Israel is about to start WW III: "Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's
nuclear sites" (Times UK):

"The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial
assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the
go-ahead by its new government."

Entire article at this link
http://tinyurl.com/ct77ou

It's time that Israel ceases to get any kind of aid from the U.S.
Sh*tty, little country indeed.

Once again I am so impressed with your ability to
open doors to uncomfortable rooms with
occasionally wobbly chairs and broken tea cups,
yet let the sun shine in to catch us all smiling
at a glimpse of what could be. Hats off to you,
Steve

Impressive effort Mr. Clemons. "...More open discussion about the policy challenges facing the countries -- in bilateral, regional/Middle East, and global terms", is an honorable enterprize. Ten thousand thanks.

Would you, could you pretty please deliver a missive to the esteemed Saudi royals that funding, supporting, and nurturing the malignancies of wahabism and jihadist islam - is the work of an enemy, - NOT a friend of America.

Before our second, horrendous, assault on Fallujah, some of the
Marines taking part were baptized as "Christians." This while
their commander declared that Satan was in Fallujah.

Mr. Foresta, what make our jihadi "Christianity" better than jihadi
Islam?

As most experts on the Middle East agree, the Israel / Palestine
issue is the root of the anger directed towards us by "radical
Islam."

Yet because of organizations like AIPAC (the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee) our government is bribed and
threatened into carte blanche support of Israel, a self-avowed
Jewish theocracy.

And now, the jihadi Jews are running Israel and threatening WW
III

So can the hypocrisy please. We lost approximately 3000 people
on Sept. 11: a good portion were not Americans, and yet our
government, UsRael, has used that one tragic day to run
roughshod over three countries and our Bill of Rights.

And Israel alone has used it to justify its ongoing genocide of
the Palestinians.

Scenario for 2009 Israeli Strike on Iran (the end of the world as
we know it...)
by Gordon Prather, April 18, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/d2mxog

"Outraged American" is aka "PissedOffAmerican" am I right? couldn't he have used a better disguise?

Skill Level -- you are mistaken. best, steve clemons

"Skill level" is a marshmellow from Taylor Marsh's site that posts under the name KRULURK. A true thorn in my side over there, who has made it her mission to derail ANY attempt I make to debate the actual issues raised on that site. She has also been lurking over at Nina's blog, doing seasrches on "PissedOffAmerican". I imagine its only a matter of time before she or another jackass by the name of GeoT try to disrupt and sully Nina's efforts. Taylor has amassed an astounding community of umittigated jackasses over there.

But, hey, as I'm sure you'll agree, Steve, if nothing else, I'm tenacious.

Hope you're well, man.

And thanks for setting KRULURK straight.

I abhor all the worlds institutional religions Outraged American, a view all them as political economic entities seeking political and economic gains with absolutely ZERO interest in religion.

The worlds religions a bathed in oceans of innocent blood. That said, it is that are bent on murdering everyone on earth who is not jihadi, and so of all the evil incarnate on earth wearing the mask of this or that religion, - jihadists are the most diabolic.

"The best hope for freedom is to strange the last king with the entrails of the last priest."

I need "second opinions".

Here are the links to two separate threads on Taylor Marsh's site. Am I being too judgemental? Are these people as big of assholes as I give them credit for?

http://tinyurl.com/crpmov

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/04/18/how-obama-excused-torture/

Please, be honest with me. Every time I go over there, I feel as though I'm dealing with a whole community of bloggers that are totally detached from reality, and that INCLUDES Marsh a good portion of the time.

BTW, Marsh just accused me of anti-semitism on one of the threads I have linked to. WTF is a matter with those people over there? Anyway, I really am interested in some honest opinion about it. Is it just me?

POA,

I don`t think March accused you of anti-semitism; to me it
looked like he said you are just as pro-Palestinian as Lieberman
is pro-Israelis.

In any case, I think you were rather rude over there (as you
often are over here as well); you acted like you were constantly
and aggressively challenging your opponent in a boxing ring,
never giving him or her any space. And that can be tiresome, if
the opponent don`t love this kind of fighting.

