Scoop- CBS reports Israeli Spy in Pentagon

I just watched Leslie Stahl in a special segment of the CBS nightly news report that the FBI is about to "roll up" an Israeli spy in the Pentagon.

The spy was a defense analyst that worked with both Fieth and Wolfowitz. The report said that secret policy documents about US posture towards Iran were given to Israel through an Israeli PAC (AIPAC) thus allowing Israel a "spot at the table" in developing US policy.

The report further put into question this analysts relation to the development of policy against Iraq- implying that Israel, through it's spy might also have had a hand in developing Iraqi policy.

AIPAC and Israel have denied the charges. The CBS report did not reveal the name of the spy although they clearly know it.

/sigh

I can't find a link online yet to this story.

•  Here is an older article about the OSP..

  From The Guardian:
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

  Some quotes:

  ""They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it."

  In fact, the OSP's activities were a com plete mystery to the DIA and the Pentagon.

  "The iceberg analogy is a good one," said a senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war. "No one from the military staff heard, saw or discussed anything with them."

  The civilian agencies had the same impression of the OSP sleuths. "They were a pretty shadowy presence," Mr Thielmann said. "Normally when you compile an intelligence document, all the agencies get together to discuss it. The OSP was never present at any of the meetings I attended."

  Democratic congressman David Obey, who is investigating the OSP, said: "That office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the national security council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees."

  The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

  "None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

  The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

  In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe."

  WWWOOOAAAAHHHH

  This could be.... very, very bad.

  Then again, I've said that over and over again for the past three years and the majority of American doesn't seem to give a shit.

  by Demise on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:46:58 PM PDT

  •  How did this get dropped?

    I remember reading about OSP cherry picking information about Iraq, but someone dropped the ball on this, and all the blame went to the CIA.  Feh.

    by MrSnrub on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:08:56 PM PDT

    •  The OSP..

      I've wondered about this as well. I am assuming it's because of some issues on oversight. Or the OSP has special consideration because of national security issues.

      by Demise on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:11:32 PM PDT

      •  Why is Feith still kicking???

        
        

        A former senior CIA official insisted yesterday that Mr Feith, at least, was "finished" - but that may be wishful thinking by a rival organisation

        These guys are so good. It reminds me of Stone's JFK where Pesci absolutely freaks out: "Everyone is always changing sides, no one knows anything."

        The intelligence conspiracy needs to break soon if this world (especially the middle east) has any hope from becoming an ash tray.

        by bsilent on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:34:29 PM PDT

  •  The second term

    I fear for the world if Kerry is smeared into defeat.

    by Subterranean on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:21:47 PM PDT

  •  MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!

    NBC nightly news said that the spy was "involved in drafting presidential directives?

    Guess what Monkeyboy did today?

    He issued three presidential directives giving more power to the CIA.

    Connect the dots.

    by mattman on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:28:39 PM PDT

  •  I thought a long time ago...

    that Israel would end up taking the fall for the Iraq disaster.  Americans have a hard time blaming themselves for our mistakes (e.g. Vietnam currently still).  Israel makes a good target.  The buck-passing stops there.

    by Knut Wicksell on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:16:17 PM PDT

  •  Simple, the Bush folks

    created an "intelligence department" before the 9/11 commish ever told them to do so.  It was Feith and the OSP.  And guess what?  They Cheneyed up.  On purpose, and with malice aforethought.

    by wozzle on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:33:23 PM PDT

  •  REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS:

    1. It's Clinton's fault.
    2. When it looks realy bad, see above.

    by GOTV on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 10:14:20 PM PDT

•  Scoop! The Spy's Nane Is

  Richard Perle!

  by easong on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:48:46 PM PDT

  •  Holy Joe would probably say that Israel...

    has the right to spy on our nation to defend itself.

    by ECH on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:49:50 PM PDT

    •  Holy Joe also said our soldiers should die

      for Israel.

      It has been known that we started Iraq war in order to protect Israel. Saddam funded suicide bombers. Philip Zelikow used to work in the WH.  

      http://antiwar.com/ips/mekay.php?articleid=2208

      Yes, I will be called anti-semi immediately whenever this issue is brought up. x-CIA agent Ray McGovern said it on Charlie Rose and immediately was called anit-semi by x-CIA chief Jim Woolsey.

      by desperate04 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:01:39 PM PDT

      •  If You Even Say "Israel"

        And you are not defending Israel, then you are an anti-semite, and must be marginalized.

        by easong on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:05:01 PM PDT

        •  Dean couldn't even say...

          The US should be evenhanded in our dealings with the Israeli/Palistinian conflict without the likes of holy Joe coming out and calling him a anti-semite.

          by ECH on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:08:10 PM PDT

          •  Holy Joe

            I don't recall Holy Joe calling Dean an anti-semite.  Would have been pretty foolish, and I think Holy Joe is smarter than that.

            by NYCO on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:46:56 PM PDT

            •  He implied it strongly

              Especally, when he attacked Dean for saying members of Hamas are soldiers thus Isreal can kill them.

              by ECH on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:48:41 PM PDT

              •  Don't believe it

                Holy Joe was just being his "defend Israel" self; I never got the impression he was hinting Dean was anti-semitic.

                Dean would have been in a unique position on Israel as a presidential candidate: Dean talked about "evenhanded" policy, yet no one would dare accuse him of anti-semitism, although Dean never would have played up his wife and kids deliberately to make sure to inoculate himself against such charges (and no doubt would have been highly resistant to the suggestion to do so).

                by NYCO on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:53:32 PM PDT

                •  Holy Joe and his extreme Defense =

                  The Committee on the Present Danger

                  The Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) is a hawkish "advocacy organization" first founded in 1950 and re-formed in 1976 to push for larger defense budgets and arms buildups, to counter the Soviet Union. In June 2004, The Hill reported that a third incarnation of CPD was being planned, to address the War on terrorism. The head of the 2004 CPD, PR pro and former Reagan adviser Peter Hannaford, explained, "we saw a parallel" between the Soviet threat and the threat from terrorism. The message that CPD will convey through lobbying, media work and conferences is that "the war on terror needs to be won," he said.[1]

                  Members of the 2004 CPD include Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, former CIA director R. James Woolsey, Jr., and Reagan administration official and 1976 Committee founder Max M. Kampelman.[2] At the July 20 launching of the 2004 CPD, Lieberman and Senator Jon Kyl were identified as the honorary co-chairs.[3] Other notable members listed on the CPD website include Laurie Mylroie, Norman Podhoretz, Frank Gaffney and other associates of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Boeing Company.

                  
                  

                  by bsilent on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:43:42 PM PDT

        •  speaking of which...

          where's our old friend goVOTE?   now that someone's invoked the name of holey joe, i'm sure he'll be around here promptly.

          by zeke L on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:19:03 PM PDT

          •  Seriously

            Does that guy have a spider crawling Dkos to alert him whenever Holy Joe gets a mention, or what?

            by martianchronic on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:32:05 PM PDT

            •  And that Spider has a name...

              ...Joementum!

