Why can Republicans undermine the president?

Guest post from "George"


Yesterday, GOP presidential front runner Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) led a news conference to attack President Obama’s Middle East policies, insisting that “as a Christian, I have aclear directive to support Israel.” Fellow candidate Mitt Romney jumped on the bandwagon, calling for the U.S. to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and re-evaluate funding U.N. programs if Palestinians gain recognition from the U.N. This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host (and former Republican Rep.) Joe Scarborough slammed Perry and Romney for “posing for political purposes and undermining our president.” “That is dangerous and it’s not good for our country,” he said. Watch it:

MSNBC’s First Read asks, “If Howard Dean or John Kerry had shown up in New York City while [President George W.] Bush was at U.N. in ’03 — and had accused Bush of ‘appeasement’ (with foreign nationals) at a time of tricky negotiations at the U.N. — wouldn’t that have drawn widespread condemnation

---

Search for more information about IOKIYAR at 4torah.com

YWN attacks Obama's attackers?!

I bash YWN all the time for publishing falsehoods and appeals to the lowest common Orthodox Jewish denominator. For the most part, their articles are written by illiterate morons or stolen from reputable news sources and the comments are mostly written by drones who've outsourced their thinking to people like Avigdor Miller or Joseph Farah. When I assemble my top ten list of things that disappoint me about Jews, the fact that so many of my coreligionists revel in the dreck found daily on YWN will certainly be included.

However...

Today the worst blog in the world ran a guest post by Charles Katz that made perfect sense, and surprisingly the first dozen or so comments offered no objection. The gist is that the Orthodox Jews who protested against Obama in front of the UN yesterday are a bunch of  ingrates who need to get out of Rick Perry's pants. Money quote:

President Obama was across the street at the United Nations working feverishly to stop the Palestinians from declaring a state, and a group of men wearing Yarmulkas publicly gather to blast the President of the United States on live television. Talk about a chilul hashem. And don’t think for one second that most of them mean this “lishem shomayim” to defend Israel. They could not care less about Israel. They care about one thing and one thing only: chanifah towards Rick Perry lest he be the next President. Oh, and as an added bonus they get to pretend that they are machers for a day by getting their photo in a newspaper with the Republican Presidential frontrunner.

What did Obama do to deserve this? Promising to veto the Palestinian State wasn’t enough? How about saving a dozen Jews in the Israeli Embassy in Egypt last Shabbos? Where is the hakoras hatov?

Quite right, and (ahem) all honor to YWN for publishing it and (cough cough) to their readers for concurring with the message.

---

Search for more information about stuff I can't quite believe I saw at 4torah.com

WSJ lies about Israel and Obama

The we hate Obama crowd is enjoying a new editorial published by the WSJ which begs a question, and then tries to answer it. Under the heading "Why Obama Is Losing the Jewish Vote?" (Oh, really?) we find a list of bullets, each containing errors, omissions, exaggerations, misstatements of fact, or outright lies. Perhaps in time, I'll point all of them out, but for now, here's a debunking of one, especially egregious error.

• July 2009: Mr. Obama hosted American Jewish leaders at the White House, reportedly telling them that he sought to put "daylight" between America and Israel. "For eight years"—during the Bush administration—"there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished," he declared

This is not a fair description of what occurred. First of all, common sense ought to tell you something smells fishy here. Would an American president really be foolish enough to announce his plans to screw Israel in front of an audience of American Jewish leaders? And indeed, the facts tell a different story.

Here's the version reported at the time by JTA:
[Malcom] Henlein said that peace progress was likelier when there was "no daylight" between Israel and the United States. Obama agreed that it must always be clear that Israel has unalloyed U.S. support but added that for the past eight years, referring to the Bush administration, there was "no daylight and no progress."

Here's how the New York Times reported it at first 
Participants said some of the toughest questioning of Mr. Obama came from Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Two said that Mr. Hoenlein told the president that diplomatic progress in the Middle East has traditionally occurred when there is “no light” between the positions of the United States and Israel. But Mr. Obama pushed back, citing the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

“He said, ‘I disagree,’ ‘’ said Marla Gilson, director of the Washington action office of Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization. “He said, ‘For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.’

Here's how the New York Times reported it later
During the July meeting, held in the Roosevelt Room, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told Obama that “public disharmony between Israel and the U.S. is beneficial to neither” and that differences “should be dealt with directly by the parties.” The president, according to Hoenlein, leaned back in his chair and said: “I disagree. We had eight years of no daylight” — between George W. Bush and successive Israeli governments — “and no progress.”

