Man Bites Dog: David Horowitz Defends Barack Obama

From FrontPage:

Conservatives need to get a grip. My email box is full of right wing trash talk (sorry, I'm peeved this morning) about Obama's fake birth certificate, his alleged covert Islamism and Hillary's scandals. Worse, we were running a frontpage story on this last wild goose until I canned it.

Since not everybody is following me at this point, let's take them one at a time. First, the birth certificate. Is Obama a legitimate president of the United States? Well, let me put it to you this way: 64 million Americans voted to elect Barack Obama. Do you want to disenfranchise them? Do you think it's possible to disenfranchise 64 million Americans and keep the country? And please don't write me about the Constitution. The first principle of the Constitution is that the people are sovereign. What the people say, goes. If you think about it, I think you will agree that a two-year billion dollar election through all 50 states is as authoritative a verdict on anything as we are likely to get. Barack Obama is our president. Get used to it.

And what could conservatives be thinking when they push this issue as though it were important (as The American Thinker did last week)? Do we want to go challenging the legitimacy of an election that involved 120 million voters? Have we become deranged leftists like Al Gore who would attack the one binding thread that makes us a nation despite our differences? The mystique of elections is the American covenant. Respect it. Barack Obama is the president of the United States. Get used to it.

I'm not even going to go into the Hussein idiocy. Obama spent 20 years in Reverend Wright's Trinity Church. There is much that was wrong with that, but being a Muslim isn't one of them.

And the Hillary thing. Get real. Please. Obama was elected in large part by a leftist crusade for hope and CHANGE. Now, as president-elect he has just formed the most conservative foreign policy team since John F. Kennedy, one well to the right of Bill Clinton. Where is your gratitude for that? What is more relevant in his Hillary Clinton pick -- her prickly past or the fact that except for Joe Lieberman, she is the Democrat most identified with support for the Iraq War?

Perhaps I should repeat that. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat MOST IDENTIFIED WITH REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN BY FORCE. She lost a presidency over it. So whatever low opinion you may have about Hillary, on foreign policy she is the very best choice for that position that conservatives could expect to get. Even better, because the ONLY issue that really divided Hillary and Obama was the Iraq War. So this is President Obama's way of saying, ok now that I'm in office I'm going to put my anti-war commitments aside and put the defense of the country first. And in case you didn't get that, I'm going to keep George Bush's Secretary of Defense in place, and I'm going to appoint a conservative Marine general as my National Security Advisor.

Maybe some conservatives out there have forgotten, but Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin was an anti-Vietnam activist. So were his two National Security Advisers, Tony Lake and Sandy Berger. In fact they met Clinton in the anti-war movement. Conservatives should be cheering right now, not chasing red herrings.

Moshe Yalon: Forget Oslo to Forge Israeli-Palestinian Peace

From Azure.co.il (ht LGF):

The strategy outlined in this paper is not particularly uplifting. I doubt that it will thrill the public or win prestigious international awards. It requires, after all, diligence and a good deal of patience. Its enactment would mean giving up expectations of reaching an immediate “solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and instead adopting a more pragmatic attitude that focuses, at least in the short term, on “managing” the conflict. Yet this new strategy is no less ambitious than the former one. It, too, strives to end Israel’s control over the Palestinians and to establish a new, safer, and more stable order west of the Jordan River. Unlike the Oslo paradigm, however, it begins by laying the foundations for the establishment of this new order, and only then proceeds to build from the bottom up. The policy proposed here rests on the understanding—which has so far eluded Israeli statesmen—that in our geopolitical arena, “the realities on the ground shape agreements, not the other way around,” as Guy Bechor, an Israeli expert in Middle Eastern affairs, once said.

This article has focused only on the constructive aspect of the approach I am recommending. The other, more demanding and no less important aspect is dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. It is important to remember that the regime established by Hamas in Gaza threatens not only the Jewish state, but the Palestinian Authority as well. Hamas’s rule in Gaza has been leading Israel and the Palestinians down a dangerous road of escalating violence with unforeseeable results. Abu Mazen and his deputies lack the strength to neutralize or contain the threat. As a result, Israel must shoulder this burden. Unfortunately, Israel’s leadership over the past few years has not demonstrated sufficient determination in tackling this problem, and has fallen into a series of devastating errors: the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, for instance, which laid waste to prosperous Jewish settlements and showed the world Israel retreating under fire; the postponement (time and again) of a large-scale military operation against the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, which has allowed Hamas’ guerilla fighters to barricade and arm themselves in preparation for the inevitable clash; and the willingness on the part of Israel’s leaders to pay an exorbitant price for the release of kidnapped soldiers (and sometimes only their dead bodies), which sent a message to even the most moderate Palestinians that the armed struggle can achieve results unattainable by conciliation and cooperation.

No dialogue can succeed and no reforms will be possible so long as the Palestinians—and Arabs in general—believe that the Jewish state can be subdued by force. The American historian Daniel Pipes has correctly noted that it is not despair that encourages extremism among the Palestinians, but rather the hope and belief that the Zionist state can be defeated. If Israel hesitates to use overwhelming military force against the swelling abscess of terrorism in Gaza, its enemies may get the impression that its stamina is eroding and that it can be pushed into a corner. Such a perception of Israel poses a greater threat than any rocket attack and must be immediately rectified. For more than a hundred years, Jews living on this land have had to prove time and again that they are not afraid to fight. Sadly, it does not seem likely that they will be able to put down their weapons anytime soon. This reality was eloquently expressed by Moshe Beilinson in an article published in June 1936 in the Histadrut’s newspaper Davar, at the onset of the bloody 1936-1939 Arab Revolt. In response to the oft-repeated question, “How much longer?” Beilinson answered: “Until the most fervent warrior in the enemy camp realizes that there is no means by which to break Israel’s power in its land, because it has necessity and living truth on its side. Until they know that there is no other way but to make peace with Israel. This is the purpose of our struggle.”

