Bloodthirsty Liberal

Well, Bruno to be more accurate.

Just go to the link and read it. It’s so great.

- Aggie

The pistol-packing, rapist-frying, public-money-eschewing, telecom-immunizing, precondition-adding, pastor-abandoning, NAFTA-bloviating candidate for president is at it again:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Thursday said he may “refine” his call for a 16-month Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, after a planned trip to the war zone later this month.

Obama, who based his primary campaign on vehement opposition to the Iraq war, said he would conduct a “thorough assessment” of his policies after the trip, his first to Iraq for two years.

The Illinois Senator has faced fierce pressure from Republican foe John McCain over Iraq, who has said Obama should change his plans to take account of apparent security gains wrought by the recent US troop-surge strategy.

Well, at least he listens to reason.

Or maybe not:

Democrat Barack Obama denied Thursday any suggestion he’s shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it “pure speculation” and adding that his “position has not changed” — shortly before telling reporters questioning his stance that he will “continue to refine” his policies as warranted.

Or maybe so:

According to Obama’s campaign website he would remove brigades at a pace of one to two per month and have “all [United States] combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

But on April 10 he told an Indiana crowd it may take “16 months to two years” to remove combat troops. In recent speeches, he’s left out the phrase “16 months” entirely.

Pressed as to why that’s been the case, the White House hopeful first laughed, then told reporters it’s because he’s been “focused on the economy.”

Excellent! I look forward to his backing away from his quasi-socialist positions on the economy as he has on everything else. Beep! Beep! Beep!

As McCain said of Romney, so will he say of Obama: he is the candidate of change.

THIS GUY IS GOOD.

He announced a major change in is Iraq position at the end of the day on July 3rd, when absolutely no on is paying attention. And tomorrow, we’ll all be at picnics and firework shows. Then comes the weekend, a snoozy time for paying attention to the news. By Monday this is an old story.

He’s sleazy as they come, but he’s slick. Slicker than Slick Willie.

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Republicans will try to point out what an eel he is, but will anyone notice?

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: “My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground.”

Have you ever seen an eel? Slimy, slimy, slimy.

- Aggie

I saw this on the Wall Street Journal Best of the Web Column, but they got it here:

The stunning caper involved months of intelligence gathering, dozens of helicopters on standby and a strong dose of deceit: The rebels shoved the captives, their hands bound, onto a white unmarked MI-17 helicopter, believing they were being transferred to another guerrilla camp.

Looking at helicopter’s crew, some wearing Che Guevara shirts, Betancourt reasoned they weren’t aid workers, as she’d expected–but rebels. This was just another indignity—the helicopter “had no flag, no insignia.” Angry and upset, she refused a coat they offered as they told her she was going to a colder climate.

But not long after the group was airborne, Betancourt turned around and saw the local commander, alias Cesar, a man who had tormented her for four years, blindfolded and stripped naked on the floor.

Then came the unbelievable words: “We’re the national army,” said one of the crewmen. “You’re free.”

The helicopter crew were soldiers in disguise. Cesar and the other guerrilla aboard had been persuaded to hand over their pistols, then overpowered.

A glimpse into the first hours of freedom:

“Nirvana, paradise — that must be very similar to what I feel at this moment,” Betancourt said, fighting back tears as her son reached over to kiss her. “It was because of them that I kept up my will to get out of that jungle.”

On her first morning of freedom, Betancourt also visited the church that holds the remains of her father, who died while she was in captivity. Reporters and camera crews swarmed around her while adoring Colombians applauded as she left the church.

Betancourt raced to the stairway of the French government plane that flew her children to Bogota, throwing her arms around Lorenzo, 19, and Melanie, 22.

“The last time I saw my son, Lorenzo was a little kid and I could carry him around,” she said. “I told them, they’re going to have to put up with me now, because I’m going to be stuck to them like chewing gum.”

And Americans should be very proud for the assist:

said Thursday that Uribe had called a day earlier “to give me the good news,” and said he congratulated the Colombian leader.

“I’m proud of our relationship with Colombia, and I’m proud of my friend,” Bush said of Uribe.

Although only Colombians were directly involved in the rescue, Brownfield said “close” American cooperation included intelligence, equipment and “training advice.”

[note: that’s impossible… how could George Bush every do anything good? I am sure that the moveon crowd and the Kos Kidz will find a way to spin this]

Happy 4th!

- Aggie

PUMA thinks that the amazing rescue of the people who had been held in the jungles of Columbia for five years will have some impact on the election.

