bustardblog

Dershowitz Just Keeps on Smearing.

I keep hoping to find the reasonable right.  Could it be Captain's Quarters?  Sadly, No.   He has written posts that suggest brain wave activity, but just when you thought you might have found a well-threaded wing nut, he "writes" a post that's really just a photocopy of another's despicable smears.
Today he's posted a slimy  piece on Jimmy Carter, relying on Sir Dershowitz the Dishonest to supply him with facts.  Except Allan Dershowitz does not do facts.
The piece is entitled "Jimmy Carter, Arab Front Man", and its basic point is that the Carter Center takes money from Arabs. Thus Jimmy is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and "that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter."  (Of course, this argument only works if you assume that neither President Bush, former or current, has neither real nor apparent integrity whatever.)
Dershowitz writes that he used to really admire Carter, and that as recently as a year ago he  did disagre with him on some issues but thought of him as one who was deeply committed to "principle and human rights. What changed his mind was the revelation that the Carter Center had accepted "Arab Oil Money." This really surprised Sir Dershowitz.

This is pure crap. Every sentient human being knows that "Arab Oil Money" permeates our political culture. The Saudis claim to have given significant money to every single modern Presidential Library. According to Robert Novak they gave up to 20 million to the Clinton Library. They gave to the Ronald Reagan Library. The closeness of the Saudi Royal family to the Bush Royal family is legendary; from their support of Neil Bush's private company, Ignite, to the million that they gave to Barbara Bush's literacy foundation, to the 80 million that they invested in The Carlisle Group. Did I mention that Prince Al Waleed gave half a million to George H.W. Bush's Boarding school to name a scholarship after him?

But somehow Carter's involvement is worse. According to Dershowitz the evil BCCI bank helped him out when his peanut farm was in trouble.  Guess what other troubled companies BCCI has bailed out: W.''s Harken Energy for one. (The bank made money on its loan to Carter, which was fully repaid. Not so with W and Harken)

Supposedly, the final straw for Dershowitz was Carter's accepting money from a source so evil that Horowitz had forced the Harvard to reject a donation to its "financially strapped Divinity School."  First, let me point out that describing the Harvard Divinity School as "financially strapped" is typical Dershowitz - and completely untrue. Depending on the source, the average endowment at private colleges in the U.S is between $90,000 and $130,000  per student in 2002.  The 2005 endowment at the Divinity School was about $1,000,000 per student.  Dershowtiz is calling an institution that is almost ten times as rich as the average, "financially strapped."  And what about  the evil donor, who is so dramatically identified as Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan? Sounds bad. Who is he?
He's the President of the United Arab Emirates. He's the guy who George W. Bush wanted to run some of our ports. When our government proclaims that "President George Bush praises UAE for progress in religious freedom" they are referring to him.

There is nothing fair, nothing honest in Dershowitz' article. I am not surprised when  places like Protein Wisdom sing its praises, or when Blue Crab Boulevard writes

"Carter has never, apparently, found a dictator he couldn't feel good about. But Dershowitz makes a very strong case that Carter is bought and paid for.

Sadly, that ever elusive, reasonable wing-nut, is not at Captains Quarters, who wrote

'There is no doubt that Carter has climbed into bed with some of the worst anti-Semites."

I'll have to keep looking.

This post was updated about two hours after initial posting. I made no significant changes; only cleaning up and fixing some links.,

Israel Does not Want Peace

From Haaretz:

"The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.

It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?

Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not.

It's by Gideon Levy =Read it all here.

I know I'm just repeating a question asked by many:

When will we see an Op-Ed like this in the U.S.?

Thanks to people like Rep Cantor (Likud-VA) and to the "patriots" at AIPAC, Hell will have frozen over long before there will be an open and honest discussion about Israel. Tragically, Israel will be so damaged by then that its survival is very much in doubt.

(h/t) to Atrios on the Cantor Connection)
(Cantor and his fellow neo-cons prefer to incorrectly use the word "democrat" as an adjective not only because they think it's a cute slur, but also because they do not actually believe in Democracy.)

UPDATE: Please watch the video here. Cantor distorts in an exceptionally evil fashion.