              Joementum is one badass spider. Arachnojoebia!

              by joejoejoe on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:45:49 PM PDT

            •  disturbing

              The conversation here is pretty disturbing.  As is bringing in Joe Lieberman.  What he has to do with this story, I don't know, but frankly the immediate leap that people here are making to the most openly Jewish senator are disturbing.  A single note logic conflates everything: Israeli spy = Joe Lieberman = Jewish -- all one in the same to these people. And, worse, the pithy "can't I criticize Israel without being called an anti-semite" defense is inappropriate.  You're not criticizing Israel; you are lumping together anything and everything Jewish that you don't like.  The article doesn't mention Lieberman, but you all do.  (And you opt to use the derogatory "Holy Joe," which emphasizes his Jewishness.)  And, to somehow show that the term "anti-Semite" gets thrown around too easily, a poster lies and said that Joe called Dean an anti-semite.  When pressed on it, he says he implied it.  Hardly.

              Frankly, I do think you're a bunch of anti-semites.  Your conflation of anything and everything that you dislike about Israel, a Jewish senator, people who stand up against anti-semitism, the Jewish neo-cons, reeks of a shoot at the hip "blame the Jews."

              Shame on all of you.

              This Israeli spy business sounds pretty bad.  Just as bad are the jerks criticizing prominent pro-Israel Jewish politicians claiming that their mind associations are anything but anti-semitism.  Sig heil, dudes, sig heil.

              by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:57:55 PM PDT

              •  GoVOTE

                If I stood up on a chair in a room and simply said, "Israel sucks," and said nothing else, I would, in fact, be labeled an anti-Semite by many people.

                That's just the way it is.

                by NYCO on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:03:19 PM PDT

                •  NYCO

                  If I sat in my chair, typing on DailyKos and simply said, "Israel sucks," and said nothing else, others would, in fact, follow with "so does Holy Joe" and "so do Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz."  That posters are able to spit this out in one breath without seeing any difference, view those who dub those who point out the inherent anti-semitism in such simplistic connections as the ones in the wrong, is terrible.

                  That's just the way it is.  And it stinks.  People think that the Republicans have the anti-Semites on their side (and they do) but we do to.  And some of them are posting here.

                  by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:12:32 PM PDT

                  •  Hey GoVote

                    You damn hypocrite.  DKos represents many, many different viewpoints and yet you lump everyone here in one big anti-semitic group.  I don't even know who the heck you are but it is you who is guilty of stereotyping.  Evryone here is entitled to their point of view including you, but when you talk of DKos as if it is one unthinking organ like Little Green Footballs (gee i wonder how they're taking this?  Boo fucking hoo!), you got a fight on yer hands.

                    by reef the dog on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:21:51 PM PDT

                    •  sigh

                      Actually given that I said "And some of them are posting here" means that some, not all, not everyone, not the community en masse, is included in that statement, which means (by the very definition of the term) that I am not lumping everyone together.  

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:31:13 PM PDT

                      •  Okay sorry

                        Meanwhile, CBS just reported AIPAC has lawyered up.

                        by reef the dog on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:33:35 PM PDT

                  •  None of them are posting here --

                    only those who conflate anti-Semitism with objections to the policies of the Israeli government would see anti-Semitism here.  We have no difficulty discriminating between Sharon and those in the peace movement in Israel.  

                    As to being tough on Joe -- exactly how are we worse to him than we are to Santorum or many other rightwing Christians?  Oh, and we all like Feingold very much; so that adequately proves that it has nothing to do with Joe being a Jew and everything to do with the policies he supports and his personality.

                    by Marie on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:22:04 PM PDT

                    •  a comment

                      As to being tough on Joe -- exactly how are we worse to him than we are to Santorum or many other rightwing Christians?

                      Santorum and other rightwing Christians haven't been brought up in this thread.  Joe has been.

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:37:33 PM PDT

                      •  Have never seen you jump into

                        the fray on other threads where they are brought up and claim that we are being anti-Christian.

                        It's the policies that Joe supports that brings him up whenever the issue is the wrongdoings of  those Neo-Cons who are Jewish and Israel.  This story goes beyond a spy for Israel who resided in the Pentagon and under the direction of Feith and Wolfowitz but also to the heart of one reason we are in Iraq, and Joe is not exactly reticent in speaking about how his support for the invasion included the calculation that he saw it as a way to make Israel.

                        I'm sorry you feel that the possibility that Likud was feeding crap to our government to bolster GWB's "case for war" troubles you less than what we may say about a certain Senator.  One who may not even find the activities of Likud and their spy out of line.    

                        by Marie on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:17:32 PM PDT

                        •  hmmm

                          I'm sorry you feel that the possibility that Likud was feeding crap to our government to bolster GWB's "case for war" troubles you less than what we may say about a certain Senator.  One who may not even find the activities of Likud and their spy out of line.  

                          I haven't made this statement anywhere.  I do find this whole thing troubling.  I also find it troubling that some posters have leaped to the conclusion that Lieberman is somehow connected with this.  I also object to people "outing" members of the DoD as possibilities for being the spy, when no news agency has outed these names (or brought up Lieberman).

                          I find it troubling that you would allow posters to derail this conversation, moving it away from the more troubling aspects of this story, and allow them to make speculations between the spy and prominent Jewish politicians.  Why defend the evokation of the dual loyalties stereotype?

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:40:36 PM PDT

                          •  "Outing?"

                            We don't have the goods necessary to "out" anybody on this story.  People speculate when all the information is not released -- that's not outing -- and any ten year old could tell the difference between the two.

                            Sticking to the very narrow and specific elements to any story and not placing it within its proper larger context misses the forest for the trees.  Sort of like writing Abu Ghraib off as a "few bad apples."

                            make speculations between the spy and prominent Jewish politicians  -- only one and only within the larger context.  Don't think anybody here claimed a direct relationship between Joe and the "spy."  

                            by Marie on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:09:40 PM PDT

                            •  actually

                              If you scroll above, Richard Perle was named as the spy, to which Lieberman's name was immediately brought up as someone who would defend the spying.  As evidence, another poster followed this by saying that Lieberman said that Americans should be willing to die for Israel.  (Sounds like a bastardized paraphrase to me, though only Clinton was the one who made anything close to that claim when he said he'd get in the trenches to defend Israel.)

                              You'll notice that "outing" is in quotes in my post as well.  Hence we are using it with the same skepticism.

                              I think these are very serious charges, and I think the speculating can do a lot of harm, especially gratuitous speculation.  No article has mentioned Lieberman's name.  Why are some dkos posters?

                              by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:20:20 PM PDT

                              •  Because we detest him for enabling

                                GWB to take this country to war and didn't even need WMD to get his support for him -- Iraq being geographically close to Israel was enough for him -- and his unquestioning support for everything Israel does.  You may think it's unthinkable that Joe would defend the actions of someone who was spying for Israel, but others don't.  Based on his past statements, it's not a stretch to consider that Joe would defend such a person.  I'm not saying that I think that, but nor do I think he would be out there denouncing such activities and those who put the "spy" up to it.  However, it doesn't bother me if others want to speculate beyond the boundaries of where I would go with this one, and since you can't prove that they are wrong, your objections are nothing more than attempts to stifle free and open exchanges here.  

                                (Can't imagine Clinton in the trenches for anyone -- but since I'm not a fan of his, I'm not someone who is going to defend him.)    