I’m not sure if they are right. It is a complicated story and most people have a very short memory. But, I hope they’re on to something:

Ingrid Betancourt is a Colombian senator who was kidnapped by FARC during her historic presidential campaign in February 2002 while in the process of negotiating peace talks with FARC officials near the town of San Vicente De Caguán. FARC is one of the world’s primary terrorist organizations which funds it operations through drug trafficking and money derived from ransoms estimated at $1 Billion a year. Roughly 8,000-15,000 active soldiers are enlisted in the guerilla army, including women and children. The UN condemns FARC for its human rights violations, terrorist activities and for being the largest user of landmines in the world, which Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont campaigned for US aid to treat landmine victims. Over 700 hostages are currently held by FARC, targeting journalists, human rights activists, politicians and civilian dissenters. For more info about FARC and narco-terrorism, I highly recommend Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ non-fiction book, “News of a Kidnapping” (Noticias de un secuestro).

Ingrid Betancourt’s mother, Yolanda Pulecio, started a worldwide human rights campaign to gain support for her daughter’s and the hundreds of FARC hostages’ release. Since Ingrid is a Colombian-French dual citizen upon marrying her first husband Fabrice Delloye, Yolanda’s plea reached newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who in 2007, urged Colombian officials to release FARC commander Rodrigo Granda in exchange for Ingrid. Columbian officials released a number of FARC detainees but FARC would not release their star hostage.

In April 2008, news of Ingrid’s hunger strike and subsequent poor health reached Latin American media. Images of a tortured, Hepatitis-B stricken Ingrid mortified millions of Latin Americans both in North and South America, marked with hollowed cheeks and eyes, speaking about her continued hunger strike since her health was her only negotiating tool against the rebel army. Univision and Telemundo bumped up their coverage of FARC and Ingrid Betancourt’s failing health. France sent medical envoys to treat Ingrid, but to no avail. FARC promised to get Ingrid adequate medical care but Ingrid refused food and medicine. Ultimately, she ended her strike after pleas from her family reached Ingrid at her impenetrable hostage camp deep in the Amazonian jungle.

BUT EVERYTHING CHANGED WHEN - ta-ta-taaaaan (insert musical fanfare here) on July 2nd 2008, during John McCain’s Colombian stop on his US presidential campaign tour of Latin America, Columbian covert special ops teams disguised as FARC rebels rescued Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages, including 3 American aeronautical defense contractors kidnapped in 2003 – all in the SAME DAY.

Gee, I wonder who helped the Colombian army with infrared space satellites than can see through the dense Amazonian jungle locate the band of hostages that contained Ingrid & the Americans hostages?

Sounds like an evil Cheney-Bush-Hitler-Zionist-Neocon operation to me, but I bet that with just a little more love and understanding, the terrorists would have freed those hostages anyway.

- Aggie

When asked what he would like to see come out of the next administration, Rush Limbaugh answered:

1. Open the continental shelf to drilling. Ditto the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

2. Establish a 17 percent flat tax.

3. Privatize Social Security.

4. Give parents school vouchers to break the monopoly of public education.

5. Revoke Jimmy Carter’s passport while he is out of the country.

6. Abandon all government policies based on the hoax of man-made global warming.

The article can be found in the NY Times Magazine and it is quite entertaining.

The writer seems to think that #5 above is a joke. I hope not. That’s my favorite part of the entire program.

- Aggie

Some countries are born to intervene. Some achieve intervention. Others have intervention thrust upon them.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America!

About 220 Zimbabweans have fled to the U.S. Embassy in Harare, seeking refuge from election-related violence, according to U.S. Embassy spokesman Mark Weinberg.

Many of the refugees are supporters of the opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change. The group huddled together with their possessions, some of them with bandaged wounds, according to a journalist who was at the scene.

CNN is not identifying the journalist for security reasons.

“The people I can see right now look very miserable, dejected, confused,” the reporter said….

Can you blame them? They were so low on options, they had to take refuge in the American Embassy. Oh, the humanity!

I guess they were too tired to walk into those open arms of their South African neighbors.

If they’re smart, by the way, the refugees ought to play up the fact that tomorrow’s our Independence Day. Nobody wants to repatriate endangered political refugees on the 4th of July.

and mourns its passing.

This is what currently passes for academic thought at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. From a course description:

“Schools in the United States promise equal opportunity. They have not kept that promise. In this course, we will try to find out why.”

Now, ask yourself this: What happens to the student who believes that equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome? In other words, what happens to a student who challenges the underlying premise of the course? Remember, if you want to pursue a career in sociology, you have to move very carefully through a chain of courses like these, pleasing professors like these. Or you will get crappy grades and no recommendations. That is what “academic freedom” has meant for quite some time.

Here is the very tactful way a young professor at U Wisconsin describes the box of politically correct thought that choked a couple of generations of college students:

“Senior people evaluate us for tenure and the standards they use and what we think is important are different,” she said. They want to question values and norms; “we are more driven by data.”