Manhattan Mini Storage

I had to move some things into storage, and went on line to try to find the best deal close to my apartment. Manhattan Mini Storage is nearby, but when I googled them I came across some political web sites. The Politics of Storage?

• Wing Nuts of the world, united under their banner of perpetual outrage, have decided that posters which make fun of Bush are really making fun of the murder of Daniel Pearl. According to these people, an ad that reads "Your closet is probably scarier than Bush's agenda", meant to imply an overly crowded closet, actually means "The Holocaust never happened - death to Israel." And so they declare that Manhattan Mini Storage must be boycotted. Hyena, like Pam at Atlas, are yet to explain what the ads  teasing Paris Hilton and her dog really mean.

The hyena might not be happy that upon seeing her post, I stopped comparison shopping. I went directly to Manhattan Mini Storage and signed up for a $165.00/month space.  Next in line was someone booking a $600.00 monthly space - when asked what brought him to Manhattan Mini, he answered that it was because of the ads and the reaction to them from nuts on the web. (The guy was an Israeli)

Bet on Soros

AIPAC is having a bad week. Sort of.

George Soros' piece on the lobbying group is accurately devastating. (He must have been reading some of my recent posts!) He begins his piece:

The Bush administration is once again in the process of committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East, one that is liable to have disastrous consequences and is not receiving the attention it should. This time it concerns the Israeli–Palestinian relationship.

Soros continues with a detailed analysis of the recent foreign policy blunders by both the U.S. and of Israel.  He clearly demonstrates the damage such mistakes has done - with the result being a more fragile, less secure future for Israel than ever.

The current policy is not even questioned in the United States. While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed. ... This is all the more remarkable because Palestine is the issue that more than any other currently divides the United States from Europe. ..

One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties.

Like Kristof in his recent op-ed, Soros underscores how dangerous the lack of debate has become for Israel, and then asks:

How did Israel become so endangered? I cannot exempt AIPAC from its share of the responsibility.. While the other architects of the Bush administration's failed policies have been relentlessly exposed, AIPAC continues to be surrounded by a wall of silence...

One reason, he believes, is because just as an American who criticizes the decision to invade Iraq is called anti-patriotic, so too is one who criticizes Israel is called anti Israel or anti-Semitic.

Soros concludes with what might seem to be an obvious, uncontroversial solution: that thoughtful, liberal American Jews must find a way to restrain and rebuild AIPAC.

Thus in the last couple of days there have two very critical, prominent pieces strongly critical of AIPAC. The reason that this can only be called a "sort of" bad week for AIPAC has been the quiet reaction to these pieces, which can only be called muted, or perhaps muzzled.

Kristof's piece in the Times seems to have created a somewhat bigger stir. There were lots of comments on his blog, and today's paper printed four letters to the editor.  (If you need to understand how AIPAC does it, be sure to read the accidentally honest fourth letter, where the method for dealing with those who are critical of Israel is detailed: "Most of those political figures who have used such language...backtracked once reminded, by the force of public condemnation, that such comparisons are unacceptable."

Memeorandum's link to Soros' piece had only two links. One agreed with Soros' analysis, but was angry that he was not going to play the knight on a white horse and solve the problem himself. (Soros' contention that he is "not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of AIPAC" works for me.) The other link contained an entirely predictable attack, with all the requisite ranting comments, on what an evil, utter fool Soros is.  It's really an awful post - first outlining horrible crimes committed by Palestinians, as if this were an argument against trying to find a path to peace. Proof for her is the Palestinian attempt to rearm, because "A group intent on a peace agreement has no need to arm itself and train its troops." She never responds to a single of Soros' argument.

The relative silence in response to these two pieces (and of course my blog posts) is curious.Is it a sign that criticizing AIPAC, and Israeli policies, are now acceptable parts of our common discussion?  Or is it a sign of just how powerful AIPAC is? 

"Talking About Israel"

There is much to appreciate in Nicholas Kristof's op-ed about Israel in today's N.Y. Times.  He correctly identifies a huge problem when he indicates that Mr. Bush's "embrace" is "crushing" Israel. He notes that:

There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians.

