Dean Condemns 'Anti-Semitic Literature'

[janx]

WASHINGTON - A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration's
Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman
Howard Dean on Friday.

We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the
Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations," Dean said in a statement posted on the DNC Web site.

Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the House
Judiciary Committee, organized the forum on Thursday at the Capitol to publicize and discuss the so-called Downing Street memo. That document suggests that the Bush administration believed that war with Iraq was inevitable and that the administration was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein.

The Sunday Times of London has reported that the prewar document, which recounts a meeting of Prime Minister
Tony Blair's national security team, was leaked from inside the British government. The White House has rejected the memo's assertions.

More at link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/ap_on_re_us/downing_street_memo_dean;_ylt=AmN7ZGWlg.lDsotpanCXDROs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2bW85OXIzBHNlYwNwbA--

[gorbal]

1. Freepers in disguise?

The only conspiracy theory I believe is that freepers go out of thier way to make us look bad.

[bklyncowgirl]

19. I'm with you on this Freepers or Feds take your pick. nt

[Richard Steele]

38. Well they surely latched onto this IMMEDIATELY!

Check out the thread on Chairman Conyer's blog,
in which he thanked DU for all our support:
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000142.htm#comments

It's about 90% freepers, and they are repeating, "DU is Anti-Semetic", Conyers is Anti-Semetic like a friggin' MANTRA!

There could hardly be better proof that these sick, hateful people have an organized "slur of the day" system.

And today's SLUR is :"anti-semite"

Disgusting.

[Imagevision]

47. Why is dean remaining quiet on DSM / anyone have a clue??

[Tommymac]

64. Not his job...this is an issue for the elected Pols

Dr. Dean is the political head of the party. If he weighs in then the issue becomes a political football. Let Rep Conyers and the 122 elected members of Congress take on the issue...then it is an official matter of national interest.

Dr Dean's job is to to organize and energize the party's base. When the time comes, I'm sure he will have his say...until then, let him rock on with what he does best...

[Tinoire]

89. That's Bullshit

What you are suggesting is that we just have Dean raise money and exploit the "Dean machine" for the benefit of Democratic barbarians while keeping his mouth shut.

The reason I supported Dean for DNC Chair was because I wanted to FINALLY have an official of the Democratic Party speaking for me.

The Downing Street Memo is already is a political football- so hot that all the Vichy collaborators are pretending they never heard of it. Let Dean grab it and score a touchdown with it because I sure as hell am not betting a red cent on any of the pansies in the Senate.

I didn't push Dean for DNC Chair to give the Democratic Party a milk cow. They want the milk? Well by God they're going to pay for it and represent us. That's the message that came with Dean's chairmanship of the Party and this is no time to redefine that message.

Dean should go no more quietly into the night than the PEOPLE who put him where he is.

[Tommymac]

104. Not at all.

Just that Dr. Dean knows what he is doing...when the time is right I fully expect him to have his say in his wonderfully exuberant way...and I will welcome it.

I support Dr. Dean 100% - let there be no doubt. But his silence is not an issue with me, I will let him decide when he is going to let loose the hounds. Contrary to popular MSM belief, his judgement is very sound and he is not a loose cannon.

[JeffUAW]

102. To be honest, I wish we would have gone with someone else as DNC chair

Dean already has the farther left in his pocket. Why can't we go with someone a little bit more toward the center so we can have a chance to build support of those who are on the fence?

[Tommymac]

105. Been there done that. Sorry. nt

[lies and propaganda]

109. Because we just had that with McAuliffe

and that turned out fucking great right?
People are only so freaked out by what Dean says BECAUSE ITS THE TRUTH, and thats always ugly.

Dean is going to take us off of life support and get us back to breathing on our own.

[Carolab]

114. What good does that kind of talk do?

Dean IS the party chair, and he was absolutely the BEST choice. Support him or don't but saying "you wish we had someone else" is just counterproductive.

[JeffUAW]

117. I don't believe stating an opinion to our own is counter-productive.

If we don't state our opinions, then what good is this forum? There are more than one kind of Democrat out there, and not all support Dean as much as you would like us to. All of us have our own reasons for picking the party we choose, as I don't agree with everything the Democrats stand for, it does, however, support the majority of the issues I consider important to the future of the country, and our freedoms.

[Carolab]

118. It's counterproductive because this party needs UNITY.

We can't keep fractioning it because we'll never get anywhere.

If you have a complaint, direct it to the DNC, but not AT Dean.

We are foot solders in this war. Dean is our general. He is acting on "orders from higher-up". It's his job to interact with/disagree with them. If you want a vessel to direct your complaints/suggestions, direct them to or through him but not AT him. Or, better yet, direct them to the "higher ups".

[Zhade]

120. So, what are your reasons for supporting the Dem party?

Please, share.

[JeffUAW]

122. My major reason is for the working man as you can see from my name.

Equal treatment of every American.
Taking care of our Seniors.
Eliminating corporate greed.
I support a civil union for gays
I support efforts to protect the environment
I support programs to reduce dependency on oil.
I support alternative sources of energy.
I am against companies such as Wal-Mart.
Just some off the top of my head...
Thanks for asking!

[Zhade]

125. Sounds good...but I'm missing where you're an "other type" of Dem.

What don't you agree with? Not trapping, just curious.

[JeffUAW]

128. Only honesty here, and I hope it is taken well. The war, globalization.

Securing our borders. Abortion. I know these are not very popular with our party, but we are all different, and have different experiences in our lives that mold us.

[Zhade]

129. I'm confused - you support the first two and not the third?

I mean, there are enough Dems who, despite all the evidence of the lies and fraud used to get us into it, enable those crimes and still support the illegal war and occupation, so I could be guessing wrong.

[JeffUAW]

130. I support the war "not for bush's reasons". For the people. I'm against

globalization. It only hurts the American worker "NAFTA CAFTA, Trade imports from China. I'm against abortion "only as a personal choice". Leave the govt. out of it.

[Zhade]

132. Oh. Well, your reasons for supporting it do not excuse you...

...for supporting war crimes.

The second is a GOOD stance, IMHO. "Free trade" is reprehensible.

The third is irrelevant, since you have no desire to criminalize a woman's right to her own body.

That war thing, though - I'm afraid you and I will have to part ways, and I sadly will not be able to welcome you to DU.

[JeffUAW]

134. Well thanks anyway for the good conversation. I served in two wars and

would do it again to serve humanity. Maybe I'll find someone out here that agrees with ALL my issues so I can feel welcome. By the way, I was not looking for your acceptance. It does not work that way.
Cheers!

[Zhade]

159. I'd just keep my support for the war quiet.

Virtually no one here will accept that support as decent or sane.

Note that I did not insult you, btw. You must have some reason to support this illegal war. Maybe one day you'll even change your mind and come to understand why so many do not support it.

[Zhade]

119. Dean attracted Republicans during his campaign.

Explain to me how he's thus unqualified to reach out to ANYONE.

This from a non-Deaniac, btw.

[nerddem]

59. not necessarily

sounds like laroucheys. i'll admit, i didn't read the article, but they're always raving on about some jewish conspiracy. maybe dean'll finally get them out of the way. i know when they're out on campus people come up to me about how the "democrats were getting in fights with everyone" and then later i see a larouche stand.
i remember i once walked by and i was wearing my fraternity letters, and one of them said something critical about me, even though i've worked for years and years to advance real democrats. wierdos

[msongs]

2. is being critical of israel automatically anti-semitic?

the post does not mention anything that is anti semitic.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[janx]

4. No, but putting emphasis on Israel when we're trying to build

a party from the ground up probably isn't a good idea, especially when it isn't necessary in the context of what we're trying to do re DSM.

I don't know what the "literature" part was about. Apparently somebody passed it out at the DNC, if this report is accurate.

[K-W]

77. If you dont know what hte literature was, why are you opining about it?

Why are you jumping to conclusions? I know the supposedly anti semitic comment was an expert accurately tying US foriegn policy to Isreal.

[janx]

131. According to the guy writing the article it was--but not according

to Dean and Conyers. Do you see what's happening here?

[dissent1977]

126. No, Israel needs to be criticized

The occupation of Palestine is illegal, and represents a gross violation of human rights. To criticize Israel is not anti-semitic in any way, I actually personally know several Jews who are opposed to the Sharon government. In fact there is a massive peace movement within Israel that has fought Sharon every step of the way. When we criticize Israel we are not criticizing all the people of Israel, we are criticizing only the ones who are involved in the oppression of the Palestinian people.

In the same sense I like it when leaders from other parts of the world criticize the US, because I know they are not criticizing me they are criticizing the Bush Administration and others who push a neo-fascist agenda on the world.

I am personally offended that Dean would equate criticism of Israel with Anti-Semitism. He is chasing peace loving people away from the Democratic Party.

[Andromeda]

155. Why must Democrats appear to be against Israel,

to appear liberal or progressive?

Not everyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic but everyone who is anti-Semitic criticizes Israel.

There is no way of knowing if anyone who criticizes Israel is or is not anti-Semitic since only the person who is doing the criticizing knows what's in his/her heart and mind.

Dean was doing what he thought was right and I agree with him. We don't needs to make it appear as if we are against Israel because the I/P situation is complicated and we have been trying to broker peace in the area for a long time now.

