Israel Air Force strikes in the central Gaza Strip
Wednesday afternoon killed at least 15 Palestinians, among them at
least five children, and wounded at least 10 people.
One who was killed was a cameraman who worked for Reuters, with the name of Shana:
Other cameramen who rushed to the scene said they saw
the Reuters jeep on fire, and Shana's body lying next to the jeep,
alongside other casualties. They said Shana's jeep was marked as press
and that the cameraman was wearing an identifying flak jacket.
Israel: Grateful for the collapse of the World Trade Center, Casual about the lives of Palestinian civilians. This is not the country its founders hoped for.
Looking at memeorandum today - one can't help but realize that the most important issue today, foreign or domestic, is Israel. Reading the blogs one can't help but see that we're doing a lousy job discussing it.
Some examples follow: Krauthammer's piece in the WaPo argues for A Holocaust Declaration - that Bush announce that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the U.S. He believes that this is the least that we can do for this valued ally. (An ally who spies on us, who has never fired a bullet to help the U.S., and whose vaunted intelligence help was clearly of no help in understanding Iraq.) His piece is dishonest in the extreme:
The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear arsenal that is largely land-based. Land-based retaliatory forces can be destroyed in a first strike, which is precisely why, during the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union created vast submarine fleets -- undetectable and thus invulnerable to first strikes -- that ensured a retaliatory strike and, thus, deterrence.
Israel has rarely admitted to the existence of its nuclear weapons program, although they have had one for close to 50 years, and helped South Africa develop it's own nukes as well. It's not such a small arsenal - larger than either India's or Pakistan's according to the Federation of American Scientists Estimate. And of course they do have submarines capable of firing nukes - much evidence suggests that they were tested in May 2000.
Ezra Klein notes Obama's apparent capitulation to the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, since the candidate from Chicago has started a blog in Israel - in Hebrew! YNet writes that:
All candidates are well aware of the fact that Israel – and by extension the Jewish vote – are an integral part of the US presidential election.
The Corner at the National Review is the most offensive by far. It refers to a study done by a totally partisan polling organization and triumphs the Protestantization of American Catholics, as supposed their support for Israel is almost as great as the Evangelicals'. He fears that Hispanic Catholics may be harder to fix:
It's not that Latin immigrants are uniquely anti-Semitic (I suspect they're more anti-Semitic than today's Asians or yesterday's Irish and Italians, but less so than Eastern European immigrants); rather, our ability to Protestantize them (in the sense I'm using it) has declined dramatically compared to a century ago.
The issue is Israel - and there has to be a more honest, objective way for us to discuss it.
The estimable Thers has written a couple of posts today about the work of one Victor Davis Hanson. He quotes a post by Mr. Hanson writing that:
Liberals, as are all Americans, are rightly angry over Tibet, but since a dictatorial communist China holds over $1 billion dollars in U,S. government backed bonds..."
I was dumbfounded. I'm no economist, but, like other commenters at the site, I knew the figure of 1 billion was absurdly low. Could Mr. Hanson really not know what a billion dollars is? Does he have no clue what the cost of the war in Iraq is? Does he understand nothing of the budget?
Because Mr. Hanson is off, by a factor of close to five hundred. The U.S.Treasury says that China holds about 495 Billion of such debt. Does Mr Hanson not understand the difference between owing one dollar or owing 500 dollars?
So Mr Hanson is financially challenged. Instead of apologizing for his ignorance, he decided to hide it in a thoroughly dishonest fashion. He has changed the post to which Thers linked, with no indication of a correction. Instead of reading "over $ 1 Billion" the post now reads that "China holds a substantial investment."
It's hard to argue that 493 billion is a substantial investment. It's harder still to believe anything with the Victor Davis Hanson byline.
Clearly, Captain Ed has been swallowed up by his move to Hot Air. Like the chicken and the egg, I don't know if he became lazier and more dishonest since his collaboration with Michelle Malkin grew deeper, or if she hired him because he had become sleazier. Someone with a stronger stomach than I could review his writings to probe for the answer.
Today, he writes:
Dan Calabrese’s new column
on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political
future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as
chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate
hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior
during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for
unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel
during the hearings:
First, it makes no sense on its face. Calabrese wrote:
When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the
That's right, after the investigation was over she was fired. When the investigation was over, the committee's work was over. To the extent that Clinton was "fired", Zeifman was also "fired."
Secondly, a quick google search on Zeifman leads you to a review of his book:
Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."
The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. (emphasis added)
Particularly touching is the Captain's sympathy for the poor Zeifman, valiantly trying to tell his story - in fact he wrote a book, it was published, it was reviewed by major outlets. To the extent that his story is unknown, he has only his own insanity to blame. According to Zeifman, Hillary lied and behaved unethically to prevent the impeachment of Richard Nixon.