Obama's Speech on Libya: 'Wherever People Want to Be Free — You Will Find a Friend in the United States'

After all the fancy words and lofty rhetoric --- and this was one hella lofty speech --- the key question remains unanswered: What if Gaddafi hangs on?

The president said NATO and our European allies would maintain a no-fly zone and continue to monitor threats to the security of the Libyan people. But the mission won't be successful as long as Gaddafi remains in power, free to launch brutal reprisals against the opposition when Western willpower falters. But check The Economist, with one of the best commentaries ever, "The Challenge of Libya: Where Will It End?":

Colonel Qaddafi is the Arab world’s most violent despot. In one day in 1996 his men killed 1,270 prisoners in a Tripoli jail. He has backed terrorism and assassinated dissidents. Western leaders were right to have given him a chance to turn a new leaf after 2003, when he renounced his nuclear programme. But when peaceful protesters marched for change a few weeks ago he shot them—seemingly with relish. Whatever the course of the coming weeks and months, do not forget that the colonel and his sons had vowed to slaughter the people of Tobruk and Benghazi, house by house. In the narrowest of senses, a mission that many said was pointless and too late has already chalked up one success.

Moreover, what happens in Libya, for good or ill, will affect its more hopeful neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia. Farther afield, even Syria is beginning to stir and its government may be tempted to be as ruthless as Libya’s ... If violence prevails in Libya, the momentum for peaceful change across the Middle East may drain away, as both autocrats and protesters elsewhere in the Arab world conclude that violence is after all an essential tool for getting their way.

I'll give it up for Obama on his forceful affirmation of our values. But I'm more critical than William Kristol, who's going all out with effusive praise: "You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby." But there's a split in the neoconservative camp. Jennifer Rubin likes the rhetoric but calls out Obama for weaseling on the exercise of U.S. hard power, "Obama’s Libya speech":

Obama can’t bring himself to embrace the view of those conservatives, you know the ones who pushed to liberate Iraq. (“Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”) Moreover, he won’t, he told us in no uncertain terms — despite all the interests he outlined — use our military to remove Moammar Gaddafi. And this is where he became, frankly, incoherent. WHY aren’t we using our military? Ah, the price of multilateralism.

Neocons vs. the Anti-Jihad Movement

Editor David Swindle has a nifty post at NewsReal Blog, "David Horowitz on Nation-Building: “I agree with Haley Barbour”." It's a summary of David Horowitz's recent comments on U.S. foreign military intervention. I laid out my position this morning at "Libya's Rebels?" I think things are a little more complicated than Horowitz has laid out, although David Swindle's contrast of the paradigms is excellent --- a conservative divide over regime change and humanitarian intervention:

The divide can be summarized in both movements’ reactions to one fact: 84% of Egyptians believe apostates from Islam need to be executed. The traditional neo-conservative establishment ignored that fact in their embrace of the revolts in Egypt. (Apparently traditional neoconservatives are so eager to remove one tyrant that they don’t care if a worse one steps in to fill the void.) The Anti-Jihad movement was more clear-eyed in realizing that “democracy” in such a country would be many things but “freedom” is not one of them.

Libya's Rebels?

John Lee Anderson reports from Benghazi, "Who Are the Rebels?":

Three of the world’s great armies have suddenly conspired to support a group of people in the coastal cities and towns of Libya, known, vaguely, as “the rebels.” Last month, Muammar Qaddafi, who combines a phantasmagorical sense of reality with an unbounded capacity for terror, appeared on television to say that the rebels were nothing more than Al Qaeda extremists, addled by hallucinogens slipped into their milk and Nescafé. President Obama, who is torn between the imperatives of rescuing Libyan innocents from slaughter and not falling into yet another prolonged war, described the same rebels rather differently: “people who are seeking a better way of life.”

During weeks of reporting in Benghazi and along the chaotic, shifting front line, I’ve spent a great deal of time with these volunteers. The hard core of the fighters has been the shabab—the young people whose protests in mid-February sparked the uprising. They range from street toughs to university students (many in computer science, engineering, or medicine), and have been joined by unemployed hipsters and middle-aged mechanics, merchants, and storekeepers. There is a contingent of workers for foreign companies: oil and maritime engineers, construction supervisors, translators. There are former soldiers, their gunstocks painted red, green, and black—the suddenly ubiquitous colors of the pre-Qaddafi Libyan flag.

And there are a few bearded religious men, more disciplined than the others, who appear intent on fighting at the dangerous tip of the advancing lines. It seems unlikely, however, that they represent Al Qaeda. I saw prayers being held on the front line at Ras Lanuf, but most of the fighters did not attend. One zealous-looking fighter at Brega acknowledged that he was a jihadi—a veteran of the Iraq war—but said that he welcomed U.S. involvement in Libya, because Qaddafi was a kafir, an unbeliever...

Be sure to read the whole thing, although it's worth appending the conclusion here:

In Benghazi, an influential businessman named Sami Bubtaina expressed a common sentiment: “We want democracy. We want good schools, we want a free media, an end to corruption, a private sector that can help build this nation, and a parliament to get rid of whoever, whenever, we want.” These are honorable aims. But to expect that they will be achieved easily is to deny the cost of decades of insanity, terror, and the deliberate eradication of civil society.

Hmm.

Reading this, it's clearly an extremely fluid situation in Libya, and intense caution is warranted. Thus, I woudn't quibble much with David Horowitz's latest commentary, "Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan." No doubt the administration's been caught off guard. Not only have goals been left vague, but should ground troops be deployed, President Obama will have purposely deceived the nation. Most of all, folks like Horowitz worry that extremists will come to power, and an Islamist front could eventually span the region from Tripoli to the West Bank. Andrew Sullivan doesn't care. He's got an epic Obama man-crush going and wants Obama to out-cowboy G.W. Bush on military intervention. But there are differences. Rick Moran builds on Horowitz's analysis, putting things into progressive perspective: "Libya and the Soros Doctrine." And the morally bankrupt Juan Cole does yeoman's work in sitiuating Libya as the center of ideological battle against "evil" conservatives in the Horowitzian mold, whether neoconservative or not: "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya." Add on top of these the freak paleocons at American Conservative and Conservative Times and folks can get an idea of how complicated the politics of foreign policy are at present. As always, my standard remains the expansion of freedom around the world. I may differ from Horowitz and Rick Moran on the immediate tactical agenda, but my friends on the right join me in battle against the progressives, who support the rebels now, and would continue to support Libya should it become, after a change of regimes, a North African front against the U.S. and Israel.

