What Is A "Friend Of Isreal'?

I've thought of what this really means within the landscape of our modern socio-political culture for quite a few years. The Modern American Right can never clearly define it, but do they really have to? For me, personally, this stems more from a religiously extreme point of view rather than from anything that will truly benefit the Jewish State. But I could be wrong - hence the question. This morning, I noticed that mouth agape Breitbart worshipper Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit had launched one of the first misleading salvos in the attack against Hagel for Defense Secretary. And hyper-partisan hack Ed Morrissey followed suit - only with less bloodthirsty fervor. Links follow accordingly: Iranian Regime Supports Hagel Nomiation For Sec. Of Defense

Iran on Tuesday expressed the hope that Washington’s foreign policy will witness practical changes after US officials announced that President Barack Obama will nominate Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary. “We hope that practical changes will be created in the US foreign policy and the US officials’ approach will change to respect the nations’ rights,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast told reporters in Tehran on Tuesday. “We hope that the US officials will favor peace instead of warmongering and recognize the rights of nations instead of interfering in the countries’ internal affairs,” he said. “If such a trend is adopted (by the American officials), hatred for the US hostile policies will decrease, although assessment can be made in action,” the spokesman said. Tehran has been under Washington sanctions after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled a US-backed monarch in the country.

Iran Strangely Cheered By US Secdef Nomination And while Morrissey links to the same article, the title alone shows that he is more concerned with disceminating blatant misinformation. After all, being "hopeful" is completely disparate from "support" and "strangely cheerful". To read these headlines, you'd think Iranian leaders would be celebrating - but they aren't. The reason that the Modern American Right utilize such tactics, why they continually point to Iran as to a defining factor, and why they use the Jewish population ( yes, USE THEM - not befriend them ) is to push the wedge in just a little further. They don't want to face the realities of the world around us. They don't want to be honest with their constituents. They want to seem "caring", "holy", or any other adjective that could distort the five seconds in front of someone's face so they won't pay attention to tomorrow, next week, or even next year. So again, here's the question - what does it mean to be a friend of Isreal? Certainly it's not just attending an AIPAC convention, but there's a great deal of that. And I'm not so ignorant to see that politicians have to save face when election time comes around, but what does your support truly mean? This could, in all reality, extend beyond the Jewish State. And it's not even the "original borders" - something that is strictly off-limits to the Modern American Right in terms of foreign policy discussion. While Chuck Hagel wouldn't have been my personal first choice for Sec. Of Defense, he's lightyears away from people like John McCain - one of his loudest detractors - or just about anyone, save John Kerry. And since we are talking about McCain, let's not he was an ardent supporter of James "Fuck The Jews" Baker. Guess he conveniently forgot those years. Suppose it can be said for most, if not all, of us that the past comes back to haunt you. And Israelis have a past that many of them won't immediately recognize. I'm not talking about biblical or even verifiable historic text, but their history of being treated as metaphorical chess pieces in the foreign policy of this country. Do we endanger them as, if one were to say, showing pictures of the coffins of fallen American soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would put more troops in harms way? Do we assist them in fighting Palestinians in such a way that would ensure a more productive, a more fruitful life? From how I, and many others, see it - No. Who Is A "Friend Of Isreal"? Certainly not those that would continually boast how they are.

Cheney Said What?

Let's put this into context with the administration that he was a part of - even though ( and God help me for saying this ) I agree with his statements about Palin.



Making a judgement on the basis of politics is EXACTLY what got us into the Iraq quagmire. And anyone that challenges him on this fact will have to deal with his daughter Liz, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer revising history and deflecting the question entirely in order to castigate Obama.

More from Think Progress.

War Hawks On The Wing

Do these people not have any sense of foresight?



John Bolton's statements, though they contradict previous ones made by him, are a great example of the lack of forward-thinking within the conservative movement. It's all about reflexive actions with no plans on how to handle any fallout. After all, look at what modern conservativism has given us in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think they have a plan for Iran other than "let's get 'em boys!"