Judging from the two threads, I don`t think your opponents
were totally detached from reality - not more than most people
I meet on a daily basis. They seemed to disagree with some of
what you said, but not all of it. And then communication broke
down.

Well, that`s my honest opinion. (And BTW: I don`t understand
how your spelling of "democrat" instead of "democratic" could
result in Marsh ending the discussion. Perhaps it was just an
excuse - because he was tired of this way of debating?)

POA,

You take some getting used to (insert smiley emoticon here).

Seriously, though, blog discussions work a little like neighborhood cafes and when someone new comes in and starts calling everyone a "jackass", it can be a little jarring to the regulars who feel that they are a part of the community and that they have paid dues to be included.

Marsh's site is feminine; a little bit of "you go girl" would go a lot further than a lot of "jackass" does. You give a lot of "jackass."

And while I am certain you are not anti-Semitic in intent, you do borrow certain tropes that are linked to actual anti-Semitism and this borrowing can raise hackles. The I-Lobby language seems similar to Jewish conspiracy thinking; the lack of qualifying condemnation can feel uncomfortable to some, and so on. If you want to be able to make the valid criticisms that you do indeed make, and you want the criticisms to be taken seriously, try softening your tone, noting that although Israel has been lobbed with numerous rockets and the border town residents are fairly flipped out about it, IN FACT, there is relatively little damage from the rockets, the Israeli response is disproportionate, and in fact, the Palestinians have been pushed in large measure towards irregular warfare in order to cope. Say it calmly, and suggest some reasonable measures for trying to de-escalate Israel's over-the-top responses. Discuss Israeli internal politics, the structure of the Knesset, the attraction people have to strong leaders who toss bombs, show the parallels between the US and Israel on these issues. Talk about the US's flirtation for the past many many years with right wing responses to "others". Somewhere in all of this is a reasonable response that is largely in keeping with your basic view of the ME. Lose the cursing, lose the complete one-sidedness rhetorically (couch it in likeness to US policy and you can make your point while seeming rational and fair).

All in all, I'd mostly advise that you not go to someone's house for dinner and call all the other guests "jackasses."

IMHO, at any rate.

Thanks for your honest appraisal, Paul. I really do appreciate it.

Paul,

Welcome back from your vacation!

The "Democratic" vs "Democrat" thing is often taken to be a dead give-away of partisan affiliation. The Republicans came up with the dropping of "ic" to avoid calling one party "democratic" which would in turn imply that the other party is undemocratic. Only Republicans, in theory, use the word "Democrat" as an adjective. In fact, though, I find myself slipping occasionally because I hear "Democrat Party" so frequently. (All of this in case you're unfamiliar with the history of the adjective wars!)

Ms. Marsh was thus suggesting that POA is clearly a Republican given the usage.

"All in all, I'd mostly advise that you not go to someone's house for dinner and call all the other guests "jackasses.""

You got a chuckle for that one. Its very likely sound advice. Uhm, but I'm pretty set in my ways. And like 'ol Dee Cooper used to say on Paramount Ranch, "It doesn't take me all day to look at a horseshoe".

Thanks for your courteous and amiable reply, questions.

"Ms. Marsh was thus suggesting that POA is clearly a Republican given the usage"

Gads, thanks for explaining that, questions. I really didn't understand what I said that jammed a corncob up her ass. Seems kinda petty to me.

Unless of course, ya think I'm a Republican.

Egads. I'm afraid if I channeled Rush I'd wake up fat, addicted, and stupid. What a nightmare. I think I'd rather wake up as a toad.

Thanks, questions;

I had a great time, and hope to spend every vacation there for the
coming years (preferably in january/february, when it is rather
cold here in Norway).

Nice to be offline for a while as well - Ethiopia has one of the
worst internet connections in the world. They do not block access
to certain sites, like the Chinese, they just make sure it takes the
whole evening for the site to show up on the screen...

And thanks for your info on the adjective wars!