Stephen Walt on Mearsheimer and Walt's Israel Lobby Five Years On

Professor Walt asks, "Did 'The Israel Lobby' Change Anything?"

I think a lot has changed, especially the ease in which opponents of Israel can bash the Jewish state. But what's especially interesting is how Mearsheimer and Walt have been co-opted by Israel's enemies across the ideological spectrum and across the globe. That's quite an accomplishment. That said, some fellow writes this passage below, from the comments at Foreign Policy, which is so true. Walt's response would be that the majority of supporters want the wrong policies for Israel --- and that's not going to change no matter the evidence thrown at the Israel-bashing academic egghead:

Walt, this is the "Israel Lobby:" http://www.gallup.com/poll/126155/support-israel-near-record-high.aspx

The American people support Israel by an over 4:1 margin. If it wasn't for this fact, the influence of AIPAC and similar groups would be marginal at best. The truth is that the American people respect and empathize with Israel and wish it to survive as a prospering, Jewish, democratic state in an exceptionally hostile environment. They also realize that Israel has, since the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, made huge concessions for peace with the Palestinians, giving away Gaza and most of the West Bank and allowing them to govern themselves, but generally has only gotten intifada, rockets, missiles, and suicide bombings in return. I know these facts are such a shock for you, but not everyone is some out-of-touch leftist academic. In fact, they are evidently are more realistic than the supposed "realist."

Israel Deploys 'Iron Dome' Missile Defense System

At NYT, "Israel Rolls Out First Mobile Battery of Antirocket System":

BEERSHEBA, Israel — The Israeli military deployed the first mobile battery of a new antirocket missile defense system on Sunday on a dusty rise at the outskirts of this southern Israeli city after a week of heightened tensions between Israel and Gaza.

Military officials said the deployment was accelerated because of the recent escalation in rocket and mortar fire by Gaza militants against southern Israel and Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, which have led to fears of an all-out confrontation. But Israeli officials warned that the system, known as Iron Dome, was still experimental and could not provide the country with full protection from approaching rockets.

The situation along the border remained volatile. On Saturday, Gaza-based militant groups met and agreed to restore an unofficial cease-fire, according to officials from Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza. The cease-fire has largely held since the end of Israel’s three-week military offensive in Gaza in the winter of 2008-9. That war came after years of rocket fire against southern Israel.

More at the link above. The Iron Dome system is effective against radar-guided missiles, but not against the Qassams, which are launched with no guidance technology. Who knows where those mofos are going to land? Also noted is that Israelis normally have 45 seconds to duck and cover when warning systems sound. Man, that's unreal. We used to do duck and cover when I was a kid, but that was just practice. The Soviets weren't lobbing heavy missiles at the U.S., although better safe than sorry. The Israelis aren't doing duck and cover drills. It's the real thing, but of course when the IDF defends the national security it's "war crimes." Unreal.

'America is the world policeman against oppression and dominance'

Word! Go read Nikki's hot essay on humanitarian intervention!

Do not turn your cheeks away from God's children around the world. The refuge they seek is only possible by America's hand and yet there are so many who preach otherwise and proclaim conservative values. Isolationism is not a conservative value. Isolationism is a communist value. Closing our borders for "self interest" is oh so North Korea. Our economy would collapse and Obama would end up looking like a genius economist.

Take that Stephen Walt.

Rule 5 Britney Spears Free 'Femme Fatale'

Turns out the hotty did a free concert in San Francisco, "Britney Spears Concert on 'GMA': Singer Wows Thousands of Fans at San Francisco Concert," and "Watch Britney Spears Perform 'Till the World Ends' in San Francisco":

VIDEO PULLED OVER COPYRIGHT CLAIM

Turns out I scooped Linkmaster Smith on the Britney news. The dude's been giving me the heads up on the "Femme Fatale" for some FMJRA blogging, which is cool. Not only that, Sir Smitty deserves a stand alone shout out for doing some great blogging from the Bagram location, which isn't the most common spot for us denizens of the conservative 'sphere. Ya dude.

Anyway, here's some link around action. First off TrogloPundit's hit a milestone: "How to get a million hits on your blog in two years, one month, and fourteen days." That's sweet. I'd love to be getting my 3 million hits, but traffic's been down and Instapundit's been keeping me dry! On the other hand, This Ain't Hell linked yesterday to my round up on progressive anarcho-endorsements: "I wish, I just wish…"

And see the other friends of American Power: Amusing Bunni's Musings, Astute Bloggers, Bob Belvedere, CSPT, Dan Collins, Eye of Polyphemus, Gator Doug, Irish Cicero, Left Coast Rebel, Mind-Numbed Robot, Legal Insurrection, Lonely Conservative, PA Pundits International, Pirate's Cove, Saberpoint, Snooper, WyBlog, The Western Experience, Yankee Phil, and Zion's Trumpet. Plus, top it off with Theo's Bedtime Totty.

And also a big thanks to Proof Positive, who once again has been doing some great roundups.

BONUS: * American Perspectives, " Shakira - She Wolf - rule 5." Not my favorite politically, but lovely nevertheless!

What is Obama's Mission in Libya?

Ross Douthat comments on President Obama's address to the nation on the Libya intervention, "A War By Any Name":

Tonight, in a speech that probably should have been delivered before American planes began flying missions over North Africa, Barack Obama will try to explain to a puzzled nation why we are at war with Libya.

Not that the word “war” will pass his lips, most likely. In press briefings last week, our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a “kinetic military action” and a “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” (The online parodies were merciless: “Make love, not time-limited, scope-limited military actions!” “Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!”) Advertising tonight’s address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya,” which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

But by any name or euphemism, the United States has gone to war, and there are questions that the president must answer. Here are the four biggest ones: What are our military objectives? ...

Keep reading for the rest of it. Interesting though is how divided the administration remains on Libya. Robert Gates saying the mission's not in the vital interests of the United States? Well, check with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I guess, since she's saying Libya's a greater interest to the U.S. than is Syria, or something? Well, what the heck? At least neocon-bashing Juan Cole knows what's going on: "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya." (At Memeorandum.)