He describes the results of Bush's "crushing" perfectly:

Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country's long-term security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing Young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing another generation of terrorists in Lebanon. The Israeli right's aggressive approach has only hurt Israeli security, just as President Bush's invasion of Iraq has ended up harming U.S. interests.

But when Kristof offers his analysis of the cause for that lack of debate in the U.S., he can only display symptoms of the disease he would hope to cure.

He speculates that the silence of those who might criticize current policies could be caused by two reasons:

• "American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves." He points out how Dean four years ago, and Obama a few weeks ago, were "blasted for being hostile to Israel" when they made some pretty innocuous comments
• "A second reason may be that American politicians just don't get it", writes Kristof before explaining how important the Palestinian issue really is in the Arab world, and how miserable the Palestinians actually are.

But Kristof  knows full well that no American politician voluntarily muzzles himself, and most of them are smart enough to  get it.  They are actively silenced by being called anti-Israel and/or anti- Semitic. They can read the numbers of Palestinian dead as well as Kristof can.

Like Kristof, himself, the politicians are afraid of the organized outrage that will be choreographed by organizations and lobbyists such as the A.D.L. and A.I.P.A.C. over the slightest criticism of the Israeli government. The voices of the neo-cons added to traditional Zionists are pretty tough to shout over.

But kudos to Kristof for at least bringing the topic up.

Carter on Israel

Like Israel, Jimmy Carter is a litmus test in the political world of the times. While it seems to me perfectly reasonable to question Carter's effectiveness and many of his decisions as President, the need to denigrate in the strongest possible terms any accomplishment of his is a sign of a closed, authoritarian mind. Similarly, those with a sealed like-mindedness cannot tolerate any questioning of any Israeli act.
So it is with considerable courage that Carter criticizes Israel, and it's powerful lobbying arm, AIPAC, in today's L.A. Times, writing  that: (h/t memeorandum)

For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

I have not yet read his new book on Israel, but if Alan Dershowitz hates it, it can't be all bad.

Before reading it, I hope to post some of my own thoughts on the unprecedented success of Israel's lobbying efforts in the U.S, and her enormous power in determining the narrative that dominates much of our foreign policy - whether it is how acts of civil disobedience become acts of terrorism when the Palestinians commit them, or how the likelihood of our meeting with Iran is influenced by Israeli self-interest; rather than our own interest in stopping the catastrophe of Iraq.

Learning from Iraq

Bush is not capable of learning from Iraq, so we have to.

Tristero, over at Hullabaloo, clearly has a lot of admiration for Josh Marshall, as do I. But he speaks an absolutely essential truth when he insists that it is not sufficient to discuss the competency with which the war in Iraq was planned or fought. Whether or not more troops would have made a difference, whether the Army should have been disbanded, whether a larger coalition would have saved the day, etc., etc.,  - are entirely irrelevant arguments. The basic idea of invading Iraq was absolutely stupid and immoral.

After being so wrong on Bush/Iraq, a reluctant admission that if you want to be dogmatic about it then I side with the 'impossible' dogmatists, makes me fear that when Cheney and Bush start up in earnest over Iran, the same misjudgment will doom any attempt to oppose it. (Tristero)

And he gets full marks for saying "'when' Bush and Cheney start up in earnest over Iran."

As I tried to point out in a previous post, Bush will bomb Iran within the next two years. Those who argue that it will be done better this time, that there will be no occupation, that he has learned from his mistakes; are merely enablers for a mean old drunk.

There are some slight changes int he cast of characters: instead of Wolfowitz, this time it's Muravchich; the role played by Ahmed Chalabi, will now be taken by Amir Abbas Fakhavar. Featured players: Bush, Cheney, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, AIPAC, JINSA and the AEI remain the same.

Beirut

  Hezbollah's promised demonstrations in Beirut, designed to bring down a government that they consider Bush's puppet, has begun in Beirut.

So far I've seen one report saying that tens of thousands of protesters are already there.

Al-Jazzerah reported on the hopes that the demonstration will be peaceful, and quoted the President as saying that "The resistance (Hezbollah) is not going to shoot Lebanese people, and there will not be a civil war."

Der Spiegel's most recent reports indicates that the number of demonstrators is in the "hundreds of thousands." (It is their photo I reprinted above.

