Tuesday Links
Here’s a link to the WhyTuesday website.
Here’s the Harper’s interview with Michael Scheuer.
And here’s the official website of Anti-Flag, the kick-ass band Pete is going to have on today’s show, plus their WikiPedia page.
Here’s a link to the WhyTuesday website.
Here’s the Harper’s interview with Michael Scheuer.
And here’s the official website of Anti-Flag, the kick-ass band Pete is going to have on today’s show, plus their WikiPedia page.
Sorry I’m a day late on this but I just wanted to comment on Monday’s topic of how we treat each other in America. Pete was at odds with a guy who thought the declining presence of religious upbringing was the culprit of our ever-increasing lack of decency with one another. I agree with Pete that religion is often as likely to contribute to the problem as it is to serve as a solution. Religion has served historically to bring division more than it has brought unity. We find the petty theological differences and we use them as weapons against one another in a battle where being right often seems to be the only prize to be won. The followers of almost every religion have a firm belief in a hell where a supposedly loving God inflicts us with eternal torment and a firm belief that only those who share their narrow beliefs will be spared from such a fate. Sadly it seems that many in our society need this kind of fear in their hearts to keep them from living a life where only the self matters. But, as is often the case in life, negative reinforcement only gives us motivation to fulfill the minimum requirement. Here in America, the church tries it’s hardest to convince us that being a kind, caring, understanding, compassionate human being who serves the needs of others before their own is not enough to keep you from burning eternally in the fiery pits of hell… the only way out is to “believe” (whatever that means) in a man who lived 2000 years ago in an archaic patriarchal society which we would call barbaric by today’s standards. When they find themselves unable to conform to something so illogical many simply give up on the notion of goodness. What’s the point of being good if you’re going to rot in hell eventually? (Anyone still reading at this point gets a gold star for the day). The church tends not to publicize that the verbatim translation of John 3:16, the principle basis for the Christian doctrine of salvation, commonly translated “For God so loved the world He gave his only son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but inherit everlasting life” is more accurately translated “whoever exercises faith in him should not perish…” This is a small difference at a glance but a monumental one when examined more closely. The notion pushed by the modern American evangelical church is that to “believe” in Christ means to accept whatever they tell you about Christ (i.e. He’s the son of God, he lived a perfect life without sin, he was born to a virgin, he died for your sins, and you have to “invite him into your heart” or your on your way to hell in a hand basket). But what does it mean to “exercise faith” in someone vs. the notion of believing in someone. The main message of Christ, which has been diluted, convoluted, and other things that end in uted by the church throughout history, was all about love: the mission statement being “love your neighbor as yourself.” If I trust that Christ was right, that if I follow this principle it will create a better world for me and everyone I come into contact with, and then I live out this philosophy in my daily life… am I not “exercising faith in Christ”. Without shedding tears of penance, trying to convert everyone I meet into a choir singing alter boy, or ever stepping foot in a church I can exercise faith in Christ daily by following the most basic of his teachings. Next time someone asks if you know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior maybe you should tell them that you prefer to simply follow his teachings. This might help bring about the only change we really need.
One more thing then I promise I’ll end the monopoly… Since we’re on the subject of Jesus let me throw a little modern day parable on you.
There was a man named Sam who got the job of his dreams. Unfortunately for Sam he was abnormally intelligent. Soon he found himself at odds with most of his co-workers. They constantly had complaints about his behavior in the workplace. The bosses suggested he might want to try a different approach in dealing with his fellow employees. “They’re just trying to get rid of me because they’re threatened by my intelligence” the Sam thought.
Sam found the woman of his dreams. Unfortunately for Sam he was exceptionally good looking. His new girlfriend frequently had complaints about Sam’s arrogance and self-serving actions. “You need to be more sensitive to my needs” she said. “She’s just feeling insecure because I’m so ridiculously attractive” Sam thought.
Sam had wonderful new neighbors move in next door. Unfortunately for Sam he was a much more important man than most people in his neighborhood. His new R.V. took up much of the on street parking. His new sound system rattled windows with the sound of music his neighbors were too uncultured to appreciate. The neighbors asked Sam if he could turn down the music a bit and maybe park the R.V. behind his elaborate home. “They’re just jealous of my success” Sam thought.
Soon Sam lost his job. His beautiful girlfriend left him. Everyone on his block stopped talking to him.
