Eric Cantor and the Israel question

To which his answer is certainly interesting.

More interesting than the rhetorical hypocrisy present there is the attempt to reclassify money given to Israeli as something other than foreign aid, which is described at the bottom of Greenwald’s article.

Hopefully Glenn Beck will seize upon this as a sign of impending Jewish apocalypsination, and thus combine Cantor’s madness with his own to create a perfectly balanced equation of political derangement.

I know this is going to turn into a P&R shitstorm, but I have to ask: how is our security reliant upon that of Israel?

Christ, if a Dem did the same thing with any other country…

Someone promising to defend another nation against their own country shouldn’t need to rise to the level of a partisan issue.

But I think it began as a partisan issue, since actually publicly announced treason is unlikely to be the purpose of anyone who has stirred up controversy doing anything remotely like this in the past (usually a Democrat in the crosshairs of Republicans). I don’t really think any of them are particularly treasonous, but in Cantor’s case it’s analogous to the wide stance situation in terms of demonstrating a core hypocrisy that should be highlighted. And, of course, the actual policy issues like reclassifying Israeli aid as non-foreign to immunize it from cuts in a time when Israel’s doing better per capita than we are, which you’d think would be pretty explosive politically although I’m sure Democrats would be terrified of being Helen Thomased.

It just serves to highlight the bizarre relationship the US has with Israel. I am trying to imagine the outrage in Britain if one of Labour’s MPs went to Germany and told them he’d work against the British government to the benefit of Germany. Imagine even an Israeli MP going to America and saying he’d work with the US to undermine Israeli government policy!

  1. When the Apocalypse arrives, Jesus Christ will personally guarantee the security of America (the real America, you know who you are).

  2. The continued existence of Israel is a prerequisite for the Apocalypse.

  3. Therefore, the security of America is dependent on the continued existence of Israel, Q.E.D.

Accusing someone of treason is one thing. Announcing it seems like another to me.

I didnt know that disagreeing with the foreign policy aims of the president was treason.

There is a difference between disagreement, and telling a foreign leader that you will work against the administration.

So democrats never worked against the foreign policy goals of Bush when he was president? I seem to remember a lot of opposition to things he wanted done.

I dont agree with Cantor and I actually do think our blind support of Israel at times is a mistake, but I hardly think anything he said is treason.

Mayer’s post seems like a good example of Stewart’s complaint in the Maddow interview about self-righteous conversation stoppers from the Left.

You can disagree with foreign policy, but the tradition has always been that that disagreement stops at the shoreline.

Going to another foreign leader and undermining the president easiy goes against that tradition.

To put this another way:

A few Dems in congress voiced their opposition to the decision to invade Iraq. Now, imagine if one of these Dems publicly told Jacques Chirac (or the French PM) that they would stand against the Bush administration and try to check their foreign policy decisions and actions.

This Dem would have been ripped a new one by the GOP and the press, and very likely would have been impeached and booted out of office.

This is the hypocrisy that I believe LK is pointing out.

… and people say this country isn’t run by the Jews.

Bernanke? Jew. Greenspan? Jew. Goldman Sachs? Jews. Obama? You’ve seen his ears, right? Don’t let the blackface fool you.

I already said I dont agree with Cantor doing this, I was just disagreeing with the person who called it treason.

It gets back to the GOP’s belief that Obama isn’t their president.

And there’s an even bigger gulf between that and being treasonous or disloyal, both terms that are used as smears most of the time. I think Cantor is full of shit and should be called on it because of the precedents he himself helped create in the field of smearatology, and that the actual policy decisions he is supporting, namely with Israeli aid, should be the target of criticism.

Eric Cantor accused Nancy Pelosi of treason when she met with Syrian President Assad. You can see his article in the National Review. By Cantor’s own standards he should be considered as potentially in violation of the Logan Act.