McCain lost the last election because of the Iraq War? Um no. He lost because of the financial crisis. I know of no serious observers of American politics who believe that he lost because of Iraq. Iraq actually helped him in most polling I've seen. He was among the very few people advocating for the surge and the surge worked. In early September McCain had a lead. His polling numbers dropped by 10

during the first week of the crisis and he then lost by slightly less than that. Unless one would claim that the American electorate suddenly discovered his position on the Iraq War in mid-September of 2008, that assertion of causality seem ridiculous. Why you vote a particular way has little bearing on aggregate opinion. That is called a part equals the whole fallacy.
As for Turks killing Kurds, when I was an undergrad it was explicitly labeled a genocide by the leftist anti-American crowd and was linked to other "genocides" by various other American allies. Noam Chomsky spent the better part of the 80s and early 90s going all over Europe screaming about American culpability in Turkish slaughter of Kurds. They killed 10,000s of Kurds in their "dirty" war. If the Kruds were firing rockets into Istanbul and highjacking airplanes on a regular basis and actively trying to destroy the Turkish nation-state, I am quite doubtful that their would be any Kurds left alive in Turkey.
And yes Pakistan (if we are to consider them a part of the Middle East) have butchered the Baluchi in reasonably large numbers. Not to mention the fact that Pakistan was born out of one of the greatest mass ethnic slaughters in human history. Without adjusting for relative size and just dealing in absolute numbers, I will wager you 100 bucks that there are today more Muslims in Israel than there are Hindus in Pakistan. That did not happen without quite violent ethnic cleansing.
As for Jewish lobbying, Jews support pretty much only one political party, which is the less pro-Israel party. Which then begs the question of how did the PLO effectively kill a man running for President in the US and still maintain support of any kind. Evangelical Protestant support for Israel is a relatively recent phenomenon and is not driven by by end of times crap. Muslims behave like murderous whack-jobs and American Rednecks (Jacksonians in the language of American Political Theory) respond by sympathizing with the Israeli point of view. Consider that right now an American TV program is being refused the right to broadcast by their network because of death threats by a Muslim group in the US because they showed Mohammad not being shown. They showed him as a giant black rectangle marked censored. The kind of Americans who are Evangelical Christians are the kind of people who respond to such idiocy by supporting whatever the other side is. I could probably convince them pretty easily to support India is Kashmir. It is a fairly recent thing that American Rednecks have become aware of what Huntington referred to as the bleeding borders of Islam.
As for the "I saw something on Youtube" arguments, we in this country have free speech which is among other things interpreted to mean that broadcasting is not run by the Government. Anyone can get almost anything broadcast. France not too long ago had a second place Presidential candidate who said that the Holocaust was a mere detail of History. That is both a more serious indictment of France and at the same time meaningless. However, if 17% of France voted for such a man, I think you owe us at least some understanding that someone on American TV once said something about the EU.