What Geraldine Ferraro, David Horowitz and George W. Bush Have In Common, Contempt For Truth

I have been thinking about this whole mess with Hillary, Ferraro and Hillary's hardcore female supporters attacking Obama and others that oppose their views with outrageous and baseless accusations of sexism, and I realized that it reminds me a lot of Bush's way of relating to the world and his response to differing opinions (or let's say how he reacts to democracy). If you recall, pre-2006, if you were against the war in Iraq, or if you had the audacity to question ANY of Bush's policies, foreign or domestic, you were branded "un-American", as if criticism of Bush equaled a rejection of the entirety of America. As if Bush represents America, as if Bush and his policies are America.

We can see the same thing with people who recklessly throw out the term "anti-Semite" or "anti-Israel" to anyone who dares question ANY policy of Israel's, or any part of American foreign policy related to Israel, or even talk too much about the fact that Israel is a state that has policies and influence. As if criticism of specific Israeli policies is tantamount to hating Israel, or wishing the destruction of Israel, or hating Jews, or denying the Holocaust or any number of ridiculous accusations. As if the hardliners in control of Israeli's government speaks any more for Jews than Bush speaks for Americans as a whole.

But none of these things are really about being un-American or anti-Semitic or sexist, they are about brutishly silencing the opinions of others because you don't want to hear them, so you throw out loaded terms such as these to slander your opponents and silence them. It is anti-democratic, it is anti-intellectual, thus it is anti-truth and anti-reality. It is the last desperate fortress of those who can't win on the merits of their arguments, of those who are wrong and know they are wrong and can't admit they are wrong. So when Bush brands his critics un-American, he does so because his policies are based on lies, greed and death, and can't stand up to scrutiny.

When hardline supporters of Israel brand critics of Israeli policies anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, they do so because the policies people criticize are illegal violations of human rights, and they can't continue if exposed for what they are and challenged by an unintimidated international community.

And when Hillary and Ferraro and Hillary's hardcore supporters blast anyone who ever had a negative thing to say about Hillary, or anyone who admits the reality that it is mathematically impossible for her to win as "terribly sexist" or "misogynists", they do so because what people are saying is true, and they are fighting an uphill battle against reality, and the only way to continue to suspend the realization of reality is to intimidate, slander and shout down their opponents, just like Bush, just like hardline supporters of Israel, just like countless tyrants throughout history who have crushed dissent because their positions were so backwards, corrupt and immoral that they could never exist in a free and open society.

And sadly in every example the abuse of these loaded terms makes them eventually lose their edge. People now freely mock Republicans for attacking everyone anti-war as being un-American because the term was used and used and used to the point of absurdity. It lost its meaning and people came to eventually realize that those who peddled the term were corrupt and ignorant, and afraid of truth. To a lesser extent people are starting to realize that the neocons and hardline supporters of Israel are abusing the term "anti-Semitism" in order to crush opposing viewpoints, and that it has nothing to do with the real bigotry against Jews which really does exist in the world. But this is where it gets dangerous, because if the term "anti-Semitism" loses it's meaning, and if the people who use it (and those who they pretend to speak for, namely the Jewish people) are discredited due to overuse, trying to cry wolf too many times, acting too brutishly and playing the victim ad nauseam, then we risk a backlash, we risk real anti-Semitism being ignored.

The same goes for people who claim to be the voice for all women accusing everyone who says or does anything they don't like, no matter how obviously it has nothing to do with sex or gender, of being sexists who are out to get them, constantly attacking others while playing the victim and throwing gender out as both a shield and a weapon, the inevitable result is a backlash, and the term "sexism" losing some of its meaning. There is very real sexism in this country, and in the world, and it does an injustice to that real sexism when you co-opt that term for your own political goals, just as it does an injustice to real anti-Semitism when you use the term to further your political agenda.

I don't want to see a backlash against any of these groups, and I don't want people to start ignoring claims of real sexism and anti-Semitism just because some shameless groups or individuals decided to cynically co-opt these terms for their political agendas, not caring about the repercussions on the very people they pretend they are speaking for. Anyway, it is a dangerous game, and I'm sick of people playing it, which is why I will continue to respond to Hillary and her gang, and to the neocons and the hardline supporters of Israel, and to Bush and the Republicans and anyone else who uses these tactics to silence, slander and bully their opposition.

