Friday, February 13, 2015

prettylady

28 comments:

  1. Here's a question.

    What does Obama have to gain by manufacturing outrage against Netanyahu?

    Is the idea that it will help rally support among Democrats to his Iran deal?

    It seems to me that all this outrage directed at Bibi could help him with the Israeli electorate, because they don't much like Obama to begin with and may not like to see their PM being pushed around by a bully.

    The protocal argument is clearly a ruse used to fling mud at Netanyahu.

    In fact, as you guys may know, the last time Netanyahu spoke to Congress he did not get Obama's permission then, either, yet Obama did not squawk.

    The fact of the matter is that while Obama may not like Netanyahu, I don't think he much cares for Israel, either.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obama is succeeding in pushing Democrats away from supporting Israel.

    Today, the Senate passed Resolution 76, introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), "welcoming the Prime Minister of Israel to the United States for his address to a joint session of Congress."

    The bill had 50 cosponsors, all of whom were Republicans, making this—so far as I can tell—the first ever bill related to Israel unsupported by a single Democrat.

    Notes:
    1) This fact was gleefully posted on DKSF/DK
    2) Posted gleefully by DHG
    3) Top of the "wreck"amennded list

    BTW: Due to the facts above, I now have 2 Democratic Senators that won't get my vote next election! (And if Cuomo keeps depressing the Democratic turnout, we may get a republican senator!)

    Charles Schumer up in 16
    Kirsten Gillibrand up in 18 <-- as '18 is an off year may have a good shot at replacing her!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a telling comment. Wtf did Reuven Rivlin do? I think somebody just let their mask slip a little bit.

      "Dem silly Jooooz and dere funny names, har har..."

      Delete
  3. Pretty much all his foreign policies have failed
    so Iran is a must win. Dissing Bibi is just a plus.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It isn't just a plus, it is a feature!. A favorite journalist of mine for many years wrote an excellent piece about this all!

    Caroline Glick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caroline is an acquired taste.

      It took me awhile, but I got there.

      Delete
    2. Really? I remember reading her stuff back in the early 2000's. Loved her from day 1!

      Delete
    3. She favors full annexation of Judea and Samaria.

      She thinks the demographic threat is largely bogus.

      She's one of those, along with her colleague Martin Sherman, who is leading the charge for full sovereignty.

      Delete
  5. If you ask me, they're all playing juvenile 'gotcha!' games, and need to cut it the hell out.

    Turning support for Israel into a partisan issue is a dangerous game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, this game has many losers.

      Israel & American Jews top the list of this!

      Delete
    2. Is it possible that Obama is intentionally turning Israel into a partisan issue?

      I do not know the answer to this question, but I do not think that it is an unreasonable question.

      Delete
    3. I think it's more of an ego issue, personally. I think it's fair to say both President Obama and PM Netanyahu have rather outsized ones, and neither likes the other.

      I don't think yours is an unreasonable question, and I could of course be wrong, but it could also just be as simple as an overdose of juvenile, macho posturing from both men egged on by an abundance of "let's you and him fight!" voices from all sides of the playground in these hyper-partisan times we live in.

      Delete
  6. The president is entering his lame duck stage, and the children in Congress (maybe THEY need a Bibi-sitter! - I loved that ad, btw...) are sticking their tongues out and making those wiggled-fingers-stuck-in-their-ears things at each other at only a slightly higher than usual rate.

    I think the best thing that could happen is for Fall 2016 to get here quickly...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's when newly minted Muslim Senator from NJ, Jon Stewart shows us what he's made of.

      Delete
    2. Can't see that happening. Mr. Stewart values his AsaJew status too much.

      Delete
    3. SNL got me through the 2004 election and the Daily Show got me through 2008.

      2012 was just sad.

      Delete
    4. You know I never watched an episode of the Daily Show? It's just something that never appealed to me, even when I was far more partisan than I am now. I was always more of an NPR and PBS guy, myself.

      Delete
    5. On Election Day 2004 I was leading a GOTV canvas for Kerry in the NJ town I was living in at the time. I remember those early (false) exit poll reports broadcast on Air America around 5 or 6 PM (Eastern Time) that day that Kerry had won New Mexico and was going to win the election. Of course, it didn't quite work out that way.

      On Election Day 2008 I was living in Oregon and had to work (swing shifts then, 3 to 11:30 PM), but most of that election I spent every weekend volunteering for Jeff Merkley's (successful) US Senate campaign in Oregon. Primary and General elections.

      2012 was the first major election I didn't volunteer on any campaigns in a long time, probably the first time since 1998, when I was 19, though I voted for Obama and 'my' two Bobs, Casey and Brady.

      Now I'm old and cynical and hate everybody and just want to yell at them all to get off my damned steps. ;)

      Delete
  7. Saw this a couple of days ago at Times of Israel by Bassem Eid:

    "We Palestinians hold the key to a better future"

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-palestinians-hold-the-key-to-a-better-future/

    The paragraph that most got my attention:

    "Yet we know that Israelis want to live in peace, and that the vast majority of Israelis are friendly and neighborly. We know that Palestinian violence results in Israelis being discouraged about peace and electing ever more right-wing governments. We know that Egypt was able to secure a very favorable peace deal with Israel because Egypt agreed to accept Israel and to give up on violence. We know that the soft approach works with Israel, and yet we continue to use violence and extremist rhetoric.

    When all is said and done, it's really not that hard to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that was a good piece.

      "Despite what we tell ourselves, Israel is here to stay. What’s more, it has a right to exist. It is the nation of the Jews but also a nation for Israeli Arabs who have better lives than Arabs anywhere in Arab countries. We must accept these facts and move on. The antisemitism promoted by Hamas, Fatah, and the BDS movement is not the answer for us Palestinians."

      Would love to see the reception somebody like him would get at a place like Daily Kos, where he could tell these very same alleged 'pro-Palestinian' activists just how much harm they're actually doing to the people they claim to support, by running interference and providing cover for the illiberal terror gangs and criminals who are the ones that are really making peace impossible.

      Delete
    2. Trying to stem the tide of events seems futile. Voices of wisdom and reason cannot get hold. It takes time to reflect in order to gain real knowledge and the forces of immediacy have taken hold.

      It's why every grain of sand becomes a mountain, fodder to keep the the activists on rapt's edge. Arguments over protocol, projecting identity into an issue to divert from substance, this will continue. And the brainiacs will continue to get it wrong and wonder why.

      From the first Friedman article:

      Who Cares If the World Gets the Israel Story Wrong?

      Because a gap has opened here between the way things are and the way they are described, opinions are wrong and policies are wrong, and observers are regularly blindsided by events. Such things have happened before. In the years leading to the breakdown of Soviet Communism in 1991, as the Russia expert Leon Aron wrote in a 2011 essay for Foreign Policy, “virtually no Western expert, scholar, official, or politician foresaw the impending collapse of the Soviet Union.” The empire had been rotting for years and the signs were there, but the people who were supposed to be seeing and reporting them failed and when the superpower imploded everyone was surprised.

      And there was the Spanish civil war: “Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which do not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. … I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what had happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines.’ ” That was George Orwell, writing in 1942.

      Orwell did not step off an airplane in Catalonia, stand next to a Republican cannon, and have himself filmed while confidently repeating what everyone else was saying or describing what any fool could see: weaponry, rubble, bodies. He looked beyond the ideological fantasies of his peers and knew that what was important was not necessarily visible. Spain, he understood, was not really about Spain at all—it was about a clash of totalitarian systems, German and Russian. He knew he was witnessing a threat to European civilization, and he wrote that, and he was right.


      It keeps getting worse in Europe and on college campuses. History will report when the tipping point was reached and correction began, but due to our ignorance the road back will be much harder.

      Delete
  8. And here we go again, this time Copenhagen.

    "One person was shot in the head and two police were wounded in an attack on a synagogue in central Copenhagen, Danish police said, adding that it was too early to say whether the incident was connected to an earlier one at an arts cafe."

    Just another understandable 'act of protest,' I'm sure some will claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also:

      Police: 1 dead in shooting at Copenhagen free speech event

      There is no question that at least one or two reporters will ask press secretary, Josh Earnest, and Jen Psaki, of state department fame, whether or not they consider the attack on the synagogue in Copenhagen to be just another random act by "violent extremists" of unknown ideological origin.

      Eco-terrorists, perhaps.

      Delete
    2. The West is stymied due to political correctness.

      The rise of political Islam is the most significant political development since the fall of the Soviet Union.

      I used to get mocked for saying that.

      Delete
    3. btw, if you check the WP article that I link to above, you'll a reference to a second attack beyond the cafe attack, but they do not reference it as a synagogue.

      Why the fuck not?

      Delete
    4. Perhaps they've taken their cue as to how to properly self-censor certain pertinent facts.

      And speaking of taking cues, am I the only one who finds it disturbing that the phrase "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet Muhammad" appears four times in that article?

      Wouldn't something like "Islam's prophet Muhammad" be a better, and more accurate, usage? Or has it become politically incorrect to write as if Islam's stories are not incontrovertible facts?

      Delete
  9. Looks like Mr. Obama has struck again. If true that they have cut back on info on Iran, it would be further evidence that, unlike America as a whole, he is no friend to Israel, an impediment to global harmony in his eyes.

    Not to mention that it is reckless from a security aspect. And to accuse Israel of being political in this is laughable from this administration, and diminishes the legitimacy of Israel's security concerns to Israelis and others.

    What will it take for some to at last see this reality concerning Obama? It looks more and more like he will leave much destruction in his ill-conceived wake, manifested by a world view based on divisive politics that focuses on identity at its core. Identity politics is antithetical to the goal of any people as one.

    The NC killings are the most recent illustration where identity politics means more than anything else, especially facts, as a cynical tool to manipulate and mislead people to be angry against you know who. Too often we see that anger produce misery, not positive results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to see the news story appears to be wrong.

      The part about identity politics stays.

      Delete