[dissent1977]

158. Because the Sharon Government is a Violent Regime

I had a friend from Palestine and I have heard his stories. He had two cousins shot on the street by Israeli soldiers. His families land was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers. The wall that Israel has built has separated his family from many of their friends and loved ones. It took him three hours to get to school even though it was only a few miles away because he had to travel through Israeli checkpoints.

This is apartheid. It is our responsibility to speak out against it, especially when our government is paying Israel's bills.

To equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is baseless. It is kind of like saying that if you criticize the people involved in the Rwandan genocide you are anti-black. When I criticize Israel I am criticizing the Sharon government and their allies, whether they are Jewish or not.

If Dean says I am anti-semitic because I want to end apartheid, then he better not expect me to support him when he needs my help with fund raising or get out the vote efforts.

[gorbal]

60. Perhaps I wouldn't use those exact words ...

But I'm glad Dean said something. Suggesting without any shred of verifyable evidence that that Isreal was behind 9-11 is going over the line and hurts our core message.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aresef]

66. Yes

"is being critical of israel automatically anti-semitic?"

Yes, it is, according to the freepers. *rolls eyes*

[TheWebHead]

3. yeah I cringed when McGovern made the Israel remarks

It just isn't necessary for the discussion of the memo. It served no purpose except to give political ammo, put Democrats on the defensive, and act as a smokescreen to the central issue - did Bush lie to congress and America to get us into war.

[punpirate]

6. Maybe, maybe not....

First, criticism of the right wing government in Israel (and this government's attention to that Israeli government) is not de facto anti-Semitism, although there are forces in this country who very much want it to be seen that way.

Second, let's consider this policy of pre-emptive war against Iraq, and its sources. The primary players in developing this US plan for invasion were Wolfowitz, Libby, Wurmser and Feith, and, by extension, Perle. Most of these same people were responsible for producing a plan for a joint US-Israel pre-emptive war against Iraq which was presented to Benhamin Netanyahu around 1996. Netanyahu eventually rejected the plan.

That plan, with the UK substituted for Israel, formed the basis of the Bush administration's invasion plans. So, in fact, the neo-cons' perceptions of the interests of Israel are paramount in the plan itself, and its execution. We don't know yet, in this country, the extent of Israel's behind-the-scenes assistance (intelligence, logistics, etc.) in this matter, but the fact that the primary players have clearly dual loyalties is a worthy matter for investigation, and might well be essential in the discussion of the DSM and the motivations for waging an illegal war.

Remember that the people "fixing" that intelligence were primaries in the Office of Special Plans, the State Department, the Office of the Vice-President and the Defense Department and are principals in the proposal to Netanyahu, in neo-conservative support for the right wing of Israel and in the Project for the New American Century. That would clearly suggest that exploring that connection, in the context of the deception foisted upon the American public, is of material interest.

I would say, finally, that Ray McGovern isn't a stupid man, nor is he an anti-Semite. Why, then, would he feel the need to bring up the matter under oath, would remind the participants that when he mentioned it in the past, it was George Tenet who accused him of anti-Semitism in an attempt to silence him? Perhaps, he was trying to get a connection out in the open which has previously been hidden by both the administration and the press, a connection which may be a material matter in any further investigation of Bush's statements and actions. Maybe, just maybe, he's trying to point further inquiry in the direction of the authors of an illegal invasion plan.

Cheers.

[janx]

10. All of what you say is true. But is it wise, at this point,

to define our fledgling Democratic party as rejecting NOT the Likudsters, but Isreal itself?

And what is the conspiracy theory literature doing at DNC headquarters? Something about that--as outlined by bklyncowgrl--smells terrible.

[punpirate]

20. Where was the word...

... "hate" used in the forum yesterday?

It wasn't. Because you characterize criticism of the current government of Israel as hate speech directed at Israel, you've already made up your mind.

As for the "conspiracy theory literature," have you seen it? Do you know its source? For all you know, it could have been dispensed by some group with the intention of discrediting Conyers' efforts.

Or, it may not have been describing a conspiracy theory, but, rather, a series of facts which put both the US and Israel in a not very flattering light. I didn't address that issue because it's not germane to what happened inside the hearing, nor have I seen a true copy of the flyer (although I'd very much like to see one).

Tying legitimate criticism of Israel's government inside the hearing with what happened outside the jurisdiction of the hearing is a mistake. It's a mistake of logic, of politics and of common sense.

Cheers.

[janx]

29. All right then, "rejecting." I've edited my post.

I did not mean to characterize it as hate speech, and I'd appreciate it if this thread did not turn into one that pigeonholes people based on a poor choice of words.

There were nefarious people involved with this, yes, and some of them, we suspect, were working with/for Likud. But there were a lot of charlatans from a lot of places--Chalabi comes to mind--and if we lean on conspiracy theories about ISRAEL and 9/11 (if this report is to be believed), THAT, my friend, reflects an absence of common sense.

[punpirate]

30. Again, where in the hearing...

... was any association made between Israel and the events of 9/11?

There was none. Again, if you insist upon linking Conyers' forum with inadequately investigated events happening outside the hearing, you're contributing to the demise of his effort. You're implying a linkage by juxtaposition of two unrelated events.

[janx]

32. Not in the hearing.

If these reports are to be believed (and I stress "if"), the conspiracy allegations happened in some literature that was passed out at DNC headquarters. I have not seen the literature.

[punpirate]

34. And that is precisely my point....

... in saying so. Your emphasis on what happened outside the hearing and what was said by McGovern inside the hearing implies a linkage between the two.

Now, just to make the point a little clearer--what McGovern said was not in his prepared introductory statement. Therefore, it's unlikely that anyone would know what he would say later under questioning, and could therefore use his answers to questions to link to anything happening outside the hearing.

I don't think it's unfortunate that McGovern said what he said--it's long overdue as a matter of discussion of Bush US foreign policy generally, and of plans for war against Iraq specifically.

What was happening outside the hearing room was not germane to what was happening inside the hearing. It certainly wasn't authorized by the DNC and wasn't authorized by Conyers. Mentioning the two together implies that they were either authorized or tolerated by Conyers, hence his later statement--and Dean's.

As I recall, there was a rather large crowd in the hall outside, and a larger crowd waiting for Conyers' to adjourn in order to take his petition to the White House. It's doubtful that every person was checked for what they were carrying. It could have been a dirty tricks routine to discredit Conyers' efforts, or it could have been someone who'd spent too much time at rense.com.

However, in your continuing association of the two unrelated events, you further the aims of those who would undermine Conyers' efforts. That's what I'm trying to make clear. They are not in any way coordinated. Moreover, by continuing to mention the flyers, you also play into the hands of the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd, most particularly AIPAC, the aim of which is to shield Israel in the US media from any controversy, contentiousness or exposure of its governmental excesses by the use of the overly broad umbrella of anti-Semitism.

Condemn the flyers as you must, but do so in isolation of the hearing. The two are not related.

Cheers.

[janx]

35. You are making a gross assumption.

Cheers.

[punpirate]

36. Without explanation...

... of what "gross assumption" is being made, there's no way to answer properly.

I remind you that you posed the question, originally, of both flyers and McGovern's statements in conjunction with hate speech toward Israel and said that such was a mistake "for our fledgling Democratic Party."

I'm just trying to get you to define that mistake, if one was made. McGovern's remarks, to my mind, were neither a mistake strategically nor tactically, and the flyers outside the hearing were irrelevant to the proceedings inside--and may well have been part of dirty tricks campaign--so mention of the two in the same breath is a mistake.

After all, how did Bush/Cheney/Rice manage to convince two-thirds of the public that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? They did so by mentioning vengeance for 9/11 in one sentence and Iraq in the next.

Cheers.

[janx]

42. I made quite clear that I had no intention of going into

an I/P debate on this thread. I had no hate speech. Your internet debate tactics are cheap, and I will have nothing to do with them.

Cheers, and good night.

[Voltaire99]

55. Heh. I should say Punpirate argued circles around you. (nt)

[janx]

85. Misrepresentations and assumptions do not good argument make.

n/t

[redqueen]

169. Linking the flyer of dubious origin and Conyers' forum is a mistake.

Do you admit that much at least?

[Andromeda]

154. Well, that's a matter of perception isn't it?

I feel that Janx handled herself very well in this exchange and stopped it from escalating into something ridiculous.

[Zhade]

123. This isn't an I/P debate, this is a foreign policy debate.

It's an established fact that several of the PNACers behind this war also planned for a war with Israel and the United States "securing the realm".

This is indisputable, a proven historical fact.

Nowhere in the discussion of that fact has the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian issue come up, at least not in this thread.

Punpirate has an excellent point, one I think you are remiss in dismissing as "an I/P debate" when it's clearly not.

[Zhade]

121. How is punpirate making a "gross assumption"?

If anything, you were guilty of that, when you said,

All of what you say is true. But is it wise, at this point, to define our fledgling Democratic party as rejecting NOT the Likudsters, but Isreal itself?

When, exactly, was the party defined as rejecting Israel itself?

Nowhere. That's YOUR "gross assumption". And it ties Conyers et al to the lit they had no control over.

