Powered by TypePad

« Disaster Relief - Myanmar And China | Main | I'LL Take My Chances With Prosecutorial Discretion This Time »

May 16, 2008



Just watched part of the presser--what a dope. Premature canonization* (*TM Gerard Baker )
indeed.Basically while criticizing the administration he seems to say he'd do exactly what they did re Iran.
D.U.M.B. does not spell rosebud.
Man is seriously out of his depth.

Crunchy Frog

Of course they have legitimate claims. Israel exists. The Jooooos haven't yet been pushed into the sea.

What else is necessary?


I read the Brooks article and one thing continues to sticks out, which I can't understand.

Brooks sz
"Everybody knows Obama is smart"

Why does everybody know this? His repeated actions do not show any special level of brilliance? In fact, this last moronic move may be the dumbest move from a candidate since Muskie crying. He continues to make idiotic pronouncements and has to have surrogates constantly re-explain what Obama actually meant when he makes some remark showing his stupidity?

Yet none of the liberals or MSM ever question why the narrative every election cycle is the same. The brilliant, intellectual liberal democrat going against the non-thinking, caveman republican.

Kerry, Clinton, Mondale, Gore, and now Obama were all protrayed as overwhelmingly smart men, often describe as too smart to relate to average Americans, while Reagan was derided in the same manner as our current President as an idiotic simpleton who never read or thought thru policies or plans. Yet in hindsight we can see this wasn't anything but propaganda. Noone can today honestly call Kerry or Gore paragods of intellects. Both have been born out to be idiots but again in this election cycle here comes the enlightened Einstein Obama against McCain.

I suspect that Obama's intellect in about the same as Kerry's. Mostly in the minds of their MSM cheerleaders.


LUS, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. I suspect his EQ is also well above average.


Umm, no-one ever explained the code to you guys -- "smart" = liberal.



Legitimate Claims = Palestinian State
Legitimate Grievances = Isreali Settlements outside of 1967 Borders


Legitimate Claims = A larger piece of the pie for the Shia in Lebanon.
Legitimate Grievances = Can't think of any.

Was that really so hard to figure out?


All those you mention, LUS, were none truly intellectual, as was, for instance, Reagan. Obama may be one; he certainly has a lot of intellectuals believing so. But I doubt it. He's succussfully vacuumed up and processed nearly the most leftist ideology out there, but what, really, are his contributions. It's that old community organization business; His EQ excells his IQ, but neither are shabby, only he is. This garment, this Procrustean nightgown he's fitting for us, is worn out and ravelled.



Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon).

Good call LogicalUS. I am not a Lebanon expert, but I'm heretofore, unimpressed with his grasp of Lebanon or its problems.


Appalled, when Persia, even more than the Sunni, is trying to push you into the see, Golan is more strategic than Gaza. I don't see why a Jewish/Islamic rapprochement can't be made in the Middle East. They got along for millenia.

It's Ahmadi-Nejad and some of the mullahs who are out of line. Co-existence is preferable to obliteration, unilateral or multipy so.


Are you impressed with his grasp of anything? If so, what?


OK, bin Laden is out of line, too. Out line of sight, too, you notice.

Rev Dr. E Buzz Miller

I think Barry will be the first Affirmative Action Presidential candidate.

If GW got Gentleman C's then what the hell did Barry get? Race based grade inflation?

He speaks like a college sophomore.

I have no confidence in this cat.


Excellent grasp of mythology, clarice.


Man is seriously out of his depth.

That's what it seems to me. But he wiggles well.


This little nugget-

He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea.

Arming the Lebanese military will be about as successful as arming Fatah went re: Oslo. Also hasn't the US been doing some of that already and wouldn't be surprised if a sizable portion was siphoned off for Hezbollah.

And tougher on North Korea-how? He'll look at them with puffy eyes.


Posted at the end of the last thread,but relevant here:

You are so right, Clarice. But he is a more dangerous demagogue than BJ Bill is in his worst days.

The media and academic establishment have truly found their ideal in this genuinely bi-racial man who can be whatever you want him to be.

Sort of a real life bi-racial Chauncey Gardner (admittedly, with a bit more than rice pudding between his ears).

