Soccer Dad

The Treaty Of Versailles--And The Palestinians

On Sept. 30, 1938, Chamberlain and Hitler (yimach sh'mo) agreed that the German-speaking "Sudetenland" of Czechoslovakia should be ceded to Germany.

Cliff May has some thoughts, concluding:

Statesmen understand that sometimes grievances can be addressed and sometimes grievances are manipulated to camouflage other ambitions and ulterior motives. Churchill clearly understood that Hitler's appetite would be whet, not satisfied, once he had consumed the Sudetenland. As he put it:

"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude..."

By the same token, it should be clear--but is not to many in the Foreign Policy Establishment -- that it will be impossible to appease the Islamist regime in Tehran and the Islamist leadership in Gaza and the West Bank. Iranians and Palestinians may have "legitimate grievances" (let's debate that another day). But the more salient fact is that they will see appeasement as weakness, and they will find weakness provocative. If there are any well-established laws in international relations, this is among them - despite attempts by revisionists to repeal it. [emphasis added]

This is a point emphasized by the fact that just today, one day before the 70th anniversary of that agreement, Olmert gives an interview claiming that Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem and the Golan.

by Daled Amos

McCain vs Obama On Israel: Worldviews Apart

Yoram Ettinger notes in a piece in YnetNews.com that the worldviews of past US presidents have been the key to how they have dealt with Israel. Thus, while Nixon did not owe anything to Jewish voters, his worldview led him to provide key arms to Israel during the 1973 War. On the other hand, despite Clinton's affinity towards Israel, his worldview led him to make Arafat a frequent welcome guest at the White House.

With this in mind, Ettinger takes a look at the worldviews of McCain and Obama and how they would influence their dealings with Israel. Here is a summary:

1. According to McCain, there is currently a war going on between Western democracies and Islamic terror. According to Obama, this conflict is with a radical Islamic minority. Thus, according to Obama there are viable options through diplomacy, talk and negotiations. Another consequence of this difference in worldview is that McCain sees Israel as a strategic ally, while Obama downplays that role.

2. According to Obama, the US must accommodate the UN, Western Europe and the Third World, which hold the West and Israel responsible for the problems of the Third World and the Arabs. McCain, on the other hand, says the US has a strong leadership role to play in the world--both ideologically and militarily.

3. According to Obama, Islamic terrorism is an issue for international law and terrorists should be brought to justice. According to McCain, this is a military challenge. The effect these differing worldviews would have on the US dealing with Israel is obvious.

4. Obama and his advisors assume that Islamic terrorism is a result of despair and poverty--compounded by erroneous US policy and its presence in Iraq. McCain sees Islamic terrorism as being driven by ideology, which conflicts with US values of freedom. Again, this impacts directly on how the US would deal with Israel.

5. Obama believes that the Palestinian issue is at the heart of Middle East violence and terrorism--requiring assertive US involvement and pressure on Israel.

Ettinger concludes:

Obama's worldview would be welcomed by supporters of an Israeli rollback to the 1949 ceasefire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and the opening of the "Pandora Refugees' Box." On the other hand, McCain's worldview adheres to the assumption that an Israeli retreat would convert the Jewish State from a power of deterrence to a punching bag, from a producer - to a consumer - of national security and from a strategic asset to a strategic burden in the most violent, volatile and treacherous region in the world.

Read the whole thing.

To claim that McCain and Obama have identical positions on Israel is to completely overlook how each of the candidates sees the world, instead being satisfied with the usual litany of glowing promises and fancy talk.

Bottom line: are Obama's statements about Iraq and US policy in general consistent with the defense of a strong Israel?

by Daled Amos

Olmert Ties East Jerusalem To Golan

Haaretz reports on an interview the irrepressible Ehud Olmert gave to Yedioth Aharonoth

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in remarks published Monday that Israel would have to withdraw from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights if it was serious about making peace with the Palestinians and Syria.

..."Ariel Sharon spoke about painful costs and refused to elaborate," Olmert told the daily. "I say, we have no choice but to elaborate. In the end of the day, we will have to withdraw from the most decisive areas of the territories. In exchange for the same territories left in our hands, we will have to give compensation in the form of territories within the State of Israel."

"I think we are very close to an agreement," Olmert added. [emphasis added]

While Aluf Benn sees this as Olmert's epiphany is too little, too late, David Hazony has a different perspective, as Olmert runs counter to what has been considered the national concensus on both the Golan and Jerusalem. Hazony addresses the logic--or lack thereof--in dividing Jerusalem, in terms of the continuing integration of 'East' and 'West' Jerusalem and the problem of maintain a true border:

On the ground, Jerusalem is not a city you can divide. The Arab neighborhoods of "East" Jerusalem are spotted all over the northern, northwestern, and southern parts of the city. And all across the "East" there are big and bustling Jewish neighborhoods as well. The new rapid-transit system being built will further integrate the city, passing through both Jewish and Arab neighborhoods. New roads and commercial centers have obliterated the old green line, which, unlike in the one separating the West Bank from Israel, no longer appears on maps and is scarcely a memory now. My own neighborhood, Ramot, straddles the line. The only way I could tell which side I was on was by looking in the map of Jerusalem in the World Book Encyclopedia.

But there is another reason why Jerusalem is not going to be divided. The Arabs of Eastern Jerusalem are mostly non-citizens, but unlike in the rest of the West Bank, the vast majority carry blue ID cards -- just like Jews -- which enable them to travel freely, and therefore find work, throughout Jerusalem and Israel. When Israel unilaterally closed the doors to the Gaza Strip, it was called a "siege." What Palestinian government will have the strength to set up a border cutting East Jerusalem off from West? None, of course: This will be a weak regime, and getting weaker, and any Palestinian government will insist that Israel let the Palestinians keep crossing the border freely, which is something Israel will never do, any more than it allows Jordanians or Egyptians to travel unrestricted in Israel.

The problem used to be being stuck with Olmert. Now the issue is becoming being stuck with the results of his last minute actions.

by Daled Amos

McCain's role

Last week in editorials, both the NYT and WaPo derided Sen. McCain's decision to stop campaigning and work on the bailout bill. Here's the Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Republican presidential nominee, poured gasoline on this volatile mess with his announcement that he was suspending his campaign to deal with the financial crisis. Whatever Mr. McCain's intent, the inevitable effect was to inject presidential campaigning into an already difficult situation.

The New York Times:

Mr. McCain came to the debate after one of the more ludicrous performances by a presidential candidate. With the markets teetering and Washington desperately trying to find a bipartisan solution, Mr. McCain tried to make the biggest question of the week whether he was actually going to show up for Friday's debate.

But a number of conservative sites have emphasized that Sen. McCain did make a difference.

What we do know is that only one of the presidential candidates understood the political and personal dynamic at work and the way forward. That explains why Reid and Paulson called McCain: they wanted a deal and couldn't get there on their own.

So how did the Times and the Post report all this?

Here's the New York Times:

Both major presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, and Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, gave guarded endorsements of the bailout plan. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama had dipped into the negotiations during a contentious White House meeting on Thursday.

They both "dipped," however only one of them played a pivotal role. The Post was, frankly, worse. Much worse. Yes the Post's report had more details - but they were presented in the form of Democratic talking points:

But Democrats noted that McCain spent very little time on Capitol Hill talking directly with lawmakers, instead preferring to work the phones from his Crystal City headquarters.

And an Obama spokesman sent out e-mails to reporters noting that, while lawmakers and congressional staff members worked into Saturday night to hammer out the deal, McCain was at CityZen, one of Washington's priciest restaurants.

"After taking 22 hours to get from New York to Washington to pull a pointless political stunt, McCain spent yesterday working the phones -- from his campaign headquarters across the river from the Capitol," said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

And it gets worse:

Campaigning in Detroit, Obama continued to attack McCain, saying the Republican's backing of deregulation laws helped cause the economic crisis.

"You can't make up for 26 years in 26 days," Obama told a crowd of more than 15,000 at a rally in downtown Detroit. "For most of the 26 years, he's been against the common-sense rules and regulations that could have stopped this problem."

Instead of taking a time out here and calling Sen. Obama's falsehood, the Post goes on reproducing more of his attack on McCain. But it wasn't Bush or McCain who fought the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was people like Barney Frank (via memeorandum) and Chistopher Dodd.

In fact it was the Bush Administration and Sen. McCain who had been pushing for their reform.

Perhaps not surprisingly neither newspaper mentioned that it was due to Republican objections that the inexplicable funding for ACORN was dropped from the bailout plan.

Neither the Post not the Times provided any narrative that's at odds with the idea that Sen. McCain played a constructive role in shaping the compromise. One simply ignored his role, the other mocked it.

There is a narrative here of putting national interests ahead of personal or political interests. It's a narrative that favors John McCain. Why are the gatekeepers of our national debate refusing to do their job and tell the story? A free press is necessary to the proper functioning of democracy and yet our media is failing in its number one job: to keep the citizenry informed.

Obama's Ongoing Threats Against Free Speech

The first glimmer of the kind of strong arm tactics Obama would use came back in 1996 when Obama ran (over his competition) for the State Senate:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign puts a hard edge on the image he has honed throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

Silencing critics by whatever means are available is nothing new to Obama--and it has not stopped either. Far from it. One of the most recently uncovered attempts by Obama to squelch opposition comes from Missouri:

Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

"What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

Cnsidering what Obama is up to, Gov. Blount may be guilty of an understatement. From The National Review:

A St. Louis television station reports -- their words -- "The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign."

Prosecutors and sheriffs from across Missouri are joining "The Barack Obama Truth Squad."

They mention Jennifer Joyce, St. Louis Circuit Attorney and Bob McCullough, prosecutor for St. Louis County in Missouri.

The reporter says, "They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year."

AllahPundit at Hot Air notes the other times that Obama and his campaign have threatened people who have criticized him:

Juggling carnivals 09/29/08

Incoming Carnivals

The latest Kosher Cooking Carnival is up at IsraMom.

Ozymandias the barbarian is yawping the latest Haveil Havalim - the Jewish/Israel blogging carnival.

Dr. Sanity, included a post of mine in this week's Carnival of the Insanities, along with posts from the likes of Wolf Howling, Simply Jews, Snapped Shot, Yid with Lid and Israel Matzav.

blog carnivals.

Council speak 09/28/08

The council has spoken.

This week's winning entry was The Glittering Eye's Don't just do something, stand there, a survey of the financial mess we're facing and the suggestion that it might be better to act slowly and correctly rather than quickly and wrongly. The runner up was the Razor's A lack of clarity about the tough decisions his wife had to face regarding her mother's deteriorating health. (A subsequent post reported that his mother in law passed away.)

Among the non-council posts, the winning entry was the Jawa Report's Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated "Grassroots" Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them an excellent job of investigative journalism that, unfortunately, won't resonate the same the way the 60 minutes fake memo did four years ago. The runner up was VDH's Palin and Obama: What Really Is Wisdom? Alas she's being judged on how well (or poorly) she plays the insider interview game and not on life experience. While it didn't garner a lot of votes one of the non-council entries was a prescient article from the NYT ten years ago predicting the problems that could occur if Fannie Mae started allowing riskier loans.

Congratulations to all the winners.

watcher's council.

A general war?

*Make sure to read the disclaimer below.*

Last week Syria built up its forces along the Lebanese border. Assad apologist Andrew Lee Butters wrote:

In recent days, anti-Syrian politicians in Beirut have been crying wolf about an increase in Syrian soldiers on the border with northern Lebanon. They worry that the buildup is a prelude to Syrian incursions on the pretext of stamping out radical Islamist fighters there, but really aimed at reasserting Syrian hegemony. On the other hand, the Syrians say that the buildup is part of an attempt to clamp down on smuggling, and there is reason to believe them.

Michael Young didn't see it in such innocuous terms:

An imminent Syrian invasion of Lebanon is not in the cards. But Assad will continue to see how far he can push the envelope in Lebanon, both politically and militarily. And when he realizes he can push it very far, his confidence will rise, and with it the risk that Syria will use its army in more substantial ways. That's not good news, and it's not good news especially when foreign governments seem so utterly without conviction in preventing Syria from reimposing its hegemony over Lebanon.

However the news about yesterday's car bomb attack in Damascus makes me wonder if the smuggling explanation might be closer to the truth. Now the Jersualem Post is reporting:

A mysterious explosion near Damascus on Saturday claimed the lives of at least 17 people, including a brigadier-general, further destabilizing the Syrian regime.

The article speculates about the identity of the general, but that's less important than the fact that this attack took place so close to the time that Syria reinforced its troops on the Lebanese border. Is it possible that the redeployment was in reaction to intelligence that there had recently been an infiltration? Or perhaps against a threat of further infiltrations?

Last December a Lebanese Gen. Hajj was killed, presumably by Syria.

Anti-Syrian politicians, however, were quick to blame Damascus, accusing the Syrian regime of seeking to cause instability in Lebanon. "I point an accusing finger directly at the Syrian regime as the scheme has been carried out since three years until today with no one to deter this regime," said Antoine Andraous, a member of the March 14 bloc.

Then in August a Syrian general with ties to Assad was killed in Lebanon.

General Mohammed Suleiman, one of Mr Assad's closest confidantes, was shot dead on Friday at his chalet in the prestigious Rimal al-Zahabieh, Arabic for "Golden Sands", seafront resort, 9 miles north of Tartous on the Mediterranean coast. A sniper, apparently located out at sea, shot him in the head, neck and stomach and he was pronounced dead at a hospital in Tartous.

Even leaving out the death of Imad Mughniyeh, it seems that generals have become targets in the Syria Lebanon war. I've been skeptical of the claims that Israel killed Mughniyeh, and nothing I've seen so far suggests that Israel was involved in any of these other deaths. Is there, perhaps, a lethal group fighting for Lebanon's independence operating beneath the radar?

UPDATE: I asked an expert and was told that there's no basis for this speculation. Please ignore.

Crossposted on Yourish.

What qods day tells about mad mahmoud

In an interview with Neil MacFarqhar of the NYT, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had the following exchange:

NYT: On another subject, you are a Persian; you are not an Arab. Your country has never directly at least fought a war with Israel, and yet you seem obsessed by the Jews. Why?

President Ahmadinejad: We have nothing to do with their business at all. Jewish people live in Iran; they have lived there historically. They have a representative in our Parliament. Although there are only 20,000 people, they still have one representative in Parliament. Whereas for the rest of the population you have a minimum requirement of 150,000 people to have one representative. So the Jewish people are treated just like everyone else, like the Christians and the Muslims and the Zoroastrians. They are respected. Everyone is respected.

The question is really over Zionism. Zionism is not Judaism. It is a political party. It is a very secretive political party, which is the root cause of insecurity and wars. For 60 years in our region people have been killed, they have been threatened for 60 years, they have been aggressed upon for 60 years. Several large wars have occurred. A large number of territories there are occupied. More than five million people have been displaced and become refugees. Women and children are attacked in their own homes. They demolish homes over the heads of women and children with bulldozer, in their own house, in their own homeland. These are not crimes that one can shut ones eyes to. We disagree with these criminal acts and we announce it loud and clear. The anger of the U.S. government does not prevent us from saying loud and clear what we think about these acts. As long as these crimes are not rooted out we will continue voicing our concern.

I thought the interview was rather good. MacFarqhar did not follow up, but let Ahmadinejad talk. Many of his answers ranged from denial to non-responsiveness. MacFarqhar did not have to follow up because the responses spoke volumes. Or as MacFarqhar put it in a companion piece:

He was distinctly less forthcoming about domestic problems in Iran. At one point when he started to grow testy while being pressed about economic problems under his administration, an aide sitting at his elbow advised him in Persian to stay calm while answering.

I'm reasonably certain that MacFarqhar speaks Arabic, this little observation suggests that he understand Persian too. "Less forthcoming" is a bit of an understatement. And of course Friday's Qud's Day celebrations gave lie to Ahmadinejad's claim that it is Zionists not Jews he opposes.

Presumably on Friday, the world's news photographers had no other purpose than to photograph Quds day demonstrations.

Iran however had its own way of celebrating - by denying the Holocaust.

Iranian students have released a book containing cartoons of the Holocaust, including some depicting hospitalized Jews on respiratory machines attached to canisters of Zyklon B, the gas used to exterminate Jews during World War II.

The students, members of a state militia, unveiled "Holocaust" in Tehran's Palestine Square on Friday in the presence of Education Minister Ali Reza Ali-Ahmadi, during annual demonstrations calling for the retreat of "Zionists" from "occupied Palestine."

The Post's article first notes that Ahmadinejad spoke last week against Zionists but observes:

The book, however, talks explicitly of the history of the Jews "before, during and after the Holocaust." The cartoons show caricatured Jews with large, hooked noses trying to fabricate evidence for the Holocaust, while the text states that the Nazi massacre has been highly exaggerated, makes fun of testimonials from survivors and accuses present-day Jews of trying to make money from the Holocaust.

The article ends with a quote from the sole Jewish member of the Iranian parliament saying saying that anti-Zionism, not antisemitism is the policy of the Iranian government. Of course he's in an unenviable position. He may be in the Majlis, but he better say whatever the regime tells him. It's true that on the surface he parroted Ahmadinejad's lie, but anything else and he would have experienced the true "freedom" that Mad Mahmoud boasts about. Overall the Post's report makes the case that Zionist means Jew to Ahmadinejad and the mullahcracy in Iran.

Related thoughts here and here.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Who shall live ...

Arguably, the central part of the davening (prayers) on the Jewish High Holidays is the prayer, Unesaneh Tokef. (Translated, "Let us relate the power (of the day's holiness")). It's a short prayer that reminds us what is at stake when we pray for a new year. It is also extremely powerful.

Rabbi Daniel Korobkin of Los Angeles has produced a video (a little more than 6 minutes long) that conveys the message with images of the news from the past year.

Here, Rabbi Korobkin explains what he was trying to convey to those who had misgivings about the film. Specifically he addresses the following two questions.

I would like to take a moment and reflect upon the two major objections we have received about the film: (1) How can we attribute the events depicted in the film to God? Is God so cruel as to have killed tens of thousands in a cyclone in Myanmar, for example? (2) Why is the film so dark, emphasizing the "scary" parts of life? Does Judaism advocate motivating people by fear into being religious? Whatever happened to serving God out of love?

Rabbi Adlerstein writes:

You will want to view Who Shall Live now, and revisit it Erev Rosh Hashanah. With the images fresh during Musaf the next day, they will contribute to a better davening.

Qods day for dummies

While the UN declares that "settlements" and not Palestinian malfeasance is the reason that the Palestinians don't have a state, Muslims the world over are showing their contempt for Israel and the United States during Quds Day

And here, for some unknown reason is Quds Day for Dummies.

Obsessed with obsession

via Solomonia.

CAIR is fighting the distribution of Obsession by filing a complaint with the FEC, which leads Robert Spencer to observe:
This is a very revealing action for CAIR to take. It reveals in particular two key aspects of CAIR's mindset:

1. It shows that CAIR is fully aware that the jihad against Israel is an integral part of the global jihad, and is not just a struggle to recover Palestinian "stolen land." Thus a film that reveals the nature and goals of that global jihad -- Obsession -- benefits Israel.
2. It also shows that CAIR believes that John McCain will fight against the global jihad in a way that Barack Obama will not -- and that it believes therefore the distribution of an anti-jihad film, which in a sane world would be welcomed by both the Left and the Right since the global jihad wishes to destroy and remake the West utterly, must be some partisan plot.

CAIR's complaint echoed here is that the video is encouraging people to support McCain. (via memeorandum)

If it does, it's clearly not doing it openly. However Seth Leibsohn makes a point about the bipartisanship shown on "Obsession."

But not all newspapers are accepting the advertisement. And in the quest to keep the DVD out of the hands of too many Americans, some journalists are betraying their own ignorance. Take Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. Olbermann recently said Obsession is "neocon pornography." I can only imagine what Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz must have thought of this comment, he being one of the most prominently featured experts in the documentary. Professor Alan Dershowitz, a supporter of Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, and an opponent of the Iraq war, would be just about the last person to think of himself as a neoconservative.

Maybe ask Dershowitz if he thinks this is campaigning? My guess is that if he thought it was, he'd have objected up front.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Whose side is he on anyways?

Contentions:

It's important to point out that Clinton praises Obama and in the LKL interview highlights his policy differences with both McCain and Palin. But there is no question that he is saying more favorable things about McCain and Palin than any other leading Democrat. People can speculate on what Clinton's motives are; such things are inherently difficult to discern. All I can say is that in his role as Pundit-in-Chief, Clinton comes across as pretty fair-minded and intelligent. And no one, not even conservative Republicans, has ever questioned his political acumen. He's obviously a flawed man; but he's just as obviously a talented one, too. And when he puts aside his partisan hat and speaks on subjects other than himself, he's often worth listening to.

The Fix (via memeorandum):

The best way to summarize Clinton's position in this race is a sort of clinical support for Obama. While he may well feel more personal warmth to McCain, Clinton -- as he said last night to King -- disagrees with the Republican nominee on the war in Iraq and the right fixes for the economy and health care.

Obama's positions on all of those issues are far closer to Clinton's own views, and the former president is a smart enough political mind to know that anything less than full public support could be disastrous for he and his wife's future political aspirations. "We're not party-wreckers, and we believe that the country needs to take a different course," Clinton told King.

Road to hell

How did we get here?
Charles Krauthammer (or here)

For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.

Why should we bail out the financial institutions?
Megan McArdle:

My basic reasoning is this: given just how badly the Great Depression sucked, I'm willing to gamble on stopping it, even if that gamble fails, even if it is not necessary (a question that, if we actually go through with it, will be much argued and never answered). I'm not willing to gamble for the bankers; the worst thing that will happen to them is that they retire on a pittance, or take a boring job somewhere. I'm worried about the 40 million or so people who might end up out of work, and with nowhere to go. I'm willing to do quite a bit to stop that from happening, even let the bankers off scott free. I don't think it's actually necessary to do that, but if I have to choose between helping the 40 million, or expressing my moral outrage--well, there's always skywriting.

(h/t contentions)

Why can't Congress get a deal done?
Politics as usual (via memorandum).

Submitted 09/25/08

The Watcher's Councils nominations are up!

Council Submissions

• The Glittering Eye - Don't Just Do Something, Stand There - I'll admit that I'm impressed that Sen. McCain has called for a suspension of the campaign in order to deal with the financial crisis. However, there's also something to be said for the idea that there's no problem so bad that government can't make worse.


• Hillbilly White Trash - Knowing the Left - A very strong denunciation of the poltical Left.


• The Colossus of Rhodey - Surprise from Philly Daily News: White voters "discomfitted" by Obama - Hube nails the "race" argument:
  

  No, when I say that Barack Obama is too young and inexperienced, I mean he is too young and inexperienced. And, using Eiding's "logic," when people question Sarah Palin's age and experience, they must really mean "She's a woman."

  
  He also makes a good point about creating ill will with false accusations of racism.


• Cheat-Seeking Missiles - Obama's Bizarre List Of 40 "Probing" NYT Stories - He saved me the trouble of going through the links. I had thought about it. The Obama campaign defended the NYT by claiming that the Times also took a hard look at Obama. But CSM sifts through the articles and they are largely - though not exclusively - cheerleading.


• The Razor - A Lack of Clarity - The Razor writes about the terrible decisions his wife must consider.


• Bookworm Room - Are Americans Really Racists? - Bookworm Room questions the polling method that shows that American's are racist. She also looks at examples of how false claims of racism may have played a role in reinforcing racist feelings. (This is different from Hube's backlash argument.)


• Wolf Howling - Palin'sanity - A very funny ( and wicked ) illustration of a terrible disease.


• Joshuapundit - Doin' The Race Based Politickin' Shuffle - Like Hube and Bookworm, JoshuaPundit dismisses the many folks who confidently assume that the only reason someone wouldn't vote for Sen. Obama is due to the color of his skin. He shows them the scorn they have earned. I realize that I'm probably immune to the charge since I voted for less experienced Michael Steele over Ben Cardin in the race for Senate two years ago. Or does Michael Steele not count as African American because he's a Republican? Plus James Taranto has some information that questions "the Bradley effect."


• Soccer Dad - The connection betweeen J-street and the Obama campaign - I look a significant tie between J-Street and the Obama campaign. Similarly, the Hashmonean shows how the NDJC has put party politics ahead of Israel. Seraphic Secret has a wider ranging indictment including a link to an excellent Caroline Glick column.

On the non-council side, for the second straight week, I nominated a post by Doug Ross. In this case, Any Questions, lays out what would be an effective ad for Sen. McCain using pictures and news stories.

Though I haven't read all the other entries yet, there are two others of special note. One is Michael Totten's Al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq that takes issue with one of the fundamental underpinnings of Sen. Obama's critique of the Bush administration. The other is a fine bit of investigative journalism (that will never be recognize as such by the MSM) by the Jawa Report called Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated "Grassroots" Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them, in which he connects a smear of Gov. Palin to the Obama campaign. When I read of the effort the NYT puts into tying Rick Davis to Fannie Mae, it's absolutely incredible that they'd ignore this. Unless, of course, they're 150% in the tank for Obama.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Accepting mahmoud

The MSM and world have been rather silent about Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism. Some tools even thought to take a picture with him, as if he were some cuddly celebrity, not a madman with designs on genocide. Or even really bad on human rights.

Fortunately On Faith columnists actually showed intolerance for intolerance (for a change):

Thursday's dinner is framed as an "international dialogue" on the topic, "Has Not One God Created Us? The Significance of Religious Contributions to Peace." President Ahmadinejad has manipulated such dialogues repeatedly into a platform for spreading intolerance, and there is no reason to think that this event will be any different.

It is disturbing enough that a leader who has worked so ruthlessly to close off channels for free expression at home should be given an opening to expound his views here. But the invitation to President Ahmadinejad comes amid a rapidly accelerating deterioration of religious freedom and other human rights in Iran, including prolonged detention, torture, and executions often based on the religion of the accused.

The Iranian Parliament currently is finalizing a new Penal Code that for the first time would legally enshrine the death penalty for so-called apostasy, putting the members of many religious minority communities at grave risk. More than 20 Baha'is currently are in prison in Iran on account of their religious identity, and two Christian men were charged with apostasy earlier this month.

However unlike the columnists who are correct in this case, I see now reason to ascribe good intentions to the religious groups who will sup with Ahmadinejad tonight. They aren't misguided. They're evil.

Anne Bayefsky had some harsh but fitting words for the tolerance shown Ahmadinejad:

In its entire history, the United Nations General Assembly has never adopted a resolution dedicated to denouncing and combating the scourge of antisemitism in all its forms. Now we know why. Less than half of U.N. members are fully free democracies and among them there is no consensus that discrimination and demonization of Jews and the Jewish state is wrong.

On the contrary, at the U.N. vicious antisemitism is met by a round of applause.

The tolerance of tyranny was even too much for Ha'aretz:

Ahmadinejad's fourth visit to New York was held against the backdrop of the disintegration of the international effort to impose sanctions on his country in an attempt to curb its nuclear program. According to an assessment by Military Intelligence presented to the cabinet this week, Iran is "galloping toward a nuclear bomb" and mastering the technology for enriching uranium, while the diplomatic and economic battle against it is ineffective.

Israel is justifiably concerned about the naivete with which Ahmadinejad was received by the American media, as well as the world's growing tendency to view him as a legitimate leader and cease efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The calls by the Iranian president to destroy Israel deserve the strongest condemnation, and we must continue the diplomatic struggle against them.

Where's were the editors of NYT and Washington Post? Did I miss something?

Crossposted on Yourish.

Don't just stand there, say something!

In 2005 Sen. McCain correctly foreseeing a problem with proposed legislation to add oversight to Fannie Mae.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

The legislation didn't pass and among those voting against the bill was Sen. Barack Obama. He's one of the Senate's top recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

(h/t Doug Ross)

Now the problems have spun out of control and it is Sen. McCain who's looking to work on solving the problem, whereas Sen. Obama is more interested in making speeches. This is precisely the point of the "Britney Spears" commercial. Instead of doing the work of the people Sen. Obama wants to make speeches before adoring crowds.

Chris Cillizza lays out the reasoning of the McCain campaign:

The McCain campaign believes that their candidate is at his best when he is seen as a deal-maker, willing to reach across party lines to get things done for the good of the country. This economic crisis, they believe, provides McCain a chance to show the sort of leadership that voters value in the Arizona senator.

"John McCain's leadership and experience credentials outrank Barack Obama's," said Sarah Simmons, a McCain campaign strategist, this morning. "[We are] walking through a crisis and people are looking to see how it is going to be handled."

Obama, however, refused to allow McCain to dictate the terms of the campaign's next few days during a press conference in Florida just before 5 p.m. ET.

"There are times for politics and then there are times to rise above politics and do what's right for our country," said Obama. "This is one of those times."

(via memeorandum)

But of course it's McCain who's recommending that they suspend the politics and Obama who wants to continue the campaign.

The New York Times editorial board shows how far it's in the tank:

Mr. Obama has been clearer on the magnitude and causes of the financial crisis. He has long called for robust regulation of the financial industry, and he said early on that a bailout must protect taxpayers. Mr. Obama also recognizes that the wealthy must pay more taxes or this country will never dig out of its deep financial hole. But as he does too often, Mr. Obama walked up to the edge of offering full prescriptions and stopped there.

We don't know if Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama will do any good back in Washington. But Mr. McCain's idea of postponing the Friday night debate was another wild gesture from a candidate entirely too prone to them. The nation needs to hear Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain debate this crisis and demonstrate who is ready to lead.

Somehow Obama's failure to vote for reform becomes calls for "robust regulation" and the Times like Obama would rather hear the candidates debate than actually see them do something. Don't just stand there, say something! It makes sense, that's their candidate's forte.

(I'll admit that WSJ is equally skeptical of McCain's idea.)

In essence Sen. McCain who foresaw the crisis and proposed legislation that was rebuffed by Sen. Obama is now trying to fix things and is again being rebuffed by Sen. Obama. So explain again how the agent for "hope and change" is doing anything to change the way things are done in Washington.

And guess what? Jim Johnson is still working behind the scenes of the Obama campaign.

See the Provocateur for more and Noah Pollak.

Degraded

The other day Eli Lake reported:

Call it Osama bin Laden's "October surprise." In late August, during the weekend between the Democratic and Republican conventions, America's military and intelligence agencies intercepted a series of messages from Al Qaeda's leadership to intermediate members of the organization asking local cells to be prepared for imminent instructions.

An official familiar with the new intelligence said the message was picked up in multiple settings, from couriers to encrypted electronic communications to other means. "These are generic orders," the source said -- a distinction from the more specific intelligence about the location, time, and method of an attack. "It was, 'Be on notice. We may call upon you soon.' It was sent out on many channels."

The article also recalls:

In the week before the 2004 American presidential election, Mr. bin Laden recorded a video message to the American people promising repercussions if President Bush were re-elected. In later messages, Al Qaeda's leader claimed credit for helping elect Mr. Bush in 2004.

If they made that claim that was an admission of failure because Bin Laden threatened to retaliate against all states that voted for Bush. The voters were not cowed.

Last year in Pakistan, Qaeda assassins claimed the life of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister who returned to her native country in a bid for re-election.

"There is an expectation that Al Qaeda will try to influence the November elections by attempting attacks globally," a former Bush and Clinton White House counterterrorism official, Roger Cressey, said yesterday.

Mr. Cressey said Al Qaeda lacks the capability to pull off an attack in the continental United States, however. "It would likely be a higher Al Qaeda tempo of attacks against U.S. and allied targets abroad," he said.

This is interesting. Apparently America's counterterrorism efforts have been successful.

Q & O has a related poll.

Having to think about it my guess is that Al Qaeda attacks would benefit McCain and that Al Qaeda knows it, so it will refrain from attacking. This noise is just to keep in the news.

The Wonk Room thinks that Al Qaeda wants McCain to win also, because it will help its recruiting efforts.

But as Michael Totten points out:

Bin Laden's lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri explicitly spelled out Al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq on July 9, 2005. "The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq," he said. "The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate--over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq."

The war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq can plausibly be described as a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda. But the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq cannot possibly be accurately described as a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda.

And make no mistake: Al Qaeda's manpower and resources have been thoroughly degraded from its disastrous fight with Americans and Iraqis, especially in Anbar Province which was briefly established as Al Qaeda's "capital" of the so-called "Islamic State in Iraq."

So maybe having a Republican in office is good for recruiting, but not for the continued success of Al Qaeda.

My guess, as stated above, is that Al Qaeda would rather have President Obama than President McCain, so I don't expect any major attacks against American interests before the election. Al Qaeda couldn't make good on its threat against America four years ago. With its organization further degraded, I can't imagine that they'll be any more successful this year. Assuming that they even want to try.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Facebook: Attacking Israel Is Not The Same As Attacking Israelis

The Canadian Jewish News has an article on the exploits of the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) in combating Anti-Semitic groups on Facebook. JIDF defends the actions it has taken to take over such groups and delete members based on the lack of cooperation it has received from Facebook in dealing with the issue.

CJN compares what JIDF found with what they themselves found on Facebook:

JIDF claims that clients on Facebook, a social networking website, spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, demonizes Zionists, praises attacks on Israeli or Jewish civilians, promotes violence, hatred and Islamic jihadist propaganda, recruits people to Islamic terrorist organizations and supports white supremacy and Nazi groups.

Scanning the pages highlighted by the JIDF revealed in short order the offering of the Protocols of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery that alleged Jews controlled governments and media, on the Eliminate Israel Facebook page.