[janx]

127. You have misunderstood my post completely. Sorry I wasn't

clearer. I agree with you.

Dean and Conyers had no choice but to make clear they didn't condone the literature that was being passed out at DNC headquarters. Had they not done so, can you imagine what would have happened and how people might view the Dem party's view of Israel--the nation, the people?

Edit: You asked about the assumption. Here's the quote:

"It wasn't. Because you characterize criticism of the current government of Israel as hate speech directed at Israel, you've already made up your mind."

That was a gross assumption. My mind, in fact, was made up very strongly in the opposite direction. The guy's premise relied on that assumption, and the "debate" spiraled downward from there.

[punpirate]

45. Your words, friend:

"to define our fledgling Democratic party as rejecting NOT the Likudsters, but Isreal itself?

"And what is the conspiracy theory literature doing at DNC headquarters? Something about that--as outlined by bklyncowgrl--smells terrible."

You're describing McGovern's words as rejecting Israel itself. You're tying two unrelated events together to make it seem as if the Democrats endorse anti-Semitic speech. You're the one that brought up hate speech. You're the one that made it an I/P issue.

You're obligated to explain yourself. My "internet" arguments have just backed you into a corner, and you don't like it a bit.

I think I know from whence you come, anyway--you can't spell Israel correctly. If you can't even spell it, why should I expect you to argue the geopolitics of Israeli-US relations?

[dameocrat]

142. I don't see how acknowledging that right wing zionists

pushed the war is a rejection of Israel rather than Likud. In fact it is the opposite.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

72. Nicely stated and I think if we could stick to what you pointed out that

we could overcome the labels of anti-Semitism. The very people yelling anti-Semitism are the people who may have most to gain from not allowing the American people to understand the role that PNAC has played for so long in our official government policy. We need to be clear that a philosophy is what's in question and not support for Israel or it's right to exist. It's really hard to do that when anti-Semitism becomes the issue obscuring any kind of real discussion. :shrug:

[ima_sinnic]

5. up until this moment I really loved Dr. Dean, but now he's lost me

--the "anti-semitic" card is bullshit. If Ray McGovern says Israel was complicit in these war plans/preparations/motivations, then I believe him. No country is beyond reproach simply because people's feelings might be hurt if it is criticized.

[janx]

8. That's not the point though. We could say that about despots

from a number of countries, here in the U.S. or in those countries, no? And I don't know what this so-called literature was--still waiting.

[rostombulus]

103. Simple logic

Let's see: I always agree with A because I believe A is always right

A says the moon is made of purple chicken testicles. Even though I could find copious evidence to prove A's statement is false, because of my regard for A, I will nevertheless agree with him despite having no evidence, other than A's word to the truth of the statement.

No country is beyond reproach but if there was the slightest evidence of Israeli complicity in 9-11, Israel would be toast. For you to believe that Israel helped cause 9-11, you have to believe that Israel, the hated enemy of Islamists, was able to convince a group of militants with connections to the most islamist of all islamist terror groups to attack the US without getting found.

McGovern has his issues but buddy, you need to learn a to think for yourself.

[marbuc]

115. Don't know the contents of the literature in question but...

Criticizing Israeli public policy is NOT anti-semitic. Their national religion is irrelevant.

[bklyncowgirl]

7. Dean responding to Milbank article. No choice but to denounce it.

That vile Dana Milbank article mentioned someone passing out conspricy theory literature which spread those crazy stories about Israel being behind 9/11, you know, the ones where the Jews were told to not to to work at the WTC that day.

Quote from Millbank "At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html

[janx]

9. So, two questions:

Did this actually happen? If it did, who did it?

[bklyncowgirl]

14. 10 to 1 it's someone trying to smear the activists wanna guess who?

I can't imagine that there'd be anyone on our side who'd be stupid enough to pass out that sort of crazy shit at DNC headquarters no less.

Back in the old US out of El Salvador days, it was generally acknowledged that some activists were on the CIA payroll and out to discredit the movement. I remember volunteering to work security at a march and being told to keep a close watch on a very highly organized and radical group of activists who were suspected of being plants.

The sad thing is that it doesn't matter if it's true or not, it got into the Washington Post and now the right wing has its talking points. The whole point of Downing Street memo may be lost in the crossfire over this garbage.

[janx]

17. Really? (Referring to your experience.)

I don't think the DSM will necessarily be lost because of it. It's peripheral. Still, I'd like to know who it was.

Edited for profanity...

[bklyncowgirl]

26. Anyone remember the Spartacist league?

There were definately rumors about them being on the Federal payroll. I don't know if anything was ever proved buy people in the movement were wary of them.

[Zhade]

23. Notice how Milbank himself wrote something anti-Semitic?

"...and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."

So, because there was insider trading (not a theory, by the way, but a fact), it was THE JEWS doing the trading, and thus they set up the attack to profit?

Nice, Milbank. Fucking hypocrite.

(For the record, I think the "Jews told not to go to work" thing turned out to be bogus? I would condemn that bullshit myself.)

[bklyncowgirl]

25. Of course it was bogus.

Doesn't mean some people don't still bring it up. I personally think someone was trying to smear the protest.

[Zhade]

51. Fascists aren't above that sort of thing, that's for sure.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least, these days.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Maybe....

On edit: I am playing it safe. I posted an "inside joke," but removed it just in case it was not clear/funny. Sometimes, even us Jewish comedians fall flat! :)

It is good to see that Dean called this for what it is, as has Conyers. The brochures and those who handed them out need to be outed.

[Zhade]

49. I agree, except for the insider trading.

Which, IIRC, was not "Jewish bankers" or some other bullshit, and to my recollection is an unresolved issue.

I should look into that, actually.

Glad we seem to have come to an accord of sorts. :hi:

[Frederik]

88. The insider trading was very real

and only a few wingnuts have associated it with "the Jews" or with Israel. We don't know who did it, and that's the point. The SEC concluded the people who bought those put options etc. "had no conceivable connction to al-Qaida", which to them meant case closed.

If these pamphlets simply pointed out the insider trading, and Milbank reads this as "anti-semitic", then I have good reason to suspect his motives here.

It's the cheapest of all debating tactics, to accuse your opponent (and Milbank's opponents here are clearly those who care about the DSM) of "veiled anti-semitism". If you talk about international bankers etc, you really mean Jews, thus any point you make is invalid. "International networks" means Jews. Everything is a coded reference to the Elders of Zion. It's a very effective and very dirty tactic.

[Zhade]

116. Agreed - it's designed to shut down debate.

Similarly with regards to the Israeli government's policies.

[AngryAmish]

73. "Crazy stories?"

It haas been repeated proven true here. Look it up.

[KoKo]

75. That was very disturbing in Milbank's article. He turned the discussion

to anti-Semitism which was designed to whip up folks into trashing the whole hearing because of a "perceived anti-Israel" comment.

That was the point of his article. And, that's what was so dreadfully vicious about it. It was a surprise attack.

[bklyncowgirl]

79. Absolutely

The idea was to trash the hearing and its supporters as a bunch of crazy, anti-war activists and tin-hat conspiracy theorists. The people who passed out that literature added fuel to the fire.

Somewhere Karl Rove is smiling.

[Frederik]

136. It infuriates me

that simply pointing out the "insider trading" is seen as anti-semitic even when it is not alleged that Israelis were responsible for it, because it "previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks." That's such a dirty move on Milbank's part. These two points were probably two points among many in a pamphlet that was meant to show the many unanswered questions relating to 9/11. That's my guess anyway. I suspect there was nothing anti-semitic in those pamphlets.

According to the FBI, the story about the Israeli firm Odigo is true - they were warned to get out of the WTC early that morning, from an anonymous source. But I guess it's anti-semitic to mention it? I don't see the Odigo story as being of more than anecdotal interest, and I wouldn't have included it in a pamphlet about 9/11, as there are many other points that are much more important (that have nothing to do with Israel), but is it anti-semitism to do so? Just because the firm is Israeli?

[dameocrat]

145. If I remember correctly the insider trading deal was connected

with Al Qaeda.

[Frederik]

147. You remember wrongly

It has not been connected to anyone. The 9/11 Commission report mentions it briefly, but states that there was no connection to al-Qaida, thus nothing to worry about.

[mopinko]

11. there has been a lot of pro palestinian stuff

involved in all the antiwar demonstrations. it is a major part of answer's platform. personally, they have pissed me off. they do not seem to be so much antiwar, as anti-the-other-guys-side-in-the-war. not wanting peace so much as wanting victory. it has made for some pretty ugly moments.
i don't know what kind of things were being passed out, but there are always nutcases looking for the camera.

[janx]

12. Pro-Palestinian stuff is fine,

as long as it wasn't some kind of over-the-top mission some people were on to advance one cause at the expense of the one at hand.

Do you think that's what happened?

[mopinko]

61. i am only guessing

but i have seen some ugly stuff at peace rallies. dragging the israeli flag on the ground, and stomping on it. and the rhetoric gets hot sometimes.

[Snivi Yllom]

13. McGovern did not help the case with his Zionist conspiracy

Dean is dead on right. And if people were handing 9/11 Israel garbage out, they should be called out and slammed to the mat. They just put the last nail in the coffin as far as DSM gaining any traction.