Hey New York Times, It's Not a 'Social Media Quandary', It's Terrorism

Don't you just love this piece from the New York Times: "Social Media Sites Face Quandary Over Activists' Use"? The article starts off with a discussion of Hossam el-Hamalawy and Wael Abbas, who had pictures of Egyptian rights violations taken down from Flickr and YouTube. The hosting companies' policies are selectively applied, but at least el-Hamalawy and Abbas aren't terrorists. Not so with the Palestinian jihadists calling for a new intifada against Israel. But the Times bleats about how Facebook is in some kind of newfound quandary:

Facebook has remained mostly quiet about its increasing role among activists in the Middle East who use the site to connect dissident groups, spread information about government activities and mobilize protests. But Facebook is now finding itself drawn into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has been pushed to defend its neutral approach and terms of service to some supporters of Israel, including an Israeli government official.

Yuli Edelstein, an Israeli minister of diplomacy and diaspora affairs, sent a letter last week to Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, asking him to remove a Facebook page created on March 6 named the Third Palestinian Intifada. The page, which calls for an uprising in the occupied Palestinian territory in May, has more than 240,000 members.

“As Facebook’s C.E.O. and founder, you are obviously aware of the site’s great potential to rally the masses around good causes, and we are all thankful for that,” Mr. Edelstein wrote. “However, such potential comes hand in hand with the ability to cause great harm, such as in the case of the wild incitement displayed on the above-mentioned page.”

Facebook has, so far, not removed the page. The administrators are not advocating violence, and therefore, it falls within the company’s definition of acceptable speech, company officials said.

“We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss issues and express their views, while respecting the rights and feelings of others,” said Andrew Noyes, a spokesman for public policy at the company.

That's a bunch of bull. I'll bet Zuckerberg and company are frightened stiff of a jihadist fatwa against Facebook. Pamela has more: "Israel Asks Facebook to Remove Page Calling for War Against the Jews - 230,000 “friends” of the "Third Palestinian Intifada."

Pro-Terror Backlash Against Horowitz's 'Wall of Lies' at University of Michigan-Dearborn

I had a nice background roundup previously, "'Wall of Lies' From David Horowitz Freedom Center." And now here comes the controversy out of University of Michigan at Dearborn. The Horowitz Freedom Center took out an ad in the school's student newspaper, and conflict erupted. And in classic progressive style, not a single point of the "Wall of Lies" is rebutted. Instead, we get wailing allegations of "hatred" and "racism." This is what the "pro-Palestine movement in academe" is all about, I guess. Embarrassing anti-intellectualism. See, "Anti-Palestine ad in Michigan-Dearborn paper draws harsh criticism" (via NewsReal Blog).

U.S. Progressives Endorse Anarchist Violence at London Budget Protests

More excellent coverage of the violent demonstrations in London, from the Daily Mail, "200 arrested as anarchists fight police after 500,000-strong anti-cuts march... and cover Trafalgar Sqaure in graffit." It's a pretty pathetic sight all around. Conservatives have alternated between bemusement and outrage, but radicals on the U.S. progressive left are offering throaty endorsements of the mayhem. According Steve Hynd at Newshoggers:

Exactly this kind of protest is what the US needs to [sic] - aimed bi-partisanly at the corporate-serving conservatives and neoliberals who can find endless money for endless warfare, but none for nation building at home.

And No More Mister Nice Blog hesitates to endorse the violence, but ends up doing it any way:

I don't want to see it happen in England or in any other country. But what I do want to see happen -- a real reckoning for the worst abusers in the global financial system, accompanied by "shared sacrifice" that's actually shared, all the way to the top -- apparently will never happen through peaceful means.

Commenting at the post, CUND Gulag, a regular fixture of the demonic progressive fever swamps, offers an endorsement:

Maybe if we had some of this in NYC, Connecticut, Palm Beach, Rodeo Drive, Dallas, Houston, etc., some of the wealthy will realize that all of the security on the planet can't protect them if there are enough of us angry out there. I love Ghandi, and have followed his principles for over 30 years. The same 30 years that have seen our countries steepest decline. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, like beating my head against the wall, I'm willing to try beating someone else's head up against that wall.

And from a commenter at AMERICAblog:

The only way we, the ordinary people, will get a decent chance at a decent life again is by rising up against our oppressors: The powerful, wealthy, neo-feudal authoritarians.

And from Sarah Jones, in a lengthy economic analysis at Politicus USA, "London Protests Echo Wisconsin Anger At Conservative Class Warfare":

I have yet to meet an honest conservative accountant who would not stress revenue as a crucial part of any balanced budget. And so the question really becomes why are conservatives so averse to doing the one thing they know will help the economy? If conservatives were serious about deficit reduction, they would raise revenue by taxing corporations while making careful budgetary cuts. The worldview of the modern day conservative is that everyone should fend for themselves, except for corporations and the uber wealthy, who are entitled to tax breaks and bailouts. This is not an honest ideology; and therefore, the debate is not about conservative financial approaches versus liberal. If we allow ourselves to have a debate over the deficit or over public sector employees “deserving” their pay, we are being manipulated.

And from the comments there:

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of further enriching the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else is made even clearer by the protests in London. It looks like there are various rebellions going on around the world against that kind of ideology. The uprisings in Middle Eastern countries, while more bloody and violent against dictators who have been in power for decades, are a pushback against tyranny. Although this country and Great Britain are not nearly at that point, we are seeing threats to rights we have enjoyed and taken for granted for a long time. The common enemy is fascism, which is disguised as patriotism here and in Great Britain. As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party in this country has forfeited its credibility with the unabashed power grabbing of both the House of Representatives and these Republican governors. In their pursuit of power at any cost, they seem bent on alienating almost all American constituents. People like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and others are their foot soldiers in selling the kind of propaganda that induces Americans to vote against their own interests and look at other Americans as the enemy. The potential GOP candidates are a bunch of court jesters who are trying to outdo each other in mouthing the kind of lunacy that will get their base to vote for them, and who will willingly carry out the destructive agenda of the Koch brothers and their ilk. That’s why they are trying to dismantle any institution that stands between them and their efforts to reduce us to serfdom.

The comparison to Wisconsin is telling. So far progressives at home have resorted to thuggery, threats and intimidation, but frustration is building, obviously, and all it takes is one spark to set off a larger conflagration of violent unrest. Dan Riehl sees it coming:

We're not that far away from the freeloaders and Marxists taking to the streets in numbers like this in America.

