Above the post update:

Video from Tehran

Unconfirmed reports that Mousavi will be issuing a letter within the hour.

CNN is reporting that Iranian media is reporting the blast at the Khomeini shrine was a suicide bomber from a terrorist group that has attacked the regime before.

Or it still could be an agent provocateur sent to cast street protesters in a negative light.

*Headline via TehranBureau. God help them.

If the reports of violence that are now starting to come out are true and the regime holds onto power, how can Obama negotiate with them? It was horrible what George H.W. Bush did after the Tienanmen Square killings but we had an existing relationship with China (and an important one). We don't have any official relations with Iran now, how can Obama start them in the aftermath of this? He can say talks are not a reward for changing behavior but that's exactly how it will look in the aftermath of a bloodbath.

That's why his 'cool' rhetoric was so tone deaf...if the regime hangs on through force you can't talk to them and if it doesn't, you did nothing to help the winners. By bitterly clinging to his fantasy of talking the theocracy out of nukes, Obama boxed us into a corner where we can't win.

Well played, sir. Well played.

Original Post:
Iran has shutdown any coverage by foreign media so right now reports are coming through people on the ground or state run media so information is scattered, unconfirmed and incomplete but here's what seems to be going as of about 9:30 eastern...

According to CNN, Iranian state TV (Press TV, an English language station) says there's been a 'blast' at the shrine to the Ayatollah Khomeini and that two have been wounded. Press TV is also reporting that police are using tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters.

(This blast and state media coverage of it is pretty convenient, isn't it? It's outside the area where protests have been happening and unlike any tactics they've used to date. It would however give the government the public cover to crack heads. No one ever said authoritarian thugs were subtle.)

So far the reports are that troops and police are all over the streets of Tehran in an attempt to prevent people from gathering.

"Tehran Bureau" has been monitoring Iranian Twitter, Facebook and other Web 2.0 sites and has several reports of clashes, including shootings in Tehran.

Remember when that cowboy Bush called Iran evil? Yeah, what did he know.

Obama is taking the realist position that you deal with the government in power, not the one you'd like to see and that talks are not rewards for good behavior but in the interest of the US.

Here's what I've always found to be the weakness of that argument...if a government is willing to cheat on its own people and to use force to maintain power, what reason is there to believe they will live up to an deal they cut? The Soviets signed a lot of deals and they simply cheated on them, same with the N. Koreans and a host of others.

Mousavi wasn't going to be a game changer but if the protesters keep up after yesterday's warning and command from Khamenei , they aren't protesting an election result any more, they are rejecting the theocratic regime. Seeing that happen is in the interest of the US.

Does Obama really want to see that or would he rather have a government to negotiate with, authoritarian, deceitful as it may be?

Given his statements (or lack thereof) and reports that he is cutting support to Iranian opposition programs, I doubt this is making him very happy.

For those, like Obama, who think the key to everything from peace in the Mideast to the cure for cancer depends on finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an overthrow of the mullahs is the fastest way to do it. Based on nothing but personal speculation, a truly democratic Iran which responds to the will of its people, would abandon Hamas and Hezbollah pretty quickly.

A lot of the discontent in Iran has to do with the piss poor economic conditions in the country. Aside from the money spend propping up these terrorists, this support has caused Iran to be economically isolated. Throwing those fuckers under the bus would open up a lot of commercial opportunities for Iran. Given their oil wealth, Iran would and should be a major player in the world economy. I doubt these well educated but poor kids are interested in selling their futures for a bunch of Arab Palestinians.

Hamas isn't as dependent on Iran as Hezbollah is but if Iran's support dried up, that would be a blow and change the dynamic in the region.

Funny how Obama doesn't seem interested in that kind of solution to the problem.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:30 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 842 words, total size 6 kb.

“Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not after you.” (From “Stuff Jefferson Said: The Oral Histories”, 3rd Printing, Limited Human-Leather Bound Edition, Necronomicon Publishing)

CBS News covers a story about a municipality that has added some new requirements for job applicants:

”(CBS) If you're planning to apply for a job with the city of Bozeman, Montana, be prepared to hand over much more than your references and résumé.”