Bolton isn't alone, asSarah Palin pretended to flex her foreign policy muscle while Chris Wallace dreamed of getting a lap-dance from her:

Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do....That changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years

As I've stated before, statements such as this simply "sound good" and they don't really hold much meaning - if any at all. Much in the way that Palin and her throngs of Tea Bagging enthusiasts have proven to us since January of last year, they have no substance to their shouts. The danger is that people latch onto talk of open war with Iran as if it's not a big deal or that the US military is capable of handling a third war with a country that is much more advanced than both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Documented Deception

More times than not, it seems as if some of the lesser stars of the conservative movement are ones that are making more declarative statements regarding President Obama’s foreign policy. This isn’t to say that they are well-thought-out plans, but you can at least understand what they are trying to say. It’s not incessant prattling that is grounded in conspiracy as much as it is a bloodthirst for another war.

Charles Krauthammer keeps upping the ante day in and day out.



So that makes two countries that conservatives want to strike preemptively, if you count Lieberman’s call to send forces into Yemen. But is all this bluster from Krauthammer actually valid? The reason that this should be asked is because of new information that shows that a recent Iranian document purportedly showing that country’s desire to build a “neutron initiator” to aid in building a nuclear weapon has been forged:

Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counter terrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.

The Times of London story published Dec. 14 did not identify the source of the document. But it quoted "an Asian intelligence source" - a term some news media have used for Israeli intelligence officials - as confirming that his government believes Iran was working on a neutron initiator as recently as 2007.

The story of the purported Iranian document prompted a new round of expressions of U.S. and European support for tougher sanctions against Iran and reminders of Israel's threats to attack Iranian nuclear programme targets if diplomacy fails.

With as much passion as conservatives are putting into accurate intel, one would think that something like fake documents would set off sirens with people like Krauthammer. But does this really matter, since this does tend to fit into conservative’s personal view of who and what Iran truly are. The one reason that you’ll likely never hear any within the conservative movement talk about this forgery is solely because Isreal is attached to this in more ways than one.

In The Name Of Cause And Country

Ann Coulter has quite a way with insisting that everything positive ( or moving towarad something positive ) is due to George W. Bush's policies.



Strange that she would discount any and all words from Obama when her party was practically falling over themselves because he didn't speak the words at the exact moment they thought he should.

But the part of this video that made me do the proverbial spit-take was her insistance that the protestors in Iran are standing up for themselve is because they see Muslims living in freedom in Iraq.

Really?

This bizarre line of reactionary reasoning is not only worthy of the collective laughter of both Iraq and Iran, but utterly dangerous for the Republican party. Well, dangerous in the sense that some will start to see through the blatant lies and misinformation. But will it be enough? Probably not.

Ann Coulter doesn't help her party by saying such things. Those that hang on her every word will still be hanging there long after she has gone. But she also doesn't hurt her own bottom line. She's paid to be an untethered nutcase. And she's good at it.

But what of her's and Hannity's continual declaration that any and all Americans should shout from the streets at any and everything done in the name of their country. They will never admit it, but there have been many things done "in the name of America" that aren't something that we should all be proud of. Of course, neither Coulter nor Hannity are willing to accept this as the fact that is truly is. America is America, warts and all. You either understand the history of your country or you will be condemned to a life of ignorance.

Those Damn, Dirty, Bloggers

While watching the presser yesterday, and upon hearing Nico Pitney actually asking a relevant question - submitted to him by a protester in Iran, I knew that Fox and the establishment media would wet their collective panties.



How dare the Huffington Post give a voice to the Iranian protesters. It's that fucking liberal media bias.

Dana Milbank came right out whining in a column in the Washington Post:

yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

The only problem with Milbank's "plant" meme is that Pitney has been covering the Iranian protest to a much greater degree than most of the mainstream media. His communications with those protesters, and the resulting question that he asked the President, provided more context and greater journalistic value than any other question posed - especially Major Garrett's "what took you so long" nonsense.

Of course, that wasn't the end of it.

Malkin had to chime in:

The question itself was unobjectionable and Obama’s response was so bland and rambling I don’t remember it.