The Israelis need not abandon their hopes for true peace with the Palestinians. The reorganization of Palestinian society in accordance with the principles outlined in this paper could feasibly serve as the foundation for a future settlement that would realize some of the hopes that were pinned on the Oslo process. Nevertheless, such a settlement will invariably involve painful concessions. However, in order for it to become a reality, two conditions must be met: first, unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and second, the establishment of Palestinian self-rule on a solid economic, political, and security basis.

Unfortunately, the road leading to this destination is still very long. But sometimes, the longer road is in truth the shorter one. And it is clear that we will not arrive there if we continue to ride the rickety train that left Oslo and passed through Taba and Annapolis. The present diplomatic path, which forces Israel to make far-reaching concessions and take genuine risks in return for empty Palestinian declarations, is headed for war, not peace. At most, it can create an illusion of reconciliation and progress that will dissipate at the first sound of gunshots and bombs. In order to avoid repeating mistakes, both sides must get off the train to nowhere and board the one on the right track.

Bradley Burston on Jihadi Nazis

From Haaretz:

For the whole of my adult life, it irked me when my fellow Jews would routinely and without compunction, accuse anti-Zionists of being anti-Semitic, and conflate anti-Israeli sentiment with the Nazis.

I felt that the latter eroded the memory and the magnitude of the Holocaust, and that the former was a slightly more elegant way of telling people with whom one took issue, to shut the hell up.

Only this week did I realize my error.

It turns out, that when Jews suspected that the Jihadi hated the Jew the way the Nazi hated the Jew, they were right.

After all this time, I am embarrassed to admit that only when the monsters entered Chabad House in Mumbai, did I understand.

Monsters, not solely for what they did there, but, if the reports are to be believed, for the fact that they were able to do what they did after having actually gotten to know the young couple who founded the center, after asking them for shelter in Chabad House, after telling them that they were Malaysian students eager to learn about Judaism.

Monsters, for having befriended these sweet people in order to better learn how to execute them. Monsters, for having targeted a young couple who had devoted their lives to helping others better live theirs, despite having had a baby who died of a genetic disease and a second child ill and under treatment far away in Israel.

The monsters in Chabad House were not Nazis because they were Muslims. It was specifically because they so faithfully emulated the Nazis, that they, in fact, betrayed Islam.

The hatred of the Jihadi for the Jew is such that - as in the case of the Nazis - the killing of Jews - anywhere they may be found - is an obligation on par with whatever other enemy, target, cause, mission, goal or creed they may be pursuing at the moment.

Their hatred of the Jew is such that - as in the case of the Nazis - all tragedy that befalls the Jews was brought on by the Jews themselves.

Their hatred of the Jew is such that even if a Jew rejects the concept of a state of Israel and is wholeheartedly opposed to Zionism, if he wears the clothing of a believing Jew - as in the case of victim Aryeh Leibish Teitelboim - he will be bound and tortured and put to death.

It is no longer a question of geography or personal experiemce. On September 11. the jihadis told us that the attacks came, in part, in response to the atrocities of the Jews. In the next breath, they told the Muslim world that the Jews were also behind the attacks...

Christopher Hitchens on the Mumbai Massacre

From Slate:

I hope I am not alone in finding the statements about Bombay from our politicians to be anemic and insipid, and the media coverage of the disastrous and criminal attack too parochially focused on the fate of visiting or resident Americans. India is emerging in many ways as our most important ally. It is a strong regional counterweight to Russia and China. Not to romanticize it overmuch, it is a huge and officially secular federal democracy that is based, like the United States, on ethnic and confessional pluralism. Its political and economic and literary echelons speak English better than most of us do. Its parliament in New Delhi—the unbelievably diverse and dignified Lok Sabha—was viciously attacked by Islamist gangsters and nearly destroyed in December 2001, a date which ought to have made more Americans pay more attention rather than less. Since then, Bombay has been assaulted multiple times and the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan blown up with the fairly obvious cross-border collusion of the same Pakistani forces who are helping in the rebirth of the Taliban.

It would be good to hear from the president and the president-elect that we regard attacks on the fabric and society of India with very particular seriousness, as assaults on a close friend that was battling al-Qaida long before we were. In response, it should be emphasized, our military and financial and nuclear and counterinsurgency cooperation with New Delhi will not be given a lower profile but a very much higher one. The people of India need to hear this from us, as do the enemies of India, who are our sworn enemies, too.

The inevitable question arises: Did our nominal ally Pakistan have a hand in this atrocity? In one sense, to ask the question is to answer it. Whether we refer to al-Qaida "proper," or to any of the armed Kashmiri formations that have lately been mentioned, we find some pre-existing connection to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. Another conceivable suspect, the former Bombay crime lord Dawood Ibrahim, wanted by the Indian authorities on suspicion of blowing up the Bombay stock exchange and killing 300 civilians in 1993, has long been a fugitive from justice living safely in Pakistan's main port of Karachi. Not a bad place from which to organize an amphibious assault team that acted as if it had been trained by serious military professionals.