“The Rocky Mountain city instructs all job applicants to divulge their usernames and passwords for "any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc."

"Before we offer people employment in a public trust position we have a responsibility to do a thorough background check," Chuck Winn, Bozeman's assistant city manager, told CBSNews.com in an interview on Thursday. "This is just a component of a thorough background check."

"Shame on us if there was information out there available about a person who applied for a job who was a child molester or had some sort of information out there on the Internet that kind of showed those propensities and we didn't look for it, we didn't ask, and we hired that person," Winn said. "In many ways we would have let the public down."”

”An attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group based in San Francisco, questioned Bozeman's choice to ask for usernames and passwords.”

"I think its indefensibly invasive and likely illegal as a violation of the First Amendment rights of job applicants," said Kevin Bankston, an EFF attorney. "Essentially they're conditioning your application for employment on your waiving your First Amendment rights ... and risking the security of your information by requiring you to share your password with them... Where does it stop? How about a photocopy of your diary? Or a copy of all the comments you’ve ever made in the overnight open thread?"”

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:42 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

I noted earlier a Democratic Congressman's opinion that health care was on "life support." But add in climate change and shamnesty too.

The White House’s “big bang” theory of proposing a raft of landmark legislation all at once is giving way to fears of a “big chaos” backlash. Congressional chairmen saying that the pipes are overloaded between health care and climate legislation — and that was before this week’s arrival of the biggest overhaul of financial regulations in 70 years.

Democrats are resisting Obama's agenda? Democrats have solid majorities in both houses but don't have the votes for any of these? Democrats are balking at Obama's leviathan spending?

Well, as Jeneane Garofalo sagely observed: "This is all about hatin' on a black man as president."

Well said, Jeneane. Well said.

P-shop by Slublog.

Posted by: Ace at 04:04 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Although, once again, I quibble at the "peaceful" caveat. Peaceful redress of grievances is only required in a democracy or republic. In a tyranny, there is no real way to "peacefully" force a despot to work your will.

Still, it's something. And only a week (!!!) after everyone else on the right and on the left, in America and in Europe, was saying it.

I suppose now Charles Krauthammer may agitate against the "Supreme Leader," as Barack Hussein Obama calls him, without being branded a crypto-Zionist cabalist by Andrew Sullivan. See -- it's a question of timing. Once Barack Obama says it's okay to support the protesters, well, then, sure. Have a picnic.

Or else Andrew Sullivan and Barack Obama's dwindling supporters -- yes, they are dwindling -- will have to begin labeling the rest of us neocons "premature anti-theocrats."

Domestic political considerations aside, tomorrow may be bloody. Glorious or tragic -- it's going to be bloody. Unless the resisters simply capitulate, in which case it won't be bloody but it will still be tragic.

From Allah's post:

As noted earlier, it looks like tomorrow at 4 p.m. is zero hour in Iran. If Mousavi and the reformists go through with the rally, the regime basically has to crack down or itÂ’ll look cowed in the face of the popular uprising. The Basij are already sharpening their axes. Literally.

He wrote "literally" and he did indeed mean literally.

Question: Is this a crisis? I guess not.

Because if it were a crisis, Rahm Emanuel would be using it, right?

"Never let a good crisis go to waste," he said.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff for the Gallup poll tip.

Posted by: Ace at 03:49 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

I have more respect for the Doctor than I do for Babs. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 03:30 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

"They look after their own, the neocons."

-- Andrew Sullivan on "the neocons" and their clannish, secret pacts with their coreligionists (Thanks to Mama AJ for the reminder on the quote.)

I was utterly unclear in my post below. Sullivan's rants are incoherent, but I understand them. But I didn't explain them well.

I was so angry about it I was just writing in anger and not explaining the reasons for that anger.

Let me do better. This is what he's saying when he both slams Fred Hiatt, Jew Neocon, for being too soft on Ahmadinejad, and also slams Charles Krauthammer, Jew Neocon, for being too hard on Ahmadinejad.

