quite a stretch

YOu wrote:

>>It’s obvious that the Democrats refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney because AIPAC and Zionists favor bombing Iran, and then, after the election, the Democrats can blame it all on Bush, while they effectively supported him by blocking impeachment hearings!<<

I don't think it's obvious. I've spoken to Conyers and a good number of other members of congress on this and I don't think you're right.

Also, your definition of Zionism verges on antisemitism. You don't get it. Most jews support Israel, just like YOU support the US, even if you don't support Bush and the horrific recent policies of the US. Many of those supporters of Israel consider themselves to be Zionists. Your aspersions upon Zionists is a common way that antisemites express their antisemitism. I'm not saying YOU are an antisemite, but the language and talk you use doesn't cut it. You have a problem with ISraeli policy, talk about the policy and it's advocates, and don't get sloppy with your language.

by Rob Kall (808 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments) on Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 11:30:23 PM
 

I Don't understand the difference...

Israelis are inhabitants of Israel and Americans are inhabitants of the United States. We each stand-up for our country and have a fierce sense of national pride, on both sides of the ocean.

Then, in the United States, we have the Neoconservative movement - and it's OK to call them Neo-cons, and its acceptable language here on Op-Ed News and throughout the global community. They are the ones that are "radicals" and are pushing for an irrational national agenda.

From what I've been reading, there is also a struggle in Israel, those that favor peace, and those that believe they are "entitled" to take land that isn't theirs and favor war over peace, and they are commonly referred to as "Zionists".

Why is it OK to call the radicals here Neo-cons, yet when someone says "Zionists", even though it is a term used by Jews to describe those who are radicals, it is suddenly Anti-Semite???  And as far as AIPAC goes, their buy their support through lobbyists the same as other lobbies do, and are simply more powerful than most. Legalized bribery is what it is, and it happens with all of the powerful lobbies. When our support is bought instead of earned, I see a problem, but I don't believe that makes me Anti-Semite. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the distinction. I've written too many pieces in support of Israel to be labeled as anti-Semite, and to be honest, I resent the implication.

It seems that we have to walk on eggshells when talking about exactly what many Jews describe as "Zionists", but when someone who isn't Jewish says it they are labeled as prejudiced against the Jews. In other words, if Jews can use the terminology "Zionist" and refer to the radicals in their own country in that manner, then why is it anti-Semite for us to use the same descriptor? I'm sorry, but I'm lost on this one... 

This reminds me of those who were anti-Obama being labeled as racist, when in fact, they were against his support of several of Bush’s policies, and that had nothing to do with race. I’m dead-set against radical Israelis that believe its fair for them to have a nation but refuse to allow the Palestinians to have one, just the same as I’m against those that favor bombing Iran. I’m also against radical Islam, and I am against Neo-conservatism. So if “Zionist” isn’t the proper descriptor, what is? This appears to be an oxymoron to me…

William Cormier

by William Cormier (127 articles, 7 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 308 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 12:21:24 AM
 

At one point, the "N" word was normal usage.

But it became a hate word. Believe me, there are many Israelis and American Jews who hate the policies that cause Palestinian death, suffering and injustice who identify themselves as Zionists, taking it to mean supporters of Israel.

Look at how "liberal" is now used as an aspersive, dirty word. Of course it depends on who uses it. But its use has become, at best complicated.

Now, Bill, I clearly said, "I'm not saying YOU are an antisemite, but the language and talk you use doesn't cut it. You have a problem with ISraeli policy, talk about the policy and it's advocates, and don't get sloppy with your language."

So don't get your back up with me. I'm talking about your language. You are falling for the antisemitic use of the language and passing on the antisemitic memes tht antisemites have built into the language. That's why, last year, I made a big deal about the word and that's why I started the "think twice" software.

I found one or two sentences in this long article that actually tied AIPAC to impeachment, and what I considered to be a weakly argued assumptive leap. But it's fair to propose the idea. I just think you could have done it without all the "Zionist" and "Jew"  talk by focusing on the right wing Israeli lobby. 

BTW, I've written, AIPAC is Bad for Israel. It needs Competition, so it's not like I'm a fan or supporter for AIPAC.  Now, there's J-Street, which offers an alternative.   

by Rob Kall (808 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 6:06:17 AM
 

I think the Congressional voting record has a lot to do w/it

Hi William and friends
 What a thoroughly researched and well-written article, as usual. Bravo!
YOur point is well-taken. But I still don't understand why support of Israel's attack on Iran translates to not impeaching Bush. I could be missing something here and you are probably right.