So, what does Facebook have to say for itself?

A Facebook spokesperson responded to queries from the CJN with an e-mail that stated, "Facebook carefully reviews the notices we receive regarding groups that may violate our Terms of Use (ToU). In this particular case, the 'How Many People Hate Israel' group [one of four The CJN asked Facebook to comment on] does not violate our ToU, because the group attacks Israel and Zionism, not Israelis or Jews. As stated in our ToU, we make a clear distinction between countries or ideas and people: groups that express views on a particular country or idea are permitted, while groups that explicitly threaten people are regarded as a violation of our ToU and are subsequently taken down. Our ToU also stipulate that we do not allow recognized terrorist organizations on the site." [emphasis added]

The spokesperson hedges a bit there, contrasting groups that express views on Israel as opposed to explicitly threaten Israelis. So apparently explicitly threatening Israel is OK?

And just what qualifies as explicitly threatening Israelis and Jews? Apparently not this, found by CJN:

A posting by a member of the "Israel is not a country" page advocated another Holocaust: "wat do u think only arabs will come 2 bust ur ass? i guess u all r mistaken cuz time will come not only the arabs the whole muslim world will come 2 bust ur ass and each and every jew will be eradicated from the surface of the earth and that day will be the day off armageddon [sic]."

Will Facebook not act unless the Jews are mentioned by name?

According to the Facebook Terms of Service, users agree not to:

upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.

No distinction is made on whether the defamatory content is directed towards countries or merely their citizens--until Facebook decided to create one.

No wonder such hate groups have found a home there.

Update: Just wondering...If a person/group on Facebook threatens a country, it is not an issue--until they threaten people. How about if a country threatens another country: if Ahmadinejad opens an account on Facebook and creates a group dedicating to wiping Israel off the face of the earth--does that violate Facebook's TOS?

Or would Ahmadinejad find himself quite at home on Facebook?

by Daled Amos

IRNA: WAPIST secretary clarifies those Iranian calls for "referendum"

Don't you love the name "WAPIST"? Anyone who thinks Ahmadinejad has only been calling for regime change similar to the fall of the Soviet Union should take note:

Secretary of the World Assembly for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought (WAPIST) Ayatollah Mohammad-Ali Taskhiri said here Wednesday that referendum is the only possible solution to the Palestinian problem.

"Two governments, one equipped with the most sophisticated weapons and backed by superpowers and the other being totally confined and without armaments and backing, would be unlikely be able to continue work in the occupied Palestinian territories except by holding free referendum," Taskhiri told IRNA on Wednesday.

He said that it seems that the only solution to Palestinian problem is holding free referendum in Palestine as proposed for the first time by Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.

Bear in mind that the Iranian Press usually simply refers to all of Israel as "Occupied Palestine" or something similar:

He added that a free referendum would be valid only if Palestinian refugees return to their homeland and the occupiers leave the occupied lands. "In that case, any government elected after the referendum will be accepted by all," he noted.

"All," evidently means all the Palestinians who are left after all the Jews leave. An article entitled "President: Pursuing nuclear weapons is politically backwarded" also mentions that "referendum":

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that any state pursuing nuclear weapons is politically backwarded.

Addressing a press conference held on the sidelines of the 63rd meeting of the UN General Assembly, he said the real democracy exists in the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian people are their own masters, he said, adding that they elect the country's officials and have full supervision over the governing system.

On the critical situation in Palestine, he underscored the need for holding free referendum there in order to put and end to sufferings of the Palestinians.

He added that the Islamic Republic will propose a democratic plan to resolve the Palestinian problems. The plan will be presented to the United Nations soon, he said. [...]

Another headline announces "Iran asks Ban Ki-moon to hold referendum in entire Palestine":

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday called on the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to hold a free referendum in Palestine for determining and establishing the type of state in the entire Palestinian lands.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully respecting the resistance of the oppressed people of Palestine and expressing its all-out support for it, submits its humane solution based on a free referendum in Palestine for determining and establishing the type of state in the entire Palestinian lands to the distinguished Secretary General of the UN.

"American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders.

Today, the thought of hegemony quickly becomes a demerit. [...]

Savor the Irangrish!

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Olmert's post pm transition training

He seems to really enjoy the SEAL training.

Whoops, that's "seal" not "SEAL."

Soccer? Not going so well.

Crossposted on Yourish.

State of mendacity

Noah Pollak notes that now a majority of Palestinians object to a two-state solution and observes:

If a poll found that the majority of Israelis rejected the two-state solution, it would make headlines around the world. Yet when repeated polls of Palestinians find solid majority support for terrorism against Israel and rejection of peace with Israel, nobody even has the chance to bat an eye, because nobody hears about it.

Actually I've read news articles lately that mention that Palestinians are despairing of the two state solution. But the media doesn't see this as outrageous because they - blame Israel. So I'm not sure the fact that it's bad that this news hasn't been widely reported.

Take a look, for example, at this opinion piece by Sari Nusseibeh:

Israelis have long described their West Bank settlements--long fingers of territory that stretch along the north-south and east-west axes, serviced by highways, electrical networks, etc.--as organic extensions of the Israeli community. But Israeli construction has (again according to Peace Now) increased by 550 percent in the past year. This building, combined with that of the nearly complete separation wall or barrier, and reports that Israel wishes to maintain security control along the eastern edge of the Jordan Valley, sends another message: that Israel plans to hold onto the land for good. Combine this with the still unaddressed refugee problem, and it's no wonder many former two-staters are giving up hope.

It is important to remember that the Palestinian national movement only began to endorse the idea of a two-state solution 20 or 30 years ago, as a practical compromise. Realizing that Israel wasn't going anywhere, moderates decided that their best hope for a state was one alongside Israel, not one that sought to replace it. Yet the 15 years of negotiations that have followed have produced little, and thus it's no surprise that faith in this supposedly pragmatic option is waning. The lack of progress, as well as the unmistakably expansionist reality on the ground and the growth in popularity of Hamas, have left little room for anyone seeking a positive future for Palestine. Except, that is, to rejuvenate the old idea of one binational, secular and democratic state where Jewish and Arab citizens live side by side in equality.

Nusseibeh, a leading "moderate," says that advocates of the bi-national state have come to their conclusion as a result of frustration that they've gained nothing in the past 15 years.

It's a common refrain, and if the media picked up the results of the poll, that's exactly how they'd frame it.

But what Nusseibeh ignores is that in 15 years Israel's come quite far where what's now considered mainstream was, back then, the view of the far left. (Rabin never endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state.)

And where are the Palestinian after 15 years. Here's Shmuel Rosner explaining a recent article by Mahmoud Abbas:

A guide to the perplexed:

Enormous historic compromise: We already did our share, and we're done compromising. It's now Israel's turn.

further erodes this tiny territory: No 93%, no 96%, not even 99%. Abbas wants 100% of the West Bank.

repackages the occupation: No settlement blocks should remain in Judea and Samaria.

sovereign, independent and viable: We will not accept an agreement that will limit our sovereignty. Thus, the Palestinians will reject Israel's demands to have a demilitarized Palestinian state and will refuse to give Israel security rights along the border with Jordan. Security arrangements are the least debated part of the Israeli-Palestinian future agreement- most commentators tend to focus on the more sexy problems of territory, refugees and Jerusalem. However, reaching an agreement on security matters will be crucial to any future agreement, and it seems as if Abbas has just raised the bar.

Understand that first one. The historic compromise was accepting Israel's right to exist. In other words the Palestinians as represented by their "moderate" political leader, considers that a compromise. But in any other set of international negotiations the legitimacy of your partner is an assumption of those negotiations. But to the Palestinians, that is a compromise.

Thus anything that fails to meet Palestinian demands justifies violence.

And there are those who continually equate the building of "settlements" with terrorism, as if the former justifies the latter. These people, of course, aren't helping the cause of peace but the cause of Palestinian irredentism.

The peace process since 1993 has always been subject to the Palestinian veto. The premise in most of the diplomatic, academic and journalistic worlds is that Israel's legitimacy depends on remedying all Palestinian grievances, thus all concessions from Israel are good for Israel, never mind the cost. Of course without making any serious demands on the Palestinians, all this has done is to cause the Palestinians to treat the peace process as a one-sided giveaway.

The poll showing the lack of Palestinian interest in a two state solutiono will be treated the same way as all those polls showing Palestinian support for terror: as proof that Israel has failed to make the necessary "sacrifices for peace."

Maybe there hasn't been much about it so far, but more will be reported. And when it is reported it will be used to show that Israel hasn't done enough. Any suggestion that this poll just reflects the deeply held Palestinian belief that Jews have no right to the land of Israel or never have been interested in peace won't be reported.

It's just the state of mendacity of the Palestinians and their allies.

Crossposted on Yourish.

The most important line(s) in harry potter

"After all this time?"
"Always."

I think that the first is more important than the second, as the second is really just confirmation. But it's still a remarkable distillation of so much that happens in the Harry Potter series.

And I guess that it's even more amazing that at the time they're spoken, both characters are dead.
But ...
1) They explain the tragedy of Severus Snape.
2) They hint at what made Harry special.

And if there's anything that moves the plot along its Snape. We may not realize it until this point, but for the very open conflict between Harry and Voldemort, there's a secret conflict. We get to see it in part in the Half Blood Prince, but we still don't know the whole story until the end of the Deathly Hallows.

I'm still amazed every time I go back and read those lines.

More victories like this ...

*This post is now complete*

Clyde Haberman starts off well:

Once a year, the Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying, nuke-building and child-hanging president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, comes to New York for the opening ceremonies of the United Nations General Assembly.

Many New Yorkers don't like having him around. But they have no choice. Foreign leaders must be allowed to attend these sessions, no matter how Israel-threatening, Holocaust-denying, nuke-building and child-hanging they may be.

Glad he recognizes what Ahmadinejad is.

However, the article goes down from there. Haberman leaves out the part that the organizers did invite Biden who was otherwise occupied. And it's nice of him dismiss that the whole episode angered "some Jews on the right." Nice way to disparage those you disagree with. But of course he doesn't mention the organized effort by Democrats to sink the Palin speech. And then he offers this observation:

But people on the left saw no equivalence between the Democratic senator and the Republican governor. Only one of them is a candidate. Inviting Ms. Palin, they charged, tilted the rally toward the Republican national ticket -- an impression not likely to be dispelled by the many signs on Monday supporting Senator John McCain and none backing Senator Barack Obama.

Game. Set. Match to the Left.

Not so fast. In reaction to the partisan tactics of the left, many on the right stayed away. That's an observation that Atlas made. So if the right wing groups stayed away, how was it that there were more McCain signs than Obama signs?

1) As a reaction to the partisan maneuvering of those allied with the Obama campaign, quite a few protesters of Ahmadinejad registered their dissatisfaction with the campaign that politicized the event.
2) The left wing groups had little interest in attending if Sen. Clinton wasn't speaking.

Overall Haberman's observation is based on a false assumption that because there were more McCain signs after the flap, it meant that the protest was partisan in its planning.

Gateway Pundit has more.

Caroline Glick distilled things with doesn't pull her punches when assigning blame to the likes of the NDJC and J-Street.

LIBERAL AMERICAN Jews, like liberal Americans in general, and indeed like their fellow leftists in Israel and throughout the West, uphold themselves as champions of human rights. They claim that they care about the underdog, the wretched of the earth. They care about the environment. They care about securing American women's unfettered access to abortions. They care about keeping Christianity and God out of the public sphere. They care about offering peace to those who are actively seeking their destruction so that they can applaud themselves for their open-mindedness and tell themselves how much better they are than savage conservatives.

Those horrible, war-mongering, Bambi killing, unborn baby defending, God-believing conservatives, who think that there are things worth going to war to protect, must be defeated at all costs. They must intimidate, attack, demonize and defeat those conservatives who think that the free women of the West should be standing shoulder to shoulder not with Planned Parenthood, but with the women of the Islamic world who are enslaved by a misogynist Shari'a legal code that treats them as slaves and deprives them of control not simply of their wombs, but of their faces, their hair, their arms, their legs, their minds and their hearts.

The lives of 6 million Jews in Israel are today tied to the fortunes of those women, to the fortunes of American forces in Iraq, to the willingness of Americans across the political and ideological spectrum to recognize that there is more that unifies them than divides them and to act on that knowledge to defeat the forces of genocide, oppression, hatred and destruction that are led today by the Iranian regime and personified in the brutal personality of Ahmadinejad. But Jewish Democrats chose to ignore this basic truth in order to silence Palin.

Solomonia writes somewhat more generally, but in the same vein.

And when it comes down to it, it's not Jews in Israel that motivates Democrats, and it's not Jews in America that motivates them either. It's their own power. It's their own little dinners, and board memberships, and their silly narcissistic college freshman platitudes...that's what motivates them. And when they finally get around to looking out the window, their bogeyman isn't an Iran armed with nuclear weapons led by a Holocaust-denying antisemitic America-hater...it's "conservatives." Ahmadinejad is, after all, an ocean away, but it's conservatives here at home that prevent them from inflicting their peculiar vision of the worker's paradise on all of the rest of us.

Instapundit observed

That may put an end to the gloating from J Street, anyway

That would be a good result from all of this.

Given that they claim to speak for American Jewry (and that was the pretext they used for opposing Palin's speech, this result doesn't look too good for them, does it? Too many more victories like this and that poll of Jewish New Yorkers may not be an outlier much longer.

Daled Amos links to an interview of Malcolm Hoenlein.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Scary quotes

Loved the BBC headline from yesterday's terror attack in Jerusalem:

Jerusalem car 'attack' hurts 15

Here's how the story starts:

At least 15 people have been injured in an apparent attack in Jerusalem, Israeli police say.

They say a man drove his car into a group of people at a busy intersection, before being shot and killed by an armed bystander.

Rescue services took the injured to local hospitals. Police described the incident as a "terror attack".

Here's how Batya remembers a similar attack:

I remember noticing a badly driven car approaching, but I didn't think he'd mount the sidewalk and run over us. I turned my back on it and planned on telling a neighbor that "Even if he's going to Shiloh, we're not getting in." She looked up and then saw him ram into me and I was knocked down. She was unharmed, as he had turned sharp left on my foot and mowed down people the length of the sidewalk. I was still on the ground when I suddenly heard shooting.

Even then news reports tried to play down the terror angle. But the people at the receiving end of the attack knew what it was.

Here's another classic of the genre:

Four hurt in 'acid attack' at West Bank checkpoint

Look, if the reporters were unconvinced of the substance, put "acid" in quotes, but it was a clear attack. But this was serious in that the soldier attacked has lost sight in one eye.

An IDF soldier has lost sight in one of his eyes after a Palestinian woman attacked him with acid at the Hawara checkpoint on Monday afternoon. The checkpoint is located south of the West Bank city of Nablus.

It's also worth pointing out to those who wish Israel to remove checkpoints, that the assailant took advantage of the humanitarian lanes for quick passage through the checkpoint.

However this story remarkably had absolutely no scare quotes:

The cash-strapped Palestinian government on Monday received pledges of nearly $300 million in new aid on top of more than $7 billion promised last year, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said.

So let me rewrite that paragraph with some appropriate scare quotes:

The "cash-strapped" Palestinian "government" on Monday received "pledges" of nearly $300 million in new aid on top of more than $7 billion promised last year, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said.

The Palestinians likely have more cash than they admit. They receive the highest amount of foreign aid per capita in the world. They've received plenty and they've squandered it.

They ought to first turn to the estate of Yasser Arafat instead of to the international community. Then they ought to start turning to their top official who have been embezzling foreign aid for years. And the PA ought to stop paying the salaries of the Hamas thugs in Gaza.

Except for some limited areas there is no effective Palestinian government. About the only thing Fayyad does well is ask for handouts.

And finally, most of those pledges (often from Arab countries who care so much for their Palestinians brothers) are not fulfilled. The article later on notes:

At a Paris conference last December, donors pledged $7.7 billion in aid over the next three years, but the Palestinians say only a fraction of that money has been paid.

It's remarkable the way the media will use scare quotes when dealing with terror against Israel, but when it comes to the phony (or at least self-inflicted) Palestinian financial crisis, they solemnly in pronouncing a crisis without the least bit of skepticism.

When will the media get serious about covering the Middle East instead of covering up for the Palestinians?

Crossposted on Yourish.

What kind of iraq

The Jerusalem Post reports:

First his two sons were murdered. Now he faces prosecution. The reason for Mithal al-Alusi's troubles? Visiting Israel and advocating peace with the Jewish state - something Iraq's leaders refuse to consider.

The Iraqi is at the center of a political storm after his fellow lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to strip him of his immunity and allow his prosecution for visiting Israel - a crime punishable by death under a 1950s-era law. Such a fate is unlikely for al-Alusi, though he may lose his party's sole seat in parliament.

Because he had visited Israel, many Iraqis assume the maverick legislator was the real target of the assassins who killed his sons in 2005 while he escaped unharmed.

The State Department in its infinite fecklessness refuses to get involved, claiming that this is an internal Iraq matter.

Israel Matzav covered this first, so let's quote him:

Is this what hundreds of American troops died for in Iraq? To create yet another Arab country that lives in the 8th century in eternal hatred of Jews (and rest assured that Christians will be next on the list).

Powerline seems resigned to the State Department's refusal to say anything:

Meanwhile, the US Embassy has nothing substantive to say on the subject. This "is an issue for the Iraqi parliament, not the US Mission to Iraq," said spokesman Armand Cucciniello. That's not an unreasonable response, I suppose, as long as all we're talking about is expulsion from parliament.

via memeorandum

But as Max Boot observed last week:

It is hard not to be a little awed by extreme courage like this. Some may say that Alusi is being foolish and counter-productive, and there is perhaps an element of truth to that charge, but every nation needs a few people like him who are willing to risk everything in the name of a higher cause without the slightest regard for self-preservation. In this case, his cause is our cause: He wants Iraq to be a Western liberal state that would be closely allied with the United States against Sunni and Shiite extremists. Although he may be a lonely voice in Iraq, he is hardly alone, as seen from the fact that he did manage to win a parliamentary seat as the only representative of the Democratic Party of the Iraqi Nation which he leads. It is imperative that the U.S. government do what it can to help and protect him.

By assuming that the lesser punishment will be removal from Parliament is what's being discussed and being quiet, the State Department is doing more damage than it (or Powerline) realizes. As Boot points out, Alusi was elected to a seat in Parliament. What does it say to those who support his party that the United States isn't willing to speak up for them?

Israel Matzav also refers to the story of an Egyptian boy, who's being denied medication on account of: that it will have to be imported from Israel, with much the same reaction:

Israel signed a 'peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, and completed the turnover of every last inch of the Sinai Peninsula in 1982. As a result of that treaty, Egypt is now the third largest recipient of American foreign aid after Iraq and Israel. One has to wonder about the purposes for which the Americans are spending their foreign aid money, and what advantage is to be gained by Israel out of making peace with an Arab country (let alone the 'Palestinians') if this is the result.

Nearly 30 years later, Egypt despite the fact that it receives plenty of aid from the United States for making peace with Israel, still, in many ways treats Israel as an enemy. The United States remains quiet, not attaching any conditions to its aid. And this doesn't even gain the United States goodwill on the Egyptian street.

If the United States really wants to see change in the Arab world, when will it start insisting on a change of attitude towards Israel instead of simply accepting Arab hatred of Israel as the natural order of things?

Crossposted on Yourish.

The Speech Sarah Palin Would Have Given At Today's Anti-Ahmadinejad Rally

Those who saw to it that Sarah Palin was disinvited from speaking at today's rally no doubt are oddly proud of themselves, but thanks to The New York Sun, we can all know what Sarah Palin would have said.

Hat tip to Boker Tov, Boulder for pointing this piece out--and for suggesting that it be blogbursted.

Governor Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, was scheduled to speak today at a rally in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza to protest the appearance here of President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Her appearance was canceled by rally organizers who sought a nonpolitical event. Following are the remarks Mrs. Palin would have given:

***

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country -- leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York -- to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan -- and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" -- the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman -- not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons -- they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech -- a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -- which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

And thank you, Sarah Palin.

by Daled Amos

Bad faiths

In his J-Street primer for American audiences (an op-ed in the Washington Post), J-Street's founder, Jeremy Ben Ami wrote:

Grateful as I am for decades of U.S. friendship with Israel, I have to wonder, as the state my father helped found turns 60, just who is defining what it means to be pro-Israel in the United States these days.

In other words he's asking, who gives others the right to claim that I'm not pro-Israel?

So now, guess what? Mr. Ben Ami has defined who can be pro-Israel.

But as Noah Pollak observed last week, that's exactly what J-Street was doing with Sarah Palin. They declared - with absolute certainty - since Gov. Palin did not represent the views of most Jews, she couldn't speak out against Iran!

So apparently, according to J-Street, you can define who is pro-Israel, if you have the correct political beliefs.

We see a similar hypocrisy with the NDJC - yes, for them Democratic comes before Jewish. During the past few years they took shots at Lincoln Chafee. I'm not saying they were undeserved. He was and is anti-Israel. But let's look at one:

The New Republic's blog notes the unprecedented nature of Republican rallying around anti-Israel Chafee:

So when the Republicans supported Chafee in a vain effort to hold onto the Senate, the NDJC saw fit to use this action as an indictment of Republicans. Fair enough.

So when the Obama campaign welcomed the endorsements of Republicans for Obama, led by one ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee what did we hear from the NDJC?

*crickets*

And when J-Street joined the NDJC from allowing Gov Palin to speak, did the NDJC distance itself from an organization one of whose advisory council members is the same, ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee? Did we hear a peep of protest? Again ...

*crickets*

So for J-Street being pro-Israel is a privilege reserved for those who believe the same things they do. And for NDJC being anti-Israel is a disqualification - if you're a Republican.

(I'm not going to try to square NDJC's identification of Lincoln Chafee as anti-Israel with the apparent J-Street belief that he is pro-Israel. My head would explode.)

Speaking out against Ahmadinejad is as bi-partisan an issue as there could be. These two organizations pretending to be pro-Israel instead chose to make the even partisan and disqualified Gov. Palin from speaking at the event. But their hypocrisy regarding Israel is more proof that partisan politics for them came before confronting tyranny.

Regardless, at least one protest will go. An Iranian exile protest which will be protesting:

Ahmadinejad's trip coincides with an appalling rise in public executions in Iran - victimizing juveniles in particular. In late July, in one day alone, 29 people were executed. His government continues to arrest and kill dissidents in prisons and crush anti-government protests. It is also conspiring to massacre nearly 3,500 Iranian dissident refugees at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Ahmadinejad, isolated and despised by the majority of Iranians at home, is pushing Iran and the region toward war and crisis by fomenting terrorism in Iraq and developing nuclear weapons.

Not everyone is ill-disposed toward Ahmadinejad:

But for Quakers and Mennonites who'll be at the table, breaking bread with this controversial dignitary means drawing deeply on the same spiritual roots that sustained their embattled ancestors long ago.

"Jesus ate with lepers and with tax collectors, and in the United States right now, Iran would be in that category," said Arli Klassen, the executive director of the Mennonite Central Committee, an outreach arm for Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches in the United States and Canada.

"The criticisms levied at Jesus were that he ate with ... people of ill repute, and we're getting similar criticisms."

I wonder if these folks would ask Ahmadinejad about the increase of executions or what treatment a citizen of his country could expect if he converted to one of their religions. If last year's dinner is any indication, that will not be the case.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's smile at times turned to a grimace as the panelists prodded him, politely, about his record on the Holocaust, human rights abuses, Israel and nuclear weapons development. Also politely, he conceded nothing, and often deflected the inquiries by turning the spotlight on the policies of the United States and Israel.

"Who are the ones that are filling their arsenals with nuclear weapons?" he said. "In the United States they have tested the fifth generation of atomic bunker bombs, missiles that go as far as 12,000 kilometers. Who is the real danger here?"

The Times of course was impressed with the "friendly, even warm, exchange," regardless of whether it accomplished anything positive.

That's why these phony pacifist religions get criticized. They're going to the dinner to commiserate with a tyrant, giving him the cover of ecumenicism, when, in fact, he is intolerant.

And we can also see how successful talking with Ahmadinejad has been. Not at all.

And that's similar to the problem with J-Street and NDJC. They're now congratulating themselves for getting Palin's speech canceled. But they have not one word of criticism for the Iranian tyrant. They have no words of criticism for the so-called pacifists who'll shake Ahmadinejad's blood soaked hands.

I have a hard time believing that having Gov. Palin speak at a protest of a tyrant is worse than those who receive him warmly. But J-Street and the NDJC can't work up any outrage over a true outrage. Not only are J-Street and NDJC hypocritical, they have no sense of priorities.

Meryl has more on the Ahmadinejad protests.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Fair diehl

I'm not a big fan of Jackson Diehl. Earlier in his career he was the Israel correspondent for the Washington Post. More recently, he's been a foreign affairs columnist for the paper. As columnist he has consistently favored Arab "reformers," even when said reformers are virulently anti-Israel. (He's advocated talking with the Muslim brotherhood because they're reformers.) But now he's listening to someone else in "Peace from the Bottom Up."

Natan Sharansky and Bassam Eid have been suggesting something different.

The timeline for success would be measured in years, not months. The goal would not be a document that Livni and Abbas could sign but the construction of a healthy and vibrant Palestinian civil society -- that is, independent media, courts, political parties and nongovernmental organizations that could stand behind a settlement with Israel.

The former Soviet refusenik and Israeli political gadfly Natan Sharansky has been proposing this course for years -- mostly to the irritation of peace-process supporters in both Jerusalem and Washington.

Why are "peace processors" skeptical?

Some suspect Sharansky of touting his strategy because it would indefinitely delay the necessity of Israeli territorial concessions. Others blame him for talking President Bush into a fleeting policy of supporting Palestinian democracy that led to the victory of Hamas in legislative elections.

Well, that's been the problem. Sharansky was never invested in empowering the likes of Arafat or Abbas, so he was against "peace."

Diehl even plays up a point that I usually only read about at Elder of Ziyon:

By the count of Eid's Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, 2,000 Palestinians have been killed by Palestinians in the past eight years, but not one suspected killer has been charged or brought to trial. In August, it says, one Palestinian was killed by Israel and 36 by other Palestinians.

Of course the bottom line is that this means that the peace processors - in governments, in academia and in the media - will have to abandon their very premise. They'll have to acknowledge that the bet on Arafat and the PLO was a poor one.

But for every peace processor who insists that an agreement must be reached now, Sharansky has an answer:

"People say we don't have three years," Sharansky said. "But that same idea caused them to favor Arafat over reform" -- and that was 15 years ago. "The same idea continues all the time: 'We must back the Palestinian leader over building civil society.' And the result is always the same." On that broken record, at least, Sharansky is right.

I don't know if this could work. Recently I blogged about a New York Times report on some efforts near Jenin to form some governing authority on the ground. Of course that was also related to Abbas, so it suffers from the same problem as peace processing has until now.

I'd also argue that this is similar to the approach advocated by Menachem Begin while he was Prime Minister. Begin was against allowing the PLO a foothold into Judea, Samaria and Gaza. After he read an article by a Professor Menachem Milson in Commentary, he asked Milson to be the civilian administrator of the territories. Milson's plan was to create "village leagues" with whom Israel would deal instead of the elected politicians who were affiliated with the PLO.

The Labor Party during the 70's had changed its policies allowing the PLO linked politicians to push out Jordanian linked politicians among the Palestinians. Begin sought to empower those who remained free from the PLO. The effort was met with condemnation - after all Begin sought to ignore the "sole legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people." Those who joined the village leagues were often killed. And in the end Milson quit his position after the 1982 war in Lebanon started.

It's important to note that the end point for Begin was not a Palestinian state but "autonomy," presumably meaning that the Palestinians would have control over government services within their own cities, but would not be trusted with any security responsibilities. The idea of a Palestinian state at that time was reserved only for the left wing fringe in Israel. It's a mark of how far Israel has come (for better or worse) that most of Israel now accepts a Palestinian state. It's also a strong contrast to the Palestinian "moderates" for whom compromise remains a dirty word.

I'm aware that there are those who claim that Hamas evolved from the village leagues. I'm not sure that this is accurate. It makes a great story to say that Israel is responsible for Hamas, but the people designated for the village leagues were not as far as I know, Islamists.

Still the Sharanasky-Eid approach has the advantage of not following the same failed formula. The big problem is the number of people and institutions whose professional status and success is invested in failure and will, therefore, be unwilling to try something new.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Bodyguard of smears

The Jawa Report traces anti-Palin videos to a PR connected to the Obama campaign. The detective work is impressive and LGF sums it up nicely.

Here's the problem: this is a trail and while it can be summarized it can't be presented in a tidy little package like the 60 Minutes meme. Furthermore, given that the Obama campaign sees victory as its ultimate goal, no one connected with the campaign is going to be clueless enough to boast that the videos were "fake but accurate." (The Jawa Report has noticed that the incriminating videos are disappearing.)

Furthermore, even if there's an inquiry, all Obama has to do is say that he didn't authorize it and fire Axelrod.

And if you check out memeorandum it's only right wing sites that are linking to the Jawa Report. This is excellent work, but I doubt that it will resonate much past the right-blogosphere.

The connection betweeen j-street and the obama campaign

One name: Alan Solomont.

I posted a comment about him at LGF.

There's suspicion among some observers that the National Jewish Democratic Council was a significant player in the decision to cancel invitations to all politicians to speak at the Stop Iran rally.

Solomonia wrote:

...let's be clear, I'm sure the real culprit for politicizing this was the National Jewish Democratic Council, not the still-fringe in all but funding, J-Street

Similarly Wizbang wrote:

Enter the National Jewish Democratic Council, which supports the Obama Campaign. They were enlisted and put to the front to apply direct pressure to the Conference of Presidents, also a Jewish organization. And it is not a stretch to imagine (though wholly my conjecture) that the Conference of Presidents has donors among the NJDC, and therefore more than simply conceivable that there were threats of significant funding halts and other future obstacles from among powerful NJDC members.

I disagree. I think that J-Street was the prime mover. That's because of Alan Solomont.

Solomont was one of the main forces behind J-Street. Here's Solomont on why he helped found J-Street:

"The definition of what it means to be pro-Israel has come to diverge from pursuing a peace settlement," said Alan Solomont, a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser involved in the initiative. In recent years, he said, "We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."

Solomont also saw in the current Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama a kindred spirit.

Solomont, however, approaches his work not as just helping a candidate but as furthering a cause.

"This is a mission-driven, value-laden enterprise, and I am philosophical about it," he said during an interview in the memorabilia-filled conference room of his office in this Boston suburb.

Throughout the conversation, Solomont emphasized that raising money is a means to an end: getting politicians who share his goals of a more economically and socially just country. He said his work is deeply driven by the Jewish teachings he learned growing up in an observant household in the nearby town of Brookline.

There's more:

"The war on poverty created structures for citizen involvement, and my work centered on getting people empowered through collective action,'' he said.

After working as a community organizer Solomont, who has undergraduate degrees in nursing and political science, made his wealth in the nursing home and senior home health care businesses. He now devotes almost all his time to political and philanthropic work.

Solomont says working as an organizer helped him form an instant bond with Obama, who undertook similar efforts in Chicago in the 1980s.

Alan Solomont supports Barack Obama because he sees someone who holds the same values. J-Street's participation in the effort to torpedo Palin's appearance at the anti-Iran rally is what suggests that this was a coordinated effort run by the Democratic party to dis-invite her, regardless of cost.

In a profile of Solomont from four years ago, here's how he's described:

"The word 'fund-raiser, fund-raiser, fund-raiser' keeps repeating," remarks Steve Grossman, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime friend of the Solomonts. "But what I think people don't understand as well about Alan and Susan is that they have a great strategic sense, so they can synthesize and bring multiple skills to the table."

See that phrase "strategic sense." The campaign against having Palin speak had a feel of being purposeful. Let's go back to Wizbang again to understand the motivation:

Make no mistake that this was an Obama op and that it was Obama operatives directing the screenplay. Upon news of Palin's invitation, it was assured that the event would garner a higher level of attention than it already commanded. And the images and footage of Palin speaking in protest (popular protest, it should be added) of Iran and the messianic Ahmadinejad upon the backdrop of the common perception of Obama's weakness in foreign policy and national security simply could not stand. Furthermore, it would have provided endless campaign fodder with Palin shown standing against the world's foremost state sponsor of international terrorism amid the audio-visual bites of Obama stating he would hold talks with Iran without preconditions. The effects would potentially be more than just stinging.

So I think it was J-Street that was the senior partner to the Obama campaign in torpedoing the anti-Ahmadinejad rally.

Tigerhawk sums it up nicely:

"Whether Barack Obama can be said to be 'good for the Jews' is too portentous a question even for this blog. It is now safe to say, however, that his campaign is not."

(h/t Instapundit)

UPDATE: Lynn-B (In Context) writes in the comments:

You make a convincing case that Solomont had the motivation and the ideology to pull these strings but not that he had the clout. I don't see it. J-Street is still a legend in its own mind. It doesn't have the power to influence the Conference. The NJDC, however, clearly does. And it was quite transparent in its attempts.

Perhaps I'm guilty of allowing my distaste for J-Street exaggerate their true level of influence - and thus I'm helping them trumpet their reputation unnecessarily. But what I'm trying to argue is that J-Street is an adjunct of the Obama campaign not an allied movement and that J-Street is a lot more tied in to the Democratic party.