The media and academic world eat up BHO's fighting the Bush Administration, and his attempts to tie McCain to its EEEEEEEEvil policies.

This will be a long election season without something like Larry's (possibly fake) turd in the punchbowl to liven things up.


In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he’s part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.

David Brooks needs to consult a style book. Harry Hopkins might not be the best choice to compare BHO too. Yea, yea it was the Cold War, but mightn't people start asking questions as to who might be behind BHO.

So Harry Hopkins+James Baker=treasonous international arabist, probably not what NYT was looking for.

Cecil Turner

Was that really so hard to figure out?

Well, in the case of Hezbollah at least, yes. Because if one reads their manifesto, it rather concentrates on destruction of Israel and establishing an Islamic government:

"An Open Letter: The Hezbollah Program," the terrorist organization's manifesto, was published by the Lebanese daily Al-Safir on February 16, 1985. It emphasized "the necessity for the destruction of Israel," as well as Hezbollah's other main objective, an Islamic regime in Lebanon with laws based on Shariah and with non-Muslims called upon to "embrace Islam."
Stratfor has a similar take:
  • Opposition to the state of Israel
  • An ambiguous position on an independent Palestine
  • Hostility to the United States for supporting Israel and later championing Yasser Arafat
But since none of those are "legitimate," I guess we have to make up something new. Moreover, Hamas's stated goal of a Palestinian state seems difficult to reconcile with their actions. And the mere existence of either group is arguably a violation of the laws of war, so the mantle of legitimacy, in any form, is hard to support.


They have had 60 years to make their case. They failed and have devolved into a lawless state. Over the decades they have had innumerable opportunities to create a constructive society but have spurned every single one of them. And this is what BO sees as so promising?

I'm listening to BO on the radio. Not sure I can endure 6 months of listening to him pontificate.



Legitimate Claims = Palestinian State

Legitimate Grievances = Isreali Settlements outside of 1967 Borders

Posted by: Appalled | May 16, 2008 at 03:30 PM

Well, those might fly IF you ignore the history between 1948 and 1967 and the actual goals of Hamas. The Palestinians were given tha chance to establish their own state in 1948, they refused and chose war instead.

After 1948 The West Bank was occupied and administered by Jordan, which eventually annexed it rather than set up an independent Palestinian state.

After 1948 Gaza was occupied and administered by the Egyptians, who never made any effort at establishing a Palestinian state.

In 1967 Egypt, Jordan, and Syria provoked war with Israel with the expressed goal of destroying the Israeli state. The Arab Alliance lost the war including control of Gaza and the West Bank. Because these territories were never recognized as part of any state (the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was never internatinally accepted) the UN declared that these territories should be treated as occupied foreign soil, even if they legally were not.

If Hamas has an issue with the lack of a Paletinian state, they should complain to Jordan and Egypt, which never attempted to establsh such an entity while they controled "Palestinian" territories.

As to Israel's establishment of settlements on "Palestinian" terroitory, since such territory never legally existed, how can Israel be building on it.

Hamas' stated goals are not a return to the "borders" of 1967, but the eradication of Israel as a state.

I think the lesson here is that when the UN offers you a state, you should accept (even if it is only half of what you want), not rely on foreign armies to defeat your enemies and get you everything you want.



This guy standing with Jewish voters tumbles every time he opens his mouth. I know that there are a fair amount of self hating Jews that will never abandon a Truth to Power type, but if this guys keeps it up it could be 50% of Jews for McCain, and movement of places like Jersey and maybe in Connecticut into the R column.


It would be generous to claim that the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian refusal to allow the Palestinians formal statehood is the reason the Palestinians live in chaos and the Israelis not.


There is no distinction historically of Palestinians. They are Arabs and Ranger is correct the proper spot for many of them is Jordan, which did annex it. Of course when the King figured out what troublemakers they were he wanted nothing to do with them. Most Palestinians living in the countries of the MidEast are treated poorly. No country in the MidEast save Israel has offered them citizenship.


Is it really a legitimate claim for Hezb. to disregard the democratic process in Lebanon? In America we call that a coup.


Well, some American Jews donn't care that much about Israel. Generally, they are young and in college. But for the majority, you are right. Everytime this idiot opens his mouth they start imagining themselves voting for McCain.