5 Myths About Being 'Pro-Israel' (Repost)

[Last month I wrote about the formation of a new progressive pro-Israel group, J Street, which seeks to provide an alternative to the anti-peace neoconservative group AIPAC and other hardline American Jewish lobby/advocacy groups. Last Sunday the executive director of J Street wrote this in the Washington Post, which I'm reposting here because I think it is very important to get out, and I'm sure almost everyone missed the original publication. Essentially we can't hope to achieve peace in the Middle East, and reduce anti-American sentiment until we recognize the following:]

5 Myths About Being 'Pro-Israel'
by Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street

Six decades ago, my father fought alongside Menachem Begin for Israel's independence. If you'd have told him back then that politicians in the world's last superpower would be jockeying today to see who can be more "pro-Israel," he would have laughed at you. Grateful as I am for decades of U.S. friendship to Israel, I have to wonder, as the state my father helped found turns 60, just who is defining what it means to be pro-Israel in the United States these days.

Some purported keepers of that flame claim that supporting Israel means reflexively supporting every Israeli action and implacably opposing every Israeli foe -- adopting the talking points of neoconservatives and the most right-wing elements of the American Jewish and Christian Zionist communities. Criticize or question Israeli behavior and you're labeled "anti-Israel," or worse. But unquestioning encouragement for short-sighted Israeli policies such as expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank isn't real friendship. (Would a true friend not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road?) Israel needs real friends, not enablers. And forging a healthy friendship with Israel requires bursting some myths about what it means to be pro-Israel.

1. American Jews choose to back candidates largely on the basis of their stance on Israel.

This urban legend has somehow become a tenet of American Politics 101, which is why politicians work so hard to earn the pro-Israel label in the first place. But it's a self-serving fable, cultivated by a tiny minority of politically conservative American Jews who actually are single-issue voters. Most Jewish voters make their political choices the way other Americans do: based on their views on the full spectrum of domestic and foreign policy issues.

Moreover, the American Jewish community still has a markedly progressive bent. Exit polls suggest that nearly 80 percent of Jewish Americans voted for John F. Kerry over George W. Bush in 2004; some 70 percent of them were opposed to the Iraq war in 2005, according to the American Jewish Committee; and polls show that most American Jews say they favor a more balanced U.S. Middle East policy that's aimed at achieving peace.

2. To be strong on Israel, you have to be harsh to the Palestinians.

Wrong, and counterproductive to boot. One popular way for members of Congress to earn their pro-Israel stripes is to come down as hard as possible on the Palestinians, by using economic and diplomatic pressure or giving the Israelis a freer hand for military strikes. That may satisfy some primal urge to lash out at Israel's foes, but it does Israel more harm than good.

As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has argued, Israel's survival depends on offering the Palestinians a more hopeful future built on political sovereignty and economic development. As long as Palestinians despair of a decent and dignified life, Israel will be at war. And as long as the only channel for the Palestinians' ingenuity is building better rockets, not even the Great Wall of China will protect Israel's cities from their wrath. Helping the Palestinians achieve a viable, prosperous state is one of the most pro-Israel things an American politician can do.

3. The Rev. John Hagee and his fellow Christian Zionists are good for the Jews.

Hardly. Are Israel and American Jewry really so desperate that we must cozy up to people whose messianic dreams entail having us all killed or converted to Christianity? Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, and his ilk believe that Israel dare not cede any territory in the quest for peace, claiming that the Bible promised all of the holy land to the Jews. In other words, Christian Zionists look at the trade-offs that Israel must make to achieve peace -- and hope to thwart them. Then again, peace is not what these folks have in mind; they hope that Israel will seek to permanently expand its borders, thereby goading the Arabs into a war that will become the catalyst for Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Do your ambitions for Israel extend beyond turning it into the fuel for the fire of the "End of Days"? Then Hagee and company are not -- repeat, not -- your friends.