Look at J-Street's advisory council. One name that sticks out is Debra Delee, who is not only CEO of APN but is also, like Alan Solomont, a Democratic superdelegate. My guess is that she's not alone. So while the NJDC may promote the Democratic party, my guess (and it's only a guess,) is that J-Street is - in large part - the Democratic party.

I'm willing to concede that I might be giving too much credit to J-Street. But I don't think so. But I'll have to admit I don't have strong proof of that.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 09/21/08

The council has spoken.

This week's winner was Bookworm Room's False Syllogisms. The runner up was Wolf Howling's McCain, Fannie, Freddie & Obamafuscation about the current financial mess.

This week's non-counicl winner was a historical speculation from Brits at their best, 9/11/1777: What if?: . The runner up was my submission Doug Ross's Mistress of Disaster

Congratulations to all the winners.

watcher's council.

Juggling carnivals 09/21/08

Incoming Carnivals

Jack clearly was up all night preparing Haveil Havalim #183. Comprehensive. Just about anything you want by any Jewish blogger is up there.

Hopefully when the exact locations are up, I'll fix the next two.

Check out the latest Carnival of the Insanities at Dr. Sanity, of course. Also see Wolf Howling, My Right Word and Israel Matzav.

The latest Carnival of Maryland is up at Tinkerty Tonk.

Baker's mirror image

With the Obama's campaign's surrogates in the Jewish community declaring victory, having undermined an apolitical bipartisan rally against Iranian leader Ahmadinejad, I'm sure that Barry Axelrod and Alan Solomont are chortling: "F*** the Jews, they'll vote for us regardless."

But hey don't worry Messrs. Forman and Ben Ami Iran likes Israelis, it's just Israel he doesn't like. Whoops, you may not even have that fig leaf.

Boker Tov Boulder points out that the self-congratulations of the rally's saboteurs, is appalling especially when one considers the real threat that Iran poses to Israel.

UPDATE: This has gone from bad to worse with the revelation that Conference of Presidents and affiliated organizations (including some left wing organizations such as APN) were threatened with losing their tax-exempt status, had Palin spoken at the event. Meryl writes:

The thing that I hate the most about this? It won't stop my liberal Jewish friends from voting Democrat in any way. It won't even make them think twice about the tactics used by the Democrats. And it's far, far worse than Soccer Dad wrote about the other day. CBS didn't [yet] have the story about Jewish organizations having their tax-exempt status revoked for having Palin speak at the rally.

That's not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That's outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats.

Hot Air recommends:

Let's find out which Democratic lawyers, precisely, arrived at the very novel legal conclusion that inviting both parties to a rally to which only one party RSVPs amounts to politicking in breach of one's tax exemption. And then let's ask St. Barack why he couldn't find one person on his side -- apart from the guy who called Palin a Nazi sympathizer a few weeks ago, of course -- willing to speak at this rally to "balance" the ticket.

Wizbang I think nails it:

Make no mistake that this was an Obama op and that it was Obama operatives directing the screenplay. Upon news of Palin's invitation, it was assured that the event would garner a higher level of attention than it already commanded. And the images and footage of Palin speaking in protest (popular protest, it should be added) of Iran and the messianic Ahmadinejad upon the backdrop of the common perception of Obama's weakness in foreign policy and national security simply could not stand. Furthermore, it would have provided endless campaign fodder with Palin shown standing against the world's foremost state sponsor of international terrorism amid the audio-visual bites of Obama stating he would hold talks with Iran without preconditions. The effects would potentially be more than just stinging.

More at memeorandum.

And lest anyone stupidly think that this is some sort of Republican set up, two Jewish groups closely affiliated with the Obama campaign - NJDC and J-Street - are crowing about the results. For them, partisan politics trumps standing up to a tyrant. Something for Jewish voters to remember this November.

Diss-inviting palin

I don't know how many times I read at the NJDC website that support for Israel is bipartisan. But that's been the mantra there. If anyone had temerity to criticize Democrats for their lack of commitment on Israel, that's the cliche that NJDC would trot out in defense. Never mind that a lot more Democrats than Republicans are skeptical of Israel's rights or are overly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, that's the claim NJDC would make.

Now the mask is off:

Yesterday, NJDC said that Monday's protest against Ahmadinejad was too important to be tainted by partisanship. Today, NJDC commends the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project, United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs for making the right decision by withdrawing their invitation to Governor Sarah Palin. This decision shows that bi-partisan solidarity against President Ahmadinejad has won out over partisanship - even in this highly charged election year.

NJDC had no problem with partisanship when Sen. Clinton was the scheduled speaker, so the issue isn't partisanship. And contrary to NJDC's claim this shows non-partisan support for the anti-Ahmadinejad rally, not bi-partisan support.

Similarly the anti-Israel group that calls itself pro-Israel, J-Street, protested Gov. Palin's scheduled speech to the rally:

Sarah Palin is scheduled to headline Monday's rally in New York of Americans Jews concerned about the threat Iran poses to the United States and Israel.

Sarah Palin at a rally to unify American Jews on Iran? Really?

Palin stands diametrically opposed to the majority of American Jews on nearly all issues - including on Iran. With just a few days left before the rally, we have no time to lose.

Now parse that statement. In what way is Palin's stand on Iran contrary the views of American Jews? Because she stated that Israel had a right to defend itself?

More generally, the implication is that no one has the right to be pro-Israel (in J-Street's anti-Israel way) unless they believe all the right things. Noah Pollak had it right.

This is appalling. When did abortion and the environment become issues of unique concern to Jews? They of course are not, any more than taxes and social security have any special relevance to Christians. J Street is attempting to bludgeon Palin with disapproval from the Jewish community when in fact it is the liberal community that detests her.

What does J Street want its few acolytes to do? Harass the organizers of the Iran rally until they disinvite Palin -- you know, in the spirit of inclusiveness and democracy.

Hot Air:

She was willing to go but the Democrats didn't want to share a spotlight with her. So rather than let her attend and use her presence to drum up attention for the cause they're ostensibly there to advance, the left muscled the organizers into canceling all politicians' invites.

Going back to the NJDC, shouldn't the priority be the opposite? Shouldn't the priority have been that the issue of standing up to Iran is so important that even Democrats would be willing to appear with a Republican to show American resolve. Messianic times might be marked by a lamb lying down with a lion, but apparently it will not include Democratic tolerance for Republicans.

At a time when Democrats fear that Jews might not vote for Barach Obama in the same proportions that they usually do, the Obama campaign takes a gimme and absolutely fumbles it.

Red State:

But that's all right. This is the candidate that the Democrats wanted, this is the candidate that the Democrats deserve, and this is the candidate that the Democrats got; and I offer the pious hope that they fully experience every aspect of their choice, down to the very molecular level.

I hope the Republicans play this up. I listened to Ben Cardin the other night claiming how strong Obama would be against Iran. Now I see that Obama won't even ensure that one of his proxies would speak at a rally to register his symbolic opposition to Iran. Do I really think he'll do anything substantive as President?

The McCain campaign sees an opportunity and takes full advantage:

This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. Instead of pressuring Senator Clinton to withdraw and pressuring the event's organizers to disinvite Governor Palin, we hope Senator Obama will consider lending his own voice to this cause. And if Senator subsequently wishes to clarify any remarks that might be misconstrued, he will have the opportunity to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions after he speaks at the UN the folllowing day. After all, the last time Senator Obama took the stage to address a nonpartisan, pro-Israel audience, his call for Jerusalem to remain the "undivided" capital of a Jewish state was easily clarified the next day.

Still it's puzzling as to exactly what's going on. Shmuel Rosner offers some explanations.

The first question now is whether it was Sen. Clinton's idea to withdraw or whether she did so on orders from the Obama campaign. I can understand that she was miffed that she wasn't told about Palin's invitation by the organizers, but Rosner didn't think that was a reason for her to withdraw.

So did Hillary - looking to 2012 - see this as a way to make Obama look bad in the eyes of Jewish voters and the Obama campaign stupidly followed along with her faux outrage? Or was the Obama campaign so intent on preventing Gov. Palin from establishing pro-Israel credentials they wanted to force her out whatever the cost?

Regardless the campaign got its Jewish allies NJDC and J-Street - who are vastly more liberal than the Jewish community as a whole - to claim that the event ought to be "non-partisan" - figuring that those groups would inoculate the campaign against charges of playing politics by the wider Jewish community.

Jennifer Rubin has more tawdry details.

More discussion at memeorandum.

Was this a really good time to show that the Democratic commitment to stopping Iran was less than 100%? Uh, no.

Crossposted at Yourish.

IRNA today: "Zionists are infidel" and more!

You got that right--"Zionists are infidel" is their title! The first little item in our sampling displays that delightful Khomeinist tone-deafness to how its rhetoric sounds to, well, infidels. Of course, some folks have different ideas as to who is and who isn't an infidel. I may be a Kuffar, but I ain't no Kofer, Mahmoud Baby!

"Ahmadinejad: Zionists are infidel"

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the Zionists are not Jews but infidel.

President Ahmadinejad made the remark in a press conference in presence of domestic and foreign reporters in Tehran.

"Our stands on the Zionist regime is very clear. The Iranian nation has never recognized the Zionist regime," he said.

The Zionist regime is the main cause of all corruptions and crimes in the region, he said.

The Zionist regime is 'fabricated and illegal', he said adding that it has been created to threaten, pressurize and target nations in the region.

Nations in the region have never recognized the regime and will not do so in the future, he said.

A very few Zionists have gained power in the world and act in a way as if they have the final say and others back their decisions, said President Ahmadinejad.

In our next exhibit, Ahmadinejad jumps into the damage-control game concerning the unfortunate expression of non-hatred that Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei blundered into a pretty good while ago now:

"Ahmadinejad: Mashaei never referred to Israel as nation":

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that his deputy and head of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei never referred to Israel as a nation.

President Ahmadinejad made the remark in a press conference with domestic and foreign reporters in Tehran.

The Zionists are very notorious in the eyes of the Iranian people and officials and all are very sensitive to them, he said.

The president underlined that his deputy on many occasions has delivered speeches against the Zionist regime.

President Ahmadinejad also advised the media to exercise vigilance and act cautiously in choosing terms which might create serious problems in the society.

We also learn that "Iran does not recognize any gov't or nation for Zionist regime." More Mashaei damage-control:

[...] President Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the Iranian nation has no problem with the world but it does not recognize anything by the name of Israeli government or nation.

Ahmadinejad added in a news conference with foreign and domestic reporters that statements made recently by Mashaei are clear and his words conform to those of the government.

"There are different tastes in using words and expressing opinions but our stance on the entire world is the same," he said. [...]

There you go--there is no Israeli nation so Mashaei's little gaffe could not have occurred. All it takes is a little vigilance.

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Sarah Palin Disinvited From Rally--And The Games Politicians Play

What a mess.

First Hillary Clinton bows out. Now "all politicians" have been disinvited from the rally--which of course means that Sarah Palin will not be there.

I've seen different reasons offered by the pundits--everything from her not wanting to share the spotlight to her somehow undermining Obama. The reason Hillary Clinton herself gave was that it would make the rally seem too political.

After Clinton pulled out, the McCain camp invited Obama to come instead:

we hope Senator Obama will consider lending his own voice to this cause. And if Senator subsequently wishes to clarify any remarks that might be misconstrued, he will have the opportunity to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions after he speaks at the UN the following day.

Personally, I wonder if the comment about being able to "meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions" was a dig at Obama, based on his comments about negotiating with Iran without preconditions. Not the most effective way to invite Obama to come to the rally.

Apparently others were also suggested to fill the void:

The Obama campaign in turn offered to send Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida -- who had harshly attacked Palin for slender ties to Pat Buchanan-- to the event.

That suggestion had about as much chance of being accepted as McCain's invitation to Obama.
Another possible substitute was Joe Biden:

COMMENTARY has learned that Joe Biden was invited to the event in the wake of Hillary Clinton's refusal to appear on the same stage as Palin -- and he declined. In an e-mail to me, Biden spokesman David Wade said that "we've had longstanding commitment to speak at National Guard Convention on Monday in Maryland."

Biden's excuse seems to parallel what will happen at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting later this month:

Both United States presidential candidates will have a role in the Annual Meeting. Senator John McCain will deliver the opening remarks live at the "Integrated Solutions: water, food and energy" plenary session. Senator Barack Obama will address meeting participants via satellite. [emphasis added]

And to think people made fun of my suggestion that if a Democrat and Republican appeared together it would cause a tear in the fabric of the universe.

Joshua Pundit is writing about the fallout from this:

I already know a number of people who were planning to attend who aren't going to bother. Way to hand Ahmadinejad a win on a silver platter.

Those are 2 key points.

In the short term, whatever impact the rally could have had will now be diluted. Any mention of the rally will bring up the topic of the political oneupmanship that took place in the days leading up to the rally, and detract from the supposed unity of the protesters.

In the long term, those who organized the rally and were put into the position of disinviting Sarah Palin will lose support as well. Joshua Pundit has the names and contact info of the organizers of the rally.

Bottom line, it looks like everyone is going to lose from.

Except for Ahmadinejad.

by Daled Amos

President bush's unfinished business

In "History will Judge," (or here) Charles Krauthammer makes the unpopular case that President Bush got it right.

Indeed, the three presidential campaigns between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001, were the most devoid of foreign policy debate of any in the 20th century. The commander-in-chief question that dominates our campaigns today was almost nowhere in evidence during our '90s holiday from history.

When I asked President Bush during an interview Monday to reflect on this oddity, he cast himself back to early 2001, recalling what he expected his presidency would be about: education reform, tax cuts and military transformation from a Cold War structure to a more mobile force adapted to smaller-scale 21st-century conflict.

But a wartime president he became. And that is how history will both remember and judge him.

Krauthammer goes on to identify the quality that allowed Bush to persevere through his term in office: equanimity. Ironically it's the description of Bush by Bob Woodward as aloof that sparks Krauthammer's observation. It's ironic, because it was Woodward who described that equanimity early in the War on Terror.

"You know what? We need to be patient," Bush said. "We've got a good plan."

"Look, we're entering a difficult phase. The press will seek to find divisions among us. They will try and force on us a strategy that is not consistent with victory."

In the secrecy of the room, the president had voiced one of his conclusions -- the news media, or at least some elements, did not want victory or at least acted as if they did not.

"We've been at this only 19 days. Be steady. Don't let the press panic us." The press would say they needed a new strategy, that the current strategy was a failed one. He disagreed. "Resist the second-guessing. Be confident but patient. We are going to continue this thing through Ramadan," the Muslim holy month. "We've got to be cool and steady. It's all going to work."

Hadley thought the tension suddenly drained from the room. The president was saying he had confidence and they should have confidence. In their souls, Hadley believed, some of them had to wonder whether the president might be losing confidence in them. Presidential confidence, once bestowed, was vital for all of them to function. Any hint of less than full confidence would be devastating. They served at his pleasure. They could be gone or sidelined in an instant. Not only had Bush declared confidence in their strategy, but more important, Hadley believed, he had declared confidence in them.

Tenet wanted to stand up and cheer. He went back to CIA headquarters and told his senior leadership what the president had said. What it meant, Tenet said, was simple: Keep going.

Rice believed it was one of the most important moments. If the president had opened up to alternatives, the war cabinet would have lost the focus of trying to make the strategy work and flitted off to think up alternatives. She hoped that the recommitment would cause everyone to redouble their efforts on the current strategy that he had just then fully blessed.

When convinced that he had the correct plan in Afghanistan, Bush refused to be panicked by the media hyperventilation over the ongoing "quagmire."

Krauthammer then identifies the central accomplishment of the Bush adminstration:

That kind of resolve requires internal fortitude. Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion, the commentariat and Congress with him. In addition, history has not yet rendered its verdict on the Iraq war. We can say that it turned out to be longer and more costly than expected, surely. But the question remains as to whether the now-likely outcome -- transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror -- was worth it. I suspect the ultimate answer will be far more favorable than it is today.

That conclusion is still a ways off. At the very least an aggressive player that threatened American and its allies has been removed. True, there have been unintended consequences too, including that Iran is ascendant now.

The president is most proud of seeing to it that a second 9/11 didn't take place. And what is he proud of?

What the president did note with some pride, however, is that beyond preventing a second attack, he is bequeathing to his successor the kinds of powers and institutions the next president will need to prevent further attack and successfully prosecute the long war. And indeed, he does leave behind a Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority.

I don't know to what degree DHS is an improvement over what we had before and to what degree it's another huge bureaucracy. The second and third items are important though.

In the end, Krauthammer sees Bush very much like Truman, a president who wasn't appreciated in his own time, but who's contribution will be recognized after the fact.

As a point of comparison, it would be interesting to see what Krauthammer wrote four years ago in making The Case for Bush. Two arguments stand out. First:

John Kerry tells us we have to wage a more sensitive war where we acquiesce more to "allies." O.K., let's talk allies. Which is the single most crucial ally in the war on terrorism? France? Germany? Russia? No. Pakistan. Pakistan made possible the destruction of the Taliban, and has been turning over to us the most important al-Qaeda figures ever captured. How did Bush turn the world's foremost supporter of the Taliban into our most critical ally against them? Sensitivity? Two days after 9/11, Bush had his Secretary of State deliver an ultimatum to the Pakistanis: Join us or else. They joined. That is leadership.

First of all, the Kerry argument is being repeated by Democrats now. America's lost its standing in the world due to Bush, we must restore our place in order to meet the challenges we face. Krauthammer shows that this line of argument is folly.

Now things with Pakistan have changed a lot in (four or) eight years. Pakistan is now effectively leaderless and the jihadists on the border with Afghanistan have free rein. Mushaaraf's balancing act is over. In the end Bush got what he needed from Pakistan, but the situation was not sustainable.

Instead, he took on Iraq. Everyone knew that Iraq would be difficult and dangerous. But Bush believed that Saddam Hussein and the threat he represented had to be removed. Our postwar troubles have made us believe, as if under amnesia, that the choice was between war and some kind of sustainable equilibrium. It was not. The tense post--Gulf War settlement was unstable and creating huge and growing liabilities for America. First, Iraqi suffering and starvation under a cruel and corrupt sanctions regime was widely blamed on the U.S. Second, the standoff with Iraq made necessary a large American garrison in Saudi Arabia, land of the Islamic holiest places--in the eyes of many Muslims, another U.S. provocation. Indeed, these two offenses were cited by Osama bin Laden as the chief justification for his 1998 declaration of jihad against America.

Most important, the sanctions "containing" Saddam were collapsing. That would have produced the ultimate nightmare: a re-energized and relegitimized regime headed by Saddam--and ultimately, even worse, his sons--increasingly Islamicizing its Baathist ideology, rearming and renewing WMD programs, and extending its connections with terrorist groups. The threat was not imminent. But it was ominous and absolutely inevitable. Bush, correctly, thought it necessary to remove it. It was obvious to all that this second war would jeopardize his presidency. He risked his entire political future for it nonetheless.

And now Iraq looks like it is turning into the state Bush wanted. Slowly. It's still not a done deal and given Iran's influence, it could still turn out badly. That's why the choice of President is so important. I don't believe that Barack Obama is as invested in a good outcome in Iraq as John McCain is.

So the question is now, what is the most important legacy that President Bush leaves to his successor? There are two major issues of unfinished business: Afghanistan and Iraq. But still, President Bush has at least managed to take the necessary action so that another 9/11 did not occur. Perhaps then the most important legacy he leaves his successor, is the Bush doctrine.

Joshuapundit disagrees. Strongly.

I'm guessing he had plenty of iron in his diet

From the Telegraph:

Michel Lotito (France) (b. 15 June 1950) of Grenoble, France, known as Monsieur Mangetout, ate metal and glass from 1959 until his death last year. His diet since 1966 included 18 bicycles, 15 supermarket trolleys, seven TV sets, six chandeliers, two beds, a pair of skis, a low-calorie Cessna light aircraft and a computer.

If I have my French correct Mangetout = omnivore.

I guess you could say that he spun a record.

I'd guess that she's not claustrophobic.

What a waist.

Starts here.

H/T Oyvay Blog

Crossposted on Yourish.

7 mile sunset

When I left Shul (synagogue) earlier this week, the residue of sunset painted the sky a remarkable shade of red. I wanted to capture the color. Alas there wasn't enough light, so the shutter stayed open and of course the pictures were blurred. Still, the pictures came out sort of neat.

Then I got the idea. I forced the exposure by turning the flash on and focused on the nearby street sign.

That worked. I got the sky color I wanted, but then I got a little more of the sign in for contrast.

Forget Palin--Women Making Bigger Inroads In Israel

A friend sent me an email pointing out that should Tzipi Livni go on to put together a government, there will be women at the top of all three branches of government in Israel, something that would be unprecedented:

Tzipi Livni--Prime Minister

Dorit Beinish--President of the Supreme Court.

Dalia Itzik--Speaker of the Knesset.

Having a woman as Vice President in the US would pale in comparison. [pun intended]

by Daled Amos

The ehrlich/cardin debate

Monday night I went to a debate at Chizuk Amuno Congregation in Baltimore County

between Former Governor Ehrlich

and Senator Cardin.

In the debate, each participant made the case for the presidential candidate of his party. first off each politician gave an opening remark.Gov. Ehrlich went first and gave a summary of the reasons he supported Sen. McCain. His opening statement was rather tame. I had expected him to be critical of Sen. Obama but he left out criticisms from his opening remarks. Ehrlich praised McCain for his "mental toughness" and his reaching "across the aisle." He also said that McCain did not play it safe and that playing it safe isn't the same as leadership.

He mentioned a few policy ideas including the development of oil and seeking to expand heath care coverage through tax credits.

I thought that Ehrlich's opening was rather tame. Perhaps he was trying to gauge the audience. His opening was credible but not exciting.

Sen. Cardin then got his opportunity. What was clear was that the gloves were off. Cardin criticized the tax cuts of the Bush administration without paying for them. Then he went through a series of applause line promising that Sen. Obama would not privatized Social Security, would bring troops home from Iraq, would seek cooperation with the Europeans, would take on the oil and pharmaceutical industries. Given the news about Merrill Lynch and Lehman brothers, Cardin said that President Bush was bad for "Main Street and Wall Street" and that Republicans didn't deserve four more years.

All of these got applause and were delivered with great passion.

Finally he came to his final two points: that Iraq was a disaster and that we needed a president who would protect the ever eroding separation between church and state.

It was clear that Cardin's approach would be that McCain represented a continuation of the awful Bush administration.

Ehrlich was given a chance to respond. I think he was a bit taken aback by the vehemence of Cardin's presentation. Ehrlich mentioned that in 2002 he and Cardin had the same vote. (I looked this up and it wasn't accurate. Ehrlich voted for the use of force against Iraq; Cardin voted against. Cardin didn't correct him. So I'm not sure which vote Ehrlich was referring to.) Ehrlich also pointed out that Saddam Hussein gave the families of suicide bombers $25000 (to counter Cardin's criticisms of the Iraq War) and that Biden in 2002 called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Two panelists were able to ask questions of the debaters. First Martha Weiman of the Baltimore Jewish Council got to ask a question about church and state. I was appalled by the question as it charged that Gov. Palin was forcing creationism on public school students. In fact Palin has made it clear that even though she has strong beliefs she does not impose them as governor.

The question allowed Cardin to say that faith is important but rail more against the erosion of the wall between church and state. Ehrlich on the other hand used it as an opportunity to praise the role of religion in society and that freedom of religion was not the same as freedom from religion.

Abba Poliakoff of the BJC's Israel Advocacy Committee asked how each candidate would approach the Middle East.

Ehrlich answered that Israel should never have to make peace with governments that don't recognize its right to exist. Cardin said that Obama would take the lead for Israel and engage international support for peace.

I have to admit that my notes are barely legible, so let me just conclude with a few general observations.

- Sen Cardin kept on saying that Obama would use "all the tools at his disposal" to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He meant that Obama would only resort to force as a last resort. My partisan observation is that's exactly what Bush tried to do with Iraq but found himself undermined by countries with commercial ties to Saddam and the UN.

- Cardin also mentioned that McCain can hardly call himself a maverick when he voted with the administration 90% of the time. Shmuel Rosner pointed out that even Biden voted with the President over 70% of the time and that a better measure of independence would be how often a legislator votes against his own party. With that measure there's no doubt that McCain is the maverick in the race.

- Cardin was very critical of the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. He argued that McCain blew his first major decision as the presidential nominee by picking someone so unready. I don't know he made this argument given that his party's presidential candidate lacks a long record of experience. (Of course he also argued that experience is worthless if that experience is bad.)

- Gov. Ehrlich handled the question about the Palin choice very well. He said that McCain saw in Palin someone with whom he was comfortable personally and politically. Of course that evades the question of experience.

- So I'm harder on Cardin than on Ehrlich, I'm partisan.

- Cardin came off a lot more passionate about Obama than Ehrlich was about McCain. It was hard to tell if that was because of agreement or because of his distaste for the Bush administration.

- I was wondering what kind of crowd would be there. When I arrived I was behind a car with a 01/20/09 bumper sticker and there were some people handing out Obama buttons at the door. Still, I think overall, both Cardin and Ehrlich got about the same number of applause lines in.

- I can't see that either participant would have swayed any undecided voters. Each did a good job of laying out their respective candidate's positions and philosophy. Everything Cardin said convinced me that Obama did not represent my views at all. I expect that any partisan Democrat would have felt the same about Ehrlich's presentation.

Overall the debate was a pleasant experience. I'd like to thank P. Kenneth Burns - whom I had the pleasure to meet - seen below with Maryland's former First Lady, Kendall Ehrlich

for introducing me to former Gov. Ehrlich and taking a picture of me with him.

For Kenny's coverage of the debate, see Politicker MD and Maryland Politics Today.

Coverage from the Sun is here.

Submitted 09/18/08

The Watcher's Council nominations for this week are up:

* Cheat-Seeking Missiles - Lipstick Not Only Pig-Hockey Mom Difference - CSM parodies the NY Times's coverage of Palin.
* Bookworm Room - False Syllogisms - BR argues that a lot of the criticism Gov. Palin is taking for her religious beliefs is based on a skewed judgment of religion.
* Wolf Howling - McCain, Fannie, Freddie & Obamafuscation - WH gives a devastating accounting of the ties Democrats have with the failed government run lending institutions. Alas it appears that despite being one of the best compensated politicians on Freddie's and Fannie's payroll, that Sen. Obama is suffering not at all for those ties.
* Rhymes With Right - Hurricane Ike -- The Pissed Off Post - RwR writes about his frustrations trying to get home due to poor communication and an unresponsive government.
* The Glittering Eye - The Anniversary - TGE looks at how 9/11 is commemorated and has criticisms for the way it's been politicized.
* The Razor - There Must Be Blood - TR wants to see some heads roll for the latest financial turmoil. I hope he means that figuratively.
* Joshuapundit - Obama's Connection With The Nation Of Islam - JP looks at the shadowy figures who inhabited Sen. Obama's world. Does this concern anyone?
* The Colossus of Rhodey - The Latest -- and Lamest -- Charge of Racism - TCoR wonders why it's racist to demand that voters be citizens of the country they want to vote in.
* Education Wonk - U.S. City Celebrates Mexican Independence Day - EW writes about a California city that doesn't just celebrate another heritage, but another country's independence!
* Soccer Dad - Osama didn't bark. Why not? - Seven years ago it was a given that 9/11 was just the start. But there has been no follow up attack on American soil. I look at some of the reasons. I never meant to argue that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat, however it has suffered many losses in the past seven years and the Bush administrations role in inflicting those losses ought not to be ignored.

My non council submission this week was Jamie Gorelick - Mistress of Disaster. It's an illustrated horror story. Very effective.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

Livni roundup

The Jerusalem Post reports that Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni won the Kadima primary by a narrow margin:

Livni clinched Wednesday night's Kadima primary by a mere 431 votes, winning 43.1 percent (16,936 votes) while Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz won 42% (16,535 votes). Public Security Minister Avi Dichter and Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit won 6.5% and 8.5% respectively.

(via memeorandum)

Remember that Mofaz thought that he had a pretty good chance based on his internal polling. It turns out that he was right as this was much closer than news organizations projected. Livni's demand to keep the polls open looks even worse, given this narrow margin of victory.

The Hashmonean is disgusted.

Where does Kadima go from here? Our PM refuses to vacate, his replacement is coronated like a queen, negotiations & concessions steam forward with no mandate, now not once but a second time it seems, state affairs are not dealt with.. We are ruled it seems like a brothel - By a bunch of greedy corrupt prostitutes and their media pimps. Now Shas & Labor have seemingly even dropped their pre-requisites for remaining in the coalition, meaning nothing has changed at all.

Now that it is proven Livni is far from a winner the left's GoldenGirl clearly cannot deliver, and the last thing that can be allowed is elections to drive this failure reality home.

Shmuel Rosner keeps alive the Ms. Clean reputation without focusing too much on the poll shenanigans:

And this will also be a very limited coalition. With barely 60 members of Knesset in her camp-half the parliament-every politician will be king. Livni, the Ms. Clean of Israeli politics, will have to cave time and again to all kinds of demands and pressures as not to lose the coalition. It can't last for very long-and it's not clear if Livni wants to take this path. Bottom line: as Shas goes, so goes the coalition.

Israel Matzav notes a historical parallel:

The news stories had been written, the champagne was on ice and then tourism minister Uzi Baram had just finished thanking the Arab voters for putting his candidate over the top when the candidate's world came crashing to an end: Despite exit polls that had him winning by a wide margin over the challenger, Shimon Peres suddenly found that the actual vote count was giving the victory to his bitter rival: Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu. The polls had lied - or the people had lied to the pollsters. Is it happening again tonight?

In 1996, though, if you counted the projected seats for each party in the Knesset based on the polls, you'd have realized that Netanyahu probably would narrowly win.

Dion Nissenbaum focused on trivia notes that Livni is a vegetarian.

The NYT has some biting criticism from the Likud:

She has also said she would try to attract Likud. But Mr. Netanyahu, the Likud leader, said on Wednesday that joining Kadima in a government would be tantamount to joining the board of Lehman Brothers.

He has argued that Kadima, formed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in late 2005 less than two months before he fell into a stroke-induced coma, has no future because it lacks vision, identity and popular support.

Other Likud leaders said it was scandalous that a primary election of a small party like Kadima -- 70,000 members were eligible to vote and about half did so -- could determine the country's next prime minister and policy direction.

Gilad Erdan, a Parliament member from Likud, said on television that the roughly 20,000 people who elected the head of Kadima could barely fill a soccer stadium, and added: "I have no doubt that a new government would be legal, but it would not be morally legitimate. This is not the government the people have elected; this is not the agenda that was put up to elections."

In the link to its election story the Washington Post had this teaser:

Tzipi Livni handily wins the leadership of the main party in Israel's governing coalition, exit polls show, giving her the chance to become Israel's first female prime minister in more than three decades.

So how'd they correct that?

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Wednesday narrowly won the leadership of the main party in Israel's governing coalition, exit polls showed, giving her the chance to become Israel's first female prime minister in more than three decades.

Whoops. The narrow victory was known after the ballots had been counted! They only changed the result "handily" to "narrowly" but missed the reason for the change in result.

The Post tries to build her up:

In meetings and public appearances, Livni can come off as cold and detached, though friends say her unsmiling persona may in part reflect an effort to allay concerns that, as a woman in a political culture dominated by men, she is not strong enough to defend Israel militarily or go toe-to-toe with Palestinian negotiators.

"The fact that I'm a woman doesn't make me a weak leader," Livni told the Jerusalem Post last week. "I have no problem pulling the trigger when necessary."

and

Her critics have long scoffed that Livni, a strict vegetarian out of concern for animal rights, does not have the requisite cunning to succeed in the often cutthroat world of Israeli politics. Many felt she had missed her chance at the prime ministership last year, when anger over Olmert's handling of the Second Lebanon War was at its height and Livni could have forced his hand by quitting the cabinet. Instead, she stayed in office, and Olmert's government survived for another year.

Among Palestinian leaders, Livni has won credibility and some respect for the seriousness with which she has pursued negotiations; she has been meeting chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurei twice a week for secret talks since the U.S.-backed Annapolis peace process began last November. "They are talking substance. They have a healthy relationship," said Gershon Baskin, co-director of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information.

Of course to Baskin "talking substance" means "giving away territory without getting anything hin return." That isn't how the Post would want to portray her. And, of course, nothing about the crowning achievement of her tenure as Foreign Minister: UN Resolution 1701. The less said about that the better.

My Right Word contrasts the media coverage of the Israeli election with that of the American election. I have to disagree. The media in America is actively pulling for Obama. And it's not my isolated impression.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Yemen Times: "Denmark: The happiest place on earth"

I thought I might find something interesting about the US Embassy blast, but I found this instead:

Copenhagen's waterside restaurants and cafes are alive with people.

Last month, I was in Denmark to participate in a 10-day journalism course entitled, Media Skills Development for Dialogue organized by Crossing Borders for young journalists and media/communication students from the Middle East, North Africa and Denmark.

I had read surveys maintaining that Denmark is the happiest place on earth, so while there, I looked for the reasons why Danes are happy. A high standard of living, free education, good public health services and a clean environment were part of the answer.

But something else also was important - Danes enjoy satisfaction in life because they have low expectations; thus, they seemingly get what they want easily and rarely feel disappointed. [...]

"Who is rich? He who is happy with his lot." (Pirkei Avot 4:1)

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Ever Notice That You Never See Sarah Palin And Hillary Clinton Together?