                                by Marie on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:50:10 PM PDT

                          •  Nobody made the conclusion

                            that Joe was involved in this: Lieberman's name was originally brought up in this thread because somebody wondered what he would think (given the background that Marie supplied, Lieberman is on record as saying he supported the Iraq war because he thought it would be good for Israel).

                            There has been no post on this thread (outside of yours) that has even remotely suggested that Lieberman was "involved" in the spy issue.  

                            by a gilas girl on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:17:46 PM PDT

                            •  you make it sound so innocent

                              Above, people say that Lieberman would defend the spy and as evidence, he called Dean an anti-Semite (he did not) and that he said Americans should die for Israel (he did not.)

                              In fact, Jonathan Pollard hates Lieberman because he feels that Lieberman should make moves on his behalf.  Lieberman has ignored Pollard and, if there is indeed a spy, I expect the same reaction.

                              Bringing up Lieberman's name here is nothing short of evoking the dual loyalties stereotype -- look everyone: let's spread it: Lieberman has more loyalty to Israel than to America.  That's why he criticized Dean, the true American.

                              by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:24:04 PM PDT

                  •  Israel Sucks

                    So do Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz, Sharon and Lieberman.  But Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky and Mordechai Vanunu rock.  I liked Sandy Kofax too.

                    by kaleidescope on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:47:45 AM PDT

              •  Super Troll

                When Webster's gets around to defining the term 'Super Troll" the first entry will be "one who, whenever Israel is critiqued or blamed for anything, immediately describes the attack as anti-semitic"

                I hope you get a truckload of 0 ratings. I truly do. Nothing annoys me more than being called an anti-semite because I believe Israel's influence in our policy-making is overly powerful.

                Lieberman causes a lot of hard feelings around here. Not because he is Jewish, nor even about Israel, but because he has criticized Democrats repeatedly for being weak on national security. He did attack Dean over Israel, and Lieberman believes in a knee-jerk US foreign policy that backs the Israeli government 100%, without question, and is more than willing to oppose any Democrat who dares deviate from that line. And the anti-Semitic thing is a powerful tool for hardline Israel supporters to whip politicians into shape. Lieberman has done this before.

                I for one would be one happy dude if we could have a discussion about US foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel without the anti-Semitic charge being thrown about. It has no place in the discussion, at least not among normal people, which I like to think we are. And shame on you for having not only brought it up but also for making the ridiculously blanket statement that you did.

                by eugene on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:12:52 PM PDT

                •  correction, Eugene

                  Go Vote didn't bring up the anti-semitism charges...that was brought up by several others here.  I for one would like to see a discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues that (a) focused on policy, and (b) reflected an understanding of actual events, rather than resorting to offensive and poorly-thought-out comparisons to apartheid and genocide. Nobody's done that here, so don't get your back up, but it's happened many times before.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:18:18 PM PDT

                •  Disgusting response

                  I for one would be one happy dude if we could have a discussion about US foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel without the anti-Semitic charge being thrown about. It has no place in the discussion, at least not among normal people, which I like to think we are. And shame on you for having not only brought it up but also for making the ridiculously blanket statement that you did.

                  I would be happy to, when anti-Semitic statements are not made.  There is no reason to criticize Lieberman in a thread about Israel that has nothing to do with him.  You can criticize Israeli policy -- that's not anti-Semitic -- you can criticize Lieberman's policy -- that's not anti-Semitic.  But lumping anything and everything together that's Jewish, pointing out Jewish sounding names in the defense department, identifying the most openly Jewish senator as having something to do with this, is anti-semitic.  I do not throw that term around lightly.  It is warranted.

                  And by the way, I was not the first to bring up anti-Semitism.  That would be the posters who were saying "just wait -- someone's gonna call me an anti-semite".  And I did.  Because they are.  Just because you say "someone's gonna do it" doesn't mean you aren't anti-Semitic in the process.

                  By the way, my post is not one worthy of a super troll.  I have something to say.  I have a right to say it.  It's very Republican of people to try to super troll my post out of existence.
                  

                  by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:22:46 PM PDT

                  •  Not going to troll rate you but...

                    Will gladly call you an idiot.

                    by Demise on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:26:24 PM PDT

                    •  I'll troll rate you ...

                      and call you an idiot.

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:37:55 PM PDT

                      •  DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT

                        WOULD EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS PISSING MATCH TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE PLEASE?!?!!

                        It is so f'n annoying to see updates in this thread only to find it is some stupid argument of lieberman....

                        I should super troll rate everyone doing this
                        because
                        a) it isn't on topic
                        and
                        b) it would at least make all these posts disappear.

                        I don't mean to be rude but seriously...start a cat-fight thread and duke it out there.

                        end of rant. :-)
                        

                        by JoelK in AZ on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:42:05 PM PDT

                        •  agreed

                          Joe Lieberman is off topic in this thread.  But somehow when Israel gets brought up, others insist upon making the connection.

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:45:57 PM PDT

                          •  You have a point but

                            this pissed me off.

                            Frankly, I do think you're a bunch of anti-semites.  Your conflation of anything and everything that you dislike about Israel, a Jewish senator, people who stand up against anti-semitism, the Jewish neo-cons, reeks of a shoot at the hip "blame the Jews."

                            Shame on all of you.

                            I don't know why people tend to equate Joe with everything bad Israel does. Actually with everything bad. But don't label us all. Joe has earned a lot of derision, not as much as he gets here, in many ways. He destroyed my respect with his Abu Ghraib comments. But there was no reason to put him in this conversation. You are right about that.

                            I don't blame Israel for what they are doing. They are looking out for the best interests of their country. We put our spies where we can too.The blame here goes directly to Bush and his administration. Their single mindedness, secrecy and underhandedness have allowed this to happen. They were played by spies for two countries and 971+ American troops have died because they only heard what they wanted to hear.

                            by Mike S on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:11:05 PM PDT

                            •  nod

                              Hoo boy.  I can understand you being upset at that particular passage.  At the time, I was referring to very particular posts, but people's posts have filled in since then, expanded the conversation and "Shame on all of you" seems to be larger than I first meant it.  My apologies.  I should have italicies the specific exchange of those who I was criticizing for insensitivity.

                              by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:07:22 PM PDT

                              •  Fair enough.

                                Scoop has a tendency to do that.

                                by Mike S on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:10:38 PM PDT

                        •  But that's the beauty of Scoop

                          The threads can have side arguments that are easy to skip over if they don't interest you.  And it should prevent scoldings about not being on topic.

                          (Now this on has two unnecessary comments - your gripe and my support for others to engage in side arguments.)

                          by Marie on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:08:44 PM PDT

                      •  Seriously..

                        There is nothing anti-semetic about this post or any of the replies to it.

                        You're acting like a fool.

                        by Demise on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:15:30 PM PDT

                  •  Maybe Lieberman was brought up

                    because he's a mole, not because he's Jewish.

                    (A Republican mole in the Democratic Party, in case you're not getting it...)

                    by reef the dog on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:26:48 PM PDT

                  •  You missed the point

                    I stand by my post. Lieberman was raised because he called out Dean when Dean said something that Holy Joe deemed insufficiently supportive of Israel. Many people here on this site are very pissed off about Lieberman over this and other similar things.