4. Talking peace with your enemies demonstrates weakness.

You don't need an advanced degree in international relations to recognize that pursuing peace only with people you like is pointless. Most Israelis know this; a recent poll in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that two-thirds of Israelis favor cease-fire negotiations between their government and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip, exactly because Hamas is such a bitter foe. But in Washington, we self-righteously refuse to engage -- even indirectly -- with Hamas, Iran or Syria.

Hamas won the most recent Palestinian national elections in a landslide. Do we seriously think that it can be erased from the political landscape simply by assassinations and sanctions? Precisely because Hamas and Iran represent the most worrisome strategic challenges to Israel, responsible friends of Israel who'd like to see it live in security for its next 60 years should be engaging with them to search for alternatives to war.

5. George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had.

Not even close. The president has acted as Israel's exclusive corner man when he should have been refereeing the fight. That choice weakened Israel's long-term security.

Israel needs U.S. help to maintain its military edge over its foes, but it also needs the United States to contain Arab-Israeli crises and broker peace. Israel's existing peace pacts owe much to Washington's ability to bridge the mistrust among parties in the Middle East. So when the United States abandons the role of effective broker and acts only as Israel's amen choir, as it has throughout Bush's tenure, the United States dims Israel's prospects of winning security through diplomacy. The best gift that Israel's friends here could give this gallant, embattled democracy on its milestone birthday would be returning the United States to its leading role in active diplomacy to end the conflicts in the Middle East -- and help a secure, thriving Israel find a permanent, accepted home among the community of nations.

jeremyb@jstreet.org

Jeremy Ben-Ami is executive director of J Street, a lobby and political action committee that promotes peace and security in the Middle East.

J Street, A Progressive Pro-Israel Group Launches

So this wouldn't seem that important to most people, and I'm sure most people will never know about this, but it is quite important nevertheless: Today J Street, a new progressive pro-Israel lobbying organization was officially launched, for the purpose of providing an alternative to the hardline rightwing neoconservative (and all powerful) AIPAC lobby, which we can thank in large part for our current situation in the Middle East. Here is their mission statement:

J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.

J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region.

J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole.

J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise. For more on our policy positions, click here.

J Street will advocate forcefully in the policy process, in Congress, in the media, and in the Jewish community to make sure public officials and community leaders clearly see the depth and breadth of support for our views on Middle East policy among voters and supporters in their states and districts. We seek to complement the work of existing organizations and individuals that share our agenda. In our lobbying and advocacy efforts, we will enlist individual supporters of other efforts as partners.

And here is their introductory video:



I'm sure the progressive community, those who know about this at least, are cheering today, because we know all too well the ills AIPAC, and other rightwing pro-Israel groups, have wrought upon our foreign policy as well as our domestic discourse (or lack thereof). Christopher Hayes of The Nation also breathed a similar sign of relief today:

Israel policy is, of course, the area in which this dynamic has been most destructively evident. It's really remarkable that for the last two decades AIPAC has been allowed to arrogate to itself the role of speaking for American Jews on the topic of Israel, despite the fact its actual positions and staff are far, far to the right of your average Jewish American. Now J Street has, thankfully, joined the scene. As former NYC Corporate council Victor Kovner just put in on a press call introducing the organization, "It's long overdue."

It will probably be a hard haul for J Street, for just like previous attempts at challenging the rightwing dominance of AIPAC it will be met with stiff resistance by entrenched hardline interests. I guarantee some of these hardliners will even try to brand J Street and its supporters as anti-Semites, in order to demonize them, in the same way they try to demonize everyone else who so much as utters a criticism of their policies. How's that for democracy?

And yes, if any of these people are reading this, I too must be a rabid anti-Semite. How dare I speak?

The progressive community needs to give them all the help they need along the way. Don't let the "pro-Israel" label turn you off, because they aren't using it in the same despicable way the neocons and AIPAC use it. They are showing that AIPAC and the hardliners have absolutely no monopoly on supporting Israel, and they are showing that Israel is better served through peace and understanding.

I wish them the best of luck.

And please take the time to check out their site, sign up for their updates, let's give them the support they need to make a difference!

