite circles, taking shots at Israel will cost nothing. Defending Israel can be a risky endeavor.

4.) US foreign policy has not always favored Israel. I demonstrated this in point 2. The USA did not cast its first veto in the UN secuirty council until 1972. The current military aid did not start until 1974. By the Israel lobby you are probably referring to AIPAC. The AIPAC is only one of many lobbies. You have the lobbies for the oil companies. Taiwan has a lobby to represent them. The terrorists have their proxy known as CAIR. The political scene is absolutely swimming in countervailing lobbies.

5.)You suggest having an aliance with Israel is a good thing. The Arabs disagree. They do not think Israel has a right to exist. Therein lies the heart of the matter. American foreign policy has sometimes tilted in Israel's direction at other times it has tilted in the direction of the Arabs. At still other times, America has played the role of a broker that treats both parites as equals. Arabs have benefited to a far greater degree from American foreign policy than Israel ever has. Their problem is that America's foreign policy generally holds that Israel should be able to exist as a Jewsih nation. The Arabs will oppose any foreign policy that benefits Israel. In the long run, the Islamic Extremists are going to oppose anyone who will not bow the knee before them. Israel does not do anything it wants to do. Recently Israel wanted to sell advanced weapons to China. America put tremedous pressure on Israel not to sell these to China. The last I heard Israel canceled this transaction. I'm not sure what the latest is on this. I think the government was right to oppose this sale. The pressure was due in part to the Tawianese lobby.

6.) Israel a theocracy? I think I have some idea where you may have gotten this idea from. I suspect it came from the author of "imperial hubris." He also thinks Israel controls American foreign policy. I have already shown this notion to be false. In other words, this person lacks credibiltiy. Its one thing for a non professional to fall for this. A CIA veteran should know better. While it is true Israel places limits on imigration, this is a good idea. One's country can be thought of as their house. You would not want people to be guests in your home who would destroy your house and possibly do much worse things. Well, neither does Israel. I actually think America needs to limit imigration. This would be good for our country. Msny who are coming in here simply don't respect us and our current border situaion is not optimal for national security. Israel offers freedom of religon to all of its citizens. Israeli law states thaw "whoever does anything that is likely to violate the freedom of access to members of the various religons to the places that are sacred to them is liable to imprisionment for a term of up to five years." This is more than can be said for Arab countries who genrally do not offer freedom of religon. Israeli Arabs enjoy more rights in Israel than they do in the rest of the Arab world.

Having written all of this, simply because you took your talking points straight from the main-stream media does not make them wrong, nor does it make me right. Lets summarize. Israel is a tiny nation of approximately 6,000,000. This tiny nation of 6,000,000 people has virtually no natrual resources and has only one ally, furthermore, this ally has not always been exactly enthusiastic in its support. Israel's middle eastern neighbors consist of 22 countries whose population is in excess of 100,000,000. These countries are awash in oil. This gives them hugh amounsts of money to buy influence. These countries have numerous and very powerful allies, such as Russia and China. The Arab allies very enthusiastically support them. Israel is at a major disadvantage here. In otherwords, Israel is simply in no position to be able to influence American foreign policy to the degree you give them credit for. It is true that American foreign policy has tended to tilt in Israel's direction. This is not becuase of some lobby. It is simply because the two countries have mutual interests.

"Israel is not a democracy. It is a theocracy."

-Reader

They are not mutually exclusive. Israel is a democratic nation with strong roots in the Jewish faith, and it is a state for the Jewish people. Religion and Government can both have roles in the nation, it is not a zero sum game. Israel is a democracy with theocratic influence from the Jewish church.

A true theocracy is a state like Iran, where an extreme interpretation of Shariah law is wrathfully imposed on the people by an oppressive dictatorship, and almost anyone who does not live under the tenents of Mullah-brand Islam is severly punished.

Christopher:

1. I welcome the debate the Bush/Reagan debate.

a. The Reagan tax cuts were beasts of a different kind. Reagan overhauled the tax code for the better. During his presidency, over-priced real estate in the hands of limited partnerships generated immense (and illegitimate) depreciation deductions. Reagan closed this loophole. He also repealed the General Utilities doctrine. The reason he was able to lower tax rates was because he also shut down abusive loopholes such as these. The money that Treasury generated from closing these loopholes was passed on to taxpayers. These tax measures were actually applauded by many liberal economists because they increased the burden on wealthy individuals who had been buying shelters to avoid the bite of the tax system, and lowered the burden on low to middle-income taxpayers.
Bush's tax cuts are of a different order. Bush actually wants to tax labor and not capital. For example, a recent Bush administration policy proposal would increase SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES--a tax on labor. Yet at the same time, Bush has been working hard to reduce the tax rate on dividends (a form of capital)--from 30% to 15% already, and he wants to reduce the rate even lower to 0%. All these measures are pro big business, pro wealthy taxpayer and anti-little guy. Accordingly, these policies have been critiqued vigorously by liberal economists and tax policy experts.
The point of all this is that whereas Reagan's tax proposals were of the Robin Hood variety (close corporate loopholes, and spread that money to individuals), Bush's tax proposals are of the Enron variety (do whatever it takes to get money where I want it--in this case, to "my base," the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers).

b. Actually, Reagan was a privately religious person. In the words of one of his son's, spoken at Reagan's funeral service, "unlike some politicians [read: Dubya], my father did not wear his religion on his sleeve." Indeed, Bush's religious conservatism is so overwhelming that, when asked to name his favorite "political philosopher," he named Jesus Christ. No president for the last 100 years has invoked Jesus Christ so repeatedly as Bush. No other recent president has asked millions of Americans to pray for him the way Bush has. No other recent president has publicly stated that, when asked to make tough decisions, he "prays a lot." It is questionable whether Bush's faith is as genuine or profound as Reagan's faith. But there is no question that Bush talks about his faith a lot more than did Reagan, and is also a lot more comfortable mentioning Christ and religion in speeches and interviews.

c. Can you name a single social issue significant enough to prompt Reagan to propose a constitutional amendment? I can't. Hundreds of conservatives have written articles recently complaining about the way Reagan was portrayed in a recent television documentary (the documentary claims that Reagan is said to have said he hates gays). In those articles, conservatives have written that Reagan generally was tolerant of gays and had no prejudice against them. Assuming this is true, what reason do we have for believing Reagan would have pushed for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

d. Bush's foreign policy IS America first. "You are either on our side, or you are against us." It doesn't get any more America first than that!

e. If you think that Reagan only wins 54/46, you are conceding that Bush is pretty damn conservative!

2. I agree with you 100% regarding academic credentials. I'm a proponent of small liberal arts colleges myself, and I generally think that these schools give students a better education than most of the bigger, better-known schools. With regards to Condi specifically, I simply am not impressed with the University of Denver. It is not a small school, it does not have stringent admissions requirements and it does not have a world-class political science faculty (it may even have socialists on the faculty).
I recognize that some brilliant people attend average schools and do not excel at those schools. Hell, Winston Churchill was a pretty good politician, and he was the second-lowest ranked student in his boarding school's graduating class (he never went on to attend university). That said, you were bragging about Condi's PHD. A PHD is nothing to brag about. Anyone who can afford a PHD can get one nowadays, and Condi did not get a PHD from one of the more selective programs, so I simply do not think that her PHD is a lofty credential. Also, Condi's PHD pales in comparison to Hillary's Yale JD.

3. Dean won't hurt the Democrats in '08. The focus will be on the Democratic presidential nominee, not on him. It's not like independents will refuse to vote Democrat because Dean is the chairman. Hell, independents like Dean.

Polemical:

Look, I understand what Condi's credentials are. I'll concede that she is probably more talented than 90% of Americans. I just am not blown away by her abilities. Christopher made it seem like she was some kind of academic wizard because she received a PHD. I question whether a PHD from the University of Denver is anything to brag about. I'm not saying that a PHD from the University of Denver = incompetence or stupidity or anything like that. I recognize that extremely intelligent people attend the University of Denver, and that some of those students are as talented as their counterparts at HYS.

