I’d forgotten about it, but M.J. Rosenberg’s post here reminded me of the existence of Michael Kinsley’s hilarious 2003 tour of anti-semitism on the AIPAC website:

It is my sad duty to report that this form of anti-Semitism seems to have infected one of the most prominent and respected—one might even say influential—organizations in Washington. This organization claims that “America’s pro-Israel lobby”—and we all know what “pro-Israel” is a euphemism for—has tentacles at every level of government and society. On its Web site, this organization paints a lurid picture of Zionists spreading their party line and even indoctrinating children. And yes, this organization claims that the influence of the Zionist lobby is essential to explaining the pro-Israel tilt of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It asserts that the top item on the Zionist “agenda” is curbing the power of Saddam Hussein.

On a more serious note, it occurs to me that some of these disputes about how powerful some lobby is or isn’t in DC get a little hard to resolve because the perception of power is, itself, an important source of power which creates a lot of ambiguity as to what it even means to ask how powerful a group “really” is.

This line from The Washington Post‘s account of the Democrats’ impending FISA surrender really brings it all home:

Democrats are wary of being called weak on national security. That concern is exacerbated by the government’s withholding of details on its surveillance activities that would enable Congress to gauge whether expanded powers are needed, said Mark Agrast, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Yes, indeed, the fact that the government is withholding details on its surveillance activities that would enable Congress to gauge whether expanded powers are needed certainly makes me more inclined to give the executive branch more discretionary power. What a nightmare. I guess the silver lining (of sorts) is that the administration has given every indication over the years that it doesn’t consider itself bound by the law anyway, so in practice even a better law probably wouldn’t accomplish anything.

Torture advocate Bret Stephens makes the case in The Wall Street Journal for pretending that waterboarding isn’t torture:

For the record, count me as one who does not object to the interrogation to which KSM was reportedly subjected, including waterboarding. This is not because I take the use of waterboarding lightly (although I have a hard time concluding that a technique, however terrifying, to which CIA officers are willing to subject themselves experimentally can properly be counted as torture). It’s because I take the threat posed by KSM seriously.

As Matthew Duss points out “CIA officers subject themselves to this torture as part of their training to withstand torture.” Stephens would have us believe, I guess, that the CIA does it for fun. Or maybe that since members of the military volunteer for duty that involves being shot at that guns aren’t really weapons.

Michael Hirsch writes for Newsweek about the ways Rudy Giuliani has put together a team of advisors that makes him look like a dangerous lunatic. His behavior while in City Hall was kind of lovably wacky, but it also suggested the temperament of a lunatic who, in the White House, would be dangerous, so bringing a “dangerous lunatic” policy team on board is not comforting. And this is dangerous lunatic by contemporary Republican standards so be afraid. And there are structural factors in play — it’s not clear that Rudy can afford to be less than insane:

He also knows, however, that painting the War on Terror as a broad moral crusade

Via Ilan Goldenberg, I see Andrew Bacevich’s assessment of General Petraeus’ testimony. I think the word is “trenchant”:

Petraeus has now given this charade a further lease on life. In effect, he is allowing the president and the Congress to continue dodging the main issue, which comes down to this: if the civilian leadership wants to wage a global war on terror and if that war entails pacifying Iraq, then let