I’m not convinced that there will be any large changes in the nation’s universities, despite what the article says. Young college professors are vetted by older college professors before they are hired… heck, before they are even accepted into graduate programs. That crowd isn’t too big into diversity of opinion. But the NY Times seems a bit concerned:

MADISON, Wis. — When Michael Olneck was standing, arms linked with other protesters, singing “We Shall Not Be Moved” in front of Columbia University’s library in 1968, Sara Goldrick-Rab had not yet been born.

When he won tenure at the University of Wisconsin here in 1980, she was 3. And in January, when he retires at 62, Ms. Goldrick-Rab will be just across the hall, working to earn a permanent spot on the same faculty from which he is departing.

Together, these Midwestern academics, one leaving the professoriate and another working her way up, are part of a vast generational change that is likely to profoundly alter the culture at American universities and colleges over the next decade.

Baby boomers, hired in large numbers during a huge expansion in higher education that continued into the ’70s, are being replaced by younger professors who many of the nearly 50 academics interviewed by The New York Times believe are different from their predecessors — less ideologically polarized and more politically moderate.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

…In general, information on professors’ political and ideological leanings tends to be scarce. But a new study of the social and political views of American professors by Neil Gross at the University of British Columbia and Solon Simmons at George Mason University found that the notion of a generational divide is more than a glancing impression. “Self-described liberals are most common within the ranks of those professors aged 50-64, who were teenagers or young adults in the 1960s,” they wrote, making up just under 50 percent. At the same time, the youngest group, ages 26 to 35, contains the highest percentage of moderates, some 60 percent, and the lowest percentage of liberals, just under a third.

The article goes on to say that the new faculty are almost all self-declared democrats, almost no Republicans, but that these new Democrats think of themselves as “moderates”. My experience is that almost everybody seems him or herself as a “moderate”. I wonder exactly what it means. Still, if it means a real return to civil discourse and diversity of thought, I’m all for it.

Very good news if true.

- Aggie

God is great—squish the baby.

I don’t really have much else to say.

“At one point he yelled out, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ and stepped on the gas pedal,” M recalled. “I drew the weapon of the civilian who was with me and shot the driver three times in the head. I think I did what is expected from every soldier and citizen.”

What is expected, yes; what transpires is too often something less. M is a hero, but even he was too late.

Seconds before being crushed to death by a bulldozer, 33-year-old Batsheva Onterman succeeded in unbuckling her 5-month-old baby from the car-seat and passing her out through the window to safety.

“Just as I took the baby out, he reversed on top of the car. The baby is okay, but not the mother,” Jeremy Aronson, the man who helped save the baby, told The Jerusalem Post quietly as he sat alone in the waiting room of Hadassah-University Hospital in Mount Scopus.

Would you say Israel is a great nation for allowing a population of potential terrorists to live as free citizens in its midst; a nation of fools for doing so; or an “apartheid state”, and just be done with it?

UPDATE
I turned to my morning paper, the Boston Glob, to see how they covered this massacre of the innocents.

Page one, above the fold? No.

Below? Uh-uh.

Page two, with a big photograph of the carnage? Nope.

Page three… four… five…?

Page six.

Now, if this were the New York Post, the story would be guaranteed maximum impact. But page six in the Boston Globe is about as close to a journalistic graveyard as you can get. And they called the slaughter a “rampage”, which I suppose is correct, if undersold.

At least they let the Israelis call it as they saw it:

“Terrorists keep finding new ways to attack us,” Jerusalem’s mayor, Uri Lupoliansky, said.

And what picture did they choose to accompany the story? Perhaps the dramatic shot of the rescued baby?

Or the hero putting three in the terrorist’s head?

Or this graphically arresting image?

No, along with a busy, chaotic picture of the wreckage, they displayed this shot of the terrorist’s grieving family:

I had to scan it from the paper because no other news organization seems to have been so insensitive as to focus on the feelings of the perpetrator’s family, and not the victims’.

In interest of full disclosure, the Globe carried the LA Times service coverage, but the editorial choice to publish that photo was the Glob’s, I believe, and the Glob’s alone.

UPPERDATE
Reader Yerushalimey alerted us to the BBC’s impossibly naive and insensitive first reaction to the massacre:

While BBC Online currently covers the story “Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem,” this was not the original headline. Offering a glimpse into the BBC’s warped journalism, the initial headline read “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead”.

…

That this terror attack took place opposite Jerusalem Capital Studios, the local headquarters for many international media outlets, including BBC, Sky News and CNN, ensured that footage and coverage were available almost immediately. The BBC’s very own correspondent Tim Franks even witnessed much of the incident from his office window. The BBC can have no excuse for not having the basic facts of the story in front of them from the very beginning.