And John Hinderaker issues a warning:

The first duty of any government is to maintain order. Peaceful demonstrations are fine, but mob rule is incompatible with civilization. Any government that cannot maintain order deserves to fall, and will. Napoleon had his faults--well, to be blunt, he was crazy as a loon--but he had the right prescription for dealing with mobs: a whiff of grapeshot.

RELATED: Telegraph UK has the rogue roster: "TUC march: The militants behind the violence":

A ragtag army of anarchists, squatters, student militants, environmental activists and radical academics planned the spin-off protests that led to violence during Saturday's march against cuts.

Coming to America.

Anarchy in the U.K. — Hundreds Arrested as Violent Anti-Capitalists Occupy and Smash London!

Various reports put the number of protesters marching against budget cuts in the 500,000 range. That's a massive show of opposition, but it's the black bloc occupiers and violent anarcho-communists who're dominating the news. And that's half the kick of all this. Commentators are riffing on the headlines, for example, at Instapundit, "LONDON: Moochers And Looters Clash With Police." And at Slap Blog, "Rioting Anarchist Freeloaders Hijack and Rampage London," as well as PJ Tattler, "Wild Animals on the Loose in London":

The “largely peaceful” march saw masked thugs going wild in Oxford Circus smashing shop windows and attacking the police. Americans should take careful note of events, for the London mob has American cousins who share similar attitudes about budget cuts.

But see London's Daily Mail especially, "After blitz of the Ritz, it's the siege of Fortnum & Mason: Anarchists hijack the anti-cuts demo and go on rampage in central London" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: At Telegraph UK, "Police intelligence gathering failed to prevent occupation of Fortnum & Mason: The disastrous policing of the cuts protests was principally a failure of intelligence-gathering."

I'll have some commentary on all of this later ...

The Controversy Over 'Miral'

I'm hoping to head up to the Landmark tonight, in West Los Angeles, to catch "Miral," the new pro-Palestinian film from director Julian Schnabel. I'm skeptical of the review at the Los Angeles Times, which quotes Schnabel in defense of his movie:

Using the touch-points of 1967's Six Day War and 1987's intifada, when teenage Miral is galvanized into action by the sight of Israeli bulldozers razing Palestinian homes, Schnabel paints a convincing picture of displacement and life under occupation. Without undue emphasis, he and cinematographer Eric Gautier use the parched landscape — they filmed in Jerusalem — and its checkpoints to eloquent effect.

The film works best in its depictions of everyday negotiations, as when Miral's cousin begins dating a Jew (played by the director's daughter, Stella Schnabel).

"Miral" doesn't aim to present every point of view, only that of its characters. There's nothing "anti-Israel," as some have claimed, about its earnest, if simplistic call for compassion and peace. One of the strongest scenes involves a would-be act of terrorism by a Palestinian and unequivocally identifies with the intended victims. And Miral's journey leads her back to her gentle father (Alexander Siddig) and to Mama Hind, voices of patience, moderation and love.

Right.

Moderation and love. I doubt it, but I'll have more after I see the film.

Schnabel's full interview is at Boston Globe, "Schnabel describes 'Miral' using fine brush strokes."

Meanwhile, from Solomonia, "An Open Letter to Harvey Weinstein":

On the same day that a family of five were being murdered in their home in Israel, Harvey Weinstein ran a self-congratulatory promotional piece for his company’s terrorist propaganda flick, Miral. The photos stand out. The fat smirking face of Harvey Weinstein contrasted with the sleeping baby, the smiling little boys and the earnest couple who were their parents. They are all dead, and a Harvey Weinstein lives on to smirk another day. So it is with perpetrators and victims. The innocent children and the fat ugly men who profit from trafficking in the narrative of their killers.

Harvey Weinstein denounces Peter King and urges him to go watch Miral. But perhaps it is Harvey Weinstein who should drive to a small town lost in the Samarian Mountains and retrace the steps of the murderers in the name of the nationalistic mythology that movies like Miral glamorize. To fit himself through the living room window where the two terrorists entered, moving quietly in the dark, not seeing the six year old boy sleeping peacefully on the couch. That six year old boy who survived because like so many other little boys during the Holocaust, the men who were coming to murder him went right past him without seeing him. The six year old boy who was being orphaned around the same time that Harvey Weinstein and his PR people were conferring on a final draft for their Miral puff piece.

More at the link above, and also, "Elder of Ziyon: Miral, the Posters."

More on this later ...

Kirstie Alley on 'Dancing With the Stars'!

I meant to post this earlier but couldn't find a YouTube clip. And since Robert Stacy McCain isn't warming up to David Weigel, perhaps the lovely former Cheers star will generate some linkage!

And the hat tip goes to American Perspective!

RELATED: At E! Online, "Feud Alert! Kirstie Alley Smites "Big Bad Drunk Wolf" George Lopez After Piggy Comment." And "Oh, Snap! Kirstie Alley Rejects George Lopez's Pig-Headed Apology."

Washington's New Media Elite

David Weigel, seen below at CPAC, gets top billing. But conservatives --- especially middle-aged conservatives like Robert Stacy McCain --- got nothing! And don't get Amanda Marcotte started about the exclusion of radical feminists women from the hot roster of D.C.'s "juicebox mafia"! See New York Times, "Young Pundits Become Washington's Media Elite."

Israel-Hamas War Now Inevitable

Following the revolution in Eygpt, according to Barry Rubin, "Egypt's Revolution Plus U.S. Government Mistakes Makes Israel-Hamas War Inevitable":

I'm going to make a prediction here that, unfortunately, I'm sure will come true. Any good analyst should be able to see this, yet few will until it happens within the next one or two years:

The Egyptian revolution and U.S. policy mistakes make a new Israel-Hamas war inevitable, and as a result it will be a lot more of an international mess.

Why?

First, Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, is a revolutionary Islamist movement that views itself as directed by God's will; considers Jews to be subhuman; believes that a willingness to court suicide and welcome death and destruction will bring victory; is certain that it is going to destroy Israel; and is determined to transform Palestinian society into an Islamic utopia, no matter how many people it has to kill. It is indifferent to the well-being, or even physical survival, of the Palestinians it rules ...

Lots more at the link above.

Rubin's the go-to guy on this stuff!

America Still No. 1

From yesterday's letters to the Los Angeles Times:

Re "Letting others lead," Opinion, March 20

The headline could have read, "Let others lead as we pretend to follow" — pretend because everyone above first grade knows the reality is we have to lead. Oh sure, others saber-rattle and bloviate, but they need the U.S. at the forefront.