Credit for the  increased power of Hezbollah should probably be divided equally between Israel, Iran, America, and Syria - even though only two of the four hoped for the result achieved. Mazel Tov Mme Rice, Mr Bush, and Mr Olmert!

UPDATE:
Loyal commenter Rick admires how talented the Arab world is in orchestrating such huge demonstrations.  Perhaps he forgets the motivation that the people of Lebanon recently received. Since the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, 17 people have died, and 135 have been wounded by the explosion of cluster bombs left by Israel. Although Israel promised to provide maps to help the Lebanese find them, they have yet to do so. To add insult to injury, the vast majority of the approximately 60,000 cluster bombs were deployed as the cease fire began. ( NY Times )

Iraq and Israel: Where'sthe Pressure?

Atrios gets it right once again when he says that Bush intends to be in Iraq forever. (Although his complaint that no one listens to him is absolutely beyond me)

Still, my cock-eyed optimism allows me hope that some of the ideas being pushed by the Baker commission might have an impact.

A participant in the commission's debate is reported in Today's NY Times as saying that "unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.'"

This will probably have no real effect on Bush's actions in Iraq, but it might wake up a few concerned about our relations with Israel. The U.S. has put minimal pressure on Israel to reach a negotiated settlement for decades. In the last six years there has been absolutely none - "there is zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached."  The benign neglect of the Bush administration is anything but benign.

The incredible influence of JINSA and AIPAC, as well as the heavily pro-Likud bias of many of the neo-cons at the top levels of this administration, has jeopardized the future of Israel.

Each skirmish with Hezbollah in Lebanon; each rocket exchange with Hamas, only aggravates the hatred of Israel by it's neighbors - hatred that is becoming increasingly  stronger and more radical every day. Considering the West Bank, Gaza and Israel as one entity, this year is one of the first in which the number of Jews and the number of Arabs living there are roughly equal -about 4,5 million of each. * The birthrate of the Arabs of course is much higher than it is for Jews, and the tipping point is past.  This does not include the tens of millions of Arabs in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc etc who have promised to destroy Israel.

With no pressure for peace, there will be no Israel.

*Inexact and disputed number make this unprecise analysis necessary, but the trends are not deniable.

Insanity and Hanson: What a Team!

(This post is still in draft form. Family health issues made me post it prematurely. (I'll clear it up tomorrow)

Reading Victor David Hanson's piece in the Journal today, as well as Dr. Sanity's rant in her blog, might surprise you. They don't really think that Al Qaeda is the big problem either.

They say it's us. Yup, we Democrats, we liberals, are very close to achieving our goal of destroying Western Civilization.

And it's not just Iraq, Lebanon,Israel, Afghanistan and Iran where we've done our damage - we're also to blame for what is happening in Zimbabwe, as well as a host of other countries.  The fact that the neo-cons have controlled all aspects of the U.S. government for the past six years does not mean that they are responsible for any of the world's ills. We're to blame.  Before asking to be incarcerated at Guantanamo, as I so richly deserve, I need a couple of questions answered.

First, I need them to answer how they came up with their definition of who we are. According to inSanity, we "swoon over despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." When did Nancy Pelosi Swoon? I missed it.   One of Dr. Sanity's favored commenters is "White Ringer" (and I did not make that up.) In his comment he writes to the Dr.: "As you put it, Jefferson had slaves so therefore he is no different than Hitler."

Please give me the name of the leading Democrat or Liberal who equated Jefferson with Hitler. Her piece constantly suggests that Liberal are in fact socialists, or communists. Please give a name Dr Sanity.

Victor Davis Hanson lives in a similar fantasy world. He declares that "Dreaming of killing an elected President... is a new national pastime." What nation does he live in? There is an English, made for TV movie that does a treatment of possibilities that could attend an assassination. It in no way recommends it. It is hardly the talk of my liberal community. To call it "a new national pastime" is nothing more than a lie.

But lying is the one thing at which Sanity and Hanson excel. Their only other skill is the dishonest demonization of those who disagree with them.

The last thing our national conversation needs in the present crisis is their voice. It is one of hatred and dishonesty.