Bernard Henry-Levy on the Pakistan Problem

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Since its creation 15 years ago, the Lashkar-e-Taiba has been linked to the ISI, the formidable Inter-Services Intelligence agency that operates like a state within a state in Pakistan. Obviously, this link is not widely publicized. However, from the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl to the July 2005 attack on the Ayodhya Hindu temple in Uttar Pradesh, there is abundant evidence that the jihadist wing of the ISI has assisted the Lashkar-e-Taiba in the planning and financing of various operations.

Worse yet, the Lashkar-e-Taiba is, as I discovered while researching and reporting my book on Daniel Pearl, a group of which A.Q. Khan, the inventor of Pakistan's atomic bomb, was a longtime friend. Mr. Khan, one may recall, spent a good 15 years trafficking in nuclear secrets with Lybia, North Korea, Iran and, perhaps, al Qaeda, before confessing his guilt in early 2004. Later pardoned by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Mr. Khan remains perfectly free to travel within Pakistan, as he was just admitted this Monday, under the protection of the ISI, to the most elite hospital in Karachi.

No, this is not a dream -- it is reality. Pakistan is home to a man both father of his country's nuclear program and known sympathizer of an Islamist group whose latest demonstration has netted at least 188 dead and several hundred wounded.

The Lashkar-e-Taiba is, ultimately, one of the constitutive elements of what is conventionally called al Qaeda. For too long we've told ourselves that al Qaeda no longer exists except as a brand; that it is only a pure signifier, "franchised" by local organizations independent of one another. Yet there indeed exists in our world what Osama bin Laden called the "International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," which is like a constellation of atoms aggregated around a central nucleus. These atoms find themselves, for the most part, clustered in this new zone of tempests that forms the whole of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Mumbai Terrorists Targeted India-Pakistan Peace Deal

Writes Tarek Fatah in the Calgary Herald:

While the ISI-PPP tussle for control of the country's intelligence network was going on behind the scenes, on Tuesday, the president of Pakistan, Asif Zardari, threw a bombshell that caught the Pakistan military establishment off guard. Speaking to an Indian TV audience, Zardari announced a strategic shift in Pakistan's nuclear policy. He startled a cheering Indian audience, saying Pakistan had adopted a "no-first-strike" nuclear-war policy. This apparently did not go down well within Pakistan's military establishment that has ruled the country for decades using the "Indian bogey" to starve the nation of much-needed development investment in order to put the huge military machine on a permanent war footing with no war in sight. Immediately, the military commentators denounced Zardari.

Zardari also borrowed a quote from his late wife, who once said there's a "little bit of India in every Pakistani and a little bit of Pakistan" in every Indian. "I do not know whether it is the Indian or the Pakistani in me that is talking to you today," Zardari said.

While most Pakistanis welcomed the new air of peace and friendship, the country's religious right was upset.

Just a month ago, the founder of one of Pakistan's most feared armed Islamist groups had accused Zardari of being too dovish toward India, and criticized him for referring to militants in Indian-held Kashmir as "terrorists." Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT),a major militant group fighting in Indian Kashmir, described Zardari's comments as "a clear violation and digression from the consistent policy of Pakistan."Then Wednesday, the so-called "Deccan Mujahedeen" struck against India with the clear aim of triggering a Hindu backlash against the country's minority Muslims, with the obvious danger to Pakistan-India relations.

Most security commentators agree the Deccan Mujahedeen is merely a tag of convenience and that behind this well-planned terror attack lies the secret hands of the LeT. The same LeT that had warned Zardari to desist from warming up to India.

Only time will tell whether these Islamists succeed or whether the good people of India--Hindus and Muslims --can see through this provocation and embrace the hand of friendship extended by Zardari.

In the meantime, Muslims around the world will also have to decide whether to enter the 21st century and distance themselves from the doctrine of armed jihad, or go back to the 12th century and embrace these haters of joy and peace.

Obama's First Big Mistake

Obama said he didn't want "groupthink" when he introduced Hillary Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State, but given the apparently unanimous chorus of cheers from the media, that's exactly what Hillary's selection has yielded. I haven't seen too much criticism in the papers--even from commentators who know how bad a choice this may turn out to be. IMHO, this ranks with Bill Clinton's decision to make gays in the military his top priority during the first 100 days, or Bush's "Mission Accomplished' stunt. It's a hubristic move by a winner who thinks he holds all the cards. I hope Obama is reading some Greek and Shakespearean tragedies as well as Doris Kearns Goodwin...uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

First, it looks as if Obama was forced to pick Hillary. Weeks of selective leaks to the media, followed by his "negotiations" with Bill Clinton, followed by his promise to pay Hillary's outstanding campaign debts--does anyone even remember Hillary's campaign claim that she would pay for her campaign out of her own pocket (fattened by some 100 million in post-administration income to the Clintons)?--all combine to create an image of weakness, not strength. Even Rush Limbaugh wondered if Obama would be a "figurehead." He's right about that.

Second, Hillary is not someone the American people want picking up a phone at 3 am. We had an election, and she lost. Personally, I agree with Limbaugh that McCain could have beaten Hillary. Now she's going to be the face of the Obama administration in dealing with international crisis? I just don't get it. She has drive, but not intelligence or judgement. Her husband was impeached due to her handling of the Lewinsky scandal. He may have beaten conviction, but a majority of the Senate voted him guilty. The Clinton presidency was terribly damaged by her hardball tactics. Indeed, the failed attempt to get Bin Laden was clouded by suspicions that Bill was just trying to change the subject from Lewinsky...leaving America unprepared for the global jihad that grew into 9/11.