This is why we elect the supposed leader of the free world. This leader, however, goes out of his way to talk down his and his country's leadership — for fear of what, a poor international image? The international community is the first to come knocking on our door when trouble arises.

I am all for building consensus and strong coalitions, but never at the expense of our leadership role in the world.

Andrew Chawke

Sherman Oaks

It's pretty amazing this one got approved by the editorial board. Yesterday's lead editorial offered a nearly 100 percent opposite perspective. See, "The Libya Calculation."

Syrian Forces Open Fire on Anti-Government Protesters

At NYT, "Syrian Troops Open Fire on Protesters in Several Cities" (via Memeorandum). And at WSJ, "Syria Regime Rocked by Protests":

Thousands of protesters demanding political liberalization marched in cities across Syria on Friday, an unprecedented display of public dissent that prompted violent clashes with security forces and left dozens dead and injured, according to witnesses and media reports.

The protests, once unthinkable against a regime believed to have an unshakable grip on security, came a day after President Bashar al-Assad's government announced economic and political concessions aimed at appeasing protesters and getting them off the streets.

Some U.S., European and Israeli officials saw the potential weakening of Mr. Assad's government—a close ally of Iran and key player in regional politics— as an important opening to significantly undermine Tehran's role in the region.

But there remained concerns that the turmoil could usher in more wide-scale bloodshed or, should Mr. Assad fall, another regime hostile to the West.

You don't say?

At Neocon Express, "Syrian Regime Mowing People Down in the Streets - Obama Silent":

The top video was available on YouTube just as this entry went live. The middle video c/o Neocon Express. And at bottom, protesters destroy a statue of the late Syrian strongman Hafez Assad.

Obama is Awesome!

"I don't care!"

Hey, cool and awesome, like JBW!!

Libya and the Anti-Intervention Left

From Jamie Kirchick, at World Affairs Journal:

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson argues that the campaign against Muammar Qaddafi represents the height of hypocrisy. Because the United States is abstaining from taking military action against other regimes in the region that are also using force to quell domestic uprisings—namely, Bahrain and Yemen—“all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms” are bunk. The war in Libya “isn’t about justice,” Robinson says, “it’s about power.” Far from arising out of some neoconservative impulse to spread democracy, he argues, the military action against the Libyan regime is rather an example of “realism” ...

The guiding principle of American foreign policy should be to support freedom overseas, when we can, where we can, and however we can. There are no firm rules by which this principle can be implemented. Libya, however, presented a rather obvious case: a murderous dictator who had the blood of many thousands of innocent people—including American citizens—on his hands, who had fomented instability in his region, and who had for many years been a leading sponsor of international terrorism, was suddenly confronted by a mass domestic insurgency. He reacted violently, in a way that rendered moot whatever economic benefit he was providing to the West. He all but announced his intention to commit genocide against his own people, stating that he would “cleanse Libya house by house,” practically rendering international intervention a legal imperative due to the stipulations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which the United States is a signatory. Furthermore, from a basic practical standpoint, and unlike in Yemen and Bahrain, Libya is located on the periphery of Europe, meaning that continued strife would have resulted in a mass refugee exodus onto the shores of NATO states. By assisting an indigenous revolt, and not partaking in the dread warfare of the sort that liberals like Robinson so fervently opposed in Iraq, the United States and its allies were given a prime opportunity, the sort of opportunity that arrives once in a blue moon, to overthrow a despicable regime and implement something better in its stead.

More at the link.

Kirchik is a great writer.

Republican Party of Wisconsin Seeks E-Mails From UW-Madison Professor William Cronon

This is fascinating.

The background's at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "GOP seeks e-mails of UW-Madison professor." The state GOP wants History Professor William Cronon's e-mails --- those sent on university servers --- going back to January 1st. It's a legitimate open-records request, and the university also has a policy against the use of institutional resources for partisan purposes. I'd personally like to see Cronon's communications. I read his super long response to the party's request this morning: "Abusing Open Records to Attack Academic Freedom." Cronon published an op-ed at the New York Times last weekend: "Wisconsin's Radical Break." I read this at the time and was unsurprised by his progressivism. But check Cronon's blog post. He suggests that the GOP open-records request is pure intimidation, and perhaps it is. But I'd think anyone doing some serious writing and organizing on these issues would be exceedingly careful to segregate teaching and research functions (on university equipment) from political activism likely to raise questions of controversy. Ann Althouse writes on this, suggesting that she's careful to use private e-mail for political advocacy, although she posts a defense of Cronin from UW Chancellor Biddy Martin.

And on top of all this comes Nobel Prize-winning economist and blogging Princeton Professor Paul Krugman, "Academic Intimidation" (via Memeorandum):

Cronon has a wisconsin.edu email address — but nobody, and I mean nobody, considers such academic email addresses something specially reserved for university business. Actually, according to Cronon he has been especially careful, maintaining a separate personal account — but nobody would have considered it out of the ordinary if he mingled personal correspondence with official business on the dot edu address. And no, the fact that he’s at a public university doesn’t change that: when my students take jobs at Berkeley or SUNY, they don’t imagine that they’re entering into a special fishbowl environment that they wouldn’t encounter at Georgetown or Haverford.

But then, we know perfectly well what’s going on here. Republicans aren’t looking for some abuse of Cronon’s position; they’re hoping to find some statement that can be quoted out of context to discredit him. At the very least, they hope that other academics will henceforth feel intimidated.

What I'm loving about this is not that Cronon's getting hassled, but the beautiful hypocrisy that's raised by the obvious counterfactual hypothesis: Had Cronon been a conservative professor and tea party activist, progressives would be cheering the perfect justice of a state Democratic Party open-records request. But Cronon's a big-time leftie, so the big guns like Paul Krugman are coming out in his defense. It's predictable and pathetic. And of course there's nothing secret about leftist professors and union organizers abusing public facilities for their political activities. Warner Todd Huston had a report this morning: "Michigan: Teachers Trying to Hide Union Activism in School Email Accounts."