But here's another spin on the reason why Congress refuses to impeach:
The COngressional voting record.

If Bush's crimes were exposed to the light of day, so would Congress's complicity and outright support of it. They would all be ousted from office.

Examples:

FISA Broadening, for which COngress at large voted, Dems and Repubs alike

Torture with immunity from prosecution as war criminal granted the Prez by nearly unanimous vote of the former Republican Congress (I spent four hours one night reading through the entire Congressional record regarding the Military Commissions Act, or torture bill).

Patriot Act which includes gag orders, death penalty in absence of Congressional oversight for non-citizens, "terrorist" definition to include activists, warrantless wiretapping, and more....voted for by ALMOST SOLID unanimity in the Senate (Only two Senators said "no"), and 2/3 of the House...TWICE IN A ROW!!!

If all this came to light, it would be the end of Congress as well as Bush. And they know it.

That's probably lots of the reason why they are blockading impeachment.

After reading the Congressional voting record regarding the bills mentioned above, I have to conclude: Congress is NOT "laying down" and "caving in" as the activist organizations politely suggest to us. Instead, they are DELIBERATELY converting the USA to a dictatorship. That, at least, is my "take" on it.

It's always possible to misinterpret the signals and to "read" people wrong. So I could be wrong. At the rate things are going, methinks not though. Kucinich actually said something during his campaign, about Congress wanting the powers Bush has claimed for their own selves. And that is why they are not impeaching him. Something to think about.

The only solution is to campaign for Congressional seats, use the stroke of the pen to expose Congress's voting record (and the individual members thereof) in letters to the editor, and work in every other way to get them out of office. We've got to replace probably 85% of them if we want impeachment and our Constitution back.

LAST HOPE: With pro-impeachment sentiment as high as it is, due probably to the Plame/torture cases being on the public radar, Congress will want to preserve their seats in office by complying wiht the majority's will. They don't listen to the voices of the few but they do, historically, listen to the voices of the masses. The reasons are obvious: They want their jobs and their commission checks from their election contributors. THerein lies our hope, for now. (Until we can later oust them, after Congress "caves" to the will of the masses and then we can run them out of office, later).

by Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments) on Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 11:33:08 PM
 

At risk of sounding self-contradicting:

I agree with Rob's point, William et al.

Am I taking back anything I said? No.

I think it is a common error in public thought to confuse Israeli politics with Judaism, Jews, etc.

It's very important to separate them out. It's when we wrongfully label others that we become anti-.

As a Jew myself I adore Judaism. I fully dislike/disapprove of many of Israel's actions but don' t blame Israel, either. Being the subject of a genocidal vow is no joke. People are entitled to defending their very existence without rebukes from the rest of the world, I would hope. But that does not seem to be the case.

Which is not to say that encroaching the territorial boundaries, torture, etc are right or even Jewish, by the way. Judaism teaches "turn the other cheek", non-violence.

Israel's un-Jewish tactics, I believe, are the offshoot of being absolutely sick and tired of turning the other cheek after the holocaust, and now being hte subject of a genocidal vow. When ruthlessly attacked by several bordering nations, fighting is bound to get dirty. The pendulum may have swung too far: I would agree with that assessment. I don' t support or condone it but I don' t judge it either. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

When Israel is hit by Hezbollah's rockets and fights back, the world declares "Dirty Jews". How wrong this is.

For Israel to attack Iran may be a work of survival. But for America to get involved there would be wrong and very, very dangerous. I agree whole-heartedly.

Allies or not, Bush and Cheney's actions are strictly their own responsibility, not Israel's. Something for us all to remember.

by Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments) on Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 11:47:57 PM
 

When Israel struch back, I defended them.

I always have, and I believe they have a right to defend themselves. I still maintain that Iran is dangerous because it's a theocracy and their decisions are hoisted in religion and an age-old hatred for the Jews that is simply unconscionable. But, bombing Iran won't solve the problem, and our nation is moving that way because of a very strong pro-Israel lobby. We all know it, we can see it, and it's evidenced by the last AIPAC meeting as I referred to in the article.