But there is a difference between being a talented person and being presidential material. I have seen nothing in Condi to lead me to believe that she is anything more than a highly-competent administrator. All her jobs have been administrative, and I think that this is where her strength lies. I question whether she would be an effective campaigner, and would hold the interest of large audiences of people every night. In a debate, I think someone like Hillary would eat her lunch every time. Also keep in mind that, as a candidate, Condi would have to defend the Bush administration's decision to invate Iraq (a decision favored by less than 50% of Americans). She would also be attacked for other Bush screw-ups. In short, her opposition both in the primaries and in the presidential race would have plenty of ammunition. Given all these things, I do not think that Condi would make a strong presidential candidate.

Rob Foshee:

I appreciate your perspective. Thank you.

1. The mainstream media loves Israel. The three prominent newspapers in the United States are the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. These three publications print the big stories first. Most other newspapers are either owned by one of these three papers, or else are derivative.
The Sulzberger family owns the New York Times. The Sulzbergers are Jewish, they are pro-Israel and the NY Times caters to a large Jewish audience. There are frequently guest columns on the editorial page written by Israelis and/or columnists from the Jerusalem Post. Only rarely do you see articles representing the opposing point of view.

The Meyer family owns the Washington Post (remember, it was Katherine MEYER Graham). The Meyers are Jewish, and they are pro-Israel. They hired Richard Cohen and Charles Krauthemer (sp?) to write for the Post editorial page. Can you name any other two columnists working for a major newspaper who are as stridently pro-Israel?

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Dow Jones & Company. Last time I checked, the chairman and CEO of Dow Jones was Peter Kann. Care to guess his religious affiliation? Find me a single pro-Palestinian op/ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal over the last ten years and I will mail you a check for $50.

2. The United States does sell weapons to lots of countries. But the United States ALWAYS sells weapons to Israel, no questions asked. The two counties have a weapons-dealing relationship that goes above and beyond the United States' relationship with other countries. What other countries does the United States work with to build weapons?
Financially, there is no question that the United States shows favoritism towards Israel. The federal government gives more aid to Israel than to New Jersey. Explain this please.

3. Israel is more critical of itself than the United States is of it! Just yesterday, Israel announced that it will no longer bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers. It came up with this policy on its own. Why didn't American leaders demand this from Israel decades ago?

4. My understanding is that "the Case for Israel" has been debunked as a fraud. It has been said to have been based on another work that has been proven to be inaccurate. I do not know the truth of these charges, but I will take any information cited in the book with a grain of salt.

5. The US abstained? Exactly! Did any other countries abstain? How many times has the United States been the only country to vote with Israel?

6. It does not take any spine for American leaders to support Israel. As I stated before, the Israeli lobby is powerful, and there is no countervailing lobby. Jews have much more influence in the United States than do Arabs. They have more money, and a higher percentage of them vote than any other demographic. The lobby I am referring to includes not only AIPAC and other formal pro-Israel organizations (such as the ADL), but it also includes millions of wealthy individuals living in the United States who will not vote for a president who is not overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Politicians want these votes, and have nothing to lose by courting Jewish voters. By courting these voters what do they lose--the Arab oil merchant vote?

7. The UN is anti-US and anti-Israeli? Why? Because it doesn't put a rubber stamp on EVERYTHING these two nations demand?

8. Right. The US should strive for balance in the middle east. It should stick its neck out and condemn Israel for killing schoolchildren, denying water to Palestinians, building a wall that annexes land, etc. But it should also continue to condemn terrorists for suicide-bombings, etc. Basically, the US should act as a broker and try to stabilize the region as much as possible. That is in everyone's interests.

9. Please do not ascribe to me another author's ideas. I am not familiar with the tract you are attacking. Israel most certainly is a theocracy. It is a nation devoted to a religious group--Jews. The country puts quotas on the number of Arabs and Christians that may live there. Only a theocracy would enact such a law.

10. Russia and China are trading partners with some Arab countries. But how much money do you think Russia and China give to Arab countries? Without doubt, whatever the figure is, it is maybe 1/100 of the amount of money the US pumps into Israel every year.

Thank you for your intriguing and thoughtful post!

Ben-T:

Nah, it's a theocracy. Its founding mission is explicitly religious--a state "for the Jewish people." And it limits citizenship based on religious affiliation. Even more conclusive, the State of Israel calls citizens of its nation "Jewish" rather than "Israeli"! One citizen who wanted to have his designation changed from "Jewish" to "Israeli" was shot down by the Israeli Supreme Court! As Justice Agranat put it in that case, "there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people."

Sounds like a theocracy to me.

Dean will not take the Dems any closer to winning major elections. The Dems seem to think the Oval Office is the only prize out there. They keep losing seats in Congress and the State Capitals.
Does it surprise anyone that in the liberal big tent Democratic party that yet again another middle aged New England White Male??

“I wrote a section on the myth of American imperialism in WTLHA.” ~ Dan

I know. It’s my favorite book.

“My basic point was, and is, that to call America an empire you have to redefine empire--which is why leftists often use the phrase neoimperialist. In other words, you can point to specific places--Ireland, India, Palestine--ruled by the British Empire. You really can't do that with the American "empire." Sure, there are places--Afghanistan and Iraq--where we have troops, but this indicates we are at war not that we are imperialists. The notion that we control South Korea economically or militarily is ludicrous. If we are running things in Iraq and Afghanistan ten years from now, the people calling America an empire might have a point. I guess the larger point is that if America is an empire, it is the strangest acting empire in history. Did we seize Kuwait, France, or South Korea after liberating them? Contrast our post-WWII behavior to that of the Soviets. They gobbled up nearly a dozen countries. We ultimately left the nations we defeated to their own devices.” ~ Dan

Thanks, Dan. Your writing in Why The Left Hates America helps patriotic Americans refute the anti-American slander that seeps from many sources, and I knew you’d help me out with my little problem. Your insightful points on American “imperialism” reveal the mental hurdles the Left must leap over to make its weird arguments against America and reflects the idea behind your statements on the “patriarchy” that suppresses American women. If America is an empire, what was the Soviet Union or the British Empire? Likewise (and as you ask in WTLHA), if American women live under a patriarchy, what term accurately expresses the situation affecting women in certain Middle Eastern and Asian cultures?

Perhaps we should extend some unsolicited advice. We can stress that, as crazy as it sounds, making sense is possible. Surely, accurate, comparative expressions do exist. Examples abound. For instance, one can describe a polar bear as a “big, hairy mammal that never has sexual intercourse with human females,” even if this statement also applies to Michael Moore. Also, if discussing gun control, never say that guns kill people inasmuch as this leaves you open for your opponent suggesting that Rosie O’Donnell’s fork made her fat. Careless regard for words and their meaning results in sloppy arguments that often suggest that you don’t really have a point, and this makes you look stupid.

Dan, as you put it, feminists abuse language by freely hurling about terms without regard for their meanings. It seems that one can apply the same phraseology to individuals decrying the empire of America.

Reader

I will attempt to address what you have written. I'm not sure what difference this will make, as I still don't think this is something you have reasoned into. Copying the talking points of the main stream news media is quite easy. Real research is hard.

1.)Many of the main stream news papers are owned by Jewish families. I'm not ignorant of this fact. The fact is American Jewry is largely a left leaning bunch. They seem to lean farther to the left than main-stream America. Approximately 76% or so of America Jews vote with the democratic party. The base of the democractic party is not pro-Israel at all. They primarily support the party whose agenda is vehemently anti-Israel. In otherwords, the primary support for Israel is not going to be found in American Jews. By the way a few op/ed articles that are pro-Israel does not change the balance of the coverage. The editorial pages are known by everyone to be opinion pages, therefore, they are easily dismissed. The acutal news sections are generally either impartial or lean toward the Arab view. www.honestreporting.com has documented this. Treating a western style democracy as a equal to a band of thugs is at best misguided and at is a symptom of the moral bankruptcy that infects much of the western world. As stated previously, the American media is not quite as bad as the international media. American support for Israel comes primarily not from American Jews but from Christians and other conservative minded Americans.

