MoveOn.org provided Republicans a life raft when it ran a full-page newspaper advertisement Monday taunting Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
Life raft indeed.
As we wait for the first big-name Democrat to denounce the MoveOn ad, it's worth remembering for a moment the hot summer of 2004 and the pitched battle over ads.
MoveOn ran an ad questioning President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Air National Guard. In August 2004 John Kerry denounced it. Kerry: "The ad is inappropriate. This should be a campaign of issues, not insults."
Three years later and the military-related insults haven't stopped. Who would have thought John Kerry would remain the sole marquee Democrat with the courage to denounce MoveOn?
Posted by: Mike ||
09/14/2007 06:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He can denounce them because he is already on record taking stands even more extreme than theirs.
#3
Democrats John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman have all spoken out against MoveOn.org's ad claiming Gen. Petraeus "cooked the books" and calling him "General Betray Us"...Hillary Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has not condemned the ad...Day 5... Link
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/14/2007 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Until MoveOn.org compares General Petraeus to Ghengis Khan they are still playing a game of catch up with John Kerry.
Who recently said: "These Jews started 19 Crusades. The 19th was World War (1). Why? Only to build Israel."
Some holdover Nazi?
Hardly. It was former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan of Turkey, a NATO ally. He went on to claim that the Jews -- whom he refers to as "bacteria" -- controlled China, India and Japan, and ran the United States.
Who alleged: "The Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs."
A conspiracy nut?
Actually, it was former Democratic U.S. Sen. James Abourezk of South Dakota. He denounced Israel on a Hezbollah-owned television station, adding: "I marveled at the Hezbollah resistance to Israel. . . . It was a marvel of organization, of courage and bravery."
And finally, who claimed at a United Nations-sponsored conference that democratic Israel was "much worse" than the former apartheid South Africa, and that it "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming"? A radical environmentalist wacko?
Again, no. It was Clare Short, a member of the British parliament. She was a secretary for international development under Prime Minister Tony Blair.
A new virulent strain of the old anti-Semitism is spreading worldwide. This hate -- of a magnitude not seen in over 70 years -- is not just espoused by Iran's loony president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or radical jihadists.
The latest anti-Semitism is also now mouthed by world leaders and sophisticated politicians and academics. Their loathing often masquerades as "anti-Zionism" or "legitimate" criticism of Israel. But the venom exclusively reserved for the Jewish state betrays their existential hatred.
Israel is always lambasted for entering homes in the West Bank to look for Hamas terrorists and using too much force. But last week the world snoozed when the Lebanese army bombarded and then crushed the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, which harbored Islamic terrorists.
The world has long objected to Jewish settlers buying up land in the West Bank. Yet Hezbollah, flush with Iranian money, is now purchasing large tracts in southern Lebanon for military purposes and purging them of non-Shiites. Here at home, "neoconservative" has become synonymous with a supposed Jewish cabal of Washington insiders who hijacked U.S. policy to take us to war for Israel's interest. That our state department is at the mercy of a Jewish lobby is the theme of a recent high-profile book by professors at Harvard University and the University of Chicago.
Yet when the United States bombed European and Christian Serbia to help Balkan Muslims, few critics alleged that American Muslims had unduly swayed President Clinton. And such charges of improper ethnic influence are rarely leveled to explain the billions in American aid given to non-democratic Egypt, Jordan or the Palestinians -- or the Saudi oil money that pours into American universities.
The world likewise displays such a double standard. It seems to care little about the principle of so-called occupied land -- whether in Cyprus or Tibet -- unless Israel is the accused. Mass murdering in Cambodia, the Congo, Rwanda and Darfur has earned far fewer United Nations' resolutions of condemnation than supposed atrocities committed by Israel. A number of British academics are sponsoring a boycott of Israeli scholars but leave alone those from autocratic Iran, China and Cuba.