Sam was sad for a moment… but then he realized something that made him feel much better. “They just hate me because of my way of life” Sam thought. And he went right back to doing what he was doing. And they all lived crappily ever after.
The End
Pete,
Commentary Magazine online has a series of posts critical of Scheuer, indexed here. This is really a devastating critique and you ignore it at your credibility’s peril.
Pete,
How much responsibility for US intelligence failures before 9/11 are those of the head of the bin Laden desk at the CIA during the 1990s? And who was that, exactly? The CIA Examines Itself discusses these failures and notes:
Pete,
Here’s a link to a Thomas Joscelyn story in the Weekly Standard November of 2004 after Imperial Hubris was published, it is called Now You Don’t Tell Us. It raises serious questions about Scheuer’s credibility and you would do well to read what he says.
[removed by admin]
Why do you suppose he has changed his tune?
Pete,
Here’s a review of Imperial Hubris, by David Frum, a ‘neocon’ writing in The National Review.
By the way, Scheuer makes an appearance in the comments of the series of posts I linked in my first post on this entry.
Todd, rather than quote and reference other people’s work, why don’t you try and make the point yourself? It doesn’t really matter if someone said it better, everyone will respect your opinion a lot more if you say it in your own words.
Throw a link to the quote at the end of your talk, but really, we want to hear what you think, not what other people have said on the subject. Your motivations are much less suspect to me than theirs.
Just an idea, take it or leave it.
Weston:
As the caller who was defending religion’s roll in teaching morality, I feel I should defend my statements a bit. Decline in religious upbringing is a contributing factor, not the contributing factor.
All I can speak to is my experience I suppose. I was brought up and confirmed in a Congregational Church. Later I decided I didn’t really need the spiritual training wheels anymore and went agnostic.
The church’s teachings were very helpful to me as a kid coming to terms with the world around me. The fables and stories reinforced important moral lessons that serve me to this day.
What was even more formative for me though was the community. Being able to see people in my community being civil and friendly to each other. If someone in the congregation was in trouble, someone or many someones would help. In retrospect I think seeing those things were very important to my growth as a moral courteous person.
Now I can’t stress enough that I do not agree with religious dogma. Even then I was looking a little askew at the things I was reading in the bible. All I’m saying is it’s important to recognize the good in most churches and the contribution they provide their communities.
But then again I suppose it depends on the person.
i STILL don’t know WHY Tuesday!!!
Since i know you’re also a Stern fan, how come you don’t hook up with Debbie Schlussel on the phone for everything terrorist related? Don’t know if you heard her when Howard gave her a gig, but she CAN be calm and collected instead of being Marianne from Brooklyn’s yenta sister;)
Travis,
Why should I paraphrase what others have said just fine? I mean, I suppose I could take the time to repackage it in my own words, but why do that when the original source does it well enough? Give me a little credit, at least I took the time to select excerpts which go to Scheuer’s credibility.
The first link I posted indexes over a dozen claims/arguments/taunts aimed at Scheuer, who posts a defense of himself which does not answer key questions about his revealing classified information about rendition (a program he supports to this day) to the press.
If you want my opinion of the guy, he seems to put way too much emphasis on The Joos. So much that David Duke and his ilk have quoted him in support of their Joo Conspiracy theories!
I do hope my posting excerpts in lieu of paraphrase is not the best counter response to the critiques of Scheuer’s credibility and mental stability…
That’s what I mean though. When you post just a quote from them you get saddled with all the baggage that goes with them. We want to hear what you think. I know from reading your posts that you’re smart enough to say what you think on the subject.
Posting a except of what someone else said is tantamount to the Ditto-heads of the Rush Limbaugh show. I mean no offense in the comparison. I hope what I’m saying makes sense and helps you sway more people to your way of thinking.
Just making a note that I removed 3 very long blockquotes taken from linked texts that Todd put up. I did not touch Todd’s own words, however.
As you’ll notice, I always provide links but never extensive quotations from texts I’d like you to read. I’m going to hold commenters to that same standard, no matter what the views of the quoted material. It’s just not okay to dominate the blog comments by forcing everyone to scroll down past massive quoted material. Short quotations of a paragraph or brief transcript segment are okay.