No, they can’t. And they don’t.

If he didn’t, I am so disappointed:

“McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don’t know what attracted my attention,” Cochran told The Sun Herald of Biloxi, Mississippi. “But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever.”

“I don’t know what he was telling him, but I thought, ‘Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.’ I don’t know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy,” Cochran added.

…

“I had many, many meetings with the Sandinistas,” McCain said. “I must say, I did not admire the Sandinistas much. But there was never anything of that nature. It just didn’t happen.”

Could we ask for a greater contrast? Barack Obama is about as intimidating a figure to our enemies as Justin Timberlake. Was it James Carville who said if Hillary Clinton donated one of her cojones to Obama, they’d each have two?

John McCain, on the other hand, demonstrates the willingness to talk to our adversaries—pushed up against the wall and right in their grill.

Who would you rather deal with scumbags like the Sandinistas, the madman or the metrosexual?

Don’t deny it, John, even if it didn’t happen.

Only two days ago, we noted the Israeli/Palestinian feud over water.

It’s nice to see the Egyptians responding so promptly to the Palestinians’ plight:

Egyptian forces fired water cannons Wednesday at crowds of stone-throwing Palestinians who were trying to cross into Egypt from southern Gaza, Hamas security sources said.

…

Tensions escalated after the Palestinians were not allowed to enter Egypt, the sources said.

Of course, after reading about the Palestinians’ penchant for swimming in sewage, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Egyptians just wanted to disperse the aroma as well as the crowd.

I wonder if the Palestinians will fire any mortars or rockets back? Nah, somebody could get hurt.

In any case, drink up, my thirsty, crusty friends!

UPDATE
Now with added video!

Must be a full moon.

Der Spiegel is a top German news magazine and they seem to have figured out that we’re making a lot of progress in Iraq.

There is an unexpected air of normalcy prevailing in Baghdad these days, with consumption flourishing and confidence in the government growing. The progress is astonishing, but can it last?

Pork is available in Baghdad once again. Not just in the Green Zone, where US diplomats can enjoy their spare ribs and Parma ham, but also across the Tigris River, in the real Baghdad, at “Al-Warda” on Karada Street. Bassim Dencha, 32, one of the few Christians remaining in Iraq and the co-owner of Baghdad’s finest supermarket, has developed a supply line from Syria. As a result, he now has frozen pork chops and bratwurst arranged in his freezers, next to boxes of frozen French fries and German Black Forest Cakes. And the customers are buying.

Filled with cheery stuff, happy photos.

Enjoy!

- Aggie

I found a slide show of images of today’s Palestinian terror attack in Jerusalem

If this wasn’t a terror attack, what was it?

- Aggie

Some of you may already have heard of Rene Marie, the jazz singer in Denver (site of the upcoming DNC) who was invited to sing the national anthem at the mayor’s State of the City address. She snubbed the “Star Spangled Banner”, however, to sing “Lift Every Voice and Sing”.

And she lied to do it.

Now, I happen to like “Lift Every Voice”. As music, I probably even prefer it to the national anthem (though not “America the Beautiful”, which you mess with at your peril).

But that’s not the point. The point is that if you are engaged to sing the national anthem, you had better have a good reason if you don’t.

Let’s see if she does:

Instead, Marie performed the song “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” which also is known as the “black national anthem.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Since when?

Of what black nation is “Lift Every Voice” the anthem? Liberia? Ghana? Watts? What kind of nonsense is this?

This kind:

“I pulled a switcheroonie on them,” Marie said later.

She explained that she decided months ago to switch the lyrics because she will no longer sing the national anthem.

She said that she made the decision after a Russian broadcaster interviewed her and asked her what it was like to be an American.

At that moment, she said, she realized that as an African-American she at times feels like a foreigner in her home country.

“And I was going to correct her,” Marie said. “And I realized I didn’t feel like an American, and that bothered me a great deal.”

I respect that, I seriously do. If you don’t feel like an American, nothing I or anyone else can say is going to change your mind, You go, girl—right back to Haiti, or Montreal, or Russia, or wherever the hell else you do feel at home.

What you do not do—ever—is represent yourself as a singer worthy of honoring the country you don’t even honor. You are a lying, disloyal… I’m too much of a gentleman to finish that sentence.

I almost feel sorry for the mayor:

We were as surprised as anyone that jazz singer Rene Marie did not sing our national anthem at today’s State of the City ceremony, as our staff had requested. As I listened to her sing, I assumed she would eventually move into the traditional Star Spangled Banner. I called her personally this afternoon to understand what happened. She explained her song was an artistic expression of her love for her country. She said she meant no disrespect of any kind and that her song was in no way intended to be a political statement. She apologized for any problems she may have created.