Third, now everyone around the world will wonder, like Limbaugh: Who's really in charge? Can I make a deal with Bill and go around Obama? Does the USA have an Obama administration or a 3rd Clinton term?

Fourth, in the end, Hillary is a doormat--Bill humiliated her, and she hung around; Obama beat her, and she begged for scraps from the table. Weak, weak, weak...despite the bullying and bluster. Everything she has, she owes to some powerful man.

Fifth, there's always the Machiavellian issue, mentioned by former Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power, who called Hillary a "monster." Power was fired, but it may be the only thing she's said that I agree with.

If the Republicans had any backbone, they'd do to her what the Senate did to John Tower in the Reagan administration--and torpedo this nomination in a very obvious way. Unfortunately, the Republicans don't look like they are up to the job...and if they can't stand up to Hillary, they can't stand up to Bin Laden.

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens says Hillary is not fit to serve as Secretary of State.

Lashkar-e- Taiba Behind Mumbai Terror Attacks

India's national newspaper says authorities tapped terrorist cell phones. From The Hindu:

The magnitude of the attack by suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba elements, who are believed to have come by the sea route from Karachi, could be gauged from the statement of Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra R R Patil who said with the ammunition the terrorists had, they could have killed 5,000 people.

The elimination of the three terrorists in Taj came this morning after intense battle between the commandos, who believed there was a lone gunman holding out, and the terrorists who kept exploding grenades at periodic intervals.

Of the 183 killed, civilians alone accounted for 141 including 22 foreigners, two NSG commandos, 15 Maharashtra police personnel, one RPF constable and two Home Guards. Six NSG personnel were injured.

In all, nine terrorists were killed while one was captured alive in "Operation Tornado" executed by the NSG alongwith the army and naval commandos and Maharashtra police. The security forces rescued 250 people in Oberoi, 300 in Taj and 12 families of 60 people in Nariman House.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on the alleged perpetrators' organization:

Lashkar-e-Taiba (Urdu: لشكرِ طيبه laškar-ĕ ṯaiyyiba; literally Army of the Good, commonly translated as Army of the Righteous; also transliterated as Lashkar-i-Tayyaba, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba or Lashkar-i-Taiba) is one of the largest and most active terrorist organizations in South Asia.

It was founded by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed[1] in the Kunar province of Afghanistan, and is currently based near Lahore, Pakistan operating several militant training camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[2] Lashkar-e-Taiba members have carried out major attacks against India and its primary objective is to end Indian rule in Kashmir.[3] Some breakaway Lashkar members have also been accused of carrying out attacks in Pakistan, particularly in Karachi, to mark its opposition to the policies of President Pervez Musharraf.[4] The organization is banned as a terrorist organization by India, Pakistan, the United States,[5] the United Kingdom,[6] the European Union,[7] Russia[8] and Australia.[9] According to some sources, Laskar-e-Taiba renamed itself to Jama'at-ud-Da'wah (JUD) in January 2002 to escape the ban imposed by the Pakistani government.[10]

More info from the Federation of American Scientists:

Strength

Has several hundred members in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan, and in India’s southern Kashmir and Doda regions. Almost all LT cadres are foreigners—mostly Pakistanis from madrassas across the country and Afghan veterans of the Afghan wars. Uses assault rifles, light and heavy machineguns, mortars, explosives, and rocket-propelled grenades.

Location/Area of Operation

Based in Muridke (near Lahore) and Muzaffarabad. The LT trains its militants in mobile training camps across Pakistan-administered Kashmir and had trained in Afghanistan until fall of 2001.

External Aid

Collects donations from the Pakistani community in the Persian Gulf and United Kingdom, Islamic NGOs, and Pakistani and Kashmiri businessmen. The LT also maintains a Web site (under the name of its parent organization Jamaat ud-Daawa), through which it solicits funds and provides information on the group’s activities. The amount of LT funding is unknown. The LT maintains ties to religious/military groups around the world, ranging from the Philippines to the Middle East and Chechnya through the MDI fraternal network. In anticipation of asset seizures by the Pakistani Government, the LT withdrew funds from bank accounts and invested in legal businesses, such as commodity trading, real estate, and production of consumer goods.

Will Obama give India a green light to bomb Pakistan? For background, see James Kurth's article on returning Pakistan to India.

The Unseen Alistair Cooke

The other night someone I know and yours truly watched Masterpiece Theatre's The Unseen Alistair Cooke with great interest. After all, I had interviewed him, and conducted a friendly correspondence, while writing my dissertation. He had been unfailingly polite and helpful, unlike some PBS types. He invited me to his home, and we conducted our conversation in his library, painted red, overlooking Central Park, bookshelves featuring the complete WPA guides to the United States, arranged geographically, like a map of his travels. So it was nice to see his familiar face, and more to the point, hear his familiar voice--as well as clips from home movies featuring Charlie Chaplin and Adlai Stevenson, among others. I had never met either of his formidable wives, only knew of his children by reputation before seeing this picture--and now that it has been screened, see why he didn't talk about them much...

