I notice at the bottom of Klein's response to Foxman, Foxman had a link to his response to Klein's response. http://www.adl.org/media_watch/internet/Joe_Klein_Response.htm
Here is a quote from it:

"Our concern is with the term "Jewish neoconservatives" and the distressing claim that those individuals are eager to serve Israel's interests against the interests of their own country.

None of the issues you raise has anything to do with a person's religion or religious beliefs. None of the neo-conservatives, whether Jewish or of another faith (or no faith), has expressed his or her views about foreign policy in terms of religion. It is inappropriate to identify a group that clearly has Jews and non-Jews within its ranks by singling out the Jews or, worse, identifying all of them as "Jewish." Again, if you consider the history that has seen Jews vilified as a group that keeps to itself, is conspiratorial and has dual loyalties, you will better understand our concern."

The problem that I see is that Foxman sees any complaint against an American Jewish supporter of Israel as being based on religion. Yet the real problem of so many Neocons isn't their religion. It is their Israeli nationalism. And there really is a dual loyalty there. The Neocons see a threatened nation of 7,000,000 people in the middle east to which they have strong nationalistic ties of loyalty, and they want the other nation they belong to - the 303,000,000 people USA - to take military action to defend Israel or at least to take military actions that will "benefit" Israel - in that military "quick fix" that is so enamored by conservatives impatient with learning about their enemies so that common ground can be found to lessen tensions.

Foxman quickly slides all criticism of conservative Israeli nationalism by Israel's American supporters who happen to be Jewish over to "antisemitism" based entirely on religious prejudice. That way all opposition to nationalistic policies proposed by Neocons can automatically be ignored and attacked as being based on bias against the Jewish religion.

Jewish fear of another Holocaust, which I presume motivates Foxman's blindness to the Israeli nationalistic motivations is quite unsurprising. But Jonathon Pollard was a Mossad spy in the Pentagon for nationalistic reasons. It is hard to forget either Pollard or Larry Franklin who passed secrets to members of the Israeli lobby, AIPAC.

It is also very hard not to see elements of Israeli nationalism motivating many of the hardline Neocons. Foxman's attempt to conceal their motivations behind cries that opposing them is somehow "antisemitism" based on their religion simply overlooks the fact that the policies the Neocons pushed and still push are hardline conservative militaristic policies assured of failure because of their very nature.

It's a shame that Foxman refuses to apply any nuance to who he claims is antisemetic. Antisemitism does still exist and needs to be exposed and refuted where it can be. Calling Joe Klein Antisemitism because he opposes the Neocon proposals for self-defeating military actions by the US against Islamic nations simply makes Foxman look foolish and impotent. Foxman discredits the more appropriate ADL efforts to combat real antisemitism.

That's a risk single issue extremists always run, I guess.

Posted at July 4, 2008 3:17 PM in response to Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS!

Some people have this silly idea that colleges and universities exist to educate students. They don't. they exist to provide socialization of the future leaders in how to function socially and social networks for them to function in. That has been the main function of the Ivy League schools since the WW II GI Bill students graduated anyway.

It is natural that the families of the upper classes want their children to have all the advantages to follow in their footsteps. Connections and money are the route into the schools that provide the best social networks.

This utterly radical idea that there should be a meritocracy of intelligence and acceptance of students who need education instead of social networks into the upper classes is just a blip on the screen. Random noise. Here today, gone tonight. It won't even wait around for tomorrow.

You don't think the upper social classes want their children to have to actually compete to keep their status, do you? Birth and wealth should be the primary method of entry into the ruling class, not competence. I mean, where would George W. Bush have been if he had found it necessary to actually compete and actually get an education in exchange for his time spent in Harvard? [The University of Texas Law School rejected him.] Or if McCain, the son and grandson of admirals, had had to compete for his slot at Annapolis or to get the very coveted slot in flight school?

[I'm not sure if this qualifies as snark or cynicism.]

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:51 AM in response to One Small Step For Equality

Rove's Country Club comment was a sort of riff on the whole "they're coming after our white women" meme.

It was also an attack on Obama as an elitist.

In "Nixonland" Rick Perlstein called the "Big Man On Campus" -type in the elite social clubs "Franklins." He describes Nixon's entire career as being about organizing the "Orthogonians" (people like himself who were blackballed from the college social club for being too "unpolished") to take down the elites in the upper crust social clubs who thought they were superior to everyone else. Rick also claims that Nixon set the tone in the Republican Party in this was ever since.

Norquist seems to be proving Perlstein correct.

The "They're after our White Women" is, of course, an older racist meme That was used by the White slave-owners to explain the constant slave revolts that kept occurring. The uncivilized and inherently uncivilizable African slaves couldn't possible be objecting to their status as slaves of the clearly more civilized and benevolent white slave owners. That was a broad view in both the slave South and in much of the Northern states. It didn't go away after the Civil War when slavery was outlawed. Nor has it disappeared with the end of legal segregation.

Both Limbaugh and Norquist come from that set of traditions. They are core elements of the modern Republican Party, so we can expect them to be used frequently as Republicans speak to each other and try to identify their supporters.