For example, if you expected to see both Palin and Hillary Clinton together at the anti-Ahmadinejad rally in New York next week, you will be disappointed:

US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.

Several American Jewish groups plan a major rally outside the United Nations on September 22 to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hmmm, so Hillary Clinton goes out of her way to not attend a rally where Palin will be attending--could it be... ?

Okay--I admit that sounds pretty far fetched. But the article goes on to hint at another possible answer to explain why the two are never seen together:

That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.[emphasis added]

Of course! If the two of them appeared together, they would run the risk of creating a tear in the very fabric of the universe! Hey, I've watched Star Trek--I know about this stuff!

[Hat tip: David Hazony]

by Daled Amos

5 out 5 ex-secretaries of state recommend

Occasionally during the Bush (43) administration there'd be news stories about a group of ex-diplomats who would criticize President Bush for not being even handed in the Middle East peace process or for the war with Iraq. Of course, these weren't just a group of randomly chosen ex-diplomats. They were gathered together by the Council for the National Interest - an anti-Israel group - for the purpose of making a statement. Most of these diplomats ties to the Arab world, but that fact would be carefully avoided in the news story - or amplification of their press release.

The stories were effectively rebukes to the administration given by the reporter to the effect of "These men who know so much oppose you, why do you reject their sage advice."

The one thing you had ask when you read these stories is what wasn't the reporter telling you about the background of these diplomats.

The other day, Barry Schweid of the Associated Press reported that five former secretaries of state said that the U.S. should speak to Iran. This news report had the same feel. The reporter was effectively saying to John McCain, "Why do you defy these experts? Why not see the light and adopt the stance of Barack Obama?"

Five former secretaries of state, gathering to give their best advice to the next president, agreed Monday that the United States should talk to Iran.

Kissinger's advice though seemed a bit more nuanced:

Kissinger, for his part, said he favored negotiations with Iran but that the United States should spell out its objectives at the outset. And that, he said, included a stable Middle East.

(via memeorandum)

This doesn't seem to be quite the unconditional talks suggested by the headline.

Nor does it quite match the approach the NYT's Opinionator.

I'm not going to take aim at all of the ex-Secretaries of State. But if you recall many of the same people who are hailing the secretaries' statements gave a lot of credence to the Iraq Study Group which was chaired by James Baker. Let's go to one of the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group, that the United States get out of Iraq.

Politically, the war had become deeply unpopular in an election year that would wipe out Republican majorities in Congress. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, run by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, was gearing up to offer the President the option of a politically graceful defeat, dressed up as a regional "diplomatic offensive."

Or as Daniel Pipes recently recalled:

More than any other recent war, the allied forces' effort in Iraq was seen as a certain defeat, especially in the 2004-06 period. Former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger, former British minister Tony Benn, and former U.S. special envoy James Dobbins all called it unwinnable. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report echoed this view. Military analyst David Hackworth, among others, explicitly compared Iraq to Vietnam: "As with Vietnam, the Iraqi tar pit was oh-so-easy to sink into, but appears to be just as tough to exit."

Of course if President Bush had listened to the ISG and not implemented the surge, things would not have turned around in Iraq. Instead, he went with John McCain's suggestion.

So in at least the case of James Baker, the media is suggesting that John McCain listen to him, even though on the case of Iraq, McCain was right and Baker was wrong.

Michael Ledeen doesn't spare any of the ex-secretaries and adds this observation:

Apparently not a single one of them is willing to say that we've been talking to Iran for thirty years, with no apparent positive result.

Gina Cobb adds:

...if they have urges to talk with Iran, they should just go right ahead with their urges, and talk with Iran. Talk all they like, talk all day, talk all night, about anything they'd like to talk about. The price of figs, Troopergate, Heidegger, nuclear weapons, golf, really, anything at all.

Do I detect a hint of scorn?

Ehud's no good very bad day

Today is the day that PM Ehud Olmert has dreaded for weeks. Today is the day when he might very well end his political career. The NYT reports:

The selection of a new head of the party, Kadima, was prompted by police investigations of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on allegations that he took money illegally while he was mayor of Jerusalem and industry minister. Mr. Olmert has promised to step down, but is expected to stay on as a caretaker prime minister until a new coalition is formed.

Mr. Olmert is still keen to reach some kind of historic peace agreement with the Palestinians before he finally ends his term.

David Hazony expands on those last two sentences:

Two things make me wonder whether he is really leaving us after all. First, Olmert has continued making bold statements about the peace process, yesterday veering sharply to the Left, warning Israelis that a peace agreement with the Palestinians will require some kind of land exchange, in which Israel gets to keep large settlement blocs in exchange for territory on the pre-1967 side of the border, announcing that Israel would participate in some kind of international plan for the refugees, which really means agreeing to absorb some fairly small number in order to give the Palestinians the ability to say they had "returned" refugees to their 1948 homeland. He also apologized for the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948.

The second is that he yesterday told members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, who wished to give him an honorable farewell, that no good-byes are needed, since "I'll still be here."

Hazony suggests that Olmert is planning to stay on as long as he can, if not as Prime Minister then perhaps as a "special envoy" like Tony Blair (only on the Israel stage, not with the same international flavor that Blair's role has.)

Maybe that's why Shmuel Rosner doesn't see much excitement in Israel. Check out his multiple choice quiz.

One more note about the Times article:

Class and ethnicity have entered into the contest, with Jews of Middle Eastern origin, the Sephardim, seeming to favor Mr. Mofaz while those of European origin, the Ashkenazim, who tend to be better off and better educated, preferring Ms. Livni.

The condescension towards Sephardim is pretty blatant isn't it? Could you imagine a newspaper report in this country:

Blacks support candidate A but whites who tend to be better off and better educated prefer candidate B.

Think about it.

Crossposted on Yourish.

The sky's not falling - too far

In The Resilience of American Finance Jeremy J. Siegel writes:

Despite the recent turmoil, there is good evidence that the worst is over, especially for the commercial banks with access to Federal Reserve credit. Despite yesterday's severe sell-off, most are significantly higher than their July 15 low, and some such as Wells Fargo and UBS are up over 50%.

Nevertheless, the current crisis will change the financial landscape. Certainly Bear, Merrill, Lehman and others will disappear as separate corporate entitles. But other institutions, specifically the commercial banks that absorb these firms, and who have direct access to Federal Reserve credit, will become larger.

Robert Samuelson seems to agree though his tone is not nearly as hopeful.

How Wall Street restructures itself is as yet unclear. Companies need more capital. Merrill went to Bank of America because commercial banks have lower leverage (about 10 to 1). It seems likely that many thinly capitalized hedge funds will be forced to reduce leverage. Ditto for "private equity" firms. In time, all this may prove beneficial. Financial firms may take fewer stupid and wasteful risks -- at least for a while. Talented and ambitious people may move from finance, where they were attracted by exorbitant pay, into more productive industries.

But the immediate effect may be to damage the rest of the economy. People have already lost their jobs. States and localities, particularly New York City and New Jersey, that depend on Wall Street's profits and payrolls will face further spending cuts. Banks and investment banks may tighten lending standards again and impede any economic recovery. The stock market's swoon may deepen consumers' pessimism, fear and reluctance to spend. There may be more failures of financial firms. It's hard to know, because financial crises resemble wars in one crucial respect: They result from miscalculation.

Crossing the Rubicon3 also linked to a couple of hopeful articles on the Wall Street crisis.

Exculpating Hamas

Notice what's missing from this headline from the NYT?

Hamas Strikes at Gaza Clan Known for Criminal Activity

Well, let's look at the first paragraph of the story:

Eleven members of a large Palestinian clan, including a 1-year-old, were killed along with a Hamas police officer late Monday and early Tuesday, when Hamas forces clashed with gunmen at the family's compound here, witnesses said.

The number of dead. If Israel had targeted a Qassam launching site and it had been close to a home and the resulting explosion killed eleven people including a baby, what would the headline have read?

Israeli raid in Gaza kills baby, ten others

Now notice what's missing from my hypothetical headline. I didn't include the reason for the Israeli raid, but the headline defending a Hamas assault on a residential neighborhood mentions "criminal activity."

Elder of Ziyon, points out that the Doghmush clan was hardly innocent.

To be fair, the Doghmushes are hardly innocent. According to the usually anti-Hamas Firas Press, the Doghmushes fired rockets and mortars from their compound towards Mahmoud al-Zahhar's house in Gaza City during the fighting as well. So both sides have wanton disregard for civilian lives.

Still that doesn't change the implication of the headline. No headline about an Israeli raid that killed eleven people in Gaza would contain the phrase "to halt terror attacks," or "to halt militant attacks."

Israeli raids that kill Palestinians are reported by identifying the number killed as if the death toll by itself stands as an indictment of the Israeli action. But it's not just that the headline that justifies the Hamas attack. Here's the second paragraph:

The assault on the powerful Dagmush clan, notorious for both militant and criminal activity, signaled an apex in the campaign by Hamas, the Islamist group that rules Gaza, to impose internal order, and it was welcomed by many people here. The Dagmush family was considered the last large clan challenging Hamas authority in Gaza, after Hamas cracked down in early August on the Hillis clan, which is loyal to Hamas's rival, Fatah.

Again phrases like "impose internal order" and "welcomed by many people here" would not be found in an article about an Israeli raid. The clan is described as "notorious" and "criminal." In an article about an Israeli raid, we'd get the term "militant" but never "terrorist" even if the actions precipitating the raid fit the dictionary definition of a terror attack.

Also the terror activity that Israel was defending against would have been qualified with "Israeli military sources say," instead of described in definite fashion as the "militant and criminal activity" was presented here.

The headline and second paragraph were both written in exculpatory fashion. If Israel had been defending civilians in Sderot the tone would have been accusatory.

More from Israelly Cool and Meryl.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Who Killed Farfur the Mouse?

Of course, the Muslim media would have you believe that Farfur the Mouse was assassinated by Israel?

Hamas TV Mickey Mouse beaten to death by Israeli - becomes Martyr in final episode The Hamas satellite TV channel has responded to the international controversy over its hatred-spouting Mickey Mouse clone by having the character beaten to death by an Israeli and becoming a Shahid, martyr for Allah.

But maybe this should not be taken as an open and shut case. Some new information has come to light that indicates that another suspect should be considered. According to Sheikh Muhammad Munajid:

Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases. [emphasis added]

Could it be that Farfur the Mouse was actually the victim of Jihad? Come to think of it, where was Nahool the Bee when Farfur was murdered? Just look at the suspicious--and sadistic--behavior of Nahool as captured in the video below. And note that Nahool no longer has his stinger.

 

My money is on Nahool working for the PA.

by Daled Amos

When Reporters Become Mere Journalists

"Journalism is an activity, not a profession"
Adrian Wooldridge

This quote is a keeper:

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

This quote comes from Time Magazine's Mark Halperin, who said this back in 2004--when he was the political director of ABC News in the months leading up to the election. It's an interesting viewpoint--pity that we do not have the advantage of Halperin's explanation about when the media should and should not hold both sides equally accountable on an issue.

It reflects the kind of arbitrariness that an increasing number of people seem to see in today's media, as indicated by shrinking circulations.

It also reminds me of the enormous failure of the media in reporting the aftermath of Katrina, with false stories about horrible things that went on at the convention center and the Superdome--including lurid stories of mass murders, rapes and beatings that never happened.

On the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Keith Woods--former newspaper reporter and editor at the Times-Picayune in New Orleans and currently dean of the faculty at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in Florida--defends the media's emotionalism and multiple cases of mis-reporting Katrina this way:

Well, remember that we thought 5,000 people died in the twin towers in New York originally -- more than 5,000. We thought the White House had been attacked in the early reporting of that story. The kind of reporting that journalists have to do during this time is revisionist. You have to keep telling the story until you get it right.[emphasis added]

One can only imagine the kinds of excuses that will be made--if any--for the constant flow of mis-reporting about Sarah Palin. After all, elections are important: and you have to keep telling the story until you get it right.

This kind of makes we wistful for the common sense of Lieutenant General Honore:

Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don't understand, maybe you'll confuse it to the people. That's why we like follow-up questions.

The difference of course is that Lieutenant General Honore was specifically addressing people he considered to be 'reporters'--people who report just on what is happening without adding their emotions and feelings. But today we are surrounded by journalists, a term defined by the Random House Dictionary this way:

writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.

Yeah, that sounds right.

No wonder the media is considered more and more irrelevant--today journalism really is nothing more than an activity, without the standards that one associates with a real profession.

[Hat tip: John Podhoretz]

by Daled Amos

Jealous arabs make the best peace partners

Guy Bechor writes about which Arabs Israel can hope to reach by their reaction to PM Olmert's legal (and political) troubles:

The reformist group - Notably, most responses on the Olmert affair came from this camp. Members of this group are astonished not because of what's happening in Israel, but rather, because the same thing will never happen in their own countries. In this group we certainly see jealousy of Israel, of its dynamic nature, and of its vitality. This group realizes that while in Israel the public controls its rulers, in the Arab world the rulers control the public. One surfer wrote: "If police in the Arab world could do what the Israel police did, then all the Arab rulers and their associates would be brought to court over bribery, corruption, and similar charges." He added: "Transparency is the secret of Israel's power."

These reformists are the ones, according to Bechor, who

...will aspire to move closer to us, first and foremost in order to change its own society. It views Israel as a positive model for imitation and future cooperation. Indeed, even when it comes to such grave affair, there are still some rays of lights for Israel.

We'll see.

Crossposted on Yourish

Get a wife

Are people really this out of touch?

Study Finds That 35 Percent Of BlackBerry And PDA Users Would Choose Their Device Over Their Spouse

h/t NY Nana

Good government terrorists strike again

In-fighting in Gaza:

Hamas forces, responding to the killing of one of their policemen during an arrest raid on Monday, raided a clan stronghold in Gaza City before dawn on Tuesday in search of a suspect in that slaying, officials said.

Ten clan members, including an infant, and a Hamas operative were killed in ensuing clashes that went on for hours and continued into Tuesday morning. Dozens of people were injured on both sides.

This is interesting:

The exchanges of fire included the use of mortar shells, and according to one report one of the mortars landed near the home of senior Hamas member Mahmoud al-Zahar. This report has yet to be confirmed by Hamas officials or by the movement's security officers.

Mortars in a residential neighborhood?

Anyway it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for the clan involved:

Some clan members, allied with al-Qaeda, were involved in the March 2007 abduction of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, who was held hostage for four months before being released.

Others in the clan are divided between supporters of Islamist Hamas and those who back Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, whose fighters were defeated when Hamas seized control of Gaza last year.

It's between thug and thugger. And it's about having a monopoly on force. Hamas has gotten used to targeting Israeli civilians with impunity, so now it turns its guns on its own. No doubt Bishop Tutu will return to Gaza to investigate.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Troofer vaccination

Last week Michael Slackman of the New York Times wrote about how conspiracy theories about 9/11 dominated Arab political thought. He wrote:

It is easy for Americans to dismiss such thinking as bizarre. But that would miss a point that people in this part of the world think Western leaders, especially in Washington, need to understand: That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism -- the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.

We've got to come to terms with these crazy conspiracies, is Slackman's view. However Barry Rubin rejects this kind of thinking:

The only solution is to set different goals and interpretations of the world through rethinking, reform, and education. Western glorifications of the Middle East's status quo-these are customs which must be preserved, how dare you criticize people's beliefs and offend their sensibilities?-will merely ensure another century of bloodshed, dictatorship, and poverty.

And in fact Rubin argues that the willingness to accept these conspiracy theories speaks of the dysfunction of the societies that promulgate them, not the West.

Wild conspiracy theories were spread precisely because to confront the tragedy's implications would require examining real problems "which Arab societies have been so assiduously avoiding." The more Middle Eastern terrorism spread globally, "the greater was the rush to look the other way." Five years later, that statement is all the more true.

We hear endlessly that the problem is the West doesn't understand the Middle East. The truth is the exact opposite: the Middle East doesn't understand the West and, by the same token, doesn't understand what it needs to do to get out of the hole it has dug for itself.

The more the Arab/Muslim world lives in a state of denial the worse off it will be.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Sleazy does it

The media has been accepting the Obama campaign's charge that there's something sleazy about the McCain campaigns ads.

In a presidential race turning increasingly negative, Obama also drew on editorial comments from U.S. newspapers and magazines to accuse McCain of running a dishonest campaign with some of the "sleaziest ads" ever seen.

Ross Douthat points out that this is the way the game is played.

If you think John McCain hasn't been playing this game for his whole career, then you're kidding yourself: It's just that he used to fight dirty against his enemies within the GOP (social conservatives, for instance, or immigration restrictionists, or Mitt Romney), and how he's fighting dirty against a candidate that the punditocracy supports, rather than disdains. And if you think that many of the same people who bleat the loudest about the evils of "Rove-style" politics aren't happy to similarly dirty their hands for the sake of their own causes and candidates - well, you need only look at some of the coverage of Sarah Palin's family to see how quickly principle gives way to expedience when power is at stake.

So how does the Obama campaign respond to the information that the reason the McCain doesn't send e-mails is due his war injuries and not due to a lack of tech savvy? By standing by the commercial!

Tapper reported that in fact McCain "can type, he occasionally does type, but in general the injuries he sustained as a POW -- ones that make it impossible for him to raise his arms high enough to comb his hair -- mean that small tasks make his shoulders ache, so he tries to avoid any repetitive exercise."
You'd think the Obama campaign would promptly pull the ad and issue an apology. But the ad is still featured on Obama's website, and his spokesman actually had the audacity to say on FOX News this morning that McCain ought to learn how to email...

(In case you think that the injuries have rendered McCain an invalid, he still hiked 30 miles in the Grand Canyon last summer!

In further defense of his dad's health, Jack enjoys telling the story about how he and his dad hiked the Grand Canyon last summer.

"He hiked 30 miles...9 down, 15 across and 6 up in two days. We started out on the North Rim [of the Grand Canyon] and made it to the South Rim. If age is ever an issue [just think of] 30 miles, two days, in 115 degree heat...and carrying a back-pack as well. And my dad doesn't have any cartilage in his knees."

He's nearly 25 years older than me, and I wouldn't even think of doing that!)

Last night I went to a debate between Senator Cardin and former Gov. Ehrlich about the relative merits of the candidate of each party. Senator Cardin attempted to cast the election as an effort to prevent a third term for the Bush administration, so he trotted out the factoid that McCain voted with the Bush administration 90% of the time. That's no doubt true, but it's not that important. The Senate has generally been supportive of Bush. In fact Sen. Biden voted with the president 70% of the time. Shmuel Rosner observes that the truer indication of a maverick is how often he votes with this party.

Coleman argues that, given the high general level of support for Bush in the Senate, a better measure of a candidate's independence (even for Obama and Biden) "would be to look at the party support score . . . whether a senator voted with his party's majority or against it." Are you then surprised to learn that

McCain regularly was less supportive of his party than the average Republican senator.

Biden and Obama, on the other hand,

In each of his three full years, Obama voted over 95% of the time with the Democratic majority on party votes. McCain reached 90% only once, in 2007.Biden's party support level has hovered between about 90 to 95%.

Unfortunately Gov. Ehrlich didn't challenge this particular point. However the way Cardin used the "voting with the President" claim was misleading, but if fit the narrative of the Obama campaign.

Hot Air finds that Sen. Obama makes a telling gaffe regarding negative campaigning.

"If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily," Obama said.

Still Hot Air argues that Obama's complaint is hypocritical:

But seriously, can Obama be serious about playing the victim here? He started smearing McCain three months ago by claiming McCain and the Republicans would attack because of his race. Team Obama has had its surrogates talking about his age and his cancer, which aren't exactly the "issues at hand", as Obama puts it. And unless the fate of the world hinges on an e-mail, then his ad is equally pointless and has nothing to do with "being out of touch".

(via memeorandum)

Campaigns are as much as about as about creating a narrative to show that one candidate shares the voters beliefs and values. To do that, an effective campaign will use misdirection. It's often not pretty, but it gets the job done. I don't see that McCain is worse than most candidates and I don't see that Obama is more noble than most. It's ridiculous for Obama to complain that he's somehow being beaten because the McCain team doesn't play fair. If he's hamstrung because he promised a "new kind of politics," well that was his choice. He can respond in kind, but that might tarnish the image he sought to create for himself.

Nothing succeeds like abbas

Daled Amos focuses on one aspect of Dennis Ross's latest, A Mideast Crisis to avert.

In a nutshell, Daled Amos points out that Ross's argument that the West ought to bolster Abbas because he's better than the alternatives, is a very weak argument. (Read the whole thing.)

Of course Ross believes this as a true believer in peace processing, which is premised on the outdated belief that Fatah is moderate regardless of the endless examples of terrorism, extremism, corruption, and bad faith demonstrated by Fatah over the past fifteen years. Daled Amos focuses on this paragraph from Ross.

She [Rice] should identify the options in advance, line up Arab support for Abbas staying in office -- something that should not be hard to do since Arab leaders are likely to fear both a Palestinian leadership void and the prospect of Hamas filling that void -- and then finalize the approach with Abbas.

Ross is a bit behind the times. Not only don't Arab leaders fear Hamas filling the void they're actively preparing for it:

For Hamas, of course, the Jordanian move is welcome toward dialogue, since it seems to represent the gradual acceptance by the Arab political mainstream of its growing power among the Palestinians. This acceptance derives not from ideological factors or sentiment: pragmatic, pro-Western, monarchical Jordan and Islamist Hamas with its links to Iran could not be more natural adversaries. Rather, the move points to a de facto acceptance of the fact that Hamas's rivals in the Palestinian camp are too weak to dislodge it, and that no one else seems keen to take on this task.

I don't advocate engaging Hamas, but propping up Abbas after his term expires will only reduce American influence. Better to leave bad enough alone and see if someone reasonable emerges to succeed Abbas. But there may be no good solutions here.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Juggling carnivals 09/15/08

Incoming Carnivals

Batya - administrator of the Kosher Cooking Carnival and J-Pix - included a couple of posts from Soccer Dad in Haveil Havalim #182 - the Jewish / Israel blogging carnival at both of her blogs.

Thanks to Dr. Sanity for including me in the latest Carnival of the Insanities. I also note that Wolf Howling, Yid wih Lid, and Israel Matzav are included along with many other fine bloggers.

blog carnivals.

Dennis Ross--Obama Advisor--Wants To See Abbas Continue

Dennis Ross advocates Abbas continuing as leader of the PA with the most absurd of reasons:

She [Rice] should identify the options in advance, line up Arab support for Abbas staying in office -- something that should not be hard to do since Arab leaders are likely to fear both a Palestinian leadership void and the prospect of Hamas filling that void -- and then finalize the approach with Abbas.

So Ross admits that the top 2 reasons to continue with Abbas at the helm are:

1. It's better than nothing
2. It's better than having someone who blatantly is against the existence of the state of Israel.

Not very encouraging--but obviously neither Dennis Ross, nor anyone else for that matter, is going to encourage Abbas to continue as leader of the PA because of his leadership skills or his long list of accomplishments.

Funny how Ross seems to gravitate towards 'leaders' with thin resumes and few accomplishments.

by Daled Amos

Busters!

Last week JTA's Telegraph noted:

Ha'aretz has some details on some of the weapons it says the U.S. government denied Israel out of fear they'd be used to attack Iran. They include bunker-buster bombs, permission to use an air corridor over Iraq to fly to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes, the report said.

Now we learn that the United States won't sell bunker busters but another advanced bomb to Israel.

The Pentagon's announcement, which came on Friday, said the U.S. will provide Israel with 1,000 units of Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39) - a special weapon developed for penetrating fortified facilities located deep underground.

The $77 million shipment, which includes launchers and appurtenances, will allow the IAF to hit many more bunkers than currently possible. Although each bomb weighs 113 kilograms, its penetration capabilities equal those of a one ton bomb, according to professional literature.

So does this latest sale show a change of heart of the Americans? Or do we really know that the Americans really denied Israel permission to overfly Iraq?

MJ Rosenberg thinks that this signals a change of heart of Sec. Gates.

(via memeorandum)

At this point I'm not convinced of anything. I suspect that the real details of American-Israeli contacts about Iran are highly classified at this point. Many of the sources used in the media either don't know what's really being discussed or are deliberately misleading the media. There's been too much variance in the reports for them all to be true, so they all must be discounted. We can't know what's true, except perhaps that the United States sold Israel some bombs for attacking hardened targets.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Savir's wishful thinking

Celebrating Oslo, Uri Savir made an indefensible statement:

"I am convinced that had [then-prime minister Yitzhak] Rabin not been assassinated and if Bibi [Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu] had not won the [1996] elections, we would already be at peace," Savir said.

Due to politics, people have a poor memory of exactly what happened in 1995 and 1996. Savir should know better, but he's looking at history through his rose colored glasses.

In October 1995, Yitzchal Rabin barely was able to get Oslo II passed. He did it by luring members of Tzomet to join his coalition as a new faction just to get a bare majority. By October 1995, Oslo was extremely unpopular due to the increased terror that resulted from it. Yet Rabin intent on continuing the peace process pulled a highly controversial maneuver to keep it going.

Before Rabin was assassinated, Binyamin Netanyahu had passed him in popularity polls. Believe it or not, without the assassination of Rabin, Netanyahu likely would have become Prime Minister earlier than he did, and by a wider margin.

But the idea that the killing of Rabin hurt the peace process (from the Israeli side) is nonsense. After Rabin was killed, Shimon Peres quickly withdrew from Ramallah, Tulkarem, Jenin, Beit Lehem, and Kalkilye speeding up the peace process beyond what Rabin was willing to do.

Of course the reduction of the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria meant a greater reliance on the Palestinian Authority, which failed to provide the security it was obligated to under Oslo. That led to the terror attacks of Februrary and March 1996, which is the factor that allowed Netanyahu to win the election in June over Shimon Peres.

Rather than hurting the peace process, Netanyahu probably helped it. First of all, his administration boasted in late 1998 that more Palestinians were employed in Israel than any time since 1992. Also terror deaths during Netanyahu's term as PM, were down significantly. When Israelis voted for Barak over Netanyahu in 1999, they likely didn't consider terrorism a major problem. Netanyahu's term in office made it appear safe for Israel to return to the peace process.

So when Israel voted for Netanyahu it was a reaction that the peace process had brought terror, not peace. It was a reasonable conclusion since there was no Israeli government that had been more conciliatory towards the Palestinians (at that time) than Shimon Peres's and the retreats of the Peres government led to more terror not less.

So Savir can claim that the fault of the failure of the peace process on events in Israel. But Israelis persisted in supporting the peace process, when the terror subsided. It was the actions (or inaction) of Yasser Arafat and the PA that scuttled the peace process.

Savir's projected his wishful thinking onto what actually happened. He does not remember correctly.

(h/t Alouette)

Musical monday 61

Welcome back to Musical Monday the music trivia quiz that Elie and I alternate hosting.
Speaking of which, don't you think you ought to check out the answers of Musical Monday #58?
And if you have time, you still might be able to get in a few guesses at Musical Monday #60 before the answers go up later today.

You know the drill, guess the lyrics, figure out the theme, no Googling!

1) I left my home in Georgia (original)
2) I jump into my car and I throw in my guitar
3) Your lights are on, but youre not home
4) Wondrin' what in the world did I do (original)
5) Day turned black, sky ripped apart
6) Neon signs a-flashin', taxi cabs and buses passin' through the night
7) And all my thoughts were cloudy
8) Yo no soy marinero (original)
9) Stay with me while we grow old
10) Am I happy or in misery?
11) a cat named Frankenstein (original)
12) And each time I tell myself that I, well I think I've had enough, (original)
13) Stars shining bright above you
14) Put your glad rags on and join me, hon,
15) Baby you know what I like
16) It's just a fear that builds within me
Walk away from Love - David Ruffin
17) Do it light, taking me through the night
18) So you must have had a hunch.
19) Diesel-powered straight to you,
20) Any other one, that makes me sad (original)
21) I woke up this morning and realized what I had done
22) The deal was made in Denmark on a dark and stormy day
23) Above us only sky
24) why do birds sing so gay?
25) And if you love him, Oh be proud of him
26) You're the meanest old woman that I've ever seen.
27) Oh you wished me well, you couldn't tell (original)
28) We're caught in a trap
29) Oh, the shark, babe, has such teeth, dear (the popular song version)
And this one, at least half fits the theme:
30)When they meet for one big show
UPDATE: Elie and my brother pointed out two really egregious omissions. And my brother points out (Clayton did too) that Dream a little dream is credited to the Mamas and Papas and since (as Clayton pointed out) Michelle Philips is still alive, it didn't really count. So here are two more:
31) I play the game, a fantasy
32) She said --You know I love you because you're so much like him.

One more hint: Two of the songs have the names of states in them.

With no further ado, here are the answers for Musical Monday #59
As Clayton and Elie guessed, the theme was school:

1) You know how bad girls get
Don't stand so close to me - The Police
2) Nearly petrified cos he was taken by surprise
When I kissed the teacher - Abba
3) Dont wanna be no uptown fool
Hot for teacher - Van Halen
4) I would write across the sky in letters
To sir with love - Lulu
5) Walking home every day over Barnegat Bridge and Bay
My eyes adored you - Frankie Valli
6) I'm gonna meet the boys on floor number two!
Smoking in the boys room - Brownsville Station
7) It's a wonder I can think at all
Kodachrome - Paul Simon
8) To say who-bop-a-loo-chi-bop
Hey School Girl - Tom and Jerry
9) Oleanders growing outside her door
My old school - Steely Dan
10) Can't find a flag
School's Out - Alice Cooper
11) I can root for the Yankees from the bleachers
School is Out - Gary U.S. Bonds
12) When some loud braggart tries to put me down
Be true to your school - Beach Boys
13) We's all on the cover of Newsweek
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard - Paul and Simon
14) Most mixed up non-delinquent on the block
Beauty School Dropout, by Frankie Avalon
15) I don't care what your daddy do
Hang On Sloopy, by The McCoys
16) I smell smoke in the auditorium
Charlie Brown - The Coasters
17) Drop the coin right into the slot
School Day(s) - Chuck Berry
18) Look at the pictures and I turn the pages
Wonderful World - Sam Cook
19) No dark sarcasm
Another brick in the Wall (Part 2) - Pink Floyd
20) Older boys and prefects
Carrie Anne - The Hollies
21) Honey get your boppin' shoes before the juke box blows a fuse
High School Confidential, by Jerry Lee Lewis
22) I just wanna have some kicks, I just wanna get some chicks
Rock 'n Roll High School - The Ramones
23) You know you could have been a cuckoo
The way you do the things you do - The Temptations
24) A pink dress, a matching bow, and her pony tail.
Check yes or no - George Strait
25) Those soft and fuzzy sweaters
Centerfold - J Geils Band
26) Whose name I never could pronounce
At seventeen - Janis Ian
27) But the joke's on those who believe the system's fair
Teacher, Teacher - 38 special
28) Why go to learn the words of fools?
Itchycoo Park - The small faces
29) Sweet 16 ain't that peachy keen
I don't like Mondays - Boomtown Rats
30) Young man, now give me that knife.
Sister Mary Elephant - Cheech and Chong

Out of sitemeter

AAAAARGHHHHHHHHHH!

I hate the new sitemeter.

Yes it has some nice new features even in the free version, but what was really useful on a day to day, or hour to hour basis doesn't seem to be available now in the free version.

Being able to check hourly hits and referrers was great. But that doesn't seem to be available any more in the free version. Or if it is available, it was so is not intuitive where to find it.

But the product that was introduced today is regularly logging me out.

This thing is full of bugs and never should have been unleashed onto the public without being fully tested.

I will keep Sitemeter on my site only because I believe that other utilities like TTLB and memeorandum use sitemeter stats. But I need another statistics counter. I have ExtremeTracking but that's fair and not as good as sitemeter used to be.

I've considered Google Analytics but it looked like a pain to install.

Is Statscounter any good? Are there any other statistics utilities that bloggers recommend?

UPDATE: Apparently I wasn't alone, I recently checked out Sitemeter and got this message:

We are in the process of rolling back SiteMeter to the former system. SiteMeter should be back online soon. Please check back later. Sorry for inconvenience.

This does not reflect well on sitemeter. This should have been thoroughly tested before being rolled out. It clearly wasn't.

UPDATE II: The other McCain:

Just got my first look at the new format for SiteMeter statistics. It sucks, big-time.

Like Windows Vista, is how bad it sucks.

Hot Air asks:

How could they misunderstand their market so badly?

Is it possible that they were trying to push people to pay version? Of was the pay version awful too?

via memeorandum

Hamas's novelty wears off

In recent years there have consistent attempts in the Western media to portray Hamas as just another political party.

Ahmad Ayyad, candidate No. 3 on the Islamic bloc's slate, ran down a list of what he considered to be Abu Dis's most pressing needs: new roads, services for women, public parks, a central slaughterhouse that would abide by health codes.

His full beard signaled his affiliation with a radical Islamic movement that rejects the existence of Israel, but Ayyad also sounded like a garden-variety grass-roots policy wonk who said he wanted to "bridge the gap between the citizens and the local authorities."

And a year later there was this:

The mayor won a landslide victory from the inside of an Israeli jail, and still sits there today. The city banned a cultural festival from its grounds, in no small part because singing, dancing and the mixing of men and women reflects "a Western mentality."

And yet, the budget deficit has been tamed, city employees are getting raises and more roads are being paved courtesy of the new party in power - Hamas.