2.) In raw dollars the United States does give more money to Israel than to any other country. This is not disputed by the either the pro-Israel or anti-Israel groups. The figures are misleading. For example, aid to the tsunami victims is already in excess of aid given to Israel. This does not even count the cost of the fuel for the military equipment, the cost of transportation etc, etc nor does it even account for the intangible costs of moving military units away from defense positions in the war on terror to assist in aid. The United States has spent billions in the defense of Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Kuwait, and other places. www.diplomad.blogspot.com pointed out some time ago that these numbers are not accounted for when figuring foreign aid. If you add this in, the Arabs receive far more from America than Israel does. Given current geo-political realities, it is unlikely congress would authorize military protection for a small country, with few natrual resources, who is hated by people who have resources we need. Hopefully I'm wrong. Compromising Israel so the western world can have oil would be an absolutely dispicable action. Yes it is true the United States does work with Israel. This is because the countries have common enemies, not because of some all powerful lobby. Also, many of the so called neo-conservatives clearly understand that Israel acts as a buffer between the west and the terrorists. Weakening Israel only weakens the west. As I have stated previously, if Israel disappears this will not end global jihad. All it will mean is Jihadists assets would be deployed elsewhere. If Israel receives more aid than New Jersey it is because Israel is on the front line of the war on terrorism. Without Israel to act as a buffer, the cost of national defense would increase exponentially.

3.) The State Department has put pressure on Israel. Yes I know Israel has said they will no longer bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers. They have been using their homes as a base for terrorists planning and bomb making. Also, these homes contain tunnels for smuggling weapons. Why has Israel done this? Israeli attitudes appear to lean farther to the left than main-stream American attitudes. One of the problems with leftism is that it is morally bankrupt. To treat a band of murderous thugs as equal to those who are simply trying to live their lives in peace as equal is at best dangerous and at worst it is a recipe for disaster. Western policy has often been to treat the terrorists and those they are trying to kill as morally equivelant. This is a symptom of the moral rot that infects our society. Unfortunately Israel appears to be infected to a greater degree than the USA currently is. I say "appears" as I cannot be 100% certain. I really don't know. The degree to which Western Europe is infected with this moral rot is far worse than either the USA or Israel is. What I can say is this policy will not win them any friends among the extremists. It will only encourage them. Israeli courts have also been shown by some commentators to be left leaning. We have no business demanding anything from Israel. They are allies. We do not control them. We should think about asking to please reconsider this misguided attempt at treating terrorists and their victims as morally equivalent. I really do hope Israel's policy works and we can acheive peace. We all desparately need peace!! The state department has been instrumental in pressuring Israel from time to time, so I'm not entirely sure American pressure did not play a role here.

4.) The controversy concerning "The Case for Israel" had to do supposedly with the failure to properly footnote something. I don't fully understand this, as I'm not an author and don't understand these requirments. There was a lively debate on this between the author and someone who writes for www.counterpunch.org. The salient point is the editor at counterpunch was not able to refute the facts presented. What it appears to come down to, at least in this particular instance, is a hyper-technicality and not to the facts themselves. The counter punch editor was not able to refute the facts but he was able to assault Mr. Dershowitz's character. Alan Dershowitz is a professor at Harvard. Taking a pro-Israel stance within academia is hazarous to your career. If Mr. Dershowitz committed fraud or based his information on falsehoods, Harvard would have run him out on a rail. They haven't. This how the left works. If they can't refute the message, attack the character of the messenger. Acutally I would consider it an honor and a priveledge to be libeled by www.counterpuch.org. I would not rely soley on this source or any other. You seem to lack the ability to even examine what the other side says.

5.)Abstaining on a resolution condeming Israel is the same as voting for it. At least, this is how our friends and our enemies interpret it. The United States and Israel vote together because they have mutual interests and they face the same enemies and not because of some lobby.

6.) I partially addressed this in point number 1. American Jews are not the biggest supporters of Israel. The biggest supporters of Israel in the United States are Christians and other conserviative minded individuals. Christians can write neat articles and they can engage in some very loud rhetoric but they have very little influence over American policy, foreign or domestic. The same is true for any type of conservative ideals. Of course the left has a very wild imagination, in this regard!! The Republican party is dominated by big government liberals. The Democratic party is dominated by leftists. Mr. Flynn explains the difference between leftists and liberals in his excellent book "Why the Left hates America." Pro Israel lobbies are just one part of the lobby spectrum. One countervailing lobby is the terrorist proxy known as CAIR. Oil interests also play a large role. We are absolutely swimming in countervailing lobbies. To say there are none is a bit like looking at a charging bull and saying "what charging bull?" This is a leftist technique. When the facts don't agree with your preconcieved notion, simply make things up. In conclusion, American policy has often tilted toward Israel because the political entities that dominate both countries have mutual enemies and mutual interests and not because of some lobby and most definitely not because American Jews have been overly enthusiatic about supporting Israel. Of course Americans Jews, like all groups, are diverse. So there clearly are some who are enthusiastic supporters of Israel. There are just not enough of them who are pro-Israel to alter the course of American foreign policy toward Israel. American Jews vote over 70% democrat. The base of the democratic party is vehmently anti-Israel. American Jews are less likely to be supportive of Israel than main-stream Americans are.

7.) The UN has become a terrorists proxy. To ask Israel to submit to the UN, would be asking them to committ suicide. The sooner the United States withdraws from this organization the better. Its really not hard to understand why Europe kow tows to the Arabs. If the Arabs cut off the oil to them this would cripple their economies. The United States would be hurt but not as badly. Israel should not be expected to commit suicide for western oil interests.

8.)The United States does strive for balance in the middle east. It has criticized Israel. The United States has often taken a hypocritical stance in this regard. The IDF takes more care to avoid killing non combatants than the United States and its allies do. The UN has never met a suicide bomber it did not like. In fact, this has often been the reason why the United States has vetoed UN resolutions. Not because they condemmed Israel but because they failed to include condemnation for the homicide bombers!! Post 911 American foreign policy has largely been to act as a broker. To treat a group murderous thugs as equal to people who simply want to live in peace is at best dangerous at worst it is morally reprehensible. You are asking the USA to do what it is already doing!! Israel needs an ally not a broker.

9.) Israel as a theocracy. NOT!! The point I was trying to make is I'm not sure where you got this idea but I suspect you lifted it straight out of Marxists and goofy leftists propaganda. It is true that neo-conservatives may use the term "democracy" a bit to loosely, much like they tend to use the term "fascists" to loosely. Israel grants its Arab citizens far more rights than are granted to Arabs in other middle eastern countries. Israeli-Arabs have the right to vote. They are even able to serve in the Knesset. Arabs living in Israel have far more rights and a far better standard of living than they do anywhere else in the middle east. Israel guarantees religous freedom for all of its citizens. If the Israelis don't like the government's policies they can vote to change them. Those living in Arab countries don't have this option. Israel, especially considering it is surrounded by neighbors who want to destroy it, has the best human rights standards in the world. A nation has the right to limit who it wants to allow in its country. I wish America would adopt tougher immigration standards. By the way, the separation fence simply is not what your sources in the main-stream news media have told you. www.honestreporting.com/ariticles/45884734/critiques/Not_an_Apartheid_Wall.asp

10.) Russia is probably going to sell missles to Syria that have the potential to alter the balance of power in the middle east. China has made military agreements with Saudi Arabia. China and Russia are enthuisatic supporters of the terrorist supporting states and can be pretty much counted on to support these states at all times. The mutual enemies of America and Israel are making military alliances with each other. This explains why America and Israel work together on weapons systems. It is true that American foreign policy has probably tended to tilt in Israel's direction because both countries have mutual interests, however, post 911 it has tended to be much closer to the position of a broker than that of an ally. I have already tried to explain the danger of treating terrorists criminals and peaceful people as equals. Given the current geo-political situation, Israel just cannot count on the kind of support from the United States that the terror supporting states can count on from Russia, China, or Europe.

