That’s right.

Columnist Mona Charen (also an author I love to read) tells it spot on:

Arguably violating its embed agreement, the near universal press practice since 9/11, and the expressed wishes of the family, the Associated Press went ahead and published a photograph of mortally wounded Marine Lance Corporal Joshua “Bernie” Bernard, killed in action in Afghanistan. The AP also ignored the pleas of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who had implored the press agency as a “matter of judgment and common decency” not to publish the photo.

This is one of the reasons I have always had a bad taste in my mouth at the idea of “embedding” these lefty “journalists” among our brave troops in combat zones.

They are nothing but a bunch of feckless assholes with a political agenda that takes the place of things like good sense, tastful sensibilities and patriotism.

Bernard, 21, a devout Christian and Iraq War veteran from Maine, was described by his squad leader as “a true-heartedly very good guy . . . probably one of the best guys I’ve known in my entire life.” Bernard served as his unit’s point man and navigator. He lost his life on August 14 when he was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade that blew off one leg and badly mangled the other. The AP photo captured Bernard lying on the ground, two buddies attempting to help — a splash of red where one leg had been.

The AP’s justification of its decision is both pompous and dubious. “Images of U.S. soldiers fallen in combat have been rare in Iraq and Afghanistan, partly because it is unusual for journalists to witness them and partly because military guidelines have barred the showing of photographs until after families have been notified.” AP says it waited until after Bernard’s funeral to publish the photo, but the same could have been done before. There must have been hundreds of mortal injuries and deaths captured on camera by war correspondents since 2001.

Arguably violating its embed agreement, the near-universal press practice since 9/11, and the express wishes of the family, the Associated Press went ahead and published a photograph of mortally wounded Marine Lance Corporal Joshua “Bernie” Bernard, killed in action in Afghanistan. The AP also ignored the pleas of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who had implored the press agency as a “matter of judgment and common decency” not to publish the photo.

Bernard, 21, a devout Christian and Iraq War veteran from Maine, was described by his squad leader as “a true-heartedly very good guy . . . probably one of the best guys I’ve known in my entire life.” Bernard served as his unit’s point man and navigator. He lost his life on August 14 when he was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade that blew off one leg and badly mangled the other. The AP photo captured Bernard lying on the ground, two buddies attempting to help — a splash of red where one leg had been.

The AP’s justification of its decision is both pompous and dubious. “Images of U.S. soldiers fallen in combat have been rare in Iraq and Afghanistan, partly because it is unusual for journalists to witness them and partly because military guidelines have barred the showing of photographs until after families have been notified.” AP says it waited until after Bernard’s funeral to publish the photo, but the same could have been done before. There must have been hundreds of mortal injuries and deaths captured on camera by war correspondents since 2001.

The AP contends on the one hand that “the stories and photos” of Lance Corporal Bernard “conform with military regulations surrounding journalists embedded with U.S. forces” but then reminds us that “Critics . . . maintain some of the rules are aimed at sanitizing the war, minimizing the sacrifice and cruelty which were graphically depicted by images from the Civil War to Vietnam where such restrictions were not in place.” Which is it? Is the AP defying the embed agreement because they are no longer willing to “sanitize” the war, or are they simply publishing the first dead Marine photo they’ve ever laid hands on?

“AP journalists document world events every day,” the statement continued. “Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is.”

Right, sure. These mainstream media pukes are so transparent when they bullshit that all it does is help you realize how little they respect our intelligence.

There is something else that the AP perhaps did not consider. While for them a photo of a mortally wounded Marine is testimony to the brutality of war; and while for the family it is “disrespectful” (the father’s word); to America’s enemies it is a triumph. There are no universal standards. Our enemies are known to carry videos of the beheading of Nicholas Berg on their cell phones. And for those who’ve forgotten, Nick Berg was a completely innocent American noncombatant. Joshua Bernard would want to be remembered as he lived and served. Instead, the photo of his last moments will doubtless go viral on Islamist websites, where his suffering will be exulted over.

Why should that worry the AP? They are far left liberals, so anything that will help the enemy that they can explain away as “legal and acceptable” is all they need.

Like the NYT, AP, the alphabet networks, L.A.T., WaPO, CNN and the rest of that crowd are the nearest thing to traitors any news media can get without being prosecuted for treason.

‘Nough said, my blood’s boiling more than it needs to!

Read the column in its entirety.

Sometimes we must give proper thanks to the technology weenies, as here:

From a Silicon Valley office strewn with bean-bag chairs, a group of twenty-something software engineers is building an unlikely following of terrorist hunters at U.S. spy agencies.

One of the latest entrants into the government spy-services marketplace, Palantir Technologies has designed what many intelligence analysts say is the most effective tool to date to investigate terrorist networks. The software’s main advance is a user-friendly search tool that can scan multiple data sources at once, something previous search tools couldn’t do. That means an analyst who is following a tip about a planned terror attack, for example, can more quickly and easily unearth connections among suspects, money transfers, phone calls and previous attacks around the globe.