I assume that at least some of you have seen this in the WSJ??

A hard drive recovered from the computer of a killed Colombian guerrilla has offered more insights into the opposition of House Democrats to the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

A military strike three weeks ago killed Raúl Reyes, No. 2 in command of the FARC, Colombia's most notorious terrorist group. The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia's elected and popular government.

link to some discussion under my name.

It appears that Rick Ballard has the Copperhead label just right.



Palestinian claims to nationhood are considered legitimate by the UN and most nations (even GWB agrees). 1948 really does not matter, in this regard.


We're talking Hezbollah's legitimate issues, as opposed to the host of illegitimate stuff they stand for. And, the shia are underrepresented in Lebanon somewhat distinctive system. I'm just answering Tom's undoubtedly sincere question.


The Dems' treatment of Colombia is shocking.

As for "legitimate claims",perhaps if the MSM would stop kissing O's hem they might ask him to define them--if not maybe McCain will in a debate if Chris isn't modifying it and sabotaging it.


I'm waiting to feel a seismic shift, which actually shouldn't happen until sometime in October. I'm amazed at how many MA democrats are voting for McCain.

Speaking of which, McCain is about to respond to Obama's temper tantrum on appeasement.


Barry is going to tell Hamas what their legitimate claims are. Like he tells the American electorate what the REALLY important issues (and not mere distractions) are.

But what happens when Hamas doesn't play along?


if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

What does that mean?
Do you see how he says nothing, Appalled?

How has the 'legitimate claim' of a Palestinian state not been recognized already?


"Barack Obama claims he's against HAMAS and Hezbollah. So why is he meeting with one of Hezbollah's most important imams and agents in America, Imam Hassan Qazwini? And why is this open anti-Semite and supporter of Israel's annihilation getting to discuss "the Arab-Israeli conflict" in a private one-on-one meeting with Obama?"

From DebbieSchlussel.com Article

"A Muslim leader from Dearborn met privately with Sen. Barack Obama during his Wednesday visit to Michigan.

"Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, said in an email that he met with Obama at Macomb Community College. A mosque spokesman, Eide Alawan, confirmed that the meeting took place. During the meeting, the two discussed the Presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iraq war, according to Qazwini."

"Qazwini is very open about his support for Palestinian homcide bombings, HAMAS, and Hezbollah. And he's a good friend of Hezbollah spiritual leader, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah--the man who issued the fatwa to Hezbollah terrorists to murder over 300 U.S. Marines and U.S. Embassy civilians in cold blood."

Patrick R. Sullivan

The laddie who doth protest too much seems to have turned Adlai Stevenson's dictum on its head. He has all the non-thinking people voting for him, and they ARE a majority of Dems.

But the question is, are they a majority of the total electorate?

Rick Ballard

"It appears that Rick Ballard has the Copperhead label just right."

Wrt the 65 House plantations and 10-15 Senators it is perfectly apropos. I won't apply it to all Dems at all. It fits the prog slavers to a T - and Obama is their man. That caps his hard core base at around 20-22% based upon 90% of the black bloc and the overlap of the black bloc with the 13%ers. I estimate McCain's hard core base is at around 28% at the moment.


Israel was formed by UN Security Council the surrounding Arab states responded by immediately declaring war on it and attacking. Israel is quite narrow by its original mandate and therefore very susceptible to being cut into two by an blitzkreig type operation which creates many logistical problems for a defense force. If you lose land in a War that you started, you can either fight again or negotiate for its return or live with it. Funny nearly all the land lost except for a small piece known as the Golan Heights, was in land taken from the areas annexed by Jordan. Jordan has never seriously asked for the territory back, it comes with some dreadful inhabitants.

Rick Ballard

"I'm waiting to feel a seismic shift, which actually shouldn't happen until sometime in October."

Beware - Red Witch is rising from the grave. Listen carefully and you can hear a rustling sound and the creak of a rusty hinge...



Palestinian claims to nationhood are considered legitimate by the UN and most nations (even GWB agrees). 1948 really does not matter, in this regard.

Posted by: Appalled | May 16, 2008 at 04:23 PM

1948 matters because the Arabs rejected the offer of statehood if they had to share the territory with an Israeli state. It took 50 years for some of the Palestinian leadership to even begin to reconsider that postion.