Lying, disloyal… 1…2…3…4…5…6

Taken separately, this is just a little local difficulty, hardly worthy of our notice. But when you take the entirety of the madness that afflicts whole swathes of the left—anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, a raging anger that would have me reaching for the pepper spray if I saw it in person—this is but another symptom of a diseased mind.

I’m going to take s**t from at least one reader, I know, but I’m even including Barack Obama among the casualties. He pointedly took his flag pin off after September 11th because—well, I better quote him directly to get it right:

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.

Again, absolutely defensible and perfectly allowable under our Constitution.

Unless you want to be president, in which case such a statement would be political suicide. Or should have been.

To ascribe “false” patriotism to the wearing of our national flag is insulting enough; to not have had the courage or personal conviction to wear it proudly regardless of the motivations of others is cowardice.

Cowardice.

A segment of the population which openly and avowedly hates what they think this country has become (it’s still theirs, unless and until they leave) stands poised to elect someone to the highest position in the land who shares their beliefs. Lift every voice and wail.

I am so upset about the Palestinian terror attack in Jerusalem today that I forgot to post these great Obama videos.

Go to the site and watch how the Obama Brownshirts treat protesters. They could teach the Bushies a thing or two about crowd control.

-Aggie

This is from someone who rides the bus that was destroyed today by the Palestinian terrorist.

My Jerusalem Bus Line
by Judy Lash Balint
July 2, 2008

My fellow bus riders and I generally spend our time at the bus stop grumbling about the #13 bus that’s the only line that serves our neighborhood going to the center of town. The schedule is erratic; drivers are sometimes surly and the Egged bus company keeps on sending us the old-style purple and white buses that were pulled off most other lines years ago.

Today all we can do is stare in shock at the images of our #13 purple and white bus lying on its side on Jaffa Road after an Arab from eastern Jerusalem bulldozed the bus and dozens of cars and pedestrians in a deadly terror attack that claimed the lives of three Israelis and injured more than fifty.

Assaf Nadav, the driver of the #13 bus, and all the passengers reportedly managed to escape with varying degrees of injuries–no one was killed on the bus. Passengers related how they somehow managed to escape the shattered glass, grab for their screaming children and ran from the bus. Later this afternoon when the downtown roads are reopened, we’ll be back waiting at the bus stop to go to do our pre-Shabbat shopping at Machane Yehudah, the market a few blocks away from where the bulldozer careened to a halt when the terrorist was overpowered. The crowded market may well have been his target.

Latest reports from the hospital are that a 6 month-old baby survived as she sat in a car seat in the back of a Toyota–her mother, the driver, was killed. In the six hours since the terror attack, no one has yet come forward to claim the baby.

In an “only in Jerusalem” scenario, the soldier who jumped on the bulldozer and killed today’s terrorist was the brother-in-law of the guy who managed to eliminate the Mercaz Harav shooter last February.

There’s more at the site, plus pictures.

- Aggie

From now on, no mamby-pamby language from this blogger. A terrorist is a terrorist. Palestinians are building a nation of terrorists. The rest of us are financing this noble effort.

Here’s a Leftist Israeli journalist begging his peers to treat Jews like human beings and condemn Palestinian terrorism. I think he should save his breath, but what do I know?

JERUSALEM - What, exactly, is a decent person supposed to think?

On a quiet and clear morning in Jerusalem, a woman is driving toward the heart of the city, her infant with her in the car. There is nothing to fear.

It is not a military area, it is not a sector of occupation, it is not a settlement - Jews have lived and worked here for more than a century. Jewish doctors and nurses were treating Arab infants, women, the elderly and the infirm here as early as 1902, when Shaare Tzedek Hospital opened across the street.

There is nothing to fear.

Except for the man behind the wheel of a bulldozer, who has taken it upon himself to kill Jews. Not Israeli security force personnel, not occupation troops, not the Shin Bet. Jews. Women and children and the elderly and the infirm. Jews who may be in favor of an independent Palestinian state. Jews who have nothing against Arabs. Jews who may work to end the occupation. Jews.

When the killing starts, the woman behind the wheel does what Jews have learned to do since the Holocaust, and for 2,000 years before that: Save your child. Whatever it takes.

She manages to throw her infant out the side window and clear of the car before the Hero of Palestine steers the massive earth mover toward her car and crushes it flat.

Onto the PR campaign:

It doesn’t take long, after the Hero of Palestine has finished overturning buses full of Jews - and Arabs as well - and driving over other cars, even backing up to crush one twice, before the public relations and marketing department of Hamas had formulated its praise for the attack.