Posted at June 27, 2008 7:18 PM in response to Conservative Activist Grover Norquist: Obama Is "Kerry With A Tan"

If you lived as close to Serbia as the Albanians do, you'd be quite careful before getting rid of extra weapons and ammunition.

Posted at June 26, 2008 10:01 PM in response to DoD Could Have Gotten Old Ammo For Free

Bullcrap.

It's not about regulating speech. It's about regulating who has access to that rare commodity, the radio microphone and the distribution company it is attached to.

Even with the fairness doctrine, Rush can say whatever he wants outside the famous seven words. as it is, no one can rebut him in the same media because the radio mega-corporations don't want them to. Rush supports monopoly radio, so they hand him the microphone. Air America doesn't support their monopoly so they work to kill that organization and don't let them on their stations even in markets that would like them.

The real issue isn't free speech. It's all about monopoly power of large communications corporations.

Posted at June 26, 2008 12:48 AM in response to Rush Limbaugh is Worried

OK. I suspected that the "Profit" margin was already extremely high. "Buying" ammunition that could be gotten for free makes it even more so. So where did the money go?

This was a scam to rip the government off, but it was orchestrated by someone inside the U.S. government. There is NO WAY the US Embassy in Albania could have coordinated giving the contract to a 22-year-old through the Pentagon, yet this happened. It is especially suspicious that Diveroli has been on the State Department Watch list since 2005.

This is spook-stuff, coordinated at a very high level in the U.S. government. Diveroli's arms-dealing family is a group already known to the spooks, so they were available for a percentage share. Diveroli himself is the family screwup/druggie. He's been offered a chance to redeem himself as the goat in this story. All he has to do is shut up and take his punishment while covering up for the real culprits (who he probably doesn't even know anyway - would you trust the family screwup/druggie with that kind of information?) After it's over he gets his reward. One percent of the $300 million would be more than enough to by his time and silence. Two days after he leaves federal prison he will be somewhere outside the U.S. If they're cheap, he'll be dead.

But for the core of the issue, where has the $300 million gone?

This has the earmarks of an Iran-Contra type spook operation. And yes, it is a GOP type operation. But where is the money? Funding MEK attacks on Iran? Seed money used to transport Afghani Heroin so as to fund larger operations (the kind of thing the CIA was infamous for in Southeast Asia and Central America?) Or something similar?

Where's the real money? That'll tell us who set this up or at least why. And how many other similar scams have not surfaced?

Posted at June 26, 2008 12:28 AM in response to DoD Could Have Gotten Old Ammo For Free

incorrigible and unreflective

Yep. Keep in mind, though, that being reflective means being consistent, and then it demands hard work reviewing speeches, orders and plans for consistency.

Bush has neither the verbal fluency in the written word required to be consistent. His delivery of speeches he reads from the teleprompter in bursts of no more than four or five words at a time demonstrates that. Plus, it's hard work, something Bush has spent all his life avoiding.

Cheny may be quite consistent in his evil, but he is so manipulative, secretive and duplicitous no one ever knows what he really intends.

And yes, both are incorrigible.

It's no surprise that Bush presented one or two weak sound bytes to the Knesset instead of the clear effort to understand the issues that Sarkozy presented. Except for the domestic American political implications, neither he nor Cheney care about either Israel or the Palestinians. They have spent seven years demonstrating that.

Posted at June 25, 2008 1:52 PM in response to At Israel's Parliament, a French Lesson in Leadership for Bush

While I suspect there is a lot of truth in that, the other reason for not impeaching Bush/Cheney is that it has zero chance of achieving anything and would:

1. shut down all effective government work for the remainder of Bush's term,
2. sharply increase the level of partisanship, with undoubted negative effects for Democrats in the coming election.

The result of an attempted impeachment would be an ineffective and self-destructive gesture of spite, nothing more. It would also prove to the voting public that what Nadar said in 2000 was true - there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. (something the BlueDog Democrats and Steny Hoyer are working hard to also prove true.)

That said, I really wish there was an effective way to put a political stake through Bush's heart. Instead he will retire (to his protected ranch in Paraguay where the government has passed a law protecting him from extradition for human rights violations?) and continue to live in his bubble of ignorance and filtered information, to be told to his face what a great man he was by a few right-wing extremists (Rove?), and never to be brought to justice for his crimes.

Bush hasn't the ability to ever learn the enormity of his misdeeds and take responsibility for them. A futile effort at impeachment wouldn't change that.

I am a bit surprised that the rest of the family hasn't changed their name from "Bush" because of the shame. I guess one of the advantages of great wealth is that shame has no real personal effect on such people. Fortunately for the Bush name, George W. has no sons.

Posted at June 25, 2008 1:22 PM in response to Today's Must Read

An interesting demonstration that "evolution" does not necessarily mean "progress." Instead it can mean change into a dead end niche.

Of course, this is using the term "evolution" to mean personal development rather than in the scientific sense.

Posted at June 25, 2008 12:28 PM in response to Nader To Obama: You Want To Talk White?

When Feith is compelled to testify, do you think the committee could ask Colonel Wilkerson to come in voluntarily and sit next to him? Just sit, and occasionally grimace or smile evilly.

Posted at June 24, 2008 10:25 PM in response to House Panel Votes to Subpoena Feith