1) Sullivan slams Fred Hiatt for, among other things, publishing an article claiming that Ahmadinejad was actually ahead in polling. This was, note, not a WaPo-created article, but a guest editorial. And the WaPo linked its own blogger disputing the article.

He claims that Fred Hiatt did this on "neocon orders," because neocons want to keep Ahmadinejad in power.

Got that so far?

2) But he also slams Charles Krauthammer and other neocons/Jews for strongly criticizing Obama and demanding he support the Iranian resisters.

Got that?

Now, you'll notice those two complaints don't really make sense together.

On one hand, he asserts that Fred Hiatt is carrying Ahmadinejad's water, as Jew-neocons do.

On the other hand, he castigates Charles Krauthammer for urging a stronger administration response against Ahmadinejad. Something Jew Neocons also do.

They may seem to be incompatible and incoherent. They're not -- not exactly. They make sense if you're an anti-semite and are willing to indulge in a little wheels-within-wheels conspiracy mongering.

What Sullivan believes, and suggests in his letter from his anti-semetic friend, is that Jews are attempting to sabotage the Iranian revolution because keeping alive the Iranian "bogey man" strengthens them and allows them to continue occupying Palestinian lands.

They want Ahmadinejad in power, as it gives them the pretext that the state of Israel is threatened by Iran and so they must be allowed a free hand in Palestine.

So what of Charles Krauthammer? Isn't he a supporter of the revolution?

No. In Andrew Sullivan's account, he is a crypto-fascist who actually is intentionally, knowingly demanding that Obama pursue the wrong strategy on Iran.

Why?

Well, simple!

In order to destroy the revolution...

.... to keep the mullahs in power...

...to keep the specter of a threatening "bogey man" in Iran alive...

...to empower Israel...

...to continue its Nazi-like treatment of the Palestinians.

Get it? Again, that is all phrased according to how Andi The Anti-Semite Sullivan sees the world.

Krauthammer is not merely wrong, in Andi's account. No -- Jews are never "wrong." They're too crafty for that. Too cunning.

They don't commit mistakes-- they commit crimes.

What he's doing is lying, pretending to support the revolution while actually acting as a Jewish agent provocateur in order to destroy it.

Now, Fred Hiatt meanwhile takes orders from his neocon masters -- the same neocon masters telling Krauthammer to pretend he supports the revolution -- to spin directly (not double-fake-out reversally) onAhmadinejad's behalf.

They have an inside-outside, bad cop/good cop game going, these Jews. Some, like Hiatt, flack for Ahmadinejad directly, putting up articles Sullivan doesn't like. (I didn't like the article myself.)

Other Jew-agents support Ahmadinejad in a more crafty, duplicitous fashion, insisting that Barack Obama take the exact steps needed to give Ahmadinejad the upper hand.

And that of course is old-timey Nazi anti-semitic conspiracy theorizing, imagining these layers upon layers and Jews seeming to take different "sides" while actually secretly always taking the same side, that of their Elders of Zion masters, who engineer this whole Jew-masterpiece of deception with only a few brave Gentiles of penetrating insight and highly-trafficked one-man blogs able to see through their veils of Jewish skullduggery.

Now, that's what I was trying to say in the post below. That's why I keep saying Sullivan is claiming, like the Nazis and David Dukers and KKKers, that the Jews, even when they seem to be on your side, are actually part of a nefarious Jewish conspiracy meant to keep the Jews on top on everyone else bewildered and very much down.

And... That is the significance of the letter he prints from a reader about a conversation supposedly had with his "neocon Jewish American" friend, who actively fears a peaceful Palestinian people. The Jews want war, you see, and fear peace, just like the Jews secretly want Ahmadinejad in Teheran threatening them with nuclear missiles.

If that doesn't make sense to you, well, you just don't have one of those cunning Jew-brains, or the courageous Gentile brilliance of Andrew Sullivan to "see the truth that is in front of your nose."

Is Andi Just Saying This Because He's Got a Man-Crush on His Dream-Boy Obama? It's always hard to know -- Sullivan is so flighty and frivolous and emotive (sorry -- he's a one-man walking advertisement for gay stereotypes) that he could just be incoherently reaching for any club with which to beat on anyone who criticizes Obama.