“We consider it as a natural reaction to the daily aggression and crimes committed against our people in the West Bank and all over the occupied lands,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told the press.

Natural. Only natural.

And hear the cry of every Jewish person, religious or secular:

The attack came after the latest in a series of attempts by groups in the states, some of them atheist/anarchist, some of them Muslim, some of them Jewish, to lobby Prostestant churches and respected universities to divest from Caterpillar, because the IDF uses its bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes.

I would like to hear them now. Just once. I would like them to divest from terrorism. Not understand it as the natural outgrowth of the crimes of occupation. For once, I would like my sisters and brothers on the left to be every bit as hard on their comrades the Palestinians for taking a bulldozer and crushing Jews, as they are on Israel for bulldozing homes.

They won’t. They won’t say a word. Depend on it.

This is why Zionism is so very important. Zionism is the human rights movement of the Jewish people. We simply cannot depend on the “kindness of strangers”. We must take care of ourselves, and if that means military action, so be it. You know what? I’m going to cut and paste the rest of it, because he is so right on target:

Write a letter to Ismail Haniyeh, to Mahmoud Zahar, to Sami Anu Zuhri. Protest in your own communities, for once, calling terrorism what it is. Intentional, brutal, premeditated, immoral. Murder.

What’s a decent person supposed to think?

That it’s all right to launch rockets against residential areas during a cease-fire, because the occupation is still going on? That it’s all right to crush Jewish civilians, because the occupation has not been halted and settlers continue to build homes?

What’s a decent person to think when Palestinian groups fall over one another trying to claim the bulldozer attack? And when one of the groups is the Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade?

What’s a decent person to think when the man who drove the bulldozer was himself the father of two, a construction worker from East Jerusalem, whose desire to kill Jews - and, in so doing, further soil and damage the cause and name of Palestine - was greater than his feeling for the mother who had to throw her baby from a car to save it?

I, for one, would like to ask for proof of what it is that Palestinians really want. I no longer believe that it’s as simple as wanting statehood.

This is what I don’t yet want to admit: that for all these years, in 2008 no less than in 1902, what a critical mass of Palestinians want most, perhaps even more than statehood, may be as simple as the vile thrill of vengeance, as straightforward as nothing more than seeing Jews dead and gone.

You might think that the above was written by a neo-con (gasp) or a Zionist, like myself. No, no, it was not. It was written by someone on the Israeli Left, a kumbayah kind of guy, who wanted love and peace. A lot of us wanted that, but we have to accept reality, however painful.

- Aggie

We already reported the news, that a Palestinian drove a bulldozer into a crowded bus. Palestinians are exercising their inalienable rights to bear bulldozers. Perhaps we should issue operating permits, bulldozer driver’s licenses? For the lowest level, you just need to be able to aim for and overturn a crowded city bus. Pretty simple. But higher paid operators can also do the delicate stuff, like overturning a mini-van filled with a Mom and three kids. Remember: Bulldozers don’t kill people; people kill people.

But I digress. The media has been revolting, as usual:

Here’s a typical report.

And this one is titled: Jerusalem bulldozer “terrorist” kills 3 in rampage.

I love the English language. Let’s play:

1. “Palestinian” Terrorist Kills 3 in Rampage… 2, Palestinian “Terrorist” Kills 3 in Rampage

or

3. Palestinian Terrorist Kills 3 in Rampage

Now, CNN disguised the real deal in the headline, didn’t they? No mention of Palestinian in the title and Terrorist in quotation marks. What does that tell ‘ya? Not Palestinians, not terrorists.

If we put Palestinian in quotation marks, we deny their existence, just as putting terrorist in quotation marks denies the reality of the terror attack, doesn’t it? So, the correct answer is #3:

Palestinian Terrorist Kills 3 in Rampage

but only if you have a fair and balanced media. CNN is not fair or balanced, so we wouldn’t expect them to report the truth, would we?

FYI, if you want to experience the scene, read about it here.

Update: Apparently a woman in a car realized that she was about to be crushed by the bulldozer. She flung her infant out the window. The baby is injured, but still alive.

- Aggie

No, not this country, you ninnies.

This country:

A Japanese cell phone company has pulled one of its television ads that used a monkey to portray Sen. Barack Obama.

The commercial opens with a crowd rallying behind a well-dressed monkey speaking from a podium. The supporters are cheering and waving signs that say “Change.” In the ad, the monkey was encouraging users to change providers.

The company behind the ad, eMobile Ltd., insists it had no idea of any racial undertones and says the ad was just a nod at Obama’s worldwide popularity.

Everybody knows you employ a monkey to impersonate President Bush, not Senator Obama. Then it’s acceptable.

Got it?