Palantir’s software has helped root out terrorist financing networks, revealed new trends in roadside bomb attacks, and uncovered details of Syrian suicide bombing networks in Iraq, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the events. It has also foiled a Pakistani suicide bombing plot on Western targets and discovered a spy infiltration of an allied government. It is now being used by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Well…

Yet Palantir — which takes its name from the “seeing stones” in the “Lord of the Rings” series — remains an outlier among government security contractors. It rejected advice to hire retired generals to curry favor with the agencies and hired young government analysts frustrated by working with slow-footed technology. The company’s founders knew little about intelligence gathering when they started out. Instead, they went on a fact-finding mission, working with analysts to build the product from scratch.

“We were very naive. We just thought this was a cool idea,” says Palantir’s 41-year-old chief executive Alexander Karp, whose usual dress is a track-suit jacket, blue jeans, and red leather sneakers. “I underestimated how difficult it would be.”

Technology like Palantir’s is increasingly important to spies confronting an information explosion, where terrorists can hide communications in vast data streams on the Internet. Intelligence agencies are struggling to identify and monitor such information — and quickly send relevant data to the analysts who need it. U.S. officials say the software is also crucial as the country steps up its offensive in difficult theaters like Afghanistan. There, Palantir’s software is now being used to analyze constantly shifting tribal dynamics and distinguish potential allies from enemies, according to current and former counterterrorism officials familiar with the work.

“It’s a new way of war fighting,” says former Assistant Secretary of Defense Mary Beth Long. While there are many good systems, Ms. Long says, with Palantir’s software “you can actually point to examples where it was pretty clear that lives were saved.”

Just thought I’d share. It’s nice to know that the Geek Squad is on the ball and pitching in where they’re needed.

The article is definitely a good read.

While I’m not Jewish like Seth, our gracious host, I totally love this one!

It’s high noon for the high holidays.

Fearing jihadists will attack synagogues during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, a group of badass rabbis has developed a program to turn your average shul-goer into a lean, mean fighting machine.

You go, rabbis!

The group, which calls itself the International Security Coalition of Clergy, was founded by Rabbi Gary Moscowitz, who boasts a black belt in karate, teaches martial arts and was an NYPD cop for nine years.

He’s teaching others basic and advanced fighting moves — how to take down a terrorist by the neck, how to use a table as cover from gunfire and how to execute a nifty running somersault while drawing a gun — that he says can be used by Jews if they’re attacked by terrorists during prayer.

Bring ‘em on!

“Jews are not like Christians,” Moscowitz said. “If I turn my cheek, I’m coming around to make a kick.”

If I were Jewish, I guarantee I’d be a member of Moscowitz’ congregation.

Moscowitz said few people took him seriously until May, when the FBI busted homegrown Muslim terrorists for allegedly plotting to blow up synagogues in The Bronx.

Since then, he said, his phone has been ringing off the hook and he created a 100-hour course for synagogue self-defense.

Moscowitz said NYPD officers aren’t qualified to guard synagogues because they don’t know members of the congregation.

“A terrorist could put a yarmulke on, say, ‘Happy holidays,’ and blow the place up,” he said.

Not on Rabbi Moscowitz’ watch!

…is available for our perusal at the Toronto International Film Festival.

Canadian and American filmmakers lashed back Friday at what they described as an ” outrageous” boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival by some filmmakers and writers in protest of the event’s spotlight on filmmakers from Tel Aviv.

Producer, writer and director David Zucker (”Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun,” “Airplane!” ) denounced as “left-wing crazies” the individuals who signed a letter called ” The Toronto Declaration” to protest Israeli government policies.

Even artistic endeavors are not safe from the injection of politics by the far left and its minions.

Mr. Zucker said he is “outraged” that actors such as Danny Glover and Jane Fonda, along with about 50 other activists, would sign a declaration that condemns Israel as an “apartheid regime” and dismisses the work of Tel Aviv filmmakers as “Israeli propaganda.”

The protest of Israel began Aug. 27 when Canadian filmmaker John Greyson released a public letter stating he would withdraw his film from the 10-day festival, which opens Thursday, to protest Israel’s “brutal” military assault on Gaza earlier this year.
On Thursday Sept. 3, writer Naomi Klein and others joined Mr. Greyson’s protest and issued ” The Toronto Declaration: No Celebration of Occupation.”

Israel’s “brutal” military assault on Gaza earlier this year.

Didn’t that have something to do with stopping Hamas’ launching missiles at civilian targets in southern Israel, and curtailing the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip to prevent further violence against innocent civilians?

Then again, Liberals, who are always the first up to preach peace, are also always right there to raise their voices in support of the worst murderers, torturers and enslavers of civilian populations on the planet. If your cause involves genocide and totalitarianism, rest assured there will be millions of liberals, especially the American kind who have never had to worry about falling victim to the same evils, marching in your support.