At my college political communications on the district's server had long been routine, but after progressive faculty members successfully lobbied against my office bulletin board (to censor a GOP campaign bumper sticker), which later resulted in a full-blow investigation, I stopped looking the other way. Here's the policy at the California Community College Chancellor's Office (via):

"The use of district resources to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates is restricted. The fundamental reason for the restriction is that public money cannot be used for partisan activities. Put another way, resources that have been obtained for the district's support from all taxpayers must not be used "to take sides." Therefore, district employee time, equipment, supplies, or other public resources may not be used in advocating for either side of a ballot measure or to support or defeat any candidate. These restrictions are largely set out in an article in the Education Code entitled "Political Activities of School Officers and Employees" that encompasses sections 7050 through 7058."

It pisses the hell out of my communist colleagues, but I'll no longer stand for the despicable double standards. It used to be live and let live regarding campus political activities. But it's to the point of intimidation now. Progressives are thugs --- especially union-backed college professors --- and I'm hardly one to take it lying down.

RELATED: See William Jacobson, "Strange What Gets Them Excited in Wisconsin."

Botched Neocon Wars? Hardly

Ideological simplification is one of the biggest problems we're seeing with all the intense debate over Libya and the wider "Arab Spring." One example is Andrew Sullivan's little piece that stops just short of slamming neocons as fascist. Sully draws on C. Bradley Thompson's recent book on neoconservatism, but amplifies the implications without the theoretical context. For background, see Thompson's recent piece, "Neoconservatism Unmasked." It's pretty abstract, but if Thompson's right, there's a lot in my personal philosophy that's at odds with the neoconservative program hypothesized there. That said, much of the current debate over intervention in Libya hinges on the argument that the Iraq war was a colossal blunder of world historical proportions. It's the progressive meme that the Bush administration blew the mission after the initial post-conflict phase of operations. The photo-op on the USS Abraham Lincoln came to symbolize the hubris of an administration many argued was hell-bent on war and profanely dismissive of international norms. There's no convincing ideological partisans otherwise, of course, so it's probably not worth it to make the effort. Yet real-world events have repeatedly shown that the Bush administration's foreign policy was frequently masterful and often quite successful. There's been a long slide in Afghanistan's political efficacy, which is why we're still there today, after ten years of war. But in Iraq, the lodestar for progressive attacks on the "Bush-Cheney cabal," the revolutionary changes in the Middle East have elevated Baghdad to regional diplomatic prominence. See New York Times, "Ready or Not, Iraq Ascends to Take Helm of Arab Bloc":

BAGHDAD — After Libya was suspended from the Arab League last month, de facto leadership ended up coincidentally in the hands of Iraq, the Arab nation with the most experience — much of it painful — with a foreign-led military campaign against an unpopular dictator.

For all of that still unsettled pain, the foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari — in his new capacity as head of the Arab League — rushed off to Paris last Friday evening to join Western and Arab allies, where he argued passionately in favor of action against Libya, citing the American no-fly zone in northern Iraq that protected the Kurdish population from Saddam Hussein in the years before the American invasion here, according to a senior official who took part in the Paris deliberations.

And soon, Iraqi leaders, who are facing their own protest movement, plan to use their own troublesome democracy, still bloody and inchoate, as a showcase for Middle East countries. Iraq is taking on a larger diplomatic role in regional affairs as host of the group’s annual summit meeting — while assuming the rotating presidency of the league — in May.

“If there’s a political message, it’s that Iraq is back to play a major and positive role in the Arab region,” said Labid Abawi, the deputy foreign minister who has led a committee to prepare Baghdad for the summit meeting.

“We take pride in that Iraq has already exceeded all these other Arab countries in establishing a democratic regime,” he said. “Now, we can say yes, we are on the right track, and other Arab countries can follow suit in establishing a democratic regime.”

There's more at the link, but I want to reiterate the point above: No amount of evidence, not even Iraqi testimony on the country's democratic consolidation, will wrest from idiot progressives the claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a debacle. It's all they have, along with endless allegations of racism and the demonization of Israel. And to respond to simpleton Mike Tuggle, who asked if I'd lost my "'neo-conservative illusions' as a result of the botched Neocon Wars?," the answer is no --- because I don't have any illusions to lose.

The Muslim Student Association — 'A Virtual Terror Factory'

Patrick Poole is interviewed at the clip. He indicates that the Muslim Students Association "has been a virtual terror factory." No doubt. And if you call these mofos out on it they go ballistic, as I learned at UCLA. Via Blazing Cat Fur. Watch it all the way through. David Horowitz's exchange with UCSD's Jumanah "For It" Albahri is toward the end:

Communist Medea Benjamin: 'Put Israel On a Leash'

I didn't think this was much of a debate to begin with. Seton Motley's first comments on Libya resembled paleoconservative talking points. But get a load of the discussion of Israel, at about 8:00 minutes. Motley gets suckered into defending Israel for "stealing" Palestinian land. He does better at about 10:00, but Benjamin's non-metaphorical line that Israel "needs to be put on a leash" is over the top. And run the clip all the way through. Benjamin is the perfect communist Jew-bashing useful idiot. No doubt she cheered Itamar:

Conservatives and the Libyan War

One thing I believe in firmly is the universal desire for human freedom. It's an American thing, you could say, univeralistic in the Jeffersonian sense of "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Believing in universal principles doesn't mean we throw off our more studied inclinations toward realism. And by this I don't mean the perverted realism of Stephen Walt and the neo-isolationist Israel-bashers. No, it's the realism for holding up interests to the light of pragmatism over idealism. With the Egyptian revolution, for example, the hopes for liberation engendered powerful emotions of solidarity with people breaking the chains of their poverty and oppression. The problem, of course, is that the nature of the Mubarak regime was to elevate the most extreme forces in society as the bogeyman to justify authoritarian rule. At the same time the tempering forces of civil society were suppressed to prevent pluralistic impulses that might threaten the regime. And when the spontaneous outpouring of revolt hit the streets the Obama administration's incompetence and indifference worked to let slip the opportunity for shaping a pro-democratic wave that might have limited the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. Attention has moved away from Cairo as new developments elsewhere have captured the news. But Egypt's election on constitutional reform a few days ago was said to favor Islamist forces in the country. And because those same forces will be less committed to peace with Israel, and perhaps to an extreme fundamentalism domestically, it's clear that democratic change in Egypt hasn't seen the coming of a freedom-producing utopia.