Travis is right, the blog comments area is for COMMENTS, not massive reprints. If you want to reprint material somewhere, you are more than welcome to start your own blog and link to it.
Or, you can comment in your own words at whatever length you want. Plagiarism will most certainly not be tolerated (and I’ve been an editor for 15 years, so please don’t test me).
On the matter of the content of Todd’s citations about Scheuer, it’s always a great tactic to attack the integrity of the messenger. Since we’re all fallible, it’s never hard to find something wrong with any messenger.
For instance, take the three publications Todd cites: Commentary Magazine, National Review and The Weekly Standard. Each of these publications steadfastly held, despite all reason and based on transparently spurious evidence, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They didn’t just present the evidence, they either editorialized that it was a fact (TNR and TWS clung to its insistence as late as May 2004), and/or ran numerous columns insisting it was fact. Talk about wrong.
And they all insisted, in column upon editorial, that Al-Qaeda and Saddam were connected. So it’s no huge surprise they can’t handle the exposing of such a ridiculous fallacy.
Now, I’m not saying that being patently wrong on such important matters should invalidate everything they ever publish, but certainly it demonstrates remarkably low standards for vetting — as in Bush Administration low, or New York Times low. You know, commercial media low. So it’s difficult to accept on face value claims they make in an attempt to discredit the likes of Scheuer.
That said, Scheuer has certainly blundered in many ways. And aligning yourself with one person the way Pete has Scheuer is not recommended.
But one thing he’s not lying about is what Osama has said about why he’s attacking us. I don’t take it on face value that OBL would not lie about his reasons, of course. However, if you wonder why he has the sympathies of so many in the Arab/Muslim world, Scheuer’s insights are very helpful. He notes that in survey after survey, Muslims worldwide have shown overwhelming support for democratic values. But they are strongly offended by US foreign policy. These are truths that must be understood, whatever conclusions you want to draw from them.
Also, I want to note that I agree 100% with Todd in his assessment that Scheuer places too much emphasis on the influence of the Israeli/Jewish lobby. As opposed as I am to US policy in the Middle East, and as horrible as I think Israel is, the influence of their (very powerful) lobby is overstated by Scheuer and many others. Scheuer does not seem to understand US politics as well as he understands terrorism. There are very obvious so-called “national interest” for the US’s unwavering support for Israel. The lobby merely enhances that relationship.
I still find it amazing that the #1 country the US gives foreign aid to is Israel and #2 is Egypt… Are we buying them both off so that they remain civil?
Well Brian,
Good to see you strive to offer justification for your censorship - based apparently on the notion that, since you don’t do it, no one should do it.
I would argue that my blockquotes (before your censorship) pointed to the portion of the linked material relevant to Scheuer’s credibility. Since I cannot highlight the words on the linked page, the only way to reference them is via excerpt.
But Brian doesn’t do it that way, so no one can. I shall consider that unstated bullshit rule #1.
Interesting counter-argument though - they were wrong about WMDs, you assert confidently, therefore their criticisms of Scheuer’s OWN contradictory words are invalid.
How about this for a contest? Who can tell me what logical fallacy is represented by this line of reasoning?
Scheuer’s credibility is highly questionable. The quotes from Joscelyn’s story (which were censored in accordance BS Rule #1) which compare what Scheuer wrote in the book preceding Imperial Hubris and what he’s said in direct contradiction now that he’s a cause celeb with the anti-war left (and apparently the anti-Joo white supremacists), he’s singing a different tune.
I also find it highly ironic that Pete is talking this guy up as an authority when he is one of the very same analysts whose work product Bushco (and the Congress) relied upon to make the case of terrorist links to Iraq!
I’m curious, does Scheuer offer any support to the claim spawned by the Downing Street memo that US policy was being ‘fixed’? (nevermind that Brits use some words different from common usage in the US, ‘fixed’ being one of them) Has he claimed under oath that Bushco was pressuring his analysis?
And what of his support for rendition Pete? Did you know he claims to have been an integral part in the formation of the Rendition program under Bill Clinton? Do you know what that implies, Pete? TORTURE.
How does that square with your moral outrage over water boarding? I can guarantee none of the people transfered in this Clinton-era program were water boarded by their home country’s intelligence agencies.
FOR THE RECORD, Pete completely agrees with me (and Travis) that this blog is not a place for excessive reprints. Don’t we get to decide how to run our own blog? Of course I can set my own standards. It’s our blog on our server. Stop trying to make this a personal spat between us, Todd.
