A Toast..

Andrew Sullivan is celebrating ten years of blogging on his site the Daily Dish, and has offered bloggers a schance the toast or roast his blog. Consider this a toast. Now, I'm no where near as influential (or consistent in terms of output) as him, or most of the others who've praised him, but I just wanted to take the opportunity and heap much deserved praise on a solid blogger (not to mention keep up with my own blog). Congrats for ten years.

Now, I've been following Andrew and the Dish for about the last six years, and I won't pretend I've agreed with everything that was said, although I found myself agreeing with him more in say 2005-2006, than say 2000. Of course, the thing about good blogs is not that agree with everything--I find myself disagreeing often with a lot of bloggers I check out, but it's about whether they're serious, and having interesting things to say. Sullivan has beeen that.

I've had, and still have issues with some of things he's written: The bulk of his Palin coverage is neccessary and proper, but often borders on personal obsession. He has routinely been accused of being a Obama worshipper. As one who is still a fan of this President, I think there are times when his praise has reached hero-worship levels, yet at other times his criticisms have been harsh and unrealistic. As for the last part, say what you want--he's been quite consistent, holding Obama to the same standards of his predecessor. His critique of Israel is I think, misinformed, but I reject out of hand the assertions of his critics of sinister motives. I've said some impolite things elsewhere about his work that I mostly regret now, but if anyone can understand that, I'm sure he can.

At the end of the day, I feel good work deserves proper praise, so I offer it up. His coverage of the revolution in Iran was indispensable. I like the awards, those are good. The mental health breaks, and all the funny stuff is exactly that. As much as his anti-Clinton sentiment, or some of his foreign policy views, or other things he may write may induce eye-rolling, and frustration, there is a reason his blog remains one of the first ones I read daily. He does good work, and deep down he seems a decent person. That's really all I'm looking for in reading good blogs--solid people, who despite disagreements on issues, are generally decent people, and have thoughtful things to say.

Congrats against for ten years, Andrew Sullivan and crew. Keep doing what you're doing.

BTW, besides my own blog, I often (and honestly, mostly in the last couple of years) blog at my second home Stubborn Facts. This is blatant self-promotion, but if you want an example of how thoughtful blogging is done with people whom you often disagree on policy, this is it.

"From Nazi Germany to the modern Middle East, societies that persecute Jews will get to homosexuals eventually..."

"... if they haven't been dispensed with already. This is a lesson that gays ignore at their peril."

Jamie Kirchick sounds off on the banning of the Tel Aviv float in Madrid's big gay pride parade. Apparently, hating on Israel just seems to take precedence over everything these days:

Like so many other democratic values, when it comes to gay rights Israel is an oasis in a sea of state-sanctioned repression, a "little patch," to use Mr. Poveda's words, that he and his comrades ought to defend. Gays serve openly in the Israeli military. While gay marriages can't be legally performed in Israel, the government grants gay couples many of the same rights as heterosexual ones and recognizes same-sex unions performed abroad. Many Palestinian gays seek asylum in Israel.

You know, this reminds of, I think it was a comedy bit, that mocked a real life group that was called "Gays for Palestine." The thing is, anyone who supported such a groups would neccessarily be oblivious of what actually happens to gays in Palestine, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and, well you get the idea.

HT: Frum, at the Dish

Now, I Don't Agree With Everything Barry Rubin Writes In This Piece,

but one salient point stands out. There is increasing concern amongst Israelis, and non-Obama hating supporters of Israel, about the direction of a number of Obama's policies concerning Israel. A regrettable portion of criticism of Obama's Israel policy has been hysterical and off the wall, but a great deal of it, especially from actual Israelis, is real, and valid, and to basically paint them all as Tom Tancredos is beneath you, Mr. President.

First, let's remember that Obama's first name is Barack, which is as much of Semitic language derivation as Hussein. Of course, that first name is found in Hebrew as well as Arabic. After all, Israel's defense minister is Ehud Barak and my Hebrew name sound the same though there are two different roots involved, while Hussein is more distinctively Arabic. But still, Obama's lack of awareness about the implications of his own name doesn't indicate a great depth of knowledge about the Middle East.

Second, Obama was initially--when he had the same name as he does now--quite popular in Israel as polls show. Only when he evinced hostility did the attitude of Israelis change sharply.

Third, that same name belies the impliction that Israelis are biased against him because of his middle name. Israelis, after all, have dealt with two famous Husseins: King Hussein of Jordan and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The former was a good friend, the most popular Arab leader in Israeli history. (Note 1)

So one can be a good Hussein or a bad Hussein. Of course the issue with this third Hussein is his policies. And that's why I find his saying this thing far more upsetting.

I say again that the rift's degree has been exaggarated by some, but it is real, and this sort of thing isn't helping.

