Schumer, Hillary, Lieberman, John Bolton, and Israel

[whometense]

A very thought-provoking post by Matt Stoller at MyDD

...Now, during the first filibuster, Lieberman didn't take a position for or against Bolton, and since Bolton didn't come up for a vote, he didn't have to. But indications suggest that he would have voted for him. With Lieberman's defeat by Lamont and his consequent move towards a campaign based on fear-mongering and capturing Republican votes, I imagine that he'll become a reliable pro-Bolton vote. But there's a bit more to it than that.

You see, both Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are considering switching their vote on Bolton, and there's probably a bunch of Senators who will follow them. Schumer in particular has been awful, publicly saying that there will probably be no filibuster of Bolton. So here we have a clear progressive electoral victory over the most right-wing Democrat, combined with a horrible year for Bush and a clearly disastrous foreign policy, and yet his nominee to the UN has an easier path to nomination. Why would Democrats even consider ratifying Bush's foreign policy through Bolton?

Many of you will not like this answer, just as I didn't like discovering it, but the reality is that right-wing wealthy neoconservatives whose pet project is Israel are the ones who are forcing the Democrats to the right. After 9/11, a special breed of incredibly wealthy coastal elites that I call 'Bloomberg Democrats' after their desire to have Michael Bloomberg run on a third party Presidential unity ticket went sharply to the right in their foreign policy thinking. Lieberman is part of this group, always supportive of Israeli hawkishness, but whose fearful instincts were unleashed by 9/11. Torture, lies, dead soldiers, a collapse of American moral authority - all of these pale in comparison to Islamofascism, but it's cool, because they are pro-choice and made a lot of money. That's the type.

While originally distinct from the main branch of neoconservatives whose focus was Iraq, the Bloomberg Democrats have gradually conflated their sympathies towards Israel with a bloody desire to get rid of the American 'honest broker' status in the Middle East, and have become fully integrated into the neoconservative mainstream. While once they were just pro-Israel as I am, like many progressive Jews I moved left, while Bloomberg Democrats have graduated to become full-fledged neoconservative sociopaths. Even as the Israeli public itself is no longer particularly enthusiastic about its Lebanese incursion, AIPAC's hold on Congress prevents any real discussion of American Israeli interests in any context but that of Israel getting 100% blind support for anything it wants to do, even if what it wants to do is spy on America. It's the 'with us or against us' mindset....

He ends with this. I don't often agree with Matt Stoller, but I agree 100% with this:

The sad hijacking of Jewish political activism by right-wing neoconservative crazies is complete. If you're not with Lieberman, if you're not with Bolton, if you're not with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, you're not pro-Israel. I have to say, it's pretty frustrating. Every time I find a political obstacle to a more progressive American posture abroad, it seems like there's another more hidden and intractable one behind it. It's shocking to me that there are no effective progressive Jewish groups focusing on foreign policy. The only ones I've seen are pathetic, wonkified, and largely unwilling to deal with the reality of a crazy domestic right-wing leadership structure.

Anyway, with the war in Lebanon ending and Lieberman's defeat showing that there's a political constituency for a sane multi-lateral approach to foreign policy, the Democratic Party has a real opportunity on its hands to stake out a progressive foreign policy path. That starts with Bolton. Or rather, Bolton will show which Democrats really understand what Connecticut Democrats were trying to say, and which ones are only listening, despite all the populist outrage in the hinterland, to the Beltway elite.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. I'm A Jew. I'm Very, Very Sympathetic Towards Israel. Bolton is Slime.

If Bolton is confirmed without a fight by the Democrats it will say everything we need to know about the Republicanization of the Democrats.

[whometense]

2. I am also jewish,

and have a lot of relatives in Israel. And I loathe Bolton. I do wish we could address the question of Israel in a rational, thoughtful manner. The lunatic right alliance has taken over the conversation, and there doesn't seem to be a place for the rest of us to stand.

[Pierre.Suave]

3. get you primary challengers ready

We need to retake our congress.

[The Magistrate]

4. Regarding Israel, Ma'am

Sens. Clinton and Schumer represent in their expression the overwhelming majority of Democrats. The fact is that Israel is solidly supported by the people of the U.S. all across the political spectrum, who feel, and rightly enough, that the leading opponents of Israel are opponents of this country as well. Expresion of sentiment to the effect that Israel may have over-reacted in some instance should not be taken as invalidating this fact of out political life, for that is not what it signifies.

The idea Mr. Lamont's victory represents a rejection of support of Israel is false: the gentleman's position on the question differs in no signifigant particular from that of Lieberman.

[whometense]

5. I agree, mostly,

and think Stoller goes overboard (as usual) with the word "sociopath," thus weakening his own argument.

I find it difficult to articulate what I think about all this - but if Senators Clinton and Schumer do oppose a Bolton filibuster they will certainly have ceased to represent my opinion. Support of Bolton - and the agenda he represents - is inexcusable.