                    Instead of understanding this and leaving it at that you called everyone here anti-Semitic - not just the person who raised Lieberman's name - and then proceeded to compare us all to Nazis with the 'sieg heil' thing at the end. If you had just directed that at one person, I probably would have just ignored you. But you went too far, in my opinion, and made an utterly groundless charge.

                    As someone who has done a lot of work in his life battling racism, I understand the need to be vigilant. But I also understand the need to be precise and not see boogeymen where there aren't any. The 0 was warranted and it stands.

                    by eugene on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:11:14 PM PDT

                    •  You Missed the Point

                      Jim Moran was criticized by Nancy Pelosi for suggesting that we need to reconsider our ties to Israel, but her name does not come up here.

                      I think the reason that Lieberman's name gets brought up so much is because he is viewed in the blog community as being critical of Dean.  Whatever.  That's fine.  But this does not warrant this response: when Israel gets brought up, so does Lieberman.  Tell me, under your logic, when shouldn't Lieberman's name be brought up if Israel is?  And it's not just Lieberman, it's the listing of Jewish members of the department of defense.  It's "rouding up" the prominent Jews in this thread and speculating "could they be a spy?".

                      called everyone here anti-Semitic
                      haven't done that.  Just the ones where it applies.

                      As someone who has done a lot of work in his life battling anti-Semitism, I understand the need to be vigilant. But I also understand the need to be precise and not see boogeymen where there aren't any. However, it's here.  It's in this thread.  It's a shame.  And the fact that I'm the only one (with a little assist from Paul in Berkely) pointing it out, is unfortunate.

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:18:08 PM PDT

                      •  AntiSemitism in America

                        Do you regularly chase phantoms?

                        by paper tigress on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:24:31 PM PDT

                        •  if you think

                          If you think that anti-Semitism in America is a phantom, then you are in the wrong party.  The Republican convention is in NYC on Monday ... go have fun.

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:53:30 PM PDT

                          •  Antisemitism in America

                            
                            Once for a project I was working on, I typed "Leon Fuerth" into Google.  It's absolutely shocking the sites that search brought up -- not a full screen of legitimate pages before you hit the anti-Jewish conspiracy theory sites.  I imagine I'd find the same thing if I typed "Joe Lieberman" or "Diane Feinstein".

                            I understand why you're sensitive about this stuff.

                            That said, I agree with most here: you're overreacting.  Save your ire for the real antisemites.  They're not on this thread.

                            by tlaura on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 10:23:12 PM PDT

                      •  I'm not

                        sure but are you defending Feith and Wolfowitz or are there others listed I didn't see? As far as I'm concerned Wolf and Feith are evil despite being Jewish. I think you are getting a bit knee jerkish, not that some of your complaints are not valid, about anti semitism. Berger and Rubin have been heavily defended on this blog.

                        by Mike S on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:29:56 PM PDT

                        •  no

                          sure but are you defending Feith and Wolfowitz or are there others listed I didn't see?

                          No.

                          See the posts below where posters are debating which Jewish DoD members it could be.  That pushes buttons.

                          The Lieberman thing is what I find most troubling.

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:49:14 PM PDT

                          •  Not to start anything new

                            but what's the chance that a Israeli spy is not Jewish? Just saying.

                            Your larger point is valid and should probably be discussed in its own context. There is a disturbing tendency to blame a whole group for the actions of a subset, and Jews tend to get the brunt of that from the left. Blacks and Gays from the right.

                            Maybe one day you can do a diary so we can discuss it rationally as a community. I think you have a viewpoint that would be very beneficial to people here. If I'm remembering and guessing right you and I had a E-mail conversation back in the legacy days and you made some points that stuck with me.

                            by Mike S on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:59:05 PM PDT

                            •  Thanks, Mike

                              I appreciate your comments.  And I should do a diary.  Some other evening when I'm not so tired and cranky.  ;-)

                              by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:02:20 PM PDT

                      •  I guess we'll just have to agree...

                        ...to disagree then.

                        Lieberman is a staunch defender of Israel, perhaps the strongest in the Senate. He firmly believes that anyone who is less than strong about it is somehow doing a disservice to this country, and has attacked his own party on these grounds. Now, when we see Israel up to no good - which they were - some folks here, myself not included, see a chance to get back at Lieberman, settle an old score, take a cheap shot. 'Hey Joe', the cheap shot goes, 'why did you attack our boy Dean over not being strongly pro-Israel when that country engaged not once but twice in espionage here in the US?'

                        That you see that equation as anti-Semitic, and not merely political, is the problem I have with you. Bringing up Lieberman was an attempt to settle a score. It was no more anti-Semitic than calling out Alan Keyes is racist.

                        Remind me to put up a diary about how the Israeli-Palestinian debate in this country has poisoned political discussion.

                        As to your blanket statements:

                        "Frankly, I do think you're a bunch of anti-semites."

                        "Shame on all of you."

                        "Sig heil, dudes, sig heil."

                        I think those speak for themselves. With that, I am done with you, troll-rate me all you want, I've got the mojo to withstand it, and it's time to go enjoy my Friday night.

                        by eugene on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:30:28 PM PDT

                        •  response

                          "Frankly, I do think you're a bunch of anti-semites."

                          "Shame on all of you."

                          "Sig heil, dudes, sig heil."

                          Actually, at the time, I was responding to specific posts with these.  Since then, others have logged in, replied, and their posts have been woven in between.  Please check the time of my posts, and the time of the posts that come before it and you'll see that I am referring to a very specific set of posts.

                          Remind me to put up a diary about how the Israeli-Palestinian debate in this country has poisoned political discussion.

                          Put up a diary about how the Israeli-Palestinian debate in this country has poisoned political discussion.  I'd rather use the less judgmental term "affected" than "poisoned", however.  You'll probably get a different set of responses in that case.

                          I think those speak for themselves. With that, I am done with you, troll-rate me all you want, I've got the mojo to withstand it, and it's time to go enjoy my Friday night.

                          Dude, if I cared about mojo points over my principles, I'd write "I love Howard Dean" a few times, get my slew of 4's and my special user status and maybe I'd print it out and post it on the refridgerator for all to see.

                          Now, when we see Israel up to no good - which they were - some folks here, myself not included, see a chance to get back at Lieberman, settle an old score, take a cheap shot. 'Hey Joe', the cheap shot goes, 'why did you attack our boy Dean over not being strongly pro-Israel when that country engaged not once but twice in espionage here in the US?'

                          I don't doubt that's your reason.  And I think it's the reason for most of the posters here (though not all).  And that's not an anti-Semitic reason.  (Infantile, yes -- but cheap shots can relieve a lot of stress so if you feel it's necessary go for it.  Just make sure that you don't accidentally wind up given credence to those posters who ARE linking Lieberman with Israel not only because of his Jewish identity in addition to attacking Dean.)