But what was noteworthy was Obama’s embarrassingly obvious and patronizing coordination of the question. I have no love for the HuffPo people (and vice versa), but really, was such schoolmarm-ish hand-holding by the White House necessary?

Micheal Calderone took issue with this as well, but seems to be walking back his manufactured outrage via a few updates:

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

And Fox"News" was fully ready to cover for Garrett's pathetic bumbling:



The establishment media, primarily those within the conservative realm, have nothing but utter contempt and hatred for bloggers - unless they are willing to tow the line they are given.

But what is most revealing about this non-story is the very real fact that Nico Pitney did a far better job as a journalist than anyone else at the presser. All those that are prattling on and on about him being a "plant" are simply pissed off that he asked a tougher question than any of their people did.

And as to the accusations that Obama knew the question that was going to be asked, that is patently false. He simply knew that it was going to be about Iran.

What people don't realize about bloggers is that they are Americans, with voices that should be heard just as much as anyones. Most of them are of the age to vote, and have done so in larger numbers than in previous elections. They have a knowledge of the political landscape in this, and other countries and use every opportunity to let everyone know. If you only listened to the voices of the establishment, conservative, media you would start to think that a blogger isn't even human.

But it wasn't even Nico Pitney that was asking the question, it was an Iranian fighting for the very freedom to speak out that far too many hear want to crush.

Major Garrett Just Got Major Pwned

In which Fox"News" hack Major Garrett completely wastes an opportunity for a valid question in favor of staying on message with what Hannity, Malkin, O'Reilly ( et al ) have been saying over and over and over and over.............



I'm sure his secretary gave him a hug when he got back to the office, tail tucked between his legs.

On twitter, Malkin called Obama's response "snippy". Perhaps she's not used to someone giving answers that reflect what actually happened and how they really feel. She just as bad as Garrett.

A Love Affair Of Convenience

Everytime I hear anyone within the fringe conservative movement claim that they are "the greatest supporter of Israel" I want to ask them to prove it.



Considering that there are two very distinct classes of "support" for the Jews and the Israeli state, it's getting to the point where people like Malkin and Beck need to be called on their empty rhetoric.

Firstly, there's the near-masterbatory school of thought ( a la John Hagee ) that if you round up all the Jews in America and ship them back to Israel that your wet-dream of making the "Left Behind" series a reality will happen.

Secondly, there's those that are "friends" of the Jews and Israel only for strategic value in the Mid-East. This is the more prominent and widely accepted form of "friendship" seen throughout the conservative movement.

So, where do Beck and Malkin fall? That's not so easy to determine.

Considering that both are pretty much bat-shit crazy, I think it's a fair assumption to say that both have their own individual reasons for saying they are "supporters" of the Jews and of Israel.

Here's what I can't figure out - why would Glenn Beck have Michelle Malkin on as a guest when he says things like this:

You know the anchor baby thing has already really hacked me off. You know the anchor baby, you know what that is. That’s when somebody — a child that is born here — becomes a citizen. And they help the illegal parents here become citizens. Remember empathy, oh empathy — no one wants to separate that family. Oh that baby is a child — it’s an anchor — it’s an anchor to stay here.

Malkin certainly fits that catagory, but don't expect her to discuss it. Her hypocrisy normally knows no bounds, but I think that she might spontaneously combust if she started to decry that which kept her parents in America.

The reason that Beck is willing to have her on as a guest is that she's willing to bow to his whim because he has a massive audience now. This is also going to work to Malkin's advantage as well. The more exposure she can have for her nonsensical blathering, the better.

The larger question is this - are they telling the truth?

To the extent that it makes them feel better about themselves, then yes. The reason that they are often taken at their word is because they have a large audience. Once you convince a few people to agree with you, the rest will easily fall into place. Also, if you keep repeating it, then you're likely to be believed. But the question that should be put to them is what have they actually done.

It's exceptionally easy to say one thing, but it becomes more like actual "work" when you back up your words with action.

There's another, more interesting, side to the "neoconservative" movement in America and how it "supports" Israel:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

More on that from Racheal Weiner.