Hamas does not want to undo 1967, it wants to undo 1948.


Washington DC is being gentrified at breakneck speed. When you hear some old line Black pols here moan and bitch about it, you can hear echoes of Hamas and Fatah--it's all bitching about Jews having bought land in "the Hood". Period. That is it. Do not be deluded into thinking it is anything else.

And when my relatives bought that land, they negotiated with owners most of whom never lived there at all and who cared not at all what happened to the peasants who did.



And, the shia are underrepresented in Lebanon somewhat distinctive system.

Not really, the Ta'if Agreement laid out the various spoils (shifting power from Christian to Muslim communities), one of which was that Hezbollah was to remain armed. Iran now needs to turn Lebanon into an expeditionary base and they are using their Lebanese allies to do it. Some things are probably worse than civil war-dieing for Iran's fevered dreams among them.


Completely off topic, so forgive me, but I just had to gloat somewhere:

While aiming at Obama, Mike Shmukabee shot himself in the groin at the NRA.

Since he's on the panel with Meet the Press this weekend, expect to hear more about this.

Good grief, what a fool!


What did he say? I heard him (Huckabee) on something else today and thought he was quite good.


I failed to mention previously that the Sinai Peninsula was also seized by Israel in the war. It was negotiated for a return by Egypt and Israel agreed and as returned it.

These are facts and if Syria or Jordan or someone representing the so called Palestinians would negotiate in good faith I have no doubt they would have success with Israel. But not even Arafat would do that as Clinton found out much to his embarrassment.

Cecil Turner

We're talking Hezbollah's legitimate issues, as opposed to the host of illegitimate stuff they stand for.

Right. And AFAICT, they don't have any. Shia representation is not one of their stated goals (nor representative government of any kind, if one allows Lebanese theocracy is their ultimate goal). And their recent actions are certainly not compatible with the democratic process. Armed insurrection in pursuit of Sharia does not stretch to become legitimate concern over representation levels.


Clarice follow link under my name - Hot Air has a video.


"Palestinian claims to nationhood are considered legitimate by the UN "

Nice strawman, Appalled.

Try again.

Obama isnt saying the "Palestinian people" have legitimate claims.He isnt saying the "Lebanese shi'a have legitimate claims"

Hes saying HAMAS does. And Hezbollah.



Rick Ballard

I wonder if Hezbollah and Fatah might join Hamas in endorsing BHO? Will we be seeing Nasrullah and Abbas arm in arm wearing Go BHO T's? Would al Sadr consider joining in? Achmadinejad?

There are lots of possibilities for some more prime endorsements out there. Kim Jong Il and Mugabe are still up for grabs and Chavez is being coy about going public with his full support...


Maybe he could sit down with the KKK and discuss it's "Legitimate grievances".

What scares me is the amount of morons and idiots who find Jesus Obama intelligent and capable. He has ZERO track record of any achievement other than selling books about his drinking and disdain for whitey.


Obama was looking for a distraction from his distractions, and good ole Huckabee gave him one. The media will be all over this just like those razberry ants invading Texas right now.

The really, really, really GOOD news? We won't have to suffer through the possibility of Huck being VP! Woohoo!


Yup - it's already Drudge's headline!


 McCain responds to Obama.  I would call this a hard forehand smash to the backhand of Obama.  Expect some whiny response that uses "distraction" and "bitter" and "typical white person" in it.

"Earlier today, Senator Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America. No issue is more important. Senator Obama claimed all I had to offer was the 'naive and irresponsible belief' that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Senator Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a 'stinking corpse' and arms terrorist who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests. "It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe."

Anyone, even at MSNBC still think this is going in Obama favor?  Like Kerry he said bring it on.  How long before he begs, like Kerry, to make it stop? 



I read that story about McGovern a few weeks ago and sent him an email and asked him about it. I'm not in his district but I used a zip code that was in the hope he would reply. He replied and said he'd get back to me. Unfortunately hell hasn't frozen over here yet.


I love the 'soaring rhetoric' part of McCain's remarks.


Gmax, MSNBC will always think it is going in Obama's favor.


gmax, do you have a link for the McCain quote?


