With President Obama still letting Chuck Hagel’s putative nomination as secretary of defense hang in the wind, it’s not clear whether the former Nebraska senator’s stock is up or down. But so long as he remains in the running, critics of Israel are going to keep doing everything they can to keep his name in play. Today’s column on Hagel by the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman cuts to the heart of their motivation.
As far as Friedman is concerned, Hagel has two qualifications for high office: his distaste for Israel and a willingness to make nice with Iran and Hamas. That makes sense to those who share his distaste for the bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel alliance that prevents the Obama administration (egged on by kibitzers like Friedman) from pressuring the Jewish state to make pointless concessions that undermine its security. It also fits in with the desire of those who want a nuclear Iran to be contained or accommodated rather than forestalled, and for the U.S. to embrace Hamas the way it has the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. But these are good reasons why Hagel’s views—which Friedman rightly characterizes as out of the mainstream—ought to disqualify him from leading the Pentagon.
Friedman thinks it’s “disgusting” that many friends of Israel hold it against Hagel that he attacked what he called the “Jewish lobby” in language that resonated with specious charges of dual loyalty that rightly bring to mind anti-Semitism. It’s hardly surprising that Friedman would think calling Hagel to account for this is a “smear” since he has been guilty of the same tactic in his quest to delegitimize those Americans who oppose his stands on Israel.
Just a little more than a year ago, Friedman disgraced himself in a column where he used the same meme made popular by Israel Lobby authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer when he said the only reason that Congress cheered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defiance of President Obama was because they were “bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby.” As I wrote at the time:
The notion that the only reason politicians support Israel is because of Jewish money is a central myth of a new form of anti-Semitism which masquerades as a defense of American foreign policy against the depredations of a venal Israel lobby. This canard not only feeds off of the traditional themes of Jew-hatred, it also requires Friedman to ignore the deep roots of American backing for Zionism in our history and culture.
Though Friedman tried to backtrack a bit from this scandalous canard, his explicit support for Hagel’s use of the same charge shows that he is an unrepentant supporter of the pernicious Walt-Mearsheimer thesis.
But there is more to Friedman’s support of Hagel than his desire to see a secretary of defense with an attitude about Israel and its backers. He is also hopeful that Hagel will act as a brake on any U.S. effort to stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons and that he will persuade the president to recognize the legitimacy of the Hamas regime in Gaza.
Friedman makes the false argument that the U.S. needs Iran’s good will to achieve its foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. But he fails to understand that stopping the Islamist regime in Iran is the prerequisite for stability in the region.
President Obama pledged in both 2008 and 2012 that he would never allow Iran to go nuclear, but there has never been much secret about his desire to avoid a confrontation over the issue. He wasted most of his first term on a feckless effort to engage Tehran and was slow to adopt serious sanctions. Another round of dead-end diplomacy that only gives the Iranians more time to achieve their nuclear ambition won’t solve the problem. The appointment of Hagel would be a signal to both Iran and the world that the president wasn’t going to go to the mat on the issue.
That is a dangerous development that could only make Iran more intransigent and set the stage for violent upheaval in the region that will damage American interests. Such non-mainstream views about Iran and Hamas are exactly why Hagel ought not to be nominated. Friedman’s open advocacy for appeasement as well as his rationalization for the dual loyalty slur should make it even more obvious than before how disastrous this appointment would be.