I expect many here to flame Dean, but it comes with the territory. He's a rock. He can take it.

[janx]

15. Right. And it's not as if this decision, on the behalf of the Dem

party, is going to hurt the cause. In fact it's quite the opposite. Who wants that stuff associated with something this important?

I'm just very curious about what the literature was and who was distributing it at DNC headquarters.

[K-W]

80. McGovern did not have a zionist conspiricy, that is bullshit.

McGovern accurately explained the situation. There is no conspiricy, both Isreal and the US benefit from this war because it increases thier strength in the region. The US and Isreal are long time military allies. This isnt anti semitism and it isnt a secret, and if someone wants to hand out pamphlets that is thier right, condeming people for exercising thier right to speech isnt what I want my chairmen spending his time on.

[bklyncowgirl]

83. Somewhere Karl Rove is smiling

I don't have a problem with the first part of your statement. I thought McGovern explained himself well. (Incidently, Dean didn't mention McGovern except in possibly the most round about way. Conyers did mention McGovern and while he distanced himself a bit from the remark he did not condemn it)

That bit about free speech and people should have a right to hand out literature though bothers me. Sure they have a right to free speech. But passing out something which accuses Israel of being behind 9/11 in the headquarters of the Democratic party does not help the cause.

If Dean and Conyers did not disassociate themselves from this and condemn it in the most uncertain terms, that would have been the subject on every right wing talk show in the country. If you can't see how this sort of thing hurts the cause of building up a case against Bush and his cronies then I think you need to spend a little more time in the real world.

[Frederik]

91. McGovern didn't promote a "Zionist conspiracy theory"

Jeesus. I'm sure you would like it to be the "last nail in the coffin as far as the DSM", but we'll see.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

97. you'd expect people here to flame Dean, for disavowing anti-semitism?

why would you expect people to do that I wonder?

[Zhade]

16. Uh, what did the lit SAY?

I can't judge it as anti-Semitic without knowing its content - and criticism of the Israeli government's actions, policies, and goals are not automatically anti-Semitic!

[janx]

18. That's my question, too. I don't know! Articles have not

referenced that part of it, interestingly enough...

[bklyncowgirl]

21. DNC Statement here.

Dean sound pissed.

"As Americans we believe in the right to free speech, and as Democrats we open our doors to a variety of opinions and perspectives from our fellow Americans. Unlike the current administration, we do not believe that closed hearings, restricted audiences, and carefully scripted meetings are good for our democracy. But anti-Semitism and bigotry are unacceptable and un-American, and they have no place in civil political discourse. As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could 'dominate' the Middle East or that Israel was in any way behind the horrific September 11th attacks on America, let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric. The inferences are destructive and counter productive, and have taken away from the true purpose of the Judiciary Committee Members' meeting. The entire Democratic Party remains committed to fighting against such bigotry."

http://www.democrats.org/news/200506170001.html

[Behind the Aegis]

24. BRAVO!

:woohoo: There is a difference between saying Israel played a part and Sharon has Shrub on a string and that the illegal war was for Israel.

[Carolab]

46. I like Kurt Nimmo's take on Milbank's article and the Israel references

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12679&l=i&size=1&hd=0

[geek tragedy]

70. Nimmo is himself a Jew-hating nutbag with links to the Holocaust denial

movement. His site links to several far-right hate sites, and he cites the Institute of Historical Review (the official journal of the Holocaust denial) as a legitimate source.

http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=479

[Carolab]

112. I know. Everyone is using this to focus on this issue.

The whole matter just opened up the debate to this issue and is detracting from the discussion on the real issue, which is/are the memos.

[geek tragedy]

151. I agree. The anti-Israel crowd needs to not hijack this issue for their

own purposes. Ditto the 911 tinfoilers.

[michael098762001]

162. Kurt Nimmo

Kurt Nimmo defends Amiri Baraka's terrible 9/11 poem, with its
passage asking "Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers/To
stay home that day/Why did Sharon stay away?"

http://slate.msn.com/?id=116813
4,000 Jews, 1 Lie
Tracking an Internet hoax.
By Bryan Curtis
Posted Friday, Oct. 5, 2001, at 5:30 PM PT



, the sons of Islam will not stop their struggle."]

It is an article of faith in many Muslim countries that Israel was behind the attack on the World Trade Center, with many citing as their evidence a "news report" that 4,000 Israelis called in sick from their jobs at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The allegation has now appeared on scores of Web sites and bulletin boards, has been reproduced in e-mails too numerous to count, and has run as fact in newspapers and news broadcasts in the Middle East. Where did this charge originate, and what path did it take around the world?

Continue Article


First, a question begs: Where did the precise figure of 4,000 Israelis come from? According to the Anti-Defamation League's Web site, on Sept. 11, the Israeli Embassy released a statement expressing concern about the 4,000 Israeli nationals living in New York City—few of whom actually worked in the World Trade Center. At press time, the embassy couldn't confirm this statement.

According to Nexis and the Google search engine, the first mention of Israeli involvement in the attacks came in a Sept. 17 report on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television. The Los Angeles Times reports that the terrorist group Hezbollah has free access to Al-Manar's airwaves, and the station's Web site claims that the station exists to "stage an effective psychological warfare with the Zionist enemy."

The next day at 6:26 a.m., the American Web site Information Times published an article headlined "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," and credited it to an "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." This was not the first time that Information Times had pointed the finger at Israel. The day after the attacks, it warned in an article that the "terrorist government of Israel … cannot be ruled out" as a suspect. Information Times purports to be edited by Syed Adeeb from the eighth floor of the National Press Club at 549 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20045. The Press Club says it has no such tenant and repeated messages sent to the e-mail address for Syed Abeed listed on the site bounce back as undeliverable. Directory assistance for Washington, D.C., has no listing for Information Times.

The "4,000 Jews" page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination.

The Information Times article makes three charges:

1) Citing the Jordanian newspaper Al-Watan, it alleges that "Israelis remained absent based on hints from the Israeli General Security Apparatus, the Shabak." No media source except Al-Manar claims to have actually seen the editorial in Al-Watan, which the Jordanian Embassy's information bureau describes as an obscure newspaper with a low circulation. Al-Watan's source? Unnamed "Arab diplomatic sources." (A few newspapers called Al-Watan have Web sites—click here, here, and here to visit them—though none seem to be based in Jordan.)

2) Citing the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, it alleges that Israeli secret police prevented Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from traveling to New York City on Sept. 11.

3) Citing the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, it alleges that the FBI arrested five Israelis who were caught filming the WTC's smoking rubble from their office building roof. (They were being held on the charge of "puzzling behavior.")

No other media outlet that can be searched through Nexis or Google has confirmed the Information Times claims about Sharon and the five Israelis.

Within days, the story appeared in newspapers around the world. A remarkably similar version appeared under the byline of Irina Malenko in Russia's Pravda on Sept. 21. Pravda removed the article from its Web site a few hours after posting, calling it a "great and foolish mistake," but it can still be accessed here. On Sept. 21, the Chicago Tribune reported that a Pakistani paper, which it did not name, had published a similar account. In his Sept. 23 Slate "Dispatch" from Islamabad, Peter Maass reported that a local pro-Taliban politician repeated the 4,000 Jews claim at an anti-U.S. rally. On Sept. 26, Pakistan's Business Recorder printed the story about 4,000 Jews in language almost identical to the original Al-Manar article as a letter to the editor under the name "Hakeem." The same day, the New York Times reported that the allegation had appeared in a newsletter published by an Islamic charity and in lesson plans prepared by Egyptian middle-school teachers. On Oct. 4, the Chicago Tribune spotted the allegation in a Saudi paper, which it did not name. In the Oct. 8 issue of Time, Tim McGirk reported from Pakistan that the story had swept through the country's mosques and Urdu newspapers.

On Sept. 28, USA Today repeated the claim in the context that "Muslims the world over" had tried to pin the attack on Israel. USA Today did not explain the origin of the charge. The Village Voice did the same on Oct. 2. The hoax-debunking site Snopes.com assailed the story, as well. With the Web as a weapon, a lie spreads quickly and easily. With the Web as a corrective tool, the same lie becomes much easier to bat away.

Bryan Curtis is a Slate staff writer. You can e-mail him at [e-mail].

[janx]

33. "have taken away from the true purpose of the J.C.'s meeting"

YEP.

[Algomas]

54. My,my,my. Isn't Howie all puffed up. He is shocked, SHOCKED, I say...

Why are so many Christians sooooo stupid? Their horror of anti-semitism is self incriminating. Hahahahaha.
What if it were Canada that had their secret agents well placed in the US government and shaping American foreign policy. A policy that benefits Canada?
We would kick their cheese-eating asses, eh?
But mention Israel and...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

98. i think your post is disgusting

just one guy's opinion though. I think you're missing the entire point.

[Algomas]

106. Why do you find my post disgusting?

Let's try to keep our discussion based in reality. If Israel is playing us for suckers, it does nobody any good to ignore it. Don't fall for the anti-semitic card.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

124. here's why

because this entire issue is a distraction

[Algomas]

148. You are correct, it is a distraction.

The repukes are expert at spinning issues to their favor. Maybe when Bu$h is in prison we can, as a nation, reevaluate our foreign policy.