From an American Radio Account of goings on, 1938:

"Now we know that Neville Chamberlain, who is a Realist and masterful man, has made up his mind that the time has come to give up attempts at ideal solutions to the European problems, such as through the League of Nations. To deal with facts, as he found them, and the two outstanding facts were the two dictators, Hitler and Moussolini. Both had grievances that had to be recognized and it's possible were right. Before Europe would turn over in bed and most dream comfortably. And Chamberlain told his Cabinet that he was going to settle this and on a Realist basis."

Yes, I am sure I did hear this idea of legitimate grievances before... can we get some new appeasement language, please? This recycling of the old stuff is getting tedious.


****Yup - it's already Drudge's headline!****

Not for long, though. Already replaced, in less than 2 hours, by the huge question of whether the Indiana Jones flick will get bad reviews.


Sara I dont have time to look for it now. I have also seen the speech on a Youtube clip so its correct and as McCain delivered it. Go to Youtube and search for McCain & NRA and see if it does not come up.

hit and run

From Rich Lowry at the Corner

Subject: JAMIE RUBIN LIED [Rich Lowry]

About that video at Huffpo and op-ed in WaPo where Rubin claimed McCain flip flopped on Hamas.

Go read it.

What a lying piece of shit Rubin is.

I'm sorry, was I supposed to redact a letter or two of shit to keep from actually having shit show up in "piece of shit" referring to that piece of shit Rubin.

OK, got that off my chest. I feel better now. I apologize.

I won't let it happen again.

Well, until the next piece of shit pulls that kind of shit.

Sorry, I thought I had gotten it all out. I guess there was a little more left.


He's married to a lying anti-Western bitch and he worked for HalfBright. You expect him to be someone who gives a carp about the truth?
He's such a sleaze.
Speaking of which Julian Epstein etc are now on tv round the clock. I feel like slitting my wrists or something. I. Can't. Stand. This. Election.


I know I keep reading about the GOP crack-up, but I see some massive cracking up on the Dems lately. My brother made an astute observation on Obama's freak out yesterday. The Democrats came running out defensive about a dog whistle they heard which caused the clip of the pres speech to be looped. He said most people will scratch their head wondering where the President addressed Obama.

The Dems gave the game away.

Bill in AZ

Sara, I've seen that quote at both LGF and JihadWatch...

JM Hanes


This should probably be in the "Just Shoot Me" thread, but I. Can't. Stand. This. Election. Either.

What I hate the most is a candidate who lies about his opponent's positions and then attacks him for it. It looks like we're in for a lot of that from Obama. I'm on the verge of turning off the tube and cutting my umbilical cord to the internets for the duration....

....But here's a better idea: How about we all get together to drown our post-election sorrows in November on a Carribbean Cruise? Mark Steyn will be there, ladies! (Mitt Romney too, Ann!) The sun is always over the yardarm by decree, DoT! I signed up yesterday, just for grins, figuring I've got a month or so to change my mind.

BTW, I got my autographed Steyn, with a great inscription which I'd share if it didn't feel so much like kissing and telling. Maybe if we call ahead, the Eurodam (great name, eh!) can arrange a mud wrestling venue for you & Jane and anybody else with the guts to get in the ring with you two.


I'm in!


It's tempting...Hmmmmmmmmmmm


LOL, I can't tell you how many times I have pulled the NRO cruise information up and thought about leaving my family behind for a selfish, glorious cruise on the Eurodam.

Come on JMH, kiss and tell!!! Mrs 24/7 news hound has turned every bloody piece of news carp off in this house for the evening. I CAN NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE!


JM Hanes


You can interview Steyn for the inaugural edition of Radio Jane! We can all interview Steyn.:) I should have ordered a T-shirt with my book. OTOH, y'all can wear your T-shirts, and I'll be the dissenting juror in a cocktail dress.

Just say yes Clarice! Ann! You deserve a break too, TM.

Think podcasting from the Turks & Caicos.....or not.....or not!


You all should really see the Lou Dobbs segment...he busts Jamie Rubin

I should tell you that CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn’t have it. He said he only had this particular quote he said that was e-mailed to him.”

CNN’S LOU DOBBS: “Well that seems, certainly to, as you report, to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying.”...

e’re going wait to hear back from Jamie Rubin about that charge. As you can imagine, that’s quite a charge to say somebody lied.”

