The Washington Post's Dana Milbank http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR200608... target=_blank>reviews a forum, sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), held yesterday at the National Press Club. As Milbank observes, the featured speakers, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Harvard's Stephen Walt, made a point to single out the Jews in the administration.
Walt singled out two Jews who worked at the Pentagon for their pro-Israel views. "People like Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith . . . advocate policies they think are good for Israel and the United States alike," he said. "We don't think there's anything wrong with that, but we also don't think there's anything wrong for others to point out that these individuals do have attachments that shape how they think about the Middle East."
"Attachments" sounds much better than "dual loyalties." But why single out Wolfowitz and Feith and not their non-Jewish boss, Donald Rumsfeld? â€¦Picking up on the "attachments" lingo, Mearsheimer did mention Bolton but cited two Jews, Elliott Abrams and David Wurmser, as "the two most influential advisers on Middle East affairs in the White House. Both, he said, are " fervent supporters of Israel." Never mind that others in the White House, such as national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Vice President Cheney and President Bush, have been just as fervent despite the lack of "attachments."
For more on the "scholarship" of Mearsheimer and Walt see http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2006/03/the_paranoid_lobby_1... target=_blank>here, here and here.