[Cha]

137. Maybe if you worked as HARD

as Dean does for our Party..you'd be Pissed, too..if someone was trying to fuckup your foundation..and blame the Jews for 9/11 when we all know it was bush who sat on his ass in crawford the month of August and didn't respond to terrorist warnings from the Clinton Administration, and brushed off the August 6th memo!

[geek tragedy]

165. Please regurgitate the Protocols of the Elders of Zion somewhere

else.

[dameocrat]

144. Claiming Israel pushed the war is just a fact not antisemic

Obviously claiming Israel perpetrated attacks on 9/11 is but the two claims should not be put in the same category.

Unless, the government starts dissassociating itself of the prosettler neocons our middle eastern policy will always be dicked up. Aipac obviously supported the war. Just read their website.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Iraq&num=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=aipac.org&safe=images

Why are we worried about offending a bunch of republican neocons anyway? Perle isn't going to vote democrat. Why whould we want him to.

[demgrrrll]

22. Has anyone identified the "handful" of people who were handing out

literature. I would want to know exactly who they were and who they were connected to. Someone mentioned the Answer folks. Is that a positive ID?

I would like to add that it is pretty difficult to manage a room when you are jumping up like a jack in the box trying to vote on 11 consecutive motions and attend a meeting.

[jaysunb]

40. I don't know , but every time there's

a Democratic meeting of any sort here in So Cal, the LaRuchies and socialist groups show up, passing out flyers and other literature. I suspect this was the case here.

That being said, I think McGovern should have said what he did...it's true, so why be upfront about some things and try to be silent about others. Of course, it fits the American pattern:
forget the majority of the 9/11 criminals were from Saudi Arabia but we attack Iraq & Afghanistan.
pretend we don't realize that, most of the animosity toward this country is based on our relationship with the Zionist faction of the Israeli Government.
the main architects of this invasion are Zionist members of PNAC who came to power with this administration.

and more.....

Dean has correctly pre-empted and diffused any attempt to tie unrelated actions to overshadow the importance of the hearings. McGovern's comments were truthful and provide a road map to the overall picture of the criminal acts that are being committed and the motivations of those responsible.

[janx]

44. Yes, it's not only the relationship with the Zionists.

The relationship with the Zionists has become a convenience. There's more to it than that. It's a peripheral, as I mentioned earlier. It has gotten very bad in the Bush administration, but it's still not the point; it's only one point. My God, look at the fundamentalist Christians who are controlling so much (can you believe it?) of domestic and foreign policy. The Zionist view--it is to be used by them; they love it. What kind of acid trip is this?

This and many other things have to be examined, but we have to take things one step at a time.

I agree with you and apologize for ranting. Something in your post reminded me...

[Frederik]

94. It's not true that most of the animosity

results from the support for Israel. It's the American policy in the Middle East as a whole, the support for the corrupt undemocratic governments there, the bellicosity, the subversion of democracy and support of state oppression through 50 years that has caused this animosity, the support for Israel's policy is just a part of this larger whole.

[brentspeak]

27. Either Freepers or fools who mistake the Democratic Party

as being the appropriate vehicle to air their criticisms of Israel.

[stickdog]

31. Certainly the idea of an all-powerful Israel calling the shots for

BushCo is counterproductive in the context of the DSM.

If Israel had considered Iraq to be a dangerous threat to their security, they would have acted themselves -- just like they did when they blew up a structure that they thought was an Iraqi nuclear facility.

[TankLV]

90. Right - irregardless of whether it is true or not.

But we shall never know, shall we, whether this corrupt administration is infiltrated with Israli spys who have influenced policy! God forbid we could ever accuse such a "morally upright entity" as present-day Israli government, right?

After all, just because almost half the Israli population ALSO is vehimently opposed to their leadership's policies, any criticism of those policies is automatically an indication of a "jew hater"!

I will agree that it is all a distraction from the big picture - the hearings.

[Frederik]

100. According to Colonel Victor Ostrovsky,

the highest-ranking Mossad officer to defect and tell his story, author of "By Way of Deception", the Mossad worked to build up the image of Saddam Hussein as a threat to the world since 1986. They were clearly uncomfortable with having a strong Arab neighbour, for obvious reasons, and the Israeli right-wing has had plans to partition Iraq into its "ethnic and religious components" for a long time. So they clearly supported the Iraq war, even though Iraq was no direct threat to Israel in 2003. But the idea that Israel pushed the Bush administration to war, or that the desire to assure Israel's safety was a primal concern for the warmongers, is a red herring I think. The neocons and Bushistas had their very own reasons for attacking Iraq, related to oil, geopolitics and profit.

Israel's main importance to Pentagon hawks is the perceived need for non-Arab allies in the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution, only Israel and Turkey remain. Both are of critical importance as fortified outposts of the American empire.

[michael098762001]

164. Victor Ostrovsky

A source beloved of the neo-Nazis at Willis Carto rag, "The American Free Press."
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/liblobby.html
Liberty Lobby (Now Defunct)

Founded by Willis Carto:
Spotlight Newspaper (Now Defunct - replaced by American Free Press under different management)
"brought to you by the former staff of The Spotlight, who are now the publishers."
http://www.americanfreepress.net/About_Us/about_us.html
Institute for Historical Review (Carto lost control in lawsuit - continues under different management)
Journal of Historical Review (Carto lost control in lawsuit - continues under different management)
For more background information see: Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons, (2000), Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, (New York: Guilford).

The Former Liberty Lobby Network


In his history of the Liberty Lobby, Mintz argues the group reflects three facets of nativism: racism, conspiracism, and monoculturalism.

The John Birch Society trumpets jingoistic patriotism laced with conspiracist allegations that trace back to Robison's book alleging a Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy. Liberty Lobby relies on historic antisemitic sources echoing the Protocols. While still controlled by Liberty Lobby's Carto, Noontide Press reprinted classics by conspiracist antisemites such as Nesta Webster and John Beaty.

According to Mintz, Liberty Lobby clearly voices "racist and anti-Semitic beliefs in addition to conspiracism." As Mintz explains:

===Structurally, the Lobby was a most unusual umbrella organization catering to constituencies spanning the fringes of Neo-Nazism to the John Birch Society and the radical right. It was not truly paramilitary, in the manner of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis, but was more accurately an intermediary between racist paramilitary factions and the recent right.

The idea that so-called rootless and cosmopolitan Jews had questionable national loyalties was a highlight of the Dreyfus affair and was amplified horribly by the Nazi genocide of Jews. Picking up this historic theme, Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, frequently rails against "dual-loyalists" in our government when their target is really Jews or supporters of Israel which Spotlight conflates into an antisemitic stew of conspiracism salted with Holocaust Revisionism, Aryanist yearnings, and racial nationalism. Spotlight has a readership that fluctuates between 100,000 and 200,000.

The Washington Post has described Spotlight as a "newspaper containing orthodox conservative political articles interspersed with anti-Zionist tracts and classified advertisements for Ku Klux Klan T-shirts, swastika-marked German coins and cassette tapes of Nazi marching songs." That description is actually mild. The Liberty Lobby and Spotlight are not only fascist, but also quasi-nazi, promoting many of the themes of Nazi racial nationalism, and certainly networking and being used by persons and groups who are neonazi. Although the Liberty Lobby is careful to sanitize its views, there are moments of clarity. One Spotlight article referred to the Waffen SS, Hitler's elite corps of ideological Nazis, as a "multinational anti-communist mass movement, which was, in fact, the largest all-volunteer army in history." The Spotlight also has celebrated neonazi skinheads and the apartheid government of South Africa. The Liberty Lobby denies it is even antisemitic, much less fascist or quasi-nazi. It considers itself a patriotic populist organization.

Liberty Lobby, Spotlight, the International Revisionist Conference, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), Noontide Press, and IHR's Journal of Historical Review were originally all projects of Willis Carto, one of America's most influential racial theorists. Carto is described by the London-based anti-fascist magazine Searchlight as the "leading U.S. publisher of anti-semitic, racist and pro-Nazi material." The pseudo-scholarly Institute for Historical Review is a "revisionist" research center and publishing house that popularizes the calumny that the historical account of the Nazi genocide of Jews is basically a hoax. Noontide Press (in essence the book and pamphlet distribution arm of the Institute for Historical Review) distributes titles such as Auschwitz: Truth or Lie-An Eyewitness Report, Hitler At My Side, and For Fear of the Jews. Carto lost control over IHR and Noontide Press in a power struggle over money.

Russ Bellant describes how Willis Carto, early in his career, produced the magazine Western Destiny, which grew out of both the Nordicist Northern World and a vociferously antisemitic magazine called Right. Right recommended support for the American Nazi Party and was edited by E. L. Anderson who was associate editor of Western Destiny. Critics and co-workers of Carto claim E. L. Anderson was a pseudonym for Willis Carto.

Carto and Liberty Lobby were influential in creating the racist Populist Party and assisted in elevating David Duke to national attention as an electoral candidate. In the spring of 1985 the Populist Party held a major meeting in Chicago where the armed and confrontational activities of racist and antisemitic groups in rural America were saluted as "heroic," according to persons who attended the meeting. Antisemitism at this meeting was fairly obvious. One group of rural farm activists from the Midwest left the meeting after complaining that too many of the attendees were obsessed with Jews.