I simply don't understand why when we use the same terms that some Jews use that whoever says it is instantly labeled as Anti-Semite. I took a lot of heat when I defended Israel for going after Hezbollah, and I still believe I was right. I don't write for the approval of others, but state what I believe is the truth.  This seems to be a matter of semantics, nothing more, nothing less, and a track-record of constantly supporting Israel but not AIPAC or the "radicals" certainly doesn’t make me anti-Semite. I specifically quoted Jewish sources attempting to make the distinction so this wouldn’t happen - but nevertheless, here it is... Right in my face!

BTW, Thanks for the support Kathryn - I think you got the essence of the article, but I'll ask the same question... Why is it Ok to call our radicals Neo-cons, which is our label, and not visa-versa?

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (127 articles, 7 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 308 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 12:40:58 AM
 

Neocon is a more specific term

It hasn't been abused or misused. You might even consider Israeli neocons, instead of Zionists. The word Zionist is just too muddied and abused. Your intention to use it as a non-antisemite use of it is inescapably tinged by the use of it by antisemites. The memes have been attached and are unremovable at this point.

You're a smart, literate guy. Use the vocabulary you have within yourself. 

by Rob Kall (808 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 6:10:48 AM
 

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder...

Rob;

I understand what you're saying. When I used the terminology, I was describing radicals, not mainstream Jewish people; however, you're stating that people use it to in a negative sense much as when a prejudiced individual uses the "N" word.

Yesterday, I was in my Dr.'s office in the waiting room and a guy about my age told me that Obama's family were terrorists, and let me in on the "secret". He was dead serious. He also told me that Obama's real name was "Hussein" and placed great emphasis on it. He was speaking in a semi-whisper, and I listened intently. I live in Northern Georgia, and thankfully, most of the people I've met are awesome, but nevertheless, it's still a Red State.

After a few minutes of listening to him babble about everything he didn't comprehend, I whispered back that I was a political writer, and asked him if he knew that George Bush was guilty of impeachable crimes. I pressed the issue and listed many of his "crimes" and stated that if The Hague ever got Bush and Cheney, they could face life in prison or even the death penalty for "War Crimes." As I spoke, I could visibly see the color draining from his face. His hands appeared to be shaking, and he honestly looked as if he needed a doctor. It was very obvious that he looked upon me as the devil incarnate, and what was amazing was that by his reaction, I could sense that he believed everything he said, even though most of it was sheer nonsense. When you meet people like this, it's evident that the GOP's propaganda machine is very effective and well-oiled. How do you combat ignorance, or people that will believe anything???

With that in mind, I'll refrain from using the "Z" word in the future, because in reality, the perceptions we have are in the eye of the beholder, and are not necessarily based in fact or reality, and I got quite a dose of that yesterday.

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (127 articles, 7 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 308 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 8:33:59 AM
 

Hardly anyone in Congres actually reads the full bills

I think a lot of the problems with Congress are that none of them except two actually read the full context of the Patriot Act. There are bills that are introduced, rammed through Congress, and then we find-out they are fourteen or fifteen hundred pages long. As a matter of practicality, it’s almost impossible for anyone to read off of the bill that's being voted on unless there is a sizable debate and discussion period beforehand, which usually doesn't happen often enough. Then, we have Congressmen who have voted in legislation that contains elements they didn’t even know where there.

I think that sometimes, they won't admit that they really didn't know what they voted in, and like a prosecutor that has made a mistake and convicted an innocent man, they almost never admit their mistake - sometimes even when the evidence of innocence is overwhelming. No one likes to admit it when they're wrong, even when it’s at someone else’s expense. 

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (127 articles, 7 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 308 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 12:52:58 AM
 

Thanks William! Clarification:

Hello everybody
William, you have done a beautiful research job and presentation, as always. You are among the best here: At least, that' s my personal opinion.

 To clarify, I do not support Israel or America striking Iraq. Like you, I believe it to be heinous and inviting WW III, not a joke. I am with you, whole-heartedly.

Where the "anti-semitic" quotient came in----and keep in mind that what we think as we write may miscommunicate itself to others-----is to blame Israel if WE strike Iran. Yes we are allies, yes Israel is trying to get Bush/Cheney involved. YOur case for that here is an important one to make.

HOwever, where I have a problem with not your presentation, but the view of the populace in general, is when fingers automatically point to Israel---and not in your case, but in many other cases----to the Jews.