4,000

Tonight we reached yet another macabre milestone in our disastrous war against the people of Iraq, 4,000 US soldiers have lost their lives for Bush's lies, for corporate profit, and for Israel's shortsighted foreign policy objectives. The American loses are far from the most appalling in this war, as over a million Iraqis have been killed, and over 4 million Iraqis are now refugees. This, of course, never gets mentioned in the media, because we apparently aren't supposed to care about the lives of anyone not American.

Anyway, since Americans are what people respond to, what people care most about, and what are closely tallied, I felt I ought to mark this occasion with a bit of perspective.

And for the record, al-Qaeda killed 2,974 Americans on September 11th, 2001, and although it has taken them longer, Bush and the Republicans have now killed 4,000 Americans*.

*not counting slain American contractors

Update: Here is what 4,000 dead Americans looks like:

Click the picture for a closer look

Going Out On A Low Note (or, How Hillary Learned To Stop Worrying About Morality and Love Karl Rove)

A couple days ago a prominent Hillary supporter, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, weighed in on the election and expressed her belief that Barack Obama is going to be our nominee. She also mentioned many errors Hillary has made in her campaign, including running on "experience", when she had no more (less actually) useful experience than Obama, and much less than many other candidates in the race (Richardson, Biden, Dodd, McCain, etc). She also "lamented" Hillary's decision to go negative, and to question Obama's readiness (which makes sense, since he is our only chance at winning in November, as I've said repeatedly). She said she recently called Hillary's campaign and advised them to "go out on a high note", but she says her advice was "politely dismissed".

In the last few days, we have seen exactly what the opposite of "go out on a high note" is, something closer to this:



So today it comes out that back in January, after her Iowa defeat, the Clinton campaign set out to frame Obama as unfriendly toward Israel, bordering on anti-Semitic, in order to get the politically powerful American Jewish community to turn against him. Her campaign emphasized that Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national-security adviser to Jimmy Carter, is Obama's "chief foreign policy adviser", which is a lie, as Mr. Brzezinski has in fact only advised Obama on a few occasions. The back story to this is two-fold. First, Jimmy Carter unfairly took a lot of heat from the characteristically alarmist Pro-Israel Lobby for his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which actually takes a very fair and evenhanded look at the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Secondly, Brzezinski endorsed a 2006 article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt entitled "The Israel Lobby", which discusses the significant influence of the Pro-Israel Lobby on United States foreign policy. This article was later turned into a book, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", which incidentally I've had the opportunity to read. It is clear from reading the book that it is painstakingly balanced, and is in absolutely no way whatsoever anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. The authors present a well researched and fair analysis of the activities of the Pro-Israel Lobby, and make sure to frame it in the context of legal and normal interest group activities, and not as some evil conspiracy of evil people. In their book, coincidentally, they write about how the Pro-Israel Lobby often reflectively attacks anyone who so much as disagrees with or looks at Israel's actions as anti-Semitic in order to silence their critics, or potential critics, or even friends who aren't hardline enough. Jimmy Carter was a victim of this, as were Mearsheimer and Walt, as was Brzezinski. So having read this book, it came as little surprise to me that the desperate Clinton campaign would stoop so low as to try to use accusations of Antisemitism (or just associations with individuals marked by their interest in research done by those interested in examining an important political institution) in order to turn the American Jewish community against Obama, while also bringing in lots of money to her campaign.

I've also previously written about Hillary's desperate search for new funding which has lead her to form FEC regulation-free swiftboating groups as well as seek even more money from the neo-conservative AIPAC lobby (which already gives her hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to buy her votes on matters relating to Israel, Iraq, Iran and weapons sales). In exchange for this, Hillary no doubt plans to sell the rest of her soul to AIPAC, in exchange for political power, just like pro-war Joe Lieberman did in 2006 in order to get over a million dollars in AIPAC cash to defeat Ned Lamont. I think we can be pretty sure we know how she will be voting for the rest of her time in the Senate.