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:57:37 PM PDT

              •  troubling

                I have to agree with you, GO VOTE, on the tone here. In particular, there is the sense of glee in so many comments that something has happened that reflects badly on Israel. Then there are the comments which make a point of naming anyone who is either Jewish or has a Jewish-sounding surname. Finally, there's the "just you wait, someone's going to label us anti-semitic for even mentioning the word 'Israel'" comments. I understand that a number of posters here disagree with Israeli policies. I don't consider that anti-semitic. But the tone of many of the comments strays damn close to the line.  Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but where there is smoke, there occasionally is fire.

                by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:13:51 PM PDT

                •  It doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Israel,

                  who, like most nations, tries to protect itself with espionage.  It reflects horribly on those in the UNITED STATES government who give them free rein to do so at our expense.

                  Has the US been owned and used by Israeli agents and their American counterparts?  We don't know, but we do know whose policy and legislative reccos have worked verifiably against US interests.  Want me to name names? Do I have to?
                   

                  by wozzle on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:47:46 PM PDT

                  •  Naming names

                    Well, if you do name names, you better be prepared with evidence to back it up. Remember how McCarthy used to wave that file in the air, but he never actually revealed what was in it? (OK, I don't remember either, I was born in 1961, but you get my point).  A lot of people throw around accusations here, but when the accusations aren't backed up by evidence, it reflects badly on the accuser.

                    by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:54:49 PM PDT

                    •  Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bush, Powell,

                      Rice, Perle, and so forth.  There are Jewish and non-Jewish surnames, and they have done this country unbelievable damage.

                      And there are many of all faiths who agree with me.

                      by wozzle on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:58:25 PM PDT

              •  Holy Joe

                refers to Lieberman's consistent sanctimony, actually, and not to his Jewishness.

                The rest of your assertions are so broad that I don't see any reason I should take them personally.  Not much point in arguing about whether we are all, each and every one of us, anti-semites.

                by martianchronic on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:23:33 PM PDT

                •  oh boy

                  I would consider those who can't tell the difference between Israel, Lieberman and Jewish members of the Department of Defense to be the ones who are making broad assertions.

                  Holy Joe refers to Lieberman's consistent sanctimony, actually, and not to his Jewishness.

                  When you start referring to John Ashcroft as Holy John or George W. Bush as Holy George or Ralph Reed as Holy Ralph, let me know.  You don't seem to want to allow Joe to be anything more than his religion, as if his religion is all Joe Lieberman is.  Kos has dropped using the term when I explained why it was offensive.  He used the term very early in the primary and has since dropped it.  
                  

                  by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:31:08 PM PDT

                  •  GoVOTE Yourself

                    In fact, you one-note jackass, several posts on this site have referred to Nader as Saint Ralph. As for Lieberman, I suggest to you that his sanctimony has been referenced on this site more than once. The point, goVOTE, is that a very serious case of espionage has been revealed, apparently involving a highly-placed individual within the Department of Defense as well as a group lobbying for a foreign power. Anti-semitism is not the issue; criminal behavior and possible interference in the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States is.

                    by illinois muckraker on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:50:43 PM PDT

                    •  Anti-semitism is not the issue....

                      Anti-semitism is not the issue; criminal behavior and possible interference in the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States is.

                      Anti-semitism is not the issue with the Israeli spy business (so far as we know), that is correct.

                      Immediately linking Lieberman and all Jewish members of the Department of Defense to the Israeli spy story, however, strikes me as anti-Semitic.  Ok, there's a spy from Israel.  What are we going to do, make lists of all prominent Jews who support Israel and pick and choose who it could be?  Oh, wait.  Some people here did.  (P.S. That's anti-Semitic.  That's like rounding up all the Japanese during World War II because they could be spies.)
                      

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:58:43 PM PDT

                      •  Enough Already

                        GoVOTE, you'd make a good White House flack. Talk about not answering the point. What I responded to in your original post was your silly notion that calling Lieberman "Holy Joe" was somehow tantamount to anti-semitism. You said that when people on this site started referring to Nader or others using such terms, it might not be. Well, Nader's been called Saint Ralph on this site numerous times, and Holy Joe's sanctimony has been duly noted. So stuff it.

                        by illinois muckraker on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:33:05 PM PDT

                        •  Enough Already

                          I don't buy it.  I've heard the "Saint Ralph" thing, too, but I haven't seen that used as hungrily nor as often as Holy Joe.  (If you do a search, you'll find far, far more diaries containing "Nader" than "Saint Ralph" but that's not true for "Holy Joe" and "Lieberman."  "Saint Ralph" has been the exception, "Holy Joe" has been the ruel.  So stuff it yourself.

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:41:30 PM PDT

                      •  It doesn't link

                        "every Jewish member of the Department of Defense" which is a very large organization and surely has many Jewish members.  What it does is link very specific prominent members of the Department of Defense's intelligence and policy apparatus who also have a history of working with (in some cases for) and rather generally in support of Israel's Likkud party and current government.  The fact that these people also happen to be Jewish is immaterial to that point.  You are the one who is bringing up these folks "Jewishness"; if you are trying to imply that their history of support, ties and even employment for the Likkuds is simply because they are Jewish, then you're the one making anti-Semitic links, or?

                        I agree however, that it was gratuitious to bring in Lieberman, though he has supported bad policy decisions coming out of that DOD operation more often than would be reasonable for a member of the opposition party.

                        by a gilas girl on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:08:53 PM PDT

                        •  sort of agree

                          I think bringing in Lieberman was my main objection, though I do think listing members of the DoD (most of whom are listed because of Jewish names -- I mean Kissinger's name was thrown in this thread) pushes buttons.  Nevertheless, it's when no one (except me) challenged Lieberman's name being brought into this that got me quite upset.  I understand many don't like him, but does their dislike for him cloud their better judgment.  You may call it gratuitous; I call it anti-semitic, even if it wasn't intended as such.  I know that's difficult.  But just as the Supreme Court decides that something can be racism is found in the effect, not the intent, I see that with bringing in Lieberman's name, too.  It's the effect -- look Lieberman's got dual loyalties -- not the intent.  

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:14:35 PM PDT

                          •  Its not that its difficult

                            that I object, its that its wrong: it isn't Lieberman's Jewishness that is at issue (and why he's brought up in these discussions) but his unqualified support for Likkud Israel. Its THAT support that invokes the dual loyalties thing not the fact that he's Jewish.  I work with plenty of Jewish activist in anti-Occupation work, some are even Israelis, so Jewishness does not equal unequivocal support of Israel; that's a political and a connection issue.  

                            You are a tad too jumpy with that anti-Semitism trigger, equating people's disdain for Lieberman with his Jewish identity, when it is pretty clear that most people's disdain for Lieberman came from the anti-Democratic positions he took during the primary: (supporting Bush neo-con war mongering, talking about "values", not wanting to challenge the Republicans, wanting to pull the Democratic party even farther right as the future of the party).  Your rapid jump from "holy" Joe to anti-Semitism is the best example of that (Joe got that nickname around here because the libertarian types here are heartily opposed to his anti-sex and anti-violence in media crusades and his voice against Clinton during the impeachment mess).

                            People don't like Lieberman, I'll grant you that, but there are plenty of reasons not to like Lieberman, you don't have to go around weaving disparate threads together to fabricate this worn cloak of anti-Semitism.

                            by a gilas girl on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 10:28:35 PM PDT

                  •  I wasn't a participant in the conversation

                    that has your hair on fire, and I don't see how jumping in to accuse everyone and anyone of being anti-semitic will persuade any of those commenters to reconsider their statements.

