Citizen Journal

The DNC website describes the incident as follows:

...some members of the audience took it upon themselves to distribute anti-Semitic literature at the Wasserman Conference room where an overflow crowd observed the proceedings on television.

Reports the AP:

One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world," a statement Dean also condemned.

I don’t know whether the offending literature or the text of McGovern's remarks is available yet – hopefully it will surface on Drudge – but it is startling to me that raising questions about Israel and Iraq is said to constitute "anti-Semitism." Like a lot of conservatives I support President Bush and his conduct of the war on terror, and I don’t subscribe to Tin Foil Hat Brigade conspiracy theories. But if we’re to have a worthwhile debate about what wars to fight, and how and when to do so, it’ll have to account for the U.S.' unique relationship with Israel and the extent to which our interests are co-extensive with theirs, and when they diverge. One of the vastly unexplored issues of the last few years is whether, as to Israel, we’re reaching a point of divergence, or are at or beyond it, as are sub-points such as: the idea that September 11th united much of the world against Islamofascim; questions about what Israel stands to gain from regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan; and why President Bush’s approval among American Jews isn’t higher. 9/11 conspiracy theories are one thing but these unexplored questions are quite another.

Jewish neo-conservatives’ indignation, and their willingness to affiliate paleo-conservatism with anti-Semitism (one example: this WSJ editorial) has thrown water on the debate. The tactic is as regrettable as when it’s used, for example, by liberal idiots who introduce the words “racism” and “bigot” into a debate over affirmative action. Such exaggeration and careless use of the terms eventually cheapen them, which is especially bothersome considering the frightful reemergence of actual anti-Semitism in Europe.

It remains to be seen whether the DNC’s troubles this weekend will fester or be whisked under the carpet. At this point, without knowing the contents of the literature that was circulated, it’s impossible to talk merits. But judging by the initial response we’ll never get that far – the script is being followed: righteous indignation, then summary dismissal – of an idea, precisely because it is “critical of Israel.” And no one dares ask why. This is a terrible path for public debate, one that bears no resemblance to “conservatism.” Where do the reliable conservative pundits stand? Why isn't anyone denouncing the speech policing?

For now it may be worth savoring a delicious irony here. Liberals tend to disclaim responsibility for speech codes, but who’s kidding whom? That some of them, as a result of yet another meandering tirade against President Bush, found themselves ensnared in their own rhetorical trap is beyond amusing, as is the spectacle of Howard Dean denouncing anything at all as “offensive.”