Frankly, I'm disgusted (yet again) that Hillary would try to brand a fellow Democrat, who in all likelihood will be our presidential nominee, as an anti-Semite in order to defeat him. This, along with her repeated backstabbing of Obama on his readiness to be president, on his experience and achievements, her appalling hypocrisy in attacking his campaign tactics, exploiting fear of terrorism to her political gain, and her most recent stunt, mocking Obama's message of change like an angry child throwing a temper tantrum has truly made me embarrassed to be a Democrat. She cannot win this nomination, she couldn't beat McCain in the general even if she could beat Obama, and instead of leaving gracefully and helping the party, she is ruthlessly and shamelessly attacking our nominee. The only ones helped by her actions are the Republicans and John McCain. Her willingness to attack her own, and demean every voter who doesn't support her disgusts me, and at some point you have to ask yourself, who's side is Hillary Clinton on? She isn't doing all of this for our benefit, that you can be sure of.

Update (2/26): The issue turns up in the Ohio debate, and Hillary cynically tries to jab Obama on semantics. Pretty pathetic. It is no surprise that Hillary wouldn't defend Obama against these ridiculous accusations, as her campaign has been behind fanning them.

Swiftboating and Selling Souls, for Defeat

In a recent article on Alternet, Robert Parry posits, "How far are the Clintons willing to go?" It is a good question, and he shines some light on the subject, particularly in terms of campaign financing. I've previously written about the sketchy financial dealings of the Clintons, and the $5 million campaign "loan" which made this issue even more germaine than it already was. Apparently aside from self-financing, the Clintons are exploring other ways to make up their cash gap with the Obama campaign:

Hillary Clinton, who has built her case for the presidency on her superior "ready on Day One" management skills, burned through almost $130 million of campaign money, had to kick in $5 million from her own murky family funds, and is now pressing her chief financial backers to find creative ways to raise more money.

Some of those financial schemes appear to skirt the law -- as some backers consider putting money into "independent" entities that can spend unlimited sums but aren't supposed to coordinate with the campaign -- while other ideas are more traditional, like appealing to wealthy donors involved with the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby.

Sen. Clinton's new scramble for money -- as well as her campaign's declaration that it is prepared to override the will of the elected Democratic delegates if necessary to secure the nomination -- raise the question of just how far Bill and Hillary Clinton are willing to go to achieve their presidential restoration.

Now illegally funneling campaign contributions through front organizations is objectionable in its own right. Personally, I would rather presidential candidates not launder money like drugs dealers or corporations exploiting offshore tax havens. I would also prefer presidential candidates not use independently funded "swiftboating" to skirt the rules of the Federal Election Commission, the very group that Democrats have fought against Republicans to strengthen for decades. I'd also rather Democrats not skirt campaign finance laws in order to swiftboat fellow Democrats who, unlike them, actually have a chance at winning the nomination and the general election. Call me a liberal though.

What also bothers me is that she is willing to sell her soul to the neo-conservative AIPAC lobby in order to win this nomination. Granted, she can already be counted on to do AIPAC's bidding for the most part, and that is no secret, her foreign policy is very biased toward AIPAC's wishes, in everything from supporting the Iraq war, her hawkish stance toward Iran, her defense of Israel's devastating war against Lebanon in 2006 which cost the lives of around 1,200 Lebanese civilians (predominately women and children), including the last minute carpeting of southern Lebanon with millions of cluster bombs (largely seen internationally as a violation of international humanitarian law for their devastating and long lasting effects on civilians) in order to inflict maximum devastation, her votes with the Republicans against a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting the export of cluster bombs to countries such as Israel that drop them on heavily populated civilian areas, and her stance against banning or restricting landmines and other arms sales. Granted, it isn't just AIPAC making her make these choices, because she is also the number one recipient out of either party of money from US arms manufacturers, but AIPAC already gives her tons of cash every year to buy her vote (the cost of her vote in 2006 was $328,873, much of which carried over into her presidential campaign). She has had a hawkish enough record with just a few hundred thousands dollars per year, the last thing we need is a president that owes her entire political career to the lobby. Of course she sees no problem with this whatsoever, which makes it all that much more scary. Sadly enough I think Bush has stood up to the lobby more than Hillary has as a senator or would as president.

Of course as usual I'll point out that none of this matters, because if she is somehow nominated, she will never be able to beat McCain in the general, so we'll never have to worry about a President Hillary, just a President McCain that Hillary supporters gave us, which makes it all that appalling that the Clintons are willing to do anything and say anything to win, because in the end, they are doing it for nothing but certain defeat for the Democratic Party.