Iran. n nYou can argue that singling out only Jews for exerting too much influence is not anti-semetc. You could argue that the US should accept an Iranian nuclear program or even an Iranian ICBM program. You could argue that Israel should withdraw to the n n1967 armistice lines from which it was attacked in return for nothing and still be pro-Israel. n nBut to me he is the stereotypical Archie Bunker type bigot. His policies have been anti gay (even now after his late and self serving apology he doesn't support equal benefits for gay military families. He is anti-African American (with a 17/100 rating from NAACP and admires Strom Thurmond as a great role model. anti Woman (vs choice and contraception) n nand n nHagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon. n n“Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. Yes, Hagel wants to gut the Pentagon’s budget. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Republican Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers. n n“Hagel was known for turning over staff every few weeks—within a year’s time he could have an entirely new office because nobody wanted to work for him,” said the source. “You have to wonder how a man who couldn’t run a Senate office is going to be able to run an entire bureaucracy.” n nOthers familiar with Hagel’s 12 year tenure in the Senate said he routinely intimidated staff and experienced frequent turnover. n n“Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.” n nMultiple sources corroborated this view of Hagel. n n“As a manager, he was angry, accusatory, petulant,” said one source familiar with his work on Capitol Hill. “He couldn’t keep his staff.” n n“I remember him accusing one of his staffers of being ‘f—ing stupid’ to his face,” recalled the source who added that Hagel typically surrounded himself with those “who basically hate Republicans.” n nSources expressed concern about such behavior should Hagel be nominated for the defense post. With competing military and civilian interests vying for supremacy, the department requires a skilled manager, sources said. n n“The Pentagon requires strong civilian control,” a senior aide to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the Free Beacon. “It’s already swung back in favor of the military over the past five years. A new secretary of defense should push it back in its rightful place, but it’s doubtful Hagel would be that guy.” n n“It’s not clear that [Hagel] has the standing, the managerial prowess, or the willingness to gore some oxen,” said the source. n nOne senior Bush administration official warned that Hagel is ill informed about many critical foreign policy matters. n n“He’s not someone who’s shown a lot of expertise on these issues,” said the source, referencing a recent Washington Post editorial excoriating Hagel’s record. “That [op-ed] was extraordinary.” n n“Only in Washington,” the official added, “can someone like [Hagel] be seen as a heavy weight. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.” n nHagel is likely viewed positively by the administration mainly because he is a Republican who often criticizes his own party, the source said. n n“He’ll dance to a tune played by the White House,” said the former official. “That I think is the real problem.” n nAs lawmakers consider a deal to avoid sweeping budgets cuts and tax hikes, Hagel’s support for slashing spending at the Pentagon has irked many defense hawks. n n“This is a time when a secretary of defense needs to be raising hell about the sequestration cuts,” said the Rumsfeld aide. “It’s not clear that Hagel has any interest in picking that fight.” n nHagel’s reluctance to chastise Iran also remains a central concern. n nAs chief of the Pentagon it is expected he would avoid planning for a military intervention should Tehran refuse to end its clandestine nuclear enrichment program. n n“The military brass is already reluctant to offer up any military options on Iran even though it’s their job to have something on the books and to leave the options of the commander in chief open,” said the Rumsfeld aide. “Hagel will only reinforce these worrisome tendencies.” n n“Chances are he’ll view any legitimate effort to talk about military options with Iran as some plot by the ‘Israel Lobby’ to box him in,” the source said.
I was unsure of my opposition to Hagel until I read Friiedman's column .Now I'm absolutely certain I oppose his nomination. Friedman really convinced me how dangerous Hagel is.
Friedman, Hagel, Obama – triplets conceived in Hell. How are all those fake Jews who voted for the head triplet reacting now? Fake or stupid, no difference.
are you kidding, van? they're just fine with it. they think Obama's doing a swell job. n nI was about to also write that they're not stupid, they're just self-hating…but I think you may be right. my Jewish brothers and sisters have had plenty of time to examine Obama's Jewish cred. if they really think he's Israel's BFF despite all the evidence to the contrary, then I guess they ARE kinda stupid.
Great article by Friedman; thanks for the link! I especially like his summing up the Commentary crowd's position on the Middle East: "America’s role is to just applaud whatever Israel does, serve as its A.T.M. and shut up."
Pure unadulterated anti-Semitism/Nazism. With a name a such as "Hillel", this rat must be using a false name.
his real name is Grumpy Old Fart Hole
Wingnuts never miss an opportunity to prove that to them criticism of Israel = anti-Semitism. And the sad part is that a-holes like vandag think they're helping Israel with their scumminess.
but if you are Jewish what is the point? It doesn't seem credible. Your statements reek of ant-Semitic demagoguery–those perfidious Jews pulling a big fat one over on the gullible Americans and using the United States as their piggy-bank. That line of attack is aimed to erase not only the Commentary crowd or "our Crowd" but Jewish influence per se, in contradistinction to the enthusiasm showed for the robust advocacy of those no less partisan and no less sectarian. Pick a Middle Eastern lobby associated with Hagel at random for an example. n nFrom Israeli media, Israel does not feel by and large that it is in an existential crises near-term. Hagel is not a big topic of media discussion. n nThe Pentagon might wish to build upon the critical contributions made to the United States by Israel in avionics, drone technology, or anti-missile technology. Iron Drome, still debated, may be a significant advance on predecessors. n nOr the Pentagon can place its faith in the Arab Spring. Or serendipity. Or luck.