Wow, we're being so polite here, I feel like crying out to all of you, "YOU GO GIRL!"

And I thought my Comcast internet connection was the world's worst!

"Wow, we're being so polite here, I feel like crying out to all of you, "YOU GO GIRL!""

Don't worry questions, its just that I have a headache. I'll be back to my good 'ol obnoxious self just as quick as you can say "Here come the jackasses".

"I don`t think March accused you of anti-semitism; to me it looked like he said you are just as pro-Palestinian as Lieberman
is pro-Israelis"

Well, thats not very comforting, considering that Lieberman is a blatant racist.

"Wow, we're being so polite here, I feel like crying out to all of you, "YOU GO GIRL!""

Comical. Those good folks at Taylor's site are convinced you just insulted them, questions.

Can't call 'em jackasses, and can't say "YOU GO GIRL", heck, ya can't even drop an "ic" without putting their panties in a bind.

The only other site I have ever posted at that was so thin-skinned was that insipid pissant Nathon Tabor's site, "The Conservative Voice", which was bought up by "Town Hall" a few months ago. Its kinda weird, because you could swear some of these people at Taylor's site are clones of some of the posters at Tabor's site, except coming from polar opposite political stances.

But boy, you can bet the far right is lauding the so called "progressive" stance on no prosecutions for torture or wiretapping. Its surreal seeing the left argue for the right's fondest wet dream.

Dick Cheney...

"YIPPEEE!!!! No prosecutions!!! If they don't go after the little guy, theres no incentive for the little bastard to point in my direction!!!! YIPPEE!!!! I'M HOME FREE!!!!!"

Do you have a link? Can't say as I feel like hunting for the comments.... Thanks in advance....

Posted by questions, Apr 19 2009, 7:51AM - Link

Do you have a link? Can't say as I feel like hunting for the comments.... Thanks in advance....

try this one:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/04/18/un-torture-investigator-obama-has-broken-international-law/

or this:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/04/18/clinton-statement-on-saberi%E2%80%99s-8-year-prison-sentence/

please keep him occupied. thanks.

Posted by questions, Apr 19 2009, 7:51AM - Link

Do you have a link? Can't say as I feel like hunting for the comments.... Thanks in advance....
______

the "go girl" thread is here:

judge for yourself:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/04/18/another-saturday-night/

Hi ArtisRevolution,

I have no problem understanding that some of you are upset
with POA. As I said in a comment to him above in this thread, I
consider his style often too aggressive and rude.

Nevertheless, many commenters (me included) and readers,
even Steve Clemons himself, regard POA as one of the most
valuable contributors at The Washington Note.

Why?

You may find out if you get to know each other better. On the
other hand, I hope that POA don`t settle down at your site,
stopping to write here. Though I don`t appreciate all his insults
against fellow commenters, we need an enfant terrible at TWN
who consistently calls a spade a spade.

BTW: I don`t mind if you quote me over at your site, to show
that though POA frequently is a much larger asshole than those
he accuses of being so, many of us here at TWN are kinda fond
of him.

Thanks, ArtisRevolution, for the link. The "go girl" thread is the one I wanted, and I appreciate the research assistance. Have read bits and pieces of Taylor Marsh's stuff along with comments in the past few weeks. I think I still stand by "You go girl" and I think there really does tend to be a feminine sensibility to the site. "Sweetie", "good movie" and "tomatoes" seem to clinch the deal for me. It's not a criticism or an insult. There's more social/mutual support, more thanking and general politeness, and I think I have an actually memory of Taylor's actually saying something like "You go girl" in response to a comment a few weeks ago, but maybe it's a false memory. When posts drift off topic here, they tend to drift differently. We get movies and books, bouts of flu, occasional biographies. Not much in the way of tomatoes, though.

To those who post at Taylor Marsh's site, I mean no harm. And since I have no intention of registering there to say this, I'm posting here and maybe someone will link this and maybe not.