A series of political and financial schisms ended the direct relationship between Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party, although both groups still shared many of the same fundamental antisemitic and White racist theories. Many participants in the Populist Party believed a conspiracy of rich and powerful Jews and their allies control banking, foreign policy, the CIA and the media in the United States. Like David Duke, they also believed in an America controlled by White Christians of northern European heritage.

Former staffers at both the Liberty Lobby and the Lyndon LaRouche group claim both outfits have cooperated closely on several projects. In the March 2, 1981 issue of its newspaper Spotlight, Liberty Lobby cynically defended the relationship with LaRouche's original electoral arm, the U.S. Labor Party (USLP):
"It is mystifying why so many anti-communists and 'conservatives' oppose the USLP. No group has done so much to confuse, disorient, and disunify the Left as they have....the USLP should be encouraged, as should all similar breakaway groups from the Left, for this is the only way that the Left can be weakened and broken."

Spotlight later distanced itself and Liberty Lobby from the LaRouchites over the issue of their questionable and illegal fundraising activities but the groups share many similarities. They both see the world as controlled by secret elites involving a disproportionate array of banking families with Jewish-sounding names. Both claim Israeli intelligence and British intelligence polluted the CIA and U.S. foreign policy. Both depend heavily on the intellectual ideas of Spengler as outlined in Decline of the West. Both promote producerism and divide capitalist control into industrialists (productive) and financiers (parasitic).

[Frederik]

168. Huh?

I couldn't find anything about Victor Ostrovsky in what you posted. Nor do I see the relevance to my post, which you responded to. Do you have anything to say about colonel Ostrovsky? Have you read his books, for starters? (since you appear to want to discuss him).

[dameocrat]

146. I don't know

Is Israel capable of invading Iraq, Iran and Syria on its own? Anyway, both the PNAC and Aipac pushed the war. Look at aipac's website. http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Iraq&num=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=aipac.org&safe=images

BTW, if this group was insinuating Israel perpetrated 9/11 or spreading the rumor that no Jew showed up for work at the trade center, I am glad Dean denounced, but I hate that known ties between American foriegn policy and right wing Israelis was put in the same category. However I think Millbank is probably deliberately stiring the pot, so I take him with a grain of salt.

[Beacho]

37. I'm suspecting the Larouchites

I got some of their crap at the county convention in '04 and anti-semitic sentiment is rife in their propaganda.

[Carolab]

39. Here's the problem.

"The inferences are destructive and counterproductive, and have taken away from the true purpose of the Judiciary Committee members' meeting," he said. "The entire Democratic Party remains committed to fighting against such bigotry."

Trying to focus on something other than the memo and "impeachment".

Just ignore it. More "bait" for the RW to distract.

I borrow from Congressman Conyers' rebuttal (written in response to Dana Milbank's hack piece in the Washington Post and posted in full at www.rawstory.com):


In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.

That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.

[janx]

41. Conyers's comments and Dean's comments are essentially

the same.

[Carolab]

43. Yes, I know.

And, regardless of how one personally feels about Israel's influence over U.S. policy, this was NOT the point of the hearing and takes away from its true purpose. Moreover, it merely serves to inflame the "anti-Semite" fires and does little to advance our cause here.

Yet another attempt to distract and reframe the argument. Don't let them do it. Join Conyers in correcting Dana Milbank for this and for ignoring the true facts and agenda of the meeting.

[TankLV]

92. I totally agree.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Excuse my ignorance...

And it's probably steering off on a bit of a tangent, but I'm not American and didn't follow all that closely the antics during the presidential campaign, but wasn't Dean the guy who basically got accused of anti-semitism from some circles for daring to say something along the lines of Israel should sit down and negotiate with the Palestinians?

Violet...

[Carolab]

50. He advocated an "even-handed" approach to the problem.

That's kind of like a "road map to peace", isn't it?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_howard_dean.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Thanks for jogging my memory!

And having that confirmed, I'm strongly suspecting that having been a victim of baseless accusations of anti-semitism in the past, Mr. Dean wouldn't be one to say something's anti-semitic unless there's something to it...

Violet...

[MisterP]

113. there was an OUTPOURING of wrath that he dared put them on coeval

consideration, spearheaded by Pelosi. Not even Waxman was immune (but it may have been obligatory for him)

[NVMojo]

53. he needs to condemn the child rapes at Abu ...get a cause, Dean!

You can do it.Watch those tapes and join me for a maniacal scream at this nation and its deaf ears!

[Vladimir]

56. Well some of it is, and some of it ain't

Statements about Israel planning 9/11, or Israeli companies having prior knowledge of it, and so on, are fairly clear anti-semitism. They derive from the conspiracy theory that the world is run by Jews, and hence any important events occuring in it must be the work of Jews - here Israel is used as a code-word, but the true meaning is obvious. What the author wants to say, but can't, is that 'it was the Jews wot done it', and they would say the same regardless of the subject matter or evidence.

On the other hand, saying that Israel encouraged an attack on Iraq, or was complicit in US planning to go to war, to further its agenda in the Middle East is not anti-semitism. It may be a flawed political analysis, but the statement no longer makes any sense if Jews is substituted for Israel - it is primarily a statement about the convergence of political interests of two states, one of which happens to be Israel. That is is far more plausible does not hurt either, although of course not all implausible theories about Israel are anti-semitic.

[bklyncowgirl]

57. You're right there's a difference between the nutjob 9/11 stuff...

..and idea the Israeli govenment welcomed and encouraged an attack on Iraq. Mr. McGovern's statement about Israel being one of the reasons for wanting to go to war was plausible but not politically platable.

Political reality is that the right wing will use this as a wedge issue whether it is true to pry supporters of Israel away from the Democratic party and to distract and discredit the work of the activists who have demanded that the Bush administration answer for their lies and distortions.

Dean and Conyers were right to strongly condemn whoever it was who was passing out this literature.

[Vladimir]

58. Now there I disagree

but maybe its just because I am sick of hearing things being called anti-semitic when they aren't such. If this was all part of one document then fair enough - you condemn the document (the form wasn't clear to me from the article). But just because something is a wedge issue does not mean that you accept a mischaracterization of it which is all too frequently used to silence legitimate criticism of the state of Israel IMO.

[FormerOstrich]

62. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but......

activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."

Since we don't know what these pamphlets were, let's analyze Milibank's description.

"Israeli company had warning of the Sept 11, 2001.....". There was a company that received an IM about the attacks beforehand. I don't remember the company, and more-so I don't remember where they were located. However, does anybody know if that was an Israel Company? I am not positive but I do think the IM was confirmed. Based on the description, I think it's possible this is what that is about.

"was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks...." Now the way I interpret this is.....the pamphlet discussed the insider trading that occurred. We discuss it routinely here at DU, as well. We have never received any satisfactory answers. it's the "previously has been used" that gets me. Is he saying, that the pamphlet brings up the topic, does not relate it to Israel, but he has heard that topic linked to Israel in the past? Sounds like it to me.

Bottom line, is I'd love to see these documents. I'm thinking that there may be much smoke and no fire.... I hope, before publicly responding at all, by anyone, that they saw the pamphlet in question.

....I've been meaning to ask...why is it always the "so-called" Downing Street Memo. That drives me crazy. It such a backdoor slime subtle way to discredit them...like they might be fake...reminds me of the Mormon's so-called Salamander papers.....it's written that way everywhere...

On edit: I looked it up...the company was Odigo. Yes, it was Israeli employees that received the IM. The IMs were reported to the FBI after the fact. From what I understand, the messages didn't refer specifically to the WTC. The timing of them was what made the messages suspect. At any rate, the pamphlet could have just stated those facts with no inference to Israel being complicit.

All assumptions on my part......let's see the damn pamphlet, especially before denouncing or condemning anything.

[Frederik]

139. The company is Odigo

It's an Israeli company and they themselves claim that they received this warning, from an anonymous source. It was first reported in Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It's hardly a "conspiracy theory". And the insider trading did occur, and from what I gather, the pamphlet did not make any claims about the traders being Jews or Israelis. In other words, there apparently was nothing anti-semitic about those damn pamphlets.

[FormerOstrich]

141. lol......nothing like seeing how verbose you can be as evidenced

by seeing my post and yours together.....it's a little embarrasing....must remember to be concise...must remember to be consise she says.....


If the pamphlets were as you and I stated, then why do we start condemning and apologizing, and acting like were on damage control mission. It's like the we respond to innuendo and lies as if we are guilty. It overshadows the messages.

I say call them out. State it like you did. Put the burden on the accuser to have substance to an accusation. Damn we are our own worse enemies sometimes.

Thanks for the confirmation!!

[Frederik]

143. I think the Wash Post article left Dean and Conyers

with no choice but to respond the way they did. They couldn't have started to investigate what was actually in the pamphlets and give a nuanced response, as it would have been misunderstood and caused more debate about a subject that was nothing but a distraction from the real issue. So I'm not blaming Dean and Conyers, I'm blaming that snake Mil-whatever (I don't even remember his name) for his scandalous hit-piece. Damn the MSM and their "liberal bias".