                    And I disagree that "Holy Joe" is an anti-semitic nickname.  Frankly, I have referred to Ashcroft as Holy John or Crisco Johnny for the same reason I use the nickname for Lieberman.  Both of them preach and assume moral superiority in a way that annoys the shit of me.

                    by martianchronic on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:00:39 PM PDT

              •  Bullshit bullshit bullshit

                The 'most openly Jewish Senator' is a meaningless phrase. Who is hiding their religion in the US Senate? Does obsessing about blowjobs and videogames and rap music make you 'more openly Jewish'? I thought it just made you a moralizing prick. Is Chuck Schumer less open about his religion? Don't play the religion card and cloud the waters....Joe Lieberman is and was a huge supporter of policies that may have been influenced by foreign spies according to tonight's reports.

                Many people here on dKos have policy disagreements with Joe Lieberman and most people here find his personality insufferable. That does not make them anti-semitic. The Middle East has been in the news lately in case you haven't noticed and people are a little upset about the War in Iraq. You might remember the War in Iraq, it's the event where Joe Lieberman ran to the right of President Bush on in the Democratic Primaries.

                Only one Democratic Senator is part of the newly formed Committe on the Present Danger with Jon Kyl, James Woolsey and Laurie Mylroie and Ed Meese and that is Joe Lieberman. It's entirely appropriate to bring up Joe Lieberman's name because he has openly supported the judgement of the President's Team.

                by joejoejoe on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:26:36 PM PDT

                •  not

                  The 'most openly Jewish Senator' is a meaningless phrase.

                  I'll agree with this.  "The most well known Jewish Senator" is more appropriate.

                  It's entirely appropriate to bring up Joe Lieberman's name because he has openly supported the judgement of the President's Team.

                  It is not, however, appropriate to bring up his name within seconds of the announcement of an Israeli spy.  Democrats as a whole, Kerry and Lieberman included, have said that Kerry would be more supportive of Israel than Bush is because he would be more involved.  In fact, Lieberman campaigned in Florida with Kerry and said just that.  So, if it's their support of Israel that's the link, when will Kerry's name be brought up?  Frankly, when will Bush's name be brought up.  One would think that his name would be brought up well before Lieberman's and well before the Jewish members of the Defense team.

                  by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:36:21 PM PDT

                  •  Good points

                    The first post in this diary had a lot of info and did specifically reference the White House and Bush by extension. You make a reasonable case that Kerry would have a better policy towards Israel but I can't follow your logic chain that people should somehow link Kerry to this argument. Many Israelis think Sharon is doing a terrible job should be replaced with someone who will do better for Israel and that can hardly be considered antisemitic - it's just politics. I think people are finding fault with the Bush/Sharon militaristic view of the Middle East and calling it 'Israel' or 'supporting Israel'.

                    Lieberman's criticisms of Dean and support of Bush and the War in Iraq are sore spots that trigger reflexive criticism (especially in me). I would be interested in reading the post where you explained your views about 'Holy Joe' to Kos. 'Holy Joe' rhymes and 'Holy John' doesn't so its not as fun to say. That might be a small part of why it became popular. Sometimes people say insensitive things because they are ignorant of how their remarks are perceived  and if you can educate us on antisemitism and leave Joe Lieberman out of the discussion I think all parties will be better served.

                    by joejoejoe on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:59:40 PM PDT

                    •  thanks

                      Sometimes people say insensitive things because they are ignorant of how their remarks are perceived  and if you can educate us on antisemitism and leave Joe Lieberman out of the discussion I think all parties will be better served.

                      I'd be happy to.  Can I answer specific questions?  I'm not really sure where to begin.  (And I agree -- I'd like to do it without bringing Lieberman into the discussion.  Somehow his name winds up brought into anything with a Jewish connection, and somehow in combatting that connection, I ultimately wind up reinforcing it.)

                      I would be interested in reading the post where you explained your views about 'Holy Joe' to Kos.
                      Man, I wish I could provide a link, but it was on the old comments system (pre-scoop).  
                      

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:22:47 PM PDT

                      •  Another time, another thread

                        I'll take some time to think of some questions and ask in a quieter thread.

                        I think one thing all of us here can agree on is how nice it was to see Gal Friedman win the first Gold Medal at the Olympics for Israel. After the horrors of Munich '72 it is nice to see a positive triumph for Israelis and for sports. It was also moving to see the Iraqi and Italian Soccer teams both acknowledge the killing of the Italian journalist in Iraq together by wearing black armbands to honor Enzo Baldoni, the murdered reporter. Olympic competitions are often marred by poor sportsmanship but sometimes the behavior of the athletes can transcend the competition.

                        by joejoejoe on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:51:36 PM PDT

                        •  that is very cool

                          N/T

                          by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:00:10 PM PDT

              •  Joe Lieberman is Disturbing

                The conversation here is pretty disturbing.  As is bringing in Joe Lieberman.

                If this thread is full of anti-semites, why haven't Senators Carl Levin or Russ Feingold (or any other Jewish Senators) been disparaged?  Because the issue isn't religion, it's conduct - specifically Lieberman's pro-neo-con, pro-Likudnik stance regarding the Iraq War.

                Joe Lieberman isn't being attacked because he's Jewish.  He's being attacked because he's an asshole.

                by HarveyMilk on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:41:19 PM PDT

                •  Simple

                  Because Lieberman is the most well-known Jewish Senator.  No other Jewish senator has articulated their Jewish identity in front of a national audience.  "Quieter" Jewish Senators are less of a problem, it seems.

                  Because the issue isn't religion, it's conduct - specifically Lieberman's pro-neo-con, pro-Likudnik stance regarding the Iraq War.

                  There were a lot of people who supported the Iraq war.  Why aren't their names being brought up?  George Bush, for one.  Why only Lieberman, Perle and Wolfowitz?  Oh, wait.

                  by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:47:53 PM PDT

                  •  New Comment

                    Could you guys please start another comment link - and please go after each other there = if that is what you feel like doing.

                    It might be a good idea for those of you still hot and bothered to either apologize to each other -- or go for a walk --

                    This is not helping anybody

                    by sara seattle on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:58:28 PM PDT

                    •  These are wise words

                      However, I do believe that some pretty offensive charges were made, and I think it's important that offensive, bigotted charges are combatted in a public sphere.  I don't know if I'm doing the right thing here, or just feeding the trolls, but I'd rather say something, than nothing at all.

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:11:40 PM PDT

                  •  Feinstein?

                    Dianne Feinstein voted for the war.  She's Jewish.  Haven't heard her name bandied about. Perhaps it's because she made her vote and spoke her mind, but didn't otherwise set out to reinforce the Bush agenda and smear everyone else in the Democratic Party that didn't agree with her on the subject.

                    I should point out that the Jewish Senators I mentioned previously - Levin and Feingold - voted against the war.  I think this bears mention just in case there are any true anti-semites reading this thread who think all of our Jewish politicians were of one mind on this matter.  