Bush and Cheney are responsible for their own actions, not Israel. Israel and Jews are two separate matters, which the public (not you) often confuses in their own minds.

I may have "Heard" more in your writing about blaming Israel than you may have meant.

And I truly thank you for standing up for Israel when defending themselves against the Hezbollah rocket attacks. The fact that you took heat for that defense---and that you were right all along-----is only more sign of the anti-Jewish sentiment which the Arab-spun press is propagandizing, to brainwash the public.

Every little act of war on Israel's part gets publicized, but the acts of the neighboring countries are not. And those acts are often vicious. What's up with that slant? Why don' t people see through it?

Thank you for your unbiased work, WIlliam. In the end, it's all about semantics as you said, and people can "hear" that wrong. "Much ado about nothing" said Shakespeare. Where mere words are concerned, that's very well-said. Where emotional inflections are implied---rightly or falsely---that's a whole other ballgame.

by Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM
 

I have to respond to this briefly before I go to sleep.

Every nation on earth has a right to defend themselves! It's more than obvious that Hezbollah, sponsored by Iran and Syria, are doing their best to keep the tensions high and scuttle any peace negotiations. I wrote one article I never published on Op-Ed News, simply because I didn't believe it would be printed.

That article went over like a lead-balloon, but it was what I believed, therefore I published it on my site. None of us want a war with Iran; however, minimizing the danger of Iran doesn't solve the problem. Negotiations, as Obama has promised, are the way to settling this dispute, not a war that could escalate into WW III. I am adamant that Iran IS a threat, and that’s based on their constant support of terrorist groups, which is extremely well-documented. I view Iran's President in the same light that I do Bush, two fanatics bent on clashing and neither having the sense to work out their differences. There is evidence that Iran did try to negotiate with the Bush administration, but that was scuttled by none other than Bush and Cheney themselves, so all of the blame cannot fall on Iran. Their rhetoric against Israel is constant and is simply religion and ancient grudges that have never been resolved. What position would we be in if we hadn't resolved our differences with England after the Revolutionary War?

If you won't negotiate with your enemies, then diplomacy is effectively dead. Anyone can negotiate with allies, but it takes masterful diplomacy to negotiate effectively with your enemies, which this administration refuses to do. Look at the mess in South America because Bush won't negotiate with Chavez... I'm sick of our government using gunboat diplomacy which doesn't do anything but fuel the war machine.

No one is always right, and that certainly applies to me, but so much is obvious when you really do your research that it makes me sick that our foreign policy is based on ideology rather than the issues of the real world. American Imperialism has to stop, or the alternative is endless wars and the eventual bankrupting of America, exactly what happened to the Soviet Union.

I do blame the Democratic Leadership for cow-towing to radical elements in Israel, and while it's not Israel’s fault, the blame lies on our Congress for giving-in to the pressure of lobbyists and special interest groups - from Israel and here at home. Washington seems to have a "bury our head in the sand" attitude, and it has to stop or our entire country is likely to collapse. Much of this has been brought-on, IMO, to raise the price of oil so the oil conglomerates can profit, and America's premier corporations can make billions by manufacturing armaments instead of the necessities of peace and technology that would help to stop global warming.

Yes, it seems like I'm ranting, and I suppose I am, but it's so frustrating to know that Congress is ignoring Articles of Impeachment for political and financial reasons rather than the heath and welfare of America, which seems to be coming in second to the warmongers. The people have lost their voice, and we desperately need to regain it or lose what we call the American way of Life."

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (127 articles, 7 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 308 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 1:34:36 PM
 

IMPEACHMENT

HOW CAN THE GUILTY IMPEACH THE GUILTY. PLUS THIS IS A DICTATORSHIP NOBODY WANTS TO LABEL IT SO, AND NOT THE MASS MEDIA DECEPTION, WHAT IS GOING ON NOW IS THE BIGGEST DECEPTION IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, AN WE ARE LIVING IN THIS WORLD OF DECEPTION, AND THE FUNNY PART WE ALL KNOW IT, BUT WE ALSO NO THE GLOBAL ELITES PLAN HAS TAKING US TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN. SO NOW ALL WE CAN DO IS TALK IT TO DEATH. OR WE CAN GET PREPARED, THIS IS NOT A NIGHTMARE THIS REALITY.

by RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 1:49:17 PM