But he noticed at the debate that neither candidate would say that "an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on America." Which in my opinion is very logical from their perspective as they don't want to hamstring their decision based on hypothetical situations. Now, does AIPAC and "the Lobby" want America to see an attack on Israel as an attack on America? Because I don't think that has been America's policy up until this point, otherwise we would be fighting Hamas right now. Anyway, MJ Rosenberg's article isn't completely free of anti-Semitic insinuations:
"After all, if Romney had said that a surprise Israeli strike was acceptable, Obama would either have to agree or look less faithful to Netanyahu than Romney. And that is something he seems desperate to avoid."Here's Rosenberg's article in graphical form, in case you are having trouble getting it:
By the way the article's title triumphantly declares "Neither Obama Nor Romney Will Go To War For Netanyahu." It would be news to anyone who isn't MJ Rosenberg that they were even considering that, but his articles haven't been connected to reality for a very long time. Anyway getting back to the text, Rosenberg having been given an inch now seeks to take a mile:
"But Romney is already seeing himself as a possible president and he therefore cannot give any country carte blanche to drag us into war. In that sense, he and Obama are in the exact same place. They are Americans and are not ready to risk our forces and even American lives at home in a conflict that would not be in the U.S. interest."Rosenberg, the section of your audience that isn't the amen corner isn't stupid. I was watching the debate as well and nowhere did either candidate give an indication that Iran having nuclear weapons was somehow in the interests of the USA. What they said was that Iranian nukes were a national security thread and completely unacceptable. Romney even said that Iran would never have nukes while he was President. But most importantly they said that military force would only be considered if all other options have failed. I'm sure Rosenberg saw the "lobby" hiding behind every whispered syllable, but I saw a consistent position with what they have both been saying.
Now most of the way through the article Rosenberg realized that he can't just leave it like this because it makes it sound like AIPAC doesn't control American politicians which is the reverse of what he has been saying for years. So he starts spamming the term "pander:"
"The rest of the debate was, of course, heavy on the pandering. But both managed to profess undying love for Israel without saying, when asked, that an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States....Bottom line. They both pandered (Obama's pandering was even more over-the-top than Romney's) ...Of course, if pandering to a foreign country for purely cynical reasons offends you (it sure offends me), you too might be ready to dive out that window.... The pandering was bad but, in the end, it amounted to nothing."You can practically hear the gears grinding inside of his head, can't you? This paragraph is also informative in how two people can see something completely different from the same thing. I would say 99.9% of the people who saw their praise of Israel as "pandering" assumed they were pandering to voters. Rosenberg, of course, knows better. AIPAC controls everything...except when they don't. And except when they do. The candidates weren't pandering to voters, they were pandering to "a foreign country," which of course controls the lobby that controls America. But don't call him anti-Semitic.
The good news in all of this is that barely anyone noticed Rosenberg's article even though it was given prime billing in the "World" section. I guess real analysis of the debates take priority over the boy who cried wolf saying the same thing once again.