But the real base of political support for Israel in the US is from the Christian fundamentalists.  Israel has a specific place in their belief system, and it is strongly tied to the events outlined in the Book of Revelations.  As soon as the fundamentalists decide that the world has moved to the next stage (where Israel is hopelessly threatened by the godless king, I think) then Israel will be on the outs politically no matter how strongly we American Jews yell and scream.

All this talk of the amazing power and magical sway of AIPAC is just a variation of the "Jews secretly control the world" theme.  Add the idea expressed all over these comments that Jewish money in political donations is a humongous force to be reckoned with and you are hitting another golden oldie.  Luckily, we haven't seen too much of the "Jews are loyal to something other than America" talk here, or we would really have the trifecta.

So, AIPAC traitors are responsible.

These Attacks Must Stop
The military "solution" is not working - it's time to cease fire and find a peaceful solution to this madness.

of course, the real "madness" here is that israel, a state in existence for nearly 3,000 years (off and on), has been constantly attacked by arabs for the past 50 years. the palestinian leadership, such as it is, does nothing to stop those attacks.

the rest of the arab and persian countries do nothing to stop those attacks. in fact, they facilitate them, by providing arms and funds to support hamas and other like-minded groups, in their attacks on israel.

Even George Bush knew better than that.

Really?

As the headline says:

    President Bush doesn't believe in polling---just ask his pollsters.

Excerpt:

    This wasn't a stray comment, but a glimpse of a larger strategy that has served Bush extremely well since he first launched his campaign for president---the myth that his administration doesn't use polling. As Bush endlessly insisted on the campaign trail, he governs "based upon principle and not polls and focus groups." It's not hard to understand the appeal of this tactic. Ever since the Clinton administration's well-noted excesses---calling on pollsters to help determine vacation spots and family pets---polling has become a kind of shorthand for everything people dislike about Washington politics. "Pollsters have developed a reputation as Machiavellian plotters whose job it is to think up ways to exploit the public," says Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Announcing that one ignores polls, then, is an easy way of conveying an impression of leadership, judgment, and substance. No one has recognized and used this to such calculated effect as Bush. When he announced he would "bring a new tone to Washington," he just as easily could have said he'd banish pollsters from the White House without any loss of effect. One of the most dependable poll results is that people don't like polling. But in fact, the Bush administration is a frequent consumer of polls, though it takes extraordinary measures to appear that it isn't. This administration, unlike Clinton's, rarely uses poll results to ply reporters or congressional leaders for support. "It's rare to even hear talk of it unless you give a Bush guy a couple of drinks," says one White House reporter. But Republican National Committee filings show that Bush actually uses polls much more than he lets on, in ways both similar and dissimilar to Clinton. Like Clinton, Bush is most inclined to use polls when he's struggling. It's no coincidence that the administration did its heaviest polling last summer, after the poorly received rollout of its energy plan, and amid much talk of the "smallness" of the presidency. A Washington Monthly analysis of Republican National Committee disbursement filings revealed that Bush's principal pollsters received $346,000 in direct payments in 2001. Add to that the multiple boutique polling firms the administration regularly employs for specialized and targeted polls and the figure is closer to $1 million. That's about half the amount Clinton spent during his first year; but while Clinton used polling to craft popular policies, Bush uses polling to spin unpopular ones---arguably a much more cynical undertaking.