Oh, and ArtisRevolution, I've had endless differences with POA on Israel/Palestine. I have a very different view of what should be done even if I generally agree with the criticisms of Israeli policy. I've been on the receiving end of numerous "compliments"! Be clear in the disagreement and agree to disagree. POA has a deep sense of the injustice of the Palestinian situation and he's right about that. Israel has been deeply wrong in its treatment of human beings. At the same time though, I think that there are many other issues that POA doesn't deal with including geostrategic alliances, whether or not disengagement has even a slight chance of bringing about anything like justice, and so on. I have numerous posts on these issues scattered throughout TWN's archives, and I'm guessing there will be more eventually.

Thanks again for the link.

Posted by Paul Norheim, Apr 19 2009, 4:42PM - Link

Posted by questions, Apr 19 2009, 4:43PM - Link

thank you both.

I think if POA just relaxed and eased up on the personal attacks he would find a receptive and relatively intelligent group at TM.com I have a hard time with his hyper-anti-Israel diatribes which cloud the legitimate criticisms that Israel has earned and gets by the way in Taylor's posts all the time.

and questions: no insult was taken on your comment "go girl" TM.com has evolved since the primary and has actually become a place of common ground and reconciliation between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters, die hard both. Now she is moving beyond that to more meaty policy issues. She's a very smart woman.

I have discovered TWN and appreciate Steve's perspective on things.

Thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Posted by questions, Apr 19 2009, 4:43PM - Link

re: "tomatoes"

that was a Saturday night thread btw which is intended for casual interaction, same as the Friday "Tip O’Neil Cocktail Hour" we purposely talk about things besides politics and interact on a more personal basis, it's a stress reliever :)

Paul Norheim said: "I don`t mind if you quote me over at your site, to show that though POA frequently is a much larger asshole than those he accuses of being so, many of us here at TWN are kinda fond of him.

POA is never an asshole. That descriptor should be reserved for those who deliberately lie or "misrepresent the facts" to advance their own narrow agendas.

That is something POA NEVER does.

...Unlike you, Pol.

"That descriptor should be reserved for those who deliberately lie
or "misrepresent the facts" to advance their own narrow agendas."

I have no idea what you`re referring to, Arthur.

Thanks for the honest criticisms, and the kudos. Its a moot point, however, as the interaction with me at Taylor's site has degenerated to a point of no return. Of course, as you can surmise without even devoting research, this is in no small fault of my own. To be honest, a couple of the posters there, early on with my arrival, pulled a couple of "varanasis" on me, and that was all she wrote. As you all well know, I don't take kindly to some ignorant jackass questioning my stated proffession, calling me a liar, and using terms like "unemployed nail pounder" to describe my calling. Particularly when they don't know a fuckin' thing about me.

I did go in fairly heavy, but I made no claims and stated no opinions that were not heartfelt, and backed up with substantiating linkage. Many over there seem to exist in some sort of ethereal "never mind what you see, just wait until tomorrow" kind of netherworld in regards to Barack Obama, and many of the issues, particularly as they pertain to Israel, and Barack Obama's blatant disregard for his Oath of Office in his refusal to pursue accountability on a number of fronts. And to be blunt, that kind of nattering optimism just irritates the shit out of me.

And as gracious as this "ArtIsRevolution" visitor seems to be, I wonder at the motive behind the assumed monicker. Why not just post under the screen name he or she uses at Taylor's site? Or is he or she afraid I might link to some commentary that isn't so gracious as that exhibited above?

Bottom line, I respect question's opinion to a degree, and I respect Paul's even more. And I highly appreciate Arthur's unfailing support, and his keen understanding of of my methods and motives.

But in the end, it is I that must do the introspection and the appraisal of what occurred these last few days at Marsh's site. Was I an asshole? Absolutely. That crew over there really pushed my buttons right from the git-go. But, do I feel I was entirely culpable for the degeneration of debate? No. There are some real serious big time assholes over there, and they don't need me to bring it out in them, they come by it naturally.