DOBBS: “It is quite a charge. It is also quite something for someone from another campaign to conflate both the role of journalism and of course political activism



JMH, To be honest..being with you and Jane is tempting beyond words..a cruise ship with the NRO crowd not so much..but let me thinnk about it a bit.


Clarice and JM Hanes,

I think election fatigue has finally caught up with me, too. I expect the media coverage from this point on to become even more unbearable than usual (unless Clinton has a surprisingly strong finish in Oregon).

In addition to enquiring of Obama what the legitimate claims of these terrorist organizations are, I would appreciate it should some journalist ask the senator whether conservatives, neo-conservatives, and/or Rebublicans have "legitimate claims," particularly with respect to foreign policy. I do recall Obama has had the audacity to say that Republicans have had good ideas from time to time and I would appreciate a specific and comprehensive elucidation.



I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for those questions to be asked. Instead, you get questions like what side of the bed do you sleep on and why does your wife think you can't make a bed properly. The important stuff.


This is a very difficult time in history--one of those anything can happen times and we have three less than fantastic candidates, an unserious idiotic press and an electorate consisting of a lot of folks who must be smoking something illegal or living despite having had their brains all sucked out of their skulls.And cable tv and endless half witted, lying spinners. UGH UGH UGH


Pretty sure it's going to get worse before it gets better. Been sayin all along ... strap in folks it's gonna get bumpy.


I would appreciate it should some journalist ask the senator whether conservatives, neo-conservatives, and/or Rebublicans have "legitimate claims," particularly with respect to foreign policy.


JM Hanes

I wouldn't mind the bumpy if we were watching a real fight and not just Kabuki theatre. Think how soothing a nice long post-election float in the Caribbean will feel!


We are in a perpetual election. Once one ends, the next one begins. I think we should just do away with elections, and pick our governing officials with the roll of a dice. It's a crap shoot how they are going to govern once in office anyway.

Rick Ballard


I think dueling is the answer. You start with two politicians and wind up with one - it's a net improvement even if your guy or gal exits on a shutter.


We could start a sharpened pikes business--I'm a mere few subway stops from the capitol.

JM Hanes


I'm mostly interested in some classical chit chat with VDHanson, assuming the speakers actually consort with guests, although I think Romney would be interesting to see in person. Don't know much about the NRO folks generally, although they strike me as a little clubby and clearly don't appreciate my emails as much as they like Hits'.

Other than that, I tend to be something of a non-compliant type when it comes to being officially shuffled about -- I take along my camera & my printer & assorted gear -- so it doesn't much matter to me who is sponsoring this kind of trip the way it would if I were visiting archaeological sites. When I'm traveling by myself, I just pick a group with some sort of purpose so that there's something going on most of the time, in case I don't feel like handling arrangements or being on my own. When it comes to vacations though, everybody's mileage varies, I suspect.

Sue/Maybee/TSK9/Elliott/Rick/et al, al, al.......We B CrewsIn! U?


JMH--From your lucid and engaging posts, one imagines you'd be a wonderful travel companion.


JMH, I'm afraid I will have to hold out for the day when you, hit, and I are neighbors in Mexico.
You all would be wonderful traveling companions, but I know I can't talk my Dem husband into giving me time off for an NRO cruise.
I do insist on pictures of you all. Go Go Go Go!

Do you launch from LA by any chance?


Whatever the claims of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, N. Korea, etc., they ARE already the subject of diplomatic talks. Egypt and other Arab countries ARE talking with Hamas. The Lebanese ARE talking with Hezbollah, multilateral talks ARE going on with Iran and N. Korea.

The idea that bilateral talks between the U.S. and these radical parties are a new way or a shortcut to problem resolution is naive and it ignores the history of such diplomacy. A good example is the result of such talks between the Clinton Administration and N. Korea.

When N. Korea reneged on agreements it had made the U.S. had very few options. We could discontinue the ‘carrots’ portion of the agreement, but we had nothing in the way of ‘sticks’ to use against the N. Korean regime outside of a military option. The U.S. could try to convince other countries to participate in economic sanctions, but it is a bit tough to get other counties to sanction a country based of failed unilateral talks with the U.S., hence the preference of the Bush Administration for multilateral talks.