In the months leading up to the 2006 Palestinian election that brought Hamas to power there were plenty of articles portraying the rejectionist, terrorist group as a bunch of good government moderates.

And yet what has happened since Hamas has come to power in Gaza?

Well Hamas has looked after its own financial well being:

The ceasefire has also been detrimental to Hamas, because the underground border traffic is one of its key revenue sources. The Islamists are believed to collect about $10,000 (€6,450) a day from the tunnel owners in the form of "usage fees," as well as "value-added taxes" -- all payable in cash to armed money collectors who wait at the tunnel exits. If a pack of cigarettes costs 74 cents in Egypt, it goes for €1.85 ($2.87) in Gaza, with half of the profits going to Hamas. And a lot of people smoke in the Gaza Strip.

The Islamists also control the distribution of gasoline. Anyone who wishes to buy gas must first buy an "insurance policy" from Hamas, for about €170 ($264), in return for a coupon that entitles its holder to buy 20 liters (5.3 gallons) once every two weeks -- even now, with Israel allowing 1 million liters (264,000 gallons) of fuel for cars into the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, many residents still drive with a mixture of vegetable and used deep-frying grease. As a result, the Gaza Strip smells like a French-fry stand.

Its heavy handed politicization of medicine has led to a doctors' strike.

The medical official, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said Hamas-run security forces had started rounding up doctors and health workers and taking them to hospitals by force.

The doctors went on strike Saturday to protest the sacking of some 50 doctors and other health workers by the Hamas-run health ministry, saying the decision was politically motivated.

They've cracked down on the teachers' union too:

According to the organizers, several protesters were arrested. The teachers claimed that about a quarter million students are suffering from disruptions in their studies caused by the struggle between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

The teachers, members of Palestinian Authority's professional unions, called for the strike at the beginning of the school year in Gaza.

The unions identifying with Fatah, including the teachers and their colleagues in the medical field, are protesting what they call illegal appointments made by the Hamas government.

(h/t Solomonia)

They've desecrated a mosque:

CBC News recently entered what is, theoretically, a closed military area in the grim Shejaiya section of Gaza City. This was the stronghold of the Hilles clan, one of Gaza's well-armed mafias, and it was recently the scene of the worst violence in Gaza since the Hamas takeover.

All the dead were Palestinian. Hamas used the minaret of the local mosque as a firebase in a bloody assault on the Hilles clan, many of whom are allied with the secular Fatah movement.

Eleven Hilles men were killed. Dozens of others ran for the border -- the Israeli border. In a humiliating scene, wounded and terrified Hilles clansmen begged the Israelis to save them from Hamas. They were strip-searched, interrogated and treated in Israeli hospitals before being shipped to a refuge in the sweltering West Bank town of Jericho.

Not surprisingly, support for Hamas in Gaza, where they have complete control is eroding:

Someone says that Hamas is firmly in control.

"No, Hamas does not control Gaza," she cuts in. Waving her finger, surrounded by children, she issues a challenge. "All our young men will be back. The children will grow up and fight for revenge. The most important thing is to take revenge."

Considering the neighbourhood is full of Hamas gunmen, it's a gutsy statement. But she is not alone in voicing opposition. In Gaza City's market square, a crowd gathers as people pour out their own anger about the siege to the CBC crew. Essentials are in short supply, they say.

"We have no jobs, no fuel," says one man, "and the borders are closed."

More here.

In the meantime plenty of news organizations highlight Lauren Booth's adventures in Gaza ignoring the tyranny of her sponsors. Though we hear comparisons to Darfur - and though Hamas supports Sudan! - there's no evidence of mass starvation in Gaza. And yet the petty tyrannies of Haniyeh and company go largely unreported.

One would think that, in the name of due diligence, news organizations that were so keen to claim that Hamas stood for good government would want to report that the reality has not matched the promise.

Apparently keeping the illusion of a pragmatic Hamas alive is more important than exposing their corruption.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 09/14/08

The council has spoken and the results are up!

In the council voting Wolf Howling's Standing At The Crossroads - Identity Politics, Multiculturalism & The Melting Pot took 1st place with a very impressive vote total. My An exceptional choice was honored as runner up.

In the non-council section of the voting the winner was Don't Confuse Republicans' thrill over the Palin nomination with the Dems' worship of Obama: A reply to Paul Mirengoff at Beldar Blog, a post that was very good, but that I disagreed with. Runners up were:
Real Clear Politics: The Media's 'Due Dilligence'; EU Referendum: The Awkwardness Of Truth ; City Journal: Organizer in Chief and The Anchoress: Over Palin; not "hypocrisy," you never knew us.

Congratulations to all the winners.

watcher's council.

Still not barking

If we go back four years and two months we learn:

Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenants, operating from hideouts suspected to be along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, are directing a Qaeda effort to launch an attack in the United States sometime this year, senior Bush administration officials said on Thursday.

''What we know about this most recent information is that it is being directed from the seniormost levels of the Al Qaeda organization,'' said a senior official at a briefing for reporters. He added, ''We know that this leadership continues to operate along the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.''

Counterterrorism officials have said for weeks that they are increasingly worried by a continuing stream of intelligence suggesting that Al Qaeda wanted to carry out a significant terror attack on United States soil this year. But until the comments of the senior administration officials on Thursday, it was not clear that Mr. bin Laden and top deputies like Ayman Zawahiri were responsible for the concern.

Another senior administration official said on Thursday that the intelligence reports -- apparently drawn partly from interviews with captured Qaeda members and partly from other intelligence -- referred to efforts ''to inflict catastrophic effects'' before the election.

The article reports that the nature of the threat was "unspecific" leading me to believe that it never got much past the wishing stage. For some reason or another. Still, it's incredible that there was no such chatter this year. Was there?

And we if we go back to right before the election we recall that Osama bin Laden made a rather specific threat.

The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections." [3]

Apparently, unable to strike before the elections, Bin Laden attempted to bully the American electorate into voting for John Kerry. It likely didn't have any effect. But still remember he made a threat and never carried it out.

Jonathan Spyer has more as to what has happened to Al Qaeda since 9/11.

Al-Qaida has combined sometimes nightmarishly effective tactical ability with a somewhat other-worldly, incoherent political and strategic program. Political Islam is transforming the politics of the Middle East, and represents a key strategic challenge to the west. But the particular version of it represented by the perpetrators of 9/11 is today more of a murderous side-show than the nerve center of the future Caliphate which it likes to imagine itself.

Al Qaeda, Spyer reports, has been effective in getting its message out to like minded organizations, but operationally it has suffered numerous setback over the past seven years.

Abe Greenwald summarizes some of these losses:

Every criticism of President Bush's national security record begins rightly with the charge that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead. Any honest defense of Bush must reckon with this fact. The story goes that in 2003 U.S. forces abandoned the hunt for bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan and shifted their focus onto Iraq, giving the al Qaeda leader a free pass so that we could take up arms against a regime unconnected to the attacks of September 11. Let's put aside the fact that this is a false choice. And let's put aside questions about the claim's legitimacy regarding timelines, intelligence agencies, roaming fighters, Iraq's terrorist ties, and the dynamics of force deployment, and simply accept the accusation at its most damning. To wit: Bush lost bin Laden by going into Iraq. Okay: If I were offered the choice of taking out one al Qaeda mastermind who had recently been reduced to the status of cave-dwelling spoken-word artist or more than a thousand senior al Qaeda operatives and tens of thousands of armed Islamist soldiers, I would choose the latter a thousand out of a thousand times.

And the proof is in the pudding. Consider the decimated state of al Qaeda and related organizations since they've come up against overwhelming American force in Iraq. As CIA director Michael Hayden recently put it, we've seen "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally." Would the hunt for one man in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan have yielded better results?

While Al Qaeda remains a force to be reckoned with, it cannot act as it did seven years ago. This means that whatever mistakes President Bush has made along the way, he has succeeded in the big picture. Will whoever succeeds him take the calm we have experienced over the past seven years for granted and relax his vigilance or will he remain committed to keeping the forces of the Islamists on the defensive. Osama hasn't barked in seven years on American soil. What will it take to extend that record?

Crossposted on Yourish.

The Media and The Hubris of Hope?

There has been a lot of reaction to Charlie Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin, some of it claiming that Gibson was less than evenhanded and even condescending.

Jay Nordlinger makes that point, also noting that

Charlie Gibson, dripping with condescension, said, "And you didn't say to yourself, 'Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?'" Palin answered, "I didn't hesitate, no."

Look, if a Charlie Gibson type had talked that way in 1984, to Ferraro, he would have been flayed for condescension. (Remember when Vice President Bush said to her, in debate, "Let me help you with that, Mrs. Ferraro"? He was flayed.) But Palin's a conservative -- so no problem. The usual feminist chorus won't object.

Then Gibson said to her, "Didn't that take some hubris?" Obviously, the man does not know what the word "hubris" means. But a reader of ours had a sharp point: In Obama's camp, they call it "audacity."

But claims that the media is in the tank are only buttressed by things like this:

John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala on CNN just now slipped and said "we" when asking how Democrats should respond to Republican attacks.

The Washington Post this morning, however, takes the cake:

And apparently it is a red letter day at the Post. As Bill Kristol details, the paper's same page one also has an invented Sarah Palin "gaffe" on Iraq. The Post writes:

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.

However, the most logical reading of her actual words is not that she was ascribing responsibilty for 9-11 to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but that she was praising the troops for fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq which of course is not just linked to, but is the very group, which was responsible for 9-11.

Aside from the fact Palin didn't say or likely infer anything similar to what the Post reporter alleges (that Iraq is linked to 9-11), it's a perfectly acceptable topic for a story. It involves someone on the ballot.

Note: After Kristol's posting appeared late last night, the Post added this line to the second paragraph above in its story:

"But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion."

Did the Post have second thoughts about their reporter's mindreading tactics? Did the editor realize that Palin might actually have been praising the troops for fighting Al Qaeda? Nevertheless, the Post's quick edit doesn't really solve the problem. The inference -- utterly unsupported -remains that Palin is spinning a discredited tale. (Moreover by leaving the rest of the piece as is, the article now is rather incomprehensible. Does the Post still mean to accuse Palin of telling tale tales?)

There is a tall tale being told alright - and it's not coming from Sarah Palin.

The media seems to be very hopeful that Obama wins--and is not afraid to show it.
And that is hubris.

by Daled Amos

Osama didn't bark. why not?

After the United States was struck by terror 9/11/01, Americans feared that it was just a first attack and that we'd see more in subsequent years. In 7 years, no other successful large scale terror attack has succeeded on American soil. Why not?

In a prescient article "Terrorism on Trial" about the trials which convicted some of the plotters of the terror attacks on American embassies in east Africa, published on May 30, 2001, Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson wrote:

Perhaps the most disconcerting revelations from the trial concern Al-Qaeda's entrenchment in the West. For example, its procurement network for such materiel as night vision goggles, construction equipment, cell phones, and satellite telephones was based mostly in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Bosnia and Croatia. The chemicals purchased for use in the manufacture of chemical weapons came from the Czech Republic.

In the often long waits between terrorist attacks, Al-Qaeda's member organizations maintained operational readiness by acting under the cover of front-company businesses and nonprofit, tax-deductible religious charities. These nongovernmental groups, many of them still operating, are based mainly in the U.S. and Britain, as well as in the Middle East. The Qatar Charitable Society, for example, has served as one of bin Laden's de facto banks for raising and transferring funds.

Osama bin Laden also set up a tightly organized system of cells in an array of American cities, including Brooklyn, N.Y.; Orlando, Fla.; Dallas; Santa Clara, Calif.; Columbia, Mo., and Herndon, Va.

I don't now if any of the cells listed had a hand in providing logistical support for 9/11, but it's certainly possible. So why hasn't Al Qaeda - which is a loose network of terror groups - succeeded in attacking the American homeland in the past seven years?

An article yesterday in the LA Times observes:

Al Qaeda remains determined to strike on American soil, anti-terrorism officials say. But it has run up against aggressive surveillance, tough border security and a lack of extremist communities in which to operate. Instead, officials say, it appears to have focused on using Europe to hit targets such as the flights bound for the United States from Britain.

Or more generally:

The shift in the terrorist threat is largely attributable to U.S. and international efforts after 9/11 to crack down on al-Qaida. With tighter border security, document control and financial tracking, al-Qaida recognized that it would be more effective if it used local groups to conduct its attacks. While the al-Qaida core is somewhat resurgent, it is still a far more decentralized model than the al-Qaida of 9/11.

Quinn Hillyer fleshes out the details:

HE DID IT by fashioning, with the help of Colin Powell (before Powell went off the reservation), an incredibly impressive coalition that went into Afghanistan -- even then, liberal pundits predicted, yes, a "quagmire" in Afghanistan, too -- and in incredibly short order kicked out the rogue regime, killed numerous members of Al-Qaeda, and chased the remaining ones high into the hills where they presumably live in caves perfectly suited to their troglodyte mentality.

Bush did it by directing his government to use all the tools at its disposal to identify and freeze Al-Qaeda assets, improve intelligence-gathering (and intelligence-sharing, back and forth, with anti-terrorist nations), disrupt Al-Qaeda communications, and track down and kill Al-Qaeda leaders. He did it by getting tough on other terrorists, too, even ones not directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda. And he did it by encouraging democratic movements throughout the Middle East and central Asia, while providing material support where necessary.

And yes, Bush warded off terrorists by toppling Saddam Hussein's dangerous outlaw regime in Iraq. It was a regime that had repeatedly shot at American aircraft. It was a regime that demonstrably owned weapons of mass murder and then refused to account for their removal or their destruction. It was a regime that had invaded its neighbors, and that had gassed and slaughtered its own people. And it was most certainly a regime that harbored terrorists, trained terrorists, and that maintained friendly communications and at least some operational ties with Al-Qaeda.

Or as Hillyer puts it simply:

This wasn't a dog that didn't bark merely because it felt like being mute; this was a dog that didn't bark because it was forcefully muzzled. And Bush was the one who applied the muzzle.

Somethings managed to keep America safe despite the creation of the bureaucratic monstrosity known as DHS and despite adding another layer in intelligence bureaucracy. So maybe just maybe President Bush did other things correctly that made terrorism prevention successful.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Palin's coming out party

The New York Times recently offered some "helpful" advice to Gov. Palin and the McCain campaign generally.

It is well past time for Sarah Palin, Republican running mate, governor of Alaska and self-proclaimed reformer, to fill in for the voting public the gaping blanks about her record and qualifications to be vice president.

The best way to do that would be exactly what the campaign of John McCain is avoiding -- an honest news conference. Instead, she has been the bell-jar candidate, barnstorming safe crowds with socko punch lines and plans for a single interview on ABC News built around a visit to Fairbanks, Alaska, and her hometown of Wasilla.

"Self proclaimed reformer?" Well she does have some accomplishments to her record. Even if the pipeline is ten years away she did finalize a deal that wasn't a giveaway. And even if she initially was sold on the "bridge to nowhere" she eventually saw the light.

Just in time for that appearance, Ms. Palin, who was proclaiming her family's privacy a week ago, will make a political event out of her son's deployment to Iraq. But as for talking to reporters in general, the McCain campaign sniffishly says they must first show "some level of respect and deference."

Except sending her son off was planned before she was picked to run with Sen. McCain. Sniffishly. How awful.

Frankly it sounds a lot like

'You're a feisty little one, but you'll soon learn respect.''

That is a peculiar response for someone who is campaigning as one tough, transparent politician who can take the heat. Why not some detailed questioning? With deference, we believe many questions will arise about this largely unknown politician as reporters properly search beyond the wholesome anecdotes.

Wholesome anecdotes? You mean like that she joined the Independence Party, that she carried her daughter's baby and that she campaigned for Pat Buchanan?

Jim Treacher had a pre-emptive answer for this kind of tripe:

The press lost the right to use that argument when they ran with all these crazy slurs like it was the day before the election. She smiled at America and said, "Hi, how ya doin'?," and these irresponsible maniacs returned the greeting by trying to stab her in the heart. And now that they've missed, they're trying to guilt her into buying them lunch.

But she's not buying right now. Good.

She did however agree to answer questions by Charlie Gibson. How'd she do? Well my friend Wolf Howling says that it was a mixed bag:

My overall impression. She passed the test, she did not ace it. She is very intelligent. She is a very quick study. She will be more than ready for the debates. She will be ready for Fox in another week, the Sunday talk shows in another two weeks.

On a related note Wolf Howling also mentions an item that was picked up by memeorandum.

Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post wrote:

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

William Kristol shows what's wrong with that approach:

Kornblut's interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious. Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein's regime carried out 9/11--obviously Palin isn't saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam's regime. Palin isn't linking Saddam to 9/11.
She's linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.

If Sarah Palin cannot count on the media to be fair with her in their reporting, why should she trust them to hold a fair interview?

I go flying so high

In Obama's Altitude Sickness, Dr. Krauthammer (or here) diagnoses what's wrong. He starts off brilliantly:

The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

Then he notes something that I hit on yesterday:

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma

Krauthammer tracks Sen. Obama's trajectory over the past four years until he hit has apogee:

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

Unlike me, Krauthammer doesn't seem so worried that Sarah Palin's star will sink so fast, but he also seems no more sold on the pick than he was last week:

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.

And if Gov. Palin avoids any major embarrassments in the next two months, it looks like there's a better chance that she will be Vice President than that Barak Obama will be president.

A piece of peace

One thing that reporters in the Middle East enjoy is irony. So that's the angle Ethan Bronner takes about Jenin in A West Bank Ruin, Reborn as a Peace Beacon.

But a quiet revolution is stirring here in this city, once a byword for the extremes of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. In 2002, in response to a wave of suicide bombers from Jenin, Israeli tanks leveled entire neighborhoods.

From that rubble, now newly trained and equipped Palestinian security officials have restored order. Israeli soldiers have pulled back from bases and are in close touch with their Palestinian colleagues. Civilians are planning economic cooperation -- an industrial zone to provide thousands of jobs, mostly to Palestinians, and another involving organic produce grown by Palestinians and marketed in Europe by Israelis. Ministers from both governments have been visiting regularly, often joined by top international officials. Israeli Arabs are playing a key role.

The aim is to stand conventional wisdom on its head. Instead of a shaky negotiated peace treaty imposing coexistence from the top down, a bottom-up set of relationships that lock the two societies together should, proponents argue, lead to a real two-state solution.

There are some positive aspects to this report and some negative ones. On the negative side, Bronner writes "Israeli tanks leveled entire neighborhoods." Well did that really happen?

A JCPA issue brief gives the actual scope:

Still, the level of destruction was limited. Out of 1,896 buildings in the Jenin refugee camp, 130 buildings were destroyed -- or less than 10 percent (Israel Defense Forces -- Central Command). According to Fatah activist Mousa Kadoura, the area affected was the size of a large football field (Washington Times, May 1, 2002). Moreover, because of the large amounts of Palestinian explosives in the camp, it is difficult to discern what component of this destruction was caused by Israeli forces and what part was a result of Palestinian detonation.

But remember unlike Bronner's language that suggests the destruction haphazard or disproportionate, Israel was fighting an armed enemy. Less than 10% shows restraint; "whole neighborhood" suggests a massive scale.

It's good to know that there's a place where there's some level of cooperation going on and the Palestinians are taking control of their lives someplace. And Bronner hits on an important reason for that limited success may be due to the bottom approach being taken here. Unfortunately, the rest of his reporting shows that he doesn't understand the reason why. When Bronner tries to explain why cooperation is occurring in the Jenin area, he gives these reasons:

Jenin, officials on all sides say, offers many advantages for a pilot project, an idea arrived at by American and European officials in February when they sought ways to build peace on the ground.

First, they said, Hamas, the main Palestinian militant opposition in the West Bank, is relatively weak in Jenin. Second, after the evacuation of four Israeli settlements in the region in 2005, the area is essentially free of settlers, a major source of friction elsewhere. Third, the barrier that Israel has been building causes little friction in this area because it is right on the boundary between Israel and the West Bank, not over it so there is little territorial dispute.

There is also a fourth reason. Gilboa, the Israeli region that abuts Jenin, is an unusual and unusually well-suited neighbor. Small and rural with 30,000 people, it is 40 percent Arab and 60 percent Jewish and the inhabitants have worked assiduously to create their own kind of model -- of Arab-Jewish coexistence in Israel.

Do you notice what's missing? Well how about Operation Defensive Shield that destroyed most of the terrorist infrastructure that existed in Jenin? Somehow acknowledging that killing terrorists helps bring peace seems to be beyond his understanding. But of course it's important to mention that there are no more "settlers" there.

Then there's this:

There are other concerns. The Palestinians have asked to base their newly trained battalion for Jenin in an abandoned Israeli settlement, a good spot in terms of location and infrastructure. But Israeli officials are worried about how it will play in Israel and have so far said no.

Israeli security officials say their Palestinian colleagues are good at law and order but not at stopping terrorist groups. They say that Islamic Jihad used to be strong here and is no longer because Israel spent years destroying its infrastructure and killing its militants, setting the stage for the Palestinian security takeover. But if they relax their vigilance, the Israelis say, the situation will deteriorate. Early on Wednesday morning, for example, Israeli soldiers and security men raided a home in Jenin and detonated a 30-pound pipe bomb.

The Palestinians complain that they are often urged to arrest someone just because he wears a beard. They add that as long as they are seen as puppets of the Israelis, the project is doomed. The key is for Palestinian security officials to be seen as agents of state building. Then the population will cooperate. This requires the kind of discretion that the Israeli Army has not been known for.

Notice how the Israeli claim that decimating Islamic Jihad played a role in the improvements is qualified by "they say." The claims about settlers and the security fence are not qualified.

Also problematic is the idea that the Palestinians ought not to be seen as "puppets." Well maybe that's important in terms of their constituents, but if they don't take responsibility to fight terror they'll have no credibility among the Israelis. Why Israel's concerns are given a short shrift here is a puzzle.

And the dig at the IDF is uncalled for. Again, if the IDF hadn't unsubtly destroyed the terrorist infrastructure in Jenin, this experiment could not be taking place.

Finally we have Tony Blair:

"The intifada turned them into enemies in one day," Mr. Blair said in an interview. "Now we are trying to recreate a sense of mutual confidence after seven years. It is a very slow process. But what is happening in Gilboa and Jenin is exactly the direction we would like to go."

Blair here, presents the intifada as an independent force that just turned Jews and Arabs into enemies; the intifada, to Blair, just spontaneously generated causing destructive enmity between the two parties seeking peace.

Blair (and Bronner by quoting him uncritically) shows the same cluelessness that the late Scott Shuger described in a different context seven years ago at the start of the intifada:

The headline the Washington Post put over its lead Ramallah story was similarly misguided: "Grief, Anger Spurred Frenzied Crowd to Kill." With its emphasis on external, even understandable, forces, this is classic responsibility-avoiding language. Note that there are no individuals in either the Times sentence or the Post headline. Even when presented with irrefutable evidence of personal culpability, all too often the papers still try to fuzz it over. Take that unbelievable picture of the guy with the bloody hands. The Los Angeles Times supplied a caption to the photo that managed not to refer to the blood at all. And in fact, neither the Los Angeles Times' nor the New York Times' lead story even mentioned the guy with the bloody hands.

The lynching of the soldiers didn't just happen. It was the result of an orchestrated campaign of violence unleashed by Yasser Arafat a month earlier. The intifada didnt just happen, it was planned and executed by Yasser Arafat. The problem with the top down approach wasn't in the details; it was in the fundamentally bad faith of the top of the Palestinians leadership. If the project in Jenin works, it will be because, at least in part it has circumvented the Palestinian leadership.

So while the idea of this little piece of peace working out is mildly encouraging, Bronner's failures to acknowledge the success of the IDF and the perfidy of Arafat and the Palestinan leadership detract from the story.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Seven year ago plus

(Manhattan skyline Sept 11, 2008, photo courtesy of Elder of Ziyon. Click on picture to see full size. For contrast see the Elder's Hole in the Sky.)

There were some excellent 9/11 roundups. For one thing the New York Times, for all my griping, sometimes still does serious journalism. It's combined some fine reporting and analysis in its section on Sept 11, 2001. The section includes images of its front pages over the next 10 days as well as the reporting at that time. What was at once informative and tragic is its recreation of what happened to the people trapped in the upper sections of the towers. The information is put together from phone calls by the doomed people and the recreations are narrated by NY Times reporters. This is an incredibly powerful piece of work.

Both the Army and the DoD have 9/11 sites.

At the dedication of the Pentagon 9/11 memorial, Secretary of Defense Gates had some kind words for his predecessor.

Good morning, and thank you all for coming today. It is an honor to be part of this solemn occasion, and I would like to recognize Secretary Rumsfeld for the indispensable role he played in helping to bring the memorial project to fruition. Mr. Secretary, the valor you showed here, seven years ago, was an inspiration to all in the Pentagon and to all of America.

In all the Iraq vilifications, I think it's been largely forgotten that on 9/11/01 Secretary Rumsfeld didn't just sit around:

Mr. Rumsfeld was in his office on the third floor of the outer ring when he heard and felt the crash on the other side of the building. The 69-year-old former Navy pilot was jolted and rushed to the scene. ''He went outside the building and was helpful in getting several people that were injured onto stretchers,'' said a Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. Craig Quigley. ''He was out there 15 minutes or so helping the injured.''

Yid with Lid dissects Keith Olbermann's 9/11 rant, demonstrating why MSNBC was right to demote him.

Meryl reflects on her change in geography since 9/11 in 7 years later, 20 miles west.

Charles asks "Where were you on September 11?"

The answer I'd love to say is that it was beautiful day so I came home early from work to spend the day with my wife and one week old daughter. When I got home they were sitting out on the sunny lawn.

But however idyllic the scene was, the sunniness of the day did not dispel our worries. About an hour earlier I had gotten a call from my wife that the World Trade Center was on fire. I tried to find out what was going on, but most news sites wouldn't load. The Windows on the World website, I think, was down. Since my wife hadn't heard from her brother, she wanted me to come home.

My brother in law worked for Trade Web, which was located on 51st floor of the north tower. With phone circuits overloaded we remained uncertain about his whereabouts for a few hours, until he was on the ferry back to New Jersey. (He did contact my mother in law about 9:30 or shortly before the towers fell, and then we couldn't get back in touch with him.)

Trade Web didn't lose any employees. And it had an interesting story:

Similarly moving is the display on 9/11 that immediately greets visitors upon entry. Accompanying a promotional baseball found at Ground Zero by New York City firefighter Vin Mavaro is Mavaro's letter to the CEO of Trade Web, the company that manufactured the baseball: "Being a baseball fan, coach and player, this item has become a symbol of hope for me." For me, this pairing is even more poignant than Curt Schilling's cap from the 2001 World Series, adorned with a New York Police Department shield. A lesser exhibit might have included only the professional baseball connection to 9/11 and missed how powerful the average person's relationship to baseball can be.

And finally a Watcher's Council rememberance.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Osama in a cave and on tape

A New York Times article reports on tapes of Osama bin Laden that are now being studied.

While Mr. bin Laden's evolution from opposing Saudi Arabia's ruling dynasty to running an international terrorist organization has been detailed before, said Flagg Miller, an assistant professor at the University of California, Davis, who spent five years translating the tapes, the recordings provide a more spontaneous look at Al Qaeda than what is available through the carefully choreographed messages it releases.

"These are back-room conversations of Al Qaeda's key operatives as well as fresh or potential recruits who are trying to figure out what the heck is going on and what their role in it is," Mr. Miller said.

The article is underwhelming, except perhaps, where it discusses how boring the life of jihadists was. And that recalls an observation of Reuel Marc Gerecht as to why the United States had so little good intelligence on bin Laden.

A former senior Near East Division operative says, "The CIA probably doesn't have a single truly qualified Arabic-speaking officer of Middle Eastern background who can play a believable Muslim fundamentalist who would volunteer to spend years of his life with s***** food and no women in the mountains of Afghanistan. For Christ's sake, most case officers live in the suburbs of Virginia. We don't do that kind of thing." A younger case officer boils the problem down even further: "Operations that include diarrhea as a way of life don't happen."

Crossposted on Yourish.

Sarah palin superstar

*This post has been revised somewhat from the original*

I will admit that I didn't think that Gov. Palin would be a good pick. While it seems that her star has dimmed in terms of her "reformer" credentials, she still seems to be a strong candidate. And yet the McCain campaign is risking her star power.

Yesterday's "lipstick on a pig" uproar was problematic:

In any event, I do hope that Republicans will pass over Obama's crude remark with the silence it deserves. I don't say forget about it. On the contrary. But I would hate to see Republicans descend to play the hurt feelings, you're-so-insensitive game.

(via Instapundit)

Here's Kathryn Jean Lopez:

I'm heartened, as I noted in my piece today, that Palin hasn't taken up the sexism whine herself. Based on her past comments, I don't imagine she will. And I'd like to believe she cringed, too, when she watched the "lipstick" ad.

(via memeorandum)

At the RNC Palin showed herself to be a formidable political talent. "Protecting" her as the McCain campaign seems to be doing really seems unnecessary. Playing the "sexist" card undermines the power of her appeal. She didn't come to the convention aggrieved, she came to the convention to fight.

When you promote someone as a fighter, complaining that the other side isn't playing fairly takes some the power away from that reputation.

But there's a more general problem as commenter Fiery Spirited Zionist noted earlier:

Quite frankly, the Palin fawning from Republicans is becoming obnoxious. She hasn't done anything to be compared to Reagan and Thatcher thus far.

Phillip Klein:

There's no doubt that Palin displayed a natural's touch when speaking to the convention last Wednesday. She made a strong argument for the Republican ticket being one of true reformers, exuded a sunny American optimism and authenticity, skewered her opponents with a smile on her face, and made a stirring case for McCain as commander in chief.

But Reagan's 1964 speech still holds up 44 years later because it makes a timeless argument against statism at home and abroad that is deeply rooted in conservative thought about limiting government.

"'T]he full power of centralized government,' -- was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize," Reagan said in his landmark speech. "They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy."

Don't try to make her too much of a superstar. That's what's happening. The image of Palin has been overwhelming the reality of Palin. I think this is one of the problems that Sen. Obama is suffering from. When he became a "superstar" it became easy to caricature him. I believe that the "Britney Spears" commercial is the start of Sen. McCain's comeback. Sure it was mocking. But it was asking if Sen. Obama was known for anything more than putting on a good performance. The point was well taken and has laid the groundwork for the McCain's subsequent campaign..

But if there was an Obama bubble that burst because there wasn't enough substance to it, the same danger awaits the Republicans with Palin if they're not careful. James Pethokoukis:

Plus, the GOP may be experiencing its own bubble right now in the rising popularity of McCain running mate Sarah Palin. Maybe "Sarah America" is an example of what Mackay meant by "some new folly more captivating than the first." Maybe American politics has become like the economy, one bubble seemingly leading to another. Maybe. But by the time this latest bubble begins to leak, the election may already be over.

(via Instapundit)

If the Obama bubble can burst, so too can the Palin bubble. Don't coddle or idolize Sarah Palin.

Nate Silver, hardly a Republican, observed:

But Palin isn't merely playing at being ordinary, the way that Bill Clinton (Rhodes Scholar) or George W. Bush (son of a president) or Hillary Clinton (wife of a president) might. She really, really comes across that way -- like someone who had won a sweepstakes or an essay contest. Her authenticity factor is off-the-charts good; her biography sings. But do Americans really want their next-door-neighbor running for Vice President, or rather someone who seems like one?

It's Sarah Palin's quality of ordinariness that makes her compelling. She took on the establishment of her own party to become governor and change politics in Alaska.

Let her use her talents and her record - lay off the "bridge to nowhere," emphasize the natural gas pipelin - to campaign and fight. But inflating her beyond what she really is will only serve to set her up for eventual deflation.

Seven years ago

If it is morally acceptable to murder, in the name of a necessary blow for freedom, a woman on a Tel Aviv street, or to blow up a disco full of teenagers, or to bomb a family restaurant -- then it must be morally acceptable to drive two jetliners into a place where 50,000 people work. In moral logic, what is the difference? If the murder of innocent people is for whatever reason excusable, it is excusable; if it is legitimate, it is legitimate. If acceptable on a small scale, so too on a grand.
Michael Kelly - When Innocents are the Enemy - Sept 12, 2001

Two years ago I did a roundup, including my brother in law's recollection of his escape. The detail that still haunts me is this:

The detail of Jon's escape that still amazes is that given the lack of ventilation and the number of people escaping the stairwells had gotten quite hot. So the emergency worker broke open soda machines and handed out drinks to the escapees. A fire fighter handed Jon a bottled water on the 21st floor. Jon realized that half and hour or 45 minutes later the man who had extended him such kindness was probably dead.

This year I'll add a link to Smooth Stone's tribute to Welles Remy Crowther.

And please check out Elder of Ziyon's haunting Hole in the Sky.

The Death Of Suicide Bombings?

Ronen Bergman, a correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, has an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times where he claims:

Seven years after 9/11, it may well be that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of suicide terrorism and a shift toward advanced technologies that will enable jihadist bombers to carry out attacks and live to fight another day.

Apparently, from an Islamist perspective the very existence of an option for carrying out terrorist attacks that do not require them to give up their lives would render suicide bombings forbidden:

This turn to technology, however, is not devoid of religious aspects: although dying in battle is undisputedly holy, many scholars claim that any intentional taking of one's own life is forbidden, thus outlawing suicide attacks altogether. Even religious rulers who endorse suicide attacks consider them to be a last resort, to be used only when all other means are exhausted.

