Read this remarkable
guest post, which is actually a guest plea, on Juan Cole’s blog. Read. It.
All.

This is the message we want to bring to the American Jewish community: Let us try another way. In the eyes of many, the key to this conflict lies in the US. Your support is invaluable just as the lack of it is disastrous. Israel is now refusing to negotiate with Syria, the reason being that Washington wants it so. My question is: What do you want? (snip) We want Israelis to comprehend the full scale of the oppression inherent to the Israeli occupation, and we want the Palestinians to know that behind the occupation there are humans, who are also suffering. We want both sides to understand the price of violence. Our message is simple: Peace is possible. The only way to reach peace is through dialogue and negotiations, and the only solution is a two state solution — an end the occupation, in keeping with UN resolutions. (snip) People often say “but you’re just a few good people. The majority feels differently.” But this is not the case. First of all, we’re not good people. Indeed, until not long ago, we were very bad. As soldiers we killed and maimed, we bombed and tortured. Our Palestinian counterparts stabbed, and shot and planted bombs, killing and maiming as they went. But we’ve changed. We understood that power has limits and that violence can only lead to more violence; that non-violence is better, as both a tactic and as way of life. Like us there are many more “bad” people who might change, who will change, if they’re given just a bit of hope. … … Another Way for Israel, by Elik Elhanan Combatants for Peace – Via The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Some people are pushing the notion that the way to solve Iraq is through the
Israeli – Palestinian conflict. If that was ever true, and I seriously doubt
it was considering Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rummy were always hell bent for battle, it absolutely isn’t true today. Iraq is on boil and will be set on high
until the Iraqis make peace with one another. Peace is decades away whether
we stay or redeploy. We’ve unleashed over a thousand years of hatred and bitterness
in this region, while botching the job in the process. It’s way beyond us now. Perhaps if we’d never gone into Iraq we could have solved the Middle East crisis
and Iraq could have been contained, with Saddam eventually forced into asylum
somewhere, maybe Saudi Arabia. But Mr. Bush and the cowardice of our Congress made
sure that wouldn’t come to pass.

However, after Mr. Olmert’s fiasco in Lebanon last year, someone else has to
stand up and butt in. Maybe Combatants
for Peace can do just that, because they’ve been in the middle of the violence and
know what has been wrought. There’s little to lose by letting them take the lead,
because Olmert’s government has lost all credibility it ever had. Bibi is far worse, if you ask me. However, will anyone allow them in?

All this makes me more concerned about the ’08 presidential race than ever. The winner could change the world forever and it could go either way
depending on our choice. It keeps me up at night.

Yglesias pointed something out today on Hillary Clinton that I’ve said out loud, only I’ve taken it one step further. The truth is that since Clinton is a woman she has a reflexive and automatic political protection gene that will not allow her to say outright that she made a “mistake” on Iraq, or at least that’s some consultant’s way of thinking, I believe. A woman who admits a national security and military “mistake” supposedly won’t make the grade. That reasoning is why she voted for the war in the first place, in my humble opinion, no matter all the spin she’s turning out today. Voting against the war would have made her look weak or anti-war, again, according to someone around her giving her advice. A female commander in chief must be a hawk, which for some reason, to HRC, means pro Iraq war. This concerns me because I’ve been against the Iraq war from the start and never made an argument that was weak or I couldn’t back up and I’m, well, just me. War is not just some word or pr game to spin, though you wouldn’t know it after the last few years we’ve all endured.

