Has anyone found raw numbers for turnout?

A better solution to this so called 'religion' problem that the Democrats have is to give free copies of Richard Dawkins' works to every American citizens. I would add Feynmann's books for the more intelligent ones as well.

We will win everything back, once people realize you are willing to butcher 16-cell BABIES in order to cure CELEBRITIES like Michael. J Fox!!!

And anyway, Kevin, math is so hard. Much easier to repeat some story line heard elsewhere...

All very interesting Kevin, but if Bob Casey had been Pro-choice, what then?

Kevin:

Nontheless Kevin -- it does look like the start of a potentially expandable trend ...

If the evangelical base is beginning to look at issues like global warming, protecting the environment and helping poor people as a serious calling ... and if the Democrats continue to keep a low, federalist profile on some of the most divisive social issues rather than making them national cause celebres -- we *do* have a chance to win over a section of that base.

Jimmy Carter took a majority of white evangelicals, and the Party was pro-abortion then as well.

We can continue to increase these gains, I think -- if we continue to talk about Democratic values which uphold the common good.

Bob

Damn commas - Of course Kevin is interesting.

What are you complaining about?

If I was writing the stories I'd be talking about how dems won because they picked up 5 percentage points from lawyers and prostitutes.

"Common" excluding unborn children, right Bob?

thethirdPaul / stupid git:

Hoepfully, Casey would have lost. I will believe he is pro-life when I see it.

So, if you are rear ended, besides saying,"Oh that felt wonderful", who would you call, Whiplash Willy or Gannon's Outcall Massage Service?"

OK. But do evangelical votes usually shift in nearly the same proportion as other voting groups?

Jeffrey,

According to Christian theology wouldn't all those 'unborn children' go directly to heaven?

ferd:

I'm still looking to see how many 2004 Bush voters simply stayed home instead. I think that would account more for the difference.

nepeta:

No.

I guess the story is that religious voters should have voted in huge numbers for the Democratic candidates, seeing as how it is actually more attuned to fulfilling the teachings of Jesus and the Elmer Gantryization of the GOP was on full view. The GOP needs to change its symbol from the elephant to the ostrich.

You're going to make Amy Sullivan cry.

Nepata,

Perhaps if they were "special spirits"

And when the Catholics, come back ala the swallows to Capistrano, and give equal votes to a Pro-Choice candidate, then I will believe their return.

I disagree that the Democrats are more attuned to fulfilling the teachings of Jesus. Have you every read the Bible?

"Tell 'em Gantry - save 'em from their sin - lead 'em to Salvation - tell 'em everything, Gantry, but not about your whiskey and your women"

The Bible clearly says that we should not eat shellfish. That is why you liberals will lose.

"have you ever read the bible"

Well, a bunch of us, meaning the Donkey types, were shacked, er, hold up, in a Motel during a blizzard in the Dakotas a few years back, and there were these books in the drawers. Didn't have any funny pictures, but, when the hookers took off with the local Republican dishwasher, we had to do something.

Ah, but the Bible also says that we should not pray in public (Matthew 6:5-8), and that is why you evangelicals will lose, what with your trying to push school prayer down everyone's throats.

Kevin

The Washington Post people are on deadline. Cooperman has to write about something. A shallow look at conventional wisdom is as good as anything. The article filled a few column inches and apparently made the editor happy.

He means to ask if you have read the bible that justifies sending kids to die in a war based on your lies. Obviously you havn't read that special edition that's available only to the few with special permission to access Ted Haggard's closet.

I was asking Sparko if he / she has ever read the Bible. I also did not post at 1:00 PM. I am not a Christian.

Jeffrey:

Hmmm ... noticing that now you're spelling your name correctly, when before you made a big stink that your parents named you "Jeffery."

Chuckles, what you are is a disingenuous lying attention slut with a Jesus fixation and a Dominionist belief that the ends justify whatever shitty sort of dishonest means you care to use to put them forth.

You really should stop and consider how badly you make religious people look with your behavior here on a mostly liberal and mostly secular blog.

Bob

Is this what this is saying?

Josh Marshall points out this from the original AP story,

Those early exit polls also showed that three in four voters said corruption was very important to their vote, and they tended to vote Democratic. In a sign of a dispirited GOP base, most white evangelicals said corruption was very important to their vote — and almost a third of them turned to the Democrats.

Is it saying that 'most white evangelicals said corruption was very important to their vote' --yet only 28% of them voted for a Democrat?!

So 72% of white evangelicals for whom corruption was very important --voted for the Republican?!

If the evangelical base is beginning to look at issues like global warming, protecting the environment and helping poor people as a serious calling ... and if the Democrats continue to keep a low, federalist profile on some of the most divisive social issues rather than making them national cause celebres -- we *do* have a chance to win over a section of that base.

I agree - Democrats should leave the Gun Control issues alone - at least at the National Level - and let Cities ban them; and let rural areas keep them. Blanket gun bans make no sense.

However - I wish the Republicans would show that kind of sense for things like abortion and school prayer. Let the people who live in Taliban enclaves suffer under Christian Sharia.

No.
Posted by: Jeffrey on November 11, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Biblical Scholar, Professor Jeffrey (PhD), and Holy Channeler for God's Will has declared that all unborn babies don't go to heaven. (When, in fact, the Bible says that life does not begin, and a human body does not have a soul, until the newborn takes it's first breath, and the Lord breathes spirit into the lungs.)

There is NO scriptural basis for a ban on abortion. Not without some logical gymnasitics.

There IS, however, scriptural basis for a ban on circles. Bible says that Pi = 3.0.

On my computer, I have been running a program (which I wrote for this task) for approximately 4 months now, nearly continuously, that computes the value of Pi to two places, and halts if the value of Pi is equal to 3.0. If Pi is not 3.0, it loops back to the beginning. After billions of cycles over the past 4 months, Pi is still not 3.0, and Scripture is still not perfect.

I disagree that the Democrats are more attuned to fulfilling the teachings of Jesus. Have you every read the Bible?
Posted by: Jeffrey on November 11, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree that any political affiliation enlightens spiritual attunement. The Bible specifically says it does not. Apparently, Biblical Scholar Jeffrey (PhD) has not read the Bible either. Or maybe he only read the parts that seem to justify him hating fags.

"You really should stop and consider how badly you make religious people look with your behavior here on a mostly liberal and mostly secular blog."

or you idiots could just stop constantly feeding him. attention sluts come in all political stripes. if you're not part of the solution ...

Dawkins! He's an extremist! We don't need facts or reason or free thinking -- that is just Extremist Propaganda!

And Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation"? How dare he quote the Bible! He's a heathen!

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21

Drudge says Tony Snow says,

Tony Snow on Dem suggestions to White House: 'This is not a time for floating ideas'...

Newsweek commiserates and tells us what we think,

Feeling Blue?
After the Democratic sweep of Congress, President Bush's approval reaches a new low. But voters want Democrats to chart a moderate course.

Feeding Norman can be amusing, at least for the first 20 minutes or so.

But feeding Charlie does tend to become toxic.

Point taken.

Bob

So 72% of white evangelicals for whom corruption was very important --voted for the Republican?!

Yes. What could be more corrupt than a Democrat party trying to get elected in a time of war? What could be more corrupt than exposing the hypocrisy of religious leaders in public? What could be more corrupt than forcing people to admit that they will continue to vote for policies that are bad for the country and contrary to their stated religious beliefs? Paper trails are the work of Satan!

Priceless photo of Ted Haggard on his knees 'worshiping' god,

http://radaronline.com/features/2006/11/confessions_of_an_angry_hustler_rev_ted_haggard.php

(scroll down).

Has anyone does exit polling on people with IQ

There may be a psychological factor at work here also. It is much easier to admit to a pollster that you are a single working mom or a college student than to admit you are a regular churchgoing evangelical who only recently realized that you had been gullible enough to buy into the Sacred Republican Bullshit for six years .

If a voting machine produced a paper trail it would be an insult to people of faith. It would dis their 'belief'.

Sorry the blogger ate the previous post.

Has anyone does exit polling on people with IQ

Well who ya going to believe; Alan Cooperman of the Washington Post or Kevin Drum?

I can honestly say, I don't really care how the numbers stacked up as long as they stacked up in the Dem corner. This attempt to categorize the voting populations into one thing or another has got to be a pretty ambiguous attempt anyway, so no matter what Kevin's micro-fantasy frenzies is with the election right now, it all comes down to mistrust of Bush and the GOP, end of story.

It's just WP writing for entertainment purposes, as always, no facts needed, no need to look at any real numbers, or make any phone calls, and for this, Kevin wants to give them a sheild law to help protect so-call journalist's and their right to hype, devoid of facts.

OK i give up. It's HTML. Can't use <.

This attempt to categorize the voting populations into one thing or another has got to be a pretty ambiguous attempt anyway,

The whole point of this is that some people DO take these numbers seriously, and it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy as party money and resources are channeled towards the exploitation of a particular perceived strength.

Nobody wants to see the Democratic Party abandon its values of fighting Social Conservativism more than the Republicans. But I'm sure that the whores in the DLC are going to try to find any justification they can to try to turn the Democratic Party into Republican-Lite; including, by taking credit for the sweep. That's why this debate is actually important. And this is why the electoral equivalent of "entrail-reading" has to be shot-down.

Its my belief that one can't tell what is going on inside the minds of people by looking at the numbers of rigged elections, and slanted exit poll questions. (though exit polls ARE useful as a tool to double-check vote tally accuracy). One CAN tell by licking one's finger, holding it up, and testing to see which way the wind is blowing. It is blowing in the direction of "throw the corrupt bastards out; I work hard for my money, borrowing is not tax-cutting, and stealing is not responsible spending."

All this other prognistication is just a bunch of stagnant hot air.

Keep it up, Kevin. There's no story except for a small but important increase in a rejection of the GOP and their failed president. The electoral consequences make this sneaker wave look like a tsunami. It isn't. They'll be back in two years with a new moron in a white shirt.

Bob:

How exactly can I have a "Jesus fixation" or make religious people look bad when I am not a Christian. Also, my first and second name are the same, just with alternate spelling. My parents had a strange sense of humor.

OBF:

I never said I was a Bible scholar, but I have read the thing. Therefore, I agree with every point you made on it so far. There is nothing in the Bible that supports "age of accountability" without logical gymnasitics as well. Democrats like Amy Sullivan trying to take the mantle from Republicans choose to ignore select portions of the Bible too.

Keep after 'em Kevin! I think some how an awful lot of the right missed the part of the Bible that teaches that the truth will make you free. Keep on keepin' on!

As if the religious left don't do the same? Jesus was all over the map. Some of the things Jesus says in the gospels sound not merely liberal, but socialist. Others sound horribly conservative and reactionary. You carefully pick out the things Jesus said that suit your values and ignore the things he said that don't. As OBF pointed out, some conservatives do the same thing.

Democrats like Amy Sullivan trying to take the mantle from Republicans choose to ignore select portions of the Bible too.
Posted by: Jeffrey on November 11, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I can agree 100% with that statement.

Neither the RNC, nor the DLC, really BELIEVE any of this crap.

This so-called "Evangelical" movement is just another artificial-meme - it does not actualy exist as anything other than a marketing-term to sell the tax-exempt for-profit mega-church INDUSTRY. Part of that sales-pitch is to promise POLITICAL POWER to disaffected Americans, feeling defensive about their "tribe's" ability to affect the political process in the face of massive corporate bribery.

The RNC currently exploits these frightened people because they want their money, and because it's a winning combination with their subset of corporate bribery (Petrochemical, Defense Contractors, Agribusiness, Manufacturing, Pharmaceuticals, Tobacco, Banking). So they're entirely willing to occasionally put on a show for the Evangelicals, and whore themselves out for a buck, even if it means betraying the Constitution, and our core beliefs as Americans (ie. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). The insincere exploitation is obvious, because they show no compunction against killing, torture, and their own closeted sexual immorality.

The DLC wants in on this action. Right now, the DNC is at a disadvantage, funding-wise, because the industries that support them, the Media, Unions, etc. don't have the funding muscle compared to Petrochemical and Defense industries - ESPECIALLY when there's a war on, and especially when that war is in the Middle East (which boosts Petrochemical industry profits, as we have seen).

So anything the DLC can do to pull in some of that Evangelical money (and votes) is seen as good. Even if it means betraying the party's core principles.

A Pox on both their houses.
(actually, a Pox is too good for them).

Jeffrey:

Well doesn't that argue for a moderate, balanced outlook that can be encompassed by both Democratic and Republican ideologies?

If there are different church denominations with different interpretations of scripture, then surely there's room in the world for a strong liberal, Democratic evangelical movement, just as there apparently was for conservative Republicans.