And he's suffering from cognitive dissonance: He's a passionate supporter of both Obama and the Iranian Revolution, and his addled, demented brain is having trouble reconciling the fact that the Love of His Live actually seems to be the one flacking for Ahmadinejad, while neocon-Jews he despises actually seem to be against Ahmadinejad.

It also could be due to self-love, his unrelenting, insatiable narcissism. He wants himself to be the most passionate supporter of the Iranian uprising in America, and so when Charles Krauthammer appears to be an even more passionate supporter, saying crazy things like "Barack Obama should support the uprising," Sullivan needs some way to explain that Krauthammer is actually not what he seems.

Krauthammer seems to be more forward-leaning than Sullivan? Easily explained: He's actually supporting Ahmadinejad, deliberately, trying to trick guileless Gentiles into taking steps that will undermine the protesters. An agent provocateur.

Andrew Sullivan's narcissistic, demented worldview will not admit of someone being "more right" than he is. He must come up with some mechanism by which the only two people who have it exactly right are Andrew Sullivan and his dreamlover Barack Hussein Obama.

(And, oh: Ron Paul too (!!11!!11!eleventy!))

So perhaps in his delicate, demented state, he just reaches for any method by which to square this circle.

Faking-up a shifty, ruthless enemy of enormous power and secret influence who kinda-sorta explains this odd situation is always a popular solution.

And Jews have fulfilled that role for a long, long time.

And so they are pressed into service yet again.

If you need to unite very disparate groups and policies... well, just claim the Jews are somehow pulling the strings to keep you all divided, to keep you scattered. Works like a charm.

But even if Sullivan began pushing his anti-semitism out of love (the greatest love of all -- the love for Barack Hussein Obama, or the other greatest love of all -- the love of Andrew Sullivan), it doesn't absolve him.

For whatever reason, starting with love or starting with hate, he ends with hate, and so joins long legions of emotionally-unstable and politically-incoherent dreamers of a better world -- a world without the mazes and machinations of Jewish Elders -- who came before him.

And... Both Hiatt and Goldberg are, I trust, smart enough to know all this. So when they say they can't "understand" what Sullivan is saying -- of course they can. They are just too polite to lay the anti-semite charge down and, perhaps, a bit reluctant to do so, because calling brave exposers of Jewish conspiracies, like Sullivan, "anti-semitic" is precisely the sort of thing you'd expect agents of the Elders of Zion to do.

What a giveaway, as they say on Monty Python.

So, you know, I'll say so. I am safely, nonthreateningly Christian by birth and by culture. Not a drop of that crafty, conspiratorial blood in me.

Never even met one of the Elders of Zion.

Andrew Sullivan is a crypto-nazi, period, end sentence, end paragraph, end of file.

Posted by: Ace at 02:43 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 1372 words, total size 9 kb.

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employeesÂ’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

Can you guess the answer?

The DoD test, Obamified for your protection, says the correct answer is the last -- "Protests" are a form of "low-level terrorism."

Seriously, it does.

From Commentary, noting that in ObamaSpeak, "protests" are "terrorism" and "terrorism" is "man-caused disasters."

Now I begin to understand Obama's refusal to support the protesters -- The United States doesn't deal with terrorists.

Posted by: Ace at 02:11 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Everyone keeps mentioning this, a prophecy from a brain-damaged man. (See The Dead Zone. You need some mild brain damage to activate really kickass powers of psychic precognition.)

So, here it is. Just like Broadway Joe's guarantee of a Super Bowl win.

To be nitpicky, he's talking about a "generated" crisis, by which this drooling imbecile means "concocted" or "contrived" in order to test Obama.

The Iranian crisis is neither. Actually, it's not so much a crisis to test Obama as a golden opportunity for him, but he is, of course, squandering that opportunity.

So Biden's prophecy really applies to the North Korean provocations, which, let me check, Obama is also failing on.

Posted by: Ace at 02:06 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

And, by the way, such programs cost a pittance compared to Obama's leviathan spending plans.