"Martyrdom operations are legitimate, and they are among the greatest acts of combat for Allah's cause," said Bashir bin Fahd al-Bashir, a Saudi preacher and one of Al Qaeda's most popular religious authorities, in a recent sermon. "But they should not be allowed excessively. They should be allowed strictly on two conditions: 1. The commander is convinced they can definitely inflict serious losses on the enemy. 2. This cannot be achieved otherwise."

The meaning of such dictates is clear: carrying out suicide attacks when there are alternatives that would allow the bomber to survive should be considered "intihar," the ultimate sin of taking one's own life without religious justification.

Bernard Lewis, in The Crisis of Islam, questions what these religious authorities have been saying till now about suicide bombings:

All these different extremist groups sanctify their action through pious references to Islamic texts, notably the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet, and all three claim to represent a truer, purer, and more authentic Islam than that currently practiced by the vast majority of Muslims and endorsed by most though not all of the religious leadership. They are, however, highly selective in their choice and interpretation of sacred texts. (p. 138)

Up until this point, these same authorities who are advocating the use of new technology have been out on a Koranic limb in permitting suicide bombings, according to Lewis:

Those who are killed in the jihad are called martyrs, in Arabic and other Muslim languages shahid...The Arabic term shahid also means "witness" and is usually translated "martyr," but it has a rather different connotation. In Islamic usage the term martyrdom is normally interpreted to mean death in a jihad and reward is eternal bliss, described in some detail in early religious texts. Suicide, by contrast, is a mortal sin and earns eternal damnation, even for those who would otherwise have earned a place in paradise. The classical jurists distinguish clearly between facing certain death at the hands of the enemy and killing oneself by one's own hand. The one leads to heaven, the other to hell. Some recent fundamentalist jurists and others have blurred or even dismissed this distinction, but their view is by no means unanimously accepted. The suicide bomber is thus taking a considerable risk on a theological nicety. (p38-39 emphasis added)

Having now bypassed the issue of suicide, there still remains a question of sharia that these same 'religious authorities' seem to ignore:

Because holy war is an obligation of the faith, it is elaborately regulated in the sharia. Fighters in a jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoner, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a truce, and to honor agreements.

Unfortunately, Lewis does not give a source for where Muslims are enjoined to 'honor agreements'. Pity.

Even assuming the focus turns from suicide bombings to more technologically advanced methods, certain religious issues supposedly remain according to Lewis.

...The medieval jurists and theologians discuss at some length the rules of warfare, including questions such as which weapons are permitted and which are not. There is even some discussion in medieval texts of the lawfulness of missile and chemical warfare, the one relating to mangonels and catapults, the other to poison-tipped arrows and the poisoning of enemy water supplies. On these points there is considerable variation. Some jurists permit, some restrict, some disapprove of the use of these weapons. The stated reason for concern is the indiscriminate casualties that they inflict. [emphasis added]

Of course, these days, the concern of Islamist religious authorities about indiscriminate casualties centers on whether there is enough!

At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point--as far as I am aware--do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders.

Sometimes you have to wonder if Bernard Lewis is reading the same texts that the Islamists are. This supposed theological wrangling by these imams seem to be more just rubber stamping than anything else.

In any case, the fact that Islamist terrorists are moving away from suicide bombings is a two-edged sword according to Bergman:

The good news is that suicide bombing seems to be on the wane. The bad news is that Western forces will almost certainly face a new breed of highly educated Qaeda terrorist.

Unqualified good news is hard to come by in the Middle East.

by Daled Amos

Will Israel's Lax Attitude Towards Her Security Reach The Airports?

This story about Abdur-Rahim Jackson seems to be making the rounds:

A performer with the famed Alvin Ailey dance troupe on Tuesday said he was twice forced to perform steps for Israeli airport security officers to prove his identity before he was permitted to enter the country.

John Podhoretz writes about this, and shares a humorous experience of his own, concluding that:

Everybody who has traveled to Israel more than twice has some kind of story like this. Everyone.

Maybe. I've been to Israel more than twice and have yet to have Israeli security pay any attention to me. But according to the article, if some have their way such stories will be a thing of the past:

The incident was reported in Israel's largest newspaper and on an Israeli television news and interview program. "The security guards should be sent home or (the airport) will become a mental asylum," said Motti Kirshenbaum, a veteran commentator and host of the Channel 10 TV program.

Israel is constantly on the alert for attack because of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and extremist Islamic rejection of the Jewish state's existence. Security is strict at all entry points and inside the country.

Israel is famous for the effectiveness of its airport security. But a key element in its security checks is ethnic profiling. The practice has been criticized by Israeli human rights campaigners as racist because it singles out Arabs for tougher treatment.

At a time when Israel's enemies are becoming more confident and there are indications that Hizbollah is looking to kidnap Israelis abroad, relaxing security is not the way to go. Airport security would be one more area of Israeli prowess to be downsized. Let's face the facts: If Arabs come in for tougher treatment, it may have something to do with the percentage of anti-Israel terrorists who are Arab.

An incident like this is not reason for Israeli security to lose a step.

by Daled Amos

Olmert and Hamas at a Standoff?

Olmert threatens Hamas that if they don't release Gilad Shalit, Israel will take action.
Hamas threatens Israel that if try anything, they will kidnap more soldiers.

David Hazony notes:

That's not much of a threat. Few things would have done more to save Olmert's political viability than the successful rescue of Shalit; it is fair to assume that if the IDF hasn't done it yet, it's because they do not yet have a reliable plan for pulling it off. But more to the point: Few things would help prove Hamas is hurting Israel more than kidnapping more soldiers, and few things have been taken more seriously in the IDF in the last two years than the problem of protecting soldiers from being kidnapped. If Hamas hasn't done it until now, it's probably because (a) they can't, and (b) they have seen how little it gained either them or Hizbullah in 2006. Both Olmert's threat and Hamas' threat seem pretty empty.

Apparently the only difference between Olmert and Hamas is that Hamas will be around longer.
Maybe.

by Daled Amos

Submitted 09/10/08

Council nominations are up at the new Watcher of Weasels.

Waiting for the takeover - The Glittering Eye questions the timing of the takeovers of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and observes that the citizenry is getting hit twice by the bailout.

Beneath the gobbledy-gook, an implied concession about taxes *UPDATED* - Bookworm Room parses a statement by Sen. Obama and concludes that he acknowledges that raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. Is there ever a good time to raise taxes though?

Dems proving that the GOP is really - The Razor's argument is that the Democratic reaction to the Palin nominations has shown that the Republicans ought to change the theme of their campaign "We're going to fight for your right to party." Well maybe not, but that's the gist of it. Republicans are fun again.

The Game Changer - Duty Honor Country - JoshuaPundit writes about how the choice of Gov. Palin has changed the dynamics of the race and gotten Sen. McCain focused on what's important. I especially liked this line:

Even worse, she has the ability to skewer Obama on his own inflated sense of self, and to do it with humor. And it works particularly well when you have a pompous, full-of-himself opponent.

Is the Philly Daily News literally going nuts?? - Colossus of Rhodey.Hube comments on a couple of anti-Palin attacks and deftly shows how stupid the argument are. Maybe Sarah Palin is the real "compassionate" conservative.

Standing At The Crossroads - Identity Politics, Multiculturalism & The Melting Pot (Updated & Bumped) - Wolf Howling identifies the motive behind the leftist attacks on Gov. Palin: fear. Specifically it is a fear of an oppressed group gaining power by being strong and not subservient. Or as he put it:

It is inevitable that one of the two concepts I earlier described - a melting pot of equals or a multicultural morass of victim groups - will gain ascendance in America. I have long felt that we are at a crossroads in our nation for precisely this reason, and that the ramifications of how we decide this issue will be existential.

A Bad political Dad from history - Rhymes with Right makes the historical point that Robert F. Kennedy had children when he ran for president in 1968, and yet no one suggested that he was a bad father at the time.

Fight, Fight, Fight - Cheat Seeking Missiles points to the theme of "fight" from Sen. McCain's acceptance speech. He sees it as a declaration that McCain is declaring himself to be a man of action.

The new Reagan - Hillbilly White Trash quotes from Michael Reagan who says that if anyone currently on the national political scene is the new Reagan, it's Sarah Palin. Furthermore there are other "new Reagans" at lower levels of government.

My own nomination is for An exceptional Choice, in which I link to three different profiles of Sen. McCain and what it shows about the man.

My nominee for the non-council post is Ocean Guy's Bad News for the Press... We're going to see more of this, a devastating look at the media's Palin malpractice.

Read, Enjoy. Be Informed.

watcher's council.

In a poke

There's a lot of commentary on Sen. Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. But lipstick on a pig is an idiom. I don't think that the comment was comparing either McCain or Palin to a pig.

I think that Marc Ambinder has this one correct.

I think the outrage of the McCain campaign is really misplaced.
John Podhoretz notes:

Jen, Obama's remark -- "put a lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig" -- is being treated by the McCain campaign as an attack on Sarah Palin. I'm not sure that's what's going on here. Syntactically, the remark is not about Palin; it's about John McCain. She's the lipstick. He's the pig.

Rhetorically, Barack Obama likened his rival to a pig.

I think he got the first part right; but he's overreaching with the second.

Here's the Weekly Standard:

The McCain campaign has a press conference call in a few minutes to respond to Obama's statement. I'm guessing there's a pretty strong temptation to cry sexism. Hopefully everyone remembers that Palin's RNC speech was so effective not because she was outraged but because she delivered a devastating attack on Obama with a smile on her face and a stiletto in her hand.

Gov. Palin was effective because she presented a strong image. Going and saying "He called my running mate names" does not project strength. Even if Sen. Obama's remarks had clearly compared either Palin or McCain to a pig responding directly to it wasn't the correct approach.

McCain had a much bigger (and better) fish to fry yesterday. It was the Washington Post's front page "investigation" into Gov. Palin's use of per-diem reimbursements. This would have been an excellent approach keeping with the current themes of the campaign.

"The media has been demanding that the campaign be a campaign of issues. But this morning a major American newspaper featured a major story about Gov. Palin's term as governor of Alaska. Instead of showing anything substantively wrong with her activities, it showed that she followed the law. But given that the story was headlined with words to suggest scandal, one can only conclude that this paper was looking for ethical lapses on the part of Gov. Palin, and found none.

We have a campaign going for the President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world. I'm disappointed that this paper chose not to illuminate the policy differences between me and my opponent Sen. Obama. Instead it chose to play a game of "gotcha," so much a part of the old politics.

Gov. Palin and I are for real change unfortunately a good deal of Washington is not. And it's not only politicians who seem interested in keeping the status quo."

A statement like that would have put the press further on the defensive. The public already views the media as biased and a statement like the one outlined above would have served to reinforce that perception. Explicitly making Palin into a victim was a bad idea.

Jennifer Rubin looked at Sen. Obama's complete statement and concludes:

John, I think the passage, read in its entirely, bespeaks panic and anger.

While I don't agree with her about the personalization of his opponents, if she's right that Sen. Obama is showing signs of panic, it would be better for McCain to let him melt down himself instead of changing the narrative about Gov. Palin.

No spin times?

via Instapundit

The NYT technology blog reports on a new product called Spin Spotter that is designed to detect bias in the media.

SpinSpotter, a new start-up, could send shivers across many a newsroom. The Web tool, which went live Monday at the DEMO technology conference in San Diego, scans news stories for signs of spin.

Users download Spinoculars, a toolbar that sits atop the browser and lets readers know if the story they are reading has any phrases or words that indicate bias. (It works only in Firefox now and will work in Internet Explorer in a couple weeks.) It highlights those phrases in a big red box, and readers can click to find out what exactly SpinSpotter found wrong with the phrase.

SpinSpotter founder and chief creative officer, Todd Herman, put it a different way: "Our mission is to make news media transparent."

Here's how it works.

The Spinoculars find spin in three ways, said Mr. Herman. First, it uses an algorithm to seek out phrases that violate six transgressions that the company's journalism advisory board came up with based on the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. They are personal voice, passive voice, a biased source, disregarded context, selective disclosure and lack of balance. Soon SpinSpotter will add a feature that will alert readers if a story uses suspiciously similar language to a press release.

It sounds like a specialized grammar checker. But here's the part I find amazing:

I decided to try out SpinSpotter, with the trepidation only a journalist would feel. Searching for spin is one of the country's favorite pastimes, especially this political season, and The New York Times fields a fair amount of that criticism. Would big red boxes cover the Web site?

First, I clicked on a bunch of my recent stories. All clear. No spin. I adjusted the spin level down to 1 (5 grants the highest tolerance for spin, 1 the lowest.) Still no spin. Relieved, I searched some other stories on NYTimes.com. No spin. I tried another news site. Still no spin.

Yikes, it checked the Times and couldn't find any spin?

That is partly because SpinSpotter has started out with very few phrases in its database of spin, said Mr. Herman. "Referring to something as spin is a pretty serious thing," he said. "We don't want to go through vandalizing properties. We would like to do this responsibly." The company will watch how users react to the red flags that its algorithm catches and and decide how vigilant to be, and as users report their own spin sightings, the spin database will gradually fill up with user entries. SpinSpotter acknowledges at the top of its Web site that it is "very beta."

That would explain things.

Another problem that SpinSpotter has is that it can't catch spin that is displayed by which stories are chosen to report on.

Of course if there's a need to detect spin in news stories, that's what we have blogs for.

Obama: Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?

Jennifer Rubin makes (another) interesting point: experience-poor Obama has touted his campaign as proof of his executive abilities:

"Well,
my understanding is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think,
50 employees. We've got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is
maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three
times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage
large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last
couple of years," Obama said.

Don't look now, but the Obama campaign that till now has been noted by record-breaking fund raising, is suddenly running dry--so bad that even The New York Times is mentioning it:

After
months of record-breaking fund-raising, a new sense of urgency in
Senator Barack Obama's fund-raising team is palpable as the full weight
of the campaign's decision to bypass public financing for the general
election is suddenly upon it.Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a
finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois
members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts
"extremely anemic."

...But the campaign is struggling to meet
ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It
collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton's donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain,
unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely
on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

As Ed Morissey points out:

Unfortunately, by declining public financing (and reneging on his
campaign pledge), Obama turned down $84 million, which he could have
received without spending money on fundraising.  It's difficult to see
how this decision benefited Obama, if the entire upside now is that
Obama will raise slightly less for himself while the DNC continues
underperforming against the RNC.

Notes Rubin:

Hmm.
So it must be fair then to look at his campaign's budgetary situation --
a bloated operation with unrealistic revnue projections -- and conclude
this is a fair test of his executive skills, right? At the very least,
his most significant financial decision -- to break his pledge on public
financing -- has proven to be problematic and now forces him to devote
precious time to scrambling for dollars. I suspect we won't hear quite
as much bragging about his finely tuned campaign in the days and weeks
ahead.

Jonah Goldberg comments on how Obama can still be so desperate for cash considering how much he has raised so far:

I was talking to a political mover-and-shaker the other day and one
point he said hadn't gotten enough attention from handicappers is the
Obama campaign's burn-rate. He raises piles of money, but he spends it
very, very fast in part because he has such a huge paid-staff. I don't
want to get the numbers wrong, but it would be interesting to know how
cost-effective his campaign organization is considering how Obama
himself says that running a presidential campaign is his foremost
executive experience and one of his major qualifications for being
president.

Campaign problems, being reduced to personally going
after Palin, losing the 'bounce' from the convention--what a difference
from the self-assured and unstoppable juggernaut from a few months ago.

Hot Air also covers this, with the following picture and caption:

Will flip-flop for food.

Is there a hint of desperation in the air?


UPDATE: Discarded Lies points out: Life imitates The Onion again:

Black Guy Asks Nation For Change

March 19, 2008 

CHICAGO--According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.

"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you--the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation--only you can deliver this change."

It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.

"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"

Read the whole thing.

by Daled Amos

UPDATE: Tracked by Buzztracker.

Slackman flacks for troofers

In his Memo from Cairo today, the NYT's Michael Slackman writes about Egyptian attitudes towards 9/11.

"Look, I don't believe what your governments and press say. It just can't be true," said Ahmed Issab, 26, a Syrian engineer who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates. "Why would they tell the truth? I think the U.S. organized this so that they had an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil."

It is easy for Americans to dismiss such thinking as bizarre. But that would miss a point that people in this part of the world think Western leaders, especially in Washington, need to understand: That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism -- the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.

The premise of the article is that the United States hasn't done a sufficient job of making its case to the Muslim world. But that ignores that the United States isn't alone in this battle for hearts and minds.

Slackman then lectures:

Americans might better understand the region, experts here said, if they simply listen to what people are saying -- and try to understand why -- rather than taking offense. The broad view here is that even before Sept. 11, the United States was not a fair broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that it then capitalized on the attacks to buttress Israel and undermine the Muslim Arab world.

Slackman is doing the talking here. "Experts" provide him with suitable cover to claim that this isn't his own opinion. But this is a common device in "journalism." If you want to say something, there's always an "expert" who'll say the same thing and "confirm" that you're correct.

Perhaps, though, there are other forces. From a State Department blog:

Conspiracy thinking has grown, especially since the September 11 attacks, says Mohamed Abdel Salam, Head of the Regional Security and Arms Control Program at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Egypt. His article, "The Modes of Arab Conspiracy Theories," says "markedly non-scientific modes of thought prevail throughout the Arab world," one form being conspiracy theories.

My Right Word makes a similar observation (the one quoted above comes from an Arab source):

But that's what I and many others have been sounding out for years (okay, in my case, decades). There is something called a mindset. There is nothing racist in this. It is a fact. And the MiddleEast/Arab mindset is such that logic and rationality play much less a role in political education and wisdom than in other regions.

he also refers to Bernard Lewis:

Well, I can't subscribe to it since the terrorists themselves claim to be acting in the name of Islam. There was one Muslim leader who said, not long ago, that it is wrong to speak about Muslim terrorism, because if a man commits an act of terrorism, he's not a Muslim. That's very nice, but that could also be interpreted as meaning that if a Muslim commits it, it doesn't count as terrorism.

When a large part of the Muslim world was under foreign rule, then you might say that terrorism was a result of imperialism, of imperial rule and occupation. But at the present time, almost the whole of the Muslim world has achieved its independence. They can no longer blame others for what goes wrong. They have to confront the realities of their own lives at home. A few places remain disputed, like Chechnya and Israel and some others, but these are relatively minor if you're talking about the Islamic world as a whole.

Lewis also points out that the entrenched tyrants of the Muslim world have a reason to resent the invasion of Iraq: the current Iraqi government is an imperfectly functioning democracy. If the government in Iraq is successful, it will signal to the rest of the Arab/Muslim world that change is possible. Not that Lewis expects quick political change, but he believes it possible over the long term.

Slackman also doesn't acknowledge the role the official (and unofficial) media in the Arab world plays in perpetuating these myths.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories that are so prevalent in the Arab world result not from a rational assessment of the situation. (Amazingly Slackman's article never mentions that Egypt is the second largest recipient of American aid; that the United States and the West, continually provide the Palestinians with much more money than the Arab/Muslim world does.)

The Arab world thinks its grievances are real. But instead of shining a light on reality and asking why these grievances persist in resistance to fact and reason, Slackman lectures the West that we ought to understand and accommodate the mindset.

Opinion Dominion writes about the 9/11 "truthers":

In short, they encourage conspiracy belief in the Middle East, and that cannot possibly help achieve peace there.

Unfortunately articles like Slackman's effectively legitimize and entrench these beliefs, making them even harder to dispel. So that's how the New York Times celebrates the 7th anniversary of 9/11, by making the ideology that led to the terror more sympathetic to its Western audience.

UPDATE: More at Buzztracker.

Crossposted on Yourish.

The bounce

I'd been worried that McCain kept on keeping close to Obama, but never really got into the lead. Now, finally, the polling numbers have him in the lead, having changed the race dramatically over the course of the RNC.

Still Gallup shows historic numbers about "bounces," getting the bigger bounce does not guarantee victory in November. (scroll down)

(h/t Rubicon 3)

And it appears that the Palin pick has had the desired effect on one demographic group. (More from Meryl)

However Instapundit warns:

The Dems built a cult around Barack Obama. It energized some folks, but it ultimately backfired. Republicans might want to restrain themselves just a bit, here.

Not so swift boating

Richard Cohen argues that Sen. Obama is being Swift Boated:

What Obama does not understand is that he is being Swift-boated. The term does not apply to a mere smear. It is bolder, more outrageous than that. It means going straight at your opponent's strength and maligning it. This is what was done in 2004 to John Kerry, who had commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam. Kerry had won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star and emerged from the war a certified hero. It was that record that his opponents attacked, a tactic Kerry thought so ludicrous that he at first ignored it. The record shows that he lost the election.

Let's see, a news organization faked documents to show President Bush pulled strings to be kept stateside during the Viet Nam War, but Sen. Kerry lost because of Swift Boating?

There were three aspects to what happened with Sen. Kerry.

1) A number of other soldiers who were witnessed the events, said that the awards did not match what they witnessed. Admittedly, this is the weakest part of the case, as a number of others said that the events occurred as described.

2) When Kerry came back to the States he, himself, denigrated his own heroism, claiming that he threw his medals away and testifying that his fellow soldiers committed atrocities.

3) Kerry himself made a claim that clearly wasn't true and said that it was "seared" into his memroy.

If 2 and 3 were not true, I suspect that Kerry would have been successful in fighting off 1. But he inflicted great harm on his own credibility.

Then Cohen complains:

Now Obama's opponents are going straight for his strength. At least twice at the GOP convention, speakers mocked Obama's service as a community organizer. "He worked as a community organizer," Rudy Giuliani said. "He immersed himself in Chicago machine politics."

And then Palin herself followed up with one of her aw-shucks low blows: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

It seems to me that Giuliani's characterization, if ungenerous, is accurate. And however upset Cohen is that Palin struck back at community organizing, remember it was a response to the Obama campaign's denigrating her service as governor. The first statement about Palin coming from the campaign referred to her only as a mayor of a small city. And though Sen. Obama later distanced himself from the remark, in a later interview he too left out any reference to the fact that she is currently Governor of Alaska.

I'd recommend that Cohen read yesterday's editorial in his own newspaper of how Sen. Palin took on "Big Oil" and got a better deal for the citizens of Alaska.
(h/t memeorandum)

And Cohen might want to compare that record to that of Sen. Obama as a community organizer as portrayed by James Taranto yesterday.

It is both funny and scary that one of America's major political parties would offer this record of sheer futility as its nominee's chief qualification to be president of the United States. Even more striking, though, is how alien the world in which Obama operated was by comparison with the world in which normal Americans live.

Reader, when your toilet breaks, do you wait around for some Ivy League hotshot to show up and organize a meeting so that you can use your collective strength to wring concessions from the powers that be?

Or do you call a plumber?

As a "community organizer," Obama toiled within a subculture of such abject dependency that even home repairs were "social services," provided by government (or, in Obama's Chicago, not provided). It was an utterly bizarre intersection between the cultural elite and the underclass. By Judis's account, Obama's Columbia degree was useless. He would have been more helpful if he'd gone to vocational school instead.

(Byron York doesn't portray Obama's efforts as being futile. Still he doesn't seem impressed either.)

Cohen may pretend that the Republicans are hitting low. Still I don't think it comes anywhere near the Democrats and their media allies have in dismissing Palin's accomplishments as governor.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin writes (about the attitude betrayed by the Cohen op-ed):

All of this lays out fairly clearly what has gotten under the skin of the Democrats: Palin has stolen the excitement, McCain has escaped the damaged GOP brand, and Obama hasn't a clue how to respond. They are right about all of that. Perhaps the official Obama camp as opposed to its pundit supporters has a better grip on what's going on. Maybe it has a clever way to diffuse the Palin bubble and to scuff up McCain's newly refurbished image as a maverick reformer. Maybe Obama has come up with a formula for looking tough but not angry. But if they've figured all that out, when do you think they'll show us? They sure haven't give us any hint. And their fans sure are getting nervous.

Protein Wisdom agrees that Gov. Palin's record far outshines Sen. Obama's:

She's the reformist Governor of Alaska, and her legislative bona fides far outstrip anything your stripling Presidential candidate can point to. She has a record of going up against "entrenched interests," such as the corrupt GOP establishment and the eeeeeeeeeeevil oil companies. Baracky? He's never stood up to anything in his life, but, yeah, he's got that smug going for him.

(via memeorandum)

UPDATE II: more at Buzztracker including Rhymes with Right:

But somehow Cohen can't find it in him to comment on the scores of false attacks against Sarah Palin and her family.

It is almost as if he lives in an alternate reality.

When you're running for office the whole world is jewish

It was ironic to see a column from Jonathan Tobin yesterday asserting:

Unlike 2004, when just about everyone running for president except George W. Bush was producing a Jewish relative of some sort, the two nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama, aren't pretending to be members of the tribe.

Actually my cousin, John Kerry, really did descend from a Jewish family. It was his paternal grandfather who converted to Christianity. (Now apparently he isn't my cousin anymore, as his claim that he was descended from the Maharal is doubtful.)

Anyway it turns out that Michelle Obama has Jewish first cousin. Not just Jewish, but a Rabbi.

Michelle Obama, wife of the Democratic presidential nominee, is a first cousin once removed of Rabbi Capers Funnye, spiritual leader of a mostly black synagogue on Chicago's South Side. Funnye's mother, Verdelle Robinson Funnye, and Michelle Obama's paternal grandfather, Frasier Robinson Jr., were brother and sister.

Funnye (pronounced fuh-NAY) is the chief rabbi of the Beth Shalom B'nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in southwest Chicago. He is well known in Jewish circles for acting as a bridge between mainstream Jewry and the much smaller, and largely separate, world of black Jewish congregations, sometimes known as black Hebrews, or Israelites. He has often urged the larger Jewish community to be more accepting of Jews who are not white.

(h/t the Spine)

Thanks to my blogging pals My Right Word, Rubicon3 and Oyvay Blog for posting about this. What can I say, Funnye you don't look Jewish.

Yes it's a pretty universal reaction.

UPDATE: Thanks to Debbie Schlussel for the kind mention.

Crossposted on Pillage Idiot.

Scientific progress goes ghostbusters

You might remember, a few weeks ago there was news about the "Real Genius" weapon. Well now different scientific news recalls another movie.

CERN - the Conseil Européenne pour la Recherche Nucleaire - the same organization where the World Wide Web was born, is about to start testing the Large Hadron Collider in an effort to recreate conditions after the Big Bang.

However there are those who fear that the experiment could destroy the world and have filed lawsuits to prevent the activation of the device.

The device is designed to replicate conditions that existed just a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and its creators hope it will unlock the secrets of how the universe began.

However, opponents fear the machine, which will smash pieces of atoms together at high speed and generate temperatures of more than a trillion degrees centigrade, may create a mini-black hole that could tear the earth apart.

Does this remind anyone of this dialogue from Ghostbusters?

Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

So if you're reading this next week, the experiment has been so far successful. But if not, apparently the black holes were a bigger problem than the researchers anticipated, but at least we were first with the news.

h/t Secular Blasphemy, who lives in Norway, which is a lot closer to the collider, so if there are any problems maybe he could send out a warning e-mail.

UPDATE via Instapundit: An item about debunking the doomsday scenarios.

Several rounds of scientific studies, considering increasingly outlandish scenarios, have ruled out the black-hole threat. The evidence shows that the collider is absolutely safe, and poses no chance of cosmic catastrophe. Nevertheless, the hysteria continues: Part of the reason for that is that scientists say it's conceivable that a less threatening breed of subatomic black holes could be created. But another factor is that there's so much science-fiction appeal to the tale of the black hole that ate the earth.

But this is also fascinating:

Speaking of time travel, Cramer has been in the midst of a real-life experiment in retrocausality - a kind of backward flow of information from the future to the past. I first wrote about this experiment almost two years ago, and Cramer recently told me that he's still trying to get the apparatus to work. Perhaps what Stephen Hawking said is true: Nature abhors a time machine.

And if Cramer's successful he'll write an article about it last week!

UPDATE II: Stephen Hawking's is hoping for the black holes:

Dr. Hawking will be one of the many physicists watching in hopes of greeting answers to some of physics' biggest questions when experimental data starts to stream from the collider. But he also has a dog in this fight. His 1974 theory on black holes could be experimentally proven -- if the collider succeeds in creating black holes in the first place.

"If the L.H.C. were to produce little black holes, I don't think there's any doubt I would get a Nobel prize, if they showed the properties I predict," Dr. Hawking told BBC Radio today. "However, I think the probability that the L.H.C. has enough energy to create black holes is less than 1 percent, so I'm not holding my breath."

At least they'll be safe black holes.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Obama, biden and israel

Daled Amos concludes why he doesn't trust Sen. Biden on Israel:

Against this background of saying one thing but doing another--while I appreciate what Biden says about Israel, I am concerned that once he is in a different position, one where he will have input on policy and no longer need to score points with his constituency by associating himself with particular Senate bills, Biden will show a different agenda. Under those circumstances, I just don't trust Biden to keep his promises to Israel.

And indeed a recent statement of his:

It is quite a swipe at the organized Jewish community that the Jerusalem Post is reporting Senator Biden has launched against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "I take a backseat to no one -- including Aipac -- when it comes to supporting Israel," the Post quotes the Delaware Democrat just chosen as Senator Obama's running mate as saying. "They don't speak for the entire Jewish community. There are other organizations that are just as strong and consequential," he said.
"Aipac does not speak for the State of Israel."

... raised questions at the NY Sun:

Well, it is true that Aipac does not speak for the state of Israel; it is not a foreign agent. But Aipac is the formal voice of the pro-Israel lobby in America, and through its governance structure, represents the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that is the umbrella group for the Jewish community in this country. Aipac has not publicly criticized Mr. Biden, though it did take different stances than he did on some Iran-related legislation. Aipac has described Mr. Biden as pro-Israel, a description whose accuracy we do not dispute.

If Mr. Biden, though, really thinks there are other American Jewish organizations that are as strong or as consequential as Aipac when it comes to the America-Israel relationship it sure will be illuminating to see him name them. If he has in mind dovish groups such as the Israel Policy Forum or the J Street Project, Mr. Biden is only going to hurt the Obama ticket with that portion of the Jewish vote that is actually up for grabs in this election.

Jennifer Rubin characterizes Biden's statement as

It is further evidence of poor temperament, something that no amount of study can solve. Putting aside the merits of his dispute with AIPAC, the tone and the fact that he is in a public spat with a key representative group from a key constituency says something about his fitness for high office. His mouth and penchant for verbosity are only part of the Biden problem. He is incapable of behaving with restraint, modesty and discretion -- the very qualities you expect in a leader in high office.

But I think Rubin and the Sun are missing something here. I don't believe that Biden's statement is out of line with Sen. Obama's views at all or reflective of a problem with his tempermant. Keep in mind that Sen. Obama said:

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," the Illinois senator and contender for the Democratic presidential nominee told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Sunday. "If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress."

Substitute AIPAC for Likud and the statements sound very similar. And indeed there's a school of thought on the Middle East that AIPAC is representative of the Likud. (It's actually, usually representative of whatever party is in power in Israel.)

Or consider that J-Street an organization that would seem to be in line with Biden's statement, J-Street is funded by Alan Solomont, one of Sen. Obama's main fundraisers.

Or consider that the group of Republicans for Obama have a record of being anti-Israel.

This morning, former Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Leach, former Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, and prominent lawyer and former White House intelligence advisor Rita E. Hauser will host a conference call to endorse Senator Barack Obama and announce the formation of Republicans for Obama.

The theme continues: these Republicans -- with the exception of Jim Leach -- also are very cool towards the American-Israel relationship.

I don't think that Sen. Biden's remarks about AIPAC can be construed as anything other than a sign that a President Obama, would take a more adversarial approach to Israel than the previous two administrations.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Why I Don't Trust Senator Joe Biden When It Comes To Israel (Updated)

First of all, there is no indication that all of this "experience" of Senator Joe Biden has translated into a real understanding of foreign affairs. Actually, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, that is exactly what someone claimed:

In fact, decade after decade and on important issue after important issue, Mr. Biden's judgment has been deeply flawed.

In the 1970s, Mr. Biden opposed giving aid to the South Vietnamese government in its war against the North. Congress's cut-off of funds contributed to the fall of an American ally, helped communism advance, and led to mass death throughout the region. Mr. Biden also advocated defense cuts so massive that both Edmund Muskie and Walter Mondale, both leading liberal Democrats at the time, opposed them.

In the early 1980s, the U.S. was engaged in a debate over funding the Contras, a group of Nicaraguan freedom fighters attempting to overthrow the Communist regime of Daniel Ortega. Mr. Biden was a leading opponent of President Ronald Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras. He also opposed Reagan's efforts to send military assistance to the pro-American government in El Salvador, which at the time was battling the FMLN, a Soviet-supported Marxist group.

Throughout his career, Mr. Biden has consistently opposed modernization of our strategic nuclear forces. He was a fierce opponent of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Mr. Biden voted against funding SDI, saying, "The president's continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft." Mr. Biden has remained a consistent critic of missile defense and even opposed the U.S. dropping out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the co-signatory to the ABM Treaty) and the end of the Cold War.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and, we later learned, was much closer to attaining a nuclear weapon than we had believed. President George H.W. Bush sought war authorization from Congress. Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"

In 2006, after having voted three years earlier to authorize President George W. Bush's war to liberate Iraq, Mr. Biden argued for the partition of Iraq, which would have led to its crack-up. Then in 2007, Mr. Biden opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, calling it a "tragic mistake." It turned out to be quite the opposite. Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever.