I'm reflecting here in light of David Horowitz's essay, "Why I Am Not a Neo-Conservative." Folks should read it all. There's little I disagree with, especially on the dangers of democratic elections in totalitarian cultures. It's hard to be bullish on democratic change when the key principles of constitutional order include the extermination of the Jews, as it is with the Hamas Charter. But there's more to neoconservatism than foreign policy and war, which is a point that I keep stressing, since it's getting lost in the fog of Obama's foreign policy. Horowitz even calls for folks to abandon the "neo" and return to being just conservatives. To do that, of course, is to abandon the long tradition of moral-based conservatism that been shaping cultural debates in the U.S. since at least the 1960s. A larger understanding is required. It's appropriate to recall that neoconservatives aren't currently unified on change in the Middle East. Refer to Matt Lewis' recent article as well, "Abusing and Misusing The ‘Neo-Con’ Label," where he notes how the term's been bastardized by critics.

In any case, Victor Davis Hanson ---whose work was extremely influential in the top circles of the Bush administration during the runup to the Iraq war and beyond --- puts things in perspective at National Review, "Let Us Count the Ways ...":

Why are many conservatives against the Libyan war? Is it, as alleged, political opportunism — given their prior support for the 2001 and 2003 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

No. Most of us support wholeheartedly our troops now that we are in, but opposed the intervention for reasons that were clear before we attacked, and are even clearer now. Among them ...

Be sure to read it all.

Poll Shows Declining Support for Jerry Brown Budget Fix in California

At Los Angeles Times, "Poll shows public support for Brown's budget plan is slipping."

And see the press release at PPIC, "Support Slips for Special Election."

RELATED: At SF Gate, "Brown signs off on billions worth of state cuts."

The unions are mobilizing. I should have lots on California's Big Labor thugs in the weeks and months ahead.

Authorities Shut Down San Gabriel 'Birthing Tourism' Maternity Center

This ought to feed the debate on birthplace citizenship. And these women are Chinese!!

At LAT, "'Birthing tourism' center in San Gabriel shut down":

From the outside, they looked like other recently built San Gabriel townhouses — two stories, Spanish style, with roofs of red tile.

Inside they were maternity centers for Chinese women willing to pay handsomely to travel here to give birth to American citizens.

Southern California has become a hub of so-called birthing tourism. Operators of such centers tend to try to blend in, attracting as little attention as possible.

But on quiet, residential Palm Avenue, neighbors had noticed an unusual number of pregnant women going in and out, and some complained about noise.

On March 8, code enforcement officials shut down three identical four-bedroom townhouses functioning as an unlicensed birthing center.

Israel Strikes Gaza Following Palestinian Rocket Fire‎

At Jerusalem Post, "IDF strikes Gaza after barrage of rockets hit country."

Also, "The PA's Empty Condemnation of Terror":

Shortly after the explosion of the bomb packed with steel balls, nails and screws that killed Briton Mary Jane Gardner and wounded 50 people – including two critically – Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad publicly condemned what he specifically called a “terror attack.”

Unfortunately, but not uncharacteristically, the prime minister detracted from that condemnation by adding that the act was “despicable,” particularly in light of the huge damage such attacks have inflicted on the Palestinians in the past. The implication from Fayyad, the ex-IMF economist touted by both local and international media as a “moderate reformer,” was that were it not for the potential negative ramifications for Palestinians resulting from the attack, beginning with possible restrictions on Palestinian movement, the attack would not have been quite so despicable.

Still, at least Fayyad admitted that the death, pain and destruction caused Wednesday unmistakably constituted terror. That was more than what Reuters was willing to concede. In a news report describing the incident, the news agency noted that “Police said it was a ‘terrorist attack’ – Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike.” Apparently, for Reuters, the intentional, indiscriminate murder of civilians with the purpose of terrorizing might constitute something other than terrorism when it is directed against Israel.

RTWT.

Death Threats Against Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly

Deborah Pauly, a local conservative councilwoman from Villa Park, spoke at last month's Yorba Linda rally against Islamic jihad. She criticized Muslim support for terrorism as "pure, unadulterated evil." Since then she's been the target of a growing protest campaign, with ANSWER communists leading a protest on Tuesday night. The story's now front page news at today's Los Angeles Times, "Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly ignites controversy with speech at Islamic charity event." Naturally, the initial viral video, which was edited out of context, was circulated by CAIR, with the help of the Soros-financed smear-merchants Think Progress.

And it's no surprise that the Times' front page report omits this very important detail:

In a related development, a 27-year-old San Pedro man was arrested Tuesday and charged with making death threats against Pauly by sending her a message on Facebook.

Also, "CA councilwoman threatened over remarks at protest":

27-year-old man pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges of threatening a councilwoman over remarks she made at a protest outside a gathering of Muslims last month in Yorba Linda.

Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly contacted authorities after Paul Dean Andrews, of San Pedro, sent her a message on Facebook on March 3 threatening violence against her with weapons, prosecutors said ...

Andrews, who was being held on $100,000 bail, was angry at Pauly over her comments, which many interpreted as anti-Muslim, at a February protest outside a charity fundraiser held by Islamic Circle of North American Relief USA, authorities said. Andrews was scheduled for a pretrial hearing March 30, prosecutors said.

How Progressives Talk About Israel Behind Closed Doors

I'm a much more intelligent political scientist than I was five years ago. And amazingly, I owe this to blogging --- that is, to being online and reading the subterranean filth of progressive anti-colonialism (among so much else, unfortunately). It's been developing, but I've had one of those life awakenings in which you say to yourself, "If I had this to do over again ..." Mostly, though, I just shake my head and look forward to a chance at sabbatical, when I can do something more formal in the way of writing. Anyway, five years ago, when I first read Walt and Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby" I looked at it mostly from the perspective of pluralist theory in political science. Had I known more about the left's drive to a new Jewish Holocaust I no doubt would have been more discerning in my appraisal. But it's all come together over these last fews years, and I can see things in a new light. There's a moral inversion in the world, and an individual's stance on Israel is a pretty good indicator of one relationship to universal right. I keep telling myself that perhaps it's not so bad, that the screaming demons of contemporary evil are a blip of reality. Nothing to worry about in the long run. Truth and justice will prevail. But again and again I'm taken aback, and not just on Israel and the Middle East. Abortion politics and the normalization of social deviancy on cultural issues want to drive me to drink. But as we've seen with Itamar and Jerusalem, rarely is the immediacy of moral bankruptcy so powerful as in the militant annihilationism facing Israel.

