Hillary, a real fraud . . .

David Brooks, that ever helpful shill, continues to provide timely advice to democrats for not losing the election. He's remarkably in tune with the notion that Hillary has it in the bag and that she needs to stay the course as a conservative on foreign matters. Only he thinks Hillary is for real, not pretending to be a hawk:

http://www.tiny.cc/WGdFI

There you have it. The putative shoe-in for Pres is either a for real hawk, or a hypocrite in hawk's clothing. Ain’t we lucky.

Some seem to feel that Hillary is just posturing to get elected, and will do the "right thing" once in office:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002381.php

To me, it is the slimmest of hopes, that a politician will conclusively reject a position and a bent that is established during a campaign once they are in office. I understand that politicians frequently change direction, though seldom totally reverse course. But to premise one’s forgiveness on just such a hopeful turnabout is a position of utter weakness and lack of honesty.

IF Hillary could read the scene, AND summon the courage to be forthright and honest, she would recognize the vast opposition to more belligerency in the Middle East. Americans have tired of the enterprise.

It is a nasty trap to appear, genuinely or not, to hew the neo line while campaigning, the corollary of which is that the US stays in Iraq and environs for the foreseeable future, while seeking to distance oneself from Bush on technical grounds.

Iraq is a not primarily a disaster on technical grounds. It is a strategic and moral failure.

Hillary can’t credibly hope to criticize the policy and decisions that got us here while adopting the scenario that the architects project into the future.
I say she can’t, but I recognize that hypocrisy can twist itself in all sorts of ways.

"Bring 'em on . . ."

Is it just me, or is Bush clearly trying to provoke another conflict . . . with Iran, with Al Quaeda , with anyone for that matter. And, by the way, might not that work to the advantage of the neo-con agenda and against those interested in restoring some of the civil liberties snatched from the American people (not to mention the Iraqis) over the past several years?


Bin Laden “Virtually impotent”:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070909/ts_nm/security_binladen_dc_1;_ylt=Al00dkuJrUXYZwp0JmLW21ME1vAI


“We’re kicking ass” in iraq:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/07/bush-on-iraq-were-kicking-ass/


Seems like Bush thinks that the same old song and dance appeals to Joe Sixpack; recycle the charade every few years. Maybe he’s right. A “terror attack” on the U.S. would help shore up Bush’s agenda, send the populace back into defensive mode, and consolidate the burgeoning totalitarian mentality of the White House.

I’d put money on it.

. . . A little more nuanced look at Jews, Jewishness, and the state of Israel

A link from Scott Paul writing at "The Washington Note" blog, provides the necessary backgound to my comments which follow:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002333.php

I reread the editorial from the Forward and Scott’s post and, as an American with a maternal heritage that is Jewish, I find the points that Scott Paul makes salient and lucid, not too nuanced by half, which is the way one (this one anyway) must read the editorial in order to be convinced its really critical not just of Israeli behavior but of Jewish exceptionalism.

I've always thought and been proud in theory that being a Jew means that one understands the dignitiy of all individuals, with none being more worthy than any other. (admittedly that's a secular interpretation, and many would place more emphasis on Jews as "chosen"). If being chosen includes suffering righteously then you can’t have it both ways; when its time to suffer, you suffer, not just when its convenient or rhetorical.

Myself, at least since law school days and being awakened to international law vis a vis Israel-Palestine, I have never seen Zionism as much else than a political movement, and a pretty crass one at that. However, it’s been pretty well conflated, in my observation, with the meaning of Israel and Judaism in the popular mind, certainly in the mind of most Americans, and most American politicians. That’s a state of affairs that seems to please most everyone in the Israeli lobby just fine.

The subtleties and talking out of both sides of the mouth have been so well perfected by many Jews who yoke faith and political “realities” that its no wonder most “pro-Israeli” non-Jews just defer to the latest propaganda handout from AIPAC. Jews themselves are no doubt confused.

I appreciate the notion of trying to redefine what it means as a Jew to have some connection with Israel the state, but for the life of me I can’t see how it can be done. And I’m tired of having the blood of my ancestors hijacked for moralistic purposes not reflected by the actions of that state, the Zionist thugs who manipulate the sad legacy, and even the well meaning do gooders at the Forward on occasion.

As to the new moral ethic that the editorial says we should examine, trying to follow Goldberg’s assertion, that would have to be either a straw man or a call for Israel and its functionaries to quit stoking the we’re-more-moral-than-thou subplot at every turn. After all that’s where political ethics and its moral basis meets the reality of political action.

For myself, of the “two pillars of modern Jewish identity”, it has never been a contest. If one loses one’s moral compass, isn’t the “bond” with the state of Israel pretty meaningless?