As I said before, but apparently you didn’t notice, you are welcome to excerpt reprints on YOUR OWN BLOG and link to it. We just don’t want you ruining this blog. I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to do, but it’s what’s going to happen if you dominate the comments in terms of vertical space.
So just chill out, Todd. No one is attacking or censoring you. We’re just trying to maintain a decent blog, using our own judgment. If you disagree, START YOUR OWN.
John wrote: “I still find it amazing that the #1 country the US gives foreign aid to is Israel and #2 is Egypt… Are we buying them both off so that they remain civil?”
Well, that’s certainly how the deal started. We started paying them with special aid packages as part of the Camp David Accords in 1978. And that meeting followed a long period of heightened tension and Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. So your perception is largely accurate. Of course, much has changed since then, but the basis is still Camp David.
Travis From Vermont:
I’m with you man. I have a similar background. I went to a conservative Christian college and even spent time at a pentacostal Bible college before finally coming to my own unique set of beliefs. I wasn’t trying to imply that the church doesn’t impact many people positively but that it’s a shame people often need something outside themselves as motivation to act with goodness. Wouldn’t it be great in a healthy conscience was enough.
Todd, regarding long quotes, I have to agree with Big Brother in this case.
If we are going to post or refer to long quotes, we will need to simply link the source and tell the people were to read the material. I admit, that I too was a culprit of this behavior and have since stopped at Bro’s request.
Even though his “handle” is obviously a reference to a certain Orwell novel, I highly doubt that this is censorship. Censorship would be him simply deleting any posts that had an argument that was not in agreement with his. Dont cry censorship when you are a guest on someone else’s website. The personal attacks on Bro are simply unfair. Remember that this is still in the early phases and everything is very dynamic right now.
I know this is off topic, but I feel that we need to watch something that was in the news yesterday and the day before.
Hillary claimed that she was under sniper fire in Bosnia when she was there as First Lady. It was hillarious when they showed a video of her with Chelsea getting out of the plane and then hugging an 8 year old on the taramac and posing for pictures. Boy those Bosnian snipers suck!
This video is for humor only:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/121420/881/486/484625
Thanks for linking that video, John. That’s one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. She deserves everything she gets on this one.
Weston: It would be so wonderful if people could just be good on their own, but unfortunately human nature is such that we are selfish short sighted creatures. It comes down to the Nature vs Nurture debate that’s been going on for hundreds of years.
Are we born good and society makes us bad, or are we born bad and society makes us good? I personally subscribe to Thomas Hobbes’ blank slate theory: we are born with no predilection one way or the other and various societal elements influence how we end up.
A religious background is just one of those elements. Parents and friends are another. So is TV and Radio and other media sources. Each can be a positive influence or a negative one depending on your experience, but the more good influences you have the better equipped you are to resist the bad ones.
By the way, Welcome to our little forum Weston!
Brian (and John, et al)
I’m honestly not trying to ruin the blog. However, Pete was thumping this guy as a by god genuine expert who supports the position that he was hammering on his show - that ‘they’ hate us because of our foreign policy, not because ‘they’ are motivated by their previously stated goals of establishing an Islamic caliphate, which is mutually exclusive to the principles of liberal democracies.
I asked him on the show how he would judge the opinion of a similarly experienced former CIA analyst who disagreed with Scheuer and he basically answered he liked Scheuer because he confirmed his own opinion on the matter.
That is why I posted the links I did. The reason I posted excerpts was in part a prebuttal, since Brian has demonstrated on other threads a tendency to argue against the bias of the source and ignore or dismiss the factual assertions on that basis alone. I have always thought getting the relevant portion of the source critique in the post is practicing good highlighting - those who wish to read more (and perhaps verify the context) can follow the link and do so, those who trust that I’m arguing in good faith would be spared the extra step.
The other part why I posted excerpts was to counter Pete’s source - who he offers as an authority in support of a position based primarily upon Scheuer’s experience backed opinion.
Scheuer’s credibility then is the only thing which supports his authority and his credibility has been called into question based upon his own contradictory words!
I don’t think posting relevant excerpts is much of a counter to Pete’s ranting anti-war filibusters, nor do I see the burden a few keyboard strokes or mouse wheel rolls imposes upon the reader unwilling to confront a serious challenge of an anti-war ‘expert witness’.