Yeah, nothing anti-semitic about 'Jewish lobby', is there, trooll? And nothing anti-Semitic about the leaders of Iran or Hizbollah or Hamas, either, who get Hage;l's stamp of approval. Whenever the leaders of those groups talk about Jews, they really mean Israel, right? Amazing how years before there was a State of Israel, those devious Israelis (the Hamas charter says Jews, but you know better, right Trollel?) manipulated the world into WWI and formed the Masons, the Elks, etc. to aid in their world domination.
hey man, s'cool. ur still an idiot n nby the way you fat goyischer fuque, there's a point here–how much longer are you going to hide behind a pertectly good Jewish name?
>fat goyischer fuque n nIt appears you hate gentiles. Good for you for not being afraid to show it! it's helpful when people such as yourself show their true colors. n nI'll bet that word "goyischer" just rolls out so easily slipping and sliding off the tongue. Especially here! n nGoyyyyishsshhhhherrrrrr…. n nUmmm ummm.
do you even know what "goyische" means? it means "gentile." n nit's hardly a slur. n nnobody on this board hates "gentiles" or anyone else. you wouldn't know that since you apparently just stopped in from stormfront or somepleace to try and start something. but trolls generally find commentary.com isn't very interesting for them. we prefer real discussion and we tend to ignore you guys after a bit. n nso why don't you run along and see if you can help your mom with dinner or something.
'nobody on this board hates "gentiles" or anyone else.' n nMoslems excepted of course. nPS – Love the way FB uses fuque to get by the censors. What a fuque-head!
You're here. There can't be that much censorship. FB is one yours.
TrollelA, most people on this board have little tolerance for mass murderers or their apologists, of whatever religion. That said, I will grant you that there have on occasion been bigoted comments about Muslims in general by people posting on this blog. I would venture those comments (and commenters) have been fewer than statements of hate or bigotry directed against any of the following on this same blog: neocons, republicans, Jews, Israel, gun owners/NRA members, and people who believe that a marriage between people of the same sex is a contradiction in terms.
"Hillel," I'm a Goy who knows the difference between a regular Goy and a "fat goyisher fuque," Just as there is a difference between "Jew," "Joo," and "jewed," mostly in how you say it. It's in the tone and the context. Capisce? Now, me, I'm a regular Goy, a nice, well-brought-up and cheerful fellow too by most accounts….but you can be a "fat goyisher fuque" even if you are Jewish. Sounds more complicated than it is. Anyway, what's a fat goyisher fuque like you doing, misusing the name of one of the greatest of the Jewish sages? Have you no shame, Sir?
Well, I might disagree with some people here maybe idiosyncratically. I exclude all peoples of color from the term "goy". Anti-Semites or not, murderers of Jews or not, if it comes to that. Arab aren't goys. African-Americans aren't goys. Nor Africans. Nor Asians etc. A goy (well, spoken in a certain tone and context) is what the settlers of the Pale had to live with–some ignorant European white peasant who doesn't like Jews, never did, never will. A white cracker anti-Semite. Maybe living in a double-wide, maybe affecting a plummy British accent , corresponding with Ezra Pound, and inventing modernist poetry. Maybe casually disdainful, maybe virulently impassioned, maybe just stewing with resentment. n nFB363
Hmm, interesting. A very traditional, broadly Ashkenazi and as you've aptly narrowed it down, a Pale of Settlements approach this, besht. There are attempts to restore the word "Goy" to its proper neutral and descriptive meaning, you know, especially by some of the Haredi chaps who sometimes plop it in conversation. An uphill battle they have on their hands, as in mixed company it still has the effect of a sudden foo-foo in a packed elevator. Quite amusing to witness. I wonder if the term sheigetz might serve your idiosyncratic definition better? Although, when I think of the way that word's used, I visualize a crude, aftershave-bathed lothario hooting at women out of his car window. It's a tough one. n nYou know, it's one of the reasons I like lurking around this blog; our discussions can meander from fat goyisher fuques all the way to the intricacies of the semantics branch of semiotics.