Much of it is a distinction between the emphasis put on the Old Testament God of Laws vs the New Testament God of Love.

Southern synods go for the former, Northern the latter.

Bob

On the international-zealot scene, I guess we are not believing Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Islamo-fascists are happy with the Democrats' win, right?

Bob:

You never answered my question: How exactly can I have a "Jesus fixation" or make religious people look bad when I am not a Christian?

Jeffrey:

Drop it, Charlie.

Bob

Jeffry says, "...but, I have read the 'thing'"

Did not know Classic Comics was into doing the biblical "thing".

Jeffrey:

I think it's great the Iran is happy with the win. If I were them, I'd be happy, too.

The happier they are, the less backed into a corner they feel. The less backed into a corner they feel, the less over-the-top rhetoric we get from them.

Had Gore been president, it's much less likely that Ahmadinejad would've been elected to begin with -- because Gore never would've made a simpleminded "axis of evil" speech after 9/11.

Bob

On the international-zealot scene, I guess we are not believing Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Islamo-fascists are happy with the Democrats' win, right?

Why are you so quick to believe anything those assholes say? Don't you think if the GOP would have won last Tuesday, they would have said something similar? Their goal is to divide America, you moron, and you and the losers at LGF and elsewhere are playing right in to their hands.

Why do Republicans spread AL qaeda's propaganda free of charge? Only because they think they can milk it politically it seems.

It's amazing how timid and frightened the modern conservative movement has becomes. A bunch of rednecks in the desert go BOO, and Jonah Goldberg craps his pants and runs upstairs to lock himself in his room, all the while having no trouble handing Daddy Bush all his civil liberties.

Such cowards the Republicans have become.

Elevation:

Well, you're not quite correct. It was a wirestory in the AP. Ahmadinejad said that he was very glad to see the neocon ideology repudiated in the election -- and can anybody really blame him?

Bear in mind that Iran is not al Qaeda. Iran doesn't want perpetual warfare with the West, nor is it attempting to establish a Universal Caliphate.

As far as I know, there have been no al Qaeda comminques since the election.

Bob

I imagine the shuttle from K Street has been rerouted now. AH may be right for once. I wish I had purchased prostitute stock a week ago. Any stats regarding this election are rendered meaningless by the fact that we were running against against a Hitler touting the prospects for victory at Stalingrad. The political landscape in 08 will be so different from the one a week ago as to make all current maps obsolete.

Being a radical, Im more interested in what the democrats might actually do than I am in prolonging their stay.

And we have had to start raising prices, albeit very reluctantly, because of the vote yesterday in the House shutting down Anwar, raising CAFE standards dramatically, and handing over Iraq Oil, Ltd, Inc, etc. to al-Quada. They acted so quickly - We really, really wanted to keep prices, especially home heating oil for the elderly, at rock bottom prices. We were even willing to put our 4th and 5th houses on the market. But nooooooooooooo.

*waiting for tj's sock puppets to show up*

Bob

And the anti-semites crawl out of the woodwork. Who knew I was the root of all evil?

"Render unto Bush, what are Bush's, and unto God, whatever, if anything, is left over."
Rove 69:69

Believe it or not, I go entire political cycles without thing=kin "what's best for Israel?' because I do not live there. I live here. If Israel was foremost in my mind, I would relocate there and take up their causes.

87% of us voted for Democrats this election cycle and very few of those votes were driven by Israeli interests.

Do you even know any real jews, or are you just regurgitating the bullshit that you heard at the final KKK meeting in Hooterville before the election?

All I'm saying is that we need to change and monitor the way we do everything, in case we accidentally make a terrorist smile somewhere. Voting Democratic pleases the terrorists because I can't think of a reason it wouldn't. And I'm right.

"In the hood", takes an entirely different meaning in tj and Claire/Alice's neighborhood.

However, they have won many prizes for their "Best Cross Burning" at Christmas time.

Globe:

Besides which (picking up this strand from Jeffrey), I believe I heard some Israeli politicians bewailing the election because Democrats won't take their concerns about terrorism as seriously as the Bush noeocons ...

So if tj was just, you know, a voter concerned that Israel has a lot of undue influence in our government through AIPAC and other lobbying entities (a perfectly legitimate concern), s/he should be satisfied that the Dems won.

Instead s/he's -- surprise, surprise! -- pitching the usual conspiracy theories.

Gee, I wonder why? :)

Bob

tj,

You da Man!!!

tj:

Do you really think that third, fourth and fifth-generation Americans are really all that obsessed with ethnic loyalty?

Bob

Rahm wanted to be competitive in a mere 25 races. Howard Dean fought the corporate dems and we had candidates in all. So how again did Rahm pull a fast one?

You are deranged and unhinged and not to invoke Godwin too early, but Hitler would have absolutely adored you, all smashing in your crisply ironed Brown Shirt!

As if by clockwork ... here comes "Bob."

Ever occur to you that over 70% of Israelis are non-practicing and that there's a huge peace movement which is distorted by security politics in a proportional-representation multiparty parliament?

Ever consider the Peace Now movement -- or the rather large number of left-wing American Jews who are tremendously concerned for justice in Palestine?

Oh right. They're stealth Jews, like Russ Feingold.

You can't make this stuff up -- but you can predict the script :)

Bob

Kevin, you just DO NOT GET IT.

These stories about the Democrats winning bcs of christian votes are not there as fact or comment on the election. The Washington Post has never cared about accuracy or insight over the last six years; they aren't starting that today.
These stories are, to quote von Clausewitz, the continuation of politics by other means. The larger the extent you can get people to believe that Dems won because of the support of christians, the larger the chance you have of Dems refusing to do some decent thing or other because they are afraid that it will upset these same christians.

Yeah, someone went in for much needed menudo this morning and was given a huge helping of Swill On a Shingle instead - Rachael must have been on duty this morning.

Brown shirt would fit - Black shirts required higher intelligence and height requirements. He would have been a perfect candidate for the Night of the Long Knives though, when the Blacks turned on the Browns. I think that his SA means Sheer Asshole, though.

Actually, the ones who sear the white hoods are not the ones I fear. You won't take that p[roclamation step. You are the kind of coward who would rig my brakes while I slept. You are the one to be feared by all reasonable people, not just Jews.

You need to offer concrete examples, not just issue sweeping proclamations of broad malfeasance by Jews.

Maynard Handley:

No, I don't take such a conspiratorial view. I think it's great that more Christians support Democrats -- because we could leverage their energy and committment to push environmental protections, address global warming and energy independence, get some justice for poor and working people and begin to withdraw from Iraq.

There's that whole side of the Christian agenda which has been overlooked for the last two decades because of the polarizing sexual issue fights.

Evangelicals have an equally compelling mandate to push for social justice. They tried "compassionate conservativism" with Bush and the GOP and they got chumped.

I see nothing wrong with attempting to pick up that slack.

Bob

tj and Bob,

We have your room ready - Best in Bad Wiessee. On behalf of the Hanselbauer Hotel staff, we welcome you in advance. When your guests arrive, we will send them directly to your room.

It's kind of like seeing one cockroach in your apartment and then the next day, there are five of them ...

Bob

Just because the lunatic fringe is on the retreat does not mean I'm taking my eye off you mother fuckers for a second. I've seen this movie before, and I didn't care for the six million dead ending. A bit dark for my taste. I could have done without that whole war in europe that displaced my family and brought us here, too. But once here we promptly assimilated every bit as much as out Catholic and Baptist neighbors. My mother married a Catholic, and so did I. My kids graduated from a Catholic high scholl (Paul 3 knows which one) and one of them is a Catholic.

A whole lot of us have assimilated. I repeat my question...Do you know any real Jews? Many people who make the assumptions and proclamations you do have never met a Jew in their lives.

Maynard Handley, The Washington Post has never cared about accuracy or insight over the last six years; they aren't starting that today. These stories are, to quote von Clausewitz, the continuation of politics by other means. The larger the extent you can get people to believe that Dems won because of the support of christians, the larger the chance you have of Dems refusing to do some decent thing or other because they are afraid that it will upset these same christians.

That is exactly right, exactly how the DC media works.

Apologize in advance - Off thread.

The US Navy has announced that they attempt to remove the USS Intrepid, a WW11 era carrier, from the mud on the Jersey shore and tow the vessel across to a shipyard in NYC.

However, because of severe budget restraints, they have found it impossible to remove the USS Bushtantic from the mud in the Potomac. They will heavily mark the area as a hazard and consider it to be irrelevant.

Globe:

Of course they don't, Globe. They'd have to contend with people like yourself on a one-on-one human level.

And if they did -- their "ideas," such as they are, would never stand a chance.

Bob

tj: We are the poor saps who don't know you are a jew because of name changes...
Americans know the score... but when they see someone like Gibson dragged into a public crucifixion.... well, that tactic has been trotted out before as well.

hmm... so you are saying Mel Gibson is a Jew (Gibson is a common non-jewish name used by many jews)... and he's been crucified, which means ? He's Jesus?

Tip for ya, TJ, trolling is more effective when your story isn't so damn confused.

JT:

No, even anti-semitic trolls know that Gibson's a rather vociferous Catholic (whose father is a Holocaust-denier, besides).

Though the reasoning is entirely specious, the metaphor is straightforward.

Bob

thomsen:

You're lying.

You've never had an honest conversation with a Jewish person in your life.

Bob

You are a cancer on our society, thomsen and I'm going to make it a point to say a prayer for you at Temple. I rarely attend but you have inspired me to do so this evening.

Damn, a whole bunch of Moyels must have really screwed up. Never heard so many starting to sound like Michael Savage. Maybe, theyre still in the closet as well.

I mean, one day, you start with perhaps 4 and 7/8s and end up with two and a quarter, only if you think of Ann Coulter or Rock Hudson.

No wonder, so many of these cretins are pissed.

Or any other conversation. Don't pick at the barnacles on the troll. They like their barnacles because they feel protected. Picking at them only justifies sticking on more barnacles.

It's all about anxiety and social conservative personality disorder and an impression there is injustice in their failed authoritarianism.

Five will get you ten, when you need a thoracic surgeon, you look for a Shapiro; and what did Edith say when Archie needed an attorney? "Get him a Rabinowitz."

Global,

Yeah, but they all had Irving Dipschitz as their Moyel.

Good one! You know you can get circumcisions on the internet now don't you?

Yep. it's called eMoyel.

By the way - we get credit for most of the history of comedy in America. Without us, you guys would be a droll mirthless bunch. And if I thought you ever got out of your mother's basements you might make me uneasy.

Dipschitz, uh, so that was the name of the guy.

Anybody out there know anyone who does extensions? Except for Ron Jeremy, of course.

Globe:

Remember that SNL parody of the Lincoln Town Car ad, with the moyel in the back seat performing his duty without a slip because the ride was so smooth?

That was because the real ad used an extremely semitic-looing diamond-cutter ...

The one good thing about these trolls is that they have a very short half-life. Once they drop their kiddies off at the pool, they never stick around to try to defend their arguments the way Watcher and slim did.

And a big Mazel Tov for *that*.

Bob

Global,

Comedy,means nothing to these creeps - Remember, their uncles and fellow brethren took no notice of Iron Crosses from World War1 come gassing time.

You can not be a bi-partisan with the Devil. No quarter asked, no quarter given.

Globe,

Jews invented the pie fight? Now it's all becoming clear!

My Auntie Lisbet is 86 years old and she still today has a series of numbers tattooed on her forearm. She has given testimony to the International Holocaust Museum.

I do not deny the Russian pogroms and their inherent atrocities. Do not deny what happened to us. All genocides are heinous, and none are justified in history.

cld - not to mention the seltzer spritz!!!

One of my kids has the best commercial satires DVD from SNL. I just saw that the other day, Bob. It's still just as funny as it was back then.

And if you boil the chicken too much it turns into a rubber chicken?

cid,

When Billy Wilder and many others left Germany, the intelligence level dropped tremendously, their scientific community was stripped, tailors became lousy and jokes were left to bananna peel slip and falls.

Our nation and society became the better for their coming to this land.

"So how's your wife?"

"Compared to what?"

--Henny Youngman

Bob

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, teach gym.

--Woody Allen

Bob

TheThirdPaul:

Amen to that.

Bob

Nice to see the trools depart - They all must be attending Veterans Day Parades across the land.

One lone Jewish/feminist/scientist stands her ground and they run scurrying back into the woodwork like the vermin they are.

Well truthfully, Globe, you *did* have a little assist :)

Bob

Yes I did. I'd take you guys in a foxhole any day.

3rdPaul,

Not to mention Ernst Lubitsch, who's Shop Around the Corner was on yesterday.

Hey, a 5% shift is HUGE. Just because it's spread out among many if not all sectors doesn't make it any less noteworthy in any given sector.