As for my crying censorship… yeah, it ain’t in the sense of violating my rights, but it is in the sense that removes content I intended to be in my post which supported my view. I don’t believe any of them were over handful of paragraphs and all were directly to the point of Scheuer’s credibility. I’ve stated my opinion of BS rule #1, I’ll cry n’more ’bout it. Sniff. ;p
Thank you, Todd, for being respectful in your last post. I have no problem with you posting whatever views you want to counter Pete’s rants. But quality is favored over quantity. Please remember this blog is to complement the show — and the show is called Pete’s Big Mouth. And the blog address is petesbigmouth.com — so I really encourage you to start your own blog and link to it as often as you want here, or get your own talk show and say as much as you want on it. We’re not trying to limit your speech in terms of quantity, we’re just trying to do what’s best for the blog (and the show). Clearly you have a lot to say, so I’m kind of surprised you don’t already have your own blog. Posting YouTube videos is a great idea, and you’re welcome to post links to them here.
My little brother asked me to run this blog and consult on his show, and Sirius asked him to run his show. So we get to dominate this forum. Others are welcome to partake on the air and on this blog. No one forces Pete to take callers every day, and certainly no one told us we have to accept comments on the blog. We want it to be an open forum for so many people, and we don’t really care what you say as long as it doesn’t hurt the blog (by being uncivil or just overload).
I obviously have no problem with that and I do already have a blog, but my hosting provider switched platforms and screwed up my MT templates and I have been too busy with family stuff to bear down and fix it.
I don’t wish to overload INDIE, either with calls to the shows (I’ve hit all 3 this week) or the comments section of this blog, I’m just jumping in with both feet, because it really is great to have a format dedicated to those who have trouble marching lockstep with a given political party or religious organization.
I appreciate your upfront disclosure and apologize for my rancorous responses, whether you deserve them or not!
Travis from Vermont:
You are a gentleman and a scholar. I can get down with the blank slate theory: definitely not a fan of the notion of original sin. The shame of it all is that religious institutions have within them the power to have that positive influence on people without being divisive. From my Nazarene upbringing I took away the notion that it is noble and good to look after the needs of others. I learned that kindness, forgiveness, and love were the greatest things to which one can aspire. I also learned that Ghandi is burning in hell as we speak because because being good is not enough. It’s just a shame that people think they need to subscribe to a particular faith in order to do good. Faith by definition is the belief in something which one cannot know to be true. It doesn’t take faith to realize that treating others with love, kindness, tolerance, and dignity creates a more positive experience for everyone. Yet if churches were to teach this simple message without all the divisive “we’re right and they’re wrong” doctrines they would have a hard time convincing people that they need to be there every week. Less attendance = less income. Sadly I think this trend will continue in the same negative direction.
First of all let me say that I love your show. I am so addicted to it that I no longer spend all my time in the car talking on my cell. I love what you’re doing and I appreciate your open mindedness. So incredibly refreshing.
I agree with you that Muslim extremists don’t hate us because of our way of life. (Although I’m sure they must scratch their heads when they see us eating our hamburger’s with blue ketchup.) I just can’t imagine how anyone can deny that ‘they’ hate us for our foreign policy. Now with that said, I’m sure you could find someone else other than an anti-semetic, ex-CIA officer who has been endorsed by Bin Laden to help make your point. I have no problem with you showcasing Michael Scheur on your program. I believe that everyone should have their moment to state their case. But, it does cause me concern that you seem to be very much in agreement with a man who supports the idea of the elimination of Israel. I know you keep saying that you’re not endorsing us giving the terrorists what they want, but at the same time I am suddenly concerned with your stance on Israel. I am hardly an Israeli apologist. I don’t agree with everything they do, just like I don’t agree with 99.9% of what our current administration is doing, but I love my country, and I am totally committed to Israel’s right to exist. I did catch snipets of a show a few weeks ago with your brother who apparently spent time in Gaza? the West Bank? He too seemed to have an anti-Israeli slant. I could be and hope I am wrong, but you were discussing with him, or you were talking about how he had witnessed some Israeli soldiers beating a young man mercilessly. Although I do not condone that in any way, I can’t help but reject any discourse on this subject without hearing both sides of the story. The Palestinians have historically called for nothing less than the annihlation of the Jews and Israel. And I don’t think you can ever turn a blind eye to the history of the Jews. I’m not saying that you, in fact do that, but I also can’t say that I have (so far) heard anything in regard to that from you or your big brother.