Rob

P.S. - I am a Certified Public Accountant. I can personally attest to the fact that the Bush tax cuts have been a hugh benefit to middle class families.

I somehow forgot to mention that Russia is assisting Iran in its nuclear program. Not even the staunchest supporters of the terrorists or of the the regimes who support them think this program is for peaceful purposes. To date the United States simply has not shown same level of committment to Israel that Russia and China, have shown to the terror supporting states. Nor has the United States shown the same level of committment to Israel it showed to Kuwait during the gulf war

Rob Foshee:

You have obviously been exposed to a considerable amount of Israeli propaganda. Such brainwashing has clouded your mind and now precludes you from thinking about the middle east in a rational fashion. Nevertheless, I will respond to what you wrote--in the dim hope that I may be able to penetrate through the wall of indoctrination and uncloud what now is so muddied.

1. The American media is fanatically pro-Israel. The three major newspapers are owned by Jews, as I mentioned in my last post. Those three newspapers own most of the other major media publications in the United States. For example, the New York Times owns the Boston Globe, the Washington Post owns Newsweek, etc.
There is nary an article even remotely critical of Israel. From reading the newspapers, one would arrive at the conclusion that Israel is a weak, defenseless country relentlessly attacked by anti-semitic fanatics. In reality, Israel has one of the three strongest militaries in the world, is extremely well-funded, the people enjoy a high standard of living, and the IDF routinely launches missiles at innocent Palestinian women and children.

2. The United States gives more money to Israel than any other country. Thank you for conceding this fact. Might I also add that Israel generally receives more from the United States than the entire continent of Africa? In many African countries, the majority of people are starving, 40% of women are HIV-positive and children do not have water to drink. In comparison, Israelis have one of the highest living standards in the world--nice homes, more food than they can eat, well-paved roads, etc. Why is it that the United States pumps so much money into Israel when millions of people in other countries are starving?
Regarding Kuwait: the United States fought a war AGAINST IRAQ in the Persian Gulf. You are naive if you think the war was fought to "defend Kuwait." Common sense should tell you that the United States did not want Iraq to control the Kuwait oil, and that was the reason for the war. This is proved by the fact that the United States never gave much aid to Kuwait before the Iraqi invasion. There has never been a United States policy of showering money on Kuwait the way there has been such a policy with regards to Israel.
The tsunami victims deserve more money than Israel, silly! I know that you love Israel, and view it as the holy land, but something like 140,000 people were killed in the tsunami. There is also the risk that a lot of the survivors will catch fatal diseases. It makes more sense to give money to starving, dying people than wealthy, well-fed people, doesn't it?

3. The United States puts no pressure on Israel. Occasionlly Israel adopts rational policies, such as the latest one: "we will not bulldoze an apartment if the only terrorist living in the apartment is already dead." But the United States NEVER presses Israel to adopt such policies. Whenever Israel slaughters Palestinians the standard American response is to say: "it is okay. Israel has the right to defend itself." This is inevitably the comment made even if Israel launches a missile attack on Palestinians out of the blue.

4. "Taking a pro-Israel stance within academia is hazardous to your career." Yeah, right! Alan Derwhowitz is a professor at Harvard Law. Jews are less than 2% of the population, but they are over 33% of the student body at Harvard Law. Taking a pro-Palestinian stance at Harvard Law would be dangerous to a professor's career! The students would complain, donors would complain, and the professor would be bullied out of the school! This happened at Columbia University recently. A professor made a few critical remarks about Israel, and, next thing you knew, 2000 donors were on the phone calling for his head!
Regarding Dersh's book: he basically plagiarized Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial," a work that has been discredited for containing hundreds of factual inaccuracies. Keep on reading that Israeli propaganda, though! The truth will set you free!

5. The United States has never voted to condemn Israel for human rights abuses at the U.N. It is the only long-standing U.N. member-state of which this is true.

6. You are crazy. The single biggest donor to major party candidates is Goldman Sachs. It will withdraw funding for a candidate in a nano-second if the candidate criticizes Israel. Is it a coincidence that Goldman gave so much money to Lieberman's campaign early on?
Both parties pander to Israel and its supporters. Just look at the last presidential election. Kerry's brother is Jewish (he works at a law firm which proclaims that both the law firm and Israel are "entrepreneurial spirits" [http://www.mintz.com/israel_main.cfm]). Kerry came out in favor of the Israeli wall, he stated that "Israel has the right to defend itself," etc. His running mate, John Edwards, in a debate with Dick Cheney, related some sob story about how he was in Israel when a pizza parlor was bombed, and how the United States must protect Israel from evil terrorists.
The Republicans are like-minded. At the Republican convention, Rudy Giuliani mentioned Israel about 28 times in his speech. Bush repeated the mantra "our friend Israel" about fifty times. At the end of the day, the colors at the convention might as well have been blue and white.
You say that CAIR is influential, but I have NEVER heard American politicians pander to Arabs. Name me one prominent politician that is anti-Israel. You can't do it. Just like you can't find a pro-Palestinian column in the Wall Street Journal.
Thank you for pointing out that 70% of Jews in the United States vote Democratic. Notice how hard the Republican party is working to win their votes, and how hard Democrats are working to retain their votes. The result is one big pandering-fest, and a policy in the middle east that is certainly not even-handed.

7. Your UN conspiracy theory frightens me. I'll agree that the UN is less-than-perfect, but a "terrorist's proxy." Please. I thought this was a serious discussion, not a game of "let's pretend."

8. The United States should be neutral in the middle east. If Arial Sharon wishes to launch missiles at refugee camps, American politicians should stand up to him. Criticizing both sides for senseless killings and working with both sides to achieve peace is the policy the United States should adopt. By continuing to follow a one-sided approach, the United States is doing no good--except with the Israeli lobby--and is creating lots of enemies.

9. Typing the word "not" after an argument does not refute the argument. Hope you are aware of that.
Israel is one of the world's few theocracies. In the history of the world, it is the only country that has ever put religious quotas on its citizens.
It is a separate issue, but the notion that Israel gives Muslims lots of rights is risible. Muslim workers may not be in the state of Israel after sunset, or they may legally be shot by the IDF. A Muslim married to an Israeli may not live with his/her spouse in Israel. These are not exactly "liberal democratic" laws.

10. Israel dominates the middle east. It is the only country in the middle east that definitely has a nuclear weapon. It has one of the three most powerful militaries in the world. Whatever Russia is providing to Syria, it is insignificant compared to all the weapons and aid the United States has provided to Israel.

P.S. Congratulations on passing the CPA exam.

Reader

If you mean by propaganda, that my primary sources are something other than the main-stream news media you would be correct.