Oh, and how sweet it is to see American Hawk's wailing, sans balls! Oh wait, he was always devoid of courage, wasn't he. I guess now he's just lost his nice puffed-up buffer zone.

Dang it all - Late to the party again - Damn you DeLay, you gave me the correct web site, but the wrong people to go after.

Globe:

I'm a lefty for a lotta reasons -- but nothing gets me quite as righteously pissed off as bigotry, whether racial, religious, sexual or ethnic.

If we are not all self-evidently created equal, then the entire thing falls apart.

Bob

I think it's pretty obvious that the one thing I don't tolerate is intolerance.

The creepiest thing in history?

Mickey Mouse gas mask for children,

http://www.gasmasklexikon.com/Page/USA-Mil-Mikey.htm

Global,

One other film you might like is "Ball of Fire" (1941) - Howard Hawks, directed with a Charles Barlett and Billy Wilder script - Oskar Homulka and SZ Slakal, who had both fled the Nazis are in it - I thought, incorrectly, that Walter Slezak was also, but no - However, he was an escapee.
This film was remade by Hawks and Wilder as "A Song is Born" (1947) with Danny Kaye - funny also, but the original with Barabra Stanwick as SugarPuss O'Shea and Dana Andrews as the bad guy is better.

Kevin,
You are overstating your case. The fact is that the religious vote did swing disproportionately toward the Democrats this year. The fairest way to show this is to compare votes for the House in different off-year elections. Taking those exit pollees who said they attend religious services once a week or more, in 1992, they voted Republican by a margin of 8 percentage points (54-46). In 2002, the differential was 20 points (60-40). (This held in 2004.) Last Tuesday, the gap slipped to 12 percentage points (56-44). That's three percentage points higher than the overall voting shift of five percentage points. Moreover, you minimize the significance of the frequent attenders' shift by comparing this group with the voting population as a whole--because, at 45 percent of the voting population, you're substantially watering down the comparison with the rest of the population--i.e. you're comparing the frequent attenders with the less frequent attenders PLUS the frequent attenders. In fact, then, the frequent attenders shifted toward the Democrats by more than twice as much as the less frequent attenders. In other words, there really is something to Cooperman's story.

Okay, cld, that just creeped me right the fuck out.

Paul - I'll check out that movie over the semester break. I used all my free-time chits campaigning.

sparko: The GOP needs to change its symbol from the elephant to the ostrich.

i think leno suggested a moth...

since there are so many in the closet...

Good post, Mark Silk.

"All very interesting Kevin, but if Bob Casey had been Pro-choice, what then?"

That's something I've wondering, given the utter stomping Santorum got.

"It's kind of like seeing one cockroach in your apartment and then the next day, there are five of them ..."

Bob, that's entirely uncalled for, insulting cockroaches that way.

quit analyzing.
this was an anti-bush vote. people were motivated by their repulsion at the cult of republicanism to go out and vote democratr even if they had to hold their noses. that's it. period.
move on.

TJ makes me think of a line from "Good Morning Vietnam."

Then again, his problems are much deeper than that.

However these gains were off-set by left-handed unicyclists with even-numbered addresses whose republican preference was a stark contrast to 1956.

I think BroD gave the best and most reliable analysis thus far.

Looking back is not where we win the 2008 election, people. Looking forward is the answer.

Conservatives are the ones mired in the past. We are supposed to be about the future, aren't we? So back on message. We aren't going to replay the '06 elections. We are, however, going to have to face the electorate again in another general in two years. So concentrate on that one, okay?

OFF-TOPIC

I'd like to thank Bob for his kind words defending me recently. Among other things he said he was interested in my position on immigration, and I'd like to point all intelligent liberals to look at former Dem Congressmen Brad Carson's editorial on this topic.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/democrats_must_buck_the_overcl.html

I think it's pretty obvious that the one thing I don't tolerate is intolerance.

Typical liberal craziness...

Another comment about turnout. I have heard from a friend who is a member, that MoveOn had a very strong GOTV effort, unlike past elections. Is there any other evidence that the Democrats had an unusually strong GOTV effort? It was widely said that they would, but I haven't read about it since.

rmck1: As far as I know, there have been no al Qaeda comminques since the election.

I have read some from al Qaeda spokesmen in Iraq. Like Hamas, they called for renewed vigor in attacks against Europe, Israel, and the U.S. (against U.S. troops in Iraq and against continental U.S.) Basically the same old stuff, but claiming that the election proves that they have defeated the U.S. Conspicuously silent has been Osama bin Laden. I don't know if you want links; you can find the quotes by surfing the web.

As for your assertion that Iran acts as it does because it is backed into a corner, there is enough counterevidence. Their claim is that they are aiming to eradicate Israel, and they have been supporting international terrorists since they came to power. they may feel backed into a corner, or they may feel that the Bush administration is hampering their efforts to expand their power.

Their biggest threat is not military action by the U.S., but a stable, prosperous democracy in Iraq.

The fact that the Iranian government is happy that the Republicans lost, is little utility to us in evaluating the outcome. On that, I agree with you.

I think that Democrats who voted for the war, like Feinstein and Waxman, are going to push softly on withdrawal of troops from Iraq; if troops are pulled out too rapidly, no Congressional authorization of force will be worth anything in the future: in line with such rhetoric as Kerry's, such a resolution would be taken by any enemy as an empty bluff. Democrats have been calling for "conmpetence" in the war in Iraq; now that they are in charge, they can enforce their idea of competence and show that they were not engaging in empty rhetoric.

Thank you Mark Silk.

The reason churchgoers are such an important group to evaluate is that religious fervor can exert the toughest stranglehold on reason.

When the Democrats begin to break through it is a very good sign.

"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains."
- Theodore Roosevelt

Mark Silk on November 11, 2006 at 5:00 PM

good post. both informative and on point.

Enough about exit polls and examining chicken entrails to discern why people voted the way they did. Good God, for boring. Z-z-z-zzzzzz

minion:

Don't mention it. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. They'll be plenty of time to consider immigration in the new congress -- and I do think the Dems should pass something substantive with Bush. There's a lot of populist tendencies in the new freshmen, so it may be tougher sledding in the House even though it's no longer the Age of Tancredo.

MatthewRMarler:

Well, I'm going to have to push back pretty vigorosly on your mischaracterizations of Iran, which I believe are the product of little more than ideological distortion. Let's take some of your misconceptions one-by-one.

1) Iran doesn't intend to annihilate Israel. That quote was taken wildly out of context (trex can provide you the quote in proper context; he's done that many times). What Ahamadinejad said is that Israel may well be "destroyed" in the future -- but by demographic pressures, both from within the Occupied Territories and from within Israel herself, from the much higher Arab birth rate. Plus, he believe Israel would cease to exist as a state if the people it expelled were given a vote on it. Sure -- it's an extreme position from a Western POV. Israel is a done deal. But it's a damn slight different than calling explicitly for an eventual nuclear attack.

2) Iran supports Shi'ite resistance groups in local conflicts (mostly with Israel), not al Qaeda-style freelance international terrorism. This is a key distinction to keep in mind. How many suicide bombers can you name who've attacked Western (non-Israeli) targets who've been Shi'ite? I can't think of one, save for the mother of them all -- the Marine barracks attack in Lebanon that inaugurated suicide bombing as a military tactic. But since then, it's been Sunni Salafist extremists who prosecute that form of war. Sunni Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel? Notorious. Any suicide attacks by Shi'ite Hezbollah against Israel in Lebanon in the recent war? IIRC, none at all.

It is takfiri Salafist (Sunni) extremist ideology that menaces the world. Shi'ite extremism is a different animal entirely -- and much more amenable to control by religious hierarchies. Sunni Imams, conversely, are freelancers. That's why it can legitimate an apostate group like al Qaeda.

3) It is in the interest of *no* state to have a failed state on its border. This is more silly neocon ideology. Iran's economy is going quite well -- they make their own automobiles -- so the idea of an Iraqi "example" threatening them with prosperity is just more "they hate us for our freedoms" ideological frogwash. Iran has an interest in the well-being of its Shi'ite co-religionists in Iraq -- but the relationship will also have limits, because of memories of the brutal Iran/Iraq war. While both Shia, Persians are not Arabs.

4) The Realists are taking over Iraq policy now. Robert Gates and some of the people around James Baker believe that there's no way to solve the Iraq situation without bringing Iran (and Syria) to the table. I think everybody believes this is progress. Bush's insistence on isolating Iran was stone-idiocy. Make Iran a partner in the development and security of Iraq, and there are many problems and potential problems you can begin to address -- such as the funding and training of Shi'ite militias inside Iraq.

If I were Ahmadinejad, I would have welcomed this election, too. This is not "our enemies cheering at defeat." This is just a collective sigh of relief that the neocon ascendency has come to an end, and diplomacy and bargaining can begin once again.

Because truly -- there's simply no other feasable alternative. The pure military solution has already been exhaustively tried.

Bob

Bob

to an unreconstructed neocon like myself, the most exasperating thing about this war is that the pure military solution has not been tried. If we had tried and failed, I would be willing to throw in the towel...

As to your second point to MRM - how does the bombing of a Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires fit in with your reasonable adversaries premise?

Joe Bob Briggs on November 11, 2006 at 9:25 PM:

Good God, for boring. Z-z-z-zzzzzz

Hey, it's not like there's a war going on or something...

fwiw: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4327384.html

rmck1: Iran supports Shi'ite resistance groups in local conflicts (mostly with Israel), not al Qaeda-style freelance international terrorism.

Other reports say that Iran provides refuge for al Qaeda on the run, and supports terrorists organizations with cash. Also, what you wrote there does not dispute my claim that Iran initiates violence.

What you called a "mischaracterization" is just the fact that I listed other facts that you omitted. You have listed some facts that I omitted, which is equally a "mischaracterization".

Militant Islam is on the march in numerous parts of the world, and is not merely passively responding to threats against Muslims (though that also happens), and is not confined to Wahabists and Salafists (who may be most prominent.) Iran is one of the initiators. That the Iranian leadership fears it may be removed from power, or have its military power compromised, is also true. They have announced their intention to destroy Israel, and that intention is independent of any particular Israeli policy or action; the wealthiest and freest Arabs are those living in Israel, and Iran aims to replace that governance with a government more like Syria's. It is ironic that the Shi'ite Iranians are collaborating with the nominally secular Baathists, but such ironies are hardly rare.

Reportedly, the government of Syria is also happy with the election.

The Alawite [sp?] minority that runs the Baath in Syria are an offshoot of the Shia, and constitute about 10% of the population. They were installed originally as puppets of the French when they ran the Levant. I agree they are nominally secular.

One of the many points we neocons try to make is that suicide terror, like other terror, is endemic to the region and not particular bad organizations. Bob argues that suicide terror started with the Marine barracks. I would argue that the first "suicide" mission of the modern era was carried out by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Christian.

They have announced their intention to destroy Israel

No they haven't.

Other reports say that Iran provides refuge for al Qaeda on the run

Unless you have a cite from a credible source, those "reports" are actually "allegations." Donald Rumsfeld saying it's so doesn't hold any water, for reasons too numerous and obvious to enumerate.

Reportedly, the government of Syria is also happy with the election.

You're a dork.

Democrats have been calling for "conmpetence" in the war in Iraq; now that they are in charge, they can enforce their idea of competence and show that they were not engaging in empty rhetoric.

The Democrats are not "in charge" of the war effort. Read the Constitution lately? You see, it's an oooooold document, fashioned by our forefathers to describe the different branches of government, and it's divided up into articles and sections....

[Iran's] biggest threat is not military action by the U.S., but a stable, prosperous democracy in Iraq.

Quite the opposite, the Iranians fear that the chaos from an Iraq fractured along religious and ethnic lines could spill over into their country.

Is there nothing that you do not have entirely backwards?

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views.

Thereafter he segues into talking about the Palestinians, but he doesn't really say he doesn't mean it. 'Everybody's entitled to their own opinion' is what he says.

cld:

How can you "segue into talking about the Palestinians" without implicitly talking about the state of Israel? You think the two things are divorced?

Bob

si, liberales

¡Atención de la paga a mí!
No llame por favor a patrulla de frontera

Él ha funcionado pollos y cabras excesivos con su coche.

Él es una amenaza a la sociedad.

su tobillo que supervisa el dispositivo.

rmck1 bitch persona, si!

bob,

I don't think the two things are divorced, I don't think the Palestinians are Israelis.

He surely didn't mean to blow up the Palestinians along with them.

This is Babelfish's translation of the Spanish above,

if, liberal Attention of the payment to me! It does not call please to border patrol It has worked excessive chickens and goats with his car. It is a threat to the society. its ankle that supervises the device. rmck1 bitch person, if!

Thanks, cld. It's all much clearer now.

He surely didn't mean to blow up the Palestinians along with them.

