Two opinion pieces on President Obama's silence on Iran

On Monday, September 14, I posted a piece on J Street's view on dealing with Iran. Here are two opinion pieces (admittedly from conservative sources) on President Obama's response to the Iranian elections. It is highly telling that President Obama has no compunctions about "meddling" in Israeli affairs (particularly with regard to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria), with no fear of upsetting the Netanyahu government, but utters barely a word to the mullahs, Ahmadinejad, and the "Supreme Leader" in Iran. Not exactly a man of courage. There is no courage in talking tough to those whom you know will respond with deliberately-chosen, calm words. Courage is taking on the bully, the one who may respond by trying to punch you in the nose.

Punch him back much harder.

• Daily Telegraph, UK - Barack Obama's cowardly silence.
• Weekly Standard, US - Mr. President, another speech please.
  

Kudos to Air America for calling out Olbermann

There is not much I agree with on Air America, but when they do something positive, I am glad to acknowledge it.  On October 13, 2009's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, Mr. Olbermann attacked conservative columnist Michele Malkin for attacking the alleged writer of the now-infamous "Obama song."  In fact, Ms. Malkin identified the wrong person, who, according to Air America, received "death threats and harassment."  Mr. Olbermann then proceeded to make fun of Ms. Malkin's voice, Valley-Girl-style, and then said that without her "hatred," she would just be a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick."  In other words, she would be a victim of domestic violence.  (And the left accuses the right of hatred?)  Air America roundly criticized Mr. Olbermann for these remarks; I applaud them for doing so to a fellow left-winger.  It is always good when a political side can criticize one of its own.  I also hope that the National Organization for Women (NOW) will be so forthcoming with a critique.  They did so after David Letterman made outrageous comments about Sarah Palin's daughter being "knocked up" by New York Yankees third-baseman Alex Rodriguez.

Question: If this had been a conservative comedian, and the targets of the jokes had been Sasha and Malia Obama, does anyone think for a moment that the media would have let the comedian get away with it?  Letterman only apologized after Gov. Palin roundly criticized him for his remarks.  There was hardly a peep from the mainstream media (MSM).  Why?  Because the target was the daughter of a conservative woman, an unpardonable crime in liberal circles.  The MSM have stopped even trying to appear non-biased in their reporting (not editorials, but reporting).

But back to Air America.  I am glad to give them credit for standing up to a fellow liberal, and I hope that others, particularly at MSNBC, will realize that Keith Olbermann is a major liability to their network.  He makes a mockery of the concept of the talk show, with his frequent ad hominem attacks.  I liked him when he did sports on ESPN.  I wish he would go back to them.

Meet me in St. Louis? Not if you're Rush Limbaugh

In a posting in August 2009, I strongly criticized Rush Limbaugh for comments in which he compared President Obama's health care reform logo to a Nazi emblem. Now, I am writing to defend him from a smear campaign.

Rush is back in the news, after his bid to become a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams American football club was ended, after concerns that his "divisive and incendiary" comments would be detrimental to the "image-conscious" National Football League (NFL). And who was the accuser? Why, Rev. Al Sharpton, the healer of racial wounds, and the builder of bridges of understanding himself. Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the 1987 Tawana Brawley non-rape-of-a-black-girl-by-a-white-cop scandal, in which he destroyed the reputation of an innocent man? Rev. Al Sharpton, he of the instinctive playing of the race card in the 2006 non-rape-of-a-black-woman-by-white-lacrosse-players scandal, in which he participated in the destruction of the reputations of innocent Duke students? Al Sharpton is one of the most vile race-baiters there is. He makes up racial tensions out of thin air, and the ones who really suffer are the real victims of racial hatred, whose concerns will not be taken as seriously, since Al Sharpton has cried "Wolf!," and smeared innocent people's reputations, too many times. Yet for some reason, he is still turned to as a representative voice of concerned citizens regarding racial issues.

And just what were these "divisive and incendiary comments"? Here's the choicest, a comment he made on ESPN in 2003, commenting on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb: "I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." For offering his opinion, for suggesting that the media are (obviously!) desirous that a black quarterback do well, the left and the liberals have decided to destroy Mr. Limbaugh, and undermine his ability to purchase an NFL team. Why? Because if you state the obvious, and/or if you offer an opinion which does not comport to their understanding of reality, they do not engage you in debate, but rather seek to destroy you. It is a much easier (as well as disgraceful) way to go, but they know it will work. Mr. McNabb himself has emphasized the fact that he is black, but also accused his critics of being a bit harsher on him because he is black.

Where does he come up with this stuff? Why are we constantly told to look beyond race, that we are now in a "post-racial America" (whatever that means), yet are then told that there is immense importance in race? When Donovan McNabb throws a bad pass, do you think there is anyone in America who says, "Tom Brady would have completed that," or "Brett Favre would have completed that," or "[Gloriously-drafted-before-Dan-Marino-in-1983-what-the-heck-were-the-Jets-thinking?] Ken O'Brien would have completed that"? No, they're thinking, "Man, I wish Donovan would have completed that!" Mr. McNabb's comments are cowardly. They are an attempt to conceal feelings of inadequacy (though he is a very good quarterback), so that whenever he fails, he can always fall back on, "Well, there's much more pressure on me than on a Tom, Brett, Peyton, or Eli." It is a complete cop-out, but he knows the media will swallow it whole.

As we have all learned from Al Sharpton, accusations of racism go only one way. And even when you have been discredited on the issue numerous times (I only provided two examples), you will still be turned to for your "expert" opinions.

I suppose it takes one to know one.

J Street - Dangerous for the State of Israel

To those who might consider participating with J Street in any projects, let me issue a word of caution:

J Street is dangerous for Israel and the Jewish people.

They have an Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, who a) possesses an Israeli-sounding last name (it is), and b) has a father who fought in the War of Independence with Menachem Begin (he does; the elder Ben-Ami also purchased the Altalena). The man's Israel credentials are relatively untouchable. But let's take a closer look at J Street. Are they the mainstream organization they claim to be? Are they really pro-Israel, or are they merely a mouthpiece for liberal-, pro-Palestinian-, and in-actuality-supporters-of-a-discredited-peace-policy people?

1. J Street advocated for an early end to the 2008-2009 Gaza War, instead of supporting Israel's attempts to end the rocket attacks, once and for all, having endured eight years of them. True, they criticized Hamas' firing rockets, but also opposed Israeli military measures to stop those attacks. How would they have ended it? Just impose a ceasefire, during which Hamas can re-arm itself. This is pro-Israel?
2. Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has praised J Street's "Israel advocacy" in a Washington Post opinion piece. J Street was asked about this vote of confidence in a Jerusalem Post article, and responded, "There are plenty of people who talk about J Street that we don't agree with. Just because they mention us in an article doesn't mean that we therefore endorse their analysis. We don't come out with a statement on every person who's spoken about us." Fair enough, but when Stephen Walt praises you, should that not give the rest of us pause? One is known by one's enemies and by one's friends.
3. J Street conducted a rigged opinion poll of American Jews, in which they wrote the questions, conducted the poll, and analyzed the results. Brilliant! And who heads the firm which was "hired" to conduct the poll? A founding vice-president of J Street, Jim Gerstein. Simply incredible.
4. See also Shmuel Rosner's analysis of the J Street "poll," as well as Shmuley Boteach's opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post on J Street's condescension towards ideological opponents.
5. Rabbi Eric Yoffie (Rabbi Eric Yoffie!) wrote a scathing critique of J Street's response to the Gaza operation. When you are a liberal Israel advocacy group, and you have lost Rabbi Yoffie, things are not looking good for you.
6. See J Street's policy makers' comments in a flattering, it-could-almost-have-been-written-by-J Street-itself New York Times Magazine article. If their views on Middle East peace do not frighten you, then I really do not know what more to say.
   
7. Finally, please see my blog posting on, among other issues, J Street's willful misrepresentation (read lying) about a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report. Referring to page 7 of the document, they claim the NIE estimates Iran having nuclear weapons capability in 2013 (which would allow time for more diplomatic efforts), whereas in fact, the NIE estimates this capability possibly as early as next year, 2010. But then again, this information does not fit with their agenda, so they lie about it. Read the report yourself, and then judge.

I urge all of you to read these articles. Do not be fooled by J Street. I do not believe they are anti-peace, as they accuse those of us on the right of being. I believe they do want peace, but are pursuing it through means which have been discredited time and time again. There is literally nothing that the Palestinians can say or do which will convince J Street, and like-minded people, that the Palestinians have no intention of ever making peace with a Jewish state.

As I wrote to a friend in July 2009, we have had sixteen years of pursuing peace according to the designs of the left. They have failed. It is time to give someone else a chance.