1.) I tried to point out that just because one has a Jewish name does not mean that they will be pro-Israel. Jews, like all groups, are diverse. Some of these people are pro-Israel. Some are not. www.nkusa.org is a Jewish web site that is rabidly anti-Israel. American Jews, while they are diverse, tend to lean farther to the left than main-stream Americans. American Jews are less likely to support Israel than main-stream Americans are. Jewish supporters of Israel and I think a few Christian supporters of Israel have pointed this out. If we doubt them, look at the party affiliation, over 70% Democrat. Regarding the actual reporting, in the big media you refer to, you may not be seeing the Palestinain talking points you would like to see because they simply cannot stand up to scrutiny. The big media has already been burned by "Rathergate" and "Easongate." I don't think they want to be burned again. Repeating unsupportable Palestinian diatribes, at this time, would result in even more lost credibility. Such a decision by their editors would make the previous scandals seem small in comparison. What does seem apparent to me is the most conservative of main-stream media sources, Fox News, generally seems to take a neutral approach to the Israeli/Arab war. I have already pointed out the danger of treating terrorists and those who are trying to defend themslves from the terrorists as equals. I generally like Fox news but I'm not particularly impressed with their coverage of the Israeli/Arab war. I don't watch CNN but several reports have indicated they tend to lean pro-Arab. Israel does have one of the strongest militaries in the world. I know of no reputable source who doubts this. Unfortunately, the Israeli military is not as strong as you are led to believe. The Israeli military is outnumbered by at least 5 to 1. I'm not sure of the exact numbers. This is a very conservative estimate. The total population of the Arab countries, in the middle east, is in excess of 200,000,000. They outnumber Israelis by at least 29 to 1. The Arab countries are awash in oil. With this they buy much influence and very powerful allies. The recent military sales from the United states to Egypt have eroded Israel's qualitative edge to a certain degree. China and Saudia Arabia have signed arms deals. Russia is probably going to sell missles to Syria that, according to some intellegence reports, will neutralize Israel's air power advantange and change the balance of power in the middle east. Also we must account for the fact that the Russians, Chinese, and God knows who else can be counted on to come to the aid of the Palestinians. I don't know if Israel can count on this kind of assistance from the USA. Maybe it can count on a Republican administration to come through in a crisis. I don't think it could count on a Democratic administration. To date, Israel simply has not received the kind of committment form America that the Arabs have received from Russia, China, and Western Europe. If Israel does in fact have an advantage it is a very tenuous one indeed. While I have never heard of anything indicating that the Israelis are weak, I have heard a number of stories indicating how weak the Palestinians are. These stories tend to mention the Israelis and the Americans together as allies but they conveniently forget to mention the allies of the Palestinians, furthermore, they forget to mention that the Palestinians enjoy much more enthusiastic support from their allies than the tenuous support Israel enjoys from the USA. When we look at the whole picture Israel's enemies just don't seem so weak. Israelis do enjoy a high standard of living. They have worked very hard against very difficult odds. They enjoy this high standard of living because they have worked hard and their society respects individual rights and private property. In other words, they have earned it. I congratulate them on their accomplishments. If we support the Palestinians, we will encourage them to follow Israel's example. The Palestinians live in squalor because Yessar Arafat stole the foreign aid and what he did not steal he used to try to annihilate Israel. Per capita the Palestinians receive more foreign aid than any people on earth. If they used this to better their people, rather than to benefit the kleptocracy or on homicide bombers they could enjoy the same lifestyle the Israelis enjoy. The Palesinians could learn much from Israel. For them to achieve their potential, they will have to stop blaming others and take responisibility for their situation. The terrorists have the absolutely dispicable practice of hiding among non-combatants. The terrorists who operate in Israel and Iraq both engage in this practice. This has been documented by Fox News, Fromtpagemag.com and numerous other places. The Israelis do not deliberately target civilians. The responsibility for dead civilians belongs at the feet of the terrorists, not Israel. In fact, Israel takes more precautions than even we do to avoid killing non-combatants.

2.) Africa is a bad investment right now. Its leaders are corrupt. Any money we send will simply be stolen and spent to benefit the leader and his cronies. As much as I would like to help, it is doubtful we have the resources to do this right now, as this would require toppling their governments and administering the countries for a long period of time. Besides we are a little busy right now. As you know, we are fighting a war against Islamic Extremists right now. "Why is it that the United States pumps so much money into Israel when people in other countries are starving?" The long and short answer is, national and economic interests. Israel is among the leaders in many important industries. They are among the leaders in technology and medicine to name just two. For every dollar we pump into the Israeli economy we get back at least four. American and Israeli companies have done a number of joint ventures together. It makes good business sense to invest there. Most importantly, Israel is the most important buffer we have between us and the Islamic Extremists. They also help us in weapons development. We have mutual enemies. To weaken Israel is to make our own defense more difficult and more costly. Even if Israel disappeared, global Jihad would not end. All it would mean is Jihadists assets now deployed against Israel would be deployed elsewhere. In conclusion, Africa is a place where most of the governments are corrupt. Most of the countries don't threaten us and to top it all off they don't like us very much. Without Israel the cost of national defense would increase exponentially. Some foreign policy decisions are regrettable. I will never try to pretend that America is perfect. I will battle to make sure it gets treated fairly. You seem to imply that we owe Africa something. We don't. Regarding Kuwait, you are correct. The Gulf War was not fought to defend Kuwait. It was fought because the national interest and the interest of the western world required that we not allow Kuwaiti oil to remain in Saddam's hands nor could we allow Saddam to overrun Saudi Arabia, as he certainly would have done. While the liberation and defense of Kuwait and the defense of Saudi Arabia were not the reason to be there, this was the end result. When I used the term "defend Kuwait" I was referring to the end result. Foreign is not a zero sum game. The fact is 500,000 troops were used in this war. It is iffy whether the United States would make such a committment to a tiny nation with few natrual resources. On that note, I don't think the Democrats would, as their leadership is vehemently anti-Israel. The Republcan leadership tends to lean pro-Israel, so they might. If the United States could, it would make the same committment to Kuwait all over again. Regarding a small country with few natrual resources who is hated by people whose resources we need, it is unknwn whether we still have the moral courage to make the kind of committment to them taht we made to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I hope and pray we would.
Regarding the Tsunmi vcitims, I normally would not share this, but I donated funds to relief funds. I bring this up to illustrate a point. The point is the tsunami victims deserve NOTHING!! We give because it is the right thing to do. For the record, all of the asistance we gave will not win us friends among the Islamic Extremists. They will see this as weakness. Getting American dollars should be a privledge not a right. The places hardest hit were Islamic. Their Islamic allies have large deposits of stuff we and the western world need. If Israel were hit with a disaster of this magnitude, it is iffy whether or not they could expect the same type of committment. The end result is the victims got aid. I have read, even from sources not noted for being pro-American, that the performance of the American aid workers was magnificent!! Helping the tsunami victims is a great thing. It is the right thing to do. Anyone who thinks it will win friends and influence people with the extremists is mistaken.

3.) The United States has pressured Israel from time to time. The United States threatened to withold aid based on the path of the fence. George W. Bush has said "Israel's actions are not helpful." He said this while the United States was going after the terrorists "wherever they are." The state department has referred to the settlements as "illegal." The settlements "ought to be dismantled." This just scratches the surface. Concerning bulldozing of dead terrorist homes, the Israelis do have to try and make sure these homes won't be used again as terrorists bases. Many of them have been used as bomb factories. Some of them also contain tunnels for smuggling weapons. While it is true that the United States has ackowledged "Israel has the right to defend itself," it is simply not factual to suggest the United States has never pressured Israel. Palestinians kill Israelis out of the blue. When Israel has actionable intellegence on the location of a terrorist they attempt to take out the terrorist. We do the same. Israel does not deliberately target non-combatants. The terrorists do.