He never says "bomb" or "blow up." He simply describes the government of Israel as one more bad government among many that needs to be deposed, and says that like other bad governments that were once thought to be invincible it too will be deposed one day.

However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country [[[...]]] Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Ignore my housekeeper Minerva. She is spreading lies about me on a stolen laptop.

I see a lot of chin stroking and a great deal of fretting about Islam. I note that someone is throwing around terms that they do not understand.

To wit, please read this from Global Security dot Organization:

In the United States, Salafism has been equated by some with radicalism and terrorism in some newspaper articles, books, and public discourse. However, “Salafism” is not inherently synonymous with violence, terrorism, or radicalism. Many Salafis throughout the world are doctrinally rigid, but peaceful.

It is important to distinguish between the following groups, thought of (perhaps) as concentric circles:

"Jihadist Salafis" - such as the followers of al-Qaeda and like-minded local groups;

"Salafis" - those who believe that the imitation of the behavior of the Prophet’s closest companions should be the basis of the social order;

"Islamists" - a still broader category,which includes anyone who thinks that the precepts of Islam - however interpreted - should be fundamental to the political and social order; and,

"Discontented Muslims" - people who identify themselves as Muslims,and who are unhappy with their life prospects, with the justice of their societies,and/or with the state of the wider world.

The Salafi jihadist movement has attracted rootless and or committed internationalist militants. They fight for the jihad, seeking to re-create the Muslim ummah and shariat to build an Islamic community. Simultaneously conservatives and radical, they form a global network that has attracted Muslims from around the world to fight jihad in Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. The salafi-jihadist movement in Central Asia and the Caucasus is more localized -- an expression of identity in areas such as Ferghana, villages in Daghestan, and upper Gharm valley. In Central Asia, the term "Wahabi" refers to fundamentalists who come from Pakistan or Afghanistan, but they are not necessarily a political movement. For example, Wahabis in Tajikistan do not recognize themselves as a political alignment. However, most Central Asian regimes use the term Wahabi more broadly to describe Islamic religious movements outside the states' control.

Now, as we fight these movements, please remember--the adherents to these beliefs are not supermen, nor do they have any mystical powers. They are merely individuals seeking a method of acquiring power. There is no other reason for engaging in terrorist acts; the terrorist uses this tactic to unsettle the opponent; as the opponent becomes unsettled, the cumulative effect of sending people to their deaths to commit terrorist acts raises the profile of the mastermind behind the scenes. DO NOT FOCUS ON THE LACKEYS WHO BLOW THEMSELVES UP.

They are often poor, misguided or brainwashed. It is the one who manipulates and controls things that is the key to understanding how to destroy international terrorism. A man who controls a terrorist organization is, himself, a physical coward and a manipulator; certainly not a true believer in anything and certainly not anything other than a common criminal. Religion means nothing to a man who sends others to kill innocents. These are the people we need to capture and kill.

I expect to see some context in this debate--the United States of America is not going to lose to these animals. The US of A is going to fight back hard, and George W Bush is doing just that, despite the fact that American and Western European liberalism has decided to surrender to the likes of al Qaeda.

And you wonder why you're just morons.

I will submit this to you, liberals--as much as you would like to denigrate George W Bush, he has taken actions in the Middle East that have unsettled the masterminds of terror. He has captured some, but not all, of these masterminds and put the rest on their heels. Those who have not learned to steer clear of taking action against the United States and being brought into line.

Nothing so much as an attack on the US mainland since 9/11 is proof that George W Bush has beaten back the more brazen aspect of this Islamic fundamentalism; I regret that we call this a war on terror when it is, more succinctly, a war that actually has nothing to do with the tactic of terror nor does it have anything to do with Islam itself, which is a peaceful religion.

No--it has everything to do with the dog that barked: to wit, one obscure organization that got lucky and bloodied America with suicide planes. The ripple effect--the stone thrown into the pond--is the dog that didn't bark. Why do we not see attacks from Hezbollah or Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad in this country? We certainly know they raise millions in America and wire it back and forth through out banking system. We certainly know their telecommunications chatter and we certainly know where the bad guys are, location-wise. (Many live in New Jersey and Michigan.)

Will the dog bark again? I'm speaking of al Qaeda. And al Qaeda has been bad for the terrorism business, thanks to the fact that George W Bush hasn't rolled over like a fat whore and taken it sideways for a dollar like a Democrat would.

And it's only a matter of time before American liberalism joins European liberalism and begins to appease al Qaeda. Once that happens, the benches will clear and everyone on the sidelines will join in.

Only a matter of time.

Now, as we fight these movements, please remember--the adherents to these beliefs are not supermen, nor do they have any mystical powers. They are merely individuals seeking a method of acquiring power. There is no other reason for engaging in terrorist acts; the terrorist uses this tactic to unsettle the opponent; as the opponent becomes unsettled, the cumulative effect of sending people to their deaths to commit terrorist acts raises the profile of the mastermind behind the scenes. DO NOT FOCUS ON THE LACKEYS WHO BLOW THEMSELVES UP.

That's really an excellent explanation of the underlying dynamic of terrorism and a reminder of why it's important to maintain a level-head and resist overreacting to attacks...

...by, say, becoming mired in an unwinnable sectarian/guerilla war in the Middle East that is a jackpot for terrorist recruiters.

We certainly know their telecommunications chatter and we certainly know where the bad guys are, location-wise. Many live in New Jersey and Michigan.

Inshallah!

Remarkable interview where Ahmadinejad goes on at incredible length denying the Holocaust to a guy who was actually there,

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/speeches/domestic/850629e.htm

from http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/08/4/index-e.htm#b3

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned countries or leaders who have taken measures to acknowledge the Zionist regime under pressure or due to lack of sound understanding that they will be confronted with the wrath of the Islamic ummah and will forever be disgraced. Speaking at a conference dubbed "World without Zionism" here Wednesday which was attended by thousands of students, he said any country which acknowledges the Zionist regime will actually be acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. Ahmadinejad referred to the Zionist regime's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of Palestinian territory and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel. Pointing to the evil attempts of the US and Israel to saw discord among warring forces in Palestine and other parts of the Islamic world, the president said such attempts were aimed at forcing some Islamic countries to acknowledge the existence of Israel. .

There you have it, everything about Israel's existence is equal to 'the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world'.

Remarkable interview where Frist goes on at incredible length denying the Schiavo diagnosis by doctors who were actually there:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48119-2005Mar18.html

Yep, ideology certainly can be blinding, no matter what one's race or religion.

Just realized all Ahmadinejad's speeches are on that website but this is the only one that seems to be absent, replaced with a description leaving out the controversial 'wiped off the map' part.

Just realized all Ahmadinejad's speeches are on that website but this is the only one that seems to be absent, replaced with a description leaving out the controversial 'wiped off the map' part.

If I remember that part correctly, that was a myth and a lie spread by the "Neo Conservatives" who have conflated the need to fight terrorism with the need to secure a stable supply of oil for the USA. The translation was never adequately done. Perhaps if they had used your little babelfish site, eh?

I have never concerned myself with the Iranians. They are a hollow horse. The people of Iran actually love America and wish nothing but peace and trade with us. Once we can conceive of a way to unseat the radical clerics, Iran will fall gently into our orbit and we can concentrate on removing Assad from Syria and building a Kurdish state that will help us pressure the Turks.

Your uncle Norman is a Nelson Rockefeller Republican/Libertarian who cannot abide the neocons and their misguided efforts to derail a war we need to fight to defend this country.

Democrats have been calling for "conmpetence" in the war in Iraq; now that they are in charge, they can enforce their idea of competence and show that they were not engaging in empty rhetoric.

The Democrats are not "in charge" of the war effort. Read the Constitution lately? You see, it's an oooooold document, fashioned by our forefathers to describe the different branches of government, and it's divided up into articles and sections....

the Constitution does of course give the Congress a role, and now the Democrats have the majority in Congress. They have the committee chairmanships, and committee majorities, to investigate the conduct of the war and recommend policy changes. they have the votes, should they agree, to write the laws about how the budget is to be spent, or not spent (which was how Congress ended American involvement in VietNam.) They are in charge if they can agree what they want to do.

I won't deny being a dork, yet it is still true that the Syrian government was happy at the U.S election outcome.

As for Iran being threatened by chaos and civil war in Iraq, their greatest threat was actually the united country under Saddam Hussein, when everyone now asserts it was peaceful, safe, and secular. Civil war and chaos in Iraq might give them an opportunity to expand their power (perhaps by backing al Sadr and his allies), but it is certainly no threat.

Are the Dumbocrats/Democrats/unhinged liberals in charge of the war effort? Apparently so.

This article makes me sad that the conservative movement did not more actively recruit Mr. Webb to run as a Republican for the House in the State of Virginia:

One reason for hurrying Senate confirmation of Robert Gates as secretary of defense through the lame-duck session of Congress is to avoid confrontation with an old enemy: James Webb, who will be a Democratic senator from Virginia in the new Congress starting in January.

During President Reagan's second term, Gates and Webb clashed as colleagues. Webb as secretary of the Navy objected to plans by Gates, then deputy national security adviser, for U.S. warships to protect oil platforms in the Persian Gulf. The hot-tempered Webb made clear his irritation with the soft-spoken Gates.

Considering his background, Webb is likely to go on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The White House wants to confirm Gates before Webb is sworn in.

How sad is it that George W Bush has to defend this country without the benefit of being able to put the people he believes to be the most qualified in the positions they are badly needed? How difficult it must be to be President and have the liberals dictating who should serve in which position.

As if they could do a better job! I would say, most emphatically, not.

Civil war and chaos in Iraq might give them an opportunity to expand their power (perhaps by backing al Sadr and his allies), but it is certainly no threat.

Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History, Juan Cole, who has lived and studied in the region for extended periods -- disagrees.

As does Gary Sick , former National Security Advisor under three presidents and principal White House aide for Persian Gulf affairs from 1976-1981; current executive director of the Gulf/2000 Project; Adjunct Professor of International Affairs at the School of International & Public Affairs at Columbia University; and all around expert on Iran.

As does Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute.

As we've learned from the Iraq debacle, once you unleash the forces of war there is no controlling them, and they usually come back to bite you. Iran certainly knows this, having ethno/religious minorities within its borders that could likely take up arms on one side or another in response to a growing regional conflict.

Reportedly, the government of Syria is also happy with the election.

If that's true at all, it's only true in the sense that every foreign government on the planet is happy with the results of the election.

Getting back to the topic of the original post for a minute what we saw last Tuesday was nothing less than a broad-spectrum repudiation of Bush, the GOP, and the politics of division and viciousness. Remember how before the election the GOP was trying to portray this as just another "throw the Washington Bums out"? That this was a referendum on Washington, not simply the GOP, that this was a bipartisan disgust? Well, we know that was completely wrong since no Democratic incumbent lost his or her race in the House, Senate, and for Governor. From what I've been hearing and reading so far this appears to be unprecedented in American political history. As in has never happened before this for those that don't understand the meaning of the word "unprecedented".

We know that the shift was across the spectrum against the GOP, that there was no specific voting block that was disproportionate shifting to the Dems and that this was broad and deep in nature. Indeed, without the political levees the GOP had put in place in the House their losses there would have been significantly worse. From what else I have seen so far it looks like both the GOP and the Dems were able to get their vote out and that it truly was the moderate/swing voters who also turned out in heavier than usual numbers for a midterm that drove the GOP from office in Congress. This means the Dems are the party of the center for the moment, and so long as they are able to demonstrate that they are pragmatists and live in the real world and not the extremists the GOP have painted them as for the last decade (Which is less difficult than many GOPers I think understand since currently the GOP is seen as the rigid party of ideological extremism as the vote showed quite clearly) they should be able to not just retain but further gain seats in Congress.

This was a massive unheard of level repudiation of a party as well as a President. The only reason there was not more analysis and discussion of this in the first days after the election was because of the Rumsfeld sacking the next say after the elections. While this buries this somewhat for a time and gives the GOP spinmeisters some time to try and minimize the appearance of damage while trying to also force the Dems to react in favourable ways to their agenda/POV (like with this notion that the Dems won only because of conservatives and therefore they have to govern for those conservatives to keep power in 2008, something I happen to think is so much bunk) it is simply too big a story to not be told. Particularly when it is in the interest of the Dems to make sure it is told as often as possible in the early days to redefine rhetorical ground as well as to show that they are the ones with the political capitol and are in alignment with the will of the American people and not the GOP/President as he has claimed so often in the last six years now.