What was left out of this picture is well-covered by the late Nick Clarke's Alistair Cooke: A Biography, so I won't nit-pick the omissions. For me, no one better symbolizes 1950s New York sophistication than Alistair Cooke. Here are few angles left untouched by the show:

1. A major influence on Cooke's life and work was Arthur Quiller-Couch, Cambridge don and literary critic. He taught at Cambridge when Cooke studied there. What "Q," as he was known at the time (take that Miss Moneypenny!). did in print Cooke did on the air.

2. Cooke was seen as an American by the British. Indeed, he was resented by many at the BBC for becoming an American citizen in 1941, viewed as a coward and a traitor who abandoned his nation during the Blitz for the safety of the USA (the US was not at war yet). He had a New York accent while hosting Omnibus.

3. Cooke was a friend and admirer of H.L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore. He saved his house from destruction, and championed Mencken's Americanist approach to literature and history. He stood by Mencken even after his career ended in disrepute due to German sympathies during WWII.

4. As a journalist, Cooke wrote one of the seminal accounts of the Cold War: A GENERATION ON TRIAL - USA V ALGER HISS. The book was remarkably even-handed, praising Richard Nixon (he was described as "handsome").

5. Cooke made a number of publicity films for the UN during the 1960s, after Omnibus folded. They are quite interesting, and would have given some context to his trans-atlantic internationalism.

6. His son John Cooke was Janis Joplin's manager, he discovered Janis dead from an overdose of alcohol and pills.

7. Cooke hated the 1960s, calling it a "ghastly" decade.

8. When he died, Cooke's bones were stolen by a criminal human medical spare parts ring, a crime covered widely in the press. Here's a link to the BBC account:

An investigation is under way in New York into allegations that the bones of the late broadcaster Alistair Cooke were stolen before his cremation.

Cooke, known for the Letter from America he broadcast for the BBC, died almost two years ago, aged 95.

According to the New York Daily News his bones were stolen by a criminal ring trading body parts.

They were later sold by a biomedical tissue company now under investigation, the paper claims.

When Cooke died of lung cancer that spread to his bones in March 2004, his body was taken to a funeral home in Manhattan.

Two days later, relatives of the iconic broadcaster received his ashes, which were then scattered in New York's Central Park.

Now they have been told that body snatchers allegedly surgically removed his bones and sold them for more than $7,000 (£4,000) to a company supplying parts for use in dental implants and various orthopaedic procedures.

The US attorney general's office in Brooklyn is investigating an elaborate ring involving funeral directors, surgeons and entrepreneurs.

This is a grim and ghoulish tale which has understandably appalled everyone who knew Cooke, says the BBC's Guto Harri in New York.

Cooke's stepdaughter, Holly Rumbold, told the BBC's World at One programme she was outraged by the claims.

"I'm most shocked by the violation of the medical ethics, that my stepfather's ancient and cancerous bones should have been passed off as healthy tissue to innocent patients," she said.

IMHO, Cooke would have enjoyed his posthumous notoriety. For a newspaperman and reporter, it was a great final story...

You can read my obituary of Cooke in The Idler, here.

He's b-a-a-a-c-k...

Sidney Blumenthal is in line for a top State Department position, should Hillary Clinton get the nod, according to this item in The American Spectator:

NOT HIM AGAIN!

Late last week, as stories swirled around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's possible jump to the job of Secretary of State, another longtime Clinton aide's name began to crop up: former journalist and Clinton back-room consigliere, Sidney Blumenthal.

Should Clinton accept the Secretary of State job, Blumenthal, it is believed, will move to Foggy Bottom as a counsel to the secretary, a post that will not require Senate confirmation, but will require an extensive security and background check.
According to Obama transition team sources, Clinton aides presented them with a list of potential senior staff for the Secretary of State office, and Blumenthal's name -- without a title or role described -- was on it.

Also on the list were the names of most of Clinton's senior Senate aides, including several who had left her office in the past two years for the private sector. All have been contacted about possibly returning to public service should Clinton accept the cabinet position.

According to The Nashua (NH) Telegraph, Blumenthal is a convicted criminal and alcohol abuser, who pled guilty to a misdemeanor DWI charge in New Hampshire in March of this year:

Blumenthal pleaded guilty March 28 to a standard, misdemeanor DWI charge. He was fined $900, and his driver's license revoked for 10 months. Blumenthal can seek to get his license restored after 120 days, however, if he completes and alcohol education program in Washington, D.C., court records show.

Blumenthal also agreed not to contest a six-month administrative license suspension, which was already in effect, police have said previously.

Though there is no standard disposition to fit all cases, the terms of Blumenthal's plea are stiffer than a standard DWI charge, and typical of an aggravated DWI plea bargain for a first-time offender, Capt. Peter Segal said. Blumenthal has no prior DWI convictions, he said.

Police negotiated a plea bargain in part because the arresting officer, Christopher Ditullio, was called up for service in Iraq, and would not have been available to testify, Segal said.

Blumenthal is an unpaid adviser to Clinton, actively involved in her presidential campaign, according to his lawyer. Blumenthal also was an adviser to former President Clinton. He was in southern New Hampshire on the eve of the primaries but got lost on the way from dinner to his hotel, he told police.

Sgt. Michael Masella spotted Blumenthal's rented Buick heading north on Concord Street in the area of Greeley Park at about 70 mph on the night before the New Hampshire primaries, police reported. Masella and Ditullio stopped Blumenthal near the Henri Burque Highway and arrested him after performing a field sobriety test.

During the Democratic primaries, Peter Drier blasted Blumenthal in the Huffington Post for spreading anti-Obama propaganda:

Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.