Again, I want to remind you that I have become a huge fan of the show and I have been encouraging everyone I know to tune in.
Obama in 09!
Hi Joyce. I’m so glad you’re addicted to the show!
Since you raised the matter of my alleged views about the state of Israel, I’d like to explain them clearly, so there is no mistaking them. I did spend 2 months in the West Bank as an Emergency Medical Technician on Palestinian ambulances. I’ve also been Middle East Editor of an online publication (not a blog, we had professional correspondents in Israel/Palestine and Iraq). I’ve written somewhat extensively on the Middle East. here’s a link to a Google search with lots of links to my work on the matter. There’s probably some slander stuff about me in there, too, so enjoy that.
Anyway, you won’t find anything there claiming Israel should not exist. I don’t posit any concrete or ideological prescriptions for the situation.
I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to say “The Palestinians have historically called for nothing less than the annihilation of the Jews and Israel.” There’s a lot of propaganda suggesting this, but in fact you’d be very hard pressed to find a Palestinian who believes either of those. Most Palestinians say they want a state on the 22% of their original land that Israel has not yet annexed. I lived among Palestinians, and nearly everyone I worked/lived with spoke at length with me in English about politics. Neither of Jews nor the existence of Israel is a major topic. Those who do not believe Israel should exist (perhaps most Palestinians, for obvious reasons of their horrific, 60-year plight) typically accept that it does exist and they want to make peace and get on with their lives. They just don’t want to give up East Jerusalem or the right of return for their refugees, which is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Do some or maybe many Palestinians want Israel or the Jews to be annihilated? Sure. Some Americans feel that way, too. But I suspect you’d actually find those opinions more popular in other Arab countries, which are removed from the situation. Many Palestinians have Jewish friends, and all of them have heard at least a few good stories about decent Israeli Jews. They’ve all met Jewish anti-occupation activists, too, so they’re under fewer illusions about “all Jews” or whatever. That seems to be more widespread in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.
On my own views, as I said on the show, as armies and occupations go, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is among the least inhumane in modern history (another being the Syrian recently ended occupation of Lebanon). It’s very brutal, and lots of extremely inexcusable shit goes on, but it’s not like the IDF is the nastiest military on earth. I’ve made that quite clear many times, in public and private.
What bothers me is that the IDF does commit terrible crimes, and they do it with our tax dollars. And my view is not exactly radical — it’s pretty much in line with numerous UN resolutions that have received overwhelming international support, usually with just a few holdouts, always including the US.
I have publicly condemned suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. I repeatedly condemned the rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza on the show (how did you miss that, I couldn’t have been more vehement — I called them “disgusting, reprehensible, inexcusable attacks”). I have also publicly supported guerrilla resistance against the illegal occupation that has been condemned by the international community in numerous UN resolutions.
And keep in mind, I personally witnessed violations of the Geneva Conventions, and suffered such violations.
And, for whatever it’s worth, I’ve been living with a Jew for the last 7 years, and if we ever accidentally have kids, they’re going to be raised largely in the Jewish tradition with my blessing. My interest in the Middle East conflict has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam and everything to do with right and wrong and my tax dollars.
As for the history of the Jews, again, not something I deny in the slightest. I think the US should have prevented American corporations from backing Hitler in 1933, and we should have fought off Franco in 1936 to show Hitler we were steadfastly anti-fascist and would not tolerate his imperial aspirations. It’s a disgraceful period in US history (one of many). And I firmly believe Germany should have been turned into a sanctuary for Jews so that European Jews would not have to flee as refugees and Palestinians would not have to pay for the crimes of Hitler. Let his beneficiaries pay for them, rather than people he would have exterminated also given the chance.
As for Scheuer’s views, I haven’t seen anywhere that he’s called for “the elimination of Israel.” On Bill Maher last year, he said: “I hope that Israel flourishes, I just don’t think that Israel is worth ‘an American life or an American dollar’.” But I’m not trying to stand up for the guy, I’m just wondering if his alleged hatred of Israel was even in one of the documents Todd linked to before.
