GG

Don't forget that Palmer said that he thinks Allen has a better sense of humor than Fitz.

It's a side show

Most liberal Jews are not at all comfortable with the theocratic nature of Israel, while conservatives/orthodox see it as God's will. For liberals having a powerful Jewish nation state runs counter to the ingrained protection they feel as the perpetual victim. They enjoy the "protected" status as the chosen people without the pesky part of actually running a nation. That's why they think they can identify with Palestinians. Yet that parallel is misplaced because it ignores history. The last time that Jewish leaders sold out their people to occupiers was exactly when they got expelled from the Holy Land. Hopefully the Palestinians also realize that they've been sold out.

And suddenly the border protests stopped after Hamas leader was summoned to Egypt. Wonder if the Egyptians welcomed him with open arms?

That's pretty impressive for indiscriminate shooting.

It’s like discovering that your childhood hero is a loser. Much easier to put hands over ears to drown out the noise.

Was there a journalistic point to the story?

Sorry was getting to that. You have to recall that the West always looked at Leninism/Stalinism as the pure evil that they were, and the only reason that they allowed Hitler to rearm was the misguided belief that he would be the bulwark against Stalin. Although that plan failed miserably, after the war Dulles recruited the "good?" Nazis to keep USSR at bay in East Europe. The corollary was Bush's mistake to completely dismantle Saddam's forces, and look where it got us. There's a good chance that would have happened in post-war Germany if the entire Wehrmach was sent packing. BTW, the source is Greggy's speculation that Dulles employed former Nazis in the West European theater and he had JFK killed because JFK was going to out him. Won't speculate on the assassination theory, but it's not debatable that NATO relied on former Nazis after the war.

Thanks for the confirmation.

This is like trying to answer the "did you stop beating your wife?" question. So here's the imperfect answer in how I rank the two evils. Nazi evil is much easier to conceptualize and wrap into the history books because the genocide was specific in its targets, the rhetoric behind the ethnic cleansing was thoroughly invalidated and destroyed by the victors and the country perpetrating the horrors has atoned for the sins. The Soviet ideology, on the other hand has not gone through any sort of reckoning, still has avid admirers around the world who insist that the only problem about socialism is that it wasn't done right (to me the analogy would be Nazi defenders saying that the ovens weren't hot enough). The good people of the world rose up to Nazis, because it was the raging, in your face evil, instead of the more slow decay of socialism that destroys the world. Yet, when you look at how the two evils affected the world in the last 100 years, Leninism has caused far greater damage to humanity than Nazism. (And of course, I need to add the usual disclaimer for the gatortards of the world - the Earth would be a far better place if neither of the two heinous evils ever saw the light of day)

And yet people are complaining about paying $3/mo for pretty good Bills coverage. Thanks Google.

And once again, the Homeland plot mirrors reality

A truly legendary author

I was thinking of this while reading this op-ed (WSJ paywall). The Evil Empire still hasn't faced up to the reconing for what they did in the 60's. Does anyone still think the "spontaneous" leftist uprisings across the world in 1968 were a coincidence? America's inner cities are still paying the price for the failed revolution, and the left refuses to recognize that they're still Stalin's useful idiots. (BTW, maybe now you realize why Dulles embraced the Wehrmacht exiles in his covert war. They were the lesser evil) ...

Peterman should count for the conversion points

But there is a Benjamin & a Levi.

Wow, I thought she passed a while back.

So what you're saying is that in 35 years, he will be President?

Doesn't everyone with Amazon Prime get it for free?

Wake me when this article is in the Post and not Times

Maybe when your people finally realize they've been used as pawns, you can have a rational discussion. Maybe that time will come soon with KSA speaking out.

They offer just enough services to prevent a revolt, but not enough to lift people out of their permanent victimhood.

Let's say that a group of Mexicans who insist that Texas was taken from them illegally ammasses on the border and starts lobbing rockets and rocks at US border patrol. Do you think there's a chance some will get shot?

They have had 13 years to prove they can co-exist. How much of the external funds that Hamas has received have gone to building up the economy vs using it to wage war?

Here are a few questions to ponder. As a parent, would you allow your 12-year old to go to the front lines of a violent protest, where there's a high chance the child would get hurt? As a parent, what would be the rationale to actively bring a 12-year old to the front lines of a violent protest, where there's a high chance the child would get hurt? What would you call the parent in the latter situation?