Even as Ayatollah Khamenei blasted the United States for fomenting unrest in a defiant Friday prayer address in Tehran, President Obama has kept silent, focusing instead on domestic policy.

Obama spent more time with TV personality Stephen Colbert, taping a segment for a comedy show, than he did addressing the turmoil in Iran this week.

Newsmax has learned that the Obama administration also has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.

Funding for pro-democracy programs began in 2004, when Congress earmarked $1.5 million of the State Department budget for “educational, humanitarian, and non-governmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.”

The funding ramped up dramatically two years later, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested $75 million for pro-democracy programs. More than half of the $66.1 million Congress finally appropriated went to expand U.S. government-funded Persian language broadcasting services at Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

But no money has been earmarked for such programs in the administrationÂ’s fiscal 2010 foreign operations budget request. Congressional sources told Newsmax they doubted that a Democrat-controlled Congress would add it when the budget comes before a committee next week.

I can't believe Obama The Jews are doing this.

Thanks to Chimney Sweep #8.

Posted by: Ace at 01:57 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

I try not to mention him anymore, but every once in a while his early-onset dementia is too delicious to ignore. (Safe link to the Weekly Standard.)

I hope Goldfarb will excuse me quoting the whole thing:

ran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei offered his first public statement today on the week-long protest sparked by the fraudulent electoral victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He blamed “media belonging to Zionists, evil media” for fueling divisions in Iran. Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan -- who writes today of "the Khamenei-Neocon agreement" -- yesterday asserted that the Washington Post was publishing "op-eds peddling dishonest partial numbers to buttress Ahmadinejad, because that's what the neocons wanted." And just in case you think Sullivan might not necessarily be using the term neocon as a substitute for Zionist, he helpfully clears up any confusion by referring to the paper's op-ed page as "hackneyed AIPAC boilerplate." So while Sullivan and Khamenei may disagree over what end the Jews seek through their nefarious control of the media, they both understand what the real threat is.

It's jawdropping that Sullivan would claim that "neocons" and "AIPAC" would want the revolution to fail. One American clearly seeks the failure of the revolution, but that's his own fantasy-boyfriend Barack Obama. And Sullivan can't say that his would-be boyfriend is in the wrong, so he puts Barack Obama's words into the mouths of his enemies -- "neocons" (by which he means Jews) and AIPAC (by which he means Jews).

Did I say one American opposed the revolution? My bad. Two. The man Sullivan passionately supported on the Republican side of the campaign -- Jew-hatin' race-baitin' conspiracy-addled Ron Paul -- also does.

So that's two of Andi's crushbook favorites who are flacking for Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. But who gets blamed? The Jews, naturally.

Screenshot: At Legal Insurrection, so you can savor the sweet, sweet dementia, without giving Andi (with a heart over the i) a click.

A Colleague at The Atlantic... "can't figure out Andrew's post."

Well, of course he can figure it out. As Goldberg has hinted at before, Sullivan has gone off his trolley and is pretty comfortable now expressing his long-time anti-semitic impulses.

He says he "can't figure out Andrew's post" to be polite.

One of the people named in the attacks by Andi (heart over the i) is Fred Hiatt of the WaPo, who also can't make heads or tails of his rantngs:

It is so incoherent, it's hard to know how to comment. But I will try. He says I was acting on neocon orders when we published a piece suggesting that Ahmadinejad may have actually had popular support. But elsewhere I am being attacked for publishing ostensibly neocon pieces criticizing Obama for not supporting Ahmadenejad's opposition. It's hard to see how both could be true.

I had forgotten until today that Dan (Froomkin) had gone after Charles (Krauthammer), which Sullivan says 'almost certainly' would have 'enraged' me.

Why would Sullivan claim that an attack on Charles Krauthammer would "enrage" Fred Hiatt? What is Fred Hiatt, Mrs. Charles Krauthammer?

No. Fred Hiatt is Jewish and so he will protect his own. ("Neocons" protect their own, Sullivan just wrote.)