Nevertheless, a liberal will be outraged if you even hint that he or she has even a single hypocritical bone in his or her body.

I’ll tell you one thing: Had I been Henry Fonda, not only would I have been the most ashamed father in America, I would probably, also, have looked into the possibility of a total gene replacement decades ago.

Mr. Greyson’s film, “Covered,” is a documentary about violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina that shut down the 2008 Sarajevo Queer Festival.

The 2008 Sarajevo Queer Festival?

ROTFLMAO!

I wonder how many people the withdrawal of Mr. Greyson’s film has brought to the very brink of suicidal despair!

Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici complained that Mr. Greyson is now trying to shut down the voices of filmmakers in the only country in the Middle East that allows free expression.

If Mr. Greyson “were to walk down the streets of Tel Aviv with a sign saying he is a homosexual filmmaker, he would be invited to the Tel Aviv Queer Film Festival. But if he did that in Ramallah or any Palestinian village in the Territories, his films would have to be shown posthumously because they would kill him,” said Mr. Jacobovici.

In fact, Mr. Greyson was invited to the Tel Aviv Queer Festival and withdrew another of his films from that event.

My, these “queer festivals” really seem to be making the rounds. Even in “evil, apartheid mongering” Tel Aviv, imagine that!

Gays in Palestine “flee to Tel Aviv to protect themselves from their brothers who would lynch them,” Mr. Jacobovici added.

Yes, but that doesn’t count, because,

“It seems that nothing the Jews do is right and nothing the enemies of the Jews do is wrong,” said Mr. Jacobovici.

{Both above emphasis’ mine}

The idea of an Israeli apartheid is also “a lie,” said Mr. Jacobovici, noting that 1 million Palestinians live in Israel (about 20 percent of Israel’s population), “while not one Jew lives in the Territories or is even buried there because they have disinterred those bodies.”

Anyway, the entire Washington Times article is here.

Liberals…

…There’s no way I would want my children to be subjected to anything like this, not an organized address aimed at school children by a socialist, anti-Israel, anti-U.S. Constitution president like Barack Hussein Obama. I mean, one that’s actually providing advance instructions for how teachers should prep students for the event?

Look, we all know how the Democrats, under liberal control, have adapted the same indoctrination procedures as so many totalitarian governments, working through the classroom to program future adults.

When I was a kid and teachers/schools were more conservative and dedicated to teaching rather than forcing political indoctrination on their pupils, we were taught how to think, encouraged to analyse the facts of a matter and draw our own conclusions. Today, they teach students what to think.

Here we have a president who managed to get himself elected by millions of idiots by speaking for months without saying a damn thing of substance, a president who even now is trying to push a healthcare bill down our throats without saying what he means when he “explains” himself, and seeing as he’s running more and more into right thinking people who are asking questions he doesn’t want to answer (if he told the truth, something B. Hussein Obama finds repulsive, always has, always will, Americans would laugh his healthcare bill out of existence as they realized what an anti-America, anti-freedom entity we’ve (well, not me, not anyone with all their facilities intact) ushered into the White House, insulting our intelligence as he does.

But, he figures, if I work through the children, like we liberals have been doing with our gay rights and global warming agendas, at least I may be able to help program future generations.

On September 8, in what the Department of Education is touting as a “historic” speech, President Obama will be talking directly to students across the U.S., live on the White House website. But some parents and conservatives are blasting the president, calling the speech an excuse to brainwash American children.

Last month, in an interview with 11-year-old student reporter Damon Weaver, the president announced his big back-to-school plan:

“I’m going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education; about the importance of staying in school; how we want to improve our education system and why it’s so important for the country. So I hope everybody tunes in.”

Yeah, everybody tune in. Where liberals are concerned, communist indoctrination education needn’t concern itself with accurate history, the three Rs or anything else that might cloud the mindsof potential future Democrat voters.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter to the nation’s principals, inviting schools to watch the speech and included suggested classroom activities. But Jim Greer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, came out swinging against the planned speech. An excerpt from his statement:

“The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.”

NBC spoke with Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, who said the party’s “beef” is with the accompanying lesson plans. The guide for pre-K through grade 6 suggests questions students think about during the speech, such as “What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do?”

The plan for grades 7-12 includes a “guided discussion,” with suggested topics: “What resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What is President Obama inspiring you to do?”

“Guided discussion”, indeed.

The Cato Institute, a public-policy research foundation, issued a press release entitled “Hey Obama, Leave Those Kids Alone,” criticizing the “troubling buzzwords” in the lesson plans:

“It’s one thing for a president to encourage all kids to work hard and stay in school – that’s a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It’s another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to public schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and the presidency, and push them to drive social change.”

That sounds about Obama’s speed, him bein’ a left winger an’ all.

Wolf here again.