These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.

According to Jude Wanniski, before he trashed Obama, Blumenthal trashed Monica Lewinsky as a "stalker":

Liberals are troubled by what you have developed to date about Clinton trashing Lewinsky in his conversation with Blumenthal, but they still insist that we can't tell for sure if Clinton would have used the "stalker" excuse to defend himself if the blue dress had not messed him up. Your case is hypothetical. And Charles RufF thus far has been successful in keeping it hypothetical, insisting that there was no "coordinated effort" to trash Lewinsky, to "malign her." When Rep. Asa Hutchison [R-AR] expressed disbelief that Ruff could make such a statement, he read from an AP dispatch about how Ann Lewis and the White House press secretary both announced at the time that there was no such conspiracy to say anything bad about Lewinsky. I believed them at the time, thinking it was James Carville doing it. Ruff did not wish your team to point out that it was Clinton who was already trashing Lewinsky! (I still wonder why Hutchison was doing the answer when it was your initiative, but perhaps in the long run it was best that he did.)

The one thing you can be sure of with Blumenthal is that he will not lie under oath. He is one of the best wordsmiths I've ever known, so you must bear in mind that he is extremely clever with words and will not give you one scrap of assistance if you do not ask the right questions in the right way.

I think you should ask him how the conversation happened to occur, where it took place, what time of day, whether it was a regularly scheduled meeting, or if the President summoned him or if he asked for a meeting.

The guts of the deposition will come in developing any kind of inference that the President meant Blumenthal to leave his office with the stalker story in order to have him disseminate it. Of course he did, because Blumenthal was his most loyal counselor on political communications. Sidney was one of the best political writers of his generation, an indefatigable reporter who did not resist moving where the facts would take him. His profile of Bob Dole for the WashPost "Style" section in the 1988 campaign is still the best ever on Dole. I met him in 1980 when he came to my home and spent 3 1/2 hours filling his tape recorder with material for a Boston Globe magazine piece on Reagan's brain trust. That's when we became friends, in a way mutual political admirers — although he has refused to talk to me since I criticized his work in the New Yorker in 1993 for being too fawning on the Clintons.

Blumenthal certainly was the source of the stalker story, but it is important that you get him to say that the President did NOT tell him to keep that between them. Blumenthal has to recall that the President told him what Blumenthal later told the grand jury with no restrictions on how he should use it. If the President told him to "Keep this between us, Sid," and Blumenthal did not, then he was betraying his word to the President. So you can be sure that did not happen. Blumenthal had to come away from the meeting knowing the President wanted him to broadcast it. You can ask him about each of the people who wrote stories about the stalker, including the AP dispatch, and if he personally knew them, and if he called them or they called him for reaction to the Matt Drudge story.

The key point cannot be made strongly enough that the President insisted to Blumenthal that Monica Lewinsky threatened him and THAT HE RESISTED, which is why Lewinsky now could be expected to tell false stories about him. Liberal journalists tell me that of course it is true that Lewinsky came on to him, she batted eyes and flashed her thongs. That's true enough, but the President's evil act was in broadcasting the news that after he had his way with her over those many months, he would cast her as the sinister sex predator, the blackmailer, in those moments. It would be nice to know what Lewinsky thought when she heard about the Blumenthal testimony, as she surely believed it was coming from Carville. She now must be aware that Clinton had set in motion, as he did, the story that she threatened him with charges of sexual harassment unless he had sex with her. This story disappeared from the public prints when the story of the blue dress surfaced.

How about Richard Holbrooke, for Secretary of State?

Yet Another Reason Hillary is Not Qualified

According to Wizbangblog, her appointment as Secretary of State would be unconstitutional--therefore, illegal:

Doesn't Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, know the constitution? From the Washington Post-

Even if the vetting problems involving former president Bill Clinton's finances can be resolved, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may face another roadblock on her way to the secretary of state's chair.

It's called the Constitution of the United States, specifically, Article One, Section Six, also known as the emoluments clause. ("Emoluments" means things like salaries.) It says that no member of Congress, during the term for which he was elected, shall be named to any office "the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during his term." This applies, we're advised, whether the member actually voted on the raises or not.

In Clinton's case, during her current term in the Senate, which began in January 2007, cabinet salaries were increased from $186,600 to $191,300. This situation has arisen before, most famously in the case called "The Saxbe Fix," but it involves a controversial, somewhat tortured reading of the Sacred Document.

It is just plain incredible no one has thought of this before. That goes for both the media and law professor bloggers. Here is the particular part of the constitution in question-

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Ahmad Chalabi: Yankee Go Home

From today's New York Times:

Nonetheless, President Bush’s democratic approach to Iraq has, in many ways, succeeded. Iraq has the strongest constitution, the fairest elections and the most democratic government in the Islamic Middle East. This success stems from the democratic ideal expressed by the United States, through the uncountable sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives, and through the Iraqis’ profound belief in the gift of our nation. Iraqi freedom is a debt to America we will never forget.

This is true despite President Bush’s manifest failure to honor his word. At one time, the liberation of Iraq was to be the centerpiece of a new regional order in the Middle East founded on a new American emphasis on democracy, human rights and free enterprise. Instead, Iraq has endured occupation, the authoritarian installation of a prime minister, the strong-armed removal of an elected leader, the indiscriminate arrest, torture and killing of Iraqi civilians without recourse to law, and an utterly corrupt reconstruction program that oversaw one of the biggest financial crimes in history, which has left average Iraqis with little water, power, health care, education or even food.