HT: Frum, at the Dish

ADDED: Looking over the actual video in context, his comments seem less harsh, but he still seem to be avoiding the reality that many of his actual policies have generated some real concern. I think Obama is going to have to take real steps to smooth things over, and actually address these concerns. This sort of rhetoric doesn't help.

Michael Totten spells it out clearly:

I was in Jerusalem the day he was inaugurated. Everyone knew his middle name then, and the Israelis I met on that trip swooned over him as much as my bohemian neighbors in Portland did. Whether for good reasons or bad, his plummeting poll numbers are based entirely on what has occurred between then and now.

"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

"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.

"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.

"If the insurrection continues, a fast hard shove might well push it over. If the regime survives, it may well feel invincible."

Michael Totten, on the manifest corruption of the Iranian regime, the people in the street protesting the regime, and what our response ought to be in the West. I just thought I'd add this to this discussion.

The regime’s only allies in the world are terrorist armies and Bashar Assad’s Baath Party state in Syria. Assad himself, like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, is a pariah among the Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Azeris, and Israelis who make up the region.

Iranian civilians risk violent beatings and worse by the thousands for standing up to the regime in the streets and treating it as the enemy it clearly is. There is no better time for the rest of us to do so, as well, especially since such gestures carry far less risk for us. The Pasdaran have no divisions in Washington, Paris, or London.

Obama Administration officials still hope they can talk Khamenei out of developing nuclear weapons and supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. This is delusion on stilts. Khamenei can’t even compromise with his own regime or his hand-picked presidential candidates. He placed them under house arrest, along with a Grand Ayatollah, and deployed thousands of violent enforcers into the streets. Not only does he confront the world, he is at war with his very own country.

Understand the mind of a totalitarian. “Probe with a bayonet,” Vladimir Lenin famously said. “If you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.”

Read the whole thing. This situation does appear to make the chances of diplomacy monumentally less likely to be effective. I'm cautiously optimistic that the internal revolt may yet bring real change, or that some form of hard diplomacy may still work. Obama promises hard diplomacy with the regime. Assuming diplomacy has any real chance of working, it's going to have to be really hard--as hard as steel.

Also posted on Stubborn Facts.

Obama's Cairo Speech: Initial Thoughts

I've read the text of the speech, and I think it's really good- concise, and far-reaching, and shows a real good-faith attempt to step up to the plate on the key issues:

One of Obama's chief themes here is building (rebuilding?) bridges between Islam and the West:

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Good balance here, although Obama's critics may choose to interpret the line about sweeping change causing certain Muslims to view the West with hostility as showing weakness--but Obama makes sure to point out that such a view is invalid.

Many will no doubt take issue with Obama calling the Koran the Holy Koran (of course many of those same people will take issue with the idea of engaging the Muslim world in the first place), but if you read the whole text, you'll see that he is trying to show reverence to all faiths. He explains his unique background:

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

Obama goes out his way to quote the Koran to make his case. He then proceeds to expound on the contributions of mainstream Islam, and gives a sound defense of American values, and how Muslims ought to appreciate those values and contributions.

I thought his words on tolerance and religious liberty were good, although I found this interesting, and kind of strange:

We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Pretense of liberalism? That just sounds so strange the way he says that. Later, he begins to delve into specific policy points, particularly on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

As one who supported the war in Iraq, I'm glad that he acknowledges that Iraq is better off without Saddam, and while one needn't at all be a supporter of the war to agree with that sentiment, I find it interesting that if he had made this speech a year ago, many war critics would be vexed. I'm also glad that he has stuck to his responsible withdrawal plan (as I predicted he would), although Stephen Hayes does kind of have a point on this:

In a speech about freedom and democracy, America and Islam, Obama glides right past the most remarkable development in the region in decades: "Iraq's democratically-elected government." He mentions it only in passing, to note that he's keeping his campaign promised to remove troops...the fact that he can even use that phrase -- Iraq's democratically-elected government -- might have caused him to acknowledge that America's intervention there, despite the tremendous difficulties, has made Iraq a country that practices many of those things that he seeks for the rest of the region.

Now, I don't think it's fair to suggest that Obama didn't really acknowledge Iraq, but it's probably true that he could have been more specific with regards to the success of the surge, and exactly true that the situation in Iraq now would be near impossible without it.

On Israel, things get a bit more dicey. I've no doubt about Obama's pro-Israel bona fides. I think he is really trying to strike the right balance here, so while I think he loses me a bit when he talks about "the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation," I think he's trying to do the right thing. My issue with lines like that is that it can leave the impression that Israel is somehow to blame for the Palestinians present condition. I get what he's saying for the most part, and I think the right-wing criticism is just out of line. Maybe he could've mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah a few more times, but some of the criticisms (more here, here, and here) laid at his feet are really over the top. As Zalman Shoval said, there is no reason for panic.

At the end of the day, it was a good speech, and had Obama's classic rhetorical skill. That being said, speeches are just that--speeches, and he himself pointed out, they must be backed up by sound action.

More thoughts forthcoming.

Kudos to Sully for the speech reaction h/t's, and to Althouse for the speech link.

"I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell."

More from PJM's new Israel correspondent, and conservative uber-celebrity. Can someone explain to me again, what is it exactly, that makes certain people take this guy seriously? Are you kidding me?

Look, a lot of us have seen that the MSM has a habit of screwing up the reportage, but it's absurd to make a blanket declaration that all journalists need to go. Is that just the MSM journalists (are only MSM reporters journalists?), or anyone? What the Hell is this guy talking about?

Joe The Reporter?

You know, I almost didn't want to blog on this, but I just had to share a few thoughts on JTP's new job as foreign policy analyst, with PJTV. I'm getting a negative vibe from this whole outfit, although not enough to lose any sleep over. Look, the professional media has certainly made, and continues to make big mistakes in their Israel-Palestine coverage. That much is clear. I certainly have no objection to bloggers, or anybody exercising their right offer up their perspective. That being said, assuming JTP's coverage is supposed to have some meaningful value, I cannot shake this feeling that this will turn out to be less about covering Israel, than pumping of Joe Wurzelbacher's image. I'll be honest, the guy just rubs me the wrong way, and it's not just his lack of gratitude, or his seemingly inflated sense of self-importance. I mean, there are a lot of solid journalists and bloggers who have proven themselves reliable voices on the region. My favorite Mideast blogger even works for Pajamas Media, BTW. Maybe it's just that I have this feeling that this Israel tour will turn out to be more of an attempt to bash Obama, then an attempt to show the Israeli side of things.

I'm not going to get bent out of shape over this, and qho knows, maybe he'll do a good job, but nonsense like this covers JTP's credibility in something of a dark cloud, or rather, a miasma.

HT: Althouse

ADDED: I was reading the comments over at Althouse's place, I felt compelled to add a bit more. Let me say again that my main beef with JTP is that I think he comes off as an ego-driven, self-important, celebrity hound. It's clear why some many righties like him, because he basically shares the views of the base. Heck, he may yet offer up something meaningful, and you know what, I hope I'm wrong about the guy (although I doubt it). I think in one sense he has perceived the utterly wayward media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that much like the Lebaon war is as compromised as ever. The thing is, his utterly insane support for the idea that Obama means death for Israel totally wounds his perspective.

"And Biden is the foreign-policy gravitas on the Democratic ticket, so his comments are actually even more disconcerting."

Kirsten Powers, on the double standard over Biden's gaffes, versus Sarah Palin's:

There were a few exceptions. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," co-host Mika Brzezinski flipped incredulously through the papers, expressing shock at the lack of coverage of Biden's remarks. Guest Dan Rather admitted that if Palin had said it, the media would be going nuts.

So what gives?

The stock answer is: "It's just Biden being Biden." We all know how smart he is about foreign policy, so it's not the same as when Sarah Palin says something that seems off.

Yet, when Biden asserted incorrectly in the vice-presidential debate that the United States "drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon," nobody in the US media shrieked. (It was, however, covered with derision in the Middle East.) Or when he confused his history by claiming FDR calmed the nation during the Depression by going on TV, the press didn't take it as evidence that he's clueless.

Indeed. Michael Totten brought the Lebanon gaffe up, and let's not forget Biden's constitutional flub. I'm for Obama at this point, but I've got to call 'em as I see 'em, and frankly, the bias at work here is blatant, and disquieting.

HT: Althouse, who offers this up, which I agree with:

Even those who support Obama -- not all, but some -- are getting nauseated by the press bias. And it's not just the bias. I'm really queasy about that future Biden is foreseeing. He has access to all sorts of reports of threats that we can't be told. It's as if he's taunting us with his inside knowledge. There will be -- what? -- attacks? And is Obama already planning to respond in ways that they know will dismay us? Tell us more. Is it about Israel?

I don't think one needs to oppose Obama to be vexed by the pro-Obama bias in the press. In fact, as I've argued elsewhere, it gives a lot of the attacks on Obama more legitimacy than they would have otherwise, because when attacks on Obama are rejected by most of the public, it is seen by many as a left-wing media conspiracy, even when it's not, because a lot of the press is basically in the tank for Obama.

Britain's Just Not What It Used To Be, Is It?

You know, Rich Horton of the Iconic Midwest, and I, don't see eye to eye on Obama, among other things, but let it never be said that he's not worth reading. Here's a doubtless ill-reported story that ought to make you cringe, unless you're an anti-semite:

So now Israelis are "nasty.

"Hmm...we don't normally label democratic states as "nasty regimes." I wonder what makes Israel different?

Oh.....thats right. It's full of Jews.

No....there's no anti-Semitism to see here.(In case you were wondering, the occasion for such a comment by the Labour MP was the supposed temerity of the British government to criticize a new Iranian law mandating death for "apostasy" from Islam. Nice, eh?)

Hnnh. Quite revolting. I started really becoming concerned that the powers-that-be in British society were well on they way to embracing totalitarianism a while ago, but it really is worse than I thought.

When You Put It LIke That...

You know, I've always held that the meme that Obama is somehow less than supportive of Israel, or wants to appease terrorists in the Middle East is false and ridiculous. I still hold to that, but I must admit I find this disquieting:

It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

Lee Smith explains what's wrong with Obama's analysis:

Obama's language is derived from those corners of the left that claim Hezbollah is only interested in winning the Shia a larger share of the political process. Never mind the guns, it's essentially a social welfare movement, with schools and clinics! – and its own foreign policy, intelligence services and terror apparatus, used at the regional, international and now domestic level. But the solution, says, Obama, channeling the man he fired [Robert Malley] for talking to Hamas, is diplomacy.

Yeah. Like I said, disquieting.

Happy Birthday, Israel

The modern state of Israel celebrates its 60th birthday today. By God's grace, and the hard work of many, Israel survives, and despite challenges, thrives, whether certain people like it or not.


HT: Fern, with more links.

Considering Kosovo

Always-at-the-top-of-his-game Michael Totten is traveling to Kosovo, and doing his spot-on reporting from there. He has a good piece on Kosovo, and I found this excerpt fascinating:

Kosovo is the world’s newest country, and its unilateral declaration of independence is more controversial than the existence of Israel. It should be only slightly surprising, then, that many Kosovars, though most are Muslims, identify to an large extent with the Israelis. “Kosovars used to identify with the Palestinians because we Albanians are Muslims and Christians and we saw Serbia and Israel both as usurpers of land,” a prominent Kosovar recent told journalist Stephen Schwartz. “Then we looked at a map and woke up. Israelis have a population of six million, their backs to the sea, and 300 million Arab enemies. Albanians have a total population of eight million, our backs to the sea, and 200 million Slav enemies. So why should we identify with the Arabs?”

Indeed.

Wright Is Still Wrong

More on Wright's latest speech, in which he basically says the same hateful things he's said before, just with more bad political analysis thrown in, is forthcoming, but I just wanted to offer up this, via Dana Milbank in the WaPo:

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

First off, Farrakhan did in fact call Judaism a gutter religion, and even if he was talking about Zionism, and I know I should know better considering who we're talking about, but are we supposed to treat that statement as if calling Zionism a "gutter religion" is somehow a good thing? Are we supposed to agree with you, and Jimny "Douchebag Diplomat" Carter, that standing up for Israel is somehow a bad thing? I think not. Farrakhan was wrong then, and he's wrong now, and so are you.

Also, there's this:

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

One of the big problems I have with Wright, is his assertion that his brand of preaching and theology represents the mainstream of the black church. I find that assertion ridiculous. The prophetic tradition of black preaching is one thing. Wright's sermons are something else. Don't get me wrong, it's not as if Wright's the only one who preaches this way, but the idea that this is how the black chuch, or the church in general is to function is revolting.

And lastly, there's this, in which he totally throws Obama under the bus, and may cost him the Presidency:

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Ouch. To paraphrase the proverb, "My enemies I can handle, God save me from my friends."

Obama needs to cut this guy loose. I mean, he can't totally disown him, but he needs to publicly denounce Wright's views some more, and with more force than before.

HT: Instapundit, Patterico, and Sully

Really?

I'm planning on posting on the Obama-Farrakhan controversy, but I just wanted to say that this pro-Israel Democrat finds fears like this unfounded. Obama says he is pro-Israel, and at the end of the day, I believe him.

UPDATE: This from the Republican Jewish Coalition:

"People should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks. "If Senator Obama supports Ralph Nader's policies, which consistently condemn Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, and if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president, it once again raises serious questions about his grasp of the geo-political realities of the Middle East and puts into doubt his commitment to the safety and security of Israel. These are important questions we in the Jewish community will be asking."

So we're supposed to believe Obama is anti-Israel because Ralph Nader says so? Huh? The concerns about his choice of advisors is much more valid (particularly with regards to ZBig), but I still fail to see this as alarming as others. The questions will need to be asked, but let's look a little deeper than the ego-driven rantings of Ralph Nader, shall we?

Michael Scheuer Is A Prick

These guys think so too, and I agree with them. You need to read the whole thing, and to my fellow liberals especially, ponder why it is that some of us are so quick to embrace such unreconstructed types. Interesting blog all around too.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

Martin Kramer Schools Juan Cole

This was good. Against such an asinine and ridiculous utterance as Cole's, such satire works perfectly.

HT: Michael J. Totten.