I'm actually distantly related to Podhoretz (his mother was sister-in-law of my great-uncle's wife), so I should probably be more of a neo-con than I am.

Jimmy Carter wasn't the most anti-Israel? How is that possible? He helped write Arafat's speeches for him.

George HW Bush was not willing to kiss Shamir's ass. George W Bush seems to be only to willing to kiss Sharon's. I prefer American presidents who look after American interests, not Israeli interests.

Dan,
It is in American interest to support democratic, civilized countries. Israel happens to be the only one in the region.
Not to mention that Israel and the US have been attacked by the same enemy, which is Islamofascism.
So I'm not sure what kind of interest you had in mind when you posted your nonsense. I am sure, however, that a president you would "prefer" has nothing to do with reality.

Ivan:

America should not be in the business of supporting a country just because they are 'democratic' or 'civilized'. America would be best off minding its own business.

America's enemy is not Islamofascism. Muslims never bothered the United States when we were not in their part of the world.

You're right, Dan. We should just keep our heads down and hope for the best. Don't travel anywhere either, you never know whose going to get pissed off by your presence.

Dan, Dan, Dan. Open your eyes and use your brain, man. Read some history. Certain muslims (not all) have been 'bothering' the US for over a century, whether we were in their world or not.

To follow your path leads to eventual slavery or destruction.

Karol:

I think it is better to keep a low profile than to look for trouble.

Dweet:

Over a century? America's troubles in the Middle East are a product of the WWII/Cold War period. Before then, American involvement in that part of the world was minimal.

And slavery? I am advocating not bothering people in their part of the world. I do not see how that is slavery.

Dan, I don't understand why you can't take Islamofascists at their word that they want the whole world to be Muslim and that is their goal. You are capitulating to their wants. And they will want you dead anyway.

Karol:

First of all, I do not know if there really is such a thing as Islamofascism. That seems to be a word made up by Christopher Hitchens or somebody to lump a lot of different groups together.

Second, I generally do take people at their word. Al Qaeda said that they did not like American troops in Arabia, the American fleet in the Persian Gulf or American support for Israel. These are not unreasonable views and are widely held throughout the Middle East. America's fight with Al Qaeda is driven by America's interference in the Middle East. To avoid future conflicts, America would be best to stop nosing about in that part of the world.

Third, some Muslims may want to Talibanise the United States. However, that is not a strongly held view among the world's Muslims and will never happen. So I am not too worried about it. What I am worried about is too much U.S. interference in the Middle East generating blowback at back here.

Let's not go crazy on Robertson and his support for Israel. According to some evangelical Christians, in the last days, the forces of light will battle the forces of evil at Armagedon, which is in Isreal. For this day to come (and as they beleive they are chosen, God will spare them, the fundemantlists welcome this day) Isreal must be in the hands of the Jews. After the battle, the Jews must either see the light and embrace Jesus as the son of God and the Savior of the world or be damned and sent to hell. There are other millenial theories out there (the rapture, the uniting of heaven and earth) as well but this one does have a lot of support and has been around for a while now. Personally, I reject it but I suspect this is why Isreal has more supporters among evangelical and fundementalist Christians then it does among followes of mainline Prostentism and orthodox Catholicism.