                    Additionally, I promise you that here in Michigan, the Honorable Carl Levin is the most "well known", "openly" - or however you wish to characterize it - Jewish Senator.  However, Mr. Levin is a brilliant man of integrity and true patriotism.  Joe Lieberman is not.  

                    by HarveyMilk on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:11:48 PM PDT

                    •  Feinstein

                      doesn't go on the Sean Hannity show and nod at everything he says.  Feinstein didn't capitulate to the Republicans during the 2000 recount by allowing them to count hundreds of disqualified overseas ballots for Bush.  Lieberman is an asshole and that has nothing to do with his religion.  In fact, his religion is perhaps the one redeeming value he has.  We don't like Lieberman for the same reasons we don't like Zell Miller -- he's become a tool for George W. Bush and stabs us in the back too many times.

                      I've been to Israel unlike most of the people here and I think it's a great country.  But it needs to seriously get the hell out of that hellhole the West Bank.  There are too many pretty Israeli girls getting blown up on buses over some crap piece of desert.  I've been in the West Bank -- it sucks.  Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Eilat are much nicer.  Anyway, this isn't a discussion about the Israeli peace process or Joe Lieberman.  It's about the crooks running our defense department.  Hopefully this thread will end soon.

                      by existenz on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 10:42:16 PM PDT

                      •  Not Exactly

                        This is supposed to be a discussion of the political implications of the revelation that high placed officials in the Defense Department and in the major pro-Israel lobbying group were breaking the law in order to help Isreal steer U.S. mid-east policy so it was more in line with Israel's (as opposed to U.S.) interests.

                        A spy story by definition deals with divided loyalties, a concept that when used in association with anyone jewish has historical resonances that scare a lot of jews.  Look what was done to Emma Goldman, the Rosenburgs and many others.

                        And then there are some who will curse their car when it won't start as an "anti-semetic vehicle."

                        by kaleidescope on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 08:23:19 AM PDT

                  •  Man...

                    You've ruined the discussion in this thread.

                    Look at the story, then ask yourself that question.

                    No one is attacking jews in this thread, no one is being anti-semetic- you'd make a great Republican because you're very good at using the "call someone a name to end the discussion" tactic.

                    by Demise on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:20:46 PM PDT

                    •  sigh

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:24:22 PM PDT

                    •  to clarify

                      No, Demise, your diary is not anti-semitic.  If I have implied otherwise, that was never my intention.  Nor is your first post (the lengthy one).  

                      What pushes buttons, however, is this exchange:

                      Scoop! The Spy's Nane Is (4.00 / 5)
                      Richard Perle!
                      easong
                      Holy Joe would probably say that Israel... (3.54 / 11)
                      has the right to spy on our nation to defend itself.
                      by ECH
                      Holy Joe also said our soldiers should die (3.57 / 7)
                      for Israel.  
                      desperate04
                      If You Even Say "Israel" (3.36 / 11)
                      And you are not defending Israel, then you are an anti-semite, and must be marginalized.
                      by easong
                      Dean couldn't even say... (3.57 / 7)
                      The US should be evenhanded in our dealings with the Israeli/Palistinian conflict without the likes of holy Joe coming out and calling him a anti-semite.  
                      by ECH

                      These posters immediately went from reading your well-written story about the Israeli spy to immediately linking it to Perle and Liebmeran, without any evidence to do so.  (Later on down the thread someone starts listing prominent Jewish names in the DoD.)

                      That's what I'm objecting to.  It pushes the dual loyalties stereotype, that somehow prominent Jews are more loyal to Israel than America.  Was the spy an American citizen?  We don't know.  But bringing up Lieberman's name strikes me as especially problematic.  What does he have to do with this conversation, other than to "show" that a Jew can be more loyal to Israel than America.  I can't imagine any logical situation where Lieberman would have anything to do with an Israeli spy in Bush's Department of Defense.

                      Perhaps I've shot at the hip tonight, but so have many others, not that it excuses it.  Nevertheless, my reaction does not diminish the seriousness of posters who are unable to distinguish one issue from another.
                      

                      by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:36:30 PM PDT

                      •  Let me get this straight

                        you're objecting to mentioning Richard Perle with this story too?

                        if so, you've just lost the last scrap of respect i had for your mission in this diary's comment thread ... lieberman's connection was a case for 6 degrees of separation, but perle, wolfowitz and feith are virtually joined at the hip ...

                        by wystler on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 02:53:03 PM PDT

              •  You get a troll rating for this:

                  Sig heil, dudes, sig heil.

                It's a long long leap to Nazism. Now who's a jerk?

                by MichaelPH on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:52:37 PM PDT

            •  ta-DAAAA!

              right on schedule...

              by zeke L on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:00:45 PM PDT

              •  loser

                Nice strategy.  Instead of rethinking what you are doing, you try to marginalize me as some crazy dolt.  It's the same strategy that Bush is trying to do with Kerry -- present him as off his rocker.  He tried to do the same with McCain.  Whether you realize it or not, you've followed Bush's playbook.  Thanks for legitimizing his infantile tactics here on DailyKos.

                by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:07:16 PM PDT

                •  <cof> bloviate!

                  dude - you take yourself way too seriously.  

                  and do you remember our discussion about not troll-rating people you're arguing with?  apparently not.  not that i'm arguing with you - i was just pointing out, in response to a comment, that there is one poster who is guaranteed to show up and play the anti-semitic card whenever joe lieberman is mentioned.

                  thank you for proving my point so easily.  i was worried you'd make me look foolish by letting a tangential mention of joe roll off your back for once in your life. silly me.

                  bye bye.

                  by zeke L on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:18:38 PM PDT

                  •  dude

                    You've already done all you can to make me look foolish, so I think it's pretty nice of me not to return the favor.

                    and do you remember our discussion about not troll-rating people you're arguing with?

                    You make it sound so innocent.  I don't troll rate people that I disagree with.  I troll rate people who are trolls.  If they happen to be people that I disagree with, so be it.  But anti-semitic posts (and there are many here) are troll rated.  Posts that aren't (ditto) have not been.

                    by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:26:00 PM PDT

                    •  On a lighter note...

                      ...how DO you find these posts so quickly?

                      It's impressive. Kerry should hire you to do rapid response.

                      by joejoejoe on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:37:21 PM PDT

                      •  well

                        Actually, it's pretty sad that I'm able to respond so quickly.  I guess I have a goal to make sure that anti-Semitism, even unintentional anti-Semitism doesn't become the norm.  I believe too much in the Democratic Party and too much in this site.  I am determined that healthy critiques of Israeli/US policy, Lieberman, Zionism, Israeli/Palestinian affairs without turning to anti-Semitic diatribe, or pushing those very buttons.  I don't like Sharon and I don't agree with everything Lieberman says, but I recognize that these are different topics, and the conflation of anything and everything Israeli and Jewish reeks of unitelligence.  Most people here are intelligent, but some of the bluntly anti-semitic ones (usually those who say "just watch! I'm gonna get called an anti-semite") tend to speak the loudest.  I know that they don't recognize everyone here, but I don't believe in turning a blind eye either.