According to the Washington Times, the U.N. has found that although they have spent decades brown-nosing, ass creeping, looking the other way when they arm and/or regroup, take your pick endeavoring to interact with and try to curb the activities of international terrorists and the nations that sponsor them, the criminally corrupt, power hungry, pitifully inept organization financed in major proportion and hosted by the U.S. taxpayer has been having some terrorist problems of its own.

At least 20 U.N. outposts in dangerous corners of the world suffer from inadequate security despite rising threats to the organization, the U.N. director of security says.

Gregory B. Starr, a former State Department security specialist named as U.N. security coordinator a little more than three months ago, cited U.N. offices in Iraq and Afghanistan for particular concern.

He also classified outposts in Somalia, Sudan’s Darfur region, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon as dangerous spots for U.N. international and local staff.

How did I title this post? Hoist on their own petard?

The specter of terrorist attacks has prompted many U.N. agencies and programs to beef up security. Often, they hire security contractors to help deliver and distribute humanitarian goods, to relocate mission staff to more stable neighboring countries, and to develop protocols for movement and protection in dangerous postings.

The big difference here is that it’s the U.N. whose asses are hanging in the breeze. If it were the Israelis, the same U.N. would deem whatever security precautions they took to be “excessive”, “oppressive”, “inhumane” or other words to that effect.

Here’s my favorite:

The danger has risen dramatically over the past decade as radical Islamists have grown increasingly suspicious of the United Nations and many of its goals.

…suspicious of the United Nations and many of its goals.

I never thought I’d say it, but there is one thing I’ve had in common with radical Islamists for a very long time.

Read the entire Washington Times article here.

Wolf out.

Wolf here.

I’ve seen some pretty stupid and self destructive actions performed in my day by people who should at least have the sense of responsibility to think things through, weighing the pros and cons, before they act, of the decisions they make and the execution of what they’ve decided upon.

Unfortunately, and this goes not only for B. Hussein Obama but for the rest of that pack of dishonest scoundrels who call themselves Democrats these days.

They play politics, thinking only of their partisan ambitions without a thought to the good of America and the people who elected them to lead the nation.

They twist the truth and the accomplishments of potential victims of their political agendas to meet the requirements of those agendas.

Obama’s agenda, whatever it may be, certainly bides no good for this country, its economic future, its national security, our rights and freedoms, the values we hold dear, those that make us unique among nations, our morality, and his actions to date bear this up.

Now, to appease his “get Bush, Cheney and all their issue” base, Obama is attacking the CIA for operating, they were assured at the time, within the law.

Of course, we’re talking a renegade government run by Obama, Pelosi and Reid (Frankencense and Murtha?), and all the lies that come with it.

President Obama on Monday paid his first formal visit to CIA headquarters, in order, as he put it, to “underscore the importance” of the agency and let its staff “know that you’ve got my full support.” Assuming he means it, the President should immediately declassify all memos concerning what intelligence was gleaned, and what plots foiled, by the interrogations of high-level al Qaeda detainees in the wake of September 11.

This suggestion was first made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said he found it “a little bit disturbing” that the Obama Administration had decided to release four Justice Department memos detailing the CIA’s interrogation practices while not giving the full picture of what the interrogations yielded in actionable intelligence. Yes, it really is disturbing, especially given the bogus media narrative that has now developed around those memos.

bogus media narrative is the only kind of media narrative these days, and for some reason “bogus” and “Obama” seem to coexist easily in the same piece of thought.

This shows how bold, thanks entirely to the relative lack of awareness among the American people (read that as not paying attention to the little dictatorship style government we have developed since the third week of January), the liberals who control the Democratic party have become.

I’ll tell you something, people. Seth has said this to me before, and I have come to agree with him: If we allow these politicians to continue to go this far without voting the lot of them out of office, we, as a country, deserve every bit of shit they will eventually bury us in. It’s every voter’s sacred responsibility to study hard on what the government is doing, what our politicians are up to.

In other words, CIA interrogators wanted to use these techniques in 2002 to break a terrorist they believed had information that could potentially save American lives. Rest assured that if the CIA hadn’t taken these steps and the U.S. had been hit again, the same people denouncing these memos now would have been demanding another 9/11 Commission to deplore their inaction.

Gotta love them fuckin’ traitors Democrats. So crooked and sleazy honest and fair.

The memos give considerable indication both of the sheer quantity, as well as some of the specifics, of the intelligence gathered through the interrogations. “You have informed us,” wrote Mr. Bradbury in the May 30, 2005 memo, “that the interrogation of KSM — once enhanced techniques were employed — led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles. You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of . . . Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell . . . tasked with the execution of the ‘Second Wave.’”

All in all, Mr. Bybee added, “the intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of CTC’s [the CIA's Counterterrorist Center] reporting on al Qaeda.”

In a saner world (or at least one that accurately reported on original documents), all of this would be a point of pride for the CIA. It would serve as evidence of the Bush Administration’s scrupulousness regarding the life and health of the detainees, and demonstrate how wrong are the claims that harsh interrogations yielded no useful intelligence.