From Imperial Hubris, quoted by Frum in National Review:
Todd, that is what Scheuer says bin Laden wants. Do you really think it’s fair to quote it out of context like this and imply it supports his alleged call for the end of Israel? This is low even for you, Todd. Come on, have some integrity and quote in context.
I’m sorry, I thought this was what Scheuer was advocating - giving Bin Laden what he wants. Am I wrong about that?
Please Brian, for the sake of comity, give me the benefit of the doubt before you question my integrity. I will NEVER knowingly quote a source out of context to make my points. Ultimately all an avid debater has to fall back upon is the integrity with which they convey their opinion.
Todd, in order for what you say above about Scheuer to be true, you would have to demonstrate that he has said he thinks we should give bin Laden what he wants. There’s a HUGE leap of logic between relaying the views of others, as Scheuer is in that quote, vs. relaying your own views. You must realize that just saying someone said something is not the same as saying it yourself. Hell, I could requote you quoting Scheuer and say it’s what you believe. Would that be fair?
By your logic, anyone who says “bin Laden wants to destroy our way of life” is advocating the destruction of our way of life. So if I said, George Bush thinks we should give up all our freedoms, would you quote George Bush saying “Bin Laden wants to destroy our freedoms?” Probably not. You did what you did above because of your bias, and I think anyone reading this realizes that.
Well forgive my understanding, esp. in the context of Pete using Scheuer to make the argument they hate us for our foreign policy, part of which is the support of Israeli democracy. Inasmuch as our continued alliance with Israel is defacto support of her existence, our foreign policy is at odds with al Qaeda.
It seems Scheuer sees our problem through the lens of expressed Muslim grievances, some valid, however some which ignore the actions of the ’separatists’ which precede the reactions of US allied governments he condemns.
I do see, however, where he explicitly disabuses the reader of the notion he supports the elimination of Israel as a state in the Harper’s interview linked at top. I regret mistaking Scheuer’s argument that our foreign policy alliances have more to do with their action and that we should adjust accordingly, with full out capitulation with Islamist demands.
Thanks so much for getting back to me on this. I don’t have a lot of time right now to get into this in depth as I’d like to, but let me just say a few things. I would offer some references and links, but for fear of getting into too much of Todd’s territory I’ll leave that alone. I’m encouraged to hear that you’re married to a Jew, knowing that at the very least if you’re concealing an innate anti-Semitism–you wouldn’t be getting any. There is much that you say that I do not disagree with, although some that I do take exception to, and I’ll leave that for another time, for now…
Forgive me, but I believe that a man who says, and I quote, “I hope that Israel flourishes, I just don’t think that Israel is worth an American life or an American dollar,” is making an anti-Semitic, anti- Israel remark. And if he, or anyone, actually feels this way then I would tell them to relinquish the use of every (and there are many) medical and technological advancements that come directly from Israel to, not only us, but the whole wide world. All the below while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth. Please remember that World War II basically destroyed European Jewry. What do you think would happen to Jews all over the world if Israel fails? Can you imagine living with the memory of the Holocaust? You can sympathize with the Palestinian people, as do I, and you can sympathize with Black Americans, as well as we all should for what they have endured. So why not Israel and the Jews who have been historically discriminated against long before the existance of an Israeli state? They have certainly overplayed their hand I don’t disagree with that, but when you look at what is happening in Gaza after they gave back the land, would you be anxious to give them more land for them to send more rocket attacks into your country?
Here’s the short list of that small countries contributions to the world :
PS: Sorry for what seems to be a long comment. I have actually never called a show or commented on one of their blogs. If you could send me your e-mail we could could continue this off the public forum.
What’s funny about this is that I’m not a passionate Israel defender at all. I’m VERY pasionate about most things, I’m a political junkie and in therapy as a result of it at the moment, but I actually try hard to stay off this topic as I have so many mixed feelings about it.
Joyce,
Please don’t feel like you are stepping on my territory. This isn’t my blog and you should feel free to post links away! unfortunately, this blog software will trap your post in the moderator queue if you put more than one link in your post.
Great comments, I think, and good points to remember. In the same way we should try to understand what it was like for Rev. Wright to be black in the US during segregation, we should try to understand Israel and her soldiers when it comes to facing the kind of vile hatred they’ve faced from all their neighbors.