Yglesias…

The real question is whether we want to go through another election cycle dominated by the question of whether or not the Democratic nominee is a flip-flopper. As a flip-flopper myself, I can hardly maintain that flip-flopping on Iraq is the greatest sin in the world. But if you’re going to flip-flop then, I think, you’re better off just saying (à la John Edwards) that in light of events you’ve changed your mind. A reflexive desire to appear tough was, pretty clearly, a major factor in the mistakes of the past . . . I’d like to see a president who’s over that. …

For me it’s not the “flip-flopping.” It’s the built in obstinance to be transparent and candid, which clearly Clinton has got and I believe a big part of it is the woman thing. I’ve seen all sorts of stories recently touting her changing language. Every one I read makes me yawn. Her language hasn’t really changed. I’ve talked and written about it ad nauseam, but she’s been moving at glacial speed on her Iraq vote ever since Take Back America in June 2006 when she was booed. Her latest talking point is that if she knew then what she knows now, etc. Clinton will never go any further, though the press is poised and ready to move her when even one single word changes, regardless of whether it’s an actual shift in position or not. Short of standing up and saying she was wrong, like Edwards, or being against the war from the beginning like Obama, Clinton remains welded to a position that will make her less like a woman and more like what she believes any man would say. This fundamental insecurity to trust her judgment as a leader, minus the posturing, is troubling, though I understand it’s a judgment I cannot prove. It just seems so obvious, because she made a fundamental mistake in voting for the Iraq war. Why can’t she admit it? In my opinion, it’s nothing short of a character flaw.

Who we elect in ’08 could change the world, especially if you expand our Iraq challenges to the greater Middle East. We must be vigilant and be willing to walk away from anyone who postures for an expanded war in the Middle East. Walk softly and carry a big stick is a start, but that stick sure as hell better be on safety. Unfortunately, if you’re simply playing a role and want to appear tough, I’m not sure you can realize the danger of a bunch of guns loaded, cocked and ready in a place as volatile as the Middle East. Just as Mr. Bush.

Dinesh Needs a Session with Webb

Dinesh, meet James Webb… WEBB on \”Face the Nation.\”

Dinesh D\’Souza is such a nat of a wingnut. His hypotheses are so wildly netted
together it\’s really hard to believe he knows anything about history, let alone
reality. I\’ve argued this before, as have others, which is why he let fly his latest rant today. Maybe if the blathering little conservative had the courage to actually fight
a war he might know why James Webb and other Democrats take offense at questioning
our patriotism and our allegiance to America with silly little articles like
this one.

Why the onslaught? Just this: In my book, published this month, I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks. President Jimmy Carter\’s withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran, for example, helped Ayatollah Khomeini\’s regime come to power in Iran, thus giving radical Islamists control of a major state; and President Bill Clinton\’s failure to respond to Islamic attacks confirmed bin Laden\’s perceptions of U.S. weakness and emboldened him to strike on 9/11. I also argue that the policies that U.S. \”progressives\” promote around the world — including abortion rights, contraception for teenagers and gay rights — are viewed as an assault on traditional values by many cultures, and have contributed to the blowback of Islamic rage. Bin Laden, The Left and Me

Anything to get the Republican base out of political therapy. If you saw or
read about any of the NRO group session this weekend you\’d have learned one
thing. Republicans are depressed. So naturally someone like Dinesh needs to bring
out the blame the liberals meme.

But as James Webb said this morning on \”Face the Nation\”, the military
has all brands of political affiliations, including progressives. Is Dinesh
saying that progressive military types like Webb, Hackett and Wes Clark have
contributed to the \”blowback of Islamic rage\”? Lieberman tried the same drivel today on Fox \”News,\” talking about demoralizing the troops by talk of getting out of Iraq. Last time I looked Lieberman was in the chickenhawk crowd: all talk, no service, while calling dissent un-American. That\’s slapping the troops in the face. Nothing is worse than saying Americans speaking truth to power is wrong. Oh, and another question, what exactly does Dinesh mean by \”measure of responsibility\”?

