why is this surprising? bush one made bin laden.

In a way, this is a good qualification for the job: it means he got up close and personal with the intimate details of how Islamist terrorist networks function.
Often I have been hearing these days by so called progressives, “Its not Bush. Its the people around him.” We know what that means. Yeah — as in Adbusters. Judging American Jews by a small group of neocons makes no more sense than, uh, judging American Jewish filmmaking by a small group of Hollywood filmmakers.

“Whether or not Chertoff had prior knowledge of Elamir’s alleged connections to Diaa Mohsen and bin Laden is UNKNOWN.”

I like the idea of a defense attorney being the Sec’y of Homeland Security. Who else would be better acquanted with the civil liberties issues involved?

Zionista – I agree with you full heartedly. Just the “socialism of fools” really gets to me. I sort of expect this kind of thing out of Buchanan or Novak.

8opus, then you would agree that Hillary Clinton embracing Suha arafat during a diplomatic greeting was a good thing as well?
No, I do not think that Hillary Clinton gained special insight into Islamist terrorism by embracing Suha Arafat.
To reiterate, Chertoff’s “good thing” comes from having — he’d have to have — delved deeply into the details of how the terrorist networks are structured, presumably including access to privileged information he wouldn’t have otherwise had access to.
You seem to think that defending the guy means that Chertoff personally supports him, his politics, his crimes, whatever. Where did you get that idea, though?

8opus: “Um, no. Nor is it progressive when self-entitled progressives say it. But what are you driving at, exactly?”
I’m saying that, while antisemitism can be found in varying degrees wherever politics happens, the antisemitism on the left is hardly as potent or dangerous as it is on the right. In case you haven’t noticed, the left is quite impotent (sorry if the sarcasm of that “powerful Adbusters” comment was too subtle). The right, on the other hand, has a firm grip on the levers of American political power and the ability to exploit the twisted rhetoric that makes “neocon” a synonym for “Jew.” The Bush administration’s aversion to accountability makes for an unfortunate recipe in which guys with names like Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, or Kristol become something more than the individual conservative hacks that they are.
Check this out for more
http://tinylink.com/?nINxN4zhPt

“The right, on the other hand, has a firm grip on the levers of American political power and the ability to exploit the twisted rhetoric that makes “neocon” a synonym for “Jew.” ”
Ability to exploit = exploitation?
Looks to me that the right’s main role thus far has been to promote the neocons to power. Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!
Maybe it has to do with the trade deficit.

J: “Looks to me that the right’s main role thus far has been to promote the neocons to power. Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!”
Check it out. Jew=neocon.

J, you said it yourself: “Looks to me that the right’s main role thus far has been to promote the neocons to power. Ooh, those vicious anti-semites!” You use the administration’s promotion of neocons as evidence against antisemitism. And now you say the equivalence only comes from the left? (Doesn’t that make you something of a useful idiot in Stalinist terms?)
So, tell us how the left controls the FBI counterintelligence probe of AIPAC. Tell us how an editor at Adbusters has an echo chamber to the extent of a Buchanan or Novak from NewsMax and Townhall, through talk radio and newspaper syndication, to MSNBC and CNN?

You that (1) responded to my comment about left-wing antisemitism by labelling it irrelevant because omnipresent, arguing that the subject should be changed to right-wing antisemitism, and grounding all this in the idea that (2) in case you haven’t noticed, the left is quite impotent.
I wrote: You’re saying that (1) one should stay mum about left-wing antisemitism, because (2) the left-wing doesn’t really matter much, and disagreed.
I am? You are what, exactly? Show us where, please. Well, I’d love to help you out, but you’ll have to be more specific.

The fact is, the people who insist ‘neocon’ is what people say when they really mean ‘Jew’ are right wingers like Joel Mowbray at right wing soapboxes like TownHall.com

J: “It’s such a shame today’s left thinks so little of the Jews. Why can’t they be more like the old left, led by philosemites like Marx and Stalin? Oh, wait…”
Are only Communists leftists? Or can any old liberal join?
The conservative echo-chamber’s leftist du jour Barbara Boxer cosponsored the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act in the Senate last year.
John Kerry, who Dick and Dubya often attacked as the “most liberal Senator” has a perfect pro-Israel voting record (Jewish Virtual Library — http://tinylink.com/?wfQV69Lcav ).
Meanwhile over in Europe, French socialist Francois Zimeray and German Ilke Schroeder of the United European Left led the effort in the European Parliament to audit EU funding of the Palestinian Authority. And every red blooded American’s rhetorical punching bag, Jacques Chirac leads France’s conservative party.