4.) Being Jewish does not mean one is going to be pro-Israel. For that matter, being Arab does not mean one is a terrorists. American Jews, like all groups, are diverse. Even though all groups are diverse, you can generally find patterns within them. American Jews tend to be the following: 1.)more liberal than main-stream America. 2.)They tend to be more educated than the average American. 3.)They tend to have higher incomes than the average American. 4.) It seems they tend to live in urban areas. The cost of living tends to be higher in urban areas, so I do not know if their higher incomes result in a higher standard of living. 5.) They either tend to be less likely to support Israel than main-stream America or there is no difference between them and non-Jews concerning support for Israel. This depends on the source. I tned to think they would be less likely to support Israel given their general political party affiliation. Given their high level of education, we would expect to find them at an elite university, such as Harvard. 33% would give them substantial influence but it is not enough to control the school, especially if it meant going in the opposite direction than the other 67% wanted to go. David Horowitz and Daniel Flynn have documented substantially how the elite universities are dominated by anti-Israel and anti-American thinking. This includes Harvard. Cases of students being punished for daring to take a pro-Israel stance have been documented. Taking a pro-Israel stance at an elite university can be dangerous. Regarding the Columbia professor, I'm not sure what the story is. I know if a professor at my alma mater made statements that tried to establish moral equivalence or moral superiority of Islamic Extremists whose goal is to raise the flag of Islam over the whole world to citizens of a western style democracy or attempted to shill for Islamic Extremists. I would be outraged and would probably threaten to withold money from the school. There simply is no moral equivelance between Islamic Extremists and citizens of a western style democracy who simply want to live their lives in peace and are just trying to defend themselves. The outrage you read about is not because of some vast Jewish lobby. It is simply because most Americans still have enough of a moral compass to distinguish between citizens of a western style democracy and the Islamic extremists. Fortunately we can still use the power of money to ensrue some sanity. There is professor at Colorado who has recently gotten in trouble over anti-American remarks. He is also known to be anti-Israel. he may loose his high paying tenured position. The reason this man finds himself in the proverbial hot seat is because donors threatened to withold money from the school. What the school will need to decide is do they want the ideology, which the board agrees with, or do they want to please the alumni to keep the money coming in. They may just decide they want the money. His job was never threatened over anti-Israel remarks. Pro-Israel jsut is generally not strong enough to generate the kind of response pro-Amercan sentiment is. The same holds true for Dershowitz. If he plagiarized something, the university will fire him. Pro-Israel sentiment is very unlikely to be strong enough at Havrvard to save his job. They have not fired him yet, nor do they appear to have any plans to. As stated previously, if I ever get libeled by counterpunch.org I will consider it a great honor. What is kind of interesting is his book is not even the best pro-Israel source I know of. He is actually somewhat misguided. He opposes the settlements. What he does not understand is without these settlements Israel is more difficult to defend, which will in turn make the west more difficult to defend. The Israeli government has agreed to abandon some of the settlements, so I really do hope and pray I am wrong. We all need peace!! The book caught my eye becasue he is a liberal and a professor at an elite university. Such folks don't tend to support Israel and they don't usually write books about it. So it caught my attention. When I refrenced this book, your response is simply "propaganda." This is the strategy of leftists. They don't like it then it is "progaganda." To them anything pro-America or pro-Israel is "propaganda." One who usees this is not required to think.

5.)The UN is not even-handed. The United States and Israel have repeatedly complained that the resolutions only condemn Israel and contain no condemnation of the Palestinians. The United States has so far resisted the pressure of Arab oil interests. Good for us!!

6.)Goldman Sachs is just one company. Even if they are pro-Israel, their funding would hardly be enough to alter an election. First of all, as stated previously, most Americans understand that the citizens of a western style democracy who are simply trying to defend themslves and want to live their lives in peace are in a much better moral position than a band of Islamic Extremists who want to exterminate them. To put this another way, Israeli culture is very similiar to our own. Most Americans, on some level, understand that our culture is morally superior to Arab-Extremist culture. Now given that most Americans understand the Israeli position is morally superior to that of the Islamic Extremists, they will tend to lean to the Israeli positon. Politicians know this too. This is why, in a close race, both parties will tend to support the Israeli position. Having written this, it appears, at this time, to be a much more natrual position for the Republicans. The Democrats are led by the far left wing of their party. They understand, if they want votes, they will need to throw a few proverbial bones Joe Lieberman's way. The Republicans face a simillar situation. The Guiliani, McCain, and Schwarzenegger Republicans control the party. They must occassionally throw a few bones to the Robertson, Dobson, Falwell Republicans. Election politics is quite complicated and it is giving me a headache ana-lyzing it. The trick appears to be "hold the center" and "energize the base." Whoever can do this best gets the prize!! Given that the "center" will tend to support Israel, both parties better drift this way, at least in their rhetoric. Given the current mind set of Americans, this would be true, in any election cycle. In the current situation, it is even more crucial for politicians to support Israel. What happens in Israel is crucial for national defense. On some level, Americans understand this. In a tight election cycle, both parties will support Israel for this reason. While Americans tend to understand the Israeli position, will they defend it in a crisis. I don't know. I hope we would. On a side note, Tawain faces a simillar situation to Israel. Would Americans support Taiwan in a crisis. Again, I don't know. I hope we would. John Kerry's brother is Jewish. Interesing, I did not know that. I know Kerry's family is part Jewish. Being Jewish does not neccessarily mean you are going to be pro-Israel. Maybe his brother is pro-Israel. Maybe they needed a neat story to "hold the center." More research is in order. Thanks for the info. I never could figure out what Kerry's position was on anything!! Jews only about control 2% of the population and there simply does not appear to be enough pro-Israel sentiment among them to unilaterally alter American foreign policy in Israel's direction. Efforts to "hold the center" probablly explain why we saw the pro-Israel sentiment we saw. Ana-lyzing election politics is hard!! Going for the Jewish conspiracy theory you made your job much easier. Concerning CAIR this is an organization that operates somewhat in the shadows. It has to do this, as it could never stand public scrutiny. It has been instrumental in getting Islamic teachings into some California public schools. Its goal is to turn America into an Islamic republic. Some of their leaders have said this. I think I can speak for most Americans when I say we don't want to be the next Afghanistan!! A pertinent question for our leaers would be "why has an organization that is committed to ending our way of life not been shut down?" I think the answer has to do with political correctness, which is a symptom of a lack of basic morality.

7.) This is no conspiracy. UNRWA was caught assisting Palestinian terrorists. The terrorists groups that operate in Syria fly their flag right next to the UN flag and according to reports, the UN officials and the terrorists are quite chummy. The active assistance UNRWA supplied to the terrorists was documented on "Special Report" with Birt Hume and at least twice on the "O'reilly Factor." Web sites such as frontpagemag.com filled in all the gory details. This is no conspiracy. The UN has never made any serious effort to condemn Palestinian terrorists. The UN never met a terrorists it did not like. The UN has repeatedly demonstrated the desire, the willingness, and the capability to pull this off. In contrast, your idea that a group of Jewish elites run America cannot be supported. While Jews are influential, as demonstrated they lack a pro-Israel consensus to pull this off. Finally, they are only 2% of the population. The only way 2% will have a significant impact is if the 2% is at the "center" and American Jews lean farther left than most Americans. They could not do what you are accusing them of even if they wanted to. That is unless you assume they have God like powers. Youa re the one who is playing "lets pretend."

8.) On A Scale of 1 to 10, 10 being exclusively pro-Israel and 1 being exclusively pro-Palestinian American foreign policy is somewhere between 5 to 5.5. Treating terrorists and their victims as equal is reprehensible. The policy you are advocating is very close to what we already have. The Jewish lobby is just one of many lobbies. The tenuous aliance with Israel is based on mutual needs and cultural similarites and not on some lobby.

9.) Israel as a theocracy, countrywatch.org classifies it as a "parlimentary democracy." The citizens can vote to change the Jewsih character of the state if they wish. As pointed out previosuly, Israel guarantees freedom of religon for its citizens. The new Iraqi republic will be based on Islamic law but no one questions that it is trying to be a democracy. It will be an "Islamic Democracy." Today Ariel Sharon referred to Israel as a "Jewish Democracy." Israel currently has aobut 6.7 million citizens with 1.1 million Israeli Arabs. Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset. Israel's marriage laws are up to them. If they want to change them, they can. I have heard about this law and I think they should change it. Arabs on work permits to Israel have committed terrorist attacks. This explains the paranoia. I have never pretended Israel is perfect. God knows we are not perfect!! Given Israel's situation, they perform far better thean we do. Who a country wants to let inside its borders is up to that country. Israelis can change their laws, through voting. This is not an option elsewhere in the middle east, at least with a fair election.

10.) Nobody really knows for sure if Israel has a nuclear weapon. It is assumed they do but nobody knows forr sure. I assume they do. As discussed previously, if Israel has a military adavantage over its enemies, it is a very tenuous one. Actually I think Israel's biggest advantage is the same one we have. Our mutual enemies are so full of hatred that it leads them to make bad decisions. This is how hatred works. It leads to bad decision making.