The above emphasis is mine.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch,

The Obama administration’s decision to release a previously classified 2004 CIA interrogation report and appoint a special prosecutor to look into possible misdeeds by personnel involved in questioning high-value terrorists is a huge mistake.

It’s almost as if - in addition to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror - the Obama administration has now declared war on the CIA, which is one of our most important assets in gathering intelligence for winning these conflicts.

First, these choices will likely have a chilling effect on the morale at the agency. Earlier this year Barack Obama himself vowed it was time to look forward, not back. (Of course, that is until it’s time to look back.)

In addition to being another Obama policy flip-flop, these decisions will likely leave officers in the field wondering whether they should be more concerned about getting terrorists or getting lawyers.

I can tell you first hand here that I know exactly where Mr. Brookes is coming from. Thank God I’m retired!

It’s also a major distraction to the CIA’s embattled director Leon Panetta, who seems to be drowning in a sea of inquiries from his White House and the Democratic Congress. Doesn’t he have more important things to look after, like Iran and North Korea?

(Some believe Panetta won’t be around much longer, giving the already-rattled CIA its sixth leader since 9/11.)

How about a dose of reality, here, Mr. O?

It isn’t by chance that we haven’t been attacked in nearly eight years. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said that we owe the CIA a debt of gratitude for keeping us safe.

It’s a sentiment the Obama administration should really consider before it goes any further.

Wolf out.

Chuck here (the durn contributor drop-down menu’s still not working).

Knowing that Middle east affairs, especially those of concern to Israel, are also of concern to Seth, I thought I’d bring up three items from that region.

The first is in response to a column by the excellent Caroline Glick, titled Et tu, Netanyahu?, that comes as something of a shock, considering that Benjamin Netaniahu has always been a strong defender of Israel’s right to its status as the Jewish Homeland, and was expected to resist, without compunction, any attempts by the Obama Administration to engender anything less.

This week we discovered that we have been deceived. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s principled rejection of US President Barack Obama’s bigoted demand that Israel bar Jews from building new homes and expanding existing ones in Judea and Samaria does not reflect his actual policy.

Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Attias let the cat out of the bag. Attias said that the government has been barring Jews from building in the areas since it took office four months ago in the hopes that by preemptively capitulating to US demands, the US will treat Israel better.

And that’s not all. Today Netanyahu is reportedly working in earnest to reach a deal with the Obama administration that would formalize the government’s effective construction ban through 2010.

Netanyahu is set to finalize such a deal at his meeting with Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell in London next Wednesday.

Say what!?

Unfortunately, far from treating Israel better as a result of Netanyahu’s willingness to capitulate on the fundamental right of Jews to live and build homes in the land of Israel, the Obama administration is planning to pocket Israel’s concession and then up the ante. Administration officials have stated that their next move will be to set a date for a new international Middle East peace conference that Obama will chair. There, Israel will be isolated and relentlessly attacked as the US, the Arabs, the Europeans, the UN and the Russians all gang up on our representatives and demand that Israel accept the so-called “Arab peace plan.”

That deceptively named plan, which Obama has all but adopted as his own, involves Israel committing national suicide in exchange for nothing. The Arab plan — formerly the “Saudi Plan,” and before that, the Tom Friedman “stick it to Israel ‘peace’ plan” — calls for Israel to retreat to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. It also involves Israel agreeing to cease being a Jewish state by accepting millions of foreign, hostile Arabs as citizens within its truncated borders. The day an Israeli government accepts the plan - which again will form the basis of the Obama “peace” conference” — is the day that the State of Israel signs its own death warrant.

What the hell is the Israeli prime minister thinking? Has he caught Livni/Olmert Syndrome? How do you say “lemming” in Hebrew?

And if that’s not enough, well how about this?

Then there is the other Obama plan in the works. Obama also intends to host an international summit on nuclear security for March 2010. Arab states are already pushing for Israel’s nuclear program to be placed on the agenda. Together with Obama administration officials’ calls for Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — which would compel Israel to relinquish its purported nuclear arsenal — and their stated interest in having Israel sign the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty — which would arguably force Israel to allow international inspections of its nuclear facility in Dimona — Obama’s planned nuclear conclave will place Israel in an untenable position.

Meanwhile, Barack, Hillary & the gang continue to pussyfoot around a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran.

Moving on

Recognizing the Obama administration’s inherent and unprecedented hostility to Israel, Netanyahu sought to deflect its pressure by giving his speech at Bar Ilan University in June. There he gave his conditional acceptance of Obama’s most cherished foreign policy goal — the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland.

Netanyahu’s conditions — that the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; that they relinquish their demand that Israel accept millions of hostile Arabs as citizens under the so-called “right of return;” that the Palestinian state be a “demilitarized” state, and that Arab states normalize their relations with Israel were supposed to put a monkey wrench in Obama’s policy of pressuring Israel.