The Dems profited from a protest vote, to say otherwise is to be kidding oneself. However, to say that their agenda was not even considered with most people's votes I think is also equally wrong. I think the Dems agenda on oversight, Iraq, and economic fairness was a significant consideration and something they have received a mandate for. What they do not have a mandate for is social engineering, which since they don't appear to have that on their agenda (unlike the way the GOP has for the past decade or so as evidenced by the so called culture wars they manufactured for political purposes) should not be a problem since the only people that appear to believe the Dems do have such an agenda appear to be diehard GOPers and their political operatives in the commentariat.

The next two years I believe are going to see a further realignment of the center away from the GOP and with the Dems. This will be because the Dems will show themselves to be the true big tent party, the ones more interested in governing for the benefit of the middle class and not just the most wealthy in America, and the ones willing to consider idea of their political opposition when they make sense something the GOP clearly did not do in the past six years.

This election shows that neither party can win in the long term by a playing to the base political strategy, neither side has that many committed voters in the public to do so with, it is the moderates and independents that have the real power, and they flexed that power last Tuesday. In the process they elected a more broad based Democratic Party to both houses of Congress while electing a more extreme/radical/hard core GOP party to both Houses. I think that as much as anything else will continue the further gains of the Dems with the idea of being the party most representative of the American public, a brand the GOP/conservatives have held for over a decade and used mercilessly to crush any Dem dissent/opposition/policy that they disapproved of. In a country built on free speech, checks and balances, and the notion that there are many ways to see life and that all should be respected within a free and open democratic society such will not work and will be ultimately rejected forcefully. I believe 2006 represents the fist step in a generational shift and repudiation of the GOP politics of the last decade, both in terms of style and substance/ideology. We shall see.

Scotty Ian

The Dems profited from a protest vote, to say otherwise is to be kidding oneself.

This is true. Thank you for your near-total agreement with your uncle Norman.

Returning to the numbers. Perhaps both views could be correct. If the number of evangelical voters for the Democrats increased by 3%, this does not show that they are the same as voted four years ago. That is, it does not follow that the same people turned out to vote. Perhaps 'Democratic' religious voters voted less last time and 'Republican' ones more, rather than that the latter switched. The implicit psychology of this seems realistic enough.

Although there may not be a huge shift in any one group, looking at the exit polls for just this last election is fascinating for someone who hadn't studied them before. Among the interesting patterns:

* Among all white Americans, Republicans win by 51% to 47%. (Keep that in mind when forming electoral theories). It is the African Americans that deliver the Democratic win, voting 89% to 10% for the Democrats.

* White men are the most conservative, voting only 45% for the Democrats. White women are next with 49%. Then come non-white men with 75% and non-white women with 78%.

Yet it is still very difficult for African Americans to vote -- because elections are on a weekday, because of intimidation, because of ID requirements in some states, and because of the hours required at some polling stations in lower-income areas. Check the videos at videothevote.org to see some horror stories. How is a poor single black woman with a baby supposed to find 3 or 4 hours on a workday to vote? Yet these black women are the Democrats' strongest supporters.

Norman:

Some of the most cogent remarks I've seen you leave on a comment thread. Kudos. The quote from GlobalSecurityOrg was especially apropos. It's important to remember that not all Sunni Salafists are jihadis -- much as we might object to their concept of human rights.

But here's where I'll respectfully submit to you that you've been led astray: There is no Great Man Theory of radical jihad -- and it is dangerous and misguided to try to separate out the leaders from the followers into something less than an organic whole. Our whole approach should be reaching the potential soldiers before they make that fateful decision to commit to jihad. The "leadership" is becoming less and less relevant.

In America, we're strongly predisposed to believe in command and control. When we fight an enemy, we want to be able to "cut the head off the snake." We tried this -- to a good deal of success -- in Afghanistan. We severely disrupted al Qaeda and killed or captured a large number of their leaders and trainers.

But the upshot is -- they adapted. Al Qaeda is an entirely different entity now, more a brand name than a particular concrete organization. Jihad fever still spreads on the internet. The doctrine, tactics, strategy, objectives are all available on websites. It is an open-source movement. The leaders may serve as inspiration (and Osama of course tremendously still), but we've found that by killing them individually -- we only create martyrs. The ideology lives on.

It's important, of course, to kill the most experienced soldiers on the battlefield. But in terms of the next Western attack, this is clearly not enough. Nor would pursuing it more vigorously necessarily reduce our chances of being attacked again. We're not "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," we're fighting a *specific* group of "them" while *another* group is busy readying themselves for the next Madrid, London, NYC or gods know where.

And as long as the conditions remain in the world to drive that inspiration, the more would-be jihadis will find themselves inspired and connected. Sunni Islam is driven by individual imams. Many loathe terrorism and consider it un-Islamic -- but some don't. The primary inspiration and motivation comes face-to-face, with local demagogues who are networked in to sources of funding.

This is why we need to disengage from Iraq. It might cheer the warriors there (who will then have no reason to be in Iraq), but it will serve to chill the Muslims in far-flung places observing events. It will show them that the West is, in fact, *not* bent on conquering their lands and stealing their resorces. It will provide a cooling down of the fires that cause young men to devote their lives to certain death.

And reaching these young men -- seeing the world through the eyes that they do -- needs to be a top priority as we negotiate a new direction in the conflict.

Bob

I'm going to have to push back pretty vigorosly on your mischaracterizations of Iran

And very well done, I'd add, Bob. If the Dems refuse Gates, I think you'd make a solid SecDef. In addition to greater national security, it'd be fun to watch the neo-hate trolls' heads explode, despite the added greenhouse gas that would be released.

Thanks, Kevin.

But gentle on the flattery -- you wouldn't want to wind up accused as being yet "another" one of my "many" sock puppets.

Seriously. They are *that* assholish.

Bob

As usual, Scotian has presented an excellent analysis.

However, I thought we only won because we followed the advice of Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, including the concern trools on this site. Having followed their advice to not knock Shrub's war policies, extoll his wonderful economic plan and remember not to say a word about corruption, lest we forget our own transgressions, we were able to sweep to leadership, not only in Congress, but in many Gubenatorial and state legislatures across the land.

Therefore, we must, once again, only listen to the sincere, heartfeft advice of said O'Reilly, his ilk and the truly, truly concerned trools - Otherwise, we may be swept from office in 08.

And on this dawning day of rest, I say, Fuck 'em all - We won because we did not take their ignorant advice - Now, it is time to remain standing tall and Moveon.org full speed ahead.

Seriously. They are *that* assholish.

The pot just rolled out of bed and called the kettle black, right there.

Bob has no credibility anymore--he's been caught using sock puppets and your uncle Norman won't tolerate such outrageous and dishonest activity.

Poor Bob just needs to get some help. My pity is extended to him. He was given the coup de grace and he's too stupid to know what that means...

Thanks to one of my top intel sources, very good at under cover operations, perhaps, has informed me that the intrepid newshawk, Tim Russert, cut to the heart of the matter this morning by pounding Straight Talk Express with questions about Kerry's botched joke.

Yeah, that's what it was all about, Tim.

Here's an item on links between Iran and al Qaeda.

http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=171753&D=2006-11-12&SO=&HC=1

Last I looked, the link to the original didn't work, or else only paid subscribers could read.

It is only one of many articles on such links.

Wow. mhr that was damned insidious.
More coherent mhr: "Let's try to repair our GOP base by demonizing Democrats as athiest, secular, pigs."

Nope. If there were no God, the teachings of Jesus would still be, to my mind, the best way to live in an organized society. Blessed are the poor. What are the Middle Class but the poor with a couple of weeks of food in a banker's pantry?

Blessed are the poor in spirit. They watch the GOP-dominated media.

Blessed are the peace makers--for they are almost entirely Democratic.

A man's actions should never be governed by an expectation of reward if he is to call himself a mature human being. If one acts for social justice and good only because he is afraid of being pilloried on "God's Funniest Home Videos" at the end of his fearful life, then he has a life of a good hypocrite and is not pious, but rather pitiable.

Live bravely and well. If there is a dungeon master God of eternal pain, how should one confront that? I am repulsed by the recurring American fascination with a sadistic, pain-giving, capricious almighty spirit.

I consider that all life evolves towards understanding and capacious love. God first and foremost must forgive us our ignorance and animal fears.

I won't deny being a dork, yet it is still true that the Syrian government was happy at the U.S election outcome.

Just echoing craigie here, but how about this formulation: "The civilized world is happy with the US election results."

Or, as Richard Armitage said recently, "I've said from time to time that we had a great problem in this nation after 2001; we started exporting our anger and our fear, rather than what is more traditional for us, which is our hope and our enthusiasm."

Anger and fear are the motivating factors for those who put their trust in military force. The world may be breathing a sigh of relief now that America has rejected the party of reckless tough-guyism.

Fools seek security in violence. Frightened, childish fools.

*I should have said:

Fools seek security in unnecessary violence.

Jesus. There is enough BDSM and fellating going on around here to rate a XXX rating.

I'm out.

Now if the U.S. can stop taking sides in the Arab/Israeli eternal hatefest, maybe we wouldn't be dragged into their conflicts. If they want to exterminate each other have at it I say.

We should limit our involvement to the europeans model (except to try to eliminate their nukes, both sides, where possible). Those who are being oppressed should endeavor to leave instread of trying pull the U.S. in. Apparently that war will never end.

Poor Ben:

This was an anti war, anti bush, anti Israel vote.

I highly doubt whether the issue of Israel has ever made any kind of a dent whatsoever into the conscience of the American electorate. The Republican Party, for example, has often made a misguided attempt at demonizing France. Well, I can assure you, this is folly. A thinking man knows that the history of the world has intersected with France numerous times, and were it not for the French, America would never have been born in the glorious way that it was. We would more closely resemble Australia than we would this free Republic and all of its glory.

You don't have to be a brownshirt to see that Israel has cost us a lot of money. They are not worth protecting.

Well, but it is. You see, there is only one Democracy in the Middle East, and that's Israel. Israel is surrounded by countries that want to destroy it because they don't want to have to deal with the Palestinians. I would submit to you that if Egypt, Syria and Jordan (to name a few) had somehow absorbed the Palestinian people in a welcoming sort of way, we'd have no issue in the Middle East right now. In the 1970s, someone should have done more to encourage the Arab states to do so; this is a lost opportunity. What happened instead was, the infant nation-states of the Middle East were pawns in a US-Russian strategy game, to the detriment of the Palestinians. Israel is worth defending, if only because the Arabs who actually live in Israel have a higher standard of living than they would in any other Arab state, except for maybe the UAE. Sorry, but that's true.

Of course the Jews here will scream the A word.

Ah, and rightly so, Mr. Brownshirt reference.

Israel is a cancer on the neighborhood. AGAIN - you don't have to be a KKK member to see that Israel is the menace in the Middle East.

Terrorism is the cancer, and Israel has actually led the world in helping to stop terrorism. Israel is a unique partner--much of our intelligence about terror networks and their tactics comes from a partnership with the Israelis.

What you don't understand is that Israel is in the neighborhood of terrorist sponsoring states--it is the easier target. Ultimately, they wish to hit Europe and the US. If Israel is destroyed, do you really think they won't be looking at the great cities of Europe and the US next?

Israel is a convenient enemy, as is any Democracy where people are free to express themselves and live under the rule of law. Guess what you can't do in most Arab countries--you can't express yourself or expect the rule of law to really save you. The spectre of corrupt western nations is held up and used to stifle dissent and confuse people in Arab countries because if the people in Arab countries were rightly focused on what is keeping them down--their own corrupt governments--they might do something about it. So the Arab governments use Israel as a bogeyman to keep their own people from realizing where the source of their poverty and desperation comes from. A corrupt Palestinian Authority does exactly the same thing--millions go missing, well, blame the Israelis and don't look to the real cause is what they claim.

No, George W Bush has been correct on the issue of Israel at every turn. See liberals? Your uncle Norman shows you how to skin a cat.

Say, Ben. Nice bedsheet by the way. Did mommy cut out the eyes for you?

Paul, why so hypercritical of Punkinhead? You can't deny that it was a slow news week.

Did you catch me on meet the press?

I laid out my plan for the next two years. McCain, Snow, Collins, Obama and I have a plan for victory, social security reform, ethics reform, environmental protection, and Connecticut pork. We'll be caucusing in a room at the white house. I'm not sure why the press insists on talking to Harry Reid when it is our group of 5 that will be making all the decisions.

The election proves that America wants triangulation not obstruction and partisanship. If the democratic party doesn't give me some key chairmanships I'll just operate from a different vertice.

According to Christian theology wouldn't all those 'unborn children' go directly to heaven?

An obviously fair question. Why haven’t there been a bunch of answers? Is Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice the only commenter brave enough to tackle this all-important question?

I am forced to guess that most modern evangelicals would postulate that all the single-cell fertilized eggs, since the dawn of man, that have perished, have gone to heaven where they are allowed to grow into human adults and are named. Of course I’m just guessing. Lucky people. Avoided all the pains and pangs of growing, birthing, learning, living consciously, and growing old and dying.