Interesting piece on why some Jews are not comfortable voting for the Obamessiah:

In every significant interaction in Obama’s adult life with those who distain and vilify Israel - from Rashid Khalidi to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Louis Farrakhan - Obama has demonstrated passive resignation and indifference.

He did not stand up to his friend Khalidi, the Palestinian activist, professor and former Palestinian spokesman whom Obama honored at a farewell dinner, and object to Palestinian invectives that Israel was an apartheid state. He did not recoil, until Wright insulted him at the National Press Club, from Wright when he learned that Wright considered Israel a “dirty word” and postulated that Israel had invented an “ethnic bomb.”

He did not heed (or was oblivious to) public pleas from Jewish organizations to avoid the Million Man March that Farrakhan organized; nor did he years later leave his church when it honored Farrakhan. It took a hateful rant from another wide-eyed preacher against Hillary Clinton, just when Obama needed to cool intra-party animosities, to do that.

And if any further proof were needed, Obama’s actions with regard to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, the measure to classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, should settle the question of Obama’s intestinal fortitude when it comes to Israel. An issue presented itself: a choice between, on the one hand, taking a stance against Israel’s most vile enemy, Iran, and, on the other, appeasing the far Left of his own party.

Obama chose to satisfy the MoveOn.org crowd and opposed the amendment. The amendment would have been “saber rattling” and unduly provocative, Obama argued at the time.

Interesting contrast:

Why can’t these contrarians just take Obama at his word (he is a Zionist, he really is, they insist)? The answer is “1973.”

…

With the spread of nuclear weapons and other deadly technologies a second Holocaust - that is, the annihilation of a substantial portion of world Jewry - is not out of the realm of imagination.

These Obama skeptics recall a similar time, 1973, when Israel also faced extermination. Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat’s willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat.

The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon’s staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don’t antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.

Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: “Tell them to send everything that can fly.” Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.

Israel was saved due to this massive infusion of military aid. Meir referred to Nixon with enormous affection for the rest of her life. Nixon, despised by many in the US, was hailed as a hero in Israel. And Nixon (who had garnered a minority of the Jewish vote in 1972) received little or no political benefit at home for his trouble, leaving office the following year.

Not too many friends of Nixon here, so let me just observe: Nixon was unloved by American Jews, and he unloved them back (as I recall from the tapes); as a schemer and conniver, he would certainly have seen the logic of taking the Arab side of the argument—in fact, he probably did, given Kissenger’s reported threat not to send Israel “so much as a nail” if they attacked first. Yet he personally saw to it that Israel got everything it needed for its national defense, and more.

The author concludes more persuasively than I could:

The Obama skeptics do not for a moment believe that Obama, in the face of domestic and international pressure similar to what Nixon faced, would rise to the occasion at a critical moment in Israel’s history and “tell them to send everything that can fly.”

I suppose it’s as simple as this: it’s not what you say, it’s what you do.

This news is just breaking, so we’ll just report. For now.

A driver slammed his bulldozer into a crowded bus in Jerusalem Wednesday, wounding at least 30 people, paramedics said.

The impact pushed the bus on its side on Jaffa Road, in the western part of Jerusalem.

The bulldozer driver then plowed into several cars before police shot and killed him.

From another account:

Dozens of people were running through the streets to flee the scene of the attack.

Police were on the scene. The bus was overturned, many people were lying dazed on the ground and there was a baby with blood all over its face.

Another:

“Where’s the baby? Where’s the baby?” said one witness.

Another witness:

[T[he “tractor turned into the road very suddenly and started trampling over the cars standing in the stoplight. I started yelling for people to shoot him. I saw some security guards running out of a nearby building and they were aiming Uzis at him.”

Finally, what we’re all thinking:

A very large Arab-driven tractor rammed into a bus - and other vehicles - and turned it completely on its side on Jaffa Street in downtown Jerusalem. Two policemen were able to climb the tractor; they struggled with the terrorist-driver, but only after a short time did they shoot and kill him. “This is because the open-fire orders are stupid,” said eyewitness veteran journalist.

You know, as Israeli buses attacked by Arabs go, it doesn’t look too bad.

UPDATE: CNN now reports two victims are dead.

UPPERDATE: INN reports four.

Obsessing about what happens if Flipper flips and supports the Iraq war. Begging the Kos Kidz not to crucify The Messiah.

Fun to read:

Why Obama has to “Flip” On Iraq - and Why We Need to Take a Deep Breath
by Reaper0Bot0
Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM PDT

I think that these quiet murmurs about the possibility that Senator Obama may “flip” on Iraq are correct.

You guys are gonna go absolutely ballistic when that happens, so I want to share my thoughts on this one, because it won’t mean what a lot of you will probably think it means. I’m not saying you’re children (far from it) but your passion will mean that you miss a very obvious signal, and you won’t read the details of what’s suggested.