There is still a problem with multilateral talks where the U.S. is a participant. Everyone, except Obama, understands the weakness of bilateral talks. There is a danger that the other side of the table would try to turn multilateral talks into bilateral talks by simply ignoring all parties except the U.S., thereby relegating those parties to spectator status. To prevent this and other such diplomatic maneuvers, the U.S. prefers to participate behind the scenes, when hostile governments are involved.

This policy is no accident. It has been adopted as a solution to the problems inherent in the diplomatic approach that Obama advocates.


The policy is nevertheless attractive tohim and his lefty advisors because it would give extra impetus to the demands of our enemies and weaken us.
There is simply no other possible explanation for this continued yammering from the left for fruitless talks with our enemies.


Ah yes Clarice. Not just that but talks with Obama would elevate them to the level of China or the USSR in the 80s. A propaganda coup for these radicals.

JM Hanes


The ship departs from Ft. Lauderdale, and I expect I may be the most liberal person aboard -- depending on whether Romney is really a conservative, of course. When I noticed Andy McCarthy on the roster, the first thing that occurred to me was tackling him on the subject of FITZ!, and the second was how long ago that all suddenly seems. I'm beginning to think it would be useful to have an official name for that just-yesterday-ancient-history feeling I keep getting lately.

Right now, I'm trying to persuade myself that I don't really need to wade through the various books that the slated speakers have produced -- not your usual summer reading list! Maybe TM & Cult can supply me with a cheat sheet of controversial/esoteric/disconcerting questions to pose at the Q&A's -- then I'll design a JOM green T-shirt to sport when I ask 'em, if I can get TM to greenlight the effort. Or maybe Mr. & Mrs.TM should come along, so he can do the asking himself. Then he can sit for an interview with Radio Jane, Bringing You Tomorrow's History Today!


OK...I think I figured this out...Jill Simpson is a republican operative developed to draw out the utter stupidity of the Democrat and Media party! Rove? You magnificent bastard!


Boy, a NRO cruise would be a HOOT (aren't they a little pricey though?)


aybe TM & Cult can supply me with a cheat sheet of controversial/esoteric/disconcerting questions to pose at the Q&A's

Fire up that old TM tribute blog or maybe your own for people to pose questions so that you don't have to wade through random brilliance sprinkled around all over.


crud, forgot to blockquote the best part

of Simpson's account. Rove's letter drew a response from Abrams:

[Y]ou wrote, "Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention [in her sworn statement to House Judiciary Committee staff] the claim she made to CBS for their Feb. 24, 2008 story, that you then repeated on Feb. 25th?"

Fair question. Which is why I asked her the following on Feb. 25, 2008: ABRAMS: And why have you never mentioned before the allegations of Rove and the pictures?  .  .  .

SIMPSON: Well, let me explain something to you. I talked to congressional investigators, Dan. And when I talked to those congressional investigators I told them that I had followed Don Siegelman and tried to get pictures of him cheating on his wife.

However, they suggested to me that that was not relevant because there was nothing illegal about that and they'd just prefer that not come up at the hearing that day.

I suggest the GOP members subpoena Dem investigators to explain the irrelevance.


JMH, I am envious. I've been eyeing that cruise for a couple of months now. I'd be especially excited to meet VDH and Steyn. I'm trying to talk my parents into going, since it's probably too much cake for my budget.

But if anyone wants to meet for cocktails pre-launch, my folks have a place on the Intracoastal in Boca Raton. Even if I can't make the cruise I could swing down for that. My dad is a big fan of Mr. Maguire and I'm sure would be thrilled to meet any/all JOMers.

As for questions to ask/books to read...Mexifornia by Hanson is a must. I would love to ask him what it was really like in his part of California in the 1950s. The way he writes about it, it sounds like Paradise.

JM Hanes


Willful ignorance also explains a lot, although Gateway Pundit is doing yeoman's work on more explicit endorsements of the Hamas/Hezbollah causes in Obama's past & present associations.

