they were carrying around bags from the AIPAC conference.

it was silly and kinda scary at the same time.

beat you by 18 min big guy.

i'm not surprised tho. i'd like to frame this in a "money for the MIC" way instead of an "anti-AIPAC" way, however. AIPAC doesn't speak for israel any more than northrup or lockheed speak for america. at the bottom of all lobbying motivation is money, and i don't think this is any different. if "protecting israel" were really the goal, the AIPAC crowd would not have supported the iraq war, or any other war that breeds a new generation of haters of israel.

in the middle east, imperial adventures like the iraq war are understood by the 'arab street' as joint ventures between israel and the US. thus, invasions and occupations only decrease security in israel. but like here, the israeli MIC lobby is very powerful, and they have their own generation of neocon hacks who have careers solely because of their success in fooling people into believing what they do is for israel's benefit.

 When I drove into my office building's parking lot this morning, I saw the Stars and Stripes and the flag of Virginia fluttering proudly on their poles.

 I didn't see any blue Stars of David on any white fields.

 Any US lawmaker who places Israel's interests ahead of America's is unfit to serve in office. Period.  

I think it is offensive to say that defense of Israel, the only democracy in the middle east and a true ally of the United States is "immoral"

  The last time the Democrats gave Bush a blank check on the war, they rode it to smashing victories in the subsequent elections.

 And the war has worked out SO well, too...

 Heck, why not do it again? The DC consultants have it ALL figured out! Onward to victory!

... organization please? Pretty please?

I know I've heard rumblings about it. But we need a fully operational battle station, soon -- there's no time to dawdle on this. AIPAC has had the microphone to itself for too long.

This is what really scares me about Hillary - she'll be deep in AIPAC's pocket when it comes to Iran if she wins...

Someday someone will figure out a way to pit AIPAC against the NRA.

There is still the Webb bill.

Our Congressmen better start thinking about what's best for THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND NOT ISRAEL.

If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

I'm tired of America getting into messes because of AIPAC. If Israel wants to attack Iran, they should be on their own. We have no business in Iran.

I'm just wondering, how does white-Liberals feel about the AIPAC's stronghold over the Democratic leadership? I'm asking, because everytime this issue comes up the "A" word comes up and all of the sudden the conversation gets muddy.

The interests of Israel arent the same as those of the United States.

One of the many things that has bothered me has been the bizarre alliance of some Jews to hawkish, if not downright dangerous foreign policy. I have friends that work with AIPAC; they are not warmongers, but they are increasingly worried about Iran's increasing rhetoric, specifically when the leader of that nation says they want to wipe Israel off the map.

It worries me that I've met many young Jews who are progressive on a whole host of issues -- health care for all, gay rights, a woman's right to choose, labor, and so on -- but extremely in bed with the Bush Administration's foreign policy towards Israel and Iran because they are Jews.

There are many, many progressive Jewish organizations that are doing great work on numerous social justice issues. But what worries me is that oftentimes progressives cannot keep up with the money and influence that AIPAC wields. I would hate to think that there is an association being built between being hawkish and Jewish... I guess what I am trying to articulate is that progressive pro-peace Jews need to start standing up to AIPAC, while still standing up for the rights of Israel. We recognize that what is in the long term best interests of Israel is a true and lasting peace, not short-sighted support for stripping away the Constitutional power of Congress.

It's on the front page.

It may have been wrong to say "the" leader. Perhaps I should have said "a" leader, as he has been the head of government since August 2005. Regardless of whether he himself controls the military, you cannot  deny that an adamant anti-Semite has a very high-level position in their government. Or am I getting the wrong Ahmadinejad?

Second, even if what you say is true that he didn't say that he wanted Israel "wiped off the map," and instead said that Israel should "vanish from the page in time," I'm not really sure what the difference is other than the idiom. It might just be my interpretation, but vanishing from time seems pretty akin to... not existing. So what's your point? That instead of saying that he wants Israel wiped off the map he wishes it had never existed and it should vanish altogether? I feel so much better.

Shouldn't the netroots be doing something about this?

I get flamed hard for suggesting that Lieberman, an orthodox jew, may support the Iraq war because it takes pressure off of Israel at a time when it's military is weak and in need of overhaul.

Now I read here how powerful the AIPAC is, and how it can so dictate US policy.  Sounds like confirmation of my speculation, to me.  If it's not, what am I missing?  Seriously, I'd like to know.

I dont want american soldiers dying because of the israel's interests.  I dont want america hostage to a middle east policy that favors israel over hundreds of millions of people....to the point where we have to go on threatening nations just for the sake of israel. I dont want aemrica spending $$ on israel, when our inner city schools are in shambles...and our healthcare system is a mess.  Of course, I know that to feel the way I do is considered borderline anti-semitic by lots of you....but what gives.