hmmmm, maybe sheigetz but I see that also might include your non-hooting apikores–myself, I always suspect that I'm on the wrong side of whatever nuance the frum are seeking to distinguish when they wander off the fine line of strict neutrality, whether openly or through frum-whistle. n nAs an illustration, I once spent a Passover with a Chabad rabbi in the Boston area a decade or so ago. When chatting with the ba'al tshuvah who were attending the seder he asked a question concerning a mutual acquaintance. "Oh how is So and So, I hear he's a regular u05d1u05df u05d0u05d3u05dd now." Ben adam, a human. n nhmmmm. I'd heard this usage one or two times before. At first I took it for an alternate coinage for mensch. A real guy. n nBut on later reflection it might have been something a little less gentle. n nIt seemed that the guys referred to were newly observant. They had been secular chlioni Jews but were now in the practice of observing mitzvot. n nThey had passed a threshold and could be considered, at last, fully human. n nu05d1u05df u05d0u05d3u05dd. n nThe distinction wasn't between Jew and non-Jew, or perhaps that distinction was a potential metaphysical distinction as regards the non-observant. The distinction was between a person who had embraced the full measure of what humanity could be through Torah and those, "Jewish" or non-Jewish who preferred a life of something else. n n n n
Besht, you live in Israel and I live in chutz l'aaretz, but I thought that in contemporary Hebrew ben adam does mean mensch and has nothing to do with being shomer mitzvot? n nCould it be that he was not referring to a change in their level of observance as a whole but rather a major change (motivated, perhaps, by their new observance) for the better in the way they treated people?
ahadhaamorastim–no no no, I live in galus. I've been in Israel but in a different time. My brother and nephew (almost not quite a rabbi) have a much more up to date kesher. This seemed to be charedi spin on the word–or Chabad spin, or Boston Chabad spin, or this individual rabbi's style. n nIt could have been a way of saying "Oh yeah, I hear that So and So has become quite a guy," but as I recall the impression given was that the inner change, the turn, the improvement would not have occurred absent a commitment to observance. n nBut this could be me talking through my hat.
"as I recall the impression given was that the inner change, the turn, the improvement would not have occurred absent a commitment to observance." n nYeah, that's the impression I got from reading your post, but believe it or not ther have been people whose character did improve as a result of their committing to observance. Not magically or automatically, but by dint of studying musar and developing a better sense of how others should be treated.
no doubt
I'm told that because of the negative connotations of 'goy', many Israelis use the term lo-yehudi (literally non-Jew) as a neutral way of saying — non-Jew. n nAnd although goy may have a neutral meaning, goyisher (adj, m), goyishe (adj. f.) and goyish (adj, yinglish) are nearly always, if not always, used in a negative sense. Which is one reason, why, and you observed, a fat goyisher fq can be a fat goyisher fq even if he is Jewish.
Myself I sense it as non-neutral shorthand.In an assimilated Jewish culture everyday non-connotative use wouldn't make much sense.Unless I'm intending a put-down–"Oh yeah, goyiim have many interesting customs"–what does that do? I appreciate tho that a person might have trust in a personal civility that might not always be presented. Of course the very same people who have turned "Jew" into a repository of negative connotations are the first to observe that "goy" and its derviations is negative. A deduction featured at interminable length where crazies post their deep thoughts on the internet. n nbut spot on "lo-yehudi" …
Great post by TrollelA, eh? After all, who but a mindless Israel-firster controlled by the Jew lobby (excuse me, Jewish lobby) could possibly think that aHizbollah is a terrorist group simply because its non-uniformed forces do not recognize the laws of war, are not subject to military discipline, murder members of the US armed forces, assassinate civilian government leaders, and routinely murder American, Israeli and Lebanese citizens? After all, if Israel doesn't like them, they must be okay, right, Trollel?
Check out <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=chuck+friedman">Twitter and see who endorses Friedman's column: Trita Parsi, Robert Wright, Steve Clemons, Jeremy Ben Ami, Lara Friedman, MJ Rosenberg, Barak Ravid and Matt Duss. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about Hagel's (and Friedman's) support for Israel, doesn't it? n<a href="https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/283980658706092032>Eli Lake pointed out that Jeff Goldberg had a similar column <a href="http://t.co/PgwrHDQ9f">last week. nGiven the invective directed towards Romney by both editorials and op-eds at the New York Times suggesting that he'd be in thrall to Israel, no New York Times columnist is really a good choice to identify offensive smears.
do the neocons really want Flournoy, who just spent 2012 campaigning for Obama by trying to destroy Romney? n nJust asking.