Since it is obvious that the Arabs do not accept these eminently reasonable conditions, Netanyahu presumed that Obama would be forced to stand down. What Netanyahu failed to take into consideration was the notion that Obama and the Arabs would not act in good faith — that they would pretend to accept at least some of his demands in order to force him to accept all of their demands, and so keep US pressure relentlessly focused on Israel. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened.

Ahead of Obama’s meeting Tuesday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Al Quds al Arabi, reported that Obama has accepted Netanyahu’s call for a demilitarized Palestinian state. Although Netanyahu is touting Obama’s new position as evidence of his own diplomatic prowess, the fact is that Obama’s new position is both disingenuous and meaningless.

Obama’s supposed support for a demilitarized Palestinian state is mendacious on two counts. First, Palestinian society is already one of the most militarized societies in the world. According to the World Bank, 43 percent of wages paid by the Palestinian Authority go to Palestinian militias. Since Obama has never called for any fundamental reordering of Palestinian society or for a reform of the PA’s budgetary priorities, it is obvious that he doesn’t have a problem with a militarized Palestinian state.

The second reason his statements in support for a demilitarized Palestinian state are not credible is because one of the central pillars of the Obama administration’s Palestinian policy is its involvement in training of the Fatah-led Palestinian army. US Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton is overseeing the training of this army in Jordan and pressuring Israel to expand its deployment in Judea and Samaria.

Like they say, “SNIP”

There is another way. It is being forged by the likes of Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon on the one hand and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on the other.

Ya’alon argues that not capitulating to American pressure is a viable policy option forIsrael. There is no reason to reach an agreement with Mitchell on the administration’s bigoted demand that Jews not build in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. If the US wants to have a fight with Israel, a fight against American anti-Jewish discrimination is not a bad one for Israel to have.

Ya’alon’s argument was borne out by Huckabee’s visit this week to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Huckabee’s trip showed that the administration is not operating in a policy vacuum. There is plenty of strong American support for an Israeli government that would stand up to the administration on the Palestinian issue and Iran alike.

Netanyahu’s policies have taken a wrong turn. But Netanyahu is not Tzipi Livni or Ehud Olmert. He is neither an ideologue nor an opportunist. He understands why what he is doing is wrong. He just needs to be convinced that he has another option.

Must read the entire column (yeah, there’s quite a bit more in there).

Speaking of Iran, while this isn’t all that surprising, it’s not exactly something to be taken lightly.

Ahmad Vahidi, nominated Thursday by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to serve as Iran’s defense minister, is a suspected international terrorist sought by Interpol in connection with a deadly 1994 attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina.

Mr. Vahidi, a former commander of the elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard known as the Quds Force, was one of 15 men and three women named to Cabinet posts by Mr. Ahmadinejad as he begins his second term in office. The choice is likely to further chill relations between Iran and the international community, especially Israel.

Interpol, the international police agency based in Lyon, France, placed Mr. Vahidi and four other Iranian officials on its most-wanted list in 2007 at the request of Argentine prosecutors, who say the men played a role in planning the July 1994 attack on the seven-story community center in Buenos Aires.

Obama’s friends, the Iranian government.

The bombing, which killed 85 people, is thought to have been carried out by members of Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and political party with close links to Iran.

Kenneth Katzman, a senior analyst on Iraq and Iran at the Congressional Research Service, said that Mr. Vahidi is also suspected of having played a role in a 1996 attack on the U.S. Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia known as Khobar Towers.

Mr. Vahidi is not the first prominent Iranian to be wanted in connection with terrorist attacks. Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezai, a former revolutionary guard commander, was among the five Iranians identified by Interpol in 2007, as was former President Hashemi Rafsanjani.

But Mr. Vahidi’s ascension to the high-profile post of defense minister suggests that Mr. Ahmadinejad will continue his policy of defiance toward the West.

Obama’s good friends, the Iranian government.

Lastly, there’s this Op-Ed in the Washington Post by Crown Prince of Bahrain Shaikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa.

We need fresh thinking if the Arab Peace Initiative is to have the impact it deserves on the crisis that needlessly impoverishes Palestinians and endangers Israel’s security.

This crisis is not a zero-sum game. For one side to win, the other does not have to lose.

The peace dividend for the entire Middle East is potentially immense. So why have we not gotten anywhere?

Our biggest mistake has been to assume that you can simply switch peace on like a light bulb. The reality is that peace is a process, contingent on a good idea but also requiring a great deal of campaigning — patiently and repeatedly targeting all relevant parties. This is where we as Arabs have not done enough to communicate directly with the people of Israel.

An Israeli might be forgiven for thinking that every Muslim voice is raised in hatred, because that is usually the only one he hears. Just as an Arab might be forgiven for thinking every Israeli wants the destruction of every Palestinian.