There are various explanations for the new anti-Semitism. For many abroad, attacking Jews and Israel is an indirect way of damning its main ally, the United States -- by implying that Americans are not entirely evil, just hoodwinked by those sneaky and far more evil Jews.
At home, there are obvious pragmatic considerations. Some Americans may find it makes more sense to damn a few million Israelis without oil than it does to offend Israel's adversaries in the Middle East, who number in the hundreds of millions and control nearly half the world's petroleum reserves.
Cowardice explains a lot. Libeling Israel won't earn someone a fatwa or a death sentence in the manner comparable criticism of Islam might. There are no Jewish suicide bombers in London, Madrid or Bali.
This new face of anti-Semitism is so insidious because it is so well disguised, advanced by self-proclaimed diplomats and academics -- and now embraced by the supposedly sophisticated left on university campuses.
When national, collective or personal aspirations are not met, it is far easier to blame someone or something rather than to look within for the source of the failure and frustration. More recently, someone must be blamed for getting terrorists (with oil and its profits behind them) mad at us.
That someone is -- no surprise -- once again Jews.
#1
Hate to critique what is really a very good article, but this isn't all that new. The Democrats left in the western world has been saying stuff like this since noon on 9/11/01. There's postings on Kos and DU every day that would make Julius Streicher blush.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/14/2007 6:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Democratic conspiraring with Islamist, I believe that one.
Posted by: Boss Craising2882 ||
09/14/2007 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Odd juxtaposition with the article today about how Isreal & Turkey have a close working relationship. Tho' the article did say the relationship was mostly military-to-miltary, not gov't to gov't.
In sixteenth-century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire. According to historian Norman Davies, "[T]he spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized." Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth. Interesting article. Pinker outlines a number of theories. Not too long, hard to excerpt, go RTWT.
#2
Hmmm, I guess Atlanta doesn't count as in mostof the world.
Posted by: Titus Hayes4699 ||
09/14/2007 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I probably should have quoted the penultimate paragraph:
Whatever its causes, the decline of violence has profound implications. It is not a license for complacency: We enjoy the peace we find today because people in past generations were appalled by the violence in their time and worked to end it, and so we should work to end the appalling violence in our time. Nor is it necessarily grounds for optimism about the immediate future, since the world has never before had national leaders who combine pre-modern sensibilities with modern weapons.
A week after Syria accused Israel of infiltrating its airspace and jettisoning ammunition in its territory, experts speculate that possible targets may have included weapons shipments to Hizbullah or nuclear materials from North Korea. I CAN'T remember a time when our interests and theirs converged like this, says a former Israeli defense man. For several days after Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had penetrated its airspace, neither country wanted to talk about what had happened.
The unaccustomed silence was broken first by Syria's foreign minister, Walid Moallem, who apparently complained to European diplomats that Israel had bombed targets in Syria; and then by unnamed American sources, who confirmed to CNN and the New York Times that Israel had carried out air strikes. What Israel bombed and why is still unclear. The American reports suggest that it was weapons destined for Hizbullah, the Iran-backed Islamist Shia movement that dominates southern Lebanon, but these have been passing through Syria for years.
One theory is that it was suspected nuclear material from North Korea (apart from Iran, North Korea was the only country to leap indignantly to Syria's defense); another, that Israel was trying out flight paths for a possible war with Syria or attack on Iran, or testing out new Syrian air defenses that were reportedly recently supplied by Russia. Syria's own muted response and failure to retaliate suggest that whatever happened, it was most embarrassing.
Certainly, Israeli air force officers are said to be jubilant about the mission's success, though officials have stayed tight-lipped, and those Israeli journalists who hint that they know what happened aren't telling. Whatever the target, it must have been something special for Israel to launch an attack now, at a time when both countries have been building up their forces for a possible war while trying to reassure each other publicly that they do not want one. Indeed, having the leaks come from America rather than Israel may have been an attempt to avoid further escalation.
That attempt may be working: despite unconfirmed reports that Syria was calling up its reserves, no firm promise of military retaliation has come. And the raid will certainly have given Syria pause. Though both countries have been building up their defences since Israel's war with Hizbullah last summer, Syria has for a while been calling for new peace talks over the return of the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied in the 1967 war. A number of prominent Israelis echoed that call this year, after a former Israeli diplomat and an expatriate Syrian-American revealed that they had had a series of meetings to talk peace.
Proponents of talking to Syria argue that doing so would encourage it to reduce its involvement in Lebanon, loosen its ties with Iran and stop letting insurgents cross its border into Iraq. Skeptics, who predominate in the Israeli and American governments, argue that Syria merely wants peace talks with Israel as a way to ease the pressure on it, and should show it is serious about relinquishing its influence in Lebanon first. The latest raid may have weakened Syria's hand. If Israel can slow Hizbullah's arms supply or foil Syrian air defenses, then, so the theory goes, it dents Syria's ability to use either its influence in Lebanon or the threat of a war with Israel as bargaining chips.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/14/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
I say to Syria: "Nuts!" It confused the Krauts at Bastogne and it'll mess up the Syrians even worse. Come and get it Bashar. This ain't the Yids who skulked around the Souk in Damascus. This is is the New Jew. Don't F*ck with us!
#2
...and jettisoning ammunition in its territory,
heh. never heard it phrased quite that way before......
Posted by: Lorenzo Sforza7572 ||
09/14/2007 0:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Syria is reportedly denying that the IAF struck weaposn shipments meant for H-E-Zbollah - no response yet as for H-I-Zbullah [Hizzies], or the Huzzies, etc.
#4
Barak sucked as PM, but clearly fits in nicely as Min. of Defense. Syria should have been "humiliated" and actually pressed til it crached years ago. Oh, I forgot - we DID pull out all the stops - didn't Colin Powell wag his finger at Damascus or utter harsh words, or something?
#5
Proponents of talking to Syria argue that doing so would encourage it to reduce its involvement in Lebanon, loosen its ties with Iran and stop letting insurgents cross its border into Iraq
Base assumption here: Western logic. Don't use it to model ME/muslim responses simply because you don't understand ME/muslim logic. It will take you to the same place that the dinosaurs wandered off to.
#6
Before this unpleasantness is over, my assessment is Basher will be apologizing and saying the strikes were actually pert of on-going Syrian Air Force exercises. Appears there may be a little dab or two of North Korean poo on his shoe. Things are definately ratcheting up. Everyone here is expecting the Iranian bullshit flag may be thrown at any minute.
#8
In WWII, "Bomber" Harris used to talk of "exporting" bombs to Germany.
Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds ||
09/14/2007 7:43 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think it was a preemptive strike and a slap in the face. Israel's way of saying, "We don't care what nasty stuff you bring into your country. We will blow it up and take it wherever it is and there isn't a Allendamned thing you can do about it, Zippy. Understand?"
#11
Certainly, Israeli air force officers are said to be jubilant about the mission's success, though officials have stayed tight-lipped, and those Israeli journalists who hint that they know what happened aren't telling.
This is the most shocking detail of the piece; the notion of a press corps not manned by opportunists and traitors.
#13
Arab press coverage of US losses in Iraq, conveys the illusion of US weakness. Arabs weren't told that Hizbollah hid missiles in family residences during Israel's invasion last Summer, thus they believe that Israel is weak. Message: they could get reckless.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Hardly. It was former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan of Turkey, a NATO ally. He went on to claim that the Jews -- whom he refers to as "bacteria" -- controlled China, India and Japan, and ran the United States.
A week after Syria accused Israel of infiltrating its airspace and jettisoning ammunition in its territory, experts speculate that possible targets may have included weapons shipments to Hizbullah or nuclear materials from North Korea. I CAN'T remember a time when our interests and theirs converged like this, says a former Israeli defense man. For several days after Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had penetrated its airspace, neither country wanted to talk about what had happened. 