                        by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:08:48 PM PDT

                    •  really?

                      i fail to see what's anti-semitic about "ta-DAAA! right on schedule."  yeah it makes you look foolish, but only because you did exactly what we knew you would.  had you and your bud blown it off, we would have been the ones who looked foolish.

                      but now i'm really off this thread - every thread i've ever seen you participate in, all the way back to the MT days, has gone to $#!% in a hurry.  looks like that's what we have here again.  

                      thanks for spreading discord and ill-will once again, goVOTE.

                      by zeke L on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:41:21 PM PDT

                      •  sigh

                        fail to see what's anti-semitic about "ta-DAAA! right on schedule."  

                        I think it's pretty clear that I have no beef with "ta-DAA! right on schedule.  Nor did I refer to that as an anti-Semitic line.  Again, please stop trying to make me look like a crack brain in order to avoid considering what I am saying in my posts.  

                        by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:09:30 PM PDT

                        •  really?

                          and you can stop your insipid faux-wounded sigh comments as well.

                          on the one hand you say,
                          I think it's pretty clear that I have no beef with "ta-DAA! right on schedule.  Nor did I refer to that as an anti-Semitic line.

                          and upthread,
                          I don't troll rate people that I disagree with.  I troll rate people who are trolls.  If they happen to be people that I disagree with, so be it.  But anti-semitic posts (and there are many here) are troll rated. Posts that aren't (ditto) have not been.

                          here's your rating of my comment:
                          3) ta-DAAAA! [3.00], by zeke L, Rated: 1
Posted on 08/27/2004 20:00:45 EST
Rated on 08/27/2004 20:44:07 EST

                          you lie as badly as a swift boat vet.

                          you'll also note that i haven't rated a single one of your comments, nor your sidekick.  not one.  next time, however, i won't do the talking, i'll do the rating.  because you are never anything but disruptive of this community.

                          i really wish you would actually post something positive on this board.  but you never have. never.  over the past year the only times you show up to post is when someone expresses a negative opinion of joe lieberman.  your response is invariably a knee-jerk branding of that person as anti-semitic.  i don't think you know how hurtful that is to us, to call us racists.  and i should note, though it's a bit late now, you never stop to think about what the ethnicity of the people you're branding might be.

                          you have accomplished nothing but ruining every thread you have participated in.  

                          please stop.

                          and once and for all, get it into your head: we don't like joe lieberman for what he does and what he says, not who his momma is.  clear?

                          by zeke L on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:15:59 PM PDT

                          •  obviously

                            Obviously to conclude this:

                            you have accomplished nothing but ruining every thread you have participated in.  

                            is utter hyperbole.  Have you read every one of my posts?  Jeepers, that must have taken you all night.  I don't think I have ruined every thread I have participated in.  Nor do I think I ruined this one.  In fact, you were the one who invited me to participate!

                            where's our old friend goVOTE?   now that someone's invoked the name of holey joe, i'm sure he'll be around here promptly.

                            This was one of the first posts in the thread, and I am happy to accept your invitation.

                            Also, your response to when I did participate:

                            ta-DAA! right on schedule

                            Is a troll post.  Between your "invitation" and your response, you did not respond to the diary, but you mocked me.  That's a troll post in my book.  No, "ta-DAAA" is not an anti-semitic comment, nor was I referring to it in what you pasted above.  

                            you'll also note that i haven't rated a single one of your comments, nor your sidekick.  not one.  next time, however, i won't do the talking, i'll do the rating.

                            Feel free to rate me as you see fit.  If I was concerned about ratings, I'd post a few "Dean is the best ever!" posts, get my slew of 4s and my super user status.  I, however, will write posts that I feel strongly about, instead.

                            I'm not sure who my sidekick is, but please give him my regards.
                            

                            by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:32:30 PM PDT

                            •  Dean is the best ever!!

                              Howard Dean!  Howard Dean!

                              I will use my imminent super-user powers only for good.

                              by gogol999 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 10:15:57 PM PDT

                    •  I've been on dKos for nearly 2+ years

                      and I don't think I"ve ever read an anti-Semitic post, even from a troll. (I'm excepting the guy who called people anti-Jew rather than anti-Semitic, which I actually thought was an anti-Semitic use of language, but I think that was just me).  I have read very obvious homophobic posts here (they always get troll rated and disappear) and once I read a white racist comment about black people (it too got disappeared).  

                      by a gilas girl on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:57:50 PM PDT

                      •  I've been on dkos for nearly 2+ years

                        and I have.  Unfortunately.  They are not the norm, and I am working like mad to make sure they don't become the norm.  But I'm glad that in your experiences in select threads you have not encountered them.  

                        by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:04:45 PM PDT

                        •  "working like mad"

                          Have you considered the possibility that the cure you impose on the entire thread is worse than the perceived disease?

                          by Pondite on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:04:43 PM PDT

          •  He Trolled Me

            Within minutes of my Israel comment above.

            by easong on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:52:31 PM PDT

            •  well...

              If You Even Say "Israel"
              And you are not defending Israel, then you are an anti-semite, and must be marginalized.

              You deserved it.

              That's not true.  Most will be very accepting of criticism of Israel.  I criticize Israel.  But I don't like people who are convinced that those who point out anti-semitism are loose with the term.  It's not one I use loosely; only when it is deserved.

              Your post, in essence, marginalizes all those who are trying to combat anti-semitism and that's unfortunate.  It's a thoughtless comment.  And oddly, and even more problematically, you are responding to a comment which somehow connects Lieberman to the Israeli spy.  It's almost as if you recognize the inherent anti-semitism in that connection.
              

              by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:02:01 PM PDT

              •  I Won't Downrate You

                For your point of view. But here can be no open discussion of the role Israel plays in American politics. The Israel lobby insures the entire discussion is off the table.

                by easong on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:14:46 PM PDT

                •  no it doesn't

                  Who is this Israel lobby?  I don't think the discussion is off the table.  I do think that those who are saying "oh no matter what you can't talk about Israel because you'll be branded an anti-Semite" are closing discussion.  The only way to show that statement isn't true is for you to make an anti-Semitic comment and for me to let it pass!  And that's just not going to happen.  

                  You can criticize Israel, and I may or may not disagree with you, but don't give yourself a blank check by playing the victim ("people keep calling me an anti-Semite when I criticize Israel").  Sometimes, it's warranted.  Sure some play the anti-semitism card too heavily, but not everyone, not the Israel lobby, not pro-Israel folks as a whole, so stop giving yourself a blank check by globalizing your statement.

                  by GoVOTE on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:36:32 PM PDT

                  •  Thank you for fighting this...

                    Just read through the thread and I wanted to thank you.  I know how annoyed you must have been and I know how much grief you get here for it.

                    However, I think it's important that everyone come to understand the harmful nature of the dual loyalties stereotype. I'm glad you pointed it out, but I am saddened that too many otherwise enlightened posters don't understand what the heck you are talking about.

                    I think it would be as if on the Freeper board there were a story about a black politician getting busted for corruption and the Freepers immediately started speculating about whether Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama or Harold Ford would condone or encourage the corruption because they are more interested in backing other African-Americans than pursuing justice.  

                    I think people here would understand that it would be a form of racism to immediately start trying to link a prominent black politician to it just because they share a skin color (and an ideology), but for some reason many on our side seem unable to see things like that when it comes to Israel and Jews.

                    Thanks again for hanging in there and doing your best to point out the unfor