Check this powerful video out: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103 from a Dutch politician. It is very one sided, but it is kind of hard to deny some of the rhetoric has NOTHING to do with US foreign policy and everything to do with radical Islam. CAUTION: Some images in this video are disturbing.
Note that many of the signs and proclamations are not against US foreign policy, but against freedom and democracy.
Joyce, I’d love to hear what troubles you about my views on these matters. I moved that list you posted to a link because it was copied from another document but no source was given, and it was really long. Like I said previously, we can’t do that on this blog because it’s (a) technically plagiarism and (b) way too long requiring too much scrolling for a comments section.
On the Scheuer quote, you said:
“Forgive me, but I believe that a man who says, and I quote, ‘I hope that Israel flourishes, I just don’t think that Israel is worth an American life or an American dollar,’ is making an anti-Semitic, anti- Israel remark.”
I won’t pretend to know what Scheuer actually means, but it seems to me it means US tax dollars should not be going to aid a country that is as rich as Israel. I’m not sure what he means about American lives, unless he’s implying that we’re serving Israeli interests in Iraq or a future Iran war, which is a stretch, I’d say.
But I must say, I don’t understand why we’re giving 3-4 billion dollars in annual aid to a country that boasts, as your list of accomplishments noted, the largest economy in the region, the highest per-capita income, etc, etc. Isn’t it weird that we give far less aid to countries that are struggling harder, have fewer natural resources, etc? Why are we giving charity to a country that is, by some (economic) estimations, doing as well as we are? Especially if that country is in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions and repeatedly breaking the Geneva Conventions. Of course, the answer there is our government doesn’t give a rat’s ass about that stuff — but I suspect you would agree that we should care.
As for the effects of WWII on Jews, I think I made it clear that I understand and sympathize. That’s a no-brainer. It just blows my mind that the answer to that is Israel. What a terrible idea that was. I don’t sympathize with that choice. My mom taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right, and I have to say, that should go for international affairs as well. Taking people’s land and driving them off and then occupying more of it has got to be wrong, no matter what your excuse.
Now, that doesn’t mean I think Israel should vanish. There are, as they say, “facts on the ground” — reality is that Israel exists and it’s not going anywhere, and the children of the original Zionists should not pay for their parents’ wrongdoing any more than Palestinians should have to pay for Hitler’s wrongdoing.
But Israel is aggressively trying to create more and more “facts on the ground” so that one day we’ll say, Well, the settlements are there, so we’d might as well accept them. It doesn’t matter that they’re totally illegal according to international law. Sure, the West Bank wall is built entirely within territory the world recognizes as Palestinian, but it’s already built, so that’s the new border.
You can be adamantly pro-Israel and still insist Israel play by the rules of international law. That’s all I ask, and I don’t think it’s anti-Jew to do that. (Anti-semitism is a weird word since Arabs are semitic people, too.)
Forgive me for not adhering to your rules. I was not clear on what they were as I don’t have the time to listen to all and every show, nor have I read all of your blog’s.
I don’t want to go tit for tat with you. It’s an area where your blade is quite sharpened. I’m just trying to represent what I believe is a very large ‘culturally’ Jewish perspective. One that has mixed feelings but ultimately feels strongly about a Jewish homeland, mistakes (there are plenty) and all. I believe that for the most part we are like-minded. I believe that you are a reasonable person that seems to have more experiance in that region than I do. I also believe that many Palestinians would like nothing more than to co-exist with Israel. Just as I believe that most Israeli’s feel the same way.
Before I remove myself from this discussion I just want to address two things.
In regard to the Sheuer quote you addressed the first part, of which I don’t entirely disagree, but I don’t believe in absolutes. Israel’s economy has been ravaged and is in need of aid like MANY other countries who, like you said, do not get it. But how about the second part. Do you believe that if Israel is attacked we should not come to their aid if they need us?
I would also like to leave you with links to a few web sites that address your statement;
‘Taking people’s land and driving them off and then occupying more of it has got to be wrong, no matter what your excuse.’
It is my belief that Israel is more entitled to be where they are, then we are to be here on this land, that we stole from the Indians.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/
http://middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-facts.php
http://www.aujs.com.au/resources/education/conflict.php
http://tribes.tribe.net/mideastpolitics/thread/5451f331-10f5-49b0-8bff-2f3a33a0ae45