From the context it seems absolutely clear that Obama was not threatening Israel, nor was he announcing a policy shift. Rather, he is telling us that he has Israel's best interests at heart, and that he does not believe that Bush's approach was successful.  He wants progress. He wants peace. And he's not afraid to point out that Bush failed to deliver it. This is not scandalous - unless you're unscrupulously searching for any quote or misquote that can be used to hurt the president.

---

Search for more information about # at 4torah.com

How dare Obama smile at dictators?

Thanks and all honor to (sex) Rabbi Shmuli Boteach for sounding the alarm about President Obama. The fact that the president smiled at Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez is indeed, a source of great national and personal humiliation, and an indication of the president's unprecedented venality.

As Shmuli put it: "How oppressive must a leader be before we determine that he has not merited a hug by the democratic standard-bearer of the free world, the president of the United States?"

I would, therefore, encourage the president to emulate the powerful and shining examples of his GOP predecessors. For his reference, and yours, I've assembled the following photo montage of Republican Presidents greeting evil dictators in the manner they so richly deserve:

1. George W. Bush scowling at King Abdullah of Suadi Arabia
2. George W. Bush giving the finger to Islam Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan
3. Reagen snubbing Mikhael Gorbachav
4. Reagen using his body to block Suharto of Indionesia from entering the Oval Office.
4. Gerald Ford scratching out Leonid Brezhnev's eyes
5. Nixon mooning Chairman Mao

Additional proof Europe hates Israel

The New York Times (which also hates Israel) is reporting that when the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, began his speech at the UN conference on racism taking place today in Geneva ...

"...all 23 of the 27 European Union members attending the conference stood up and filed out of the room to cheers from the audience galleries."

Canada and Israel boycotted the conference along with the Netherlands, Italy, Australia, and the United States, which is led by notorious Israel-hater Barak Hussein Obama. Shimon Hussein Peres, who hates Israel most of all, protested Ahmadinejad's speech saying "There must be a limit, even to the neutrality of Switzerland. Today [the eve of Yom Hashoa] is the day? This is the man to speak? This is the outlook for the future?”

HT: Shanna, who hates Israel, and blogs about it at her anti-Israel blog.

Search for more information about racism at 4torah.com.

Torture update

Yesterday:
The New York Times reports that the "C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

For those with rusty math skills: That comes out to about once every four hours, if we assume the torturers rested on the Lord's day.
For those with rusty logic skills: This proves that torture doesn't work. If it did, wouldn't one trip to the waterboarding chamber have been enough?

Today
John McCain, who tortured us all when he foisted Sarah Palin on the lower 49 states, told Foux News:

One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period. I can ensure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear. And most importantly, it serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.

Good stuff, but he also complained that the anti-torture Obama administration was wrong to reveal that Mohammed had been deceived into thinking he was about to die of drowning on 183 separate occasions. But how can we have it both ways? If torture is wrong, immoral, unethical, useless, illegal, and bad for America, how can he possibly argue that its occurrences should also be kept secret?

As Andrew Sullivan said it: ...even by the Bush-Cheney standards of legality, the [Mohammed] waterboarders far exceeded what was allowed. They broke the law even by Bush's standards. And why, pray, is breaking the law in such a grave matter as a war crime no longer subject to prosecution or even investigation in the United States? The US is a banana republic if this stuff is allowed to go unpunished. A banana republic with a torture apparatus.

RELATED
- Bush's Boneheaded Torture Policy
- Arguing torture in the manner of the bes medrash
- The Divine Right of Bush?
- Bush defends freedom by torturing innocent people in secret.

Baraknaphobia

I keep hearing that Barak Obama is some kind of tyrant. Thank God for John Stewart:

And while President Bush was the one who started the bailout, nationalizing an insurance company, added a $17 trillion drug prescription entitlement program, had a government-mandated public school initiative, literally titled No Child Left Behind,' wiretapped citizens without warrants, created secret internment camps in international waters behind the reach of our justice system and allowed his vice president to live in a netherworld between the executive and legislative branch. Only now... has tyranny come to our shores.

"If I remember correctly," Stewart continued, "When disagreement was expressed about [Geroge W. Bush's] actions when ya'll were in power, I believe the response was 'Why do you hate America,' Watch what you say,' Love it or leave it' and Suck on my truck nuts.'" See it

Search for more information about Hussein Obama at 4torah.com.