It\’s really hard to take anyone seriously when they skip over two Republican
presidents and twelve years of neglect, setting his fallacious ruminations only
on Jimmy and Bill. After all, it\’s not like George H.W. Bush was doing anything
about terrorism before he handed off his presidency to Bill Clinton only to
have the World Trade Center bombed months later. Surprise! What about George
W. Bush, who has done more damage to U.S. prestige, interests and influence
in the region than all the U.S. presidents combined? Is it a coincidence that we were attacked by terrorists months after Daddy Bush handed off his presidency, and Junior took office? At least Clinton warned Junior, but both Bush\’s were basically clueless. Never mind that Reagan
deciding to leave Beirut didn\’t exactly help our situation either, but it was
the right move. Then what? Nothing. However, blaming Carter\’s abandonment of the Shah as the reason
for the Islamic revolution in Iran is why letting conservatives run foreign
policy in the Middle East is like throwing a Molotov cocktail into a room full
of firecrackers. The Shah of Iran instituted what many Iranians thought were
anti-Islamic policies, including giving women the right to vote, and replacing
the Islamic calendar didn\’t help either. Besides, the Shah also became king with our help. Iranians were
ready for revolution. You\’d think we\’d have learned by now that America can\’t
stop the people in another country from exacting their will if they\’re willing
to die for the country they want to build.

Unfortunately, we\’re still learning that lesson.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), visiting Baghdad on Friday in her new capacity as House speaker, that he would like to see 50,000 U.S. troops leave by the end of the year, Iraqi officials said. … Pelosi, Maliki Discuss Timing of Drawdown

No one trusts Maliki. But he wants his country to control its own destiny.
His very survival depends on his ability to do so. We won\’t leave tomorrow or
the next day, it\’s obvious, but planning for a way to end this disaster is where
we need to start.

It\’s annoying that Dinesh has to write another long winded, meandering piece,
this time boohooing his victimhood, but it\’s easily rebutted. Webb did it well
this morning, likely without even reading the rant. I\’d like to see the two of them in a room talking about these
subjects. I doubt if bin Laden or anyone else would doubt who had the upper
hand in the Iraq war debate. Joe could join them!

Credibility is all.

Sunday Political Hack Pack Game

This is a two stage game. First stage, let\’s play Where are the women on the Sunday shows? The next stage is Where are the Webb – Murtha redeploy from Iraq Democrats? Answer to both questions: nowhere to be seen or heard. You had to be on the ground in Washington to see them represented.

We have the first female Speaker of the House.

We now have the first female running for president who is
not only competitive but leading in many national polls. Hillary\’s performance in Iowa yesterday should wake up anyone who took the time to watch it.

So, how many women are on the Sunday morning political talk shows?

Layout via
Duncan:

ABC\’s \”This Week\” Joe Biden – supported the war Richard Lugar – supported the war Duncan Hunter – supported the war Kevin Bacon – unsure of his opinion on war. CBS\’ \”Face the Nation\” Jim Webb – opposed war, though not in Senate at time. Mitch McConnell – supported the war Arlen Specter – supported the war NBC\’s \”Meet the Press\” Mike Huckabee – supported the war Chuck Schumer – supported the war David Vitter – supported the war Gerson – former Bush speechwriter, supported the war Kenneth Pollack – supported the war CNN\’s \”Late Edition\” Chris Dodd – supported the war Jon Kyl – suppported the war Michael Steele – supported the war Donna Brazile – unsure if she took stand on Iraq war, but is on board of wingnutty Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. \”Fox News Sunday\” Sam Brownback – supported the war Joe Lieberman – loves the war Ellen Miller – N/A (fyi, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation) NOTE: emphasis and \”fyi\” added

And once you get beyond the continued testosterone packing Sunday shows, look at all those
pro war politicians. The American people aren\’t represented on Sunday either, especially on the war in
Iraq. So I guess we should just shut up! Not.
A. Chance.

Now we just have to get the Sunday shows to quit muzzling us.

Clinton isn\’t close to making the case for her presidency, as far as I\’m concerned. But we need more women in Congress, as well as in the military. We need their voices heard on Sunday.

But just as important is having people on the Sunday news shows who represent the majority of American opinion on Iraq. They\’re stacking the deck against us. It\’s a very bad omen.