8opus: “I think the new topics that Zionista has brought up regarding antisemitism in and around America’s right wing — Buchanan, Novak, AIPAC, FBI, etc. — are important, too. I’m not sure how they’re related to the conversation, though.”
It was in response to your and Daniel Rosen’s tangent on the whole “blame the Jews” approach to foreign policy discontent. I think it’s pretty important stuff to discuss too. Which brings us back to perspectives on what’s good and not so good for the Jews, and the implications of his defense of Magdy Elamir on Michael Chertoff’s qualifications for Homeland Security czar.

t your introduction of Kalle Lasn’s antisemitic “neocon enemies list” editorial (I traded a few angry emails with Adbusters too back then), I questioned your sense of perspective. Luckily, in this world we’re allowed to talk about both. And more! Because we’re allowed to talk about both, “sense of perspective” only applies if left-wing antisemitism is completely irrelevant.
In my opinion, the left is quite impotent… I see. Is the point here that it’s pointless to talk about left-wing antisemitism, since the left wing doesn’t matter? That it’s pointless to talk about anything that isn’t the mostest, the biggest, and the baddest? Or is there some other point I’m missing?
there is an issue of priorities. Sure. Luckily, we all have different priorities, so are not automatons.
I mean, yeah. Some people think that the daily massacres being perpetrated by the Chinese government means that there’s no point in doing anything about crimes committed by Israeli soldiers: there’s an issue of priorities. Some people think that the massacres being perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists means that there’s no point in doing anything about crimes committed by Israeli car thieves: there’s an issue of priorities.
On the other hand, those people are wrong.

Did I miss something? Where is the right -wing anti-semitism? Anyone want to make the case? (Let’s see if we can go beyond the ubiquitous and all-encompassing Buchanan and Novak.)
“Again, antisemitism will occur wherever politics happens.”
Yeah, it’s all equal. What a copout.
“and the circumstances lining up whereby a conservative leadership could be on the verge of fingering a traditional scapegoat for their own failed policy.”
Remarkable. Pure speculation, backed by no evidence, about what some people MIGHT do. All while the left blatantly spews anti-semitism and supports terrorism against Israel.
“Your lack of any reply beyond a weird censorship complex …”
Great diagnosis, Doctor. Why make arguments when you can question people’s sanity?
It’s nice Boxer and Kerry do good things occasionally. You seem to be answering a nonexistent argument – an argument claiming that the Democrats are always anti-Israel. But this is not the argument being made. I argue that the Dems are less consistent in support of Israel than the Republicans. They also tolerate from each other what shouldn’t be tolerated – for example, Democratic Senator (!) Fritz Hollings’ little rant.
“Meanwhile over in Europe, French socialist Francois Zimeray and German Ilke Schroeder of the United European Left led the effort in the European Parliament to audit EU funding of the Palestinian Authority.”
Good for them. But why is auditing funding such a major concession? Shouldn’t we expect it?
“And every red blooded American’s rhetorical punching bag, Jacques Chirac leads France’s conservative party.”
What they call “conservative” in France is not what we call conservative in the USA. It’s naive to be caught up in names.
“Sure. That explains difference between “Rathergate” and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth [sic].”
Could be the difference is between partisan advocates using paid ads on the one hand, and a supposed pillar of the “objective” journalistic establishment using a news show (not a paid ad) to pass off fraud, on the other. Could be.

J: “Pure speculation, backed by no evidence, about what some people MIGHT do. All while the left blatantly spews anti-semitism and supports terrorism against Israel.”
Did you bother reading the Edwin Black article I linked to above? Or any of the series of articles by Ori Nir in the Forward? (And do you have any evidence that Bush-Cheney & Co. will ever take responsibility and hold itself accountable for any of its promises that it has failed to keep?)
And what is this “left” you are so frightened of, J? Where is the manifesto? Give us a real reason we should be as paralyzed with fear and loathing as you are.

8opus: “… Weird censorship complex? I’m afraid you’ve lost me.”
Perhaps I misunderstood your comments:
“… I see. Is the point here that it’s pointless to talk about left-wing antisemitism, since the left wing doesn’t matter? That it’s pointless to talk about anything that isn’t the mostest, the biggest, and the baddest? Or is there some other point I’m missing?”
If I misunderstood, then please clarify your meaning for me. Because I never said anything like “it’s pointless to talk about left-wing antisemitism,” but I do argue that right wing antisemitism has a greater potential of being a real threat than left wing antisemitism at this point, and base my argument on the accessibility of the American right wing to a government already dominated by conservative (anti-tax, deregulatory, faith-based) fellow travelers. But if you can’t argue your position without pretending that any counterpoint amounts to a dismissal of it, then how solid is your position to begin with?