On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.

Now you can argue that in your opinion Biden was right on some, or even all, of these issues. But considering the general theme of Biden's stands on these issues against helping allies and cutting back on defense in general, I just wonder why Biden claims to feel differently about Israel--and why we should believe him?

Secondly is the fact is that Joe Biden has not always followed up on his promises. Joe Biden has treated Supreme Court nominees pretty poorly--which is his right, I suppose. But that was after he specifically promised those nominees that he would treat them fairly.

Ann Althouse provides a few examples.

She quotes Tony Mauro who writes:

[Clarence Thomas] has less than fond memories of his treatment by Biden, who chaired his stormy 1991 hearing. In his 2007 memoir "My Grandfather's Son," Thomas recalls that Biden initially kept Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment against Thomas private. Before the firestorm began, Biden called him at home and said, "Judge, I know you don't believe me," but if the allegations come up, "I will be your biggest defender." Wrote Thomas, "He was right about one thing. I didn't believe him."

Althouse notes that Senator Biden did something similar during the hearings of another nominee:

There's this description, from Elisabeth Bumiller, of Biden at Day 2 of the Alito hearings:

"I understand, Judge, I am the only one standing between you and lunch, so I'll try to make this painless," he began, with some promise.

Mr. Biden then dived into a soliloquy on Judge Alito's failure to recuse himself from cases involving the Vanguard mutual fund company, which managed the judge's investments. After 2 minutes 50 seconds - short for the senator - Mr. Biden did appear to veer toward a question, but abandoned it to cite Judge Alito's membership in a conservative Princeton alumni group. Mr. Biden discoursed on that for a moment, then interrupted himself with an aside about his son who "ended up going to that other university, the University of Pennsylvania."

Judge Alito, who had been sitting without expression through Mr. Biden's musings, interrupted the senator midword, got out three sentences, then settled in for nearly 26 minutes more of Mr. Biden, with the senator doing most of the talking. With less than a minute to spare, Mr. Biden concluded, thanked Judge Alito for "being responsive," then said to Mr. Specter that "I want to note that for maybe the first time in history, Biden is 40 seconds under his time."

On a different note is the following from TimesOnline on JFK aide Ted Sorensen, who writes about his nomination by Jimmy Carter to be Director of the CIA:

Sorensen was impressed with Senator Inouye, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But he didn't warm to all the committee members:

I never lost my admiration for Inouye.

On the other hand, the prize for political hypocrisy in a town noted for political hypocrisy went to Joe Biden. On my first courtesy call to his office, he could not have been more enthusiastic, supportive, and gracious, calling me "the best appointment Carter has made!"

At the opening of the hearing, he changed both his tune and his tone, stating: "Quite honestly, I'm not sure whether or not Mr Sorenson could be indicted or convicted under the espionage statutes.......whether Mr Sorenson intentionally took advantage of ambiguities in the law or carelessly ignored the law."

After listening to my statement of defense and withdrawal, he said: "Ted, you are one of the classiest men I have ever run across in my whole life."

Against this background of saying one thing but doing another--while I appreciate what Biden says about Israel, I am concerned that once he is in a different position, one where he will have input on policy and no longer need to score points with his constituency by associating himself with particular Senate bills, Biden will show a different agenda. Under those circumstances, I just don't trust Biden to keep his promises to Israel.

UPDATE: This unreliability of Biden's is exemplified by his recent comments on AIPAC:

"This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do," said the Democratic vice presidential candidate. "I have faith in the democracy of Israel. They will arrive at the right decision that they view as being in their own interests."

That said, Biden added, the Bush administration could have done much more on the diplomatic front to help avert the potential need for military action. He also accused the White House of not doing enough to promote Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and faulted it for reportedly ordering Jerusalem not to engage in talks with Syria. Even as he pledged to respect Israel's decisions on peace and security, Biden vigorously defended his record of occasionally breaking ranks with the pro-Israel lobby.

"AIPAC does not speak for the entire American Jewish community," Biden said. "There are other organizations as strong and as consequential"
Despite any occasional claims to the contrary, AIPAC does not speak for Israel, the longtime Delaware senator added. Biden made a point of stressing that he and the organization agreed on the fundamentals.

So:
o Biden has faith in Israel to make their own decisions, yet thinks the US should have done more (notice there is no condemnation of Condoleezza's pressure on Israel to make concessions)

o Biden claims he will respect Israel's decisions on her own peace and security, but makes an issue of picking a fight with AIPAC, and claims there are other organizations just as "strong" and "consequential".

On this second point, Rosner writes:

Biden was mostly wrong: AIPAC doesn't technically speak for Israel, but its positions usually reflect the Israeli position better than the positions held by other Jewish organizations. He was right in saying that AIPAC does not speak for "the entire Jewish community" (as if such a thing were even possible), but strangely followed the line of argument that has enjoyed recent popularity among the leaders of newly established, smaller, and less-significant Jewish organizations.

Is Biden thinking of J Street? Check out James Kirchick, who demonstrates that J Street is not as mainstream as they want people to think, nor is AIPAC as outside the mainstream as J Street claims and Biden apparently believes.

(I thought of the additional material while driving. Now I see that Soccer Dad has also addressed Biden's comment on AIPAC and the broader implications)

by Daled Amos

The palestinian catch 22

Time after time the Palestinians try to evade responsibility for terrorism. Now they've been nailed in court and they're still trying to evade justice:

A federal judge awarded the family a default judgment of $192.7 million in damages after the P.L.O. and the Palestinian Authority refused to defend the suit on the merits.

But now the Palestinians, holding themselves out as a partner in the Middle East peace process, have changed lawyers, and asked the judge for a second chance. The judge, Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in Manhattan, has agreed to set aside the judgment and give them that chance.

But there's a catch. He is requiring the Palestinians to post a bond of $192.7 million so that if they lose again, the damages would be paid.

So Abbas and Fayyad have sworn that they can't afford to pay the judgment. But this leads to another problem:

Another expert, Beth Van Schaack, an associate law professor at Santa Clara University, said that the legal process, if the Palestinians do participate fully, could allow an inquiry into Palestinian finances, and whether money went to support terrorism.

"The Abbas administration has gotten themselves in a little bit of a bind," Professor Van Schaack said. "If they are claiming, 'We can't put up the bond because we don't have the money,' " she said, "that opens the door to do some level of discovery about money."

As Elder of Ziyon who has done more reporting on the subject than the NYT notes, the PA has been spending most of its budget in Gaza, effectively using those funds to help Hamas. (And yes, unfortunately, this is going on with Israel's acquiescence.)

No wonder, then, that the attorney for the plaintiffs, David Strachman says:

Mr. Strachman argued in court papers that the descriptions of Palestinian finances had been "woefully incomplete and frankly disingenuous."

"The issue is: What assets do they have?" he told the court in July.

And where are they spending them?

UPDATE: I'd forgotten this item from two months ago:

The international community has paid out nearly a billion dollars in direct aid to the Palestinians in six months, officials of the International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State said here late Monday, while hitting out at Israeli restrictions on movement by Palestinians.

The Palestinians are receiving plenty of aid. The main question is what they're doing with it.

UPDATE II: The Palestinians' representative (replacing Ramsey Clark) is Richard Hibey. My Right Word notes that Hibey's been in the news before.

Crossposted on Yourish.

In media's resentment

Brian Carney writes in the WSJ:

Meanwhile, 51% of those surveyed thought the press was "trying to hurt" Mrs. Palin with its coverage.

Perhaps most troubling for the press corps, though, was this finding: "55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations."

No doubt that' the reason the editors of the Washington Post keep on harping on campaign donations. They hope the the public won't scrutinize them too closely.

(via memeorandum)

Read Ocean Guy's devastating attack on the media "cocoon"

Journalists are stuck on stupid and almost completely unable to realize that alternative news sources are accessible to a much larger percentage of the general public. And another fact that journalists and editors are seemingly oblivious to, is that the percentage of the general public that is routinely well INFORMED, is informed because they are using a wide variety of news sources. No longer are we only reading the NYT and Washington Post and paying attention to the network news.

For at least a decade, the most informed segment of our population, the neighborhood and office opinion leaders, have been using that entire spectrum of news sources to inform ourselves. We still read the "old media" but... as news junkies and internauts, we have a vast array of additional news sources right at our fingertips. The distributed intelligence and collective experience of the blogosphere alone is awesome, but blogs are only a small portion of the total information available. Meanwhile, Journalists have responded to this change in news distribution by covering their ears and eyes and loudly singing, "LaLa Lalala, LaLa Lalala..." in a futile attempt to ignore their pesky critical audience.

And as if you need proof the Counterterrorism blog reports:

I see one after another of the mainstream media outlets which have made important contributions to the factual underpinnings of the counter-terrorism effort dropping off that beat. Editors in the print media are shifting terrorism experts on their staffs towards investigations of political candidates. At least three such reporters at three major papers are now chasing Sarah Palin stories (I haven't had time to chase down everybody in "the business").

The CT blog notes that it is especially unfortunate that these specialists are being moved away from the counterterrorism beat at the same time that the Bush administration is acting ever more aggressively against terror organizations as its term approaches the end.

This leads Instapundit to note wryly:

SHIFTING RESOURCES TO FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY

Crossposted on Yourish.

Council speak 09/07/08

The council has spoken and Gov. Palin wins a daily double!.

On the councils side the (unsurprising) winner was Wolf Howling's Palin in comparison. I wonder, would the McCain people ever take to circulating this on their own? The runner up was JoshuaPundit's Endgame in Iraq, in which he ponders the gains in Iraq as well as the future challenges.

On the non-council side, the winning entry was the Anchoress's Obama, Palin, McCain and generosity. She links to an important Nat Hentoff column about Palin from a few months ago.
Plus there were three Runners-up, Outside the Beltway's critique of Sen. Obama's acceptance speech; my submission Meryl Yourish's Women and Sarah Palin and Elder of Ziyon's wicked Rachel Corrie video..

Congratulations to all the winners.

watcher's council.

Juggling carnivals 09/07/08

Incoming Carnivals

The 181st edition of Haveil Havalim, the Jewish/Israel blogging carnival is up at Tzipiyah. And if you're interested in Jewish blogging you can contribute to Haveil Havalim, J-Pix or the Kosher Cooking Carnival right now! (The upcoming editions of the first two are scheduled to be hosted by Batya, the first lady of the Jewish blogging COMMUNITY (She also, BTW, runs KCC.)

When you see a reference to Songun, you realize that it must have been a post by JudeoPundit (who follows the Iranian and North Korean media so you don't have to) which was featured at the latest Carnival of the Insanities. A few weeks after getting the top spot at the CotI, Wolf Howling gets second mention. Other featured posters include Yid With Lid, Sissy Willis, Simply Jews, Patterico Pontifications (on the missed modifier) and Israel Matzav, who, like me, also blogged about the Imad Mughniyeh museum.

And blast, I forgot to submit, but the 41st carnival of Maryland is up at ROT'US.

blog carnivals.

Heart-less

The other night while watching the Republican convention, I heard some familiar music. It was "Barracuda" by Heart. Then I realized Sarah Palin used to be known as Sarah "Barracuda" when she played basketball. (In her pre-pit bull days.)

LGF noted that the Wilson sisters (Heart) were none too pleased with their use of the song.

Snapped Shot figured that the RNC had money to burn to defend itself against copyright claims.

What's Fair use? figures that the use of "Barracuda" may indeed be fair use.

Beldar notes that Heart is pretty lax in enforcing their copyright and finally, that the Republicans claim that they obtained the necessary licenses.

Volokh six months ago, though, wrote that political events may indeed be covered (without any further licensing.)

However, precisely because of this many venues -- stadiums, convention centers, and the like -- have so-called "blanket licenses" via ASCAP and BMI that license the performance of all the works in ASCAP's and BMI's very large catalogs. It's been a long time since I've looked at a sample license, but I doubt there's any exclusion for political events. The performance of the song might thus have been authorized by the copyright owners (even if on reflection they might be annoyed by this particular use). I take it that the campaign could get such a license itself as well, to allow the song to be played in places that don't have their own blanket licenses (though I can't be sure, since that's a matter of ASCAP and BMI contractual licensing practices, not of formal copyright law).

Still, at the end Volokh writes:

I don't think there's an ethical problem with the campaign's using an objecting author's song, if the use isn't infringing. Nor is there an ethical problem with the author's asking that they not use the song, even if the use isn't infringing. The main question (once the legal issues are set aside) is purely political, not ethical.

So assuming that the Republicans did as they said and obtained the necessary licenses or were covered by a blanket license at the Xcel Center, all the Wilson sisters were doing was saying, "We don't like your politics." That seems to be the tone of their statement.

So they don't like it. But why antagonize them.

The Razor offers an option.

Jann tends to take things personally. He's kept the likes of Rush and Kiss out of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame because he dislikes their music.

Yes, Kiss. My guess is that these guys may not be as politically liberal as other rockers. Gene Simmons of Kiss isn't exactly conservative, but he's libertarian. He might be more willing to let the GOP license his music without complaining. Why "Doctor Love?"

"Even though I'm full of sin."

Maybe not for the Republicans.

But then there's a famous political philosopher, Vincent Furnier, who thinks that entertainers who get too serious about politics are fools.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Actually, Vincent Furnier is the real name of Alice Cooper. Hey that's an idea, instead of playing songs by liberal artist, play something by Alice Cooper. Say "Elected."

And if I am elected
I promise the formation of a new party
A third party, the Wild Party!
I know we have problems,
We got problems right here in Central City,
We have problems on the North, South, East and West,
New York City, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago,
Everybody has problems,
And personally, I don't care.

Maybe that's not the ticket either.

An exceptional choice

Another National Journal poll: What should John McCain focus on in his acceptance speech?

I was in the minority when I wrote that he should play the Commander in chief card:

If Sen. McCain is to follow up on the theme of the convention "Putting Country First" - so perfectly enunciated by Sen. Thompson - he can best do that as Commander in Chief. It is a role he has prepared for in different capacities over the past four decades. He may reassure the country that he's aware of their anxieties or show how he'd depart from current policies, but those will be secondary to his main point.

I don't think I was that far off, he did link his military service to his ambition to lead and change the country.

Regardless, I think I owe my readers an explanation why I am happy with the Republican choice of John McCain as their nominee for President of the United States. Eight years ago, I preferred George W. Bush. Though his critics would claim that he is absolutely incurious and rigid in his beliefs, the hallmark of his terms in office have shown that he has changed.

Eight years ago he derided the idea of "nation building," but now has engaged in it - not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - but also through the aid he has sent to Africa. 9/11 forced him to reconsider his previously held beliefs because he realized that terror abhors a vacuum.

But if his instincts were generally good, he didn't succeed as he might have because in too many circumstances he failed to follow through on good policies. See JoshuaPundit for his analysis of where we are in Iraq.

This failure to follow through leaves me with a feeling that President Bush's presidency is unfinished. True he faced the greatest challenge of our time - Isalmic extremism - but either due to missteps, circumstances or combination of both, he failed to win that challenge decisively.

Still I'm not unhappy that I supported President Bush. It's possible that Al Gore would have been a good president, though he's subsequently descended into a caricature of himself. Maybe winning the presidency would have grounded him. I have no doubt that John Kerry would have been an awful president. He never impressed me as being serious and I'm very happy that Bush won a second term.

I have no way of knowing if McCain would have been a better president than Bush, though I suspect if he had been president, Republicans wouldn't have lost both houses. But if I was wrong choosing Bush in 2000, well I want to make up for it in 2008.

John McCain is not without his faults. To some degree he seems to seek rock the boat for now reason and he's guided by a sense of self-righteousness. The circumstances of his divorce from his first wife and marriage to Cindy don't reflect well on him at all.

Still for now, the most important question facing us is whether the next president will continue to fight the Islamic threat or will deem it secondary in importance? Will we consolidate the recent gains in Iraq or will we let them dissipate? Who will start to challenge the prevailing wisdom of governance in our country that what we need is more spending and more regulations?

I think that John McCain will respond to these three questions better than Barack Obama. I also think that John McCain is a remarkable man deserving of our support. A few months ago, Karl Rove wrote a really nice profile of McCain for the Wall Street Journal, Getting to Know John McCain, which told of his bravery especially in Viet Nam. Here's one example:

The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.

But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.

Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complimented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.

And Rove wrote how the torture McCain endured, injured his arms so that he could no longer lift his arms over his head.

This fact was not lost on the very classy Anna Quindlen:

But the senator is not your average man of his age. He takes stairs slowly and cannot lift his arms to comb his hair.

But being unable to lift his arms has nothing to do with his age. It had to do with his torture. Nice touch there Anna. But Sen. McCain may have injured but he's hardly infirm. Here's how his son Jack described his hike last year:

In further defense of his dad's health, Jack enjoys telling the story about how he and his dad hiked the Grand Canyon last summer.

"He hiked 30 miles...9 down, 15 across and 6 up in two days. We started out on the North Rim [of the Grand Canyon] and made it to the South Rim. If age is ever an issue [just think of] 30 miles, two days, in 115 degree heat...and carrying a back-pack as well. And my dad doesn't have any cartilage in his knees."

One of the most memorable parts of the excursion, especially for a political science major, was being able to listen to his dad talk about "any period in history."

"...If you start in China and head all the way to the United States, he knows about it. We probably had a four-hour conversation about the Ottoman Turks."

I'm a few decades younger than the Senator, and I can't imagine doing that hike.

(Another thing from that interview that I loved:

For example, at a town hall meeting this past summer in New Hampshire, he was quoted by a local newspaper as saying, "You know, my son Jack attends the Naval Academy, where he has zero demerits. I got so concerned; I had DNA tests run just to make sure he was my son."

He doesn't take himself so seriously that he can't poke fun of himself.)

But John McCain isn't just about physical courage, there's more. I've linked to this article before, but I must do it again. It's from the NYT Magazine, called the Subversive and it was written by Michael Lewis.

''Mo reached out to me in 50 different ways,'' McCain recalled. ''Right from the start, he'd say: 'I'm going to hold a press conference out in Phoenix. Why don't you join me?' All these journalists would show up to hear what Mo had to say. In the middle of it all, Mo would point to me and say, 'I'd like to hear John's views.' Well, hell, I didn't have any views. But I got up and learned and was introduced to the state.'' Four years later, when McCain ran for and won Barry Goldwater's Senate seat, he said he felt his greatest debt of gratitude not to Goldwater -- who had shunned him -- but to Udall. ''There's no way Mo could have been more wonderful,'' he says, ''and there was no reason for him to be that way.''

For the past few years, Udall has lain ill with Parkinson's disease in a veterans hospital in Northeast Washington, which is where we were heading. Every few weeks, McCain drives over to pay his respects. These days the trip is a ceremony, like going to church only less pleasant. Udall is seldom conscious, and even then he shows no sign of recognition. McCain brings with him a stack of newspaper clips on Udall's favorite subjects: local politics in Arizona, environmental legislation, Native American land disputes, subjects in which McCain initially had no particular interest himself. Now, when the Republican Senator from Arizona takes the floor on behalf of Native Americans, or when he writes an op-ed piece arguing that the Republican Party embrace environmentalism, or when the polls show once again that he is Arizona's most popular politician, he remains aware of his debt to Arizona's most influential Democrat.

One wall of Udall's hospital room was cluttered with photos of his family back in Arizona; another bore a single photograph of Udall during his season with the Denver Nuggets, dribbling a basketball. Aside from a Congressional seal glued to a door jamb, there was no indication what the man in the bed had done for his living. Beneath a torn gray blanket on a narrow hospital cot, Udall lay twisted and disfigured. No matter how many times McCain tapped him on the shoulder and called his name, his eyes remained shut.

A nurse entered and seemed surprised to find anyone there, and it wasn't long before I found out why: almost no one visits anymore. In his time, which was not very long ago, Mo Udall was one of the most-sought-after men in the Democratic Party. Yet as he dies in a veterans hospital a few miles from the Capitol, he is visited regularly only by a single old political friend, John McCain. ''He's not going to wake up this time,'' McCain said.

This is loyalty the likes of which I rarely see written about among politicians. McCain was much different from Udall politically, but he remembered that first break that Udall gave him and he honored it until the end. If there's someone who can reduce some of the cynicism we see in politics today, I believe it is John McCain.

When this campaign season started out, McCain was not my first choice. If I knew 2000 what I know now about Sen. McCain might I have supported him? Possibly. (Not that it would have made a difference.)

But right now John McCain is the choice of the Republican Party and I'm not unhappy. More than that, I'm very happy and proud to have the opportunity to support such a remarkable man.

Star power

Last week John Podhoretz cautioned:

It's worth noting that Obama's address was seen by 38 million people last night, making it he most watched political speech not given by a president . Now, if two-thirds of those people go out to the polls with enthusiasm in November and do what enthusiasts do -- which is to try and convey their enthusiasm to others -- Obama will be in very good shape.

This week he seems somewhat relieved:

Well, it has gotten worse for them. The effort to turn her nomination into a scandal, so relished by the scandalmongers, raised the curiosity of the American people to an unprecedented level. The results are astonishing. It appears 37.2 million people tuned in to watch Palin's speech last night, only a million shy of Barack Obama's total last week -- making it the second most-watched convention address in history. (And given the fact that it was covered live on six networks, while Obama was live on ten networks, suggests her audience might have been larger still under entirely equal circumstances).

Jennifer Rubin notes that Palin may actually have outdrawn Sen. Obama.

(h/t memeorandum)

Charles Krauthammer, a Palin skeptic, would think this is a good thing.

McCain has one hope. It is suggested by the strength of Palin's performance Wednesday night. In a year of compounding ironies, the McCain candidacy could be saved, and the Palin choice vindicated, by one thing: Palin pulls an Obama.

Obama showed that star power can trump the gravest of biographical liabilities. The sheer elegance, intelligence and power of his public presence have muted the uneasy feeling about his unreadiness. Palin does not reach Obama's mesmeric level. Her appeal is far more earthy, workmanlike and direct. Yet she managed to banish a week's worth of unfriendly media scrutiny and self-inflicted personal liabilities with a single triumphant speech.

Still I think that Krauthammer is missing the main thrust of the McCain campaign. Yes, to some degree, McCain sacrificed the experience issue. (But he didn't cede it. Palin isn't running for President; Obama is.) But there's a bigger goal here and that's the change issue.

The McCain team has decided to show that Obama's promises of change or a new politics are empty. It wasn't just his star appeal, it was the promise of what he'd do with that star appeal. But there's nothing in his record to suggest that he will be bipartisan. He won't have to because if he's elected he'll likely have both houses of Congress from his own party. McCain might have to be bipartisan whether he wants to or not, but his political history says that he has always reached across the aisle. So if the change demanded by the country means more co-operation, John McCain is better suited to the role than is Barack Obama. Picking Palin was to emphasize that point. The star power is extra. (Though I suspect that McCain wasn't as surprised by it as many of us.)

Visual proof of the siege

Tony Blair's sister in law and other "peace activists" sailed to Gaza to express solidarity with the Gazans who are under "siege." Neither Israel nor Egypt will let Ms. Booth leave by land, so currently she's been trying to stay busy. She wanted to go shopping, but the shelves at the grocery store were bare due to the Israeli siege.

No they weren't.

British journalist and peace activist Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British premier Tony Blair who is now an international Middle East peace envoy, shops at a grocery store in Gaza City on September 3, 2008.

No words of concern from her about the plight of Gazan doctors or of the patients who can't get treated. But she's awfully chummy with the guy who ordered the crackdown. Apparently her concern for Palestinians only extends as far as the camera's lens can reach.

(Despite the impossibly high concentration of photographers in Gaza, there are relatively few pictures of people waiting for health care and none of the violence against doctors. But there are plenty of Booth with or without chief Gaza thug Haniyeh.)

Tim McGirk of Time seems more interested in promoting the legend of Lauren Booth than the plight of Gaza's doctors.

Booth's two young kids started school on Tuesday and she frets about how they'll handle their mother's absence. "When they ask: 'Mummy when are you coming home?' I have to say 'I don't know.' And that's a frightening answer for a child."

Given that she's smiling in at least half of the available pictures of her, I find it hard to believe that she's suffering all that much. Neither does Israelly Cool!

Crossposted on Yourish.

Lifesaving "olympics"

Medical professionals and paramedics from 18 countries will be competing in a lifesaving "Olympics" hosted in Israel.

The first MDA Olympics, initiated by MDA director-general Eli Bin and medical division director Dr. Zvi Feigenberg, took place in 2006 around the Kinneret and the Western Galilee. But this year's competition will bring more medical teams - 40 - from more countries and will open on the top of Masada.

The competitions are aimed at testing the professionalism and capabilities of the medical teams - in saving lives. Medics and paramedics from MDA, the IDF and international emergency services from Turkey, Canada, Ireland, England, Holland, Norway, the US, Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Jordan and Poland will participate.

On the two consecutive days, the teams will go through 11 stations of treatment and safety, including one at night, during which they will have to deal with various scenes that will test their capabilities for giving proper treatment responses, medical response for "victims" of a mass casualty incident, treatment for conventional and non-conventional incidents and also giving life-saving treatment to patients and victims with problems in the fields of trauma, cardiology, pediatrics and respiratory emergencies.

Meanwhile, in Gaza, medical professionals are engaged in a different kind of lifesaving Olympics. They are running as fast as they can to get away from the Hamas authorities in order to save their own lives.

Speaking from Ramallah, Zakarnah told Ma'an, "De facto government police on Tuesday arrested Maysarah Fayyad, a nurse who works at Mubarak Hospital, Dr Kamal An-Namlah, head of surgeons at Nasser Hospital, Dr Abdul-Halim Al-Masri, from Ash-Shifa Hospital, Wisam Karim, administration employee at Muhammad Ad-Durrah Hospital, Usamah As-Sa'idi and Muhammad Lafi from Muhammad Ad-Durrah Hospital.

He added that de facto government security assaulted the arrestees, beating while them in detention at Al-Mashtal prison in order to pressure them to end strike.

"The one who supervised interrogation of the arrestees was Salih Kaheel, director of de facto government detectives in Gaza City," Zakarnah added.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Submitted 09/04/08

Chicago's Proposed Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance - The Glittering Eye looks at a local ordinance requiring pet owners to spay or netuer their pets. Though he sees some merit in the idea of such a policy, he rejects the specifics of this particular legislation and thinks it wiser to educate pet owners to pursue this option on their own.
Examining the Unborn - Bookworm Room considers the absolutist terms of the pro-choice camp and finds Jewish Law regarding abortion to be more nuanced.
Life in a One Party State: America's Future Under Obama-Biden - The Razor my neighbor the northeast considers the consequences of single party rule on his state and considers the experience a reason to shun such a result nationally in November. In Gov. O'Malley's first full year here in Maryland his biggest accomplishment was convening a special session of a rubber stamp legislature to approve a massive tax increase (rather than reducing spending by a not huge 6%) and calls it governing. We can see how well some of this is working out.
The End Game In Iraq - Joshua Pundit analyzes the state of affairs in Iraq. Though he's satisfied with the current situation, he wonders if we've paid too high a price and whether that will come back to bite us.
Palin in Comparison - I saw Wolf Howling's post in this week's carnival of the insanities. I e-mailed it to some friends and got an enthusiastic response. Read it and find out why.
The inanity begins with Bristol Palin- The Colossus of Rhodey argues that while abstinence only education may not work, it's also not clear that teaching about contraception has been successful either.
When Does Human Life Begin - Rhymes With Right makes the case that it starts at conception.
Juno In Juneau - Cheat-Seeking Missiles contemplates the implications of Bristol Palin's pregnancy.
China Arnold: Monster - The Education Wonks, well the title says it all.
My post is about my youngest child who just turned Two Years. We are very blessed.

My non-council submission of the week was Meryl Yourish's Women and Sarah Palin.

Is Jerusalem The One Issue McCain And Obama Agree On? (Updated)

Shmuel Rosner seems to think so. He laces into Obama for his backtracking on an 'undivided' Jerusalem and faults Giuliani for similar comments last night:

And here's where I don't believe Giuliani: I don't think he can speak for McCain on this issue, and I also do not think that McCain's position is all that different from Obama's. Giuliani and McCain aren't identical twins, and Jerusalem might be one of the cases in which the difference between the more hawkish ex-mayor and the more realist Senator will be of some significance. Jerusalem is one of the most complicated issues in any round of negotiations between Israel and the Arabs-and to assume that McCain has already decided to support an "undivided Jerusalem" in the broader sense (namely, all for Israel, nothing for the Palestinians) has, as far as I can tell, no basis. [emphasis added]

No matter how pro-Israel McCain may be, he can't come out more strongly on Jerusalem that Israel itself is prepared to:

Remember: not even Bush was supportive enough of Israel's official position to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Also remember that two of the last three Israeli Prime Ministers (Barak and Olmert) were willing to give away parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. When the time comes to make a decision on Jerusalem, no American President will demand an undivided Jerusalem more strongly than Israel has shown itself inclined to. Not even Bush-and definitely not McCain, who has a realist side to him that takes over from time to time.

I wrote in an earlier post about an article quoting Michael Oren, who sees real differences between McCain and Obama:

"Although Obama has yet to say anything about the Palestinian Authority's failure to meet its Roadmap obligation to curb terror and stop incitement, he has no such reservations when it comes to impugning Israel's settlements, criticizing the Likud party, or allowing for the re-division of Jerusalem. He has backed the call for a contiguous Palestinian state free of Israeli roads and roadblocks. John McCain, by contrast, has not criticized Israel's settlement policies, and has stressed the need for an end to the promotion of terror and demonization aimed at Israel, and ensuring 'that Israel's people can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership ready and able to deliver peace'."

The Jerusalem Post continues, listing other differences Dr. Oren sees between the 2 candidates:

Dealing with Hamas? Dr. Oren notes that Obama waited five days before distancing himself from former President Jimmy Carter's Hamas meetings-and only after being pounded politically for not doing so; McCain condemned them instantly.

The candidates also differ on the core issue of whether the Israeli-Palestinian issue is the cause of the rest of the region's woes, or vice-versa. In an interview with The Atlantic, Obama described the conflict as a "constant sore" that "infect(s) all of our foreign policy" and "provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists." That is a formulation that suggests heavy Israeli concessions to achieve "peace" at any cost.

McCain, on the other hand, sees the opposite-that Islamic fanaticism is the obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace: "[I]f the Israeli-Palestinian issue were decided tomorrow, we would still face the enormous threat of radical Islamic extremism." According to Dr. Oren, neither McCain nor any of his advisors have indicated a readiness to apply greater pressure on Israel.

But when all is said and done, would McCain as President actually move the US embassy to Jerusalem?

I don't know, but let's put it another way--did anyone seriously think McCain would pick Sarah Palin as his running mate?

Update: In the comments, Elie's Expositions notes:

What's really ironic is that Israel is only looking for embassies to move to pre-1967, Western Jerusalem, which allegedly is not even a disputed area.  The very fact that the Palestinians object to such a move should be proof that what they really want is all of Israel, and not just, as they claim, the territories Israel won in 1967.  But nobody ever seems to point that out.

Probably so as not to offend Palestinian Arabs with the facts.

According to Wikipedia:

From 1949 until 1967, West Jerusalem served as Israel's capital but was not recognized as such internationally because UN General Assembly Resolution 194 envisaged Jerusalem as an international city.

It's time for the UN and the rest of the world to catch up with the times: Jerusalem will not be an international city.

by Daled Amos

Lipstick

What's the difference between a Soccer Dad Hockey Mom and a pit bull?
Lipstick.

From Gov. Palin's acceptance speech.

My wife and I loved the speech. Every time Gov. Palin stuck a verbal knife into a target we went back to the the lipstick line. She's tough.

In the National Journal poll, I argued that she should stick to presenting Sen. McCain as a reformer. (The other choices were to present McCain as a conservative, to show that she's ready for the job or to show that Obama is too liberal.)

I did not think that she could credibly present herself ready for the job, so I wrote:

Any argument that she's experienced will sound forced. She doesn't need to show that Sen. Obama is too liberal. She needs to make the argument that those who want to see positive change will see it if they elect the Republican ticket.

I was wrong. But she used her experience to demonstrate how to govern. Don't be afraid to veto. She used her experience presiding over a state

Here are some of her best lines:

... I've learned quickly these last few days that, if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

PALIN: But -- now, here's a little newsflash. Here's a little newsflash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.

---

I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

---

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory," except when he's talking about his own campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot...

---

Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election: In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

PALIN: They are the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners or on self-designed presidential seals.

And those lines were all delivered with a smile. Lipstick. The folks at Contentions were enthusiastic.

Brilliant. Don't make her the victim. Make her the champ.

While Joe Klein complained about the treatment the press has been getting from the McCain campaign, Gov Palin has been effective in her criticism precisely because she doesn't come across as being wronged, she comes across as being right.

via Linkviewer, here's a nice photoshop showing how Gov. Palin must have been perceived.

More from Jay Nordlinger.

I didn't see Giuliani's speech but John Podhoretz wrote:

As a former political speechwriter, I think anyone interested in the tricks of the trade should strongly consider studying this speech to see how to construct a verbal argument.

Reading the speech, you see exactly what he means. As a former Giuliani supporter I note Linda Chavez's comment with some regret.

John Podhoretz characterized the McCain campaign as having a light touch.

Lipstick.

The banality of terror

Without passing judgment the NYT reported on the Hezbollah Shrine to Terrorist Suspect Enthralls Lebanese Children

The dead man being shown such veneration is Imad Mugniyah, the shadowy Hezbollah commander. Until his death in a car bombing in Syria in February he was virtually unknown here, his role in the militant Shiite group clothed in secrecy. But since then Hezbollah has hailed him as one of its great military leaders in the struggle against Israel.

Now, the group has opened an exhibit in this southern town in honor of Mr. Mugniyah, who is widely accused in the West of masterminding devastating bombings, kidnappings and hijackings in the 1980s and '90s. His stern, bearded face towers over the transformed parking lot where the exhibit is taking place, along with banners exalting him as "the leader of the two victories" -- the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and the 2006 summer war with Israel.

The presentation, which opened Aug. 15, is Hezbollah's most ambitious multimedia exhibit to date, meant to dramatize the group's bitter conflict with Israel on the second anniversary of their latest war. Schoolchildren pour in throughout the day, absorbing the carefully honed message of heroic resistance. At night, light and laser shows illuminate the weaponry and tanks, and overflow crowds have been keeping it open until after 1 a.m.

There are two points to note about the article.

It was conceived by the architect Ahmed Tirani and built in just three weeks by a staff of 290 working around the clock. In addition to an extraordinary array of weaponry and martyrs' paraphernalia, it includes a large indoor room that was remodeled to resemble "what we believe the martyrs' heaven is like," according to one of the guides on duty.

"[W]eaponry and martyr's paraphernalia?" Wouldn't the word "terrorist" or, at least, "militant" be more appropriate? Or did this article have to pass muster with Hezbollah?

And the article ends with this positive note:

"I came here to teach my kids the culture of resistance," said a visitor who gave his name only as Ahmed, as he stood with his wife and two children. "I want them to see what the enemy is doing to us, and what we can do to fight them, because this enemy is not merciful."

Hezbollah's unmerciful enemy just traded a child killer for the corpses of two soldiers who were kidnapped and killed in violation of international law. The child killer was celebrated by Hezbollah and its supporters. This fellow, whose views go unchallenged has a strange idea of mercy.

The short story:

Here's what they're teaching the kiddies in southern Lebanon: Revere terrorist masterminds.

Similarly Elder of Ziyon writes:

A society is truly twisted when it sends hundreds of children to venerate - and emulate - a bloodthirsty killer.

Israel Matzav adds:

Mugniyah was likely the pre-eminent terror tactician of his generation. I don't know who killed him, but I'm happy he's gone. For those who are interested, the Times has more pictures and a slide show at the link above. Personally, I found it sickening.

What's also sickening is the casual way this museum is described without a trace of judgment or outrage. Hezbollah has threatened revenge against Israel and Jewish targets worldwide as revenge for the killing of Mughniyeh, something that needs to be taken seriously in light of yesterday's arrests in Canada.

Hezbollah isn't just a bunch of religious eccentrics who have a problem with Israel, but an international terrorist organization targeting Jews all around the world. This article served to distract from that reality.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Begin vs. biden

Martin Peretz has been doing all he can to defend Sen. Obama this campaign. So recently he took issue with a report that Sen. Biden once threatened Israel's aid in a confrontation with then PM Menachem Begin. Peretz takes the approach that if it had happened he would have heard about it and he didn't hear about it so it must not have happened.

Yisrael Medad bothered to track down the relevant contemporaneous accounts, leaving John Podhoretz to comment:

There's this thing called Nexis. It's been around for three decades. Give it a shot. Who knows what you might learn.

Palin's church

Commenter Cindy has noted that she attends the same church as Gov. Palin. (She's also the one who brought the "Israeli flag" video to my attention.) I don't understand Christian theology - and my e-mails exchanges with her expose ever more ignorance on my part - however she does. I asked her to summarize how Gov. Palin's religious views would inform her governance. So these are Cindy's words not mine.

About that video of Palin with the Israel flags, I just wanted to add that this totally jibes with the larger worldview of independent Bible Christian theology, which is why I rejoiced at the foreign policy implications of McCain picking Palin, a fellow Christian from an independent Bible church background. Contrary to Obama's pick and choose, scripture-twisting Christianity, Bible Christians believe the whole Bible, and in its ordinary sense at that (in context, of course, just like regular speech), including the parts about Israel (which is most of it), such as the Abrahamic Covenant promised her.

We believe that the primary purpose of government is just what the Bible says it is (in places like I Peter 2:13 or Rom 13:4), which is to punish evildoers and to act as a God-ordained minister bearing the sword, "an avenger against those who bring wrath on the one who practices evil." Since not just Israel, but the U.S. and entire world are facing the challenge of the war on terror, knowing Palin's background gives me great confidence that should she on Day 1, God forbid, be required to be Commander-in-Chief, she has the right overall judgment or worldview to make wise decisions, including about which counsel to rely upon.

Besides supporting strong defense (and offense) to protect citizens, taking the Bible literally means we have a realistic, not naïve, understanding that there is evil in the world (sin), that some people really do want to kill us! We're neither afraid or looking to be a bully (we're not the create a Kingdom on Earth type Christians), just obedient to be prepared to fight if necessary.

While recognizing responsibility (particularly of individuals) to help the downtrodden, we are not theocratic Israel and reject misusing the Bible to interject and elevate a social gospel or liberation theology (Black, Catholic, Palestinian, whatever) into politics. I do not support Obama's expanded faith-based initiative., or the increased role of religion in politics being pushed by his supporters like the famous, but increasingly way-out-there Brian McLaren and other "Red Letter Christians." We'll take the first amendment, thank you, none of this universalistic corporate redemption stuff! Bible Christians know that the "turn the other cheek" is not in the context of military aggression or government, but about personal retaliation; that the command to "resist not evil" does not mean act like dhimmis in negotiating with state sponsors of terror--no, we look at the rest of the Bible and find plenty of examples and precepts that teach the opposite and instead examine the context. Similarly, while the pacifist "progressives" might insist "thou shalt not kill", we Bible Christians know that there are other passages that support self-defense and war, so we take the time to look up the words and find out that in the original language it's not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder," big difference.

And it's not just Obama that Palin's theological background that can be contrasted with, but Bush who comes from a replacement theology background. I don't want a "McSame" ticket, I just want the right kind of change, one that emphasizes national security (and the related issues of energy and the economy). Obama can claim I cling to abortion, guns and social con issues, but the #1 reason I'm thrilled with Palin: national security! "Doctrine affects duty," as my pastor used to say.

Finally, her background offers hints at the leadership and character Palin brings to the table. For ex, Bible Christians believe in a Creator (and no, this does not require imposing creationism on society, since we're not the theocratic type Christians), which means belief in accountability to Him who made us, that life's not all about us, us, us, our ambitions, money or power, but about God's glory, a view that translates into servant leadership, selfless motives. That's some change for Washington.

Eine klein angry man

Joe Klein defends the press against the attacks of the McCain campaign.

So what's going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he's ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field...any intimations that he's gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable.

The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair--sexist (you gotta love it)--personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media--about the substance of Palin's record as mayor and governor. Sure, there are a few outliers--and the tabloid press--who have fixed on baby stories. That was inevitable....the flip side of the personal stories that the McCain team thought would work to their advantage--Palin's moose-hunting and wolf-shooting, and her admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby. And yes, when we all fix on the same story, whether it's a hurricane or a little-known politician, a zoo ensues. But the media coverage of the Palin story has been well within the bounds of responsibility. Schmidt is trying to make it seem otherwise, a desperate tactic.

(via memeorandum)

May I just recommend what Ross Douthat wrote yesterday. Douthat is a conservative writing at the Atlantic, but he's a lot less partisan than I am. But even he's seen enough:

I normally have great admiration for the New York Times, which decided to run three above-the-fold stories about a seventeen-year-old girl's pregnancy yesterday (we all remember, of course, the zeal with which the Times pursued the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter scandal during his Presidential campaign), while publishing (and then retracting) the claim that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party.

He also takes on the Washington Post and Slate.

(Instapundit on how to have avoided the the story about Bristol's pregnancy. Heh!)

More reaction to Palin's speech at Instapundit. Regrading the New Republic headline: Who was who's supposedly alarmed about strong women?

The karate kid meets iwo jima

There seem to be a higher concentration of news service photographers relative to the population in Palestinian areas than any place in the world. So there's a lot of news. Among the most popular images are people waiting for their terrorist friends and relatives to be released, Palestinian policeman undergoing incomprehensible training and "militants" training to attack Israel. (I'm not sure there's a difference between those last two groups.)

The pictures are so obviously staged, I fail to understand why they have any news value. (The number of "militants" training to attack Israel during the ceasefire has seemingly increased. That this is going on is a news story, I suppose, but not the angle the news organizations want to emphasize.)

Anyway what do you make of this?

Looks like a movie poster of "The Karate Kid at Iwo Jima, doesn't it?"

Crossposted on Yourish

Heil, knuckleheads, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

UHF television used to feature re-runs of shows like Hogan's Heroes and the 3 Stooges. Hogan's Heroes was a vehicle for mocking the Nazis. I found it surprising that a number of the actors in Hogan's Heroes were Holocaust survivors. But they saw it as their revenge. Werner Klemperer who played the Nazi commandant even had it written into his contract that the Nazis could never prevail.

The American comedians, the Three Stooges - all Jews who changed their names for show business - though, lived during the Nazi era. Even though the studios maintained neutrality for feature films, the Stooges made some short films mocking the Nazis.

But that didn't deter the Three Stooges and Columbia Pictures from making "You Nazty Spy!," written by Clyde Bruckman and Felix Adler and directed by Jules White. Historian Lynn Rapaport, writing in the San Diego Jewish Journal, points out that film shorts were not as closely regulated or censored as feature films, so perhaps the Stooges' efforts were unnoticed or ignored.

"You Nazty Spy!" was released with a disclaimer, "Any resemblance between the characters in this picture and any persons, living or dead, is a miracle," which was patently ridiculous because the short depends on Moe's physical resemblance to Hitler -- particularly after he pushes his hair back on one side and gets a piece of black tape stuck to his upper lip.

Though others, including Walt Disney also lent their talents to fight the propaganda war, the Stooges made their film in 1940. Others got involved later.

h/t Meryl

Crossposted on Yourish

A modest saudi proposal

Elder of Ziyon tells the story of Shaymaa Samir Qudeih:

Shaymaa Samir Qudeih is a brilliant student attending school in Saudi Arabia. She has received top honors from her high school in Jeddah, and she ranked eighth in all of Saudi Arabia in her science exam, gaining a score of 99.76%. Her dream was to go to the King Abdulaziz University medical school in Jeddah to become a doctor.

But she was rejected - because she is considered a "Palestinian."

This would be a perfect opportunity for the State Department to designate Ms.Qudeih a "Fullbright scholar." Yes, I know that her father doesn't want her to study abroad. But that's really besides the point. By granting her a Fullbright scholarship, the State Department would it's true concern for the plight of the Palestinians. Then the State Department could give the details of the young lady's plight to the New York Times, which would certainly run a number of front page stories about her and an editorial decrying her exclusion from Saudi schools. It would energize opposition groups in Saudi Arabia to protest the discrimination against Ms. Qudeih. With this ruckus, Saudi Arabia's free press could get in on the act, demanding justice for Ms. Qudeih and all Palestinians living in the kingdom. Finally King Abdullah would be so embarrassed by all the negative publicity generated by his country's institutional discrimination he'd be forced to relent allow Ms. Qudeih to attend a Saudi school that she is qualified for.

Yeah. Right.

Crossposted on Yourish

Thinking About Experience...(Updated)

One of the consequences of McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate has been a wide ranging discussion of various aspects of what experience means.

It reminds me of the events leading up to the signing of the peace treaty by Rabin and Arafat, when I got involved in a discussion with someone on a bulletin board--before the Internet was ubiquitous--who quoted Middle East experts on why this agreement was such a good idea and why it was going to work.

I responded by arguing that being an expert implies expertise and "experience"--that being an expert in the true sense of the word was something that applied to actual skills, the kind that get honed by experience. On the other hand, the kind of experts we refer to when talking about the Middle East were people who were knowledgeable about the history, knew all kinds of people, and had the inside track on events and deals going on that were not necessarily available to the general public. But none of that necessarily automatically conferred any special insight. A carpenter over years acquired a special feel for his tools, material and the work he does. On the other hand, with all the information an expert on the Middle East might have, such a person would have an opinion, but that by itself did not confer a special feel for the area and its politics.

The person I was arguing with disagreed.

It was interesting then to read John Steele Gordon write something similar in Contentions about:

a dirty little secret about foreign policy: experience actually counts for very little. It's a bit like the game of chess. Anyone can learn the rules of the game in ten minutes flat. But if they don't have the right instincts for the game they will never be any good at it no matter how much they play. If they do, they will become very good immediately. (An anecdote: Stephen Sondheim was not only taught how to write musicals by Oscar Hammerstein II, he was also taught to play chess by him when he was about 12 years old. Hammerstein was an avid and excellent game player, very aggressive, and cut kids no slack whatever. Sondheim beat him in the second chess game they played.)

Neither President Carter nor President Reagan had any foreign policy experience. Carter made an utter hash of it and Reagan a triumph. To be sure, Reagan had luck on his side more than Carter but, as Louis Pasteur explained, "Chance favors only the prepared mind."

I don't know about becoming an expert 'immediately', but there is more to it than just knowledge. So when there is so much talk about Joe Biden's years of foreign policy experience on the one hand, and then one reads that he was in favor of resolving the issue of Iraq by dividing the country up--this seems to be a pretty proof of what I was arguing.

And don't get me started about Obama.

I can't argue about the quality of Sarah Palin's experience though in the less than 2 years she has been governor Palin has some accomplishments to her credit:

She brought down Alaska's governor, attorney general, and state Republican chairman (see my "Most Popular Governor," July 16, 2007). She killed the "bridge to nowhere." She used increased tax revenues from high oil prices to give Alaskans a rebate. She slashed government spending. She took on the biggest industry in Alaska, the oil companies, to work out an equitable deal on building a new gas pipeline.

I'd like to think this is the result of skills, the kind that got better during her term.

In terms of McCain, we know he argued for the surge in Iraq early on and the surge has worked. I would not say that McCain is an 'expert' necessarily, but he does exhitibit a feel for the situation. It doesn't mean it has erred before or that he won't make mistakes should he become president, and he certainly does not necessarily have the same 'feel' for other areas.

But it is reassuring to find someone who has experience and expertise and follows through with the courage of his convictions.

It is a rare quality, and one that neither Obama or Biden have proven that they have.

Update: Here is something along similar lines by Peter Robinson at The Corner:

All the talk of experience in a VP misses the point; the whole concept of checks and balances implies our founding fathers knew we would be flying by the seat of our pants half the time. So?
 
Rather than experience we should look towards the concept of mastery. Lincoln is a good example. He spent a fair number of years as a suffling lawyer but he mastered the one great civic-political issue of his day (aside form the moral issue of slavery) - the power and develpment of rail transport in American life. He knew everything there was to know about railroads and land and financing and legal ins and outs concerning the power of rail in the 1850s.
 
Remember that when you hear Ms. Palin going on about energy. She has mastered the land, legal, technical concepts relating to the oil industry; even more she knows the power politics of big oil as it relates to the biggest state in the union and all the other states as well. Just for fun of it some reporter should ask her: "can you describe what the oil companies are doing to protect their rigs from Hurricane Gustav?" Watch jaws drop as she describes to a "T" what you need to do to protect off-shore rigs from harsh weather. [emphasis added]

by Daled Amos

Win-win vs. zero-sum

Reflecting on the Palestinian state which would be approaching its twentieth year of existence had Arafat and the Palestinians been interested in living peacefully next to Israel Barry Rubin writes.

Today, two decades later, there is no such state. But there could have been. The reason why there isn't has very little to do with Israel and a lot to do with Palestinian and Arab politics. Briefly, the PNC was called on to pass a simple resolution--mere words--saying that it accepted Israel's existence and would stop using terrorism. In exchange, it was promised U.S. and international help to receive a state.

He attributes the failure to the negotiations so far to the failure to understand the dynamic between the two sides. It's what he aptly calls the Win/Win attitude (the Israeli/Western attitude) versus the Zero sum (the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim attitude):

When win-win (WW) and zero-sum (ZS) come together the negotiating process is something like the following:
* ZS: We demand 100 percent!
* WW: We'll give you 50 percent!
* ZS: 100!
* WW: 75!
* ZS: Perhaps if you offer me 100 I will make a deal.
* WW: Wow, what a window of opportunity! How about 90?
* ZS: 100
* WW: 95, and that's my last offer!
* ZS: 110!

This is the history of Israel-Palestinian negotiations, of talks about Iran's nuclear drive, attempts to deal with Hamas or Hizballah, and diplomatic exchanges with Syria. All fail for very real reasons. But refusing to understand the fundamental problem, these failures are interpreted differently: not enough was offered, cultural sensitivities were disregarded, the table was shaped wrong, the democratic side did not prove its good intentions sufficiently.

In his introduction Rubin focused on Arafat's "acceptance" of Israel in Geneva in 1988. That led to American recognition of the PLO until mid-1990 when a faction of the PLO atttempted a terrorist attack on Israel and Arafat refused to condemn it. In the aftermath of the American rejection of the PLO, the New York Times reported, "P.L.O. Sees Deeper Arab Hostility After U.S. Move"

A senior adviser to Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said tonight that Washington's suspension of talks with the P.L.O. would produce ''a loathing of the Americans'' and prompt the organization to seek a greater Arab show of military strength in the conflict with Israel.

At the same time, the adviser, Nabil Shaath, who lives in Cairo, said in an interview that the P.L.O. is ''not considering at all going into any military operations or any terrorist actions against civilians'' targeted at Americans living in the Middle East. He said the P.L.O. would maintain its avowed commitment to peace.

So remember the PLO had just failed to uphold its obligation to fight terror and the United States was at fault for responding to that failure. The Chutzpah is incredible. But that follows from the assumption that the zero sum side believed that the West (and Israel) needed it more than they needed the z.s. to abide by its agreements.

And the New York Times faithfully reports this news from the perspective of a wronged PLO leadership, encouraging the zero sum side (the Palestinians in this case) to stick to its guns and avoid responsibility for its breach.

Gen. Moshe Ya'alon takes a different approach to the same problem. He argues that the failure to create a Palestinian state results from a refusal of the Palestinian leadership (and population in general) to accept Israel's right to exist. That being the case, negotiations are rather fruitless. What's needed to be done is to seek changes in Palestinian education so that they teach their children to accept Israel and maintain military pressure on Hamas.

The former is out of Israel's hands. The latter is still possible, though the current Israeli leadership is averse to such an approach. This might be an attempt by Gen. Yaalon to make a case for a future Likud government as he is expected to possibly receive the defense portfolio should Binyamin Netanyahu return to power in an upcoming election.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Biden time?

Joe Biden finds himself in middle of a kerfuffle with the Israelis. Ha'aretz has reported that Biden told Israeli leaders that it would have to get used to a nuclear Iran. Hot Air has more, including the possibility that this incident took place three years ago. (More here.)

Still what's interesting is the campaign's response:
Biden spox David Wade said the unsourced report is simply false.

"This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden," said Wade, "and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel. Joe Biden's first trip as a Senator was to Israel, he has worked with every Israeli leader from Golda Meir to Prime Minister Olmert, and he takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting the relationship between Israel and the US."

The source of Biden's remarks would seem to be senior Israeli officials. So then instead of trying to smooth things over with officials of an ally and explaining that he was misunderstood, the Biden camp attacked.

Either it's because there are elements in the Israeli government who are openly opposed to the Democratic ticket and Biden is addressing them or he is reflecting a general mistrust of Israel that is part of the Democratic team. This is not a good sign.

(via memeorandum)

Crossposted on Yourish.

Musical Monday #59

Sorry for the delay. Anyway, you know the drill: no googling. What are the songs? What's the theme? One of these was listed in more than one place as fitting the theme, but I have no idea why.

1) You know how bad girls get
2) Nearly petrified cos he was taken by surprise
3) Dont wanna be no uptown fool
4) I would write across the sky in letters
5) Walking home every day over Barnegat Bridge and Bay
6) I'm gonna meet the boys on floor number two!
7) It's a wonder I can think at all
8) To say who-bop-a-loo-chi-bop
9) Oleanders growing outside her door
10) Can't find a flag
11) I can root for the Yankees from the bleachers
12) When some loud braggart tries to put me down
13) We's all on the cover of Newsweek
14) Most mixed up non-delinquent on the block
15) I don't care what your daddy do
16) I smell smoke in the auditorium
17) Drop the coin right into the slot
18) I saw the pictures and I turned the pages
19) No dark sarcasm
20) Older boys and prefects
21) Honey get your boppin' shoes before the juke box blows a fuse
22) I just wanna have some kicks, I just wanna get some chicks
23) You know you could have been a cuckoo
24) A pink dress, a matching bow, and her pony tail.
25) Those soft and fuzzy sweaters
26) Whose name I never could pronounce
27) But the joke's on those who believe the system's fair
28) Why go to learn the words of fools?
29) Sweet 16 ain't that peachy keen
30) Young man, now give me that knife.

Here are the solutions from Musical Monday #57 which Laura correctly guessed was Title tracks.
1) There I was with the old man
Dog and Butterfly - Heart
2) To A Registered Charity
Band on the Run - Wings
3) You can ride high atop your pony
Bella Donna - Stevie Nicks
4) I could see it was a rough-cut Tuesday
Freeze Frame - J. Geils Band
5) I never meant 2 cause u any sorrow
Purple Rain - Prince
6) ... debutantes in Houston
The Long Run - The Eagles
7) ... that one with the yellowy eyes
London Calling - The Clash
8) Then there ain't no room for you this part of town
Off the wall - Michael Jackson
9) ... a union card and a wedding coat
The River - Bruce Springsteen
10) I must be deaf on the telephone
Arc of a diver - Steve Winwood
11) Stoppin' at the log where catfish bite
Green River - Creedence Clearwater Revival
12) These mist covered mountains
Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
13) Your footsteps are forbidden
Love over Gold - Dire Straits
14) Darkness Falls Across The Land
Thriller - Michael Jackson
15) I'm not a present for your friends to open
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - Elton John
16) Chinese music under banyan trees
Aja - Steely Dan
17) Why don't you ask him who's the latest on his throne?
Tusk - Fleetwood Mac
18) I gotta break it out now, before the final crack of dawn
Bat out of Hell - Meat Loaf
19) Cut it loose or let it drag 'em down
Darkness on the Edge of Town - Bruce Springsteen
20) The morning is just a few hours away.
Wednesday Morning 3AM - Simon and Garfunkel
21) That's an invitation, roll up
Magical Mystery Tour - The Beatles
22) African queen, we said so many things we didn't mean
Nervous Night - Hooters
23) But if we shift the rhythm into overdrive,
52nd Street - Billy Joel
24) Cause you hit me just like a dream
Mad Love - Linda Ronstadt
25) Trying not to confuse it with what you do to survive
Running on Empty - Jackson Browne
26) There in the darkness with the radio playing low
Against the Wind - Bob Seger
27) You don't look at their faces, and you don't ask their names
Private Dancer - Tina Turner
28) Waiting for the welfare dime
The Way it is - Bruce Hornsby and the Range
29) When I was back there in seminary school
The Soft Parade - The Doors
30) Under the pillow, behind the door.
Abacab - Genesis

How negative?

There's a new National Journal bloggers' poll out about how negative the Republican national convention would be. I was intrigued by the title Right, Left Disagree On Ripping Obama. I figured, gee I must be in the minority of the roc bloggers as I didn't think the convention should be that negative. Boy was I wrong. It's the loc bloggers who argued that the GOP should be more negative, albeit for reasons I disagree with like "That's the only the thing the GOP has is fear and smear."

Anyway here was my take (I figured that the convention should be no more than 25% negative.)

I really think that McCain needs to limit the negativity. Last night McCain offered Obama a gracious congratulations. In response Obama's campaign manager David Ploufe answered with a petulant complaint that McCain ought to be that gracious all the time. That was followed this morning with the graceless "mayor of 9000" comment. If this continues and the Obama campaign maintains its petty nastiness, it will continue to erode the candidate's aura of being an avatar of a new kind of politics.

Anyway since the poll came out, Gustav has changed the focus of the convention, so it won't be a traditional convention. And I'd also point out that Sen. Obama has since criticized whoever issued that "mayor of 9000" remark restoring some class to his campaign. I have to give Sen. Obama credit for another classy move here.

I had planned to link to this about a different question and may still revisit it later. Noemie Emery had a list of reasons why she figures that the rejiggered Republican convention will help McCain. Here's #7:

Takes McCain from a setting in which he's uncomfortable (partisan leader of a partisan army) to one--national leader rallying a country in crisis--which suits him much better.

Ma'an: Checkpoint soldiers told not to eat in front of fasting Muslims

I see stories like this from time to time involving the notion that it is insensitive to eat in front of Muslims fasting on Ramadan. The whole idea does not resonate at all with my own experience of fasting on Jewish fast days. You don't necessarily want to be sitting across from someone in the middle of a meal, but I can't remember any situation in which I even noticed that someone out there in the world was eating. I try not to run one of those blogs that sees every public accomodation of Muslim religious practices as Dhimmitude, but are Muslims taught that eating in front of them on Ramadan is an affront of some sort?

With the Monday morning start of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, Israeli forces gave directives to soldiers manning 470 checkpoints in the west Bank to avoid eating in front of Palestinian citizens when they pass through checkpoints.

The directives also instructed soldiers to avoid smoking and drinking in front of Palestinians as a sign of respect for those who fast as a religious act.

The Israeli civil administration further decided to allow Palestinians living in Israel access to the West Bank (what they called "Palestinian Authority areas") in order to visit their families. Money will also be permitted to be transferred to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, so they can buy the appropriate foods for breaking their fast.

Israeli authorities also promised to coordinate with the Palestinian ministry of endowment about increasing number of permits given to Palestinian Muslims to enter Jerusalem so they can perform their Ramadan prayers at the Al-Aqsa mosque. [...]

Crossposted on Judeopundit

Update: Isreallycool explores a different angle on this story.

Two years

At 1:15 AM this morning she turned 104 weeks old.

I'm not waiting for her actual birthday, which is September 4. After all she (and her sister) were both born (appropriately enough) on Labor Day.

I've developed a hypothesis about the terrible twos. She has gotten a lot more tantrum prone in recent weeks. More often than not her tantrum is a result of the difference between what she knows she can do and what she is really capable of.

Getting her dressed recently has become an adventure. She is convinced that she can dress herself, so when someone helps her, she gets very frustrated. She can pull on a pair of pants. But usually two legs are in the same hole. And she can pull a shirt over her head, getting the arms in are a little more of a challenge. But since she knows she can do it, she objects strongly when someone bigger tries to help her.

All of her clothes are "pretty clothes." And her pajamas are "pretty jamas."

The problem is that I seem to remember our other children experiencing the terrible twos when they hit three and were thus capable of a lot more and should have had less of these frustrations.

Her language continues to develop. For one thing, if there's something that she's trying to comprehend, she likely will repeat the word or words. She speaks in sentences if not with perfect syntax. Other than "my" or "mine" she doesn't really use possessives.

In fact a lot of her talking is narrating. "I open door." I suppose it's a way of becoming familiar with language. This is a very cute stage.

She likes to color. One of the challenges has been getting to color only on paper. When we open a book that's been colored on she'll observe that.

She's learning how to get off the ground. She has a unique jump. She'll jump and then jackknife landing on her backside. And she thinks that's a riot. It's actually a variation on something she used to do, which was jump down onto a box of diaper wipes.

Her favorite food is "macaroci."

Two weeks ago we went to the Catskills to visit her brother at camp. We found a pizza place, but it didn't have apple juice, so for the first time we gave her soda. Now she loves soda. On Shabbos, the only time we give the children soda, she asks for it now. There's no going back.

The other drink she really likes is water. Well not water by itself, but water in a water bottle. Any time she sees someone drinking water from a bottle she goes "water bottle," which is not a description but a request (or as these things are with a two year old - a demand.)

One of her favorite game - other than running away when we're trying to dress her - is when I lift her up and put her down. "Up and down." And she always asks to do it "agin." I don't always have the energy to do it as many times as she asks, but I do try to keep her happy. (Unlike the two children immediately older than her, she doesn't like riding on my shoulders.)

She loves when we read to her. She'll also ask to do that "agin."

She doesn't have a full set of teeth yet. In fact looking at her mouth you might think she had just turned 1. If you saw her height, you might think she was 1 1/2. But she does 2 year old type activities.

Her favorite object is her "wankee." She sometimes needs it for security, sometimes to go to sleep. Today when she went in for her nap, she lay down on top of it, and pulled another blanket over her legs. I had never seen her do that before.

Here are some pictures.
With her two older brothers at camp, a few weeks ago

Both of her older brothers treat her like a princess. Given they're absence from home she really appreciates them when they're around. She'll often mention them when they're not around and will run to them when she hasn't seen them in a while.

She treats our oldest daughter much like her parents. And our (nearly) 7 year old is her best buddy. I haven't quite figured out her relationship with our 9 year old. But they do get along very well.

Yes we've put her to work in the yard harvesting tomatoes.

She gets very possessive about the tomatoes she picks and puts into a bag. It's difficult to get the bag away from her. Hopefully we won't get into trouble for child labor laws.

On the way to Rita's

She's very sure of herself. She insisted on carrying the bag out herself.

At Rita's

Nothing like melting strawberry ice on a late summer day.

Running with her 9 year old brother

I love the way she runs. It's hard to imagine that she can avoid falling given her odd gait. But she runs just fine.

This post will be updated throughout the day.

Previous related entries:
23 months,
22 months,
21 months,
20 months,
19 months,
18 months,
17 months,
16 months,
15 months,
14 months,
13 months,
One year,
11 months,
10 months,
9 months,
eight months,
seven months,
six months,
five months,
four months,
three months,
two months,
One month.

Dissin' palin

I haven't been following all of the news, but is Biden's comment about Palin being good looking really a gaffe? it doesn't seem to me if he was being condescending. Self-deprecating seems more like it.

(via memeorandum)

The bigger problem has been the vicious stories about Palin that have been surfacing - not from some anonymous e-mails - but promoted by "respectable" Obama supporters. Dean Barnett takes aim. Remember Obama's supporters have a site called Stop the Smears. I wonder if the Senator's supporters will show any disgust with the rumors about Palin that have used to help him. (Apparently Sen. Obama has distanced himself from the first comment about Palin's selection that came from his campaign.)

Musical monday delayed

I do plan to come out with Musical Monday #59, but it may not be until tonight / tomorrow morning. For now here are the answers for Musical Monday #57.

Here are the solutions from Musical Monday #57 which Laura correctly guessed was Title tracks.
1) There I was with the old man
Dog and Butterfly - Heart
2) To A Registered Charity
Band on the Run - Wings
3) You can ride high atop your pony
Bella Donna - Stevie Nicks
4) I could see it was a rough-cut Tuesday
Freeze Frame - J. Geils Band
5) I never meant 2 cause u any sorrow
Purple Rain - Prince
6) ... debutantes in Houston
The Long Run - The Eagles
7) ... that one with the yellowy eyes
London Calling - The Clash
8) Then there ain't no room for you this part of town
Off the wall - Michael Jackson
9) ... a union card and a wedding coat
The River - Bruce Springsteen
10) I must be deaf on the telephone
Arc of a diver - Steve Winwood
11) Stoppin' at the log where catfish bite
Green River - Creedence Clearwater Revival
12) These mist covered mountains
Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
13) Your footsteps are forbidden
Love over Gold - Dire Straits
14) Darkness Falls Across The Land
Thriller - Michael Jackson
15) I'm not a present for your friends to open
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - Elton John
16) Chinese music under banyan trees
Aja - Steely Dan
17) Why don't you ask him who's the latest on his throne?
Tusk - Fleetwood Mac
18) I gotta break it out now, before the final crack of dawn
Bat out of Hell - Meat Loaf
19) Cut it loose or let it drag 'em down
Darkness on the Edge of Town - Bruce Springsteen
20) The morning is just a few hours away.
Wednesday Morning 3AM - Simon and Garfunkel
21) That's an invitation, roll up
Magical Mystery Tour - The Beatles
22) African queen, we said so many things we didn't mean
Nervous Night - Hooters
23) But if we shift the rhythm into overdrive,
52nd Street - Billy Joel
24) Cause you hit me just like a dream
Mad Love - Linda Ronstadt
25) Trying not to confuse it with what you do to survive
Running on Empty - Jackson Browne
26) There in the darkness with the radio playing low
Against the Wind - Bob Seger
27) You don't look at their faces, and you don't ask their names
Private Dancer - Tina Turner
28) Waiting for the welfare dime
The Way it is - Bruce Hornsby and the Range
29) When I was back there in seminary school
The Soft Parade - The Doors
30) Under the pillow, behind the door.
Abacab - Genesis

Base-ic instinct

National Journal's latest question was whether the Republicans should appeal to the base, or go for swing voters. Both the loc and roc bloggers agreed that they ought to go after the base.

Though some bloggers said similar comments, my comment didn't make it, so here it is:

Watching the Democrats and seeing the resulting bounce, I have to conclude that the base is the way to go. That's where the enthusiasm comes from. If the base is energized it will be easier to convince the undecideds.

I notice that Granite Grok has also been blogging about the results of these polls. Here's their take on the Democratic convention.