And Taylor? She's a snake. My gut rarely fails me, and it tells me that my demeanor at her site was a secondary aggravation for her. I believe her anger was founded in the fact that I planted myself between her and her synchopantic koffee klatch, and dared challenge a number of her opinions and conclusions with some hard questions and some cold facts. Of course, she will dissent against that opinion. So be it. It is what it is. But she can have it. Obviously its not for me, and I'm not for them.

C'est la vie, tough shit, and whatever.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=hsnews-000003098436

Here's a link to Jane Harmon, spy at large! Please read the final paragraph to see why it is that I'm a LOBBY-Skeptic. (Hint, she ended up accomplishing none of her goals, and I wouldn't be surprised if she's primaried in the next election. But of course, she did try to influence the direction of an investigation.)

Further, this piece shows how the Dems are in bed with the Repubs over security policy and why therefore the Dems don't really want an investigation.

This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
pharel

foreclosures

This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
pharel
foreclosures

"I have no idea what you`re referring to, Arthur.": so spake Paul Norheim

That suggests to me you're disingenuous, rather than honest, Paul. (Not that I needed convincing on that point.)

"Further, this piece shows how the Dems are in bed with the Repubs over security policy and why therefore the Dems don't really want an investigation." posted by questions

I believe POA already covered this. What's your point in bringing it up again?

Are you attempting to take credit for the idea?

"...those who deliberately lie or "misrepresent the facts" to
advance their own narrow agendas" (arthurdecco).

Hey, Arthur, I am fed up with your dubious habit of questioning
other posters motives instead of confronting their arguments.
These are serious ad hominem allegations - but you don`t want
to be specific. And now you are pushing your case, without
delivering any examples. Does that make me disingenuous?

Are you referring to the old anti-semitism debate? (Do you want
to go there?) Or do you have something else in mind?

Be specific! Inform me and the readers on when or where I have
deliberately lied to advance my own narrow agendas?

Paul Norheim said: "Are you referring to the old anti-semitism debate? (Do you want
to go there?) Or do you have something else in mind?"

Let me say this, Paul: I'm prepared to go where the conversation takes us.

You may defend yourself, and say that I was wrong in that debate.
But deliberately lying? Nope. It was an honest interpretation of
your words, and had nothing to do with any narrow agenda from
my part.

Ok Arthur,

since you asked for it - and claim that I am deliberately lying---
Here is an excerpt from a thread last summer - one of my posts
quoted something you said on another blog, written two years
before that. The context: the Israeli attack on Lebanon, August
2006. Your post (parts of which are quoted here) were posted at
that time:

"Posted by Paul Norheim, Jun 12 2008, 1:47AM - Link
(...)
So I suppose that it was you who wrote, on the above
mentioned blog (http://myblahg.com/?p=1017), these
sentences a couple of years ago:

"(arthurdecco Says:
July 10th, 2006 at 9:37 pm | |)

"No, Jews on the whole seem to be extremely supportive of the
most radicalized right wing extremist politicians these days,
Harry. They seem to support those who want to kill other people
- preferably arabs - though not exclusively."

"They were for socialism when they saw it as a path towards
power and influence. When that well dried up, they moved on to
neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism."

"When these wells dry up, as they shall, Jews will adopt a new
philosophy that furthers their interests. Because that is what
Jews have been doing for thousands of years. Furthering their
own interests. If others can ride along on their coat tails, so
much the better from a publicity point of view, but that has
never been the point or the purpose of their quest for influence
and power."

"Except for an embarrassingly small minority of Jewish thinkers,
movers and shakers, it has always been about what can best
further the interests of the tribe - the rest of humanity be
damned."

(...)

And if that arthurdecco is identical with the very same one
writing here, the sad and stupid thing is that you give some of
those those who defend the worst actions from the Israeli
government during the last years a "prove" that those who
criticize Israel are "against Jews".

And what do the "Jews on the whole" have to do with the current
politics of Israel, with AIPAC, the Neocons, and other entities
that you are discussing here?"
--------------------------------

To me, one simple definition of anti-semitism is the following:

Targeting Jews in general ("as a whole") and attributing negative
characteristics to them. There were plenty of those in your
quoted comment, and they were not even confined to the
contemporary world: "Because that is what Jews have been
doing for thousands of years."

