tangenjill's Comments (16)

“Both have an abiding passion for Israel no matter how extreme the agenda pursued by Tel Aviv.

Emanuel is well known for his close relationship to the Israel lobby, including his legendary fundraising ability as he draws on those relationships to support political campaigns in return for an implied agreement to support Israeli policies.

For all the authors' good intentions—which I heartily applaud—the Mearsheimer/Walt book (The Israel Lobby) leaves the reader with the false impression that the values pursued by the Israel lobby are consistent with American values. The facts confirm Tel Avi's intent to pursue an expansionist agenda—at any cost. That agenda, if openly pursued, would be opposed by an informed American public. Palin's candor is less perilous that Emanuel's nontransparent bias.

Israel's consistent pursuit of their extremist agenda over the past six decades has gravely endangered U.S. national security and steadily eroded the international goodwill with which we emerged after WWII and the Cold War. By our association with a state committed to an agenda decreed by fundamentalist Judaism, Americans are made to appear guilty for our support of extremist policies that would never be supported were that agenda made transparent.

That suggests the U.S-Israeli alliance must be revisited in light of what we now know about this lobby (and about Israel) if we hope to restore our national security. Someone clueless about how to manipulate policy-making would be far less worrisome than an experienced insider.”

“Yet both are handicapped by their passionate attachment to Israel which puts in question their capacity for decision-making consistent with the national security interests of the United States.”

“Curious miscue in this comment in suggesting that Jerusalem and not Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Certainly that's what Hillary Clinton promised her constituents if she was elected president -- that the U.S. would consider Jerusalem the capital. For anyone wanting to sustain this conflict, that would be a wise and timely decision. The issue is whether Jewish members of the Senate can clearly and consistently support the national security interests of the U.S. Absent this entangled alliance with Israel, would we be at war in the Middle East?

Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters, pointed out that 26 of the 50 top neoconservatives are Jewish. That's 52% versus a Jewish population of 1.7% of the overall U.S. population. Suggesting that bias might well have colored their views on the advice they offered in advocating an invasion of Iraq, he posed the awkward question, "Why Won't Anyone Say They're Jewish?" He soon found out when ADL unleashed its enforcers of political correctness, savaging Lasn with the usual toxic charges that preclude open discussion of a long-obvious issue in mainstream media.

To suggest there is no influence wielded on decision-making by such shared viewpoints is naive in the extreme. To pretend that a passionate attachment for a foreign state does not color one's judgement lies at the heart of a problem that has long plagued U.S. foreign policy due to our unwavering support of Tel Aviv, no matter how extreme their policies.”

“Please see the cost of this passionate attachment (few things more clearly evidence of such attachment than being named after a foreign nation):

'Passionate attachment' costs Taxpayers Trillion$

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/passionate_attachment_157.html”

“In many countries red is the color of a bride's dress.”