Essentially, we have not done a good enough job demonstrating to Israelis how our initiative can form part of a peace between equals in a troubled land holy to three great faiths. Others have been less reticent, recognizing that our success would threaten their vested interest in keeping Palestinians and Israelis at each other’s throats. They want victims to stay victims so they can be manipulated as proxies in a wider game for power. The rest of us — the overwhelming majority — have the opposite interest.

It is in our interest to speak up now for two reasons. First, we will all be safer once we drain the pool of antipathy in which hatemongers from both sides swim.

Second, peace will bring prosperity. Already, the six oil and gas nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council have grown into a powerful trillion-dollar market. Removing the ongoing threat of death and destruction would open the road to an era of enterprise, partnership and development on an even greater scale for the region at large.

That is the glittering prize for resolving the dilemma of justice for Palestine without injustice to Israel. Effectively, this is the meta-issue that defines and distorts the self-image of Arabs and diverts too much of our energies away from the political and economic development the region needs.

The wasted years of deadlock have conditioned Israelis to take on a fortress mentality that automatically casts all Palestinians as the enemy — and not as the ordinary, decent human beings they are.

Speaking out matters, but it is not enough. Our governments and all stakeholders also must be ready to carry out practical measures to help ease the day-to-day hardship of Palestinian lives.

The two communities in the Holy Land are not fated to be enemies. What can unite them tomorrow is potentially bigger than what divides them today.

Both sides need help from their friends, in the form of constructive engagement, to reach a just settlement.

What we don’t need is the continued reflexive rejection of any initiative that seeks to melt the ice. Consider the response so far to the Arab peace plan, pioneered by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. This initiative is a genuine effort to normalize relations between the entire Arab region and Israel, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territory and a fair resolution of the plight of the Palestinians, far too many of whom live in refugee camps in deplorable conditions.

We must stop the small-minded waiting game in which each side refuses to budge until the other side makes the first move. We’ve got to be bigger than that. All sides need to take simultaneous, good-faith action if peace is to have a chance. A real, lasting peace requires comprehensive engagement and reconciliation at the human level. This will happen only if we address and settle the core issues dividing the Arab and the Israeli peoples, the first being the question of Palestine and occupied Arab lands. The fact that this has not yet happened helps to explain why the Jordanian and Egyptian peace accords with Israel are cold. They have not been comprehensive.

We should move toward real peace now by consulting and educating our people and by reaching out to the Israeli public to highlight the benefits of a genuine peace.

To be effective, we must acknowledge that, like people everywhere, the average Israeli’s primary window on the world is his or her local and national media. Our job, therefore, is to tell our story more directly to the Israeli people by getting the message out to their media, a message reflecting the hopes of the Arab mainstream that confirms peace as a strategic option and advocates the Arab Peace Initiative as a means to this end. Some conciliatory voices in reply from Israel would help speed the process.

Some Arabs, simplistically equating communication with normalization, may think we are moving too fast toward normalization. But we all know that dialogue must be enhanced for genuine progress. We all, together, need to take the first crucial step to lay the groundwork to effectively achieve peace. So we must all invest more in communication.

Once we achieve peace, trade will follow. We can then create a “virtuous circle,” because trade will create its own momentum. By putting real money into people’s hands and giving them real power over their lives, trade will help ensure the durability of peace. The day-to-day experience would move minds and gradually build a relationship of trust and mutual interest, without which long-term peacemaking is impossible.

When stability pays, conflict becomes too costly. We must do more, now, to achieve peace.

The question is, is the crown prince truly sincere about finding a lasting, peaceful solution to the Israeli-Arab problem, or is this just more of the usual Arab hype?

There’s no other way to describe the majority of today’s journalists. If I were a reporter, I don’t think I’d be able to tell anyone about it and look them in the eye at the same time.

Chuck here, by the way, still having a problem with the dropdown contributor menu.

This piece from the Media Research Center says it all.

With President Obama and congressional liberals facing loud protests over their big government health care plan, journalists are casting the anti-ObamaCare forces as “ugly,” “unruly,” “nasty” mobs, with reporters presenting the most odious images (like pictures of Obama drawn as Hitler) as somehow representative. But when President George W. Bush faced left-wing protests, the media scrubbed their stories of radical voices and depicted demonstrators as mainstream, and even “prescient.”

In January 2003, all of the broadcast networks touted an anti-war march organized by the radical International ANSWER, an outgrowth of the communist Workers World Party. Signs at the rally read: “USA Is #1 Terrorist,” “Bush Is a Terrorist,” and “The NYPD Are Terrorists Too.” National Review Online quoted several protesters who claimed 9/11 was a Bush plot, “like when Hitler burned down the Reichstag,” and argued Bush would “build a worldwide planetary death machine.”

Bush would “build a worldwide planetary death machine.”

Come on, now, is that quotably sourced from a mature mind?