I keep thinking McCain needs to blast Obama out of his comfort zone which is where the "more diplomacy" meme is designed to keep him. McCain made a start when he asked what Obama planned to say to Ahmahdinejad, but in doing so, he also unfortunately reinforced the idea that we're not conducting any diplomatic efforts, when, in fact, we have been doing so (in full concert with the Europeans!) for years. The irony in the unilateralist bilateral noises coming from Obama, however, will be utterly lost on Democrats. It's time to challenge him on relationships with Latin America, Japan, India, (Indonesia! Africa!) -- in other words, all the other places that I suspect Obama knows almost nothing about and where there is no standard Democratic line to rely upon. Clinton couldn't nail Obama on specifics because she couldn't afford to stray too far into foreign policy herself, but specifics are where Obama's bubble will burst, if it bursts at all.

McCain also desperately needs to tie his foreign policy experience, and Obama's lack of it, to domestic concerns, not just to the politics of the Middle East. Excluding Colombia from NAFTA is bad for American labor and won't bring factories back from China, etc. Obama may be calling for international engagement, but his policy proposals come straight of the isolationist handbook -- and in a global economy that's more dangerous now than it's ever been, on every level. Although I'm not too thrilled with McCain's embrace of global warming politics, co-opting that issue strikes me as a more productive twofer: it's an obvious departure from Bush doctrine and it eliminates a major groove from the Democratic record Obama would otherwise be playing -- in terms of both international outreach and domestic environmental/economic issues.


Did anyone mentioned Ted Kennedy was hospitalized with what appears to have been a seizure?
Please no dusting off the old Kennedy family as national tragedy stories..I'm begging.



JM Hanes

[Continuing in OT Travelitis Mode]

TSK9: Et voilá: Cruise Control

Great idea, as usual. I'm thinking it will be a handy place to collect my own thoughts/links/backgrounders etc. too, instead of trying to tease them out of assorted files at the last second -- assuming I can tear myself away from JOM long enough to use it! My mother took the family on the only other cruise I've been on, so I don't know how this one stacks up price-wise. I decided to spring for a little elbow room, so anybody who wants to sign on for an inside cabin is welcome to come hang out on what is probably optimistically billed as my "verandah" -- assuming I haven't jinxed anything by talking up the whole excursion before my confirmation has actually arrived in the mail. So, knocking on wood here, for a hoot, and more than random holler or two, too:)

Porchlight: Here's hoping your parents catch the bug! If I can manage to finish off all the undone chores I put off to tinker out a travelblog, I'll try to wrastle up an email link to add to Cruise Control -- now linked under my name. It's great to be back in bold again!

[We now return you to your regular channel....]

JM Hanes


"Please no dusting off the old Kennedy family as national tragedy stories..I'm begging."

Major ditto! I'm already gagging at the thought. I'm also struggling with my own urge to make the kind of tasteless comments that suggested themselves as I read the report on his various conditions. Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent. I did, however, enjoy Obama's gratifyingly egocentric response: "I insist on being optimistic about how it's going to turn out."

Rick Ballard

"Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent."

Hear, hear.

Better by far to turn our thoughts to peaceful things - the reflection of the sky on the surface of a beautiful Norweigian fjord, perhaps. Or contemplation as whether Donne had a sufficiently broad circle of acquaintance to back up his assertion.


Flam,Norway..waking up to the sound of goat bells . looking out the window to a still fjord and a sky so clear that it is hard to tell what is the sky and mountain and what is merely their reflection.

Now, that's peaceful.

richard mcenroe

Hamas' 'legitimate claim' : Too many Jews are not dead.


c, the goats were up to no good.


Sailing with the NRO gang, would I be limited to only three viles of 3 oz. fluids contained in a one quart baggie?


Hey all,
My husband and I are going on the cruise, along with my almost 13year old. She is smitten with Romney, although I keep telling her Steyn is the one.
Hopefully, we won't spend the cruise commiserating the election. Or rather we will be commiserating no matter what only with perhaps less abject defeat, and with more jaundice.

It would be great to meet with more JOM'ers.

JM Hanes


"Or rather we will be commiserating no matter what only with perhaps less abject defeat, and with more jaundice."

We'll definitely get along! I'll try to get an email address up over at Cruise Control sometime tomorrow, in case anyone wants to get in touch without posting particulars in comments. I took one of my favorite trips ever with my son when he was going on 13 too. It's such a great age.

The comments to this entry are closed.