Fox Newsance

I'm trying to recall if any of the s0-called liberal stations ever led an effort to undermine a sitting president, in the way that Fox's so-called journalists are coming after Obama. In particular, I'm referring to the channel's overt support for the "tea-parties". Fox reporters are holding fundraisers, planning to participate in the rallies, and giving viewers information about how to join. Some are doing absolutely nothing to conceal their enthusiasm.

Can you imagine how much drool conservatives would spray if Brian Williams or Katie Couric- or even Keith Olberman - were to act this way on behalf of some liberal cause?

Anyway, the Fox crybabies are full of it. If run-away federal spending makes them so unhappy, where were they when Bush was the one writing the overlarge checks?

Search for more information about Faux News at 4torah.com.

The president's seder

I admit to mixed feelings about the Obama family Pesach seder, which took place Thursday night in the Old Family Dining Room at the White House.

In no particular order, those mixed feelings are:

(1) Appreciation A seder is a grind, not a happy party with passed hor dours and sparkling drinks. To host and sit through one is a demonstration of fellowship and respect -- for us, for our faith, and for the fact of our full citizenship. Sixty short years after the Holocaust, that means something. Though our best buddy Bush was good for a Hanukkah party - occasionally on the wrong day - and gained a measure of fame when he became the first sitting president to host the Islamic feast of Eid al-fitr, Bush never sat through maggid.

(2) Doubt Did Obama really sit through maggid? I can't find any accounts of the event that describe the liturgy the president and his guests used, but I do sort of say B.S to the suggestion that he read all those proof texts and glosses. I suspect he did the Four Questions, and maybe Raban Gamliel, and I base this guess on some of community model seders I've had the misfortune of attending, but I really don't know. Still, is that enough? If the maggid was perfunctory (as, let's admit, it probably was) does that make the seder less of a gesture and more of a pander? If so, when is the line crossed? (I used the word "pander" incorrectly two sentences ago. Poetic license. You know what I meant)

(3) Sentimentality. There is something exquisitely precious about the thought of Obama, Emanuel and Axelrod joining hands and singing together in the words of the old Jewish spiritual: "Then we were slaves, now we are free." (Note: I doubt they joined hands and sung; also I can't confirm Axelrod and Emanual were in attendance. I said the thought was precious)

(4) I don't really know what to call this last feeling, but its something like, hey, the seder belongs to us, you claim jumper, and if you aren't going to do it right, don't do it at all. I confess this feeling is ridiculous, in that the seder doesn't really belong to anyone and that so long as your way of doing it makes you happy, you've done it right, but still.... I can't shake this feeling that somehow something sacred has been slightly cheapened, and, intentially or not, converted into a political stunt.

Search for more information about the seder at 4torah.com.

Stewart buries CNBC

After a mad (by which I mean crazy) CNBC reporter expressed some loud ire about the Obama plan to help homeowners pay their mortgages, Jon Stewart tore the whole CNBC network a large, gaping, new one. I'm talking Grand Canyon sized.

His rebuttal is hysterically funny, while also making some serious points. I, for one find, find it offensive when richies, fat from 5 absurdly prosperous years, complain about Obama's intention to help those who missed out at the party, and are now suffering doubly. When, as in the case of CNBC and the people it covers, the whiners and complainers are the very people who contributed to the meltdown with bad reporting, bad prognosticating, and bad business practices, well, it just makes want to hurl.

Related famous Jon Stewart line: After playing a clip of a Meryl Lynch executive explaining that large bonuses were distributed last December, because "that's what it takes to keep the best people" Stewart exploded: The best people? YOU LOST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THOSE AREN'T THE BEST PEOPLE!

Sponsored Message
- Celebrate Purim 2009 with Magnificent Purim Baskets - Mishloach Manot from Oh Nuts.

What color is your Kool-Aid?

When I heard Obama was in Chicago last weekend, playing ball and meeting friends while Congress debated a crucially important bill, my reaction wasn't negative. Instead, I thought, well sure: "Everyone needs a break. And besides its the weekend."

I rather doubt Republicans responded similarly; likewise, I opposed Bush's frequent trips to the fake ranch during his 8 years in office. In responce, the 30 percenters told me how hard the president worked, and how modern communication made it possible for someone to work effectivly from anywhere. Some of those same 30 percenters are today criticizing the trip to Chicago, just as I once complained about the frequent trips to Crawford. Interesting how that works, no?

(To clarify, following a query in the comments, this post is just a comment on how the mind works. I think we're all in the grips of it.)

(And while we're on the topic of the fake ranch, does anyone else wonder why W. retired to a nice house in Dallas, rather than to his "beloved" Crawford spread?)

Stimulating

Stimulus bill gives $1 billion to Jewish social service providers: "The economic stimulus bill enacted by President Obama will provide $1 billion to Jewish nursing homes and social service agencies, according to the United Jewish Communities"

HT: TTC

Deep thought

The Obama stimulus plan being decried by teeth-gnashing conservatives will cost substantially less than either the Bush administration's 2 trillion in tax cuts or the 1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq. [Source]

Israel, the African tribe

A Guest Post by Rafi G
(originally posted on LII)

Something about this news item bothers me..

US President Barack Obama called President Shimon Peres Wednesday night and congratulated him on a "successful democratic elections."

----YnetNews, but it was also on other news sites..

I am not sure what Barack Obama thinks of Israel, but you don't have presidents calling Obama and wishing him congratulations on a successful democratic election. They called to wish him success and congrats for his victory and inauguration.

It sounds like he considers us an African tribe or a Middle East Islamic regime just trying out democracy and going through our first elections. Yet we have been doing this for 60 years, encompassing 18 democratic election experiences. We are an established and successful democracy.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

The apology parade

Last night our Lord and Master, the anointed Messiah and Rushmore-ready Barak Obama, may his greatness be revealed in honor and glory, speedily and quickly in our days, granted interviews to not one, not two, but five network news programs to apologize for doing a piss poor job of vetting a few of his cabinet appointments. Here is what the president said:

I think I messed up. I screwed up in not recognizing the perception that even though this is an honest mistake, I believe, on Tom's part, that, you know, ordinary people are out there paying taxes every day and whether it's an intentional mistake or not, it was sending the wrong signal. So again, this was something that was my fault

Snort. And this is change? Taking responsibility? Being a grown-up? Admitting error? Please. Don't we all remember when Bush gave those heroic apologies for... for....

um... anyone?

Related: Liberal columnist Maureen Dowd, who writes for the liberal and therefore Obama-worshipping New York Times, went down on her knees and planted a big wet one squarely on the president's buttocks. Here is some of what she said: It took Daschle’s resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn’t have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about for two years.

Feel the love, baby. If she continues showering the president with this brand of blind and unreflective devotion, we might make Maureen spiritual leader of our new Obama-centered religion.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (now)

He's a sneaky one that Obama...

The secret plan to destroy us continues to develop.....

Secretary's Remarks: Remarks by Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell After Their Meeting
Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:17:06 -0600


QUESTION: -- (inaudible) it's clear that from the President's first interview and from the first stop in Cairo that the Administration is making a concerted effort to send a signal of the priorities and the balance, and perhaps a rebalancing. Is that enough going in? Or, eventually, does there have to be a path, a diplomatic path to Hamas, in order to resolve Gaza? And if I could ask both of you, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, you know, we have a very clear policy toward Hamas, and Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth. They must renounce violence. They must recognize Israel. And they must agree to abide by prior agreements that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

We are just at the beginning of this deep and consistent engagement that we are part of, that Senator Mitchell is leading for our Administration, but our conditions with respect to Hamas have not and will not change. It is our hope that the work that needs to be done to move the parties toward an effort to settle many of the disputes that they currently confront will be effective. But Hamas knows that it must stop the rocket fire into Israel. There were rockets yesterday, there were rockets this morning. And it is very difficult to ask any nation to do anything other than defend itself in the wake of that kind of consistent attack. So that's not new news. You know what our position is. It is something that the President has set forth.

We are not able to, you know, look into the future to see whether there will be changes on the part of Hamas that would meet our conditions. But you know, certainly, that would be a clear path for them to follow. We are going to report to the President in the next day. And, you know, we'll have more to say as this process moves forward. But again, I want to thank Senator Mitchell for undertaking one of the most difficult assignments that anyone could be willing to shoulder.

And we want to send a clear message, as he did, both listening and responding during the last week, that the United States is committed to this path, and we are going to work as hard as we can over what period of time is required to try to help the parties make progress together. So thank you all very much.

---

Buy my book. (please)

Buy my wife a gift (please)

Poof goes the ownership society

2002
We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."
--George W. Bush,

2004
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high." -- Goerge W. Bush

2008
Census figures show home ownership rates in the fourth quarter of 2008 declining to 67.5 percent, about the same level as in late 2000.

I can't believe Obama is throwing people out of their homes just to undo Bush's legitimate accomplishments. This is bipartisanship?

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

Sunday Reading

Editorial

Here's a bottom line to keep you up at night: The economy is falling faster than Washington can get moving. President Obama says his stimulus plan will save or create four million jobs in two years. In the last four months of 2008 alone, employment fell by 1.9 million. Do the math.

The abyss is widening. Of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones industrial index, 22 have announced job cuts since October. Unemployment is up in all 50 states, with layoffs at both high-tech companies (Microsoft) and low (Caterpillar). The December job loss in retailing is the worst since at least 1939. The new-home sales rate has fallen to its all-time low since record-keeping began in 1963.

What are Americans still buying? Big Macs, Campbell’s soup, Hershey’s chocolate and Spam — the four food groups of the apocalypse.

The House stimulus bill is an inevitably imperfect hodgepodge-in-progress. Obama’s next move, a new plan to prevent the collapse of America’s banks, may prove more problematic still, especially given the subpar record of the new Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, in warding off calamity while at the New York Fed. No one should expect the Republicans to give the new president carte blanche, fall blindly into lock step or be “post-partisan.” (Though that’s exactly what the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the terrorists.)

But you might think that a loyal opposition would want to pitch in and play a serious role at a time of national peril. Not by singing “Kumbaya” but by collaborating on possible solutions and advancing a policy debate that many Americans’ lives depend on. As Raymond Moley, of F.D.R.’s brain trust, said of the cross-party effort at the harrowing start of that presidency in March 1933, Hoover and Roosevelt acolytes “had forgotten to be Republicans or Democrats” as they urgently tried to rescue their country.

The current G.O.P. acts as if it — and we — have all the time in the world. It kept hoping in vain that the fast-waning Blago sideshow would somehow impale Obama or Rahm Emanuel. It has come perilously close to wishing aloud that a terrorist attack will materialize to discredit Obama’s reversals of Bush policy on torture, military tribunals and Gitmo. The party’s sole consistent ambition is to play petty politics to gum up the works.

More

Does the President Know He is Dealing with Religious Fundementalists?

I confess to being confused about the president's performance yesterday on Al Aribiya TV. [Stewart's (very funny)Take]

My first reaction was disappointment, and, dare I say it, concern? See, I've some experience working with extreme religious fundamentalists, and when dealing with the rest of us, extreme religious fundamentalists rarely negotiate in good faith. The attitude, instead, is one of condescending superiority. They aren't interested in common ground, or meeting in the middle. What they want is to grab as much as they can. This is a direct result of the arrogance that comes from certainty. When you're 1000 percent positive that God chose you, and that your life is being led in the way that gives Him the greatest pleasure, well, you start to doubt that the non-believers matter, and you begin to think their needs and desires aren't really as valuable as yours are.

Whatever God he worships, Barak Obama is not a fundementalist and his view of himeslf and the world is different. Men like him (to borrow from Ian McEwan) recognize that "the world is unbearably complicated, with two billion voices, and everyone's thoughts striving in equal importance and everyone's claim on life as intense."

To the religious fundamentalist, however,(continuing to take from McEwan) the non-fundamentalists world is made up of "machines, intelligent and pleasant enough on the outside, but lacking the bright and private inside feeling" that he and his kind enjoy.

So it was worrying, I admit, to see Obama put his hands out and offer to listen. I may be misundersatnding, but it seems to me to be too weak of an opening move. The United States must improve its reputation in the Muslim world, and it must encourage Israel to talk to Arab states that are serious about having serious conversations. I like that Obama is willing to extend a hand to anyone willing to unclench his fist. But when I remember my own interactions with religions fundementalists I worry a bit. When negotiating with people who think you're less then fully human, you need leverage, because their guarantees often aren't guarantees.

Continuation: I became less worried when I saw Bush often went on the same station and often said the same things. Still, listening to clips of the Obama interview, I find myself thinking "They are going to roll him like a cheap drunk." Let's hope I'm wrong.

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)

He's a sneaky one, that Obama (part 2)

Apparently appointing a Secretary of State who supports Israel's right to defend itself is also part of Obama's secret plan to screw us:

"We support Israel's right to self-defense. The rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas cannot go unanswered," Clinton said in her first news conference at the State Department. 'It is regrettable that the Hamas leadership apparently believes that it is in their interest to provoke the right of self-defense instead of building a better future for the people of Gaza"

---

Buy my book. (please)
Buy the other guy's book. (please)
Buy my wife a gift (please)