OTOH, that's just a first guess. Such cells may in fact exist forever as cells who enjoy the same protections of full-fledged adults. I don’t know the answers, but evangelicals seem to indicat that it’s a very important question. Strange that the answer doesn’t not seem to be well known.

Here's an item on links between Iran and al Qaeda.

http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=171753&D=2006-11-12&SO=&HC=1

It is only one of many articles on such links.

Here's an item on links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/23/MNG3M4G9GV1.DTL

It is only one of many articles on such links.

The problem is -- it wasn't true. Not even remotely. It was a false and unsupported allegation used to cheerlead a war.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...apparently every couple of years or so.

A democracy does not throw up a wall around those it doesn't like. It doesn't try to starve and crush them through sanctions. I realize that nowadays the wall seems to be a necessary thing but it didn't have to be.

It does when it is under siege by suicide bombers who want to kill civilians.

Funny how one would forget to bring up that one salient point.

Here is something that the Democrats can push harder, now that they are "in charge" in the Congress.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-dems-eng0517.htm

Like the Republican's bill, it has its flaws. In particular, I think it is bad policy to "protect consumers from price gouging", because consumers are not likely to change much if protected from rising fuel costs; but if they have an actual definition of "price gouging" it might not be too bad.

Well, but it is. You see, there is only one Democracy in the Middle East, and that's Israel.

A democracy does not throw up a wall around those it doesn't like. It doesn't try to starve and crush them through sanctions. I realize that nowadays the wall seems to be a necessary thing but it didn't have to be.

I would submit to you that if Egypt, Syria and Jordan (to name a few) had somehow absorbed the Palestinian people in a welcoming sort of way, we'd have no issue in the Middle East right now.

I submit to you that if Mexico would just take back the Mexicans and Native Americans that lived here long before the whites showed up and started kicking them off their lands we'd have no issue.

What's so unreasonable about that?

mhr, what a bozo.

yawn: he's just feeling a little impotent since he is not allowed to define and dismiss democrats.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it ... .

"And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death."

You can learn many things from studying history, but two of the many things you can't learn from studying history are: (1) who is telling the truth now; (2) what to do next.

So some sources say that Iran supports terrorists worldwide, and has done so for decades. you think those sources are wrong because other sources exaggerated the extent of Iraq/al Qaeda communication. Yet known terrorists were protected by the Iraqi government, and others trained in Iraq. And there were low-level communications between members of al Qaeda and officials in the Iraqi government, just not a lot.

JS: anything we say will be an over-simplification, but I think you have hit on the most significant factors. Bush, Rove and Company have based their entire political careers on those factors more than anything else you can point to, as did Atwater before them.

"Terrorism is the cancer, and Israel has actually led the world in helping to stop terrorism. "

Israel is the shining example of how terrorism can lead to a sucessfull state run by the former terrorists.

Israel is one of the best examples that 39 years of oppression and security crackdowns without satisfying the reasonable demands of terrorists (eg stop building settlements) cannot defeat terrorism.

Israel's occupation is the festering sore of the middleast and our unconditional support for israel earns us emnity year after year.

People like you, and bush, don't realize this. This massive deviation of your worldview from reality leads you to ridiculous predictions like a quick and easy establishment of liberal democracy in iraq by american military force.

Israel's occupation is the festering sore of the middleast and our unconditional support for israel earns us emnity year after year.

You mean Israel actually building something on land that was previously not used for anything is an occupation? Israel building a garden in the desert by using irrigation and infrastructure to reclaim arid land? While Arab governments steal and confiscate and block anything that would improve the lives of their people? Israel investing money in actually doing something to improve land that was captured in the Six Day War? You remember the Six Day War--Israel was attacked on three sides and by sea and by air by the Arab nations. Had it been a fourteen day war, what would the Middle East look like today?

Stop bitching about the Israelis--they, at least, have the courage to fight terrorism and build a society. What have the Arabs done, except blame everyone else for their problems? Had they opened their societies and made an effort to improve the lives of their own citizens, would we really be having this discussion? Would we have Islamic terrorism right now if the Arab nations actually had a process through which everyone could participate in government? How about that thing I pointed out, vis a vis, with the Rule of Law? How about we talk about the Rule of Law and how Arab states abhor the western idea of the Rule of Law?

Don't for a second think I tolerate the term "raghead." I abhor it. I will not stand for anyone thinking I am against the people; their governments are evil and they have had their heel on the good people of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Saudi and Lebanon (to name a few) for too long.

Do you realize, liberals, you're backing Arab nations that discriminate and denigrate women? How's that for an eye-popping contradiction that doesn't involve the now-discredited rmck1, who will conjure up a sock puppet to attack me for pointing out that he has no credibility anymore. Want a specific? I'll grant you one--Egypt in particular turns a blind eye to the practice of female circumcision. Ever heard of Sharia Law? This is what you think makes the Middle East a good place for women to live? Pardon George W Bush for trying to make a difference.

Infantile thinking is best answered with short answers. Here's a few that will help you in life, and you Arab dictactors can follow as well: grow up. Stop complaining. Stop waiting for a handout. Make the best of what you have. Take responsibility for your actions. Stop blaming others for your failures.

Israel is the shining example of how terrorism can lead to a sucessfull state run by the former terrorists.

Israel is no such example at all, but the Soviet Union was an excellent example.

After 39 years of complete failure you'd think the Palestinians would consider some alternate course. It only took the US 6 years. But, no, any deviation from extremism is failure in the world of the religious maniac.

"Israel is no such example at all...

After 39 years of complete failure you'd think the Palestinians..."

Not the palastinians, obviously, the Israeli's.

My goodness gracious! Not only does Scotty Ian see the world through the prism that I do, but now cld is in full agreement with me as well!

This is an interesting turn of events, eh, kids? Welcome to relevancy, and welcome to credibility for a change. As more and more of you leave liberalism behind, remember--you, too, can abandon soft-headed liberalism and follow your uncle Norman to greatness. I'm a Libertarian, though, and not many people have the courage to be Libertarians, as I do.

jefff:

You're out of your element and you make no sense. We have had enough of that dishonest fool rmck1--please don't emulate him.

Finish your thought or clarify what you were trying to say. Better yet, apologize for being wrong and we'll call it a mulligan.

"You mean Israel actually building something on land that was previously not used for anything is an occupation?"

Yep, this is exactly the kind of detatchment from reality of which I am speaking.

But, Norm, you earlier said you were a Rockefeller Republican!

Just a passing though for those who think the Democratic victory over the publicans on Tuesday was a boon to Israel...The neocons are the best friend the extremists in Israel ever had or ever will have.

The Security Council at the UN introduced a resolution to condemn Israel's recent attack on Palestinians which left 17 women and children dead.

The USA, represented by John Bolton, used its veto power to stop the resolution.

Hormonal Citizen:

I concur with you; the NeoCons are a pimple on the ass end of humanity. I repudiate their relationship with people whom I formerly supported. This is why I am a Rockefeller Republican who is more comfortably described as a Libertarian.

jefff:

I formerly stated:

"You mean Israel actually building something on land that was previously not used for anything is an occupation?"

You replied:

Yep, this is exactly the kind of detatchment from reality of which I am speaking.

Yes, the Palestinians had such a good thing going before the Israelis showed up--properly described, I believe they were living in the middle stone ages and were dirt poor, thanks to a thing called colonialism, which I also repudiate.

Keep trying, son. Making a point is difficult in this echo chamber.

"Rockefeller Republican"

Godfrey or John D? Well, Godfrey might have been a Whig, or a Know-Nothing. Hmmm, Know-Nothing, say, that does have sort of a ring to it. Would fit.

Norman:

It's not possible to be a libertarian Republican and a Rockefeller Republican simultaneously. The '64 Republican Convention was all about purging Scranton and the Northeast Republicans and offering "a choice, not an echo." You can argue the same was true about Reagan and '94. Rocky Repbs accept the welfare state and internationalism. Libs are free-market isolationists.

That both are anathema to neocons hardly makes them ideological bedfellows. The Club For Growth went after Lincoln Chafee.

Your views on Israel are partial at best, but also self-contradictory. If the Muslim Mideast is averse to prosperous democratic states like Israel, you can't make the simultaneous argument that oppressive Arab regimes are the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that two distinct cultural groups use history and religious texts to claim the same piece of real estate. Until you iron that out, there will be perpetual conflict. We have to push for a solution to Israel / Palestine that both sides find equitable.

Take that issue off the table, and the region can begin to make progress. It would cut the legs out of the single most powerful argument Islamists have for opposing the West.

Islam is not averse to democracy, and no cultural group appreciates being oppressed. But Arab culture is also tribal and hierarchial and has always submitted to strong leaders. Remove oppressive governments precipitously as we did in Iraq, and the people will turn to fundamentalist religion to fill the authority gap. That's why Bush's second-term "democracy through destabilization" produces a paradoxical result: Muslims going to the ballot box and electing religious authoritarians. People turn to authoritarianisms during times of dislocation and chaos.

It's fatuous to say that Westerners don't like Shariah. Duh. But only Arabs and Muslims can decide to reject it. In order to reject it, they need a plausible alternative they choose for themselves.

That's why it's more important for the West to begin disengaging from the corrupt and oppressive Mideast regimes we've made common cause with because they pump oil. We need a long-term gopolitical strategy that recognizes this by supporting the development of alternate energy sources.

So Tom Friedman's right about these two things: Mediate Israel / Palestine and diversify our energy sources. Those can and must be our primary goals.

And no, that Kevin person wasn't a goddamned sock puppet. Do you honestly think I'd use a sock puppet to recommend myself for Secretary of Defense, jesus ...

Bob

I agree with a lot of what Norman stated in his last post. But the problem is his arguement is a straw man. The fact that some Arabic speaking people oppress their own is beside the point, and has nothing to do with the fact that Israel took their land from them in 1948 and they're angry about it. Also the support of the Left for the Palestinians does not mean that they support opression, just that they recognize why the Arabs (to use a generic term since not all that we consider "Arabs" consider themselves so) are rightly angry about it. To say that the fact that the Israelis brought some modern conveniences to the area this justifies the theft is like saying that if a developer wants to build a strip mall and parking lot on property your family has owned for hundreds of years (eminant domain) with it's old house that generations have grown up in why that'd be fine with you. True sometimes for emergency reasons this might be justified but not just because someone says that they can develop it better or because they want to make a profit off it.

Also your sweeping generalizations about "Arabs" seems to be downright racist. I've had friends that were Jordanian. They were some of the nicest people you could know. There were others too not so nice. The "Arabs" are the inheritors of an ancient culture, and we all know how difficult it can be to break with tradition, but I think and hope that as modernization continues in the world, due in no small part by the internet, things will change.

My 2 cents worth.

rmck1:

You are a dishonest, sock puppet-using hack. You have no credibility and I will not address or respond to your comments.

Oh Bother:

The fact that some Arabic speaking people oppress their own is beside the point, and has nothing to do with the fact that Israel took their land from them in 1948 and they're angry about it.

Since 1948, Israel has built a nation. The Palestinians have built several large and corrupt terrorist organizations. Now, tell me again--why should we fail to note that if they had made up their minds to use the political process to have their grievances addressed, instead of massacring and killing innocent civilians, they might not be in such desperate straits right now? It was the decision of the victorious powers of WWII to see that the Jews of Europe would have a homeland of their own in order to prevent another Holocaust. Take it up with them, but I suspect that they did the best they could with what they had for options at the time. The Israelis built a nation; the Arabs built resentment against that. What would you have done?

Also your sweeping generalizations about "Arabs" seems to be downright racist. I've had friends that were Jordanian. They were some of the nicest people you could know. There were others too not so nice. The "Arabs" are the inheritors of an ancient culture, and we all know how difficult it can be to break with tradition, but I think and hope that as modernization continues in the world, due in no small part by the internet, things will change.

I believe I said:

Don't for a second think I tolerate the term "raghead." I abhor it. I will not stand for anyone thinking I am against the people; their governments are evil and they have had their heel on the good people of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Saudi and Lebanon (to name a few) for too long.

If you want to be an apologist for oppressive regimes, be my guest. George W Bush has now toppled two oppressive regimes, forced Libya to change, and has the entire Middle East on the run. We have friends in Pakistan when we used to have enemies. Are there issues? There will always be issues. Do not confuse me with someone who thinks the status quo is acceptable.

So when your reading comprehension improves, return and comment. Otherwise, stay clear of rmck1--he is a fraud and a waste of time.