Tank you very much for the congratulations!!

Respectfully
Rob

Rob Foshee:

Your "primary sources" are blatant examples of pro-Israeli propaganda. Alan Dershowitz's book about Israel is about as objective as his book about the O.J. Simpson trial.

1. The publishers of all the major newspapers in the United States not only have Jewish names, but they also favor pro-Israeli policies. Owning these newspapers allows them to hire such agenda-driven columnists as Charles Krauthamer (sp?) and Richard Cohen. Those two columnists would be considered on the far right if they were writing for Haaretz! Yet they are the only two columnists the Washington Post uses regularly to write about the Israeli/Palestinian "conflict." It is a farce.

2. Africa is not a "bad investment." The point of foreign aid should be to help countries that are in need. In Africa, many children are starving, HIV is a plague and there is a dearth of potable water. The United States could give foreign aid to Africa to abate these problems. Instead, the United States gives aid to Israel, a country whose citizens enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, in order to please the Israeli lobby. It's a joke. The United States should certainly help Israel, but should also realize that there are more needy potential recipients of its dollars.
Throwing dollars at Israel only hurts America's standing in most of the rest of the world.

3. The "pressure" on Israel is not backed up by anything. We continue to shower Israel with aid, to provide it with gratis weapons, and to work with it to develop new technologies, regardless of how severely it beats the Palestinians.

4. American Jews lead the charge when it comes to rallying American support behind Israel. The AIPAC--which you concede is the largest pro-Israel lobbying organization in the United States--is composed of Jews. The ADL is composed of Jews. There are certainly Christian supporters of Israel and Jewish causes--Bob Kraft, whose wife is Jewish, just recently gave $10 million to the Columbia Jewish Center, built a football stadium in Israel, plus he regularly donates money to Brandeis, a university with an 80%+ Jewish student body--but most of the money and hard lobbying comes from Jews. There are thousands of organizations such as the ADL, the AIPAC, Bloch Graulich Whelan Inc., etc., etc., which do nothing but promote Israel and Jewish causes. Anyone who works for a U.S. senator in DC could tell you that the Israeli/Jewish lobby is among the strongest lobbies in this nation.

5. You still have not answered my question. Why is the UN a "front for terrorists"? Give me specific reasons. Stop speaking generalities.

6. Goldman Sachs is not just any old company. It is an international investment bank with considerable power, financial resources and influence. The bank and its employees donate more money to presidential campaigns than any other institution. None of that money will go to a candidate who is not rabidly pro-Israel.

Both political parties, and all serious American presidential candidates, are pro-Israel. No one wants to stand up to the Israeli lobby. It would be political suicide. Ralph Nader delivered a speech calling for an even-handed policy in the Middle East, and he was immediately slandered by Abraham Foxman and the ADL. No politician wants that type of treatment!

The result is a policy in the middle east that is biased, and is contrary to America's best interests. The policy favors one small nation at the expense of dozens of larger nations. The United States should strive for an impartial foreign policy, one in which it has many allies and tries to isolate no one--rather than a policy in which it drops billions of dollars on one country and shuns other deserving countries.

This is not radicalism--it is common sense. I'm with Howard Dean--whose wife, by the way, is Jewish--when he states that the United States should be more even-handed in the middle east. Of course the United States should continue to support Israel, should protect Israel and should be a friendly ally of Israel. But the United States should also push Israel to be more humanitarian. Sharon's recent proposals--stop the bulldozing, release political prisoners, etc.--are wonderful. The United States should make sure that Israel holds up to its end of the bargain, and should put pressure on the Palestinians, Iran, Syria and other countries that support suicide bombers to hold up to their end of the bargain. The aim in the middle east should be peace. It will be easiest for the United States to work toward peace if it is able to work with the Arab countries. Such relationships will not be possible if Arab countries think that the United States is not impartial, and is promoting a pro-Israel agenda.

7. Wake up. Jews are less than 2% of the population, but are over 20% of the Ivy League. This is a group that is well-organized, powerful, and capable of influencing political campaigns.

Right. Jews tend to vote Democratic. One reason for this is that Jews favor separation between church and state. They know that they are a religious minority, and they would like to be able to practice Judaism in the United States free from religious bigotry. They are scared of the right-wing's Christian conservative element, and vote Democratic because they view Democrats as being better on religious separation issues.

Jews are not voting Democratic because they hate Israel--quite the contrary. Jews often are voting Democratic because they believe that Democrats offer a better platform for proponents of Israel and religious freedom.

8. Somewhere between 5 and 5.5? Where did you get those figures, Alan Dershowitz's book?

9. It is so a theocracy! While citizens have a right to vote, that vote generally solidifies the theocratic nature of the state. Israelis vote for policies that strengthen the Jewish hold on the country, and vote for politicians who pander to the mob by making statements such as "the only good Arab is a dead Arab"--Arial Sharon. According to its charter, Israel is a "state for the Jewish people." Is there any other nation in the world that has so explicit a religious aim and purpose? It's a theocracy.

10. No one knows for sure if Israel has a nuke. But it is likely that it does. Israel also otherwise has the most sophisticated weaponry in the middle east. The notion that Israel is some poor, weak, defenseless country cannot withstand scrutiny.

Thanks for your comments.

Reader

Anything that presents a pro-Israel stance you are immediately labeling as "propaganda." This is a standard leftist technique. If you do this you do not have to think. Put your brain on auto pilot and let your ideology think for you.

1.) The reason you are seeing pro-Israel op/ed writers is because the official Palestinian position that says one thing in Arabic and another in English, calls for the complete destruction of Israel, works for the expansion of islamic extremism rule through all the earth and spreads absolutely vicious anti-American propaganda could never stand public scrutiny. The papers need to maintain some semblence of credibilty. Palestinian diatribes would be immediately exposed by the blogsphere and the conservative press as falsehoods, much in the same way that "Rathergate" and "Easongate" were exposed. It has been documented that Israeli society leans farther left than the USA does. This lack of morality explains why you will see more left leaning columnists in Israel than you will in the USA. Haaretz is well known by conservative Israelis as a leftist paper. Please, NY Times etc., hire a pro-Palestinian op/ed person and get pummeled by the blogosphere and the conservative media yet again. Their credibility is already reeling. Such a practice could finish them. I personally like it when the anti-Christian main stream media gets embarassed. The actual Palestinian position could not stand up to scrutiny, as such it would not be good for business for the papers to try and defend it.

2.)African governments are corrupt. Any aid given to them will simply be stolen. It simply would not make any difference, and there is little national interests there. Israel is our most important ally in the war on islamic extremism. Mutual interests draw the two countries together, not some lobby. To put it another way, take away the lobby and the relationship still exists. Other than rhetoric you have not proven this. Neither Israel nor America owe reader an apology for their standard of living. The two peoples have worked hard and have made good decisions. America and Israel deserve the posperity they currently have.

3.) Amercia has threatened to withold aid from Israel regarding the fence and has repeatedly chastised Israel in public for some of its anti-terrorists operations. State department officials have called the settlements illegal. We work with Israel because we have mutual interests. Our larger enemies, such as Russsia, work extensively with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are fighting a war of agression against Israel. The Palestinians enjoy much more solid support frotm their allies than the support the USA offers Israel. It is in the national interests for the United States to support Israel. When the Palestinians allies are factored in they just don't seem so weak. It is the Palestinians who need to stop beating the Israelis. Israel must continue to defend itself.

4.) I have never denied that the Israeli lobby is influential. It is certainly influential. It can significantly influence the electoral process but it cannot unilateraly direct American policy. American Jews do give money to Israel, as established previously, Israel is a good business investment. In fact, the EU is Israel's largest trading partner. Even they understand the value of investing in Israel. Again we have mutual interests, not some lobby that you seen to think has the power of God.

5.) I did give examples. UNRWA has actively assisted terrorists. The UN has never taken any concrete action to condemn Palestinian terrorists. Hezbollah and the UN are active partners on the Syrian border. These are not generalities. The specific actions of UNRWA were documented by Fox News. Fox News is definitely not a shill for Israel. The UN is an evil organization that needs to be dismantled brick by brick, if necessary. Your belief in a Jewish conspiracy that has God-like power is frightning!! This is the kind of thinking that led to the holocaust!!

6.) Corporations do significantly influence American foreign policy. Perhaps too much. Whether Goldman Sachs is pro-Israel or not does not matter. One company cannot alter the political landscape all by itself. Besides I think it is unlikely all Goldman Sachs employees will vote in unison. It may be able to influence an election, but in an eleciton like the last one where Bush won by about 4% no one company could possibly be able to influence the political process enough to change the outcome of the election. Goldman Sachs pro-Israel, so what? They could not change the outcome by themselves. So far you have presented no proof of this vast Jewish conspiracy that has the power of God. Abe Foxman dared to criticize Ralph Nader. Any pro-Israel stance is deemed "propaganda." Any one who criticizes an anti-Israel position has committed "slander." It really does not matter what Abe said or did not say. The job of the politician or want to be politician is to counter the charge. In this regard, the blogosphere worked wonders for GW Bush in the last election. Ralph Nader was sunk because the true Palestinian position simply cannot stand public scrutiny and his socialist values do not jibe with most Americans. Until the Palestinians change course we will not be seeing the op/ed writers you want. The papers need to try and keep some semblance of credibility. Mr. Foxman does not need to apologize to reader for standing up for the truth, in this matter. For the record, I'm no real fan of Foxman. His stance on many issues is the opposite of the Christian values I hold dear.

7.) Jews tend to be more educated than American society as a whole. I think I pointed this out earlier. Because of this it is not surprising that they would be found in large concentrations in Ivy League schools. As documented by Fox News and David Horowitz, the Ivy League schools are hot beds of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. It is unlikely you will find significant support for Israel among them. The greatest threats to religous liberty come from liberals and Islamic Extremists. I have read that Jews tend to fear Christians. This fear is misguided. The greatest enemy they face is from Islamic Extremists. They need to understand who their enemy is!! Nobody's religous freedom will be threatened by American Christians. Even if Christians wanted to do this, which they don't, they can't. American Christians are the least powerful group in the United States. Actually, Israel has no greater friend than American Christians. To focus one's political capital on Christians is a waste of time. The real enemies to religous liberty are liberals and Islamic Extremists. If you want to defend religous liberty, these are the groups you need to be focusing on. The democratic party base are the George Soros and Michael Moore types. these types are vehemently anti-Israel. Democrats will need to throw a bone to the Joe Lieberman types now and then. As I stated earlier, this is "hold the center." A party whose base is anti-Israel would not seem to be a good thing for Israel. A word of advice to Jews, understand who your real enemies are!!

8.)Actually the estimate did not come from the book. Mr. Dershowitz gives the United States entirely to much credit for assisting Israel. This estimate is my own. It is based on the fact that congress is generally pro-Israel, the state department is pro-Arab, and the administration falls somewhere between. If the true answer is 5 or 5.5 depends on how much weight you give each group. This is an overly simplistic ana-lysis but suffice it to say American policy in the middle east is remarkably even handed. This is a problem. Treating Islamic Extremists whose goal is the destruction of Israel and the eventual subjigation of the entire world under Islamic law and people who simply want to live their lives in peace and are trying to defend themselves as equals or anywhere near equals is a disaster looking for a time to happen.

9.)Israel a theocracy. It does have a religous component to it. This is for sure. It is a country that grants religous freedom to its citizens. The Arab theocracies do not. Regarding Ariel Sharon, he has pushed a policy to abandon settlements. This is a position that is dangerous for Israel and is not consistent with the statement you assign to him. Israeli restraint has been most remarkable in the face of the threats they face. America would not show simillar restraint. These people, while not perfect, are a very brave and noble people. The Arabs could learn much from them. In order to do so, they will need to let go of the hatred that binds them. I hope and pray they can do so. We all need peace.

10.) I have never suggested that Israel is weak. What I have pointed out is that when one looks at the whole picture concerning Israel's enemies, Israel's enemies don't look so weak. The problem is very rarely does the media do this. If they were to examine the whole picture regarding our mutual enemies, this would tend justify Bush's Iraq policy. I don't think they want to do this. So because of politics we are left with a populace who does not fully grasp the awesome power of its enemies. Right now Israel has a tennuous edge over its enemies. If the missle sale from Russia to Syria goes through, this may shift the balance of power over to the Arabs side. Then Israel and the USA may do something to counter this.

Thanks for the Comments

Rob

Reader writes,

"Look, I understand what Condi's credentials are. I'll concede that she is probably more talented than 90% of Americans. I just am not blown away by her abilities. Christopher made it seem like she was some kind of academic wizard because she received a PHD. I question whether a PHD from the University of Denver is anything to brag about. I'm not saying that a PHD from the University of Denver = incompetence or stupidity or anything like that. I recognize that extremely intelligent people attend the University of Denver, and that some of those students are as talented as their counterparts at HYS.

But there is a difference between being a talented person and being presidential material. I have seen nothing in Condi to lead me to believe that she is anything more than a highly-competent administrator. All her jobs have been administrative, and I think that this is where her strength lies. I question whether she would be an effective campaigner, and would hold the interest of large audiences of people every night. In a debate, I think someone like Hillary would eat her lunch every time. Also keep in mind that, as a candidate, Condi would have to defend the Bush administration's decision to invate Iraq (a decision favored by less than 50% of Americans). She would also be attacked for other Bush screw-ups. In short, her opposition both in the primaries and in the presidential race would have plenty of ammunition. Given all these things, I do not think that Condi would make a strong presidential candidate. "

Well said. I should've read your entire post and the post to which you responded. I didn't realize we were debating whether or not she would make a strong presidential candidate. I was making the point that she was very well-qualified for the position of Secretary of State. She could run for President possibly in 2012 or 2016 if she defeats Boxer in California in, is it 2006?

Reader,

1) What you fail to discuss in your lecture on Reagan's tax cuts is the supply-side characteristic that both Bush's and Reagan's tax cuts have in common. Regardless of the different specifics of these cuts, the important aspect is that businesses in both cuts benefitted from the breaks that the two Presidents enacted, enabling them to invest more capital into employees and the businesses themselves. This helps the little man and the economy. The reason the cuts help business and wealthy americans, is because they are the ones that bear the burden for the vast majority of taxes. The government can't give money back to people that haven't paid anything (well it can, it's called welfare).

2) Just because Reagan didn't "wear his religion on his sleeve" does not mean the Bush is more conservative or religious than him. Nor does Bush's statement that Jesus Christ was his most adored political philosopher. Need I remind you, that the statement about Christ came during a Republican debate for the nomination, against Sen. McCain and Alan Keyes. Bush wanted to win the acceptance of the far religious right for the nomination, so using religious rhetoric may have been a political strategy, although that does not discount the sincerity of his faith. You should also consider that neither Reagan nor Bush attended public church services in D.C., while Cinton (not known for his devotion to faith) did.

Faith was an important part of Reagan's life and career. He also admitted praying frequently about his office, and how to confront the Soviet Union's Communism. Although Bush may mention his faith more, I think that Reagan's devotion was equally as strong; possibly even more.

3) As far as Constitutional ammendments, you must consider the following: Bush does not agree with homosexual marriage, for the same reasons that I do not. Marriage, as a religious institution, is a holy institution between a man and a woman; in some faiths considered a sacrament, blessed by God. The gay rights groups are trying to place their "idea" of marriage into an established institution. The definition of marriage does not fit into the homosexual lifestyle. Now Bush, like myself, believes in civil unions. Honestly, I would prefer that the State only grant civil unions, and let the church grant a marriage, so as to promote monogamy, but that has yet to occur.

The poi