Comments on: Ex-AIPACer Weissman comes out hard against military action in Iran

By: Mike Caetano

Mike Caetano — Sat, 23 May 2009 03:43:11 +0000

This is good news, but former AIPAC arguing with present AIPAC over aggression towards Iran isn’t progress. “I’m not opposed to bombing Iran, I just play like I am on television.” Controlling both sides of an argument is a sure fire way of winning that argument and establishing the mental frameworks the public will rely on to make sense of the underlying issue. If AIPAC publicly supported Olso but worked behind the scenes to defeat it, is it a huge stretch to suggest they would plant a ‘defector’ in order to position him as an ideal debate foe?

By: TutuG

TutuG — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:57:33 +0000

I agree with Bruce. The irony is that so far Israel walked over the UN and global opinion, secure in the knowledge that every time things get hot in the UN, the US will come to its rescue. What is interesting now, is that Israel is telling the Americans that whether we get your support or not, we will go ahead and carry on our draconian policy of genocide against the Palestinians. So it boils down to, that Israel really could not care what the US administrations policy is, so long they get bankrolled by the American taxpayers. How long would the US be able to afford it? Would the Israeli parasite cause the death of its American host?

By: scott

scott — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:52:39 +0000

Well Weissman, welcome to the sanity train. I wonder if you made such compelling arguments in the halls where dissent can never be allowed to breach decorum? Or, did you hold your tongue.

Tolstoy has an extraordinary “Letter to Liberals” that all should read. By his formulation Libertarians, Liberals all earnest folk would qualify as “liberals.” He says that to only speak when you agree and hold your tongue, you sell your credibility to those venal thugs you accompany.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/snyder14.html

By: San Fernando Curt

San Fernando Curt — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:01:47 +0000

So… what? AIPAC is trying to cool down its chroncially raging constituency, muffle demands for blasting Iran from here to Trinity? Has word finally come down: The U.S. won’t support such a catastrophic, jackass move?

Maybe that’s it. Despite all the smack-talk from Netanyahu, Israel would never suggest such an attack without fully expecting the U.S. to be sucked into the resultant conflagration – and, once hijacked, help mop up a militantly enraged Iran. Maybe an American President finally did the unthinkable – maybe Obama told Israel “no”. And now the chest-beaters and backseat warriors here and in Israel get doused with that reality. That must hurt: No war this time. Wow! What a blow!

By: LeaNder

LeaNder — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:25:50 +0000

This is highly interesting, Daniel, I picked it up via Phil Weiss. Basically this supports his theory, maybe there is really an atmospheric change ahead. I occasionally loose faith.

Really amazing.

By: bruce

bruce — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:18:47 +0000

The US cannot tell Israel not to attack Iran?
The US bankrolls Israel to a minimum of $15 million per day.
Even pays for the aviation fuel for those expensive F-15
US TAXPAYER paid for jets.Precision Munitions?Covered,as in Lebanon 2006 Invasion.Pentagon ships ,US taxpayer foots bill.The US provides unconditional diplomatic cover for Israel when it goes on a rampage.
Under Sinia II agreements of late seventies,The US guarantees
oil supplies to Israel if there’s a shortage on world market.
Question is has the Israel first Lobby bought the US Congress or are they just renting?

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 21 May 2009 09:31:33 +0000

Israel is become a malignancy in the middle east. Its notions of exceptionalism and racial supremacy have made it s scourge among nations. War makes Israel. Israel cannot exist without it. Hence, the malignancy.

By: Patrick Cummins

Patrick Cummins — Thu, 21 May 2009 07:07:58 +0000

To Jim and Daniel, Thanks very much for another insightful column. Your work on this blog is much appreciated.