Since 1948, Israel has built a nation

Out of land that did not belong to them. Read the history of their taking of the land. You might start with Chomsky. But if you don't like him just look it up on the internet. A lot of bloodshed took place. How did the holocaust justify that? One would think that being victims themselves would have made Zionists sensitive to injustice. I guess not. Or do you mean that the end justifies the means?

The Palestinians have built several large and corrupt terrorist organizations

The Jordanian friends I mentioned before had their homes destroyed by the Israelis for no other reason than harrassment. Though they never said a word of ill toward Israel while I knew them they might have rightly thought that they'd been terrorized.

instead of massacring and killing innocent civilians

You mean like the 18 innocent killed the other day by israel?

It was the decision of the victorious powers of WWII to see that the Jews of Europe would have a homeland of their own in order to prevent another Holocaust

Yes, by taking someone elses.

I suspect that they did the best they could with what they had for options at the time

No. Germany's dictator had been ousted and commited suicide. The war was won. They could have remained and worked on building understanding between themselves and the "goyim" as the orthodox call non-jews rather than run away and seclude themselves.

The Israelis built a nation; the Arabs built resentment against that

Again the "Arabs" have a right to feel angry about the way the Israels built themselves a nation.

I believe I said...

What I said was Also your sweeping generalizations about "Arabs" seems to be downright racist.

What YOU said that spured that comment was:

What have the Arabs done, except blame everyone else for their problems?

Sounded a bit general to me.

No. Germany's dictator had been ousted and commited suicide. The war was won. They could have remained and worked on building understanding between themselves and the "goyim" as the orthodox call non-jews rather than run away and seclude themselves.

You read Chomsky? Good luck finding anyone who will respect your commentary now. As to the death of Germany's dictator, you have a curious habit of evading the specifics of the Holocaust. Would you be a denier of said event? And you also evade the suicide bombers, the threats to destroy Israel and the history of the region. Why not just say Hitler's name? Unfortunately, all of the anti-Semitism in Europe did not die with him.

The rest of your paltry comments are just nitpicking through the past. What about the future? Why not make the best of what you have?

Oh, that's right. Liberalism demands that everyone get a hand out just for showing up.

You read Chomsky? Good luck finding anyone who will respect your commentary now

Really? Hmmm, would that be the Chomsky whom pro-Israeli Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University, in their debate called "the most influential intellectual in the world today"? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/23/1450216

As to the death of Germany's dictator, you have a curious habit of evading the specifics of the Holocaust

Such as?

Would you be a denier of said event?

Where you get that impression from anything that I said?

Read again, I said: How did the holocaust justify that? One would think that being victims themselves would have made Zionists sensitive to injustice

As YOU rudely said So when your reading comprehension improves, return and comment.

Norman:

Go talk to aaron ardvark. He's over on the immigration thread, and I'm sure he's just *dying* to say hello :)

Where do we go from here, indeed. The first thing we do is get the parties to the table and hammer out a two-state solution. Bush has let the Israelis handle it, and the upshot was a war in Lebanon and continual mutually-instigated violence in Gaza. Some powerful, outside broker needs to press these sides to agree much harder than either of them are doing. Maybe Hamas needs to recognize Israel if it wants to govern Palestine. Maybe Israel needs to get serious about pulling back in the West Bank before they steal all the water and good land.

Bottom line, we can't leave it on autopilot anymore.

Secondly, we need to commit expanding our energy portfolio beyond the Mideast. That's the only way to demonstrate seriousness to the Arab/Muslim world that we don't support oppressive dictators in their region.

And it will pay much greater long-term dividends than invading Iraq ever could have.

Bob

rmck1:

For all I know, you have been frantically posting under the name "aaron aardvarka" in order to try to clear your name.

It really doesn't matter; by admitting that you used the handle "The Literary Critic" and that you posted several "spoof" posts under my handle, you have provided all of the necessary evidence to prove that you used a sock puppet to defend yourself when you were being destroyed.

Seek help, little bitch. The world can be so mean, can't it?

Oh Bother:

Really? Hmmm, would that be the Chomsky whom pro-Israeli Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University, in their debate called "the most influential intellectual in the world today"? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/23/1450216

Do I care? You read Chomsky. Thank you for providing that one, salient piece of information that I need to understand you better. Now that I know you better, I'd rather I didn't know you at all. How is life in the corner you've painted yourself into?

A fact about your man Chomsky:

Chomsky's marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term "war profiteer." In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand. He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via email that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press… The book made the bestseller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone.

Back to your words of wisdom:

How did the holocaust justify that? One would think that being victims themselves would have made Zionists sensitive to injustice

Ah, another revelation of your point of view. You seem to be of the belief that the Holocaust did not justify the Zionist movement to find a homeland for the displaced Jews of Europe. This is where an anti-Semitic denier usually goes to denigrate the Zionist movement--be trying to delegitimize the right of Israel to exist.

Nice try, kiddo. Come back when you finish your milk and cookies.

perhaps if the branch of my church that i like to call the 'franco catholics' would actually listen to the pope and the bishops, they might see the wisdom of the democratic positions on capital punishment, immigration, minimum wage and a few others. of course, that would require them to pay attention to jesus, and stop hating fags and women. that day will never come, unfortunately.

Norman:

> For all I know, you have been frantically posting under the name
> "aaron aardvarka" in order to try to clear your name.

He's on the other thread, happily posting away about immigration.
Why don't you confront him, Norman? Why don't you crosspost what
you thought I sock puppeted and warn him that I was stealing his
handle? Please, do it for me. Do it for the entire thread :)

Do it for your *reputation*.

ROTFL !

> It really doesn't matter; by admitting that you used the
> handle "The Literary Critic" and that you posted several
> "spoof" posts under my handle, you have provided all of
> the necessary evidence to prove that you used a sock
> puppet to defend yourself when you were being destroyed.

I spoofed Norman. Woah. Call DHS.

> Chomsky's marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new
> meaning to the term "war profiteer." In the days after the tragedy,
> he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was
> suddenly in greater demand. He also cashed in by producing another
> instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled
> together interviews conducted via email that Chomsky gave in the
> three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the
> book to press The book made the bestseller list in the United
> States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It
> is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars
> from this book alone.

You have some kind of problem with capitalism, Norman?

>> How did the holocaust justify that? One would think that being
>> victims themselves would have made Zionists sensitive to injustice

> Ah, another revelation of your point of view. You seem to be of the
> belief that the Holocaust did not justify the Zionist movement to
> find a homeland for the displaced Jews of Europe. This is where an
> anti-Semitic denier usually goes to denigrate the Zionist movement--
> be trying to delegitimize the right of Israel to exist.

Theodor Hertzl, the German journalist who founded the modern Zionist
movement was a secular Jew who warned against taking Palestine for
a Jewish homeland. He would have preferred Uganda, New Zealand or
some of the other places offered had he lived. Unfortunately, the
religious Jews of Eastern Europe would take nothing else but the Holy
Land, and the rest is history. I don't think anyone would argue
against the idea of giving the Jews a homeland after centuries of
European anti-semitism. But you can legitmately make the case that
Palestine mixes the need for security up with a religious imperative
that made it much more difficult for Jews to treat the former
occupiers equitably. It's hard, when God said you could have it.

Bob

Okay, so you found a quote from Tech Central Station that they think puts Chomsky in a bad light. Whoopie. So he makes a living lecturing, so what? That's what he does.

Even TCS, whom you quote from, has a link to an poll wherein Chomsky was voted the "world's top public intellectual" http://techcentralstation.com/1019055.html. How does that square with your comment: "You read Chomsky? Good luck finding anyone who will respect your commentary now." Not well I'd say.

Aside from that your comments have nothing to do with the issue we are discussing. It's a effort to distract from the message by ad hominem attack. But keep looking, I'm sure you can find something unsavory about him.

But let's play your game. Let's see TCS is published by DCI group. Not too savory http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Group.

Ah, another revelation of your point of view. You seem to be of the belief that the Holocaust did not justify the Zionist movement to find a homeland for the displaced Jews of Europe. This is where an anti-Semitic denier usually goes to denigrate the Zionist movement--be trying to delegitimize the right of Israel to exist

Let me ease your mind. As I thought I already made clear I am not a holocaust denier. As I thought I already made clear my problem is not with Israel's having a homeland, it's with their violently stealing one from others that I disagree with.

You seem to be of the belief that the Holocaust did not justify the Zionist movement to find a homeland for the displaced Jews of Europe.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

... it didn't. zionism was around for a good 50 years before the holocaust, and as early as the 1900s, palestinian arabs were resenting jewish immigration.

if anything, your argument should be that the holocaust justifies the establishment of a jewish state in what remained of germany post-WWII. It ceratinly doesn't justify the ethnic cleansing of an established palestinian population.

It's a effort to distract from the message by ad hominem attack. But keep looking, I'm sure you can find something unsavory about him.

Uh, please understand: YOU introduced Chomsky to the discussion. Your uncle Norman has no need to wander off the reservation and seek the solace of dishonest intellectuals who profit from attacking the United States of America. If that floats your boat, be prepared to have your own attempt to justify yourself on the backs of another person's argument called for what it is--lame and pathetic.

Another fact: no, I did not acquire my information on Chomsky from the site you provided a link to. Another dishonest attempt to swing the debate your way.

So you don't deny the Holocaust, you don't deny that the Jews deserve a homeland--you just think that the way that they actually got their homeland after the Holocaust is wrong. That's a cute way to hide your bias. It doesn't bear any sort of intellectual standard of honesty, however. It's what someone says when they figure out that life isn't fair. It sounds a bit like a baby's cry.

A hint to you: life isn't fair. Make the best of what you have. Stop blaming other people for your problems.

Learn to admire those who have, in fact, done something with what they've been handed. Good luck trying to make the case that all of the unfairness of the world can be wiped clean and reversed simply by telling everyone you read Chomsky.

Nards:

if anything, your argument should be that the holocaust justifies the establishment of a jewish state in what remained of germany post-WWII. It ceratinly doesn't justify the ethnic cleansing of an established palestinian population.

See what I said about the fact of European anti-Semitism. I'm not arguing that the creation of Israel was without problems or considerations; I thought I was arguing that perhaps the focus should be on making the best of a bad situation. It's called pragmatism, and I seem to be the only adherent to it around here. Everyone else wants to whine about the past and revere people who shit on America.

No thanks, fools.

if calling ethnic cleansing "pragmatism" is what gets you through the day, then I'm not going to stop you. I just hope this sort of white trash mentality doesn't spread.

Norman:

Wow, Norman, that's a remarkably infantile argument.

Sounds really great in a cantankerous David Huddleston voice ...

I already posted to you what we should do about the situation now -- it's upthread, go read it. While it's a vain counterfactual to argue what should've happened rather than what did happen, it's important to note that the Biblical perogatives of the Jews regarding their specific piece of promised real estate (which includes a big chunk of Egypt, all of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and Iraq to the Tigris) have been more a hindrance than a help in this situation.

Bob

rmck1:

Shouldn't you just use a sock puppet at this point?

No one cares.

Norman:

Kick any guys in wheelchairs down three flights of concrete stairs today?

Bob

if calling ethnic cleansing "pragmatism" is what gets you through the day, then I'm not going to stop you. I just hope this sort of white trash mentality doesn't spread.

If you were honest about what that term really meant, you would have to conclude that the whole of human history is a series of ethnic cleansing episodes. I don't condone ethnic cleansing at all. But your selective use of the term should be accompanied by a disclaimer because we just call a do-over every time someone has a problem with how something has been done.

Answer me this: do the Arabs who live in Israel proper enjoy a higher standard of living than their counterparts in Syria or Gaza?

Oh, and no one talks of the future. It's always about the past. I thought this was what you liberals would accuse a conservative like myself of doing--always looking to the past.

Sorry--your uncle Norman regrets how history has treated the parties involved, but unless you just want to spell out what you think the solution is--the destruction of Israel--then I suggest you start thinking about how to deal with the future.

How many of you libs will just come out and admit it--the destruction of Israel is all you care about. And then everything will be right with the Middle East, yes?

Pathetic.

Clarification:

I don't condone ethnic cleansing at all. But your selective use of the term should be accompanied by a disclaimer because we cannot just call a do-over every time someone has a problem with how something has been done.

Liberalism is all about whining for a do-over, isn't it? Who will admit it? Anyone?

Your uncle Norman

Sorry, I don't have an uncle Norman.

and seek the solace of dishonest intellectuals who profit from attacking the United States of America

Telling the truth is not dishonest. Often unpopular yes, but not dishonest.

Another fact: no, I did not acquire my information on Chomsky from the site you provided a link to. Another dishonest attempt to swing the debate your way

Apologies my mistake. I did a search and it looked to have originated there. They have this article you quote from on their site.

So you don't deny the Holocaust, you don't deny that the Jews deserve a homeland--you just think that the way that they actually got their homeland after the Holocaust is wrong.