I'm not convinced that Hagel isn't the best choice for Obama. With Hagel, Obama has no fig leaf. For the record I'd have preferred Rice whatever her faults over Sen. Kerry. I can't imagined being happy with any of Obama's choices, but some are better than others, though not always for the same reasons. (Though I can't speak for all neocons.)
Hagel seems almost too good to be true for Obama. A Jew hater, a GOP hater who's Republican. But if you tally up the sad tale of all his endorsements and condemnations it seems nearly inconceivable that he's not a whore in someone's pocket to mouth exactly what they tell him to. It's too trite to find someone like that who through their own mind or sheer accident happened to stumble on every single far left foreign policy hot button in precisely the way the far far left wishes to present it. Does Hagel have a view of what to do with the carrier groups we keep operational or what to do with the hundreds of bases across the globe or how to support Obama's "Asian Pivot"? Because seemingly none of that matters which is odd since it's 90% of the job of whomever is in that office. The US has about 30 guys operating a radar base in the Negev and that's it. The DoD's worry about Israel – as a function of what they actually do is pretty low. It's more or a procurement arrangement. The US doesn't defend Israel and nearly zero resources are consumed by the US to that end. Whereas we spend, what? 18 billion dollars a year defending Germany? Why is it that none of that is what Hagel is being asked to consider.
Brilliant.
amen n nthose questions don't have an easy Jew-baiting tag, & maybe he hasn't gotten a clear line on lobbyist $ one way or the other– n n but, in this Administration, aside from meeting with each other and sniffing each others hinderparts in rituals of social hierarchy do guys at SecDef level really have jobs any more–do they actually do anything but take credit for subalterns' work and shift responsibility for departmental screw-ups? n nWith this crowd, including Potus, it's all about rising to your level of incompetence. n nWhat does Hillary *do*? n nWhat did Petraeus do? (OK, we know that one) n nbut from the Israel media and apropos the various stalwarts of the Xtian crusade against the Jewish lobby, this is barely if at all on the israeli political horizon. Israeli politicians and insiders (who talk to the press) don't seem concerned one way or the other if Hagel or R. Krinsky gets the nod.
good points all. just as Eric Holder is the perfect AG for this president, so is the incompetent Kerry or vitriolic Hagel a good choice for a cabinet post. (doesn't Obama know ANYONE who's center-right?) and I love the image of the cabinet officials "sniffing each other's hinderparts"
n nand slightly off-topic, but speaking of what Hillary "does": n nwhy, she has the greatest job in the world! she can completely screw up, go on TV and take full responsibility for it but suffer no consequences, and then apparently go into the witness protection program. I mean, where the heck is she?
I think she's waiting for the swelling from the falling-dead-drunk bump on the head to go down. By then it might too late for her to testify about how she and State sacrificed a few good men for the greater glory of the Arab Spring. Of course, this is only a wild guess.
Ah, the great Arab Shwing! n nBut I have to confess, as a Jew, although non-observant, I personally am not immediately fearful of Islamic countries having some degree of national institutionalization of sha'aria. Or accommodating Muslims here. The Satmar have their own school district in Kyriat Joel and halacha, attenuated, but very much present, is continuously being defined and redefined, adjudicated and reinterpreted through civil society in Israel. n nFor sure there's the whole Dar al Islam vs Dar al Harb thing. n nStill, I saw a young woman in a bookstore who would have comfortably fit in judging from her dress and her "Jewish looks" any shul sisterhood–she even had a little necklace pendant of Israel well the inscription didn't quite parse. n n"Excuse me," I asked, "is that a map of Israel or a map of Palestine?" n nIn this case Palestine. Maybe it's just incurable optimism. But's it's like two suitors courting the same woman who end up in a blood feud. n nThat which they have in common only serves to drive them apart. n nBut I figure, you never know.
L'havdil, there is no comparison to shaaria. Satmar don't cut off people's hands for stealing. Satmar don't say it's okay to rape non-Jewish women or women who are not modestly dressed (the latter may come in for some harassment, which I categorically condemn), or stone women for going out without a male escort. Satmar don't impose capital punishment – on community members or on non-members – for blasphemy or apostasy.