“I say you oversimplify when it suits you.”
I oversimplify because I have limited time and because no one wants to read a 20-page post. I can’t list every exception and caveat. However, I simplify as fairly as possible, presenting the “average” or general rather than the exceptions.
“You distance Novak and Buchanan from conservative ideas, despite the sustained popularity of either, ”
Your’e not paying attention. I did not distance Novak. I did distance Buchanan, because he has distanced himself. He became a populist in the 90’s, and is today a paleoconservative. He gets little support or approval from conservatives (conservatives did not support his presidential runs, for example). His claim to fame today is as editor of a small magazine which opposes mainstream conservatives as much as it opposes anyone else, and as a loud, entertaining TV figure. He has only a small following, and these are not conservatives as such are known-and elected- today.
Regarding Novak, I never said that every single conservative out there is pro-Israel. I do say that the great majority are, that it’s pretty much become a platform of conservatism to support Israel, and that the support is not just in quantity but in quality. Since the Intifada, even I was pleasantly surprised with the vehemence and vigor of conservative support for Israel.
Novak is a well-known commentator, but he’s just one of maybe two dozen others of equal or greater stature. Not to mention the radio hosts, editors of and contributors to conservative magazines, scholars and think tanks, writers, and elected officials and their staff and advisors. National Review, Weekly Standard, George Will, Buckley and the Heritage Foundation are all far more influential than Novak. All are pro-Israel.
“while you reduce “the left” to “half-educated, spoiled, self-hating (both American and Jewish) brats who get off on posing as prophets who ‘speak truth to power’.”
99 out of 100 people would understand that I’m not literally reducing the Left to what I said above, just presenting an archetype. Some leftists are not even half-educated.
“And when I ask you to explain yourself, we get the usual blustering bullshit out of you, like “Anyone think this is a real question, or just more sophistry from Propagandista?”
It was a bullshit question. Are you looking for a list of writers, magazines, political figures, websites, think tanks, historical figures? What’s your point?
And have you figured out the trade deficits yet?

“You had asked, in characteristically nasty rhetorical fashion…”
Do you read your own posts?
“But if you want to convince us that there is a real leftist or liberal or Democratic threat to Jews, you have to take the next step and show us how they have and use the power to actually be a threat to Jews, Zionism or Israel.”
OK, that’s a real question. Just off the top of my head (and addressing only the American Left):
The Left poses a threat to Israel and Zionism in that:
It dominates the universities (there are exceptions), and uses this dominance in part to poison students’ minds against Israel, in Mid-East studies departments and in general; it strongly influences the media, publishing and arts worlds (I say influence because a lot of these people are somewhere on the liberal-Left continuum rather than purely Left), which in turn leads to a negative portrayal of Israel in the news and other media (particularly the New York Times, CNN and NBC); it slanders Israel through its own websites and public gatherings. The cumulative effect is to diminish Israel’s image in the eyes of most Americans, who are (understandably) not well informed regarding middle east issues. (Although support for Israel is fairly broad among Americans, I have doubts about how deep it is outside Jewish, Evangelical, old-fashioned-style liberals or conservative circles.) As Israel depends upon the US in many ways (financially, weapons, last-resort defense assistance, etc.), to damage its standing with the American voter is to damage it severely.
Regarding liberals, it depends on which kind. For the liberal/ left, see above. The old-style (New-Deal, pre New Left) kind are less of a problem, though they have a tendency to cave in to pressure from the Left.
The Democratic Party is clearly influenced by liberals and the Left. Though few real Leftists hold office, the Dem’s activist base is far to the Left of the average Democrat voter. The Democrats, even when well-intentioned, have to placate this base at all times.
Aside from this, the worldview of the Left is anti-American and anti-Western. If the Left had its way, the desire on the part of Americans to see themselves as Americans and to take pride in their unprecedented accomplishments would disappear, along with American military power and/or the will to use it. The disintegration of the USA would endanger American Jews, Israel, and everyone else in the world.
Concerning American Jews, Foxman forgive me, but I don’t see any immediate threat from any political direction.
“I maintain that the conservative government leadership we have today affords greater access to right wing antisemitism, and such access seldom goes unchallenged. ”
Heh. I think you meant “challenged”. But you wrote it right the first time. What impresses me about conservatives/ Republicans is that tend to come down on anti-semitism within their ranks pretty consistently. Compare this to the Dems, where any black demagogue gets carte blanche (as if it’s that’s a sign of respect for the black community).
“You want more names than Buchanan and Novak, fine. Grover Norquist is a good start, and there are conservative sources, like Frank Gaffney’s series in FrontPage Magazine* for support. ”
Do you read your own links? Gaffney wrote the story about (condemning) Norquist. So, in addition to Novak (you didn’t answer what I wrote about Buchanan above, so I’ll assume you agree he’s no conservative), you’ve now added Norquist. Total of two. And where did you get the Norquist story from? FrontPage. So isn’t Norquist the exception to the FrontPage rule? And haven’t you provided an example of the right policing itself?
That’ll do for a start.

J: “Aside from this, the worldview of the Left is anti-American and anti-Western. If the Left had its way, the desire on the part of Americans to see themselves as Americans and to take pride in their unprecedented accomplishments would disappear, along with American military power and/or the will to use it.”
Without having established any facts, statements like this are nothing more than empty rhetoric.
And more self-policing from the left….
http://tinylink.com/?Mp4uoGjflI

J: “A look at any website, magazine, book or rally by or from the Left will confirm what I said.”
Please…. What have these rallies accomplished? The largest antiwar rallies are now removed by a good two years into history, and even those failed miserably because they were incoherent demonstrations of any ideas and principles at all, let alone liberal ones. The only thing any of this confirms is your motivation by an irrational fear of pathetic undergrads playing cops & hippies. Good luck with all that.