:argh:

[Liberal Dose]

63. I don't remember McGovern making the condemned statement

I watched the entire thing twice. I guess I'll have to watch it again, since the only transcript I can find is at Federal News Wire and I don't want to subcribe. I will be profoundly disappointed if it turns out that Dean condemned a statement that McGovern never made. I remember McGovern prefacing his OIL acronym with the statement, "I know it's unpopular to say this" but he didn't say anything that wasn't true. Plus, we still don't know who was really behind the 9/11 attacks. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how the Pentagon ate a 757.

[K-W]

81. McGovern was 100% correct and said nothing anti-semitic.

Dean bought into a republican lie.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

101. have you seen the literature?

I wouldn't expect Howard to call something anti-semitic that wasn't

[michael098762001]

163. anti-semitism

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=1015
The Rough Beast Returns

By Todd Gitlin, printed in Mother Jones

Anti-Semitism is back, taking the place of intelligent criticism of Israel and its policies. And if that wasn't bad enough, students are spreading the gibberish.


The email sent out last month by Laurie Zoloth, director of Jewish Studies at San Francisco State University, was chilling on its face.

"I cannot fully express what it feels like to have to walk across campus daily, past maps of the Middle East that do not include Israel, past posters of cans of soup with labels on them of drops of blood and dead babies, labeled 'canned Palestinian children meat, slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license,' past poster after poster calling out Zionism=racism, and Jews=Nazis," she wrote -- and the details only became more shattering from then on.

I read Zoloth's words with horror but not, alas, complete amazement, Eleven years ago, during the Gulf War, across San Francisco Bay, the head of a student splinter group at Berkeley addressed a room full of faculty and students opposed to the war, spitting out venomously, "You Jews, I know your names, I know where you live."

The faculty and students in attendance sat stiffly and said nothing. Embarrassed? Frightened? Or worse -- thinking that it wasn't time to tackle this issue, that it was off the agenda, an inconvenience.

Far more recently, two students of mine at NYU wondered aloud whether it was actually true, as they had heard, that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11. They clearly thought this astoundingly crazy charge was plausible enough to warrant careful investigation, but it didn't occur to them to look at the names of the dead.

Wicked anti-Semitism is back. The worst crackpot notions that circulate through the violent Middle East are also roaming around America, and if that wasn't bad enough, students are spreading the gibberish. Students! As if the bloc to which we have long looked for intelligent dissent has decided to junk any pretense of standards.

A student movement is not just a student movement. It's a student movement. Students, whether they are progressive or not, have the responsibility of knowing things, of thinking and discerning, of studying. A student movement should maintain the highest of standards, not ape the formulas of its elders or outdo them in virulence.

It should therefore trouble progressives everywhere that the students at San Francisco State are neither curious nor revolted by the anti-Semitic drivel they are regurgitating. The simple fact that a student movement -- even a small one -- has been reduced to reflecting the hatred spewed by others should profoundly trouble anyone whose moral principles aim higher than simple nationalism -- as should be the case for anyone on the left.

It isn't hard to discover the sources of the drivel being parroted by the students at San Francisco State. In the blood-soaked Middle East of Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, in the increasingly polarized Europe of Jean-Marie le Pen raw anti-Semitism has increasingly taken the place of intelligent criticism of Israel and its policies.

Even as Laurie Zoloth's message flew around the world, even as several prominent European papers published scathing but warranted attacks on Israel's stonewalling of an inquiry into the Jenin fighting, the great Portuguese novelist Jose Saramago was describing Israel's invasion of Ramallah as "a crime comparable to Auschwitz."

In one of his long, lapping sentences, Saramago wrote in Madrid's El Pais (as translated by Paul Berman in The Forward, May 24):

"Intoxicated mentally by the messianic dream of a Greater Israel which will finally achieve the expansionist dreams of the most radical Zionism; contaminated by the monstrous and rooted 'certitude' that in this catastrophic and absurd world there exists a people chosen by God and that, consequently, all the actions of an obsessive, psychological and pathologically exclusivist racism are justified; educated and trained in the idea that any suffering that has been inflicted, or is being inflicted, or will be inflicted on everyone else, especially the Palestinians, will always be inferior to that which they themselves suffered in the Holocaust, the Jews endlessly scratch their own wound to keep it bleeding, to make it incurable, and they show it to the world as if it were a banner."

Note well: the deliciously deferred subject of this sentence is: "the Jews." Not the right-wing Jews, the militarist Israelis, but "the Jews." Suddenly the Jews are reduced to a single stick-figure (or shall we say hook-nosed?) caricature and we are plunged into the brainless, ruinous, abysmal iconography that should make every last reasonable person shudder.

The German socialist August Bebel once said that anti-Semitism was "the socialism of fools." What we witness now is the progressivism of fools. It is a recrudescence of everything that costs the left its moral edge. And, appallingly, it is this contemptible message the anti-Semitic students at San Francisco State chose to parrot.

We are not on the brink of "another Auschwitz," and to think so, in fact, falsifies the danger. The danger is clear and present, though not apocalyptic. It's no remote nightmare that synagogues are bombed, including the one on the Tunisian island of Djerba, famous for tolerance, an apparent al-Qaeda truck bomb attack. This happened. It is no remote nightmare that hundreds of Palestinian civilians died during Israeli incursions into the West Bank. This, too, happened. The nightmare is that the second is being allowed to excuse and justify the first.

Laurie Zoloth wrote: "Let me remind you that ours is arguably one of the Jewish Studies programs in the country most devoted to peace, justice and diversity since our inception."

But anti-Semitism doesn't care. Like every other lunacy that diminished human brains are capable of, anti-Semitism already knows what it hates.

This is no incidental issue, no negligible distraction. A Left that cares for the rights of humanity cannot cavalierly tolerate the systematic abuse of any people -- whatever you think of Israel's or any other country's foreign policy. Any student movement worthy of the name must face the ugly history that long made anti-Semitism the acceptable racism, face it and break from it.

[dameocrat]

149. This is being reported by right wing repuke Dana Millbank

We don't know the situation. Dean says they were passing out literature that said no Jew showed up for work at the Trade Center on 9/11. That is clearly an antisemitic slander against all Jews. It basically says they are all Israeli agents.

[KittyWampus]

71. Gee, Was It An Article About Pentagon's Franklin SPYING For Israel?

or, rather AIPAIC?

[Terran1212]

74. Exactly. I suppose the US gov't is anti-arab and anti-korean

For constantly "whining" about Iran's attempts at nuclear energy or Kim Jong Il's nuclear whoes.

It's sick how these politicians in washington care much more about israel than the USA.

[bklyncowgirl]

76. If Karl Rove didn't pay the people who distributed that literature...

he just saved the Republicans alot of money--some lame brain "activists" did his job for him.

Either way he's probably laughing his ass off.

Mainstream Democratic politicans will not touch anything that smacks of tin-foil hat, Jews rule the world conspiracy theorizing. That is the reason the Conyers and Dean have condemned this literature--not because they are tools of Israel. Conyers in particular has a drive to see this thing through and I admire him completely.

[K-W]

82. You seem to have completely missed the point.

The fact that the atmosphere exists where one must condemn such things is the scandal. There is a constant and oppressive pressure on people in government to never ever even appear to be against Isreal because being against Isreal can be spun as anti-semitism every time. But it is also the case that Isreal and the US have a strategic alliance that has benefited both parties immensly, if of course you think the empire is beneficial.

Who cares what pamphlets some guy passed out, that is guilt by association and Howard Dean hurts the Democrats by buying into the implication, in condeming it, he is all but aknowledging guilt for it.

Meanwihle McGovern was spot on, if Dean doesnt understand US foriegn policy I think he should find a new job.

[bklyncowgirl]

84. What about Conyers--he condemned it too?

Both in my opinion were right.

Saying that Israel was behind 9/11 is nutcase conspiracy theorizing of the worst sort. It hurts the cause of ejecting Bush and his gang of war criminals from the white house and that is why I am so passionate about this issue.

[janx]

87. Something tells me--and could easily be wrong--that you may

be arguing with individuals younger than yourself. ;-)

[bklyncowgirl]

99. They're younger than me, you think?

I just got my invite to join AARP--that ain't hard. Still in denial.

You know, I've seen this sort of shit before.

Now that the DSM has hit the mainstream the administration's game plan is to marginalize the people who have been pushing it. With useful idiots prattling on about stuff like "Isreal was responsible for 9/11" that's not a hard job.

Popular movements in the past have been hurt by fringe elements--some of which, I'd argue, were infiltrated by government agents, others were just idiots who had no sense of reality.

I don't know what we're dealing with here.

[janx]

107. It's one of the two.

And I don't know either.

[Frederik]

140. The pamphlets didn't say that!

From what I gather, the two points Milbank tried to construe as anti-semitic were a) that insider trading occured, and b) that the Israeli firm Odigo received a warning from an anonymous source just before the attack. Both are true, and appear to have been two among many points concerning the unanswered questions surrounding September 11 in those pamphlets. The insider trading was apparently not linked to Israel or Jews in the pamphlet, but in Milbank's disturbed mind it was of course a "code". The source for the Odigo story is the firm itself, as reported in Haaretz in 2001. They received an anonymous warning early that morning, to get out of the WTC. They have no idea from whom the warning came.