Regardless,

Reporters bypassed all that hate and showcased the protesters as everyday Americans. On ABC, Bill Blakemore stressed how the protest attracted “Democrats and Republicans, many middle-aged, from all walks of life,” while CBS’s Joie Chen saw “young, old, veterans and veteran activists — all united in the effort to stop the war before it starts.”

In Feburary 2003, CNN donated two hours of programming, “Voices of Dissent,” to another International ANSWER event. Correspondent Maria Hinojosa enthused: “It’s an extraordinarily diverse crowd. I have seen elderly men and women with mink coats carrying their posters.” ABC’s John McKenzie painted the protesters as idealistic: “So many voices, filling the streets, struggling to be heard.”

Is that the best a supposedly responsible, fair and balanced media can do in the way of reporting, or were they just having a bad news day or several?

On March 22, 2003, CNN offered 38 separate reports on a demonstration that day, but managed to never show any of the radical rhetoric from the podium. Over on ABC, Chris Cuomo saluted the leftists converging in New York City: “While protesters like today are a statistical minority, in American history protests like this have been prescient indicators of the national mood. So the government may do well to listen to what’s said today.”

In October 2003, the far left rallied again in Washington, this time with a rapper leading a chant of “F**k George Bush!” and speakers praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. The next day’s Washington Post ignored all of that in favor of a soft feature: “In D.C., a Diverse Mix Rouses War Protest.”

In D.C., a Diverse Mix Rouses War Protest.

I believe the correct response to that, in computerese, is LMFAO!!!!

In 2006, the left demanded money for New Orleans, with one protester wearing a George W. Bush mask adorned with Satan horns and a Hitler moustache. CNN reporter Susan Roesgen thought it comic, calling it a “look-alike” for the President. But covering the anti-big government tea parties in April 2009, Roesgen was aggrieved to see a picture of Obama with a Hitler moustache: “Why be so hard on the President of the United States though with such an offensive message?”

I detest having to call anybody a hypocritical, human shaped chunk of hedge hog feces, so I’ll give Susan Roesgen the benefit of the doubt and just assume that she has something of a faulty memory where some of her past excretions expressions of opinion are concerned.

Today’s protesters are being portrayed as crazy and even dangerous. Ex-CNN reporter Bob Franken called the anti-Obama protesters “a crazed group” engaged in “organized intimidation.” An August 10 graphic on MSNBC wondered: “Conservatives Coming Unhinged?” Chris Matthews saw racism: “I think some of the people are upset because we have a black President.” And ABC’s Bill Weir on Friday warned “the rising anger is now ramping up concerns over the President’s personal safety.”

These people are the ones to whom the majority of Americans go for news and informed opinion. Frightening, isn’t it?

The double-standard is obvious. How can professional journalists possibly justify it?

They can’t, because they’re not professional journalists, no matter what their credentials may indicate.

So, what are they?

My best guess? An unpleasant flotsam of some sort.

In any case, the media needs to be purged of these political whores if it wishes to regain its former status as a dependable source of information and knowledgeably, responsibly formed opinion.

There are a number of links in the Media Research Center article that is linked near the top of this post, this link, in fact, that quantify various references in the quoted narrative.

Let’s all drop what we’re doing and go to work for Uncle Sam! That way, we’ll each be able to earn back our tax money and more as those taxes continue to go up and come full circle: They pay our salaries and benefits, we pay it all back to them in taxes.

Almost like kiting a check.

The House-passed climate change bill, if enacted, would expand the federal government so much that it would take billions of dollars and thousands of new employees to implement.

Yes, let’s just keep on bloating the government, blow it up like a balloon until it bursts.

Now-obscure federal agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have to become mini-behemoths in order to handle their expanded responsibilities. Congress would have to appropriate billions of dollars for more bureaucrats, much of which is not reflected in the House bill.

So, what’s a few billion here, a few billion there, right? Ask any liberal, it’s nothing at all, surely not when it’s being spent wisely, such as in the course of pushing a really bad idea based solely on the replacement of scientific evidence by the politics of a gaggle of agenda driven left wingers.

“It could be a $2 trillion market within five years,” said Bart Chilton, commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

How?

The commission, which would police the new futures market for allowances, apparently would need to expand its work force by at least 31 percent initially to fulfill its obligations under the bill. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which would oversee the day-to-day trading of allowances, has estimated that it would have to expand by 20 percent or 30 percent.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which would oversee pollution regulation, also would balloon in size. The agency regulates 330 million tons of pollution a year but would regulate 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year from 7,400 facilities under the legislation.

I say go for it! Let’s bankrupt the country once and for all!

What’s with these people, anyway? Don’t we look for stuff like common sense and brains in the candidates we vote for?

I guess not.

“I’m not sure the government is capable of handling the bureaucracy that will come if the carbon market is set up,” said William Kovacs, senior vice president of environment and regulatory affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

That’s okay, as long as they’re spending our money faster than they can tax it out of us, the sun will be shining in Liberal Land.

Read the entire article here.