That sums it up, yes I think you've finally got it.

It's what someone says when they figure out that life isn't fair. It sounds a bit like a baby's cry. A hint to you: life isn't fair. Make the best of what you have. Stop blaming other people for your problems.

Hmmm, now reverse this argument and direct it at the jews after they just told you about the holocaust. Bet you'd have a problem with it then.

Oh, and no one talks of the future. It's always about the past. I thought this was what you liberals would accuse a conservative like myself of doing--always looking to the past.

Liberalism is all about whining for a do-over, isn't it? Who will admit it? Anyone?

Would you then ask the Jews to stop "whining" about the holocaust?

I think it might more accurately be stated that Liberalism is about justice, no matter who is involved.

Norman:

>> if calling ethnic cleansing "pragmatism" is what gets you through
>> the day, then I'm not going to stop you. I just hope this sort of
>> white trash mentality doesn't spread.

> If you were honest about what that term really meant, you would have
> to conclude that the whole of human history is a series of ethnic
> cleansing episodes. I don't condone ethnic cleansing at all. But
> your selective use of the term should be accompanied by a disclaimer
> because we just call a do-over every time someone has a problem with
> how something has been done.

This is a remarkable confession. You're saying, then, that Israel
is entitled to all of the land by dint of force. That's exactly
why the Arab call Israel the last excrudescence of European
colonialism. To your mind justice doesn't matter, only the will
of the strong. Problem with that is it makes it pretty difficult to
condemn the violence of your opponents in any morally coherent way.

> Answer me this: do the Arabs who live in Israel proper enjoy a
> higher standard of living than their counterparts in Syria or Gaza?

Of course they do, which is why it's such a moral travesty that Israel
goes out of its way to systematically demolish Lebanon, the West Bank
and Gaza -- because it's terrified the prosperous Arab states directly
on its borders would pose a greater threat to it. Israels strategy in
Gaza is to keep it from becoming anything more than a squalid refugee
camp. But this, of course, breeds fanatic resistance, because the
people there have nothing else to live for. A vicious cycle.

> Oh, and no one talks of the future. It's always about the
> past. I thought this was what you liberals would accuse a
> conservative like myself of doing--always looking to the past.

I told you what we should do. It's upthread. Go
read it and report back to us like a good little lad.

> Sorry--your uncle Norman regrets how history has treated the
> parties involved, but unless you just want to spell out what
> you think the solution is--the destruction of Israel--then I
> suggest you start thinking about how to deal with the future.

Moving back to the '67 border is not "the destruction of Israel."

> How many of you libs will just come out and admit it--the
> destruction of Israel is all you care about. And then
> everything will be right with the Middle East, yes?

Zionism doesn't equal racism -- but criticism of
Israel doesn't equal anti-semitism just as assuredly.

> Clarification:

> I don't condone ethnic cleansing at all. But your selective
> use of the term should be accompanied by a disclaimer because
> we cannot just call a do-over every time someone has a problem
> with how something has been done.

> Liberalism is all about whining for a do-over,
> isn't it? Who will admit it? Anyone?

Norman -- you realize, of course, by issuing that correction, you
just effectively "whined for a do-over" for your own post :)

You can't make this up, kiddies :)

Bob

Would you then ask the Jews to stop "whining" about the holocaust?

I don't think building a country and a democracy out of nothing, defending themselves on all sides against their enemies and then still offering land and peace to the Palestinians amounts to "whining" but since you have a problem with Jews in particular, maybe you should just admit that you can't really make headway in an discussion that is over your head.

Admit it--you have a fetish for seeing your anti-Semitic talking points turned on their ear.

rmck1:

Sock puppet much?

My last thought is this:

Now that the Palestinian Authority exists, they have had the opportunity to start building their own government, their own version of how they want to live and they are now handed the opportunity to be pragmatic and do whatever is necessary to create a framework to govern their people and make a society that will allow for opportunity, hope and peace.

How's that going so far?

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

'Night, kids. Shitting on America isn't going to get you anywhere in life.

I don't think building a country and a democracy out of nothing

A democracy that excludes the native races is not a democracy.

but since you have a problem with Jews in particular

Says who?

maybe you should just admit that you can't really make headway in an discussion that is over your head

Again the ad hominem. Hmmm.

Admit it--you have a fetish for seeing your anti-Semitic talking points turned on their ear

Ignoring your persistant smear, where have you turned my "anti-Semitic" talking points on their ear?

Oh, and no one talks of the future. It's always about the past. I thought this was what you liberals would accuse a conservative like myself of doing--always looking to the past.

Now that the Palestinian Authority exists, they have had the opportunity to start building their own government, their own version of how they want to live and they are now handed the opportunity to be pragmatic and do whatever is necessary to create a framework to govern their people and make a society that will allow for opportunity, hope and peace. How's that going so far?

Right. YOU try to build a viable nation when you are being blockaded.

http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=2046

Right. YOU try to build a viable nation when you are being blockaded.

It didn't stop the Israelis, dude. IIRC, they had attacks coming on all sides on more than one occasion, and they, um, still managed to build a country. They basically came to the table to deal with Arafat to knock out a deal. You can argue about what the deal for peace was but the judgement of history is probably going to be that Arafat blew it. Might not have been a great bargain, but he did blow it.

Fuckin' a--where did all the Jew haters come from? All of a sudden, goddamned Normie is making sense???

WTF???

Pale:

There's a certain kind of criticism of Israel that's decidedly anti-semitic (look for it when tj & co. show up) -- but criticism of Israel from a lefty/peacenik perspective is something different.

It's more about rooting for the underdog, I think. And while, true -- Israel was the underdog militarily since its inception, it's been decades since it's faced a military threat of extinction from its neighbors. It has the most sophisticated military in the region (air force by far), the best intelligence and of course us as its main ally.

On the other side you've got a whole bunch of people in refugee camps and working on farms they have to go through border checks to get to. While I don't disagree about Arafat's response to Oslo (I think he should've taken it and then worked to strengthen it) -- Arafat's no longer in the picture. Hamas is, and I do think Israel needs to come to the table with them. After all, they were duly elected by the Palestinian people -- and we're supposed to be advocating democracy in the region.

Bob

Fuck off, rickmick, and keep your nose out of my ass. I saw what ya said about 'regulars' on the other thread, and you should just shut the fuck up about people who would just as soon not have to deal with you.

Thanks again for the unnecessary window into your shitty ability to figure stuff out.

[no more shots on this thread-how sad.]

Pale Rider:

Please tell me you're not that stupid ... or that childish, for that matter.

People occasionally use alternate handles. This is some kind of *surprise* to you? If they're not regulars -- who would they be?

Figure *what* out? That you're not Norman -- after you spoofed him with a null email address?

Why do you make me pound this into your head when I was trying to have a civil, sane exchange with you about israel?

Bob

Fuckin' a--where did all the Jew haters come from? All of a sudden, goddamned Normie is making sense???

*sigh*. Again, I am not a Jew hater. I once had a girlfriend who was a member of the Israeli military. Why is it that you can denigrate the foul practices of other groups but if you dare say anything negative about Israel suddenly you are an anti-semite?

I contend that Israel's taking of "the holy land" from the "Arabs" was unethical, to say the least. Sure they made out in the war, but that
didn't make it right IMO. The Arabs were trying to protect their own.

By the way, Arabs aren't the only ones who use random violence to destroy their enemies.

"the Irgun and Lehi [two Zionist groups] reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded places such as bus stops and markets"

This is from an article about the Palestinian exodus
from their homelands during the 1948 war in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

At the very least Israel, having just survived the holocaust, could have approached this in more of a humble spirit of peace rather than force.

Fascinating discussion. Uncle Norman, defending Israel's takeover of Arab lands, says: A hint to you: life isn't fair. Make the best of what you have. Stop blaming other people for your problems.

So Norman seems to believe that what Israel did was indeed an injustice.

Then he continues: we cannot just call a do-over every time someone has a problem with how something has been done.

I thought the current US plan is a do-over of the whole Middle East.

I know this is long, and it will be my parting post on this topic but this may give a sense of the injustice which took place back then and why Palestinians are still angry.

"The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14. 60,000 inhabitants of the two cities were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin wrote in his memoirs: What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141) Additionally, widespread looting and several cases of rape ([4]) took place during the evacuation. In total, about 100,000 Palestinians became refugees in this stage according to Morris (2003, p. 448). This period of the exodus was characterized by Israeli military accomplishments, which were met with resistance from the Palestinian Arabs who were to become refugees. The Israeli military activities were confined to the Galilee and the sparsely populated Negev desert. It was clear to the villages in the Galilee, that if they left, return was far from imminent. Therefore far fewer villages were spontaneously depopulated than previously. Most of it was due to a clear, direct cause: expulsion and deliberate harassment, as Morris writes 'commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering' (2003, p. 490)."

"Operation Hiram, which was the Israeli military operation that conquered the upper Galilee, is one of the examples in which a direct expulsion order was given to the commanders: 'Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered.' (October 31, 1948, Moshe Carmel)"

...

"'Doesn't he have anything more important to do?' was Ben-Gurion's reaction when told, during his visit to Haifa on 1 May 1948, that a local Jewish leader was trying to convince the Arabs not to leave. 'Drive them out!' was Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzhak Rabin in a censored passage of his memoris published in 1979, with regard to the Arabs of Lydda after the city had been taken over on 11 July 1948." (Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006). Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press, p. 44.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

People occasionally use alternate handles. This is some kind of *surprise* to you? If they're not regulars -- who would they be?

Oh, that's an easy one--dishonest little bitches like yourself who get caught using sock puppets?

Why project your sin onto others? I'm sorry--we're talking about rmck1. The only method of expression left to him is to project his sins onto others.

I agree with Pale Rider; (shudder) where did all of these overly-specific Jew haters emerge from?

overly-specific

It would be a lot more convenient if the other side had no facts, wouldn't it?

Equating criticism of Israel with "Jew hating" is where it ends up when the defense runs out of facts. Got anything else?

Yeah, no anti-Semitism here.

[rolling eyes]

Have a nice debate, dude.

This charge of anti-semitism every time someone points out inequities or unfairness on Israel's side sure is a handy way of shuting down debate isn't it.

Of course there's always the chance that true anti-semites could try to take advantage of the debate to further their own agenda. It's unfortunate, but you'd have that in any case.

If you want to solve the problem you need to get to the root of it.

Or we can all just stick our hands in our ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

If you want to solve the problem you need to get to the root of it.

Yeah-let's start by looking at the roots of anti-Semitism.

Well in this case I think it's already been pretty well established by the preceding that the Paleistinians are not too happy with the confiscation of their homeland. Not to mention numerous other harrassments.

That could do it.

What do you think?

"What do you think?"

I think that when the Palestinians found themselves deep in a deep, miserable hole, the first thing they should've done was stop digging.

Since The Middle East has seen a million "8 Point Peace Plans and "16 Point Peace Plans" what's one more? I give you my 10 Point Peace Plan (I'm of the opinion that if people are fair and truly want peace a solution wouldn't too hard to come by).

1) Israel acknowledges the wrongness of and apologizes for the way it took the Palestinians land.

2) Israel actually pays the Palestinians (and other local transgressed Arab groups) for the taking of their land - and it should be a lot - commensurate with the loss of a homeland that they've owned and inhabitied for thousands of years.

3) Israel sits down with the Palestinians and together they decide on a fair quantity of and location of land to become the New Palestine.

4) The Palestinians officially recognize Israel's right to exist.

5) The Palestinians disown and stop the terrorist attacks. If the start up (and it's proven that the Palestinians are behind it) the payments stop for a time. The perpretators are severely dealt with by their own people. Additionally the Palestinians officially rebuff efforts by hostiles in other Arab countries to stoke the fires once again. The Israelis in turn stop the demolishing of the homes of their Arab neighbors and otherwise treating them like second class citizens in their own land. Israeli violators of the peace are likewise dealt with severely. Both sides agree that their respective religions are no longer compatible with violence.

6) Rather than wall them off, Israel decides to partner economically with their Arab neighbors. Additionally Israel reaches out to other "Arab" countries in goodwill.

7) It is agreed that Jerusalem will belong to both sides equally. Each side honors and respects the holy days of the other.

8) An Arab/Israeli Council is formed to discuss any possible conflicts, to plan unifying events and ceremonies and generally to keep the lines of dialog open. A regional holiday is instituted in celebration and honor of the hard won comradery. In cases of possible conflict no action against the other is taken unless the council has first been consulted.

9) Both sides eliminate their nuclear (or proto-nuclear) arsenals and allow verification checks by the other side.

10) Both the United States and the UN (and hopefully the other major world powers) recognize both countries equally.

good 免费性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 手机铃声制作 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 经典铃声 最新手机铃声 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik