…but you forgot to mention that
this kitten thinks a cabal of neo-cons, Zionists, and oil-hungry coporate robber barons murdered her son to line their pockets with blood money—all while making the world safe for Jew dominance, the theft of Arab land and resources, and the oppression of millions of peace-loving Muslims (crimes that this kitten would happily forgive, if only George Bush would just talk to her!)
****
update: More here. BECAUSE OF THE SMEAR MERCHANTS!
****
update 2: Visiting from Jim Henley’s site? My response here.
Dare you contradict the kitten of conscience?
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!
THOSE EVIL REPUBLICAN SMEAR MERCHANTS DEMEAN THE POOR KITTEN WITHOUT ATTACKING HER POINTS! How can they do this and ignore that the evil, Christian, moronic, corrupt, foolish, lying ‘President’ Bush who stole the election, manipulated a war against innocent Iraqis, helped the Jews kill millions of innocent people, lied a lot, and he doesn’t care about innocent Iraqis or our American infant soldiers but only cares about his rich evil oil friends and his evil Jewish friends for killing those innocent babies only because they are brown.
How could they attack Mother Sheehan and ignore these truths!
Of course the President is keeping his distance. He needs to bone up on his conversational feline.
Trust your felines, Luke—er, I mean, Mr. President!
I hope she keeps babbling on along those lines, dicrediting herself totally.
That kitten is merely trying to open a civil, rational, national dialogue about why that “lying bastard”/”jerk”/”chickenhawk” who “doesn’t have a heart”/”evil maniac” killed her son. And that kitten (who also apparently writes for LewRockwell.com) deserves to meet with the President of the United States. Again. (And no, meeting with the President’s National Security Advisor and other top White House aides is just not good enough.)
Turing word: “care”. As in: The President seemed to “care” initially but after a year’s worth of reflection/activism it now seems he was a total jerk.
Oh, no. She’s demanding Bush bring her catnip and cat toys, too.
Not catnip & toys, but brownies & lemonade, delivered by the First Lady. See http://www.area417.com/area_417/2005/08/im_still_waitin.
A cabal of those mentioned could very well cabal me up. I’m counting on you, as a future dominator, to deliver me from those evil hoards.
I’ve seen “spam word” and “turning word” referenced before. They make sense, but what is the… humorous basis of those quips? I mean… you know what I mean, don’t you?
Nope. No idea.
OHNOES, it has something to do with the JOOOOOS. I think.
Turing word – “trying” As in I’m trying to be funny but probably failing miserably.
Not catnip & toys, but brownies & lemonade, delivered by the First Lady.
Seems like these two set a dangerous precedent with drinks and cookies:
http://jail4judges.org/state_chapters/ca/rally2.html
Now, now kiddies–no anti-Semites here: nobody here but us chickens and anti-Zionists!
Unfortunately, since ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’ have been defined downwards until they aren’t really moral offenses any more–just a series of very specific code words which mean ‘racist!’ just like the bell means ‘food’ to Pavlov’s dog–any flaming bigot with half a brain (David Duke, the so-called ‘anti-racists’, our old buddy ‘gandhi’, etc. etc.) need only avoid saying the exact code words to trigger a response, and the bones of half the world’s Jews, Kurds, Serbian Muslims, etc. etc. will already be bleaching in the sun before the vast somnolent bovine crowd of the world’s professional humanitarians has even begun to lift its collective head out of the hay.
Oh, it is turing word… not that that makes any more sense.
What we have here is failure to communicate.
Expectedly so.
did you actually link to the Free Republic and the Drudge Report as “evidence”? I guess I have found the funny conservative blogger!
Let me get this straight, Kathleen: I’m supposed to lay off Cindy Sheehan the grieving mom and just deal with the “questions” she raises; but you, on the other hand, are allowed to ignore the questions Drudge and the Freepers raise simply by dint of QUOTING CINDY HERSELF because…uh…wait, why is that again? And that’s not a rhetorical question, either: I really want to understand. I mean, I know the left has special dispensation to attack the messenger even while crying foul when one of their own messengers is being confronted with her own words—I just wonder why that is, is all.
See, I get confused sometimes trying to think along with you people. But that’s my shortcoming.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
Uh, Jeff, that one hasn’t graduated to hypocrisy … its still just ordinary stupidity.
If we give them what they want, maybe they will stop doing what they did to get it.
Why do so many people not understand how utterly stupid that sentiment is?
Cat blogging on PW? I must be on drugs…
allowed to ignore the questions Drudge and the Freepers raise simply by dint of QUOTING CINDY HERSELF because…uh…wait, why is that again? And that’s not a rhetorical question, either: I really want to understand.
If you actually read my comment, you will realize that I was speaking of “evidence”. The use of quotes is often a useful tool in focusing one’s attention on the key point. I merely suggest that you link to a reputable source. Question away. But you weren’t linking to a Freeper question or a Matt Drudge question. So your response is a bit bizarre frankly. don’t expect people to believe that anyone actually said something just because a Freeper, or Drudge, said they did. but I guess I am “stupid” so I wouldn’t worry about my opinion if I were you.
No, Kathleen, your response is bizarre. You questioned the source containing the “evidence”—Ms. Sheehan’s own words—as a way to dismiss the “evidence” by claiming the source is tainted. If you are arguing that Drudge or the Freepers are making up Cindy Sheehan quotes—or that the actual message boards they’ve found these on are frauds—say so. Otherwise you are simply trying to intimate that the source taints evidence you don’t like.
Frankly, I have no idea why you can’t just admit it what you did and go on about your business.
We must have a different understanding of what “bizarre” means.
let’s recap:
PW: Cindy Sheehan hates Jews! Drudge and Freepers say so.
Kathleen: your sources are not reliable.
PW: WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING THE QUESTIONS? WHY IS CINDY SHEEHAN A LIBERAL SACROSANCT COW?
Kathleen: I wasn’t saying that the questions were inappropriate, I was saying that FR and Drudge are not reliable sources of information.
PW: Are you saying that FR and Drudge are unreliable? Why won’t you just admit that is what you are saying?
Kathleen: yes. as I stated. Why is this so difficult?
Also, I am saying that this: You questioned the source containing the “evidenceâ€Ââ€â€Ms. Sheehan’s own wordsâ€â€as a way to dismiss the “evidence†by claiming the source is tainted is the most poorly expressed thought I have seen in a long time.
Finally might I add: “George Bush hates black people! here are two wing-nuts who say so. WHY ARE YOU DISMISSING OUR QUESTIONS BY SAYING THE SOURCE IS TAINTED? YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS EVEN THOUGH I HAVE PROVIDED NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF THIS STATEMENT. WHY CAN’T YOU ADMIT WHAT YOU ARE DOING?”
Your recap is substantively silly, Kathleen. But typical. You folks have never met a tiny, insignificant point you won’t cede.
Have it your way. Cindy Sheehans own postings—as aggregated and brought to public view by somebody on the Freeper site—will only become factual to you once the links to HER POSTINGS (have I mentioned these words that I use to accuse her of anti-Zionist feelings are HERS?) are presented by somebody more reliable than the Freepers. Like, say, The Veterans for Peace conference. Or the editors of ABC’s Nightline. Ditto the stuff on Drudge.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t dismiss the allegation that George Bush hates black people—even if it were posted on Counterpunch or Atrios—if those venues had links to George Bush actually saying something to that effect, in his own words.
Granted, I’d look into it further, but your example—as with your entire line of argument to this point—is absurd.
Yes, let’s rely on Drudge.
What is it with you obtuse fucks? Drudge reported what Cindy Sheehan said at a Veterans for Peace conference. And the Freeper link is reporting an email that CINDY! says she sent to Nightline (since noted by Christopher Hitchens).
Don’t you people care what this woman says? What her positions are? You keep insisting we engage the arguments, and yet you’re pissing and moaning about which sites aggregated Ms Sheehan’s own pronouncements first. You keep insisting we answer Ms Sheehan’s questions, but you get upset when we even point out what those questions are
Tell you what: When the NYT reports what Sheehan says, I’ll link them. Sadly, they’ve been too busy lionizing her to report on her political affiliations and pronouncements.
YOU MUST ANSWER CINDY’S QUESTIONS!
EXCEPT FOR THE ANTI-SEMITIC ONES THAT WE ARE PRETENDING WE DIDN’T SEE…
What a bunch of moonbats.
Ummm! Yum! Popcorn and a great movie! Watching the wheels come off!
Laughing all the way to the ballot box!
You are so right Mr. Goldstein. I should have ceded that your definition of ‘bizarre’ was the correct one.
and please, no matter what your grammar school teacher said, any point worth making is not worth repeating three times in the same sentence. Think of the children.
sincerely, your friendly neighborhood “silly” “stupid” “moonbat” “obtuse fuck”
I was. Which is why I repeated it three times for you.
I figure’d I give it an extra chance to sink in.
But alas and alack…
ah, you used poor composition as a tool to help me understand. A lot more of your blog makes sense now.
Yeah, keep pushing that line about my poor composition skills. IT’S A WINNER!
Criticises Israel = Jew-hater.
Gotcha. Now I know I’m dealing with intellectual giants.
Criticizing Israel = Calling for “Israel out of Palestine,” with “Palestine” encompassing all the land on which Israel currently sits.
Gotcha. Now I know I’m dealing with a cock who is so dependent on MoveOn.org talking points and partisan prompts that he can’t fathom how dissolving the Jewish state and leaving Israelis at the whim of Arab countries who aren’t too fond of Jews is a bad idea.
You shouldn’t worry about dealing with intellectual giants until you first master the champion debaters from your kindergarten class.
Prick.
My goodness Jeff, you have totally entered the War on Straw. Most impressive.
I would say that you are being too harsh referring to yourself as a “champion debater from you kindergarten class,” but with all the profanity your comments actually *do* resemble elementary school. Where you were also steered wrong about Caps Lock.
Criticizing Israel = Calling for “Israel out of Palestine,†with “Palestine†encompassing all the land on which Israel currently sits.
“palestine” can mean several things. it can mean the plain to the west of the jordan river [i.e., including israel], or it can be used as a substitute term for the occupied territories [i.e., gaza and the west bank only]. you have chosen the definition which is most conducive to your need to tar ms sheehan as an anti-semite, even though there is another definition which is open, a definition which is both more likely* and more charitable to ms sheehan.
you could not have more clearly demonstrated your desire to smear ms sheehan, irrespective of the facts.
*you may notice, for example, what the wikipedia entry linked-to above has to say about what “modern usage of the term palestine usually refers to”.
Sorry Jeff, but the Poor Man and Hilzoy win. They’ve got more kittens, and their’s are way cuter.
Sure, whatever. Ask the Crawford Peace House—with whom Ms Sheehan is proudly and vocally aligned—what it thinks are the physical boundaries of “Palestine.”
Of course, it’s easier just to pretend I’m making a straw man argument—which is almost a natural reaction, certainly, because not many Americans routinely call for the dissolution of the Jewish state.
But even if you don’t believe, as those in the Crawford House do (they’ve since removed the material from their website), that the racist, oppressive Zionist hate state needs to be dissolved, ask Ms Sheehan what Israel has to do with the Iraqi war. Other than Saddam subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers, that is.
Anyway, I guess I’ll just have to live with being a SMEAR MERCHANT.
Kathleen —
Having finally impressed you, I can at long last cross that off my life’s to do list.
Really. It means that much to me.
“palestine†can mean several things. it can mean the plain to the west of the jordan river [i.e., including israel], or it can be used as a substitute term for the occupied territories [i.e., gaza and the west bank only]. you have chosen the definition which is most conducive to your need to tar ms sheehan as an anti-semite, even though there is another definition which is open, a definition which is both more likely* and more charitable to ms sheehan.
Um, NO
Cindy Sheehan: Professional Grieving Mother, thinks that American democracy is “morally repugnant”, that American ideals are a “cancer,” that Israel is Palestine (which it is, going by the historical definition), that it (and America) is a primary cause of terrosim, and should be eliminated. Why do you think she is so popular with your favorite cross burner?
No, not Democratic Senator Byrd. No, not Democratic Justice Hugo Black. I meant Grand Wizard David Duke.
Sheehan’s angry and misguided, but at least she’s shrill, anti-Semitic, and vengeful.
Can I ask a serious question?
I understand that Jeff is supposed to be cited approvingly as one of the real examples of a humorous blogginator on the right.
I then saw this “reply” (via Wonkette) as it were the traitorous kitten posts from hilzoy and The Editors.
So the humorous premise of the kitten posts is that the first thing you see is an AWWWWW cute kitten. You then read the text below the picture like “This kitten is a full-scale Jew-baiting Moonbat” (with a link to relevent wingnut article making the statement about Cindy instead of kittens). The juxtaposition makes the already nutty text sound extra ridiculous and thus making Teh Funny.
The point being that they are trying to show how hyperbolic all this sounds. They show you just how silly it sounds by replacing Cindy with a “kitten”.
So a response one would expect from the right would be to use the same exaggerated humor about a similar incident where the left made equally hyperbolic statements about a analogous person advocating for a conservative position. An example might be something a liberal blogger said about Shiavo’s parents. I may not laugh, but I would hope I could at least appreciate the attempted retort with a “touche, mon ami” (being a liberal gay frenchie and all).
However, this “retort” we get from Jeff is to synthesize a blobby mash of poorly attributed “quotes” that Cindy has supposedly made and put a picture of a kitten above them. Perhaps realizing that something is amiss Jeff goes back to the drawing room and photoshops an islamofascist hat onto the kitten. This apparantly adds “Teh Funny” to said blogpost.
So if I understand correctly, the humor is that the kitten REALLY IS an islamofascist sympathizer. HAHA liberal scallywags! Have at ye!
Am I missing something or is this the paragon of wingnut comedy?
Yes.
Or, to answer more “seriously,” given the serious nature of your question (and I do believe you were serious, not just some grandstanding prick who for whatever reason considers himself too clever by half, and that you really do want an answer—just like CINDY!), you write:
Well, no. Because such would indicate that I accept their premise, which I didn’t. The kitty layouts are, at once, trying to minimize the significance of Sheehan’s protests and chide the wingnuts for what they see as rhetorical excess—all while they are suggesting elsewhere that CINDY! has absolute moral authority on questions concerning the Iraq war. The want it both ways, and they’re using humor to try to have it both ways. It’s a funny bit, and Northrup, with whom I used to get along quite well, is a sharp guy.
Anyway, I responded by letting them know I recognized what they were doing, and my vehicle was to mimic the duplicity, only this time to suggest, via my caption, that harmless li’l Cindy, on whom the wingnuts are wasting their fine bile, is, in her function as propagandist, anything but harmless —and that the things she stands for are quite a bit different than the things many in the press and on the left side of the blogosphere are claiming she stands for. Which, they forgot to put up a kitty picture that highlighted THAT particular Teh Funny.
But this is all very technical, and insofar as any further analysis would necessarily involve bringing you even more deeply into the evil, stupid, racist head of a humorless warmonger, I’ll spare you the dissertation.
(I won’t get into a debate about whether Cindy has affinities with Islamofascist terror or not since that seems rather silly.)
The thing that really bugs me is that it doesn’t actually work as humor (or “humour” if I want to be particularly snobbish).
There has to be an element of transition. The “Quelle Surprise” as it were.
If the sequence of events is that I go to the other sites and then return to yours “Probably just an oversight, but you forgot to mention” post. This means we go from a pictures of kittens and the kittens being declared objectively pro-terrorist in the captions to your “islamofascit kitty” and this kitten thinks “blah blah… I hate jews… blah blah”.
In other words there wasn’t much a transition was there. You merely added another smear to the list, except you were trying to being earnest. Thus you had to add the terrorist bandana (which sadly enough was necessary, try it without the bandana).
So although I can see a bit of inchoate south-park style funniness, it would only make sense if it followed where the joke was someone seemed irrationally afraid of the cute kitten and then followed it with the kitten gutting a SWAT team or something (like the killer bunny in The Holy Grail). Something like that.
I know there’s different type of funny, but I can’t wrap my head around a non-political analogue that you could compare it to. That would perhaps be the best way to demonstrate the error of my Saddam-loving ways if you could find such an analogue.
I didn’t concern myself with how the post worked for those who didn’t use it as the starting point. You came here from Wonkette’s site, evidently, and she’s not in the habit of linking here.
Well, that’s what the bandana was supposed to do. Some of us find groups like Hamas and Hezbolla dangerous.
And of course, that pic of the cat has a well-known analogue that it implicitly references (and from which I took the headband).
Eh, I still don’t see “Teh Funny”.
I’m going to be shrill and hateful and accuse you of fibbing about the flow however.
with “you forgot” linking to the hilzoy post.
I’d love to hear how I was supposed to interpret that as anything but a followup retort…
Huh? Of course it was a follow-up retort. So?
Using my post as a starting point means using my post as the base from which to expand outward to look at the other sites. Meaning, reading my post first, and then reading the other posts which you many not have otherwise come across through the lens of having read mine. That’s what happens on blogs.
Listen, you didn’t think the post was funny, and I meant it more as a jab at those making a joke than as a joke in and of itself. So let’s just stop deconstructing the thing and leave it at that.
Oh and in reference to the Holy Grail bunny. It was funny because the other characters were saying how silly it was to be afraid a little bunny and THEN the bunny tears off a knights head.
If the skit were rewritten so that ALL the knights were afraid of the bunny BEFORE the knight got his head ripped off it would merely evoke a “heh” at best I think.
That’s what I mean about why a followup to a bunch of posts calling kittens terrorist huggers with a scary bandana-wearing kitten saying it hates the jews is more redundant.
That is there is no “Quelle Surprise” moment that I can point to.
Or, y’know, keep right on going.
OK then, it’s not meant to be funny I guess (Wonkette was overreaching for “balanced” I guess).
Can you point me some of the funny posts then? I’m trying to determine if there really is plenty of righty humor or if there is something very different about how conservatives think that would explain the derth of conservative blogger humorists.
I totally understand that I might not personally laugh at it, but I would hope I can appreciate that it’s the same type of stuff the left side of the blogosphere uses.
Sorry about the timing of the comments there, the conversation is a bit out of sequence.
In any case, if you are more like an Atrios style blogger (that is snarky instead of funny, there’s a difference) can you instead point me to the funny righty bloggers?
Sorry, no can do. Wouldn’t want to ruin that feeling of “quelle surprise” that comes from finding something on your own—particularly when your expectations are so low.
Or, on the off chance that you are serious (and given that you’ve posted your initial response on Kos, I doubt very much that you are), you can check out some of the stuff listed under “greatest hits” on the right sidebar.
The Martha Stewart stuff seemed to appeal to a bipartisan crowd. Which suggests only that lesbian prison humor has a kind of universalist appeal.
How about a reference to the Monty Python mosquito hunters?
There’s nothing more dangerous (to right wing ideologues) than a grieving mother…
I just hope everyone keeps score on the number of insults hurled at grieving mothers from the right and the left.
The only people who call me a rightwing ideologue are leftwing ideologues.
But even if you don’t believe, as those in the Crawford House do (they’ve since removed the material from their website), that the racist, oppressive Zionist hate state needs to be dissolved, ask Ms Sheehan what Israel has to do with the Iraqi war. Other than Saddam subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers, that is.
you have provided no evidence that ms sheehan:
1. defines palestine the way you imagine she does.
2. believes israel has no right to exist, or
3. is anti-semetic.
at most, all you have provided is evidence that the crawford peace house may perhaps have associated itself with individuals who may have less than savoury political views in respect of israel. since guilt-by-association is the oldest smear in the book, i repeat myself:
“you could not have more clearly demonstrated your desire to smear ms sheehan, irrespective of the facts.”
Whatever. Do you know where Israel is? Its in “Palestine.”
“Israel Out of Palestine.” Doesn’t get much clearer than that. And that’s what she said.
But don’t take it from me. Read her statements. LISTEN TO HER.
And while you’re at it, you might want to read this. At the very least you’ll come to understand why you charges of “smear” aren’t likely to give me a moment’s hesitation.
And then maybe you’ll try peddling your bullshit elsewhere.
Hey. I came here from somewhere else, and I don’t really understand your post or your reasoning. Mostly because I don’t want to.
But 1) I know more polysyllabic words than you do; 2) you’re a terrible writer, and 3) you’re NOT FUNNY!
I can prove that you’re not funny. Because I DIDN’T LAUGH WHEN I READ YOUR POST!
Also, you can’t spel. And you didn’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Our Cindy is anti-Semitic (no, I’m not going to follow your links, because they are your links and therefore tainted).
I win.
(t/w: “ill.” Self-explanatory.)
Jeff, I have to say, I’m impressed with your willingness to engage the unengaging, reason with the irrational, even eff the ineffable.
It’s amazing how they simultaneously claim Cindy is being attacked and smeared (said “attacks and smears” mostly consisting of people quoting her own words) because no one wants to engage her arguments, while rejecting any attempt to engage her arguments as “smears and attacks.” It’s sort of the “I’m rubber you’re glue” school of debate.
Good thread.
Attila Girl…nice summary.
Alas, my Turing Word Envy continues. I could just logout, but then I wouldn’t have that special feeling of belonging.
So I still think that my resultant bitterness entitles me to a special, private meeting with President Bush. I think everyone should be able to just, like, walk into his office to tell him how he should run the free world. Because of the DEMOCRACY!
Attila Girl? What?
You are say you are so much smarter than anyone around here because you think you know more big words than anyone else here.
You think what you say matters to someone; ROFLMAO
I could care less what you think of yourself. It certainly doesn’t win any arguments around here.
Steve, you might want to have a drink, check your irony meter, and come back. Then we’ll pretend the whole thing never happened. Thanks, Dear.
Jeff, why is the quote anti-semitic? Her point is that Bush’s hawkish advisers invaded Iraq with the motivation of reshaping the Middle East in a manner favorable to Israeli interests. While I believe this to be a simplistic statement, I also do not believe this to be so outrageous to make Cindy Sheehan a Jew-hating conspiracy nut. I don’t know what Confederate Yankee reads, but, in the run-up to the war, plenty of Israeli analysts acknowledged the benefits of regime change in a country that has historically been one of Israel’s fiercest rivals. Nor are the links between the Hawks in the Bush Administration, right-wing Israeli circles, and regime change in Iraq a secret -you only need to the Google the terms, “Perle+Feith+Wurmser+a clean break.”
And when Cindy Sheehan talks about getting Israel out of Palestine, where is your evidence she is calling for the destruction for Israel, as opposed to exiting the West Bank Gaza, and East Jerusalem? Since when is “getting out” a synonym for “being destroyed”? As far as I can tell, your evidence for your accusations is that Cindy Sheehan is being sponsored by the Crawford Peace House, which on its web page has a picture of a demonstrator waving a sign that includes a map of Historic Palestine (i.e. Palestine under the British Mandate), which, of course, now encompasses the State of Israel. Not only are you engaging in a classic example of guilt-by-association (what does the Crawford Peace House have to do with Cindy Sheehan’s definition of Palestine?), but the picture of the demonstator doesn’t even prove what you claim. If you look at his sign, the sign also includes (ii) a map of the proposed Palestinan State under the 1947 UN Partition Plan (iii) a map of West Bank/Gaza and (d) a map of a shrunken Palestinan state after Israel annexes its settlements in Judea and Samaria. In other words, the demonstrator is using the images of Historic Palestine not to call for the destruction of Israel, but to make a point about the unfairness of Bush/Sharon’s plans (e.g. Palestinians would be left with a shrunken, noncontiguous state that comprises far less than 22% of Historic Palestine).
Sorry, Jeff, but “smear” is an apt description of this post.
I’ve answered this before. Sheehan called for Israel out of Palestine. That’s what Hamas is calling for. You want to say guilt by association, fine. I can’t read what’s in her heart. SO I have to judge her words, her tone, and those she surrounds herself with.
Israel is in Palestine. So calling for the end of the Jewish state while at the same time suggesting that a cabal of American Jews are running foreign policy on the basis of Israel’s interests suggests a level of anti-semitism that I can’t abide.
You call it a smear. Fine. I disagree. I’ve simply linked her own words—words that, for simply being level-heated observations, she’s certainly spending a lot of time trying to distance herself from.
Jeff, I didn’t say that Cindy Sheehan’s alleged comments were “level-headed” (she herself said in the letter to Nightline that she was emotional because of Casey’s death), just that they weren’t anti-semitic or supportive of the destruction of Israel.
Cindy Sheehan never used the term “Jewish cabal” – that is your language (In fact, many of the intellectuals associated with the Project for the New American Century are Gentiles). As I said before, while I do not accept the idea that protecting Israel was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq, I do not believe it to be so outlandish as to make anybody who holds the idea to be an anti-Semtiic conspiracy nut. I have a lot of friends and family members who believe protecting Israel was one of the hidden motivations of regime change in Iraq; many of them are Jews who are strongly supportive of Israel, and a few of them actually supported the invasion precisely for that reason.
You still have provided no proof that “out of Palestine” = “destruction of Israel”, rather than “out of the West Bank and Gaza”. “Palestine” can indeed be a reference to Historic Palestine (Palestine under Ottoman Rule and the British Mandate), which encompasses the current state of Israel, but it also can refer to Gaza and the West Bank, which are commonly recognized as the territories comprising a future Palestinian state.
Your only evidence for your interpretation of what Cindy Sheehan meant by “Palestine” was a link to the Crawford Peace House, and I explained why I believed your intrepretation was wrong.
As a matter of fact, Hamas would not use the phrase, “Israel out of Palestine”, because that would imply Israel’s continued existence; it is impossible to “get out” of an area and still exist as an entity. Hamas would be more likely to use a phrase like, “Israel must be obliterated” or “Jews out of Palestine”.
I’m not saying Cindy Sheehan shouldn’t be criticized—I actually happen to agree with some of your criticisms of her (e.g. her references to “chickenhawks”, her support for withdrawal from Afghanistan). However, the claim that she is an Anti-Semite is baseless, and one that I hope the right-wing blogosphere will retract.
And as I said before, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Because it is precisely at that emotional moment when Sheehan dashed off her “Nightline” letter suggesting her son died for Israel that I believe she was at her most transparent. And to suggest that “neocons” would take their country into a war in the secret interests of another country to whom they owe a greater allegiance is repulsive—even if some Jews you know were making the same argument.
As for the Hamas argument, you’re playing semantic games; Hamas might not recognize Israel, but they surely know it exists and have in fact just recently said that next they’ll work on taking back Jerusalem.
Incidentally, here’s a bunch of video of what Sheehan is actually saying.