Essentially, Maklin and Beck's statements fall sqaurely into the catagory of "it sounds good so I'll say it". Standard fare for conservative pundits. It creates the illusion that you are telling the truth.

What A Difference A New Administration Makes

All this twitching and shrieking about Pelosi claiming the CIA mislead her is starting to sound a bit disingenuous.

Newt Gingrich at the 2007 CPAC



House Minority Leader John Boehner, in an interview regarding his own questioning of the intelligence communities motives:

QUESTION: [I]n 2007 — I just looked at the transcript — you had accused the intelligence community of greatly misleading the nation by changing their national intelligence assessment about the…

BOEHNER: We’re mixing apples — we’re mixing apples and oranges here.

QUESTION: Why is that different?

BOEHNER: Because when the National Intelligence Estimate came out with regard to Iran, it — it contradicted most everything that I had been told in the six months leading up to it. … I was questioning how this National Intelligence Estimate could — could vary and contradict a lot of information that I’d been told for the six months coming up to it.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra wrote a letter to George W. Bush in 2006 accusing the intelligence agencies from misleading Congress.



And this is not the first time Hoekstra has accused the intelligence agencies in America of misleading him and Congress.

Rush Limbaugh even had some choice words for the CIA in regards to the 2007 NIE on Iran's nuclear program.

Now, say it with me....

Hypocrisy.

That's right.

Wait, Didn't You Just Call This "Appeasement"?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With just six months left in office, the Bush administration has done an about-face in joining talks with Tehran over its nuclear program, a move analysts say is driven partly by a desire to avoid war with Iran.

For years, the Bush administration said it would join nuclear talks with Iran only if it gave up uranium enrichment, but with President George W. Bush's term ending in January and tensions rising with Tehran, Washington feels it cannot afford to be excluded.

More from Reuters

Here's Goerge not too long ago addressing the issue to Isreal's parliament.



Now it's time to sit back and watch the conservative media spin until they're dizzy.

We Didn't Catch It Either, But We'll Pretended Like We Did

Conservative trick #5473 for pretending that you are smarter than your opponent: when something turns out to be a fake and someone reported on it, then reported on it being fake, just pretend you knew it all along.

That seems to be the M.O. today @ MichelleMalkin.com, Snappedshot, LGF, and other neo-con blogs.

Yes, one of the pictures released by Iran's Sepah News was apparently photoshopped to include and additional missle. And since several major US media outlets didn't catch it until earlier this morning, the conservative bloggers are having digital orgasms over it.

Seriously though, what story is more important: Iran Test-Fires Missles - or - Media Outlets Discover One Iranian Pic Was Photoshopped?

But, conservatives will be disappointed to know that the NEW YORK POST ( owned by conservative-media-mogul Rupert Murdock ) and it's website used the photo. The fact that the photos have been revealed to have been 'altered' have lead to virtually everyone that initally ran the photo to quickly update their pages.

The real story is that Iran test fired missles - and EVERY news outlet was all over this story yesterday. The fact that one of the pics was altered is only playing big with conservative outlets.

Cindy McCain Must Be A Nervous Wreck or John McCain Must Be A Fan Of The Cure

It's a John McCain day I suppose:

PITTSBURGH -- Cindy McCain's jab to her husband's back came a second too late Tuesday to keep him from making a wisecrack about the health impact of Iran's main import from the United States: cigarettes.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain was asked about an Associated Press report that $158 million in cigarettes have been shipped to Iran during George W. Bush's presidency despite restrictions on U.S. exports to that country.

"Maybe that's a way of killing them," McCain told reporters, smiling as he waited for a cheesesteak sandwich at the Primanti Brothers restaurant. His wife, sitting next to him at the counter, poked his back without looking up.

Read more @ Political Currents

So, is this a strategy for the teenage Iranians, or just a blanket "let's give 'em all cancer" type thing?

Come on, a joke?

Of all the pathetic claims to fall back on. Please.



Here we see the embarassed, exceedingly nervous, sleep deprived, sugar-mama and her "can I push the big red button now" husband.


Oh, in case you don't get the 2nd title, here's your answer.