Yet there are still those in Washington’s corridors of power who want to reduce Iraq to being an American puppet state, like Jordan or Egypt, nations governed through a corrosive mix of covert intelligence and military support spoon-fed to a permanent oligarchy. Iraq will not accept this.

Barack Obama has every reason to support Iraq’s efforts to greatly increase the world supply of oil, expand trade with the United States, and raise a new generation of Iraqis focused on education, achievement and cooperation. We must not be asked to focus on military expansion and arms purchases, which would mean raising yet another generation of ill-educated soldiers fit only for internal repression and external aggression.

Iraqis want the closest possible relationship with the United States, and recognize its better nature as the strongest guarantor of international freedom, prosperity and peace. However, we will reject any attempts to curtail our rights to these universal precepts.

We welcome Mr. Obama’s election as a herald of a new direction. It is our hope that his administration will offer Iraq a new and broader partnership. Iraq needs security assistance and guarantees for our funds in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. But we also need educational opportunity, cultural exchange, diplomatic support, trade agreements and the respectful approach due to the world’s oldest civilization.

We also hope that Mr. Obama will support the growing need for a regional agreement covering human rights and security encompassing Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran (and any other neighbors so inclined). We have all been victims of terrorism. The mutual fears that have been festering for decades, augmented by secret wars and the incitement of insurrection, are no longer acceptable.

The United States has agreed to Iraq’s request to inscribe in any regional pact a prohibition against the use of Iraq’s territory and airspace to threaten or launch cross-border attacks. This laudable commitment gives us hope that America has a new collective vision of security in our region as not exclusively a function of armed force but also dependent on a profound comprehension of others’ fears.

Sudden Debt

Someone I know told me the blogger known as Sudden Debt predicted the current financial crisis.

Finance is essentially finished as a business model for the foreseeable future because deleveraging will go on for years. Investors should look elsewhere for returns; my choice is renewable energy and sustainable resource utilization, particularly proven technologies such as wind, organic farming and the peripheral opportunities arising from them. Sorry, no stock tips from me - you must do your own research. And be prepared for the long haul, because there won't be any instant gratification out there. Another intriguing area is genetic/molecular medicine, but I am woefully ignorant on the subject. Biology was my worst subject in school.

Hillary's Blackwater Connection

Bits of baggage have started to fall off the Hillary conveyor belt. Here's a link to The Politico's story about Hillary's Blackwater connection:

Hillary Clinton found herself defending her chief strategist Friday after The Associated Press reported that the public relations company Mark Penn runs had helped prepare the chief of the controversial military contractor Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony.

“Mark Penn did no work on the Blackwater account,” Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Friday afternoon.

Burson-Marsteller, of which Penn is Worldwide President and CEO, “has cut its ties to Blackwater and that was the right thing to do. Mark is and remains a valuable member of our team,” Wolfson said.

Penn’s unusual dual role as corporate executive and presidential strategist has been a running source of distraction for Clinton’s typically single-minded campaign. Though her supporters believe that voters will ultimately be unlikely to make their choice based on the actions of a consultant who is little known outside political circles, Penn has drawn a steady stream of criticism from other campaigns and from key Democratic groups.

Labor leaders objected to his firm’s work against union organizing, and Burson-Marsteller’s work for clients that include the tobacco industry and a leading, troubled subprime mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial, have also drawn fire.

“Bush has been a perfect example of cronyism, because Blackwater has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and to President Bush. I also saw this morning that Sen. Clinton’s primary adviser, Mark Penn, who is like her Karl Rove — his firm is representing Blackwater,” former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said in Iowa Friday.

Clinton reportedly owes Penn 5.4 million dollars for campaign work, while Burson client Blackwater still has a multi-million dollar contract to protect US State Department officials. Does this look like a manifest conflict-of-interest for a potential Secretary of State?

This story is the first of a drip-drip-drip. While Bill might be powerful enough to pull strings to get her the job, IMHO Hillary honestly should not be able to pass any reasonable person's "smell test" for the position of Secretary of State..

Fight Somali Pirates--Reopen the Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa Oil Pipeline

Closed due to the Arab League's Anti-Israel boycott, reopening the Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline could provide a land-based alternative to shipping oil via tankers open to Somali pirates. Eventually, the existing pipeline network might be expanded to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, linking Israel to the Arab world in a mutually beneficial relationship.

And Now For Something Completely Different...

(ht Althouse)

I Don't Question HIllary's Patriotism, I Question Her Judgement

Yet one more reason not to pick Hillary as Secretary of State, newspaper stories with headlines like this: Clinton: Obama Not Winning Over "Hard-Working Americans, White Americans"
The Huffington Post | May 8, 2008

Some vox populi from the Washington Post blog:

It makes ya sick Ha. I feel like I just voted for George Bush. In six months Obama will known as the White House pet that Hillary and Bill keep around for show. I can't believe I've spent the last year helping Obama get elected.


Posted by: HemiHead66 | November 21, 2008 12:56 PM |

From Our Life Imitates Art Department...

Joshua Goodman's Bloomberg.com report::

Barack Obama's election as America's first black president is fueling worldwide demand for a forgotten 1926 science-fiction novel from Brazil.

Jose Bento Monteiro Lobato's ``O Presidente Negro'' (``The Black President'') tells the story of Jim Roy, a brilliant and charismatic leader who is elected America's first black president in the year 2228.