Thus, if that's all there is, there does not appear to have been the slightest hint of anti-semitism in those pamphlets. I agree that Dean and Conyers had to respond to Milbank's hit-piece, and I think their responses were appropriate given the damage done by the article, but it's clear that Milbank was trying to taint the meeting with accusations of anti-semitism purely in order to discredit the effort.

[Malikshah]

152. Now now, you're going to ruin it for those who wish to obfuscate.

and distract from the issue.

tsk tsk.

BTW-- thanks for the clarification.

[bklyncowgirl]

156. Actually, we don't know what the pamphlets said.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has seen the pamphlets, or fliers or literature or whatever they were.

Did Dana Milbank see a copy of the actual "literature" concerned or was he working from an tip?

Did John Conyers or Howard Dean see the item in question or were they responding to the Milbank article?

Everyone here is arguing about whether a pamphlet that non of us has seen is anti-semitic or not based on a biased article and two politicians CYA responses to that article.

By the way, if they have seen the flier I'd trust John Conyers and Howard Dean to know anti-semitism if they saw it.

[Liberal Dose]

95. McGovern said:

"Oil. Israel. Logistical bases. Oil, which is what we need. Israel, seen as an ally of the US in the Middle East. Logistical bases, which is part of the neo-conservative strategic vision in the region." ALL TRUE. Israel and the US are NOT official allies, yet we give them billions in aid every year. Why is it taboo to say anything bad about Israel? Speaking out against the policies of Israel does not equal racism. They've attacked us before, so who's to say it would never happen again?

http://www.ussliberty.org/

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.
-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

[K-W]

78. So Howard Dean is carrying water for empire now?

Do we really have to settle for Dean?

"One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world," a statement Dean also condemned."

How dare you condemn the truth Howard Dean.

And as far as the pamphlets, why is Howard Dean condemning people for passing out pamphlets? Why is he buying into the propaganda that the democrats are implicated in the actions of an independent actor?

[JeffUAW]

108. Ditto. I stated somewhat the same earlier. The fringe is killing us. We

will have a hard road to hoe if we continue to let this type of mistake to shadow the DNC.

[Carolab]

111. Dean hasn't changed his position from the start.

His position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict always advocated an "even-handed approach", not favoring Israel over Palestine. He never condemned Israel or our involvement with Israel.

[stickdog]

150. I agree that the blanket condemnation McGovern's statement was a bit

OTT.

However, even Dean couldn't escape "Dean Says Israel is Not US Ally" headlines, although McGovern's statement is technically true.

[NYCGirl]

167. Because the pamphlets were being passed out in the DNC offices, in the

overflow viewing room the DNC provided.

[angryxyouth]

86. Seeding the American consciousness

You may be seeing the beginning of Bushco's plan to Deni responsibility. We have already seen how the neocons introduce words into the media, that become part of the publics consciousness they associate them using lies, and then go for the big media push to cement these relationships. ie. 911-Osama. Osama-Saddam, Saddam-911.

This whole abortion will get pinned on the Jews. It will become the Rallying call for the masses the same way they joined together against Saddam for killing Americans on 911. (I wonder what the car magnet will look like.) After all, If Democrats are considered "the other religion" By these Anti-Christ-ian zealots, then what does this make the Jews.

Anti-semitism is alive and well and living in DC. and the Vatican, but that's another story. Let's not forget Prescott Bush's relationship to Nazi Germany. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
I really don't think the money falls far from the money tree.

[DavidFL]

93. It appears to be a hit piece by the AP...

When I first read the article, I completely missed the first sentence which said the pamphlets were passed out at DNC HQ. Of course, the hearing did not take place at DNC HQ, but in a House conference room. It's a smear attempt by the AP in an attempt to link the Democrats, discussion of the DSM, and Conyers' hearing with accusations of anti-semitism; even though, as many have noted here, no one knows what these pamphlets said or if they even exist. Truly shameful. However, that this comes from the AP is no surprise because they have proven themselves willing propagandists for the administration. We should hold the AP to the assertions in their story and force them to confirm that the pamphlets indeed exist and if they do, to provide a true copy of them for our own inspection and examination. Unfortunately, it looks like Dean and Conyers fell for it and instead of being able to continue the discussion of the DSM or Conyers' hearing, the Democrats have now been sidetracked by having to answer charges of anti-semitism from administration presstitutes.

[janx]

96. That much was obvious to me, but thanks for pointing it out.

Dean and Conyers, though, are essentially now in agreement on this and realize what has happened. I gather this from some recent statements.

[QC]

110. If you don't love Ariel Sharon, the terrorists have won!!!!! n/t

[Al-CIAda]

133. Fucked up shit, isn't it? AIPAC, PNAC, neocon hegimony. n/t

[Carolab]

135. Yes, it is. But it's not the ISSUE here. The MEMOS are.

Stick to the issue. We need an INQUIRY based on the MEMOS.

[michael098762001]

161. Neo-Cons

For a great read on the history of neo-conservatism, check out, "Imperial Designs, " by democratic socialist theologian, Gary Dorrien.
Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana by Gary Dorrien, Gary J. Dorrien (Hardcover)

[Leafy Geneva]

138. I've backed Dean in everything he's been doing ......

But in this case I wish he would have just kept his mouth shut.

Ray McGovern's testimony was very effective.

And he told the truth.

[Carolab]

153. Imagine if he had said nothing.

The right wingnut talking heads would NEVER have shut up about it. He and Conyers gave them absolutely NO leeway to drag this argument out for weeks on end. They are staying ON MESSAGE here.

[bklyncowgirl]

157. Absolutely.

Had Conyers and Dean not reacted the way that they did to squelch this, the Right Wing Noise Machine would have free rein to run with this thing and by the end of the week the issue would have been "Are anti-war Democrats anti-semitic?"

[michael098762001]

160. Howard Dean on Conyers hearing

Was it Counterpunch book, "The Politics of Anti-Semitism."?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Left_Network/message/61038
ttp://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html

November 27, 2003 Thanksgiving Bigotry & Discrimination Special: Joel
Schalit, author of Jerusalem Calling, on the Counterpunch collection,
The Politics of Anti-Semitism *

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2004/2004-January/000421.html (reviewing the
Counterpunch collection, "The Politics of Anti-Semitism.")
* Michael Neumann (a relative of Franz Neumann, by the way) has more
fun with anti-Semitism: "Undoubtedly there is genuine ant-Semitism in
the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is
utterly inexucsable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee's
letter." He goes on to dismiss anti-Semitism as more a feeling than a
real threat. "I'm much more scared of really dangerous situations,
like driving." The book often veers spuriously between this
complacency and a justified dismissal of the abuse of the term
"anti-Semitism" by apologists for Israeli policy without bothering to
take real anti-Semitism very seriously.

* Alexander Cockburn's piece is full of his typical turns of phrase -
"a torrent of money from out of stat Jewish organizations...American
Jewish money showered upon....outside Jewish money....Zionist
influence on the media....Jewish families are proprietors of some of
the most powerful newspapers in the country....t's reasonable to
point out that Jewish families control the new York Times and
Washington Post." Weirdly, AC notes that the "most rabidly"
pro-Israel of all the U.S. newspapers is the Wall Street Journal,
"which is not Jewish owned" - so what's the relevance of pointing out
the Jewish ownership of the NYT and WP, except to flirt with classic
stereotypes?

* Kurt Nimmo defends Amiri Baraka's terrible 9/11 poem, with its
passage asking "Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers/To
stay home that day/Why did Sharon stay away?"

* Jeffrey Blankfort has a repulsive piece specifically aimed at
refuting Chomsky's line that Israel serves U.S. imperial interests,
arguing instead that it's the Israeli lobby and its money that's
hijacked U.S. policy.

* A pseudonymous congressional aide, George Sutherland, likens the
U.S. government's relationship with Israel to Vichy France's with
Nazi Germany's, and Congressional "Likudniki" to "Quislings." In the
piece, "Sutherland" actually refers to the U.S. Senate as "the
world's greatest deliberative body," which Cockburn would normally
have sport with, except in this context.

* Kathleen and Bill Christison, two retired CIA agents, describe
Congress as "Israeli occupied territory," and refer to the "dual
loyalties" of the Bush administration. They argue that the
once-pragmatic Cheney was transformed by all the Israeli agents in
the Bush administration. "oyalty to Israel by government officials
colors and influences US policymaking in ways that are extrmely
dangerous," they conclude - as if Bush's neo-cons weren't driven by
their own understanding of U.S. imperial interests.

Doug

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/02/27/counterpunch.php

[Snivi Yllom]

166. I'm happy he did this

There is no place for this kind of message in the Democratic Party

[redqueen]

170. So a "handful of people"

handed out something at DNC HQ, while Conyers was holding a forum on the Iraq war at a different location... what's the connection? Where's the memo? What group was this handful of people affiliated with? How do we know they handed them out at the same time the forum was being conducted?

I hate media whores as much as I do the thugs looting our treasury.

:grr: