"The president acts sometimes like he’s running the country from his dorm room, and it looks increasingly likely..."

"...that he will not stop until something explodes."

Michael Totten, on the fairy-tale, pipe dream thinking that apparently underlies the Obama Adminstration's decision to sign on to a new UN resolution, that purports to oppose nuclear weapons, yet sees Israel as the roadblock, not Iran--that is to say, the country that has been threatened is the problem, not the threatener.

Now, there are an increasing number of people beginning to cast real doubt about President Obama's commitment to Israel. I don't have those doubts, and I don't think this decision is based on any malice towards the Jewish state, but the sort of delusional thinking underlying this decision is not ehat I expected for a mature President. Many have accused Obama of operating out of a need to please world opinion, national security risks notwithstanding. I've never had any doubt that that idea was false--until now.

Rethink this one, Mr. President. You ought to know better.

Nipping A Blood Libel In The Bud

Chances are you may have heard a story about Israelis firing on an aid vessel bound for Gaza. You may have heard about how innocent aid workers were attacked by Israeli commandos. You'd have heard about how the international community is up in arms. Here's the thing:


It's a lie. A filthy lie. Don't get me wrong, the international community is in fact up in arms, but that's because they believed the lie. What else is new? In this clip, you can clearly see and hear IDF warning the vessel about proper protocol:


The full story is here, and here.

HT: Michael Totten

"They are apocalyptic pessimists about public life and childlike optimists swaddled in self-esteem when it comes to their own powers. "

Via this excellent BHTV diavlog comes a link to this must-read piece on the underlying mindset of the Tea Parties, and the modern conservative movement, by Mark Lilla:

Now an angry group of Americans wants to be freer still—free from government agencies that protect their health, wealth, and well-being; free from problems and policies too difficult to understand; free from parties and coalitions; free from experts who think they know better than they do; free from politicians who don’t talk or look like they do (and Barack Obama certainly doesn’t). They want to say what they have to say without fear of contradiction, and then hear someone on television tell them they’re right. They don’t want the rule of the people, though that’s what they say. They want to be people without rules—and, who knows, they may succeed. This is America, where wishes come true. And where no one remembers the adage “Beware what you wish for.”

Read the whole thing. The way I see it, it's as if they want freedom, for free. Freedom to criticize, free of criticism. Freedom from hard choices. Freedom from expertise. Freedom from the real world. It's as if they say, "give my liberty, and as for the rest of you..."

The anger is real, and a lot of it has to do with real frustration over real crises. Blaming the government, the media, Obama, the Democrats, etc, is easy. Trying to maintain coherence by railing against government, and cuts in Medicare at the same time, is hard. Coming up with solutions is hard. It's one thing to want to be free, but freedom is hard.

Happy Memorial Day, and in which we honor our bravest men and women, who've paid the ultimate price for freedom, and continue to pay it every day.

The Madness of Andy McCarthy

Conor Friedersdorf soundly exposes the manifold, insidious deception in Andy McCarthy's new book:

Mr. McCarthy would have us believe that President Obama refuses to acknowledge the September 11 attacks, the appropriateness of the word war, or the fact that our current military efforts abroad are directed at real enemies. Yet here is a speech where the president does all those things in the space of one brief passage. The degree of misrepresentation that Mr. McCarthy permits himself is staggering.

He goes on:

It is so easily shown to be false that it ought to exist only in the author’s mind. Unfortunately, this misinformation is being touted by Rush Limbaugh as piercing, Michelle Malkin is recommending it to her readers, and Mark Levin is calling it “thorough” and “cutting edge, and few of their listeners will question the facts the book presents because they foolishly if understandably underestimate the capacity for intellectual negligence perpetrated by these hosts everyday.

They rave about a book.

I’ve read a single excerpt, and already the mistakes demonstrated by simple Google searches are multitude.

Read the whole thing. It's quite amazing to me how people like McCarthy continually get serious treatment from allegedly serious people. It's one thing to have serious, substantive disagreements with Obama on policy, but it is a viler and more destructive thing, to willfully distort and invent facts, in order to advance a case that the President, and the Left are guilty will willful treason--a case that could only be true in the fairy-tale universe of his own brain. Assuming McCarthy has any intention of the book achieving mainstream success, the excerpts he presents ought to show that this whole unhinged partisan enterprise is rotten from top to bottom, and not worth the paper it's printed on.

Just sayin.'

HT: Sully

"George W. Bush is missed by activists in Cairo and elsewhere who—despite possible misgivings about his policies..."

"...benefited from his firm stance on democratic progress. During the time he kept up pressure on dictators, there were openings for a democratic opposition to flourish. The current Obama policy seems weak and inconsistent by contrast."

Ouch. Now, I think he's being a bit harsh, but it's hard to argue, and this is something I've wrestled with for a while (and was touched on here), that maybe President Obama might be more of a cold-eyed realist than we liberal hawks who supported him realized. I still hope I'm wrong, and there's reason to--but this sort of thing ought to be embarassing--on a purely personal legacy level.

HT: Jennifer Rubin, via Totten

cross posted at Stubborn Facts.

"What's the right script? Honestly, I don't know."

"But those perched atop the moral high ground will have to climb down to find the facts before they can write it."

Jonah Goldberg, in serious mode, asks some good questions. Read it all.

HT: Totten, on Instapundit

cross posted at Stubborn Facts.

"There isn't a single objectionable point in the first fifteen minutes of his presentation."

"Unfortunately, the sixteenth minute arrives, and, if you are still paying attention, you learn that he wants us to revere the most vicious and reactionary of Islamist sheikhs -- the people who promote violence, bigotry, totalitarianism, and terror. The sixteenth minute is not good. The liberal quality of his thinking falls apart entirely."

That's from Paul Berman, about Tariq Ramadan, in a must-read interview with Michael Totten, about his must-read book The Flight of the Intellectuals. They also discuss Bush Derangement Syndrome, Obama's strengths and weaknesses, and the lack of clarity of certain Western liberal intellectuals.

Thanks to Max for the hat tip.

cross posted at Stubborn Facts.

Health Care Has Passed, 219-212.

Let the celebrations (or commiserations) begin.

Discuss.

I’ll have more complete thoughts later.

Five Years!!

Praise God, I've been running this blog for five whole years, and fourteen days. Huzzah, for me!

"If only Israel could fight all its battles this way."

"It would be the cleanest and least-deadly war in the history of warfare. Even some of Israel’s harshest critics should understand that."

Michael Totten, on the successful op against Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh:

Hamas and Hezbollah use civilians as human shields. Hezbollah uses an entire country as a vast human shield. Some critics, for various reasons, are more interested in lambasting Israel than the terrorist organizations it’s fighting. That’s easy when you live in New York or Brussels. People in the Middle East have to live with (or die because of) what happens. How Middle Easterners fight wars isn’t political or academic to me. I’ve never been inside Gaza, but I once lived in Lebanon, I travel there regularly, and there’s a real chance I’ll be there when the next war pops off. I’d rather not be used as a human shield if that’s OK with those who give Hamas and Hezbollah a pass. And I’d much rather read about Hezbollah leaders getting whacked by mysterious assassins with forged passports than dive into a Beirut bomb shelter during Israeli air raids.

Me too. Read the rest. I get the certain people are vexed that the Israelis didn't follow some sort of protocol, and used forged passports when they decided to successfully take out, without any collateral damage at all, a man whose organization of unrepentant war criminals who deliberately target civilians, among other things, but I fail to see what rules were really broken here, except the rule that seems to be increasingly the norm, in certain circles, per the Goldstone Report, that it is a war crime for sovereign nations to defend their territory, but not a war crime to attack said territory.

I mean, maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think so...

ADDED: I understand that Australians are not pleased that forged Aussie passports were used, but my argument still stands.

AND: Alan Dershowitz wrestles with the question, and comes to pretty much the same place as Totten does.

Pray For Haiti. Give What You Can

I've early posted initial thoughts here (my friend and co-blogger Simon has added more). More to come later. Prayer for Haiti, and donate.

"My fear of Islamic terrorism is not irrational. It's quite well-founded. "

From Christopher Hitchens, part of a must-read interview with Michael Totten.

And Around Again We Go...

In light of the latest media-circus scandal fueled by hysteria and fake outrage, over Harry Reid's inartful, inelegant, and sloppy comments, I just wanted to add some quick thoughts, and this, from the indispensable John McWhorter:

First of all, we need not pretend that by “Negro dialect” Reid meant the cartoon minstrel talk of Amos n Andy. After all, why would Reid, a rational human being under any analysis, be under the impression that any black person talks like Uncle Remus, much less be surprised that one of them does not? My guess is that he said “negro” in a passing attempt to name Black English in a detached, professional way, randomly choosing a slightly arcane and outdated term. Or, consider that Negro English was what scholars called “Ebonics” until the early seventies. Reid likely caught wind of that terminology -- he's been around a while, after all.

and this:

Indeed Reid implied that black dialect is less prestigious than standard, such that not speaking it made Obama more likely to become President. That is, he implied what we all think too: Black English is, to the typical American ear, warm, honest -- and mistaken. If that’s wrong, okay – but since when are most Americans, including black ones, at all shy about dissing Black English? And who among us -- including black people -- thinks someone with what I call a "black-cent" who occasionally popped up with double negatives and things like aks could be elected President, whether it's fair or not? Reid, again, deserves no censure for what he said unless we're ready to censure ourselves too.

and he closes out:

Reid implied that Black English is lesser than standard English and that it’s therefore good that Obama doesn’t use it in public. This is not about whether black people have to sweat to speak standard English; it’s about whether Black English is as good as standard English. Most of America black as well as white is at the exact same point in understanding vernacular speech and its proper evaluation as Reid is.

For which reason most of America should leave him alone about this and move on.

Indeed. Read the whole thing. Now for my money, Reid's comments were a messy, inartful, and off-putting way of touching on a debate that Americans of all colors are having to this day. It would be great if that debate could be furthered somehow, yet as usual, that debate has been replaced by the usual sideshow.


Two things: First off, the GOP equation of this with the Trent Lott incident is spectacularly, mind-numbingly off-base. Can smeone explain to me, even if you shine Reid's comments in tht e worst possible light, how acknowledging the fact that Obama is light-skinned, and doesn't speak Black English, compares to waxing poetically about voting for a segregationist in 1948? It's not even close, and what makes this worse, is that I think the GOP leadership knows this.

Secondly, one could ignore all this, and simply do as Liz Cheney does, and simply see this as liberals excusing other liberals. Or one could be sensible, and acknowledge context, much like unhinged left-winger George Will.

Now, make no mistake, politics is surely involved on the Democratic side as well, as I suspect a substantial factor in the rally behind Reid has to do with needing him in the Senate. That being said, the Dems have the benefit of being right on the merits, while the GOP's political cynicism is so obvious as not need pointing out. Michael Steele's own past efforts are proof of that.

"The short answer is nothing."

"We didn't hear much from them about Afghanistan this year until Obama mentioned it, and it's difficult to believe they care. The only victory they think about happens on first Tuesdays in November, far from Afghanistan."

HT: Althouse

"The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff."

"I won’t be going over the cliff with them."

That's Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs. No, I'm not kidding.

I'm planning on discussing this later, but there has been much talk of the Charles Johnson's shift. Back in the day, he was neck-deep in the worst of far-right ugliness. From what I see now, he has opened his eyes, and seen how far his former allies have gone. The thing is, those types didn't just become crazy in the last couple of years, they've always been nuts. Pam Gellar has always been a raving lunatic. I suspect he finally saw how off the rails they on the far-right are, and had a sort of Damascus experience, and decided that enough was enough. Bravo for that.

HT: Andrew Sullivan

"America does not face a threat from the perversion of faith in general."

"We face a threat from the perversion of one faith in particular."

Obama is right to continue emphasizing the all-important distinction between religious views compatible with democratic pluralism and those that aren't. As he deals with the fallout of the attack, he must continue to separate Islamic extremism from Islam as a whole. But his words at Fort Hood, while comforting, do not really come to grips with the problem. America does not face a threat from the perversion of faith in general. We face a threat from the perversion of one faith in particular. The president needs to dip into his reservoir of good will to remind mainstream Muslims of their special responsibility. If militant Islamism is a distortion of their moderate beliefs, only their beliefs can defeat it.

"There is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this."

Via Megan McArdle, who reports on an eyewitness account of the slaughter:

There is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this. Gun control would not have stopped a commissioned officer from obtaining guns. Barack Obama had no power to stop this. Infectious PTSD is a lousy theory. And nations certainly do not--and should not--shape their foreign policy around the possibility that a random psychopath will start shooting up a crowd. Evil people do evil things. That's all.

And from the letter from the eyewitness referenced in her post:

But please, no one use this politically! The Army is not "broken", PTSD doesn't turn people into killers, most Muslims aren't evil, and whether we should stay or go in Afghanistan has nothing to do with this.

Indeed. I mean, there still serious questions to be asked about the motives of this murderer, the role his alleged anti-war views or feelings of persecution played in this. There are questions about his supposed mental state. The thing is, this has been politicized already to the point of stomach-turning, by the usual suspects, and it's ridiculous.

ADDED: An uncomfortable number of people, even some who you'd think would know better, have been politicizing this tragedy in order to take cheap shots at the President. I'll have to mull this over, but it appears that the President may have committed a foul, by using this incident as a rallying cry of health care reform. I'm withholding judgment....

AND: Here's what he said:

“Sacrifice is not casting a vote that might lose an election for you; it is the sacrifice that someone makes when they wear the uniform of this country and that unfortunately a number of people made this week,”

Not as bad as it's being spun, but he shouldn't have said it. The Fort Hood massacre is not a rallying cry in order to pass legislation, even if it's legislation you believe in. If John Boehner had said something the effect of "vote no for freedom, the same freedom that those slain at Fort Hood fought for," he'd be committing the same foul, and it would be wrong.

Foul by the President.

"He has told us what he thinks when it can make a difference, and for that we should be grateful."

This piece by Jon Meacham is a bit old, but I just saw this the other day, and I thought it was on-point:

The McChrystal incident raises an interesting question: if commanders cannot speak their minds in such a forum—and the general was the very model of reason and grace—then what are the rules for commanders to engage in public debate? Many liberals have suddenly discovered Article II of the Constitution, arguing that civilian control of the military means soldiers should not express their views outside the chain of command. There is much to be said—in some senses, everything to be said—for officers restricting their comments, but I suspect the left would be taking a very different view of McChrystal's speaking his mind if the general were arguing a position with which it agreed.

In politics and in war, truth can be elusive; often all we can do is muddle through, trying to make the best of things. McChrystal knows better than anyone the complexities of what he faces, and if you read the whole speech he delivered in London you see that he was at pains to make the difficulties at hand as clear as possible.

He goes on:

History is not very helpful on this point. Douglas MacArthur is a bad example. He defied a president; McChrystal has not yet even disagreed with one. Still, the cultural imperatives within the armed forces are clear. As our longtime defense correspondent John -Barry notes, the tradition in the American military is captured best in Gen. George C. Marshall's dictum that commanders should present their views in private and then resign if they disagree sufficiently with the decision of the political leadership.

The issue is complicated, but then most issues of significance are. McChrystal appears to be a good man trying to do a nigh-impossible job. At least the general in whose hands lie the lives of thousands of soldiers and in whose success may lie our own national security chose to be clear now, in real time, when it matters, rather than waiting for a book contract. He has told us what he thinks when it can make a difference, and for that we should be grateful.

Full disclosure: I support staying the course in Afghanistan. That being said, I don't think Obama is "dithering," by waiting a bit to see how the elections turn out. I also think it's outrageous that certain being are suggesting that Gen. McChrystal should STFU, or that he is somehow undermining his CiC. McChrystal was handpicked by Obama, and gave his assessment of the situation. He has made clear that he will follow whatever orders are given. He has not disagreed with the President's decision, because the President hasn't made a decision yet, and that final decision will be ultimately up to President Obama.

As to the larger debate, I think it behooves everyone to take McChrystal's recommendations seriously. As far as the politics are concerned, I've no doubt that if McChrystal had argueda position they disagreed with, plenty of righties would be in an uproar, and Lefties would be hailing him, as opposed to hurling insults. Partisan politics has become war by other means. Nevertheless, suggesting that a general who does his job by giving his commander-in-chief true counsel is doing anything but his duty is disgraceful. The fomentation of division between the President and his generals, by either side, to score political points, or to further personal agendas, is even more so.

"I'm sorry about the lack of balance there. If I had control, that wouldn't have happened."

Yeah, Shep, I believe you.


Wow, indeed.

Not A Maoist, But A Moron

There is a new controversy of this brainfart by Anita Dunn, in which she appears to be praising Mao. The usual suspects have piled on, but like Andrew Sullivan, I sense that this is one of these kinds of situations. I submit that Dunn is not a Maoist, but a moron. A first-class moron.

ADDED: I mean, of course she was joking*, but who in their right mind jokes like that about Mao? Not only is it dumb politically, considering the optics, but it's downright disgusting. Ugh.

Oh, BTW, I used Media Matters purely for the links, via Andrew Sullivan

*I stand corrected. She wasn't, and those other links don't really mitigate the situation.

Cross-posted from Stubborn Facts