Out of print for 40 years, the pulp novel was republished in March by Brazil's largest media conglomerate, Organizacoes Globo, at the height of the Democratic primary battle between Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, a contest that drew comparisons to Roy's race against a fictitious white feminist named Evelyn Astor.

Now the obscure work -- controversial for what some critics see as its defense of racism -- is going international. Last month, it was published in Italy by Edizzione Controluce under the title ``Il Presidente Nero.'' The book is being translated into English and Spanish from Portuguese.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in a June interview with the Sao Paulo newspaper Gazeta Marcantil, said Obama's victory was foretold by Monteiro Lobato.

`Pure Coincidence'

The book was rushed to publication in March after its antiquated Portuguese was updated for modern readers. Full-page advertisements in national magazines under the tagline ``Any resemblance to actual events is pure coincidence'' have spurred sales of 7,000 copies for 28 reais ($11.73) each. They printed 15,000 copies, the same amount as the original printing.

Brazilian bloggers debate the book's racial ideology as well as its prediction of the rise of China and a technology system much like the Internet.

``We knew we were sitting on a gold mine,'' said Lucia Machado, an executive at Globo Books, adding that sales were double the amount considered a commercial success for a new book in Brazil.

Monteiro Lobato is famous in Brazil for the children's fable ``Adventures of Little Nose.'' The ``Black President,'' when read at all, was criticized for its association with eugenics, a philosophy of human improvement through genetic engineering that was embraced by the Nazis.

The H.G. Wells-like storyline takes place in an age of racial purity, where black people are subjected to selective breeding, forced whitening and sterilization...

More information can be found in Manuela Zoninsein's article about O Presidente Negro published by Slate in September:

Of course, there are several differences between Lobato's story and the circumstances surrounding the 2008 election. In Lobato's fictional world, the United States prohibited the mixing of races—believing it would lead to "disintegration" or "denaturalization"—and thereby conserved white and black races in "a state of relative purity." Lobato also failed to predict the civil rights movement, which undid his predictions of an extreme version of "separate but equal." Unlike Roy, born in a supposed age of "pure races," Obama, born of a white mother and black father, witnessed America's social revolution.

In the 2228 of the novel, the white women's party, the Sabinas (a reference to the Roman legend of the rape of the Sabine women), has apparently reached feminism's pinnacle: Women are no longer considered equal to men—they are simply different and entirely independent. Homo, the ruling white men's party, and the Sabinas each command 51 million voters.

In previous elections, voters sided with their gender, with no regard to race. But with the creation of the Black Association, black men and women unite to create the largest political party, giving Roy 54 million supporters. Kerlog is forced to broker an alliance with Roy: black votes in exchange for easing the "Código da Raça" ("Race Code"), which set limits on the growth of the black population through selective breeding and genetic manipulation. To Kerlog's frustration, when the time comes to cast ballots, citizens loyally vote with their identity group, and the black man wins the presidency.

In response, Kerlog threatens race war. He persuades Astor to protect the interests of the white race and encourages an alliance. Lobato, at his most sexist, writes that Astor accepts this proposal on the grounds that man "is woman's husband for thousands of reasons ... long live man!" With hardly a second thought, she shepherds the 51 million female voters to the cause of the Homo Party. Kerlog demonstrates to a despairing Roy that his race will never assume control, and on the morning Roy is set to assume the presidency, he is found dead in his office. (Lobato hints at murder.) Kerlog calls for a re-election and emerges victorious. White leaders then mastermind the end of the black race in America, using a senseless and tragic sterilization technique, and Roy's dream of serving as the first black man in the nation's most powerful post is left by the wayside.

Al Qaeda Blasts Obama

Looks like Al Qaeda is more scared by Obama than Bush, from this MSNBC report:

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri has criticized President-elect Barack Obama, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that Obama is a black American who does the bidding of whites.

In an audio message which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, al-Zawahri said that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X. He called Obama a "house negro."

He added that Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

The BBC added (ht Drudge) that the Al Qaeda leader charged Obama with apostasy, which carries the death penalty:

He also criticised Mr Obama - whose father is Muslim - for abandoning his Islamic roots.

"You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand with the enemies of Muslims," he said.

Let's see if Obama does better with his vow to "stamp out" Al Qaeda than Bush did with his promise to get Bin Laden "dead or alive."

Another Reason Hillary is Not Qualified

This headline on today's AP story: Democrats: Clinton to help Hillary get State job.

If her husband is reportedly making concessions then obviously Hillary's not even able to negotiate the terms of her employment without help from someone else--namely Bill Clinton. And, if Hillary can't negotiate credibly on behalf of her husband, how could she speak credibly for the United States of America or the Obama administration?

This whole episode is an embarrassment. The sooner Obama puts Hillary to rest, the better.

BTW, David S. Broder agrees with this blogger that Hillary should not become Secretary of State, in today's Washington Post:

What, then, is the problem? Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It's not the best use of her talents, and it's certainly not the best fit for this new president.

What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations. One of the principal reasons he was elected was that, relying on his instincts, he came to the correct conclusion that war with Iraq was not in America's interest. He was more right about that than most of us in Washington, including Hillary Clinton.

Of course, he will benefit from the counsel and the contacts that his secretary of state can offer. But remember, he provided another and probably more expert source of that wisdom when he picked Joe Biden, the veteran chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate. The last thing Obama needs is a secretary of state carving out an independently based foreign policy. He needs an agent, not an author.