I'm not saying they are identical. I'm not making a moral or ethical equation. But we'll disagree. I don't think that universally Islamic law of necessity gravitates to its Wahibist 8th century roots–that's my opinion. I hear what you are saying but a crusade against shaaria is not an emotional pull. Personally I don't think religious or personal liberties are endangered in the States by CAIR or anti-blasphemy laws. Obama is being proactively idiosyncratic on this imo.
I don't go on Crusades for the same reason I don't partake in Jihad.
your'e funnie. from your lips to G-d's ears….
Hagel's potential nomination has taken on greater criticality now that the Jewish lobby has sought to crush him. One hopes that Obama can steel himself to push forward and demonstrate that he, not the lobby, not Israel, sets U.S. defense priorities.
the moron convention is in town–oh yes, steel forward Obama and let those rascally Jews know that it is you and not the Lobby that will reduce the American navy to three rowboats and a bathtub. n n
Hey, you know what, Paulbot? I'm actually with you on that one. I think Obama should take Chuck on board. Chuck, the principle-free whore, the house antisemite, the Hezbollah muppet, the homophobe, the Armenian genocide apologist and the Iran doormat. Just to rub it in the face of all those fools who voted for him. As our Empress says, Hagel's just too good to be true for Obama.
Friedman pretends to be Israel's friend. His criticism used to come with a – more in sorrow than in anger – disclaimer. Not so much anymore. Now he attacks Israel with relish and zeal. Dealing Israel the lowest blows. American Jews are loyal to Israel, not America, and our Congress is bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, and other such stuff. He's right at the bottom of the anti-Israel hate barrel. nWhich is okay with me. Just stop saying you are a friend of Israel. It strains all credibility, and makes me want to upchuck.
The Times has just posted an even stronger Op-Ed supporting Hagel. Those of you who try to intimidate critics of Israeli policy by calling them "anti-Israel" or "anti-semitic" need to realize that you're merely exposing the weakness of your position. When you resort to name-calling and are unable to argue on the merits, you've lost the debate. Hagel has merely said that the US has interests in the Middle East beyond defending the security of Israel. If you disagree with that, please explain why.
What Friedman, Beinart, Robert Wright and all the other useful suspects are asserting is that the main qualification that Hagel has is his tough attitude towards Israel! For Secretary of Defense! So it goes with these people. Israel, admittedly under threat from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas; Israel, the rejected suitor in several peace offers to the Palestinians, this Israel is always the problem. And, as always, these people who make careers about criticizing Israel, American Jews, AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby never fail to assert that one cannot criticize Israel, American Jews, AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby! As Friedman says"…. because confronting Israel is so unpleasant and politically dangerous." Not only are they doing all this for Israel's own good, they are also unbelievably courageous, taking huge personal risks. Compared to this pressure, Salman Rushdie had nothing to complain about. But this is the New York Times, where Paul Krugman maintains that the fall of Enron was a more significant event than 9/11. And where Friedman thinks that authoritarian China really knows how to get things done, without having to bother with the inconvenience of political opposition. These people are charlatans. Time to ignore them.
Pro Hagel commenters: google "we the people", log in, and sign the Hagel petition.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad. n nYou lot have lost it and are truly blithering.
You come here and you insult people. Anti-Semitic contempt is not an argument. n nBut there is something that your reflexive bile brings to mind. n nIsrael is not discussing Hagel. n nThey don't fear his appointment. n nHis appointment is barely mentioned in the media and the poltiical class is involved in pre-election coalition maneuverings. n nWhy is this? Because Hagel is seriously misguided in his mistaking the apparition, the ghost, the vapors, the spectre of "the Jewish lobby" not only for the Jewish community, not only for the supporters of Israel here in the United States, but for Israel itself. n nLike you he waves his hands in front of a mirror and sees a hostile stranger shaking its fist. n nHagel is not on Israel's radar. n nNeither Israel nor the Jew Lobby are on your radar either. n nYou're using us as the opportunity to ping yourself. n nFine. n nGo ping yourself.
Whom the grumpy old man would destroy, he first drives mildly annoyed. And nauseated.
translated from the Greek: n n nCHORUS OF GRUMPIES n n nAlack, alack, O sisters, we have toiled, n O much and vainly have we toiled and borne! nVainly! and all we wrought the dire Lobby undone n And turnèd us to scorn! nHe hath slipped from the net, whom we chased: he hath ’scaped us who should be our prey nPurloined our precious Precious, our quarry hath stolen away!