Sullivan's not the only one with issues about the "Jewish Extremist" Fred Hiatt, by the way. Caution: That descriptor is from, and that link to, David Duke's blog.

Fred Hiatt: Wanted on six counts
of premeditated Judaism and suspicion of
noshing with malice aforethought

If you have any doubt that Sullivan is an anti-semite, I invite you once again to ponder how risible the claim is that Jews, of all people, are actually buddies with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. And carrying their water.

Or neocons, for that matter, who aren't Jews (though Sullivan uses them as rough synonyms).

Iran has been fighting a proxy war against Israel since 1979 and its highest officers routinely threaten to wipe it off the map with a first-strike nuclear holocaust.

Any supporter of Israel -- Jewish or not -- would dearly wish Ahmadinejad to crumble into dust.

This is the most madcap of old-timey Jewish conspiracy ranting, where not only are Jews to be blamed for making trouble with foreign powers to further their own suspiciously-Yiddish interests, they're also, incoherently, alleged to be making secret pacts with those same foreign powers to further their dangerously-Hebraic agendas.

This is Nazi-type stuff, claiming Jews are both on both sides of every conflict and in fact the puppet-masters puppeteering both sides for their own nefarious, gefilte- stinking ends.

Krauthammer is castigated for agreeing with Sullivan, for crying out loud. The problem seems to be that Sullivan resents his Jude meddling.

Good Lord: Sullivan invites us to understand the mind of Judeo-cons.

Understanding The Neocons

A reader writes:

I had a conversation at lunch yesterday with a friend, a neocon Jewish American, that fascinated me. We were getting ready to get up from the table when he said, "Hey, wait a minute, do you want to talk politics for a minute?" We proceeded to discuss the events in Iran and at one point I brought up my amazement at the protesters' embrace of non-violence and their courage in the face of aggression. I said, "I wonder if this will be a lesson to the Palestinians. That perhaps if they renounce violence and embrace peaceful resistance they too could garner more international support for their cause, a la Gandhi." His reaction fascinated me. He got this very serious, dour look on his face and replied, "That's what worries me. The biggest existential threat to Israel is that the Palestinians will realize the potential for non-violence and embrace it."

I finally understood why some of the more cynical neocons cannot stand the Green Revolution. Without a conflict, without a bogey man to demonize, they are scared to death. In their minds their legitimacy comes from the fact that they are better than the bogey man, that they are necessary to keep the bogey man at bay. I don't think that the nation of Israel is so fragile that it could not come to terms with a peaceful movement for Palestinian statehood.

Me neither.

Incidentally, after posting this, Sullivan claimed that Goldfarb's (JEW) insinuations were "vile" and too "tedious" to respond to. And also, he says there's a difference between neocons and Jews.

Though he seems really, really upset about neocons who are specifically Jewish.

Anyway, just before saying how "vile" these "smears" were, he posts this email from an antisemitic reader (and remember: he invited anti-semites from Ron Paul's basket-case coalition to his blog last year) suggesting that Jew-cons actually feared a truly peaceful Palestinian movement, with the implication being, of course, that such a movement is against their interests and therefore Jews are most likely deliberately making the Palestinians attack them.

Again, Nazi-type stuff. Jews so crafty and insidious they make the Palestinians rain rockets on them, because they're so afraid of peace. Jews are once again on both sides of the conflict. No matter who wins, Jews win.

All evil is caused by Jews -- even when it makes no sense. Jews are both killing Palestinians and, incoherently, jerking the puppet-strings of Palestinians to make them kill Jews.

It's this kind of unreasoning, hateful, demented illogic that defines the first-order anti-semite.

If you want to believe Jews are too warlike when it comes to the Palestinians, fine, I guess you can believe that if you want.

But if you want to claim they're simultaneously making war on the Palestinians and tricking the Palestinians into making war on themselves, so they in turn can make more war on the Palestinians... well, you've crossed the line from legitimate criticism of Israel into full-fledged "The Jews are behind it all' anti-semitic conspiracy lunacy.

Mel Gibson was forced into retirement for saying one night while drunk what Andrew Sullivan writes every day while sober.

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 1327 words, total size 9 kb.