And that’s a terrible mistake…

But, we still love him, right???

Such a pivot would really be more about rhetoric than it would about policy. Obama could dress it up in language of “committment” to the Iraqi people. He could make it sound like he’s moving hard to the center on this because the situation has changed. Well, folks, the situation has changed. I didn’t think it would.

Who would the audience be for such an announcement? None of us. We are already on-board the Obamabus, as it were. This would be to show the center and even the Right that Obama isn’t held hostage by his own party or his own past. A lot of us demand an immediate withdrawal as if the Iraq of 2008 was fundamentally the same as the Iraq of 2006. General Petreaus and Secretary Gates are phenomenally talented and driven people. One of the biggest crimes of this Administration was to wait so fucking long to put people like them in charge. However, they’re there, and it’s helping out considerably.

A lot of the netroots will freak out, if this happens. A lot of you will take this as a betrayal. It wouldn’t be. It would be, as I’ve already said, mostly rhetorical (while still being honest). His position has been pragmatic, and that’s why I love the guy.

Best for last:

His opposition to that mistake was real, and on the record. That doesn’t mean he can’t try to correct it, even if such a correction continues a mission that started off for the worst of reasons. If we can help whilst cutting our fatalities, our number of troops stationed there, cutting our costs, and above all taking the American face off of the Iraqi government, then I think we should.

And even if you don’t, I’m begging you to look at the substance of any such speech or proposal before you react. His position can be presented in any number of ways with little if any change. Be mature adults and digest whatever comes before you react.

Note: I’ve received a lot of email from Obama supporters who feel that I am somehow childlike because I support Hillary and will not vote for him. Not only do they condescend to Clinton and McCain supporters, they apparently talk this way among themselves!

Prediction: By November, no matter what position you take on any given issue, you will be able to find soothing Obama rhetoric that agrees with you. Want to stay in Iraq? He’ll be with you. Immediate withdrawal? That too. School choice? You bet. Support for public teachers? Natch. Lower taxes? Right this way. More spending on more social programs? Duhhh.

It isn’t correct or even fair to call him a flip-flopper. He’s a force of nature. Where you or I can only be in one place at a time, Obama is like a quark or a neutron. You can’t catch him and you can’t pin him down, that’s for sure. You can only marvel at the rainbow colored wake he leaves as a trail, as clues. He’s a genius.

- Aggie

We at Bloodthirsty Liberal love pets. Go to the link to see an absolutely adorable puppy.

Sadly, he is giving the Muslims in Scotland kiniption fits. (How do you spell kiniption?)

Muslims in the Scottish district of Tayside are outraged by the appearance of a wide-eyed, 6-week-old puppy on postcards distributed by the local police force, according to the Daily Mail.

Postcards showing police dog-in-training Rebel, a German shepherd born in early December, are causing a furor among the region’s Muslims who believe dogs are “ritually unclean,” the Daily Mail reports.

The cute cards were meant to notify locals of a new telephone number for non-emergency phone calls but instead have become a flashpoint for a clash of cultures. Shopkeepers are refusing to display the offending ad and a Dundee city councilor is calling for an investigation.

“My concern was that it’s not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards,” said Dundee councilor Mohammed Asif, according to the report.

The Tayside police force said the police puppy, the force’s “newest recruit,” was not intended to cause offense.

“His incredible worldwide popularity — he has attracted record visitor numbers to our Web site — led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number,” said a police spokesperson.

If the Scots don’t want him any more, I’ll take him.

- Aggie

My favorite PUMA site, the Confluence, has a video of this very confusing Obama supporter and an analysis.

Bottom line: Be careful of what you say, because if you say that Barack Obama’s core constituency is African American, you’re a racist for saying so.

I’m just saying…

- Aggie

[I wish I were one-tenth as brilliant as reality itself. The “Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club” really exists? I am nothing.]

Bully for Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air for this latest flip from the man who would be porpoise, Barack Obama (D- Sea World):

After previously saying he opposed gay marriage and that he respected the rights of states to set conditions for marriage, Obama has now said that he opposes California’s initiative to ban gay marriage — and that he would use federal law to end such efforts:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”

“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.

Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.

Unlike old Mr. Fussy, we’re pro gay marriage here. Also unlike him, however, we (at least I) support the democratic process in dealing with this controversial issue. I don’t think the legalization of gay marriage has passed a single referendum anywhere in the country—which works against our point of view, but that’s democracy.

It also means Mr. Don’t-Touch-Don’t-Tell has nothing to fear. If he’s grossed out by the marriage of Adam and Steve, let the people speak, and they’ll take care of it for him.

Just send up a flare when you make up your mind, Senator.