I think it`s a reasonable interpretation to say that this qualifies
as anti-semitism, per definition.

So tell me: Where have I said something qualifying me as a
deliberate liar, who "misrepresent the facts to advance their own
narrow agendas"? Where am I disingenuous, and not honest, as
you are "suggesting"?

You are suggesting to much, Arthur, without providing any
facts, evidence or examples supporting your accusations
regarding other poster`s motivations. You`ve done that
frequently against me since last summer, and I have kept more
or less quiet.

But now I`ve had enough of that. So please provide me with
some evidence of my dishonesty - or shut the fuck up.

And Arthur,

You claim that my "agenda" is "narrow". Wrong. I have
consistently argued that those who not only criticize Israel as a
state (a legitimate position that I share), but also expose anti-
semitic tendencies, provide arguments to those pro-Israel
people who absurdly claim that criticizing Israel is equivalent
with anti-semitism.

You are actually making it more convenient for the Israeli state
to abuse the Palestinians, if you don`t distinguish between
Israel as a state, and Jews "as a whole".

And if you haven`t noticed, POA recently seems to have realized
this as well. Here are some quotes from a recent thread - where
he polemicizes against "Outraged American". (To get OA`s side
of the argumentation, I provide a link after the POA quotes.)

1) "Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 26 2009, 9:11PM - Link

(...) And as far as "anti-semitic" goes, your argument here is
borderline, and as such is surely going to draw the accusation."

-------

2) "Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 27 2009, 10:51AM - Link

You hardly need to lecture me, OA, on the plight of the
Palestinians. But your attack on Jews is hardly helpful, nor is the
dredging up of old justifications for anti-semitism.
This issue obviously has no shortage of jackasses, and the
braying seems to be coming from all quarters."

-----------

3) "Posted by PissedOffAmerican, Mar 27 2009, 8:28PM - Link

"POA, just why are Jews special, as opposed to any other ethnic
or religious group that has suffered persecution throughout the
centuries?"

Where did I say "Jews are special", you ignorant jackass?
It is your anti-semitic crosstalk that is shoehorning them into
some sort of "special" category with your stereotyping and
unbelievably stupid invocation of "usary" through which to
malign the entire collective of the Jewish people.

I suggest, before you tell people to shut the fuck up, that you
listen to your own ignorant horseshit, and try to understand the
damage you do to the arguments of those that are seriously
concerned about Israel's influence over United States' policies.
You are the exact sort of ignorant bigoted clown that the AIPAC
people would like to paint all of us as being."

-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

So tell me, Arthur:

Do both POA and I realize that criticism of Israel that is mixed
up with good old anti-semitic crap, just castrates the criticism -
or are we both dishonest?

If you have read my posts during the last couple of years, this
has been my point all the time. Besides the simple fact that
anti-semitism is immoral, potentially dangerous, and stupid.

Do you suspect me to be some secret sympathizer with AIPAC
or Mossad Agent, or what?

I think my position has been transparent since I started posting
at TWN.

Here is the link to the exchange between Outraged American and
POA.

Read and learn, Arthur!

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/streaming
_live_40/#comments

and oh looky

POA's got 2 new threads posted at TaylorMarsh.com this morning.

he obviously hates the attention he gets there. ;)

"he can't quit us" ;)

One of my personal objectives in asking various Saudi government officials to speak at this conference is to begin to bring the US-Saudi relationship more into the active mainstream of discussion in Washington policy circles. There is a tendency to hide the importance of the US-Saudi relationship because of discomfort with cultural dissimilarity, frustration with oil dependence, and real differences between the countries on many fronts. However, there is also a long history of Saudi support of the US and its foreign policy and economic objectives in the world, a long history of Saudi youth studying at American schools and universities, and other bridges as well.

Do both POA and I realize that criticism of Israel that is mixed
up with good old anti-semitic crap, just castrates the criticism -
or are we both dishonest?