At any rate, I'm going off like this after reading Scott McConnell's essay at Mondoweiss, "Five years ago today, Walt and Mearsheimer gave Americans the vocabulary to discuss a central issue." The piece has something of a hush-hush feel to it, like we're allowed to peek inside the redoubts of conspirators. Here's this for example:

What stood out from the first page was the tone—measured but firm, uncompromising but not strident. Every assertion seemed precisely weighed, put forth without exaggeration, flamboyance, or polemical excess. Also striking was the absence of gratuitous deference towards the opponent. There was no pulling of punches, no telltale signs of anxiety about the consequences of an argument taken too far, or indeed made at all. Such was my first reaction to reading John Mearsheimer’s and Steve Walt’s Israel Lobby paper, posted five years ago today on the website of Harvard’s Kennedy School, and published in shorter form in the London Review of Books. It had arrived at the opening of business one morning in an email from Michael Desch, then a professor at Texas A&M’s George H. W. Bush School of Government. I sent it across the hall to my colleague Kara Hopkins, a woman a generation my junior, somewhat less engaged than I by the Middle East, and certainly less persuaded that a coterie of neocons had gotten George W. Bush on a leash and were leading him this way and that. Three minutes later I walked into her office, where she had the paper up on her screen. “This is exactly what I believe,” said Kara, words that I had never heard from her before on any subject, much less this one.

That's some significant moment, that Kara Hopkins realized that she wasn't alone in her suppressed anti-Israel sentiments. No doubt it was a relief, and I'm sure this happened in history, political science, and sociology departments around the country, if not further across the academy. But keep reading McConnell's piece, and keep in mind that he's publishing this at Mondoweiss, which is the progressive left's most aggressive anti-Israel blog on the web. Omar Barghouti's publishing there as well, which gives you and idea of eliminationist pedigree of the roster. But back to the essay. See the further discussion and how it's an explication of un-closeting anti-Semitism in elite circles:

Save a handful of exceptions, mainstream dissent from the special relationship with Israel has taken the form of the dry aside or the understated sentence or two published amidst a lot of other stuff, almost as if the author hoped it would not be noticed. Occasionally public figures at the end of their careers made remarks that more resembled outbursts, the parting shot of the seventy- five year old senator or aging general. But more often than not, ever sensitive to the perils of anti-semitism, Americans let their fears of contributing to injustice shut off necessary debates ...

The reasons differed for every individual, and were composite. There was the worry about offending close Jewish friends or colleagues, concerns over possible adverse professional consequences, or the general inhibitions associated with the Jewish power/leading to anti-Semitism/leading to the Holocaust nexus.* The result was that critical analysis of the special relationship was shoved to the margins of American political discourse. The discussions may have been richer and more involved on the Marxist and anti-imperialist Left than on the quasi-isolationist Old Right, but in neither case did they much influence the political mainstream. Even in the wake of the Iraq disaster, with the looming prospect more American wars in the Middle East, Israel’s role was alluded at most in passing, but seldom really pursued.

Seriously. McConnell's just admitting that the kind of anti-Semitism found on the fringes of ideological extremism in earlier decades is now mainstream. Those who follow these questions wouldn't be surprised. The problem is that it's not just the academy. Yesterday Reuters described the Jerusalem bus attack with terrorism in quotation marks --- as in "terrorist attack" --- to indicate that this was some made up meme fostered by Israeli officials. It's despicable. But this is the kind of whitewashing of evil that passes for mainstream reporting.

More later ... (and keep reading that Mondweiss essay ... it's like another world).

RELATED: From Lawrence Auster, "What cheers Scott McConnell?"

Moral Bankruptcy in Media Coverage of Jerusalem Bombing Attack

Omri Ceren has the background, at Commentary, "Media Coverage of Bus Bombing Emphasizes Settlements, “Palestinian Victims”." But see especially, Melanie Phillips, "Terror and Moral Imbecility":

Clearly, there is currently a huge upsurge in murderous violence by Arabs from the disputed territories, of which this bus bombing is but the latest example. It therefore takes a particular degree of bone-headed malevolence to view this latest attack instead as a ‘tit-for-tat' response to Israeli violence. But then, the BBC and other British and western media have all but ignored the rocket attacks, and minimised the Fogel massacre. As usual, Israeli victimisation is thus denied in an obscene moral equivalence – which invariably turns Israel from a victim attempting to defend itself into the aggressor.

But the media’s culpability does not end there with its mere perversion of journalism. The fact that it can be relied upon to blame the Israelis for their own slaughter means that the slaughterers believe they can murder Israelis with impunity – better still, that the more Israelis they murder, the more Israel will be blamed; and if Israel should take military action to stop the attacks, the world will punish Israel and reward its attackers even more.

ClaireAir

At New York Times, "Democrats Can’t Afford Mistakes Like McCaskill’s Plane":

Democrats in the Senate face steep odds in 2012. They are defending more than 20 seats against an energized Republican party, which only needs to pick up four seats to win the majority. Five Democratic incumbents are retiring from the Senate, making their seats instantly more vulnerable to Republicans.

In short, Senate Democrats can’t afford to make any mistakes.

Which makes the scandal in Missouri over Senator Claire McCaskill’s private plane the kind of unforced error that could come back to haunt the national party in the days after the 2012 election.

Love it!

Also, at The Blog Prof, "Irony: Clair McCaskill, caught not paying $287k in taxes, ran campaign ad touting paying of taxes."

Tamar Fogel Speaks Out: 'Everything That Happens to the Jewish Nation Won't Break Us'

This was the interview just after her family was murdered. Only 12 years-old and now the responsibility to look after her younger siblings:

"Whenever someone talks about 'the quality of the discourse', you know they're full of sh*t."

From the comments at Althouse, where folks had a whale of a time after Rob "Moral Abomination" Farley banned Meade. Also:

No big loss for Meade. I gave up on those shitbirds after one day. It didn't take 5 minutes for Koch/Halliburton/Truther/AGW-insanity to dominate any given thread.

Humorless and with no command of the language is no way to run a blog, LG&M.

I'm enjoying this one. Almost all of the evil LGM regulars are implicated, including DocAmazing, DrDick, and Malaclypse. CUND Gulag also haunts the threads, and Demon Dirtbag TBogg just loves Lawyers, Gays and Marriage, although I'd rather